IN THE LINE OF FIRE

70 ARTICLES FROM THE FRONT LINES

OF THE CULTURE WARS

MICHAEL L. BROWN

EQUAL TIME BOOKS

CONCORD, NC

In the Line of Fire: 70 Articles from the Front Lines of the Culture Wars

Copyright © by Michael L. Brown, 2012

EqualTime Books

PO Box 5546

Concord, NC 28027

2012, First Edition

All rights reserved.

CONTENTS

Preface

1) Gay Is Good or Bullying Is Bad? A Teachable Moment

October 25, 2010

2) The Southern Poverty Law Center Debunks Itself

November 29, 2010

3) From Chastity to Chaz: Thou Shalt Not Criticize

May 19, 2011

4) Are We on the Wrong Side of History Again?

June 13, 2011

5) A Right Wing, Fundamentalist Christian Mass Murderer?

July 25, 2011

6) Leftists Beware: The Christian Revolutionaries Are Coming Your Way

July 28, 2011

7) It’s the Morality, Stupid!

August 08, 2011

8) Please Stop Sexualizing Our Children (Part 1)

August 14, 2011

9) Please Stop Sexualizing Our Children (Part 2)

August 16, 2011

10) Why Are We Surprised With the Push for “Pedophile Rights”?

August 26, 2011

11) Bad Reporting, Bias, or Both at the Charlotte Observer

August 30, 2011

12) CNN, the Seminary Grad, and Errors Galore

September 1, 2011

13) Must a President Be Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?

September 01, 2011

14) The Most Important Quality You’re Looking For In a President

September 07, 2011

15) Did Gay Activism Play a Role in the Murder of Lawrence King?

September 9, 2011

16) Are We As Devoted As the 9/11 Terrorists

September 14, 2011

17) Why Have Some People Called Me a “Heartless Monster”?

September 15, 2011

18) The Man Who Married the Goat (And Reflections on the Meaning of Marriage)

September 19, 2011

19) When a Gay Jewish Liberal Tries to Redefine Christianity

September 28, 2011

20) Don’t Put Your Trust in a Political Savior

September 29, 2011

21) The Girl Who Thought She Was a Werewolf Vampire

October 03, 2011

22) Is It Racist to Criticize Your Own Race?

October 04, 2011

23) Is Polygamy Worse Than Same-Sex Marriage?

October 10, 2011

24) An Outrageous Apology from Canada’s “Conservative” Newspaper

October 13, 2011

25) The Death of a Gay Activist Pioneer

October 19, 2011

26) A Fat Pride Revolution

October 24, 2011

27) The Boy Who Joined the Girl Scouts

October 31, 2011

28) “Mutant” as a Codeword for “Gay” in the X-Men Movies

November 03, 2011

29) A Gay Activist Butchers the Bible

November 3, 2011

30) Are Evangelicals Obsessed with Homosexuality?

November 5, 2011

31) How Do You Feel About A “Christian” America?

November 08, 2011

32) Dead Flies and the Legacy of Joe Paterno

November 10, 2011

33) Will Newt’s Moral Failures Hold Him Back?

November 15, 2011

34) What Could End Rush Limbaugh Career?

November 17, 2011

35) Rush Limbaugh Exposes the Elephant in the Closet

November 21, 2011

36) Is God Performing Football Miracles for Tim Tebow?

November 23, 2011

37) Transanity

November 28, 2011

38) Sex-Ed Classes and the Rape of Our Children’s Innocence (Part 1)

December 01, 2011

39) Sex-Ed Classes and the Rape of Our Children’s Innocence (Part 2)

December 02, 2011

40) Do American Muslims Want To Take Over Our Country?

December 06, 2011

41) What Christian Orphans in India Can Teach Our American Youth

December 09, 2011

42) Hillary Clinton’s “Gay Rights” Speech and American Hypocrisy

December 15, 2011

43) Was “Christ” Ever in “Christmas”?

December 19, 2011

44) A Great Time to Love Our Enemies

December 28, 2011

45) Gay Rights Still Trumping Freedom of Speech, Religion

January 25, 2012

46) “You Should Be Called Out, Fired, Fined and Shamed”

January 30, 2012

47) Tolerance Is Still Not a Two-Way Street

February 07, 2012

48) Why O’Reilly Was Wrong About Ellen

February 13, 2012

49) The Hate Mail Gets Even Uglier

February 15, 2012

50) Richard Dawkins and His ‘Oh God’ Moment

February 17, 2012

51) The Kids Are Not Always Alright

February 28, 2012

52) Is Kirk Cameron an Accomplice to Murder?

March 07, 2012

53) Exposing the Hypocrisy of GLAAD

March 19, 2012

54) The Not-So-Massive Non-Believers Rally in DC

March 26, 2012

55) Can a Muslim Lead the Christian Campus Club?

April 06, 2012

56) The Day of Silencing

April 11, 2012

57) Censorship in London and Moral Insanity in Rhode Island

April 17, 2012

58) Do You Support “Anyone But Obama”?

April 23, 2012

59) Gay Activists Expose Secret Rightwing Cabal (Or Not)

April 25, 2012

60) The SPLC Fails the Intelligence Test

April 30, 2012

61) Dan Savage Savages the Bible, Christianity and the Pope (Part I)

May 02, 2012

62) Dan Savage Savages the Bible, Christianity, and the Pope (Part II)

May 04, 2012

63) Dan Savage Savages the Bible, Christianity, and the Pope (Part III)

May 08, 2012

64) Does Billy Graham Advocate “Christian Sharia”?

May 10, 2012

65) Equivocating or Evolving, President Obama is Wrong Either Way

May 12, 2012

66) The Embarrassed Elites of North Carolina

May 14, 2012

67) Why Do the Backwoods Bigots Get to Vote?

May 15, 2012

68) Separation of Church and State: Misinformation and Hypocrisy

May 18, 2012

69) Why Gay Is Not the New Black

May 22, 2012

70) Malik Zulu Shabbaz, David Duke, and Me

May 25, 2012

About the Author

Let’s Stay Connected!

Preface

All the articles collected here were published online between October 25th, 2010 and May 25th, 2012, with the great bulk dating from May 2011 to May 2012. Most were first published on the Townhall website; others were published on the websites of Human Events, One News Now, the Washington Post, Voice of Revolution (my ministry’s online magazine) or my blog (which carries the same title as this book, In the Line of Fire).

I did not include here a number of articles written on Israel, the Jewish people, and the Middle East, nor did I include some articles on political or spiritual issues that did not seem to fit in this collection, which has as a unifying theme moral and cultural revolution. But by “revolution” I do not mean a revolution of violence, hatred, anger, or intimidation. God forbid! Rather, the revolution I speak of is one of cultural transformation based on the non-violent principles of Jesus, meaning that, as he changes his devoted followers, they (or, we) become agents of change.

That being said, the vast majority of articles do not presume religious faith on the part of the reader, nor are they written primarily to religious (or, specifically, Christian) readers. Rather, writing from my particular point of view as a committed and unashamed Jewish follower of Jesus, I have sought to expose serious issues in our contemporary American culture while at the same time pointing to a better way. And each of you reading can work this out through your own spiritual and social grid.

Due to the pervasive nature of gay activism in our culture, a substantial number of articles touch on gay-related issues, always guided by the principle of “reach out and resist,” meaning, reaching out to the LGBT community with compassion while resisting the gay activist agenda with courage. Put another way, my battle is not with individuals but with an aggressive agenda.

All the articles are linked to their original place of publication online should you be interested in looking at (or joining in with) the comments section that follows each article. This will also allow you to recommend the article directly to your friends if you so desire. It is my hope that by putting these writings together in one convenient e-collection you will be challenged, informed, encouraged, and equipped (although some, to be sure, will be outraged as well), thereby helping you make a positive contribution to the moral and cultural revolution that is at hand.

Michael L. Brown, June 4, 2012

Gay Is Good or Bullying Is Bad? A Teachable Moment

October 25, 2010

This past Wednesday, October 20th, millions of Americans wore purple to show their support for GLBT youth in what has now been dubbed “Spirit Day.” Helping to spread the word was Facebook, which recently announced its determination to work against cyber bullying with the help of a number of prominent gay activist organizations.

In light of the recent rash of gay-related suicides, this is surely an opportune time to listen, to learn, and to act. How many more young lives must be lost before we wake up and take a stand? The question is, Are we taking the right stand? Put another way, is it possible to be caring, compassionate, and concerned while choosing not to wear purple and join the Spirit Day bandwagon?

Statistics tell us that between four and five thousand teenagers commit suicide each year in America. This works out to between 80 and 100 youngsters taking their lives every week, an absolutely jarring number. Why aren’t we hearing about the rest of these stories?

By all means, we should know about the kids who took their lives over gay-related issues, but why is it only deemed newsworthy when LGBT kids cut their precious lives short? What about kids who were subject to bullying for other reasons, ultimately killing themselves? Don’t their stories merit attention as well? Isn’t the life of a straight teenager just as valuable as the life of a gay teenager?

But there’s something else that is amiss in the current calls to reduce or eradicate the bullying of kids who are gay (or, are perceived to be gay), and it is this: Our message should be “Bullying is bad” rather than “Gay is good.” In other words, our schools do not need to celebrate or nurture homosexuality (or bisexuality or transgenderism); they need to denigrate and discourage bullying and cruelty.

We know that kids are picked on when they are perceived to be weak or different, often because of appearance. Some of you remember being cruelly taunted because you were overweight as a kid, and such taunting of fat children continues to this day. Should we then design an “Obesity is good” curriculum? Surely, first lady Michelle Obama would demur.

Kids are bullied because they have ADHD and struggle to fit in socially. Others are harassed because of a physical defect or abnormality. Others suffer because they are exceptionally smart, making their peers jealous and angry. In each case, the solution is the same: We must teach our children that bullying and cruelty are always wrong, and there must be penalties for wrong behavior.

There’s no need to focus on obesity or ADHD or a physical abnormality or an exceptional ability. The focus should be on discouraging wrong behavior – how would you feel if someone treated you like that? – and on teaching our children that every kid is important and gifted and special, also addressing the insecurities and struggles of the bullies.

When it comes, however, to the mistreatment of kids who identify as gay (or are perceived to be gay), it is different. We must teach that gay is OK. We must encourage preteens in middle school to discover their true sexual orientation (as if it is fully formed by the age of twelve), providing Gay Straight Alliances where they can “come out” to their peers without parental notification. We must even encourage an eight-year-old boy who identifies as transgender to come to school wearing a dress, allowing him also to use the girls’ bathroom and locker room. (This is actually school policy in San Francisco.)

Yes, if we want to stop the spate of gay-related suicides, this is the action we must take – or is it? The truth be told, not only have some groups politicized the deaths of these young people, they are also sending the wrong message. Is it OK to bully gays if gay is not good? Isn’t it wrong to bully because bullying is wrong?

And dare we ask if, by encouraging kids to come out as gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgender at younger and younger ages, gay activists are adding to the social confusion of young people and even encouraging their mistreatment at the hands of their schoolmates? Surely, little children can’t be expected to comprehend that Johnny is now Jane.

We have even missed the point of the tragic suicide of Rutgers freshman Tyler Clementi. According to the Targum, the longstanding student newspaper of Rutgers, there was no shortage of “safe spaces” for LGBT students on campus, and the Targum bemoaned the gay politicizing of Clementi’s death. In reality, Rutgers is considered to be one of the most gay-friendly schools in America, to the point that some LGBT teens have stated that they go there to come out. The focus of this tragedy should have been on the inexcusable invasion of this young man’s privacy (regardless of what act he was committing), but somehow, in the rush to show solidarity with the LGBT community, the issue of cyber invasion has been pushed aside.

To be sure, this is a teachable moment in America, but we are teaching the wrong lessons, also focusing on one bullied group to the neglect of the rest. So, rather than making our message “Gay is good,” let’s make our message “Bullying is bad.” And rather than launching a crusade against those who do not want to promote homosexuality in our schools (or, wear purple on Spirit Day), let’s join together to fight against cruelty and hatred, determining ourselves to treat all people with kindness and respect, thereby modeling this behavior for our children. Can anyone call this a bigoted proposal?

The Southern Poverty Law Center Debunks Itself

November 29, 2010

There was a time when the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) was highly respected for its exposure of hate groups, such as those of the neo-Nazi and KKK brand. Today, however, it’s almost a badge of honor to get a place on the SPLC listing, be it as an official “hate” group or merely as an “anti-gay” group. After all, now that the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, Coral Ridge Ministries, the Family Research Council, Liberty Council, the National Organization for Marriage, and the Traditional Values Coalition qualify, it’s actually a little disconcerting to be left off the “anti-gay” list.

According to a recently released SPLC Intelligence Report (Winter 2010, Issue Number: 140), organizations are listed as hate (or, anti-gay) groups “based on their propagation of known falsehoods – claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities” and by their continuing “to pump out demonizing propaganda aimed at homosexuals and other sexual minorities.”

And what are these “known falsehoods . . . that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities”? According to an SPLC report entitled “10 Anti-Gay Myths Debunked,” they include:

           Same-sex parents harm children.

           People become homosexual because they were sexually abused as children or there was a deficiency in sex-role modeling by their parents.

           Hate crime laws will lead to the jailing of pastors who criticize homosexuality and the legalization of practices like bestiality and necrophilia.

           Allowing homosexuals to serve openly would damage the armed forces.

(Some of the other “Anti-Gay Myths” are far more controversial, such as, “Homosexuals controlled the Nazi Party and helped to orchestrate the Holocaust.”)

So, if you state that kids do best when raised by their mom and dad, you are propagating a known falsehood and are worthy of a place on the SPLC anti-gay list. If you agree with the many therapists and psychologists who argue that a child’s upbringing and early-life experiences play a major role in the development of his or her sexual orientation, you are propagating a known falsehood and are worthy of a place on the SPLC list.

