TELLING IT LIKE IT IS !

When color trumps Christianity

Star Parker – Syndicated Columnist – 7/6/2009 7:20:00 AM

President Obama hosted a reception at the White House celebrating LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) Pride month. Black Christians should take note and learn a few things about our black president.

As they say, we are what we do.

It tells us something that Mr. Obama had no time to host an event for the National Day of Prayer. Nor did he have time to accept the invitation to convey greetings and a few remarks to the couple hundred thousand who came to Washington, as they do every January, for the March for Life.

However, the LGBT Pride event did make it onto the president’s busy schedule.

Here are parts of his remarks I think noteworthy for black Christians:

First, we now know that Mr. Obama buys into reasoning equating the homosexual political movement to the black civil rights movement: “… it’s not for me to tell you to be patient any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans who were petitioning for equal rights a half century ago.”

Perhaps Obama can extend some of his famous empathy to a black Christian woman, Crystal Dixon, who lost her University of Toledo job for writing a column in her local paper challenging this premise. Dixon was fired for being uppity enough to write “… I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are ‘civil rights victims’ … I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman.”

Considering our president’s priorities, I recall a song popular during the civil rights movement: “Which Side Are You On?”

Second, Obama sees the black community as being a little slow on the uptake to grasp that homosexuality and same-sex marriage are okay. There still are those, according to him, “who don’t yet fully embrace their gay brothers and sisters …” He deals with this, he said, by talking about it in front of “unlikely audiences,” such as, “in front of African American church members.”

Maybe a lot of us black folks, still readin’ our Bibles, just haven’t had enough of that Harvard learnin’.

And, third, Obama talked about HIV/AIDS but didn’t bother to mention that it’s overwhelmingly blacks that this scourge is killing.

Why would our black president discuss HIV/AIDS and not mention that although blacks represent 12% of our population, they account for 50% of HIV/AIDS cases and half of HIV-related deaths? Or that the incidence of HIV/AIDS infection per every 100,000 people is nine times higher among blacks than whites?

Of course, it would have been bad form for Obama to sour the punch bowl at the LBGT Pride month festivities by mentioning the disproportionate toll this lifestyle takes on blacks.

Blacks, of course, made the difference in getting Proposition 8 passed in California, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. They then switched over and voted for Obama.

Obama has said he opposes same-sex marriage. Can this really be so? He said at the White House event that he’s called for Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. DOMA is the main obstacle to nationalizing legalization of same-sex marriage.

Black Christians have a lot of soul searching to do. We know the pain of black history. But we also must retain clarity that these many injustices were the result of race and color trumping Christian principles.

How can black Christians do this themselves? How can black Christians allow race and color to trump Christian principles in driving their support for a leader?

Particularly as sexually transmitted diseases kill our people, when a third of all abortions are black babies, and the only hope for future black prosperity is restoration of the black family?

Liberals are accelerating their push to pass federal “hate crimes” legislation. In a letter to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) made no bones about his plan to fast-track the bill after the July 4th recess, bypassing the normal process. His maneuvering would mean that Republicans will have no input on legislation that would have sweeping consequences for churches, charities, Christians, and criminal law. Bob Knight sums it up as a “grab bag of ways to violate genuine constitutional rights while addressing a non-issue.”

Nevertheless, the Left insists on forcing a bill through Congress that establishes “thought crimes,” gives special protection to homosexuals under the law, and paves the way for the federal government to get deeply involved in crimes on the local level. The House already passed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (S. 909) back in April. Now the Senate leadership is racing to do the same.

You can help derail their train by flooding the offices of three Committee Democrats whose votes could make all the difference – Arkansas’s Blanche Lincoln, phone: 202-224-4843; Arkansas’s Mark Pryor, phone: 202-224-2353; and Alaska’s Mark Begich, phone: 202-224-3004. Remind them that equal justice under the law means equal protection for all!

Obama hopes to persuade all Americans to accept homosexuality.

President Barack Obama says that while he’s dedicated to expanding homosexual rights, many Americans still cling to what he calls “worn arguments and old attitudes” … sort of like clinging to our Bibles and our religion.

Those worn arguments and old attitudes Obama says Christians cling to are biblically based.  Whether people or the president agree with them or not, it is what God has instituted and He has not changed His mind.

Obviously if you are a Christian then belief in the Bible and what it says is a necessity … if you don’t then so much for a person being a Christian.  People can’t have it both ways.  Obedience to God’s Word … the Bible …for the Christian is not an option though people can make the choice to disobey.