The same is true if you claim that hate crime laws could lead to the arresting of pastors who criticize homosexuality (this has already happened in Sweden, England, Canada, and the United States), or if you argue that it would be detrimental to the military to have gays serving openly. Based on this “logic,” the SPLC would have to claim that many of the leaders of our Armed Forces, not to mention some of our most senior congressmen, are guilty of the “propagation of known falsehoods,” since they strongly oppose the repeal of DADT. Maybe the SPLC will next place the entire American military on their anti-gay list. Why not?

Another alleged myth that has been “thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities” is that “Homosexuals are more prone to be mentally ill and to abuse drugs and alcohol.” Yet the SPLC report actually acknowledges that “LGBT people suffer higher rates of anxiety, depression, and depression-related illnesses and behaviors like alcohol and drug abuse than the general population,” but blames it on homophobia. Of course!

Also singled out for disdain is the “known falsehood” that, “No one is born a homosexual,” yet in refuting this “myth,” the SPLC can only quote the American Psychological Association (APA) that “no evidence has emerged that would allow scientists to pinpoint the precise causes of sexual orientation.” In other words, we really don’t know exactly why people are gay. So much for science thoroughly discrediting the idea that no one is born homosexual!

The best that the SPLC could do to provide “the truth behind the propaganda” was quote the APA’s conclusion that “most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation,” which is a far cry from saying that someone is born homosexual. Perhaps lesbian journalist Camille Paglia should be added to the “anti-gay” list, since she famously wrote that, “No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous.”

The last alleged myth that is “debunked” in the SPLC article is that, “Gay people can choose to leave homosexuality,” yet there is substantial scientific evidence, not to mention abundant anecdotal evidence, that some people can and do leave homosexuality. It is positively chilling, however, to realize that those who make this claim are now guilty of “hate speech” and deemed to be spreading “demonizing propaganda.”

So then, rather than debunking anti-gay myths, the SPLC has debunked itself. Who can take them seriously anymore?

From Chastity to Chaz: Thou Shalt Not Criticize

May 19, 2011

On May 6th, Dr. Keith Ablow, a TV psychiatrist and university professor, penned a controversial article entitled, “Cameron Diaz Is Right -- 4 Reasons Why Marriage IS a Dying Institution.” The article, which was posted on FoxNews.com, received a considerable amount of criticism, as Dr. Ablow claimed that marriage is “one of the leading causes of major depression in the nation.” He even wrote that, “marriage is a dying institution . . . because it inherently deprives men and women of the joy of being ‘chosen’ on a daily basis.” Come again?

Did Fox News pull the article in the face of criticism? Certainly not. After all, the doctor is entitled to his opinion (even if his opinion is deemed inane) and, for a website and news agency, the more controversy the better – at least to a point. But there are certain lines that one dare not cross these days, and one of those now appears to be the line of “transphobia.” (In case you’re not up on LGBT vocabulary, transphobia is to transgender what homophobia is homosexual.)

This, then, is what happened in the space of just two days. On May 17th, Dr. Ablow posted an article on FoxNews.com entitled, “Inside the Mind of Chaz Bono,” writing, “Chastity Bono, the daughter of Cher and Sonny Bono, has undergone gender reassignment surgery and now asserts she [that’s right, she] is a man. . . . I know my thoughts on this matter will be politically incorrect, but they are entirely biologically and psychiatrically accurate.”

Dr. Ablow continued, “First, Chaz Bono is not a man. She is a woman who has undergone radical surgeries and is taking male hormones in order to look like a man. That isn’t a political position, it’s a biological reality. Chaz Bono wants to be thought of as male, but she is not male.”

He explained, “Delusional disorders are notoriously difficult to treat. Paranoia . . . can require extensive psychotherapy and anti-psychotic medication. Sometimes, that isn’t even enough. So you can imagine that believing you are a man when you are a woman could require even more vigorous and dedicated attempts to alleviate the psychotic person’s symptoms. . . . “I think Chaz Bono, who is, in fact, a woman, will not escape, through surgery or manipulation of hormones, suffering that is far more than skin deep.”

On May 18th, just one day after Dr. Ablow’s article was posted, it was pulled from the Fox News website without explanation, apparently because of an uproar from the gay and transgender community, including threats of boycotts. When it comes to homosexuality and transgenderism, the message is plain and clear: “Thou shalt not criticize!”

Was this article any more controversial than his article attacking marriage? Hardly. After all, there is no genetic or biological indication that Chastity Bono is a man other than what she/he perceives in her/his head. (I say that with all respect to the struggles that Bono has passed through and without minimizing the very real needs of those who identify as transgender.) Perhaps Chastity could have been helped from the inside out? Perhaps some of Chastity’s inner turmoil had to do with the very unusual family environment in which she was raised?

When Chastity released her coming out story as a lesbian in 1999, we were expected to embrace her new identity with affirmation and approval, recognizing that this was who she truly was. Now we are being told that she was really not a lesbian at all but rather a heterosexual male trapped in a woman’s body. Is it so outrageous for a psychiatrist to question whether Chastity/Chaz is suffering from some kind of disorder? Apparently so.

In today’s upside-down world, a psychiatrist can make the claim that marriage is a dying institution, one of the major causes of depression, and that is perfectly fine. But let that same psychiatrist suggest that Chastity/Chaz Bono is suffering from a mental or emotional disorder (for the record, it is called Gender Identity Disorder), and his voice must be silenced post haste.

Consider the political climate in which we now live: Olympic gold medalist Peter Vidmar, the chief of the US Olympic team mission for 2012, resigned from his position under pressure from gay activists. Why? He supported Prop 8 in California, defining marriage as the union of a man and woman, and this was deemed too controversial. One week later, Rick Welts, the owner of the Phoenix Suns basketball team, openly declared his homosexuality and received nothing but praise and commendation for his candor. And “transitioning” from a woman into a man gets you a spot on Oprah and David Letterman, while questioning the rightness of sex-change surgery gets you silenced.

A queer thing, indeed, has happened to America. One can only wonder what is coming next.

Are We on the Wrong Side of History again?

June 13, 2011

It’s time for a gut check for those of us who hold to traditional, Judeo-Christian values. If we are on the right side of one of the greatest social, moral and spiritual issues of our time, then we need to dig deep, hold our ground, strengthen our commitment and redouble our efforts, regardless of cost or consequence. But if we are on the wrong side of this issue, then we had best throw in the towel before we lose all credibility and further damage the reputation of the Lord.

The issue of which I speak is that of “gay rights” (or, more broadly, “gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights”), and on an almost daily basis, the mainstream media assures us of two things: 1) Just as many conservatives and traditionalists were on the wrong side of slavery, segregation and women’s rights, we are on the wrong side of the gay rights issue today. 2) It is futile to oppose gay activism any longer, because the battle has already been won and Americans have embraced “equality and tolerance.”

Put another way, those who continue to argue that homosexual practice is sinful or that same-sex couples should not have the right to marry will soon be consigned to the dung heap of public opinion, there to join past generations of slave traders, misogynists and members of the KKK. Is this true? To be sure, we are living in times of stunning social transition:

       For the third straight year, President Obama has declared June to be Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month, also commemorating the Stonewall Riots of June 1969.

       In New York, both Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Michael Bloomberg are making an aggressive attempt to legalize same-sex marriage.

       One of the country’s most prestigious law firms, King & Spalding, dropped the United States Government as its client under pressure from gay activists after agreeing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act.

       Media outlets have praised the students of a Florida high school for selecting a cross-dressing teenage boy as their prom queen.

       Major league baseball teams have now joined the “It Gets Better” campaign, designed to encourage gay and lesbian youth and teenagers in their sexual orientation, and “It Gets Better” commercials, sponsored by Google and even featuring a word of encouragement from Pixar’s “Woody” of Toy Story fame, have been broadcast during NBA playoff games.

       The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated some of America’s most respected family ministries as “hate groups” because of their alleged spreading of misinformation regarding homosexuality.

       When a Chick-fil-A store in Pennsylvania donated brownies and sandwiches to a pro-family organization that opposed same-sex marriage, college students began to call for boycotts of Chick-fil-A on their campuses. At the same time, major corporations pour millions of dollars into gay activist organizations and are widely praised for their philanthropy.

And the list goes on . . . and on. Is it time for us to capitulate? Are we on the wrong side of history once again? Certainly not.

It is true that there are many kind, friendly, hardworking, conscientious LGBT people, and they deserve to be treated with civility and respect, but when it comes to biblically based morality, there is not a single argument that has been presented or a single discovery that has been made—historical, linguistic, archeological or exegetical—that would cause us to alter our traditional understanding concerning homosexual practice. And it is true that there are many devoted, loving, same-sex couples, but there is still not one compelling reason to redefine marriage—society’s most fundamental social institution—nor, for that matter, has any proponent of same-sex marriage provided an adequate answer to the most basic of questions, namely this: What’s so special about the number “two” if marriage is not the union of a man and a woman?

When it comes to recent polls that indicate that a majority of Americans—especially younger Americans—now believe same-sex marriage should be legal, we must remember that polls do not tell us what is right, they simply report public opinion. Why in the world should conservative leaders bow down to polls when it comes to determining morality?

We must also bear in mind that other recent polls indicate that most Americans, quite remarkably, believe that more than 25% of the population is gay (as opposed to the correct figure, which is closer to 3%), with Americans younger than 30 years of age putting the figure at close to 33%. This is an almost unbelievably inaccurate picture (thanks to TV and the media, no doubt), and one that certainly influences public perception toward LGBT people.

The fact is that those who stand for traditional Judeo-Christian values are called to swim against the tide of popular opinion and go against the grain of popular morality rather than do what is convenient or expedient. And so, the real question is not whether we are on the right side of history. The question is: Will we do what is right or will we cave in to culture?

(This article was also posted on HumanEvents.com on June 15, 2011, with the title, “Traditional Judeo-Christian Values and Gay Marriage.”)

A Right-wing, Fundamentalist Christian, Mass Murderer?

July 25, 2011

The details of the tragic massacre in Norway are shocking beyond words. At least 92 fatalities. Scores of young people gunned down in cold blood. Others seriously injured or missing. Body parts still to be recovered in the bombed out buildings. A nation traumatized and in mourning.

Were these horrific acts the result of an outside terrorist attack? No. Was this the work of Muslim extremists living in Norway? No again. Rather, the bomber and shooter was a native-born Norwegian, a blue-eyed and blond haired vegetable farmer, Anders Breivik, with no prior history of violence. And he has been described as a “right-wing, fundamentalist Christian.” But of course! How long will it be before ominous new warnings are sounded throughout America reminding us of the dangers of “right-wing, fundamentalist Christianity”?

In 2007, a New Jersey school came under criticism after staging a mock hostage drill in which the intruders were not radical Muslims or other, known terrorist groups. Instead, they were Christian fundamentalists dubbed the “New Crusaders.” As noted by JihadWatch in April, 2007, the intruders were described as “members of a right-wing fundamentalist group . . . who don’t believe in the separation of church and state.” And these fake gunmen were driven to attack the school because they were “seeking justice because the daughter of one [member] had been expelled for praying before class.”

Conservative Christians who learned of this drill were rightly outraged. Where, they asked, had any of their people committed such acts? Where were the 9/11-type massacres carried out by American, fundamentalist Christians? Where were the barbaric killings, carried out in our country in Jesus’ name, similar to the slaughter of school children in Beslan, Russia that had been carried out by Islamic, Chechnyan sympathizers? Obviously, they did not exist.

“But,” we were warned, “they could be coming soon. After all, these Christian groups use violent, warfare language, and they talk about a ‘Jesus revolution.’”

In other words, singing old hymns like “Onward Christian Soldiers” might lead to bloodshed, and those conservative Christians who feel their rights are being violated by the government might just put down their hymn books, pick up their rifles, and lay siege to the school building across the street. Right. Just like those who believe in the “war on poverty” also believe in killing poor people (or perhaps rich people?) and those who engage in the “culture wars” believe in slaughtering the people with whom they differ. Yet there are many who truly believe that conservative Christians will somehow turn violent in the name of the Lord.

In the summer of 2009, in my current home city of Charlotte, North Carolina, a local gay journalist warned about religious leaders (which included me) who were allegedly “preaching and teaching with violent and militant theology and rhetoric, painting the social conflict over LGBT equality as a ‘battle’ and a ‘war.’” He asked, “How thin of a line exists between violent word and thought, and violent action and deed? That’s a question answered plenty of times before, from Christian Crusades and Inquisitions of ages past to the modern day of radical Islamic terrorism. But, it is a question yet to be answered in Charlotte, N.C., where I believe there is a potentially dangerous and violent threat ramping up its efforts to counter the annual LGBT event, Pride Charlotte.”

And what was this “potentially dangerous and violent threat”? It was a group of 500 Christians who gathered to pray, worship, and share the gospel with attendees of the gay pride event, declaring that “God has a better way.” After the event (which I helped organize and which was as peaceful as could be imagined), a local lesbian activist told me that what we were doing was an act of “radical love.”

Yet the murderous acts of Anders Breivik in Norway will be seen as proof that conservative Christians in America might just turn violent too, as if the demented actions of an anti-Muslim, anti-multiculturalist Norwegian have anything to do with the spiritual, moral, and cultural aspirations of American Christ-followers who espouse the non-violent teachings and example of the Master himself.

Sadly, the atmosphere in our country has become so toxic that venerable ministries like Focus on the Family and the American Family Association have been branded as “hate groups” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, while People for the American Way sends out regular warnings about evangelical Christian leaders on its RightWingWatch website. And this will surely intensify in the days to come in the wake of the tragedy in Norway.

Let us, then, who call ourselves conservative Christians, redouble our efforts to expose the folly of these false charges, overcoming evil with good and hatred with love, thereby proving ourselves to be genuine followers of Jesus.

Leftists, Beware:

The Christian Revolutionaries Are Coming Your Way

July 28, 2011

On the heels of the tragic massacre in Norway, the internet and media have been abuzz with warnings about the potential threat of “Christian extremists.” Typical is an article from domestic terrorism expert Daryl Johnson entitled, “Christian Extremism from Timothy McVeigh to Anders Breivik.” (Yes, you read that title correctly.) He begins by stating, “Those two jihadists—two right-wing reactionaries, two terrorists, two anti-government white supremacists, two Christians—have a lot in common. . . .” Two Christians?

Johnson alleges that, “[McVeigh’s] idealism of a golden-age white America was the Christian translation of al-Qaeda’s idealized caliphate.” He further claims that, “Islamists who may want us harm need only sit back and enjoy the view. They might as well have outsourced the job to their Christian brethren, with plenty of assists from mainstream conservatives.” And this is meant to be taken seriously. Indeed, it is meant to serve as a warning.

Of course, we have known for years that Christianity played no role at all in Timothy McVeigh’s demented, murderous mind (he was, in fact, a self-professed agnostic), while it is becoming increasingly clear that a living, Christian faith (as opposed to a European, cultural Christianity, completely unrelated to faith) was something of no real importance to Anders Breivik. And Christian thinking or ideology certainly did not fuel his savagery.

But falsely branding McVeigh and Breivik as “Christians” is not the real problem. The problem is when people of genuine Christian faith are labeled “Christianists,” the semantic equivalent of “Islamists,” the current way of describing Islamic terrorists who allegedly distort and pervert Islam. We are now the perverters of the Christian faith, not Christians but “Christianists.” Apparently, if you take your faith seriously enough to allow it to influence your worldview, and if you seek to live in accordance with that worldview, you are a Christianist.

In keeping with this, the JoeMyGod, gay activist website posted a link to my recent Townhall article about Anders Breivik with the heading, “Michael Brown: American Christianists Will Suffer Because Of The Norway Killer.” Similarly, my article drew the attention of RightWingWatch.com, a website which also warns of dangerous “Christianists” like me.

Well, as one of those targeted “Christianist” leaders, having written two books calling for a “Jesus revolution” in the society and in the Church, it’s time to let the cat out of the bag. You had better believe we are serious, and you had better believe we are coming your way. And be assured: We are armed to the teeth. (I’m not talking about non-Christian murderers like McVeigh and Breivik; I’m talking about Bible-believing, truly committed, followers of Jesus.) Are you ready to hear the truth about us “Jesus revolutionaries”?

I should tell you first about our weapons. We begin with prayer. That’s right, prayer. We gather to pray in small groups or large groups or simply by ourselves, in the privacy of our homes. We ask God to show us our sins and our faults, to forgive us and change us. And we pray that He will carry out His will in our country and that He will have mercy on our nation. Oh yes, we are dangerous.

But that’s just the beginning. We have a weapon that the apostle Paul called the “sword of the Spirit,” better known as the Bible. We read the Scriptures and love the Scriptures and seek to model our lives according to the lofty ethic of the Scriptures, and if we see you, we might just quote a passage from the Bible to you, like John 3:16. Be on your guard!

And there’s more. We try to infiltrate the inner-cities and tell gang leaders about God’s love and His purpose for their lives. We launch adoption movements to provide homes for unwanted children. We are the first to show up at disaster sites such as Joplin, Missouri after the tornadoes or New Orleans after Katrina. And we are the biggest contributors to organizations like World Vision that feed the hungry around the world. What a scary bunch we are.

As American citizens, we also take our moral and social values into the voting booth, and we do our best to be a public and private influence for the good. In the words of Jesus, we seek to let our light shine. And just as our society has room for gay activists campaigning for same-sex marriage and aggressive atheists fighting to remove all traces of religion from the public square, we believe it has room for us as we stand up for the rights of the unborn, for freedom of religion, and for traditional family values. What an ominous agenda we have.

And one last thing: We are not going away. If you curse us, we will bless you. If you hate us, we will love you. You have been forewarned.

It’s the Morality, Stupid!

August 8, 2011

It was political strategist James Carville who coined the now-famous phrase that helped catapult Bill Clinton to the presidency, incessantly reminding him that, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Any candidate seeking to unseat President Obama in the 2012 elections will surely follow this same strategy.

After all, the economy is in shambles and Americans are fed up with the latest congressional efforts to reduce the deficit. Unemployment is nearing epidemic proportions, gasoline prices are outrageous, spending is out of control, and for the first time, our national credit rating has been downgraded. Worse still, if foreign loans were pulled out of our economy, we would have a massive, coast to coast collapse.

Political pundits commonly warn candidates, especially Republican candidates, that voters today are not as concerned about social and moral issues as much as they are concerned about the economy. In that respect, Carville’s sage advice to Clinton was nothing new. After all, Hebert Hoover’s 1928 campaign slogan was, “A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage.” Has anything really changed since 1928 in terms of what Americans care about the most?

Surely, it still is “the economy, stupid.” Or is it? Could it be that there’s more to the story? Could it be that we make a serious and fundamental mistake when we separate economic issues from moral issues? Could it be that we are often treating the symptoms rather than the cause?

There was bipartisan disgust as the nation watched the president and both political parties wrangling over a solution to the current financial crisis, and in the end, all we got was a very small, largely ineffective band aid. As one political cartoonist depicted it, the congressional “solution” was like slowing down the speed with which the Titanic was sinking. Across party lines, there was a feeling that we were not really getting to the root of the problem, but few, if any were suggesting this: It is impossible to separate economics from morality. Eventually, our poor moral choices will have a definite and direct impact on the money (or lack thereof) in our pockets.

Here are some of the roots of our economic problems:

1) Instant gratification. It was Jim Morrison of the Doors who once proclaimed, “We want the world and we want it now!” That was 1967. Today, we really want it now (as in “instant”; think “messaging” and “downloading” and more). If I want it, I will find a way to get it, and I will get it now. Yes, it’s true that I’m out of work, but I will get that iPad, I will be at the movie theatre this weekend, and I will find a way to buy the latest, trendy threads. Thank God for credit cards!

2) We have become consumers rather than producers. One website claims that, “Americans constitute 5% of the world’s population but consume 24% of the world’s energy. On average, one American consumes as much energy as 2 Japanese, 6 Mexicans, 13 Chinese, 31 Indians, 128 Bangladeshis, 307 Tanzanians, 370 Ethiopians.” And, “Americans throw out 200,000 tons of edible food daily, enough to feed 3 third world countries.” Of course, some of this has to do with the fact that we have a lot more at our disposal than, say, the average Ethiopian. But a lot of this also has to do with our selfishness, greed, and lack of discipline. How many of those issues were addressed in the recent congressional discussions about the economy?

3) The breakdown of the family. Two generations into the sexual revolution (which has brought us to a point of sexual anarchy), and two generations into no-fault divorce, the “traditional family unit” is an increasingly threatened species, and at a high economic cost to our society. Author Frank Turek points out that kids raised by their mom and dad are: “a. Seven times less likely to live in poverty; b. Six times less likely to commit suicide; c. Less than half as likely to commit crime; d. Less than half as likely to become pregnant out of wedlock; e. Develop better academically and socially; f. [Are] healthier physically and emotionally when they reach adulthood.” You had better believe this has massive economic implications.

4) Abortion. With all the concerns about Social Security defaulting, hardly anyone seems to be talking about the 800 pound gorilla missing from the room, namely, multiplied millions of working Americans who are not here to pay into the system and contribute to the economy because their lives were cut short in the womb. Yes, there is an economic consequence to abortion as well. (Please don’t be so cynical as to argue that the majority of those aborted would themselves be on welfare.)

Perhaps it would be wise for political candidates today to change their approach, and in that spirit, I propose a new slogan: “It’s the morality, stupid.” Is it too true to be good?

Please Stop Sexualizing Our Children (Part 1)

August 14, 2011

The recent cover of the French edition of Vogue magazine caused considerable controversy, and it was not because of the all too typical, female model featured in a sensual pose. Instead, it was the fact that the model this time was a 10 year-old girl.

The headline of an article appearing on JewishJournal.com announced that, “Vogue Blurs the Line between Fashion & Pedophilia with 10 Year Old Model,” and the article’s author, Ilana Angel, rightly noted that, “A 10 year old is not able to distinguish between playing dress up in mommy’s make-up and high heels, and proving a sexual aid to pedophiles.” How true!

But this is only one, extreme example of the way our kids are being sexualized. How many children watch MTV and VH1, mimicking the moves and memorizing the lyrics of the latest song by Britney Spears or Lady Gaga, having no clue that the moves they are making and the words they are mouthing are sexually charged. These kids are too young to have any understanding of sexuality, and yet it is no secret to the TV execs that these same children are a major part of the viewing audience.

And was anyone really surprised when Miley Cyrus outgrew Hannah Montana and discovered pole dancing instead? What are her youthful followers to make of her now? Perhaps they’ll follow her lead? Perhaps they’ll ask mom and dad for a pole of their own at home?

But there’s more. There is the sexualizing of our children in the public schools, and I’m not talking about sex-ed classes. I’m talking about teaching gay history to elementary school children, as now mandated by law in California with the recent passing of SB 48, thereby introducing sexual categories to little ones who haven’t the slightest clue what sexual orientation is, let alone have the ability to wrap their minds around “bisexual” or “transgender.”

To add insult to injury, parents will have no right to opt their kids out of these classes, a hard lesson parents in other states have learned, where the courts have sided with the schools rather than the parents. Already in Massachusetts, a couple was so upset with this state-sponsored sexualizing of their first grader that they took their battle to court, where Judge Mark Wolff of the US Court of Appeals ruled that the schools have a greater responsibility to teach “diversity” than to honor the requests of the parents. In other words, “Sorry, moms and dads. We know what is best for your children, and when we decide it’s time to introduce them to ‘diversity’ – our codeword for gay activist curricula – we will do so. You, on your part, have no right to interfere, so don’t even think about it.” (For more details, see Chapter Three of my book A Queer Thing Happened to America.)

What is unique in California is not that gay-themed lessons will be taught to little children. Rather, it is that these lessons will be mandated across the entire state for all schools and all classes, which, of course, will be reflected in the textbooks that will be used. And, as is well known, what happens in California doesn’t stay in California, meaning that the textbooks printed for our most populous state will be used throughout the nation.

In the specific language of SB 48, the bill amended “the Education Code to include social sciences instruction on the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people.” And note that previous bills relating to LGBT issues – including AB 537, AB 1785, AB 394, SB 777, SB 572 – were not enough. SB 48 had to go one step further.

What exactly will this mean? For starters, it will demand that the categories of “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender” be introduced to six year-olds. I have watched videos of classes taught in different parts of the countries where elementary school children are shown pictures of artists or musicians or politicians or other famous figures and are told, “He (or she) was gay (or lesbian),” as if they had the slightest real concept of what “gay” or “lesbian” actually meant. (As I recall, in the early years of elementary school, boys like boys and girls like girls. Does that make all of them “gay” and “lesbian”?)

Of course, we are told that introducing this curriculum will reduce bullying of LGBT kids in schools, but the best way to reduce bullying is to teach that bullying is bad rather than gay is good. And does anyone really think that, say, showing kids images of a fat Buddha will stop the bullying of fat kids? More to the point, who gave the public schools the right to sexualize our children?

But this is just the beginning. It gets worse. Stay tuned for more.

Please Stop Sexualizing Our Children (Part 2)

August 16, 2011

There are some important things that can be lost and then recovered. Health. Finances. Friends. Even reputation. Innocence, however, is not one of them, especially the prepubescent, sexual innocence of a child.

My wife, Nancy, and I are blessed to have four amazing grandchildren, aged four to 10. They can be silly. They can be mischievous. They can be sarcastic (having been trained well by their grandfather). At times they can even be disobedient (although hardly ever to their doting grandparents). Yet they are profoundly innocent when it comes to sexuality. Why is it that some people are determined to shatter that innocence?

Every few years, there is a push to “out” the Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie, claiming that they must be gay (I kid you not). Even now, there is a petition on the Change.org website, stating, “For over 40 years, our beloved Sesame St. characters, Bert and Ernie, have been living as ‘roomates’ and we would like PBS and Sesame St. to allow them to live as a gay couple and maybe eventually, marry. It would show children and their parents that not only is it acceptable but also teach children that homophobia is wrong, bullying is wrong and that Sesame Street should recognize that there are LGBT relationships, families, and include them in their show.”

Putting aside the obligatory references to “homophobia” and “bullying” (does anyone really believe that turning Bert and Ernie into gay characters will combat homophobia and bullying?), it appears that the folks at Change.org have failed to realize that the kids watching Sesame Street are, on average, between two and five years old, and they no more understand the concepts of gay or lesbian or bisexual than they understand the concepts of quantum physics. And Bert and Ernie are Muppets, for heaven’s sake.

Sadly, as absurd as this latest petition drive is, the queering of elementary education (to borrow the title of a well-known book) is no laughing matter. What, then, are some of the implications of the recently passed Senate Bill (SB 48) in California, which mandates “social sciences instruction on the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people,” with no way for parents to pull their kids from the classes?

On the one hand, LGBT pioneers will be celebrated, including people like Leslie Feinberg, the “transgender warrior,” author of Stone Butch Blues, among other books, a woman who dresses like a man, is partnered to another woman, and prefers to be called “ze,” as opposed to he or she. (She is already celebrated in some gay educational curricula.) What will our little ones make of “hir” (again, the preferred pronoun, in contrast with him or her)?

Should we also assume that every figure highlighted in history classes who is not LGBT will be identified as heterosexual? “Today, children, we’re learning about Thomas Jefferson, who was straight.” Is this what we can expect? And why must our kids be told the sexual or romantic inclinations of historical figures?