At a recent White House celebration of Gay Pride Month, Obama said he hopes to persuade all Americans to accept homosexuality.  “There are good and decent people in this country who don’t yet fully embrace their gay brothers and sisters – not yet,” said the president.  “That’s why I’ve spoken about these issues – not just in front of you – but in front of unlikely audiences, in front of African-American church members.”

Obama acknowledged that many Americans still disapprove of homosexuality … and rightfully they should.  “There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors or even family members and loved ones, who still hold fast to worn arguments and old attitudes,” he stated.

The arguments and attitudes from a biblical perspective may be old and worn but they are true and relevant.  There is no new way to be a Christian … if you don’t like the only way then you just won’t be one!  It is not our way …  it is His way.

Obama added that Congress should repeal what he referred to as “the so-called Defense of Marriage Act” – and that his administration is working to pass a hate crimes bill and to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on homosexuals in the military.  These are just more attacks on God’s ways being substituted by man’s ways.

The audience at the White House ceremony included Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, whom Obama introduced as a “special friend,” and other homosexual clergy.  The term homosexual clergy really is a contradiction in terms and ultimately they are deceivers, whom God will judge most severely due to their self-appointed roles as preachers and teachers.

In the coming two weeks, we likely see a major turning point in American society – the first time in history that biblically orthodox Christian beliefs could officially be placed on the wrong side of the law – with the pending vote on the anti-faith “hate crimes” bill that is expected in the Senate within the next few weeks.

Christians and pastors will be jailed just for teaching the Bible and the truth about sin … what God says is sin.

But that’s not the only congressional threat to people of faith. The latest shocker is that some in Congress want to use the Department of Defense Authorization bill in such as way that it could discriminate against pro-life servicemen and women or military recruits!

The Obama White House and the Reid/Pelosi Congress have created a flood of bills and initiatives that dramatically impact our faith and families – more than we could have planned or budgeted for. We need to defend our faith and families while exposing how the rapid overreach of government power is undermining our values.

Take a stand and tell the Senate to reject this bill.

“We shall seduce your sons…. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.”

Those shocking words come from a manifesto published some years back by Michael Swift, a radical gay activist.

Swift’s manifesto goes on:

“All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men…. If you dare to cry faggot, faggot, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies…. There will be no compromises. We are not middle-class weaklings…. The family unit-spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence – will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated…. All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men.”

“Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.”

Swift claimed the manifesto was nothing more than satire. An expression of his “inner rage”… an attempt to ridicule, through exaggeration, those who stood up in opposition to the radical-homosexual agenda.

But now, the United States Senate may vote within days (or even hours by the time you read this letter) on so-called “hate crimes” legislation that many are calling “The Pedophile Protection Act.”

Several weeks ago, Democrats were able to sneak HR 1913 (S. 909 in the Senate Version) through the Pelosi-controlled House of Representatives. And before it came to the floor, Congressman Louie Gohmert tried to amend the bill to exclude a variety of sex crimes, including pedophilia, and liberals in Congress went ballistic.

According to Gohmert: “When we tried to get the term sexual orientation narrowed down to where it didn’t include something like a pedophile… that was voted down on party lines… there are about 30 different types of sexual orientations, and they can include exhibitionism and voyeurism or things that are so offensive such as pedophilia or necrophilia. The problem is that the supporters of this bill did not want to exclude any of those and even voted down the amendment that would have excluded pedophilia.”

And now, we are hours away from passing a law that could actually make pedophiles and exhibitionists and voyeurs members of a protected class.

Gohmert gave an excellent real-world example, describing what could happen if a woman retaliated against a flasher: “The one who did the flashing committed a local misdemeanor. The one who hit with the purse singled him out because he’s an exhibitionist, and therefore she has now committed a federal hate crime and is looking at felony time.”

Say Hello To The Orwellian State.

John Whitehead, writing for Dakota Voice states: “On the whole, hate crime laws unnecessarily blur the distinction between what might be constitutionally protected, albeit deplorable, speech and criminal behavior. Eventually, this will spill over into criminalizing any kind of speech that any official in the echelons of government deems to be hateful or distasteful. Thus, hate crime laws … open the door for a whole new realm of prosecutions, namely thought crimes.”

Kevin Theriot with the Alliance Defense Fund says: “So-called ‘hate crime’ laws actually serve only one purpose: The criminalization of citizens based on whatever thoughts, beliefs, and emotions they have that are not considered to be ‘politically correct.’ No one should fall for the idea that this bill does anything to bring about greater justice for Americans.”