But there’s more. There will be people like George Washington Carver, a man often claimed as gay by LGBT historians and already featured in gay class lessons. Would his alleged sexual orientation now become a topic of instruction? If so, consider first that there is no clear evidence that he was homosexual, simply speculation among some of his biographers. Second, even if he was same-sex attracted, and even if he acted on those attractions, that was certainly not something he wanted to be known. Will he now be posthumously outed? Third, the real story about this important historical figure is what we do know, namely, that he overcame racism, that he was a committed Christian, and that he made many important discoveries. Why in the world should we bring allegations about his sexuality into the classroom?

Yet there’s more still. On a recent radio interview, GOProud’s Jimmy LaSalvia stated that if he was learning about men like Walt Whitman and Oscar Wilde in school, he would want to know that they were gay. The problem, however, is that they were not simply gay. As noted by Jim Kepner, formerly curator of the International Gay and Lesbian Archives in Los Angeles, “If we reject the boylovers in our midst today we’d better stop waving the banner of the Ancient Greeks, of Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Oscar Wilde, Walt Whitman, Horatio Alger, and Shakespeare. We’d better stop claiming them as part of our heritage unless we are broadening our concept of what it means to be gay today.”

We won’t get into a discussion of Shakespeare’s sexuality here (or most of the others on this list), but Kepner’s point is well taken. Shall we tell the young teenage boys the whole story, namely that Oscar Wilde had a preference for boys their age?

In my opinion, it is just as outrageous to introduce the categories of adult homosexuality and bisexuality to elementary school children, and now is the time to draw the line. Otherwise, your 8 year-old daughter might come home from school to tell you that she just learned that Joan of Arc was transgender. (After all, wasn’t she a cross-dresser?) Or perhaps your little boy will tell you how exciting it was to learn about the drag queens who started a riot at the Stonewall Inn in 1969.

The fact is that our educational system is having a hard enough time teaching our kids the three R’s. Must they now learn LGBTQ’s? Now is the time to stop sexualizing our children. They should not be casualties of the culture wars. Do you agree?

Why Are We Surprised with the Push for “Pedophile Rights”?

August 26, 2011

Many Americans have been shocked by reports about a recent pro-pedophilia conference in Baltimore in which psychiatrists and other mental health professionals, representing institutions like Harvard and Johns Hopkins, sought to present pedophilia in a sympathetic and even positive light. But why should this surprise us?

Academic articles in scholarly journals have been presenting pedophilia in a sympathetic light for years, and, as Matthew Cullinan Hoffman noted, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) released a report in 1998 “claiming that the ‘negative potential’ of adult sex with children was ‘overstated’ and that ‘the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from their child sexual abuse experiences.’ It even claimed that large numbers of the victims reported that their experiences were ‘positive,’ and suggested that the phrase ‘child sex abuse’ be replaced with ‘adult-child sex.’” Others have coined the more disgusting term “intergenerational intimacy.”

The APA’s report was so disturbing that it drew an official rebuke from Congress, yet the pro-pedophile (or, pro-pederast) push continues. In fact, some psychiatric leaders, like Dr. Richard Green, who were instrumental in removing homosexuality from the APA’s list of mental disorders in 1973, have been fighting to remove pedophilia as well.

Consider, for example, this statement from the late John Hopkins professor John Money: “Pedophilia and ephebophilia [referring to sexual attraction felt by an adult toward an adolescent] are no more a matter of voluntary choice than are left-handedness or color blindness. There is no known method of treatment by which they may be effectively and permanently altered, suppressed, or replaced. Punishment is useless. There is no satisfactory hypothesis, evolutionary or otherwise, as to why they exist in nature’s overall scheme of things. One must simply accept the fact that they do exist, and then, with optimum enlightenment, formulate a policy of what to do about it.”

Now, go back and reread that paragraph, substituting the word “homosexuality” for “pedophilia” and “ephebophilia.” How interesting!

To help flesh this out, let’s picture a homosexual man making his case to a heterosexual man:

1)      My homosexuality is not a sexual preference but a sexual orientation, just as much as your heterosexuality is not a sexual preference but a sexual orientation.

2)      My homosexuality is just as normal as your heterosexuality.

3)      Since my behavior is genetically determined and is not a choice, it is intolerant and hateful to suggest that it is wrong. And to call my sexual behavior illegal or immoral, or to refuse to legitimize same-sex relationships, is to be a moral bigot of the highest order.

4)      I deeply resent your attempts to identify areas of my upbringing and environment as alleged causes for my homosexuality.

5)      I categorically reject the myth that someone can change his or her sexual orientation. Rather, such statements only add to the anguish and suffering of gays and lesbians, and attempts to change us often lead to catastrophic consequences, including depression and suicide.

Now, let’s turn this around and have a pederast making his case to a homosexual, substituting the words accordingly (thus, “My pederasty is not a sexual preference but a sexual orientation, just as much as your homosexuality is not a sexual preference but a sexual orientation.”)

In point of fact, all the principle arguments commonly used to normalize homosexuality have been used to normalize pedophilia and pederasty, as I documented in painstaking (and painful) detail in A Queer Thing Happened to America, where I also made clear that I was not equating homosexuality with pedophilia but was instead comparing the arguments used to normalize both.

Here are the eight principle arguments, all of which (in modified form) are commonly used in support of homosexuality:

1)      Pedophilia is innate and immutable.

2)      Pederasty is richly attested in many different cultures throughout history.

3)      The claim that adult-child sexual relationships cause harm is greatly overstated and often completely inaccurate.

4)      Consensual adult-child sex can actually be beneficial to the child.

5)      Pederasty should not be classified as a mental disorder, since it does not cause distress to the pederast to have these desires and since the pederast can function as a normal, contributing member of society.

6)      Many of the illustrious homosexuals of the past were actually pedophiles.

7)      People are against intergenerational intimacy because of antiquated social standards and puritanical sexual phobias.

8)      This is all about love and equality and liberation.

But none of these arguments should surprise us. After all, the age of increasing sexual anarchy in which we live is a fruit of the sexual revolution of the 1960’s, and the seeds of sexual anarchy were sown already by Alfred Kinsey in the late 1940’s, as Prof. Judith Reisman has tirelessly documented. And it was Kinsey, after all, who relied on the research of pedophiles to document the sexual responses of infants and children.

All this, to be sure, is utterly unspeakable. But it should certainly come as no surprise. In fact, we should expect this and more.

Bad Reporting, Bias, or Both at the Charlotte Observer

August 30, 2011

The Charlotte Observer’s coverage of the August 27th gay pride event, Pride Charlotte, held this year in the heart of Charlotte’s business district, was marked by significant omissions and misrepresentations, along with some (surely unintended) irony.

First, the irony. There were two articles related to Pride Charlotte, the primary article noting that, “Saturday’s event was the first to be held in such a prominent area, a move organizers said was made to promote acceptance.” This push to promote acceptance was confirmed by Pride Charlotte spokesman Matt Comer: “We are just as valid a community group as any other.”

Ironically, these two comments immediately followed these lines: “At the Wells Fargo Plaza, drag queens lip-synced to pop music for a cheering crowd. One in a hot pink wig and matching knee-high boots danced to Katy Perry’s ‘California Girls.’” Say what?

How many other community groups feature prominent performances by drag queens at their events? Can you imagine crowds at an Hispanic Pride event, or Black Pride event, or Asian Pride event – just to name a few – being entertained by men wearing dresses (or less), with hot pink wigs and matching knee-high boots? And this is part of the LGBT strategy “to promote acceptance”? And how telling that, unmentioned by the Observer, there was a large truck stationed next to the festival offering “Free HIV Testing.” Yes, just another, typical, community event.

But the Observer’s reporting not only highlighted the irony of the day. It also presented a very misleading picture. The main article noted that, “several people holding Bibles and wearing shirts that said ‘Repent or Perish’ stood at intersections and shouted scripture to those passing by. A few festivalgoers stopped to argue with them, but most walked by as the preachers’ shouts were drowned out by music.” This was true, but there was another side to the story, left out entirely by the Observer.

There were other Christians at Pride Charlotte too, and they were really quite hard to miss. I’m speaking of the participants of the God Has a Better Way outreach rally which drew together more than 400 evangelical Christians from numerous local churches, all wearing red-shirts emblazoned with the “God Has a Better Way” message.

So significant was their presence in the early afternoon that one gay attendee was overheard commenting to a friend, “There are more straights here than gays!” In fact, at one point it appeared that there were more people of color wearing the red tee-shirts than there were gay, black attendees. Isn’t this worth reporting? It certainly gives a very different impression of what actually happened at the event.

The God Has a Better Way participants walked through the festival, handing out multiplied hundreds of free bottles of water (labeled, “Jesus Loves You”) along with several thousand gospel tracts and invitations to an evening concert. And prior to receiving their red tee-shirts, each signed this pledge: “1) I will speak the truth in love. 2) I will seek to befriend those who oppose me. 3) I will seek to overcome bad attitudes with good attitudes. 4) I will seek to be a living example of Jesus. 5) I will not compromise biblical standards or convictions. 6) I will not violate the law.” (Full disclosure: This is part of a pledge I authored in 2006, and the event organizers, of whom I was one, gladly adopted it this year.) All this, however, was completely overlooked by the Observer, despite the fact that they were sent a press release about our planned activity before the event, a press release that was picked up and posted online by some national news outlets.

But the coverage gets worse. A second Pride Charlotte article reported the arrest of a local Christian leader for violation of the city’s sound ordinance (the article informs us that the violation occurred when he raised his voice while preaching on the wrath of God). And the article stated that there were “dozens of protesters like [him.]. Many wore red shirts that said ‘Repent or Perish.’” This is patently false.

There were hundreds of red-shirted Christians, not dozens, and their message was “God Has a Better Way” rather than “Repent or Perish.” (The issue is not whether Christians should preach “repent or perish.” The issue is accurate reporting.) How could this be missed?

So, one article simply ignores the presence of hundreds of Christians who engaged in random acts of kindness, while the other article drastically reduces their numbers and completely changes their message. Is this meant to be serious reporting from a serious newspaper?

To be sure, the Observer did mention one Christian group in a positive light, noting that, “Several churches came to hand out information about their places of worship. ‘We’re open and receptive,’ John Houghton said of his church, the Unitarian Universalist Church of Charlotte” – in apparent contrast with the other, bigoted Christians.

The lessons, then, are clear: Preach hellfire and brimstone at a gay pride event and the Observer will surely notice you. Affirm homosexuality in Jesus’ name and the Observer will surely laud you. Break with the stereotype, by the hundreds, and the Observer will surely ignore or misrepresent you. Perform as a drag queen and the Observer will surely celebrate you.

But we shouldn’t be too surprised. In 2007, at the annual Carolina’s fund-raising dinner for the Human Rights Campaign (more aptly called the Homosexual Rights Campaign), the Observer boasted that it had featured 187 gay-themed stories the previous year. They can now add these two recent stories to their list. They have certainly done themselves “proud.”

CNN, the Seminary Grad, and Errors Galore

September 1, 2011

Jonathan Dudley’s June 21 article on CNN’s Belief Blog, “Bible condemns a lot, so why focus on homosexuality?” has received over 6,000 comments along more than 31,000 Facebook recommendations. Unfortunately, the author has seriously misled his reading audience.

Dudley explains that as a result of his seminary studies at Princeton, he cast off the evangelical faith of his youth, including the idea that the Bible clearly condemned homosexuality. He now claims that his “childhood community’s approach to gay rights—though well intentioned—is riddled with self-serving double standards.” And he exhorts his readers: “So let’s stop the charade and be honest. Opponents of gay marriage aren’t defending the Bible’s values. They’re using the Bible to defend their own.”

Self-serving double standards? A charade? Could it be that Dudley still has something to learn? Could it be that, had he attended another seminary and studied with other scholars, he would have come to different conclusions? At the least, could it be that there is simply another side to the story?

Dudley’s views were influenced by Yale New Testament professor Dale B. Martin (whom Dudley failed to point out is openly gay and well-known for his gay-leaning interpretations), according to whom “today’s ‘pro-family’ activism . . . would have been considered ‘heresy’ for most of the church’s history.” Heresy? Really?

Dudley admits that the Apostle Paul felt that “male-male intercourse” was a sin (for the record, Paul said the same things about female-female relations), but he now believes that Paul was mistaken, meaning that Dudley has not only cast off the faith of his youth but also the faith of Paul. He claims that, Romans 1 is “the only passage in the Bible where a reason is explicitly given for opposing same-sex relations,” and in the chapter, Paul calls them ‘unnatural.’”

In point of fact, the Bible gives numerous explicit or implicit reasons why same-sex relations are wrong, including: 1) God created humankind in His image as male and female, and it is only when the two become one that His image is fully revealed; 2) there is a unique complimentarity between a man and a woman, which is why men and women marry; 3) only heterosexuals unions can fulfill the divine command to “be fruitful and multiply”; 4) it is therefore detestable for a man to sexually penetrate another man.

What about saying these actions are “unnatural”? Dudley points out that in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul writes that nature teaches that long hair is degrading for a man but a glory to a woman. Do we uphold this teaching as well?

Actually, Paul never said that a man with long hair would not enter God’s kingdom, whereas he taught that practicing homosexuals would not enter, so one can hardly compare the two issues. Moreover, Paul used very strong language in his condemnation of same-sex practice in Romans 1, speaking of “shameful lusts” and “shameful acts,” among other terms.

With regard to long hair, Paul was most likely addressing the question of women wearing veils in Christian home gatherings, since it was the normal custom for married women to be veiled in public but not at home. Paul taught that they should be veiled when praying or speaking in the home gatherings, reinforcing his point with the analogy of nature, reminding the Corinthians that it is the common, cross-cultural pattern for women to have long hair and men to have short hair, the reverse being viewed as degrading. That’s it. (Although not mentioned by Paul, his argument is underscored by the fact that for men, baldness is common and not particularly devastating, whereas baldness for a woman is highly uncommon and quite devastating.)