Mathew Staver with the Liberty Council reminds us: “In and of itself this law can be applied to speech. The nature of assault – putting someone in fear of their safety – what will that mean for someone preaching against homosexuality?”

Connie Hair with Human Events called the House passage of this bill, “yet another Democrat move toward the doubleplusungood Orwellian state” and even President George W. Bush fought this legislation on the grounds that it could be used to prosecute those whose views are out of line with those of the radical gay movement.

In 2000, a conservative clergyman sat in the Supreme Court gallery, listening as opposing sides argued a New Jersey case challenging the Boy Scouts of America’s exclusion of homosexuals. Thinking the clergyman who was sitting nearby was a fellow liberal, Bill Clinton’s liaison to the homosexual community leaned over and whispered: “We’re not going to win this case, but that’s OK. Once we get ‘hate crime’ laws on the books, we’re going to go after the [Boy] Scouts and all the other bigots.”

Now, 9 years later, the radical gay rights movement is very close to getting that wish. Make no mistake, this legislation may lay the foundation for the persecution of any and all people who simply oppose the radical gay agenda or believe that marriage is between one man and one woman … orthodox clergy, scientists concerned about infectious diseases and people of faith.

And what does that mean?

It means you better learn to keep your mouth shut. Because affirming your beliefs is about to become very, very dangerous.

The stated purpose of S. 909, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 is to “provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.”

And S. 909 prescribes penalties for any person who, “willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person.”

So what’s the big deal? Hate is a bad thing, isn’t it? Willfully causing bodily injury to another is already a crime, isn’t it?

What would cause a radical homosexual rights activist to gleefully proclaim; “Once we get ‘hate crime’ laws on the books, we’re going to go after the [Boy] Scouts and all the other bigots.”?

It sounds like much ado over nothing… or does it?

Ask Ake Green, a 63-year-old minister and pastor of a small church in the southern town of Borgholm, Sweden who simply stated in a sermon that homosexuality was “a deep cancerous tumor in the entire society” and denounced the government’s plan to promote domestic partnerships.

He was hauled into court, indicted, convicted, and sentenced to 30 days in jail. The prosecution asked for six months.

While reporting the on the Ake Green incident, CBN News made an interesting observation: “The hate speech law used to convict Green was first intended to protect Jews and other ethnic minorities from Nazi sympathizers. But in more recent times the law was amended to also protect ‘sexual orientation.'”

This will become the slippery-slope and why Bill Clinton’s liaison to the homosexual community so gleefully proclaimed: “Once we get ‘hate crime’ laws on the books, we’re going to go after the [Boy] Scouts and all the other bigots.”

Remember The Philadelphia 11?

Make no mistake, the leaders of the radical gay rights movement know that this so-called hate crimes bill is really a stepping-stone. If this sick bill becomes law, American society will see an unprecedented uprising of militant homosexuals, demanding that anyone who speaks against their agenda or lifestyle be hauled off to jail and charged with a “hate crime.”

It has already happened as Whitehead recounts the strange case of the Philadelphia 11: “Protesters exercising their free speech rights by carrying signs have been charged with felonies for the messages on their signs, which have been interpreted as ‘hate speech.’ In one instance, a group of Christians were prosecuted under a state hate crime law for ‘singing hymns’ and peacefully ‘carrying signs’ while attending a homosexual fair in Pennsylvania. Because the signs challenged the morality of homosexuality, these Christians were charged with three felonies and five misdemeanors and faced 47 years in prison for attempting to preach at a homosexual street fair. Incredibly, a state judge determined that the prosecutions could go forward. His rationale was that the Christians’ speech constituted so-called “fighting words.”

Bob Knight – one of the nation’s leading authorities on the radical gay rights movement – put it this way: “Homosexual activists have redefined any opposition to homosexuality as ‘hate speech.’ Laws already criminalize speech that incites violence. It’s easy to imagine a scenario in which any incident involving a homosexual can be blamed on people who have publicly opposed homosexual activism.”

Jennifer Riley, writing for the Christian Post, says: “Critics of the hate crimes legislation fear that if passed, the legislation would inhibit pastors from speaking about homosexuality as a biblical sin and be interpreted in a way that bars speech … Christian leaders have pointed to hate crime laws in England, Sweden and Canada, where Christians have been prosecuted for breaking these laws.”

But not to worry! Congressman Barney Frank says the bill “does not infringe on free speech in any way.” As if anyone can believe anything that Barney Frank would say!

Standing Falsely Accused …

According to the FBI only 1,460 out of 1.5 million violent crimes reported in the United States in 2007 were reportedly based on sexual orientation – that’s under one-tenth of 1%. And yet, there is a compelling reason to believe that the mere existence of hate crimes legislation actually generates bogus reports – In most cases, by individuals desperate to become victims or self-righteous ideologues hoping to promote “change.”

If you build it, the allegations will come.

A Family Research Council report cites just a few examples of phony attacks:

“In Houston, a homosexual mugging victim was left for dead in a traditionally ‘straight’ section of town. The press initially covered it as a hate crime, but investigators soon found that the man had been assaulted elsewhere and transported there, ‘to make it look like a hate crime.'”

“In Salt Lake City, a homosexual teacher at first thought bias offenders had put signs in her yard to intimidate her, but some of her own homosexual students later confessed to doing it.”

“In South Carolina, a lesbian was charged with giving false information to a police officer for saying that she was beaten; police contend she hired a man to beat her and then she reported it as a hate crime.”

Examples from John Leo, a columnist for U. S. News and World Report, has reported on bogus hate crimes for years:

“Jerry Kennedy, a gay resident assistant at the University of Georgia, reported he had been the target of nine hate crimes over a period of three years, including three acts of arson. But during questioning, Kennedy admitted that he had set the fires.”

“Two weeks after the murder of Matthew Shepard, a lesbian student at St. Cloud State University in Minnesota said two men shouted antigay slurs at her and then slashed her face. Outraged students raised nearly $12,000 as a reward for information about her attackers. Then the student confessed she had made up the story and cut her own face.”

“[A] lesbian student at Eastern New Mexico University said she had been attacked after her name was included with the names of seven professors on an antigay ‘hit list’ posted at a local Laundromat. Police arrested her after a surveillance camera at the Laundromat showed her posting the list.”

Is There Really An Epidemic?

In spite of the evidence, radical gay rights activists and their supporters in Congress still wildly and outrageously claim that there’s an epidemic of attacks that only federal law can address saying …

(A) The movement of members of targeted groups is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence.

(B) Members of targeted groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.

(C) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.

THE PROBLEM IS THERE ARE NO SPECIFICS. NO STATISTICS. JUST VAGUE ALARMIST DESCRIPTIONS.

Does anyone really believe that vast hoards of people are moving to other states to avoid the hostility of hate-driven townsfolk with pitchforks? Or that these same townsfolk are crossing state lines in hot pursuit. Or that anyone is preventing people from shopping in the local grocery store?

All this rubbish is thrown into the bill for one reason only: to justify federal intervention.

Barack Hussein Obama said on his website he would extend federal “hate crimes” protection to sexual orientation, but no such epidemic exists… then why? It is to appease the homosexual organizations and voters who he owes for their votes!

We must act today, because time is short and Barack Hussein Obama will most certainly sign this Orwellian legislation.

When the Pelosi-led House of Representatives passed this legislation, your actions … your righteous cries of moral outrage stopped Majority Leader Harry Reid from fast-tracking this legislation through the Senate. You exposed this legislation to the light of day and liberals in Congress put it under wraps and waited for the heat to die down.

Now that the liberals in Congress believe the heat has died down. Remove from them the notion that they can sneak this bill – which Barack Hussein Obama will most certainly sign into law – through the Senate before you are any the wiser. You stopped them before. You can do it again.

As usual The New York Times passed on the opportunity to publish a great op-ed letter to President Barack Obama from Lou Pritchett, a former vice president of Procter & Gamble. Pritchett worked for that company for 36 years, until his retirement in 1989.

Confirmed by the Internet watchdog Snopes, here’s a sample of what Pritchett wrote:

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me. …

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll. …

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the ‘blame America’ crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer ‘wind mills’ to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves. …

You scare me because you have begun to use ‘extortion’ tactics against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals. …

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O’Reillys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett

Thank you, Mr. Pritchett, for your love for America, honesty and willingness to risk your reputation by speaking up to this administration.

Here are some more . . .

President Obama:

You scare me because so many amazing corporate and American leaders, such as Lou Pritchett, are saying you scare them.

You scare me because after you initiate more government borrowing and bailouts than all presidents combined, you then require Congress to follow a system that is “pay-as-you-go.”