Dudley next tackles the issue of celibacy, claiming that “the community opposed to gay marriage has itself revised the Christian tradition in a host of ways. For the first 1500 years of Christianity, for example, marriage was deemed morally inferior to celibacy.”

Again, this is a gross overstatement, if not downright false. 1) The first followers of Jesus were all Jews, among whom marriage was highly prized and celibacy was the rare exception to the rule. 2) The New Testament actually required congregational leaders to be the husband of one wife. 3) Marriage is said to be an earthly picture of a sublime heavenly reality, namely the mystical union of Christ and the Church. 4) It was only over a period of centuries that celibacy became exalted, and at that, primarily for “clergy” (another later concept), while some parts of the Church protested the requirement that priests be celibate. But why quibble over facts?

Dudley’s case is weakened even further when he argues that “the vast majority of Christian theologians and saints throughout history have not believed life begins at conception.” But debates about when life begins (which were largely philosophical, having to do with the nature of the soul) were hardly the issue (not to mention that many prominent, early Church leaders did claim that life began at conception). The real issue is that, for many centuries, the Church was known for its opposition to abortion (and infanticide, which it helped eradicate), beginning with early second-century documents like the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas, which either condemned abortion or equated it with murder. This pattern was continued by the second-third century apologists, numerous church councils, and prominent fourth-fifth century leaders like Basil, Jerome, Augustine, and Chrysostom – just to focus on the first five centuries of Church history. So Dudley has misled his readers yet again.

The only time he is somewhat on target is when he claims that evangelicals have compromised the New Testament’s teaching on divorce. Sadly, there is some truth to this claim, but the solution is not to compromise biblical standards even further by sanctioning homosexual practice but rather to reclaim the high ethical ground of the New Testament when it comes to marriage and divorce.

Perhaps some further study would do Mr. Dudley well, this time in an evangelical seminary?

Must a President Be Smarter Than a Fifth-grader?

September 01, 2011

If a man earned poor grades in college, is he fit to be the next president of the United States?

The recent attacks on the intelligence of Texas Governor Rick Perry included the charge that he was dumb and, more bitingly, was like George W. Bush except without the brains. The release of his college transcripts seemed to confirm these accusations. In fact, Frank James, writing on NPR.org warned, “if you ever enter politics, you may one day think about running for president. And if you do decide to run, your college grades could become an issue, especially if they’re mediocre.”

But do poor college grades demonstrate a lack of intelligence? Or does being “smart” qualify someone to be president? And can you have an excellent academic pedigree and not be a good leader? History has some fascinating lessons to teach us.

There is little doubt that Ronald Reagan was the greatest of our last nine presidents (from Kennedy to Bush), and he is often ranked high among the top presidents of the 20th century. Yet Reagan graduated from the world renowned (sarcasm intended) Eureka College. Try that one out the next time you play trivia. He did not attend grad school and he was often ridiculed as being nothing more than a B-movie actor, yet he won the Cold War and helped revive the American economy.

Harry S. Truman is also viewed in a positive light by historians, yet he was only one of two presidents since 1869 who had no college degree.

Of our first seven presidents, George Washington was also only one of two without a college degree. Did this disqualify him from being one of our greatest leaders, commonly ranked first or second among all presidents? And the man who often takes the top spot on the list ahead of Washington had the least formal education of any of our presidents.

I’m speaking, of course, of Abraham Lincoln, who had roughly one year of formal learning, being otherwise self-taught and working his way through William Blackstone’s famous text in order to become a lawyer. So, our finest president had the least schoolroom education.

Of course, we have had excellent presidents who were also brilliant academically, like the polymath Theodore Roosevelt. (Roosevelt historian Edmund Morris concurs with the statement of H. G. Wells that Roosevelt had “the most vigorous brain in a conspicuously responsible position in the world.” Wells further stated that, “He seems to be echoing with all the thoughts of the time, he has receptivity to the pitch of genius.”) And there was Woodrow Wilson, who earned a Ph.D. in history and political science from John Hopkins.

On the flip side, the recent president most ridiculed for his alleged lack of brains (think “nucular”) was George W. Bush, yet he is the only president who earned an M.B.A., and from Harvard Business School no less, having done his undergraduate studies at Yale. His critics, then, would surely say that a top flight education doesn’t make you “smart,” and yet Bush was smart enough to become the co-owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team, the governor of Texas, and a two-term president of the United States.

But there’s more. You can have a solid education and be brilliant and still have serious ethical and moral flaws, which are certainly major weaknesses for a leader. Richard Nixon earned his law degree from Duke University, yet that didn’t stop him from falling headlong into Watergate. (In the words of James MacGregor Burns, “How can one evaluate such an idiosyncratic president, so brilliant and so morally lacking?”) And does the name William Jefferson Clinton ring a bell? Being an Oxford Rhodes Scholar and graduating with a law degree from Yale simply meant that his academics outpaced his morals.

As for our current leader, Barack Obama, often praised for his intellect (his reference to 57 states notwithstanding), his plummeting approval rates point to the real possibility of him being a one-term president, suggesting that you can be well-educated and “smart” and yet not be a good president.

And, outside the world of politics, let’s not forget the corporate geniuses who dropped out of college, like Bill Gates (Microsoft), Steve Jobs (Apple), Michael Dell (Dell), and Larry Ellison (Oracle), or men like Richard Branson (Virgin), who dropped out of high school, or philanthropist Andrew Carnegie, who dropped out of elementary school.

In sum: 1) You can be well-educated and not “smart”; 2) You can be “smart” and not well educated; 3) You can be lacking in formal education and still be a great leader; 4) You can be well-educated and “smart” but that doesn’t guarantee strong ethics or morality; 5) You can be well-educated and “smart” and not be a good leader.

So, the question we should ask is not, “Is this candidate smart (or dumb)?”, but rather, “Would he (or she) make a good president?” In fact, ask yourself this question: “What are the top five qualities I most value in a president?”

Your answers will be enlightening. Feel free to post them here.

The Most Important Quality You’re Looking for in a President

September 07, 2011

What is the number one quality you are looking for in a president? Reader responses to my last article, Must a President Be Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?, were enlightening.

On the one hand, there were the expected, polar opposite evaluations of President Obama, including these two: “Wise, well-educated, courageous, pragmatic, honest. IOW [in one word], Obama,” in contrast with, “Uninspired, indecisive, inexperienced, unable to learn, unwilling to change, IOW, Barry Soetoro.”

There were also questions regarding the inaccessibility of his school transcripts: “How did the democrats know what George W’s grades were and now Perry’s grades were? Is there some law that says democratic presidents’ grades and all their background are totally private but dems can look up GOP’s grades?” And, “We don’t need to see his grades to know that he never took an economics class.”

In general, however, there was a consensus that good grades in school don’t necessarily predict future success: “Anyone who has been a teacher knows that grades are, at best, an incomplete measure of ability,” since, “Formal education and intelligentsia are totally different issues. . . . The one thing that can be taken to the bank is that judging someone’s ability by academic achievement alone is a BIG mistake.” Accordingly, “Retention of random knowledge is useless if one cannot apply it to new and unique situations.” Or, in more disparaging terms, “Anyone who looks into the drivel taught in most college classrooms isn’t going to spend a lot of time worrying about Rick Perry’s college credentials. The biggest fools in America work as professors at the most elite universities.”

So, if having excellent college grades is not a high priority, what are the most important qualities you are looking for in a president, and which one was at the top of the list?

Patriotism ranked high, but shouldn’t we take for granted that the president of the United States would be a patriot? The answer to that question suggests that many who are unhappy with President Obama feel that in certain ways he is not proud to be an American. And so, “we should pick someone that truly loves America” and adheres “to the credo that the United States is and should always be THE exceptional nation,” someone with “a sincere faith in and love of America and its people.” This person should also have, “An absolutely firm belief in the Founders and the Constitution and First Principles” and an “unwavering respect for and support of The Constitution and the rule of law.”

Another quality that came up frequently was “guts” or, more specifically, “guts under pressure.” This was variously defined as “Willingness to make unpopular decisions because they are the right decisions,” or being “willing and able to made a prompt decision, even when the right decision is the hardest one,” which then requires, “Toughness defined as the ability to withstand the withering criticism of your opponents” when you make those difficult decisions. For women, this quality was called “moxie.”

There was the obvious need for “wisdom,” “common sense,” and “superb judgment,” including the ability “to select and surround oneself with good advisors.” Others thought that being humble was important.

Interestingly, there was little mention of spirituality, and I spotted only one explicit call for the president to be a “born-again Christian.” And, surprisingly, with the economy being in such poor condition, there was little emphasis put on the president having practical business experience. Instead, there was the desire to have as president someone “that believes the free market is the answer to economic problems and the church, family and community have the answers to our moral problems.”

What then was the quality most desired in the president? It was “integrity,” which “covers strong moral values such as honesty, faithfulness, etc.” Directly related to this, the word “character” appeared frequently. Character and integrity are a lot harder to acquire than good grades in school!

One reader commented, “Integrity would be [number] one. . . . I learned from my father a very long [time] ago that a man’s word is his bond, if he cannot be trusted either by his wife or other men, he is not a man.” Another opined, “Integrity is more important than [guts], and seemingly non-existent in Washington.” We need a person, therefore, with “High character and a belief in moral absolutes. . . Someone that people trust. Someone with excellent character. A hard worker who is able to choose other good leaders of great character that surround him.”

So we’re back to square one. If integrity is the most important quality needed for a president (although certainly not the only quality needed), who would you vote for in 2012? That certainly puts a different spin on things.

Did Gay Activism Play a Role in the Murder of Lawrence King?

September 9, 2011

Did homophobia kill 15 year-old Lawrence “Larry” King on February 12, 2008, as gay activists allege, or did gay activism contribute to his death?

Of course, there is only one real killer, Brandon McInerney, just 14 years-old at the time of the shooting. He confessed to killing Larry in cold blood in full view of his classmates. But there are others who are complicit in Larry’s terribly tragic death, and rather than point the finger at a “homophobic” society, they should point it at themselves. I’m speaking, of course, of gay activists, who have made Larry into a martyr for the cause of gay activism when, in reality, he was more a victim of gay activism.

Earlier this month, a mistrial was declared in Larry’s murder trial with the jury hopelessly deadlocked between charges of voluntary manslaughter and murder. In response, Eliza Byard, Executive Director of the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN), commented in part that, “The central facts remain the same: homophobia killed Larry King and destroyed Brandon McInerney’s life.” Not so!

Let’s retrace the story. Larry and Brandon came from unstable backgrounds, with Larry born to a drug-using mother, raised by adoptive parents, and then placed in a foster home. He was prescribed medication for ADHD, and at the age of 12, he was placed on probation for theft and vandalism. Brandon was raised in broken home by his violent, alcoholic father, and his room was lined with Nazi memorabilia.

At the tender age of 10, Larry announced to his friends that he was gay, and by the time he was in middle school (having been left back in first grade), he was openly, flamboyantly gay, sometimes coming to school in high heels and girl’s makeup, occasionally even wearing a dress. And despite his slight frame (he was just over 5 feet tall), he was not shy about his sexuality, often flirting with straight guys, chasing them down the hallway in his stilettos, telling them he loved them, and spreading rumors that he was dating them. According to Brandon’s attorneys, Larry sexually harassed their client, provoking the murder, which under any circumstances, is a totally unjustifiable, horrific and deplorable act.

What does all this have to do with gay activism? And how can I claim that gay activists are complicit in Larry’s death? To start, there are plenty of unstable children in our schools today, just like Larry and Brandon, yet gay activists are encouraging kids to come out at young and younger ages. This is downright irresponsible.

After all, it is gay activists who constantly remind us that LGBT kids are bullied and even beaten up at school. They tell us how dangerous the school environment is for kids who identify as LGBT, and yet at the same time, they praise kids like Larry for coming out at 10. They even want more Gay Straight Alliances in our middle schools, where pre-teens can declare their gay identity to their peers and faculty advisors without their parents’ knowledge. Why? So they can become targets of hatred and potential violence? If our schools really are so “homophobic” and dangerous, why not encourage these kids to keep their sexual orientation to themselves until they’re in a safer environment?

Some of the teachers in Larry’s school, along with his adoptive father, specifically accused former assistant principal Joy Epstein, an open lesbian, of encouraging Larry’s flamboyant behavior in order to promote her “agenda.” If there is any truth to this, it is not just irresponsible, it is reprehensible. (At the least, there is no indication that she discouraged his pushy, sexual behavior.) How could an experienced educator act in such a way, especially with a boy who had such a troubled history? And is it possible that Larry could have benefited from ongoing counseling about his sexuality? Yet gay activists adamantly oppose any form of counseling that does not affirm homosexuality.

What about the other administrators? Why didn’t they prevent Larry from dressing up like a girl when teachers reported to them that it was causing disruption among the students? The official school answer is that California law, passed at the urging of gay activists, prevents discrimination based on gender identity or expression, and so Larry was able to come to school wearing women’s accessories and makeup. Was it fair to push this on Larry’s classmates, themselves young teenagers sorting through their own issues of sexual identity? Was it fair to Larry?

And what is to be said of this memo sent out to the entire eighth grade? “We have a student on campus who has chosen to express his sexuality by wearing make-up. It is his right to do so.” In eighth grade? His “right”? What a travesty! Yet this is a “right” gay activists aggressively fight for, as if this somehow makes our schools “safer” and provides a better learning environment for all the kids. Nonsense.

It is true that Brandon McInerney murdered Larry King in cold blood, but gay activism is complicit in his death.

Are We as Devoted as the 9/11 Terrorists?

September 14, 2011

Were the Islamic terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks crazed fanatics, or were they simply religious men who were deeply devoted to a destructive and deadly cause?

The night before these jihadists committed their ghastly acts, they read a letter written in Arabic giving them their final instructions, including these lines: “Purify your soul from all unclean things. Completely forget something called “this world” [or, “this life”]. The time for play is over and the serious time is upon us. How much time have we wasted in our lives? Shouldn’t we take advantage of these last hours to offer good deeds and obedience?”

In another context, many of us could say “Amen” to these words, but in this context it reminds us of a sad reality: These men were more committed to evil than most of us are committed to good, more serious about their faith (in an unhealthy way) than most of us are about our faith (in healthy way). What would happen if we were as devoted to restoration as they were to destruction, as committed to saving lives as they were to destroying lives?

Mahatma Gandhi once said that, “A reformer has to sail not with the current. Very often he has to go against it even though it may cost him his life.” Yet some of us aren’t willing to stand up for what is right if it might cost us our reputation, let alone our lives. (Our soldiers, of course, are a notable exception to this, as they risk their lives for freedom.)

Perhaps we find it too difficult to compare our commitment to good to the jihadists’ commitment to evil? Then let’s consider something far more mundane. In 2001, after Minnesota Viking’s player Korey Stringer died in practice, NFL star Grant Wistrom commented, “We play a rough game, and none of us in the NFL got this far by being cautious with our bodies. One reason I do what I do is that I’m willing to sacrifice and work when things are hard -- whether I’m hot, hurt or fatigued. I take pride in my ability to plow through discomfort; that’s what makes me a football player.”

So, a football player dies of complications related to heat stroke, and another player explains, “Hey, we didn’t get this far by being cautious with our bodies.” In other words, “It’s possible we might get hurt or even die, but that’s what makes us football players.” And we cheer them for their courage. For what? For a football game! Can we stir ourselves to rise higher? Can we make a determination to swim against the tide, to go against the grain, and to accept discomfort and even hardship for doing what is right and good?

Yale law professor Stephen Carter once wrote, “Along with many African-American theologians, I believe in the tremendous importance of preserving religious communities not only as centers of difference—that is, places where one grasps the meaning of the world as different from what you find in the dominant culture—but even more so as centers of resistance.”

According to Carter, “These centers of resistance do not simply proclaim, ‘We don’t believe what the rest of you believe,’ but say, ‘We are willing and ready to sacrifice, to lose something material for the sake of that difference in which we believe.’” Yet Prof. Carter was not naive. “Indeed,” he explained, “radical transformation will demand a sacrifice. But a fundamental demand for sacrifice will not arise in politics. It will have to arise from the church, which is really the only contemporary, genuine source of resistance to the existing order.”

The church? But of course. That has always been a place for radical commitment to good, as Carter continued, “It is only religion that still has the power, at its best, to encourage sacrifice and resistance.” (I write this as a follower of Jesus. Those of other faiths can stake their claims about being forces of resistance to evil.) But, Carter cautioned, “one should have no illusions. All too many pastors today, black and white, are so worried about filling the seats. Clergy deliver brilliant sermons that preach up to the edge of asking people to do something, and then they will pull back. Some pastors display prophetic leadership and call for sacrifice, but their numbers are small.” Sad but true!

Yes, contemporary American Christianity does a better job of entertaining than inspiring, of promising a happy life rather than calling for a sacrificial life. But it’s not too late to change. In our day, we have seen the tremendous power of total and complete consecration to evil. Isn’t it time to discover the even greater power of total and complete consecration to good?

Why Have Some People Called Me a “Heartless Monster”?

September 15, 2011

When I wrote the article, Did Gay Activism Play a Role in the Murder of Lawrence King, I knew the reaction would be shrill and almost hysterical. I also knew that most of the attacks would not even deal with the substance of the article. Sad to say, but on both counts, I was not disappointed.

Alonzo wrote, “Dr. Michael Brown is truly a heartless monster!” Similarly, Brandon said, “You, sir, are a monster. . . . It is a shame that you cannot be the victims as well as the perpetrators: that would save the rest of us a lot of grief and despair.” Dave stated, “You are an idiot. You are a bigger reason for this type of crime than any gay rights activist. . . . You’re a narrow minded, ignorant bigot.” (I took the liberty to correct any typos in the comments cited.)

According to Jari, “The level of sheer satanic evil demonstrated in this ‘article’ is mind boggling. If there is someone contributing to anti-gay violence, suicides of gay teens and yes, murder of this poor kid it is people like Dr. Brown and their message of hatred and venom.” Similarly, Denise claimed, “Yeah, Dr. Michael Brown is an activist . . . actively encouraging and supporting the murder of children,” while Jonathan wrote, “What a worthless stain on humanity you are.”

Over at the GoodAsYou.org website, Jeremy could only find one word to describe the article, namely, “Monstrous,” while Chrislove at Daily Kos referred to me as a “viciously anti-gay personality,” encouraging readers to continue reading only if they had the stomach. Brent commented, “I have no words for this evil article,” and Veda seconded with, “Evil and disgusting.”

Limelight asked, “Who Is the Greater Monster? Mr. Brown, or young Mr. McInerney [the murderer of Larry King]?” According to Steven, “Michael Brown is one sick . . . oh, h-ll, there aren’t enough expletives in the world to describe what he is.” Finally, David wrote, “You should be ashamed of yourself. I’m sure the young people in your family are ashamed of you already.” (Note to David. Quite the opposite!)

What did I write that caused such outrage? It was that gay activism was complicit in the senseless murder of Lawrence (“Larry”) King. This, apparently, was more than many people could bear to hear.

JUSTIFYING THE MURDER?

Some commenters claimed that I said Larry’s killing was justified or that I was defending his killer. God forbid! To the contrary (and all in the space of less than 850 words), I stated that “under any circumstances” this was “a totally unjustifiable, horrific and deplorable act,” speaking of Larry’s “terribly tragic death,” twice referring it to as being carried out in “cold blood,” four times referring to it as “murder” (including in the title of the article), and stating at the outset, “Of course, there is only one real killer, Brandon McInerney.”

In spite of this, Ezra wrote, “The kid is gay and therefore must be punished? He ‘flaunted’ his sexuality and therefore must be stoned to death? He ‘flirted’ with other boys and therefore must be shot down in cold blood?” Coming from another angle, Scott stated, “Notice how Dr. Michael Brown says he is a Jew [this is printed in my bio at the OneNewsNow website], but is defending an anti-gay bigot who bedecked his bedroom with Nazi symbols.”

Could someone please go back to the article and tell me where I wrote a single syllable in defense of the murderer or in justification of the murder?

Yet Derek went even further, claiming that I am “someone who had to twist himself into a knot to avoid explicitly saying, ‘I think it’s a good thing that boy murdered that gay kid.’”

I guess calling Larry’s murder “a totally unjustifiable, horrific and deplorable act” and describing his death as “terribly tragic” was not clear enough.

BLAMING THE VICTIM?

A constant refrain was that I was blaming the victim. Willa wrote, “The spinelessness of this article is typical of the ‘blame the victim’ approach,” while the Daily Kos article was entitled, “Larry King, the Anti-Gay Right, and Blaming the Victim: Or, ‘Murder is Wrong, But...’”

James stated, “It’s time for you bigots out there to take responsibility and stop blaming the victim,” and Craig exclaimed, “Oh good GRIEF! This idiot is blaming King as if he were the female in a rape case. ‘She ASKED for it!’” Ezra commented, “I say good show! Let’s keep blaming the victims for being victimized!,” while Ian wrote, “Talk about taking blame the victim to an extreme . . . .” And Jeff said, “Next Brown will be blaming rape on women.”

Remarkably, not only did I not blame Larry in the article, but I specifically referred to him as a victim, stating that “gay activists . . . have made Larry into a martyr for the cause of gay activism when, in reality, he was more a victim of gay activism.”

When you call someone a victim, you are not blaming them! And when I spoke of his troubled upbringing, that was not to demonize him but rather to create sympathy for him.

Later in the article, I also asked if it was “fair to Larry” for school administrators not to step in when teachers reported that his dress and behavior were causing disruption among the students. My whole point is that the school should have been addressing this situation if they saw problems, for his sake and for the sake of the other students.

IT’S ALWAYS HOMOPHOBIA!

While there was outrage over my argument that gay activism played a role in Larry’s murder – something that others have argued, including Larry’s adoptive father – none of the critics had any problem with GLSEN’s contention that “homophobia killed Larry King and destroyed Brandon McInerney’s life.” Instead, my article was described as “religious based, homophobic nonsense,” while Zachary simply stated, “I can’t stand homophobic people.” Brittany posted, ‘This guy is clearly a deluded homophobe,” Trevor said, “I don’t think I have ever read a more clear cut case of homophobia,” and Ian even wrote, “Wow, reading this article made my head hurt. So the killer’s homophobia did not contribute to the victim’s death it was actually the victim’s homosexuality that caused these horrible events.”

Let’s sort this out. I trust we all agree that cold-blooded murder is cold-blooded murder and that Larry’s killing was “a totally unjustifiable, horrific and deplorable act.” It is also my view that, if Brandon had even punched Larry in the face (rather than shot him twice in the back of the head!) that too would have been unjustifiable. If you are being taunted or sexually harassed, it’s best to simply walk away and, if needed and possible, report the matter to your authorities.

But is it “homophobic” if a straight teenager is upset when a gay teenager openly flirts with him or tells others that they are dating or chases him down the hallway while wearing high-heels and make-up? (There are different reports about how much of this happened between Larry and Brandon, but again, Larry’s adoptive father believes that Larry did sexually harass Brandon, while that was one of the factors that contributed to 7 jurors voting for voluntary manslaughter rather than first or second degree murder.) The politically correct view seems to be that straight guys are now required to be indifferent to gay male flirting (or even harassment), otherwise they are “homophobic.” Talk about overusing an already overused word!

Brandon was obviously a tragically violent, troubled teenager, and and for all I know, he was someone who hated gays. He might have been a classic example of a “homophobe.” But that doesn’t mean it is homophobic for a straight guy to have a problem with a gay guy’s sexual interests in him or romantic flirtations with him. The problem – the horrific, deadly problem – was Brandon’s reaction.

FLAUNTING GAY SEXUALITY IS EQUIVALENT TO SKIN COLOR

There was a common line of thinking among the critical comments that went like this: A) Larry’s behavior and actions were perfectly fine and unobjectionable since it was part of his gay identity. B) Being gay is something you’re born with and you can’t change, just like being black. C) Therefore, Larry’s murder was no different than the lynching of a black man.

In keeping with this, Jimbo wrote, “I suppose, with this logic we should blame the black man for flaunting his color before his lynching,” while Stephanie argued, “It’s like saying, ‘Well why didn’t we keep segregation laws in place, because a lot of black people got hanged in response to desegregated school, we should have just kept things status quo so there were no problems.’”

Jonathan had a more clever approach, commenting, “Breaking: football coach blames anti-intellectual bullying on MENSA activists.” (Question for Jonathan: Are you saying that a teenaged boy wearing women’s accessories and make-up and taunting straight boys is similar to being a Mensa-level genius?”)

Bernard also had a clever, sarcastic post: “This guy’s absolutely right. I know that growing up as a Jewish kid in Arlington, Virginia, then headquarters of the American Nazi Party, I was lucky to have parents who always warned me never to disclose my Jewish affiliation to anyone. Really, what business was it of theirs? If I missed a high-holiday service here and there, played softball on Saturdays, brought ham sandwiches to school--it was a small price to pay to ensure that I didn’t make anyone so uncomfortable that they felt inspired to beat me, burn a cross on my lawn, or break my windows. I never forgot that I lived in a majority-Christian country, and that therefore, any hatred anyone showed me was just a confirmation of their basic values, and any toleration they displayed just a demonstration of their ultimate superiority. In fact, I’m happy to say I had the smarts, even at that young age, occasionally to kick a Jew in the face a few times myself--just to throw the Nazis off the scent. I’ll never understand why minorities are so resistant to a little common sense. Why can’t we just go along with the crowd?”

But once again, they’re missing the point. First, just to remind us of the facts, there is no conclusive proof (quite an understatement) that anyone is born gay, while there is ample proof, scientific and anecdotal, that some homosexuals become heterosexual. So, being gay is not innate and immutable, and gay is not the new black, contrary to popular opinion. And how can romantic attraction and sexual behavior be equated with skin color? Second, and more importantly, there were three main issues here, Larry’s disruptive behavior (which was certainly his choice), the school’s failure to take action, and the irresponsibility of gay activists.

To carry out the analogies here, the situation we’re discussing would have been the equivalent of Jewish parents encouraging their kids in a Nazi school district in Germany to come out boldly as Jews and to chase Nazi kids down the hallways while wearing large Stars of David. Would anyone question for a moment that the parent’s encouragement would have been totally irresponsible? (To be clear, I am not comparing being Jewish to being gay, nor am I comparing wearing a Star of David to sexually harassing someone, nor am I comparing our schools to Nazi school districts. I’m simply carrying out the analogy.)

It’s one thing, say, for a black man to decide he wants to expose racism by sitting at an all-white lunch counter, knowing that he might risk his life. It’s another thing entirely for black parents to tell their kids to go play basketball in a white supremacist neighborhood, wearing “Black is beautiful” tee-shirts. That too would be terribly irresponsible, and yet that’s similar to what some gay activists do, encouraging kids to come out in their schools while at the same time telling us how dangerous the schools are. (To be clear again, I am not comparing being black to being gay, nor am I comparing wearing a “Black is beautiful” tee-shirt to sexually harassing someone, nor am I comparing our schools to white supremacist neighborhoods. Again, I’m simply carrying out the analogy.)