You scare me because you really do believe that going into massive amounts of debt can remedy our economy in the long run.

You scare me because your actions don’t reflect the federal governmental constraints and fiscally prudent principles of our Founding Fathers and Constitution.

You scare me because you buy and run the banking, automobile and (soon) health industries with taxpayers’ money but refuse to call it socialism.

You scare me because you claim to be a fighter for minorities and the promises of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness yet do not defend the unborn. What greater minority is there than those in the womb, against whom you already have enacted more pro-abortion laws than anyone since the Roe v. Wade decision?

You scare me because you promise to defend the U.S. against all potential enemies yet pacify those harboring terrorists, fight for the rights of combative detainees, and enable the enemies of Israel.

You scare me because your media team (including the mainstream media) seeks to label as radical or in some way penalize any opposing conservative voices … such as conservative talk show hosts, news agencies, columnists and actors.

You scare me because your media team does not address or diminish in any way your deification before the world, epitomized by the editor of Newsweek who stated on Chris Matthews’ MSNBC show: “In a way, Obama’s standing above the country, above the world. He’s sort of God.” (How much scarier can it get than representative statements like that in a republic that once stood for a balance among political powers and a government “by the people, for the people”?)

You scare me . . . period!

THIS INFORMATION DESERVES YOUR ATTENTION AND ACTION BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE  !

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), added the “Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act,” (which is better known to conservatives as the “Pedophile Protection Act,”) to his short-term legislative list Monday, by saying he was “committed” to a Senate vote on hate crimes legislation before the August recess.  The pro-homosexual newspaper Washington Blade reported the vote could happen as early as this week, but staffers at  Senator Kennedy’s office denied that claim, giving us a few more days to act.

The pro-homosexual, anti-faith bill, sponsored by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and pushed hard by the Obama Administration, was until recently labeled S. 909 “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.” But it faced such strong resistance by conservatives (including threat of filibuster or faith-protecting amendments by pro-faith Senator Jim DeMint, R-SC), so instead Democrats have announced they will soon hide the bill as an amendment to another “must-move” bill, denying committee hearings, and completely side-stepping the Republicans right to debate and amend.

547 SEXUAL DEVIANCES TO BE PROTECTED BY FEDERAL MARSHALS

The forthcoming “poison pill” amendment will mirror a House bill H.R. 1913, already passed 249-175 along strict party lines, which makes “sexual orientation,” “gender,” and “gender identity” into federally-protected classes under the law, and codifies federal protection of up to 547 types of sexually deviant behaviors, including:

* Incest – sex with one’s offspring (a crime, of course)
* Necrophilia – sexual relations with a corpse, also a crime
* Pedophilia – sex with an underage child, another crime
* Zoophilia – a crime in numerous states
* Voyeurism – a criminal offense in most states
* Fronteurism – a man rubbing against an unknown woman’s buttocks
* Coprophilia – sexual arousal from feces
* Urophilia – sexual arousal from urine

Attempts by House Republicans to add amendments stating “pedophilia is not protected as a sexual orientation” were specifically blocked and defeated by House Democrats. Lesbian Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) expressed opposition to excluding pedophiles from the bill, and Democrats voted with her to strike any child-protection amendment. She claimed that pedophiles would not be defined within “sexual orientation,” but wouldn’t put that in writing, and refused to define that phrase “sexual orientation,” which according to the American Psychiatric Association includes all 547 sexual deviances listed in their DSM-III manual of clinical psychoses, including pedophilia, so now thanks to most Democrats, child molesters will be protected by federal law.

QUOTING THE BIBLE IN CHURCH WILL BE PUNISHED

Not only will sexually deviant behaviors gain legal protection, this legislation also lays the legal foundation to investigate, prosecute and persecute pastors, youth pastors, Bible teachers, and anyone else whose speech and thought is based upon and reflects the truths found in the Bible. How will this legislation over-rule the First Amendment?

PASTORS NOT PROTECTED BY FIRST AMENDMENT

S. 909 broadly defines “intimidation,” thus a pastor’s sermon could be viewed as “hate speech” if heard by an individual who then acts aggressively against persons based on any “sexual orientation.”

The pastor could be prosecuted for “conspiracy to commit a hate crime” or for “inciting violence against gays” simply by quoting the Bible in church. And the First Amendment won’t automatically protect pastors, since speech accused of “inciting violence” is not protected, and is punishable, under precedent of Supreme Court rulings.