Scott opined, “Dr. Michael Brown is making the same argument people make when they say that a girl was asking to get raped because she was wearing a mini-skirt.” Actually, my argument would be this: “If parents were telling us that the schools were not safe for suggestively dressed girls, then they shouldn’t be encouraging their daughters to wear mini-skirts.” And no one said that Larry was asking to get killed! In fact, that’s one of the issues I have with making him into a gay martyr. We can safely assume that the last thing he wanted was to be murdered and that he never thought to himself, “My behavior might get be killed, but that’s a price I’m willing to pay.”

Not only, however, were these points not grasped, but extreme comparisons were made, like this one, by David S.: “I want you hypocritical ‘Christians’ to imagine the roles were reversed. Instead of Larry being Gay, he was Christian. Instead of trying to kiss the boys, he was trying to minister to the boys. And instead of being MURDERED for his homosexuality, he was MURDERED for his Christianity. The Christian community would be furious about his death. And believe it or not, so would I. I’m furious over the bigotry and hatred this nation has bred, whether it be from the LGBT community or from the Christian community. I’m not bashing all Christians, just the ones who can’t see past the spine of their Bible long enough to realize what they are saying and what they are doing!”

While I certainly appreciate (and resonate with) his renunciation of all bigotry and hatred, wherever it is found, can anyone seriously compare a Christian boy trying to minister to other boys to a gay kid (or straight kid) sexually harassing other kids?

Finally, Dirk (who is obviously gay) wrote, “And none of us have ever ‘encouraged’ young LGBT kids to come out ‘earlier and earlier’. That monstrous lie comes from Brown’s need to paint all of us as pedophiles – it is absolutely untrue, and just an attempt on their part to get more people to hate us.”

Dirk, may I ask what rock you’ve been living under? From GSA’s (Gay Straight Alliances) in middle schools to GLSEN’s (the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Educational Network’s) school curricula, and from younger and younger openly gay characters on TV to the fact that kids are coming out at younger and younger ages – you’ve got to be kidding me. This is anything but a “monstrous lie.” As for “pedophiles,” who in the world brought that up in this context? And what does encouraging a young person to “come out” have to do with pedophilia?

This is just a sampling of some of the negative feedback to my article, but enough has been said to make clear that, with rare exception, these posts represent reactions more than responses, barely even touching on what the article was actually about. What then was the purpose of writing this controversial article?

* * *

It seems that every week, we hear another tragic story about an LGBT teen committing suicide, and anyone with a beating heart should be troubled over these reports. (Note to my critics: Despite your perceptions and accusations, my heart beats strongly, and I too have agonized over these young lives cut short. I believe, however, that the best approach to bullying, which occurs for a multitude of reasons, is to teach how wrong bullying is, rather than teaching that gay – or, say, obesity, which is another major cause of bullying – is good.)

The story of Larry King is, in a way, more tragic still, since he was the victim of a brutal shooting in what should have been the safety of a classroom. But gay activists have made a serious error in making Larry into a gay martyr (Newsweek even referred to Larry’s murder as 000), and that is one reason I wrote the article, knowing full well that it would produce such ugly reactions.

In the months before Rosa Parks became a national symbol for the civil rights movement, there were other black Americans who stood up to oppressive white racism. One of them was a younger woman who also said enough is enough and took her stand, but when it was learned that she was pregnant out of wedlock, civil rights leaders immediately realized that she would not be a good poster girl for a national movement. In fact, she might have even played into the negative stereotype of white prejudices.

Yet gay activism is so committed to the mantra of, “This is who we are, we have the right to express ourselves however we desire, and we are always the innocent victims,” that it drew the completely wrong conclusions from Larry’s cowardly killing. This should have been a time for introspection, for asking whether, by wanting to protect Larry’s “civil rights” (this term actually came up in school discussion about his behavior), “pro-gay” administrators neglected the needs of the other students. (Remember that other kids, who did not lift a finger against Larry, were also troubled by his dress and behavior.)

In fact, gay activists have also been irresponsible by pressing whole schools to revolve around the needs of a transgender-identified child who is allowed to use the bathroom and even locker room of his or her perceived gender. They fail to ask, “Is this fair to the other children? Does the ‘right’ of one, struggling student trump the rights of the other students, many of whom are upset and even traumatized by this? And should they be reprimanded for having an issue with ‘the boy who wears the dress’ or ‘the girl who has a penis’”?

Gay activists should have also asked whether they were acting in Larry’s best interests. After all, much of his behavior was not typical for gay teens (in fact, many believe that he was actually “transgender,” which further underscores the fact that he was trying to understand his own “sexual identity”), and he could have gotten along fine while using a little more restraint. But as long as gay activists remind us about gay suicides and the “unsafe” nature of many of our schools, they need to be more wise in their counsel to kids about “coming out.” (I’m not addressing the larger question of whether kids should stay “in the closet” and wait until they’re older and are more certain about their sexuality, or come out and explore their sexuality at the youngest possible ages, or do everything in their power to overcome same-sex attraction. I’m simply saying that, by their own admission, schools are not always “safe” places for kids to “come out.”)

The bottom line is that Larry’s murder should have prompted some soul-searching among gay activists. At the least, they should have said, “We should be more careful.” Instead they said, “We have another martyr.” And that is a real shame.

The Man Who Married the Goat

(And Reflections on the Meaning of Marriage)

September 19, 2011

A few days ago, I received an email from a friend entitled “Interesting Marriages,” containing four links.

The first link told the 2007 story of a Sudanese man who was caught copulating with a goat. Since the Sudanese tribal custom requires that a man must marry a woman whom he sexually violated (in order to preserve her family’s honor), the village leaders decided to publicly embarrass the man who had violated the goat, forcing him to pay a dowry to the goat’s owner before “marrying” the goat. The story, which was first reported in a light-hearted way on the website of a British newspaper, drew worldwide attention, as did the subsequent report that the man was left a widower when the goat died after choking on some plastic it had swallowed.

The second link, from the Jakarta Globe in 2010, gave the unfortunate account of a young Balinese man who was caught copulating with a cow (but only, he explained, after the cow, which he believed to be a young, beautiful woman, had flirted with him). He was then forced to participate in a public marriage ceremony with the cow, during which he passed out. After the ceremony, the cow was drowned in the ocean, as were the young man’s clothes, in a purification ritual.

The third link, dating to 2005, was entitled, “Charmed woman marries cobra in India,” the story reporting that, “A woman who fell in love with a snake has reportedly married the reptile at a traditional Hindu wedding celebrated by 2,000 guests in India’s Orissa state.” The woman, who was 30 years old, explained, “Though snakes cannot speak nor understand, we communicate in a peculiar way.”

The fourth link, from 2008, was perhaps the most bizarre of all, telling the story of a German woman who had been married to the Berlin Wall for 29 years. The woman, then 54, and whose “surname means Berlin Wall in German, wed the concrete structure in 1979 after being diagnosed with a condition called Objectum-Sexuality.”

Aside from the tragicomic nature of these stories, what they all have in common is that none of these unions were, in any sense of the word, “marriages,” despite the rituals and ceremonies performed. Marriage, we all know, is between human beings, not between a human being and an animal or reptile (or wall!).

But is marriage simply the union of two human beings or is it specifically the union of a man and a woman? If the latter, then the union of two men or two women is no more a “marriage” then is the union of a man and an animal, reptile, wall, or whatever, regardless of how much the two human parties love each other. In fact, there are conservatives who have asked, “If a woman can marry a woman, why can’t she marry her dog (or, horse, or plant, etc.)?” There is even a gay activist, watchdog website called BoxTurtleBulletin, deriving its name from remarks prepared for Senator John Corwyn in 2004 (although never spoken by him): “It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box turtle. But that does not mean it is right.”

While Senator Corwyn did well by not delivering these remarks, the very real question of the definition of marriage remains, especially in places like my current home state of North Carolina, where, for the first time, the people will be allowed to vote on a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and woman. Simply stated, if marriage is the union of two people, then same-sex couples have as much right to marry as do opposite-sex couples. But if marriage is the union of a man and a woman, then same-sex couples no more have the right to “marry” than do the aforementioned human and goat (although there is, quite obviously, no comparison between the two situations).

These, then, are some of the questions that must be answered in the current debate. First, what is marriage? Conservatives would point out that, with virtually no exception until recently, marriage has always been the union of a man and woman, not simply the union of two people.

Second, why should marriage consist of only two parties? Supporters of natural, organic marriage argue that marriage consists of only two people because of the uniqueness of the male-female union. Otherwise, what’s so important about the number two? Why not more?

Third, since most Americans agree that government should have limited involvement in the lives of its citizens, why is the state involved in the issue of marriage? Opponents of same-sex marriage point out that the state conveys benefits on marriage because marriage conveys benefits on the state, namely, the possibility of procreation along with the ability to join a child to its mother and father.

For the next seven months in North Carolina, leading up to the May 2012 vote, the debate will be raging.

When a Gay Jewish Liberal Tries to Redefine Christianity

September 28, 2011

Wayne Besen is a passionate gay activist and non-religious, liberal Jew who has dedicated himself to opposing the idea that homosexuals can become heterosexual. To that end, he founded the Truth Wins Out organization, and he writes extensively on the subject of “ex-gays,” with a monograph, hundreds of posts, and articles for the Huffington Post to his credit. (As to the question of “ex-gays,” see Chapter Twelve of my book A Queer Thing Happened to America.) Wayne has also appeared on O’Reilly and other TV shows, and he is never at a loss for words, especially when it comes to the “religious right.” In that spirit, he has graced me with several articles, including the not so subtly-titled, Michael Brown Is an Anti-Gay Monster (August 31, 2011).

In that article, Wayne claims that my “game is to try inciting followers to possible violence against LGBT people, while innocently maintaining that he loves homosexuals and simply wants them to meet his militant and perverted version of God.” He calls me “a slick dude,” a “sick and cynical” person, someone with “a messiah complex [who] is a diabolical individual who aims to manipulate impressionable followers to launch some sort of holy war,” noting however, that, I’m “too much of a coward to start the war” myself.

He even confesses, “I do strongly believe to my core that Brown’s ultimate goal is to create the conditions for a nasty physical clash.” Indeed, “The madman fully understands that he only has to create a hostile climate to inflame the most unstable of his thugs and they will eventually provoke the type of confrontation that this pathological monster deeply desires.”

God bless dear Wayne! He certainly has a way with words. After all, it’s not every day that you get called a pathological monster, a slick, sick, cynical, diabolical madman with a messiah complex, as well as get accused of trying to incite a bunch of unstable thugs “to engage in a violent physical clash with LGBT people.” (For what I actually advocate, namely, a totally non-violent, moral, cultural, and spiritual revolution, click here.)

Wayne even weighs in again in his own comments section, calling me an “ego-maniac,” while other commenters follow in his footsteps with sophisticated posts like these: “I would not be surprised if ‘Mein Kampf’ were to be found on his nightstand.” (This was followed by other comments too vulgar to print.) What a delightful, thoughtful bunch!

But I am only one of Wayne’s targets. In his most recent attack, Mainstream Christians Must Stand Up to the Religious Right (September 19, 2011), he reviles the hundreds of Christians with whom I attended the recent gay pride event in Charlotte, claiming that we “confronted and harassed festival attendees with [our] arrogant slogan ‘God Has A Better Way.’” He refers to us as “despicable bullies” and speaks of our “fanatical behavior,” although, for the record, our group of roughly 400 consisted of grandparents, moms, dads, kids, and college-age singles who handed out about 2,500 free bottles of water (labeled “Jesus Loves You”) and engaged in civil and respectful conversation with any who cared to talk with us. Oh, the horror!

All this, however, is the backdrop for Wayne’s heartfelt appeal. He is desperately concerned that religious “extremists” like me, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, and Michelle Bachman will “defile America – and permanently define Christianity.” Instead, Wayne wants the “Religious Left” to rise up and show America what Christianity really is. He writes, “It is time to stand up, speak out, and give voice to our values. If not now, when? Are we going to wait until it is too late and we have lost our country?”

The problem, of course, is that the “Religious Left” has rejected most of the fundamental tenets of the historic Christian faith, denying the authority of Scripture, espousing religious pluralism, defending abortion, and championing homosexuality. Could this be why these so-called “mainstream” churches are in such numerical decline while conservative churches are growing exponentially in many parts of the world? And could it be that the conspicuous lack of moral and spiritual absolutes in many of these “mainstream” churches is part of what fails to inspire their constituents?

Wayne himself is not optimistic about the prospects, writing, “This reluctance to stand up and speak out has created a hazardous vacuum where only the shrill and unreasonable voices of fundamentalism are heard. Instead of the dialogue that many progressives of faith claim to desire, this perceived weakness creates a lopsided right wing monologue, which is having a deleterious effect on our nation and the world.”

The reality, of course, is that the “Christianity” Wayne calls for bears little resemblance to the faith of the Scriptures or the faith of history, but that should not surprise us. After all, what else should we expect when a non-religious, gay Jewish liberal tries to redefine Christianity?

Don’t Put Your Trust in a Political Savior

September 29, 2011

It was November, 1976, and I was very excited by the election results. Our new president was a “born-again Christian”! Having become born-again myself at the age of 16 late in 1971, this was the first election where the religious beliefs of a candidate really caught my attention, and Jimmy Carter’s open Christian faith helped put the born-again term on the national map. Four years later, he was (quite literally) swept out of office by Ronald Reagan, the darling of the religious right.

Rev. Jerry Falwell, leader of the Moral Majority, which was founded in 1979, had famously declared, “We have a threefold primary responsibility. Number one, get people saved. Number two, get them baptized. Number three, get them registered to vote.” And although Reagan was not known as a deeply religious man, he was a strong conservative and a consistent opponent of abortion.

As one report observed, “For the Moral Majority, Ronald Reagan was a modern-day prophet whose rhetoric on family values, school choice, muscular patriotism and personal morality echoed their own view. Both Reagan and the Moral Majority saw American culture as a cesspool filled with sludge by ‘60s-era hippies, immoral Hollywood directors, civil-rights radicals, abortion-loving feminists, the media and liberals.”