In 1993 Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a “hate speech” law providing enhanced punishments for violent crimes based on racial motives as revealed by speech of the accused, (which would now apply broadly to punish any “anti-gay motives” in the speech of accused pastor “co-conspirators.”)  But pastor, if a crazy person in your audience commits a crime against a heterosexual, don’t worry, you’ll get a comparative discount in your prison time.

IS PRAYER IN JESUS’ NAME A “HATE CRIME?”

Any public prayer against the sin of homosexuality could be construed as “inciting violence” by easily offended listeners, especially if those prayers are offered “in Jesus name.”  When I served our country as a former Navy Chaplain, for example, I was told in writing by Chief of Chaplains Rear-Admiral Louis Iasiello, that “any chaplain’s continued insistence on ending public prayers ‘in Jesus’ name’…could reasonably tend to denigrate those with different forms of faith.” His policy prohibiting prayers “in Jesus name” was enforced against me at court-martial, before it was later rescinded by Congress in 2006. But this year I’ve already been falsely accused of “inciting violence” because I quoted verbatim from Psalm 109 in my public prayers, (for which secular activist Mikey Weinstein literally requested an FBI investigation against me!) Just imagine more anti-Christian aggression by law enforcement officials AFTER this hate-crimes bill becomes law.

IS PREACHING AGAINST SIN A HATE CRIME?

As a former Navy Chaplain who was punished (in writing, three times) for quoting the Bible in chapel during optionally-attended worship, I know exactly how they’ll come after us. The enemies of religious liberty will simply declare certain gospel phrases “hateful” and “offensive” like my commanding officer who punished me for quoting John 3:36 in chapel, and was supported by government lawyers for “protecting” easily offended listeners from the “offensive” gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ.

Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX) agrees with me, saying pastors, rabbis, or imams could be charged with encouraging or inducing a “hate crime” if they preach against homosexuality.  “Every preacher of the gospel, unless you cut out parts of it; every imam who mentions anything with regard to sexual immorality – they could be pursued, and in other countries they have been,” says Gohmert.  (Congressmen Gohmert is my personal advocate, with whom I preached last year at a pro-faith rally in Texas…and we both agree the gospel of freedom from sin really is “love speech” not “hate speech.”)

FREE SPEECH SUPPRESSED IN NORWAY: Hate crimes laws protecting homosexuals from criticism are already silencing pastors in Norway, where these dangerous laws specifically empower law enforcement officials to prosecute “intimidation” of homosexuals. For example, Congressman Gohmert warned “I was talking to a guy from Norway who was telling me that people are even afraid to say Mary was a virgin, because just bringing up sexuality at all can raise problems with law enforcement.”

FREE SPEECH CRIMINALIZED IN SWEDEN: In Sweden, Pastor Ake Green received a one-month jail sentence last year under a Swedish “hate crimes” law that forbids criticism of those who participate in homosexual behavior. The Goeta Appeals Court later overturned the decision.  The government demanded the pastor be punished by appealing the case to the Swedish Supreme Court, which ruled the law unconstitutional.  Yet here in America, the Reid-Kennedy-Obama trio is pushing to pass and enforce this same type of “anti-free speech” law, despite their acknowledgment that any such enforcement would be unconstitutional in America too. (They why pass the bill in the first place?)

FREE SPEECH CRIMINALIZED IN CANADA: In Canada, where “hate crimes” laws already passed, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal actively forbid evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson from expressing his moral opposition to homosexuality. The tribunal also ordered Boisson to pay $5,000 “damages for pain and suffering” and apologize to the “human rights” activist who filed the complaint. His crime? In 2002, the pastor wrote a letter to the editor of his local newspaper in which he denounced the homosexual agenda as “wicked” and stated that: “Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.”  The Canadian government tribunal ordered the Christian pastor to “cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.” (This “re-education commission” reminds me of Big Brother from Orwell’s 1984.)

FREE SPEECH CRIMINALIZED IN PENNSYLVANIA: Can’t happen in America?  It already has.  In 2004 my friend Michael Marcavage was arrested along with ten other Christians (including two elderly grandmothers), and charged with violating Pennsylvania’s “hate crimes” laws, because they carried signs conveying God’s love at a Gay Pride rally. One member of “The Philadelphia Eleven,” Arlene Elshinnawy, 75 year-old grandmother of three, was holding a sign: “Truth is hate to those who hate the truth,” before she was hauled off to jail by police officers. They were literally threatened with 50 years in jail for preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ on a public sidewalk, because it offended gays. That hate crimes law was so outrageous it was later found unconstitutional by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, but now Ted Kennedy and Barack Obama want to pass essentially that same discredited law nationwide.

WE CAN STILL DE-RAIL THIS TRAIN

But together, we can still stop them. We’ve identified 16 Democrats below, who are NOT YET committed as co-sponsors of S. 909, so please call them today, asking to OPPOSE AND FILIBUSTER any amendment to any bill that resembles S. 909. Sadly two Republicans (Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, R-ME) have joined 43 Democrats by co-sponsoring this pro-homosexual bill, so call them too, and ask them to switch.

But remember, 100 emails = 10 phone calls = 1 fax in political capital, since the Senate staffers must handle each paper and usually write a reply. So you can join our automated fax-petition campaign first, and WE WILL FAX THE 18 KEY UNDECIDED SENATORS LIST ABOVE with your personalized petition.  This does cost a bit but it will save you time or you can make the contacts yourself.

Thank you for reading our lengthy analysis. If you’ve read this far, we must agree, so now please forward this email widely to other pro-faith friends, and to pastors in all 50 states.

Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt

(For media interviews, or to invite “Chaps” to speak to your crowd, click here.)

P.S. Time is urgent! The full Senate could vote any day to pass S. 909 as an amendment to any other “must-move” bill.  Select and sign today, & we will forward your name immediately. Please don’t wait another minute. Life, Liberty, and Jesus are too important to be banned by Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, and Barack Obama.

Disclaimer: The views of Chaplain Klingenschmitt, who was honorably but involuntarily discharged from the Navy in 2007 after facing court-martial for praying “in Jesus name” in uniform, (but was later vindicated by Congress), are his own personal views, not the views of any political party, government, or organization.

The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch. An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there’s no homosexual “gene” – meaning homosexuals aren’t born that way.

For decades, the APA has not considered homosexuality a psychological disorder, while other professionals in the field consider it to be a “gender-identity” problem. But the new statement, which appears in a brochure called “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality,” states the following:

“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.”

That contrasts with the APA’s statement in 1998: “There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.”

Peter LaBarbera, who heads Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, believes the more recent statement is an important admission because it undermines an unproven popular theory. “People need to understand that the ‘gay gene’ theory has been one of the biggest propaganda boons of the homosexual movement over the last 10 – 15 years,” he points out. “Studies show that if people think that people are born homosexual they’re much less likely to resist the gay agenda.”

Matt Barber with the Liberty Counsel feels the pronouncement may have something to do with saving face. “Well, I think here the American Psychological Association is finally trying to restore some credibility that they’ve lost over the years by having become a clearly political organization as opposed to an objective, scientific organization,” he states.

With the new information from the APA I wonder if the organization will admit that homosexuals who want to change can change. Homosexuality is defined by behavior and untold thousands of people have found freedom from that lifestyle through reparative therapy or … most effectively … a relationship with Jesus Christ.

LaBarbera in agreement says, “Change through Christ is possible – and it’s one of the most heartwarming aspects of the whole gay debate. Many men and women have come out of homosexuality, mostly through a relationship with Jesus Christ. The fact that these professional organizations will not study that, will not acknowledge that, shows how ‘in the tank’ they are for the homosexual movement.”

Just because elites will not recognize the change does not mean the change does not exist … God changes people through Jesus Christ regardless of the sin.

Usually May is the time of the year when students are fitted for the cap and gown, count their credits, and pay their school bill. With a firm handshake and a costly piece of paper, they will start their lives in the real world. Too bad that won’t be true for Julea Ward, who used to be a graduate student at Eastern Michigan University until she was kicked out for her religious beliefs.

Ms. Ward was enrolled in a graduate program at the school and as part of her education was required to enroll in a counseling practicum. In that practicum, she was assigned a case involving a homosexual who needed help. Ms. Ward did not feel that she could affirm the student’s homosexual lifestyle because of her Christian beliefs, so she asked her supervisor what she should do. His advice was to refer the student to a counselor who had no qualms with affirming homosexual behavior. That is what she did, and it was all done before she saw the student. There was no counseling that took place between the two, there was no confrontation between the two, and there was no condemnation of homosexuality – just an honest confession of her deeply held religious belief. The story doesn’t end there though.

Julea was summoned to appear before a disciplinary hearing and told that if she wanted to continue on with her graduate program, she would have to submit to a “remediation” program so that she could see “the error of her ways.” She refused to be forced into a re-education program designed to convert her from biblical faith, and as a result, she was kicked out of school. This is the “tolerance” at America’s education facilities … no tolerance for anyone who does not agree with someone else’s thought!

Now, remember, Julea didn’t demand that the student be denied help, she didn’t get in his face and tell him he’s condemned to hell, she didn’t even roll her eyes and give a general impression of disgust. She simply told the truth, obeyed what her supervisor told her to do, and carried on with her life.

Does it scare you that the people overseeing her program weren’t content with the fact that she acted properly and with integrity? Does is scare you that they wanted her to change not just her actions, but her religious beliefs? Would they say that to any other belief except Christianity? No!

Parents, if you have a child in a publicly funded college or university, this should make all kinds of alarms go off in your head. Any parent who takes their faith seriously should be very concerned.

Publicly funded colleges and universities, and even private schools, used to pride themselves on being open forums, encouraging diversity of beliefs and philosophies. They still think that is what they are, but the truth is very clear: they are only open to ideas that are not from an evangelical Christian worldview … and make sure you don’t practice what you believe.

Now the government is getting into the act of criminalizing your Christian conscience. Two pieces of legislation heading for Congress are sure to be used to turn what used to be religious principles into a crime. The administration is moving to repeal the “conscience clause” that protects healthcare workers from performing procedures that violate their beliefs, and protects faith-based healthcare facilities (think Catholic hospitals) from being sued for not performing abortions and the like. If the conscience clause is overturned, following your faith-informed conscience will no longer be constitutionally protected, and may well become a criminal act.

The second piece of legislation that attacks Christian faith is the so-called “hate speech” rule (H.R. 1913 / S. 909). Under this proposed law, cloaked in the guise of “protection,” it is possible to see courts prosecuting any people of faith from speaking out against homosexuality, abortion, fetal stem-cell experimentation, and a host of other issues not deemed politically correct. Every issue will be open to “whoever’s interpretation” and once again this administration’s social engineers will be at work.

Maybe we need to change our national motto from “In God We Trust” to “Trust in God at Your Own Peril.”

Why They Can’t Coexist

As more state courts write law to approve same-sex “marriage,” conservatives are claiming that freedom of religion is in peril.  Same-sex “marriage” supporters accuse them of hysterical gay-bating.  Who’s telling the truth?

Here, read some reports produced by National Public Radio.  Then you decide.

Two women decided to hold their civil union ceremony at a New Jersey pavilion owned by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association.  This Methodist group told the women they could not “marry” in any building used for religious purposes.  Rev. Scott Hoffman said a theological principle – that marriage can only exist between one man and one woman – was at stake.  So the women filed a discrimination complaint with the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights.  The Methodists said the First Amendment protected their right to practice their faith without being punished by the government.  But punish the Methodists is exactly what New Jersey did.  It revoked their tax exemption – a move that cost them $20,000.

Then there’s the case of the Christian physicians who refused to provide in vitro fertilization treatment to a woman in a lesbian relationship.  The doctors referred her to their partners, who were willing to provide the treatment.  But that wasn’t good enough.  The woman sued.  The California Supreme Court agreed with the woman, saying that the doctors’ religious beliefs didn’t give them the right to refuse the controversial treatment.

In Massachusetts, Catholic Charities was told they had to accept homosexual couples in their adoption service, or get out of the adoption business.  They chose correctly and no longer offer adoption services.

In Mississippi, a mental health counselor was sued for refusing to provide therapy to a woman looking to improve her lesbian relationship.  The counselor’s employers fired her – a move that was backed up by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In New York, the Albert Einstein College of Medicine at Yeshiva University refused to allow same-sex couples to live in married student housing as in keeping with the school’s orthodox Jewish teachings.  But in 2001, the New York State Supreme Court forced them to do so anyway – even though New York has no same-sex “marriage” law.

In Albuquerque, a same-sex couple asked a Christian wedding photographer to film their commitment ceremony – and sued the photographer when she declined.

An online adoption service was forced to stop doing business in California when a same-sex couple sued the service for refusing, on religious grounds, to assist them.

Convinced?  There are many more.

Clearly, homosexual “marriage” and religious liberty cannot co-exist – because gay activists will not allow them to.  As marriage expert Maggie Gallagher puts it, same-sex “marriage” advocates claim that religious faith “itself is a form of bigotry.”

Who really are the bigots?  The homosexuals are!