Eight years later, despite the many good intentions of the Moral Majority, despite the clear voice Reagan provided on a number of important moral issues (including abortion), and despite some of the very positive things Reagan accomplished (nationally and internationally), America was still stuck in a deep moral quagmire and the abortion industry continued almost unabated. In fact, according to the Alan Gutmacher Institute, there were at least 1.5 million abortions every year from 1980-1988, the years of the Reagan presidency, showing increase rather than decrease.

Of course, religious conservatives are not the only ones who have looked for a political savior. Need I mention our current president, he of the Greek pillars at the Democratic National Convention, treated like a rock star and hailed as “the one,” as if a quasi-Messianic figure? And need I mention the extreme hostility expressed towards President George W. Bush in the last years of his second term by those looking for “hope and change”? Now the Tea Party has risen up, angered over what they perceive is happening to America, grieved over what they claim is a systematic seizing of our liberties, and determined to see radical change come to our nation.

Not surprisingly, many Tea Party members, along with many other Republicans, are people of conservative Christian faith, and most of the Republican candidates campaigning for the presidency are known for their strong (and, it appears, genuine) faith. There is Rick Perry, who called for a prayer convocation attended by 30,000 before announcing his presidential bid. There is Michelle Bachman, who will now be joined on the campaign trail by her “personal pastor,” Mac Hammond. There is Herman Cain, who was recently quoted by the Christian Post as saying, “My faith plays a very big part in all the decisions that I make. . . . I’ve been involved with the church since I was young.” And always looming in the background is Sarah Palin, baptized in a lake in Alaska after getting saved at the age of 12. Perhaps one of these individuals will be our next political savior? Perhaps one of them will ascend to the presidency and bring about dramatic, national changes?

I would suggest we take a more pragmatic approach and not set ourselves up for disappointment yet again. First, the American political system is both complicated and convoluted, totally different than, say, ancient Israel where the right king could bring about national transformation, especially over the course of his lifelong reign. Here we have two major parties (at least), often at war with each other, often fighting for what is politically expedient rather than what is best for the country, sometimes internally divided as well. And then there is the ever-present “good old boy” syndrome, with its coalitions and deals and favors. We would be naïve to think that one charmed leader will be able to overcome all this in the short period of time he or she serves as president.

Second, America is a nation of more than 300 million people, and much of the change we need must be grassroots change, from the bottom up more than from the top down. In fact, it is hypocritical to criticize big government and its overreaching arm while at the same time looking to government to save us. Third, our presidents are not superheroes, and once we get past the political panegyric, we are reminded of their humanity.

We would do well, then, to remember the Paul’s exhortation to pray for our leaders (1 Tim 2:1-4), to vote or campaign for those we believe are best suited for the job (even with conviction and passion) without simplistically thinking that the next person we elect will somehow save our nation.

Can we hope for positive change? Absolutely. Can we expect national transformation? That will come from the nation (ultimately as people turn to the Lord) not just from the president.

The Girl Who Thought She Was a Werewolf Vampire

October 03, 2011

How would you respond to these three different scenarios?

Scenario #1: A troubled teenage girl says to you, “Since I was like, 12 . . . I know this is going to be crazy, but I believe that I’m a vampire. Part of a vampire and part of a werewolf.” What would you say to her? Probably something like: “Vampires and werewolves do not exist.”

In case she didn’t realize, you would also tell her that the Twilight books are novels and HBO’s True Blood is not a reality TV show. (Unfortunately, the story here is all too real. This vampire-werewolf confession was made by 18 year-old Stephanie Pistey in the aftermath of the grisly murder of a 16 year-old boy.)

What if this teenager was diagnosed with clinical lycanthropy, “a mental illness (specifically, a psychiatric syndrome) that involves a strong delusional belief in the afflicted person that they have transformed into an animal, often a wolf.” (This is the definition from Werewolves.com. I kid you not.) You would probably say to her, “You really are delusional and in need of help.”

What if she filed her teeth and drank blood? Your answer would presumably be the same: “You’re a human being, a girl, not a werewolf or a vampire.” I assume we’re in sync?

Scenario #2: A man is convinced that there is something terribly wrong with his body and he wants to amputate one of his limbs. What do you tell him? Perhaps, “I understand you’re tormented by this, but you don’t amputate a perfectly healthy part of your body.”

What if this person was diagnosed with BIID, Body Identity Integrity Disorder? This is a condition that, according to BIID.org, “is commonly manifested by a desire to have an amputation of a specific body part” – and we’re talking about a perfectly healthy limb.

Once again, I assume your answer would be the same: “You have a psychiatric condition, and you should not try to amputate your limb, regardless of what your mind tells you.”

Not surprisingly, in January, 2000, when Scottish surgeon Robert Smith amputated the legs of two healthy men suffering with BIID, there was widespread outrage and his hospital put a stop to his actions before he could accommodate a third patient.

It’s true that the men were reported to be much happier after their surgery, but I imagine we would agree that it would have been far better to deal with their mental condition rather than amputate their limbs.

Scenario #3: A man comes to you and says, “I’m convinced that I’m a woman trapped in a man’s body and I want to have sex-change surgery and go on female hormones for the rest of my life.” What would you say?

Not that long ago, the answer to this question would have been just as simple: “I know that you really believe that you’re a woman, but the fact is you’re a man, biologically and anatomically, and you can’t just change from male to female.”

Today, such an answer is often considered highly insensitive, if not intolerant and bigoted. After all, don’t we know that some people really are born in the wrong body?

Actually, we don’t. As expressed by Dr. Paul McHugh, University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry and chairman of the Johns Hopkins psychiatric department, “We psychiatrists . . . would do better to concentrate on trying to fix their minds and not their genitalia.”

What about people diagnosed with gender dysphoria (or Gender Identity Disorder, GID)? Well, is this markedly different than people diagnosed with BIID?

As expressed by Selwin Duke, “Sure, it strikes us as the most horrid malpractice when a doctor amputates healthy body parts, such as a pair of legs. But, then, should we call it something else just because those healthy body parts are between the legs?” (Note that neurological differences in the brains of transgenders are most likely the result of their gender identity struggles rather than the cause of them.)

So, just as people who identify as transgender are convinced that they are trapped inside the wrong body, people with BIID “see themselves, and have always seen themselves, as amputees” (Dr. Christopher Ryan, a University of Sydney psychiatrist).

The fact is, we know that our minds don’t always tell us the truth, and they are far more malleable than our body. So, if our mind tells us something that biology clearly says is wrong, it’s likely our minds are misleading us. Somehow, this simple observation often escapes the GID debate.

Unfortunately, rather than focusing more of our attention on trying to help transgenders from the inside out, sex-change surgery is now glamorized and gender is viewed as something subjective and malleable. In fact, the Los Angeles Unified School District Reference Guide goes as far as to say, “‘Gender identity’ refers to one’s understanding, interests, outlook, and feelings about whether one is female or male, or both, or neither, regardless of one’s biological sex.”

A biologically normal child who is female, male, both, or neither? Is this much stranger than a girl claiming to be part werewolf and part vampire?

Is It Racist to Criticize Your Own Race?

October 04, 2011

After Herman Cain told Wolf Blitzer that many African Americans have been “brainwashed” into not being open-minded or even considering “a conservative point of view,” he was criticized by Democratic strategist Cornell Belcher on the Anderson Cooper show. (Blitzer had asked Cain why the Republican party was “basically poison” to so many African Americans.)

According to Belcher, who is also black, Cain was guilty of making racist and bigoted comments, and Belcher challenged Republican strategist Ari Fleischer for his failure to speak out against the remarks, asking him what he would have done if Cain had said that “all Jewish people were brainwashed.” (Fleischer, of course, is white and Jewish.)

Aside from the fact that Cain said that “many” African Americans had been brainwashed (as opposed to “all”), both Belcher and Fleischer, along with Anderson Cooper, seemed to miss the whole point: Cain was criticizing his own race, not another race (or religion or ethnicity). Isn’t this the crux of the matter?

That’s certainly the case in the realm of humor, where many ethnic jokes that are considered extremely funny “within the family,” are off limits to those “outside the family.” So, a Jew can tell a Jewish joke that is quite disparaging about his people, and other Jews (and even Gentiles) will find it very funny. But if a Gentile told the same joke, it might not go over well.

It’s also the case with some ethnic terminology. Consider, for example, the volatile “n- word,” which the online Urban Dictionary states is “a term that is racist, as long as the speaker of it is not black.” So, some African Americans might use the word in a casual way with each other, but if a white person used it, they’d be called on the carpet (unless that white person happened to a hip-hop rapper!).

And this brings us back to the subject of criticism. If it can’t come from within the family, where can it come from? If I, as a white American, can’t criticize my fellow white Americans, then who can? And if a black American can’t criticize his fellow black Americans, who can? In order for criticism of your own race to be racist, it would have to cross some very serious lines.

Was candidate Barack Obama racist when he spoke to a black congregation on Father’s Day, June 15, 2008, and said that “too many fathers are missing from too many lives and too many homes”? He continued, “They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.” Was this racist?

Was Dr. Martin Luther King guilty of racism when he said, “The shattering blows on the Negro family have made it fragile, deprived, and often psychopathic”? To be sure, he was criticizing outside forces that had devastated the “Negro family,” but if a white man described a black family in such terms, he would surely have been branded racist. Who but someone like King could have made such remarks?

In August, Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter, an African American, got national headlines for his passionate remarks during a Sunday message to his home congregation. Addressing black youth who had been on the rampage in the city, Nutter said, “You’ve damaged yourself, you’ve damaged another person, you’ve damaged your peers and, quite honestly, you’ve damaged your own race.” Was this racist?

In words quoted across the country, Nutter said to the young people, “Take those God darn hoodies down, especially in the summer. Pull your pants up and buy a belt ‘cause no one wants to see your underwear or the crack of your butt. Nobody.”

To the moms and dads he said, “Parents who neglect their children, who don’t know where they are, who don’t know what they’re doing, who don’t know who they’re hanging out with, you’re going to find yourself spending some quality time with your kids in jail.”

To the fathers in particular he said: “If you’re not providing the guidance, and you’re not sending any money, you’re just a sperm donor.” Did Cornell Belcher criticize Mayor Nutter’s comments as racist? In comparison, Herman Cain’s “brainwashed” comments are pretty mild.

There is actually a book entitled, Brainwashed: Challenging the Myth of Black Inferiority, by Tom Burrell, an African American and a highly successful advertiser. (Note that Burrell completed his book after Mr. Obama became president.) Is Burrell guilty of writing a racist book?

The opening quote in the Brainwashed book is from Malcolm X: “You’ve been misled. You been had. You been took.” Were Malcom X’s comments racist? Obviously not. And neither were Herman Cain’s.

Is Polygamy Worse Than Same-Sex Marriage?

October 10, 2011

Fundamentalist Mormon Joe Darger, along with two of his three wives, recently appeared on O’Reilly to discuss their new book, “Love Times Three: Our True Story of a Polygamous Marriage.”

O’Reilly began the segment by pointing out that opponents of same-sex marriage have always argued that if marriage was redefined to include same-sex unions, other groups would want the same treatment. This is the classic “slippery slope” argument, and despite arguments to the contrary by leading gay thinkers (such as philosophy professor John Corvino), the slide down this slope appears inevitable.

In 2004, polyamory advocate Jasmine Walston stated, “We’re where the gay rights movement was 30 years ago.” Just five years later, Newsweek featured an article entitled, “Polyamory: The Next Sexual Revolution,” stating, “It’s enough to make any monogamist’s head spin. But the traditionalists had better get used to it.” The story reported that, “Researchers are just beginning to study the phenomenon, but the few who do estimate that openly polyamorous families in the United States number more than half a million, with thriving contingents in nearly every major city.”

Without a doubt, it’s a very short leap from polyamory to polygamy, and just as TV shows like Will and Grace helped pave the way for a more gay-affirming society, shows like Big Love and Sister Wives are helping to pave the way for a more polygamy-affirming society.

Not surprisingly, in Canada, where same-sex marriage is legal throughout the country, Monique Pongracic-Speier, an advocate with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, has argued on behalf of polygamists that, “Consenting adults have the right—the Charter protected right—to form the families that they want to form.” If homosexuals can, why can’t polygamists?

The logic really is quite strong: If someone has the “right to marry the person they love,” as gay activists incessantly tell us, why shouldn’t people have the right to marry multiple loving partners?

Following the same logic, when Columbia University professor David Epstein was charged with having a three-year, consensual affair with his adult daughter, his attorney, Matthew Galluzzo, said, “It’s OK for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home. How is this so different? We have to figure out why some behavior is tolerated and some is not.”

As Rush Limbaugh noted, students posting on “the Columbia University student newspaper website [were] mystified as to why it’s illegal: ‘Wait, why is consensual incest a crime? It might not be appealing to everyone, but if they’re adults and they consent, who cares what they do?’ This is a typical comment from a student on the site.”

Attorney Galuzzo, cited in the Huffington Post, went as far as to question whether “prosecuting incest was ‘intellectually consistent’ with the repeal of anti-sodomy laws that resulted from Lawrence v. Texas in 2003.” He even asserted that “what goes on between consenting adults in private should not be legislated” because the bedroom “is not the proper domain of our law.”

And in a well-known case in Germany, the attorney of a brother and sister, separated as children but then reunited as adults and in an incestuous relationship for years, has argued for the repeal of incest laws using arguments similar to those that have been advanced in support of same-sex marriage. Time magazine even asked in 2007, “Should incest be legal?”

The slippery slope argument really is quite compelling, and yet there is a fundamental fallacy which is often overlooked in the contemporary debate. Specifically, it is the fallacy that polygamy is further down the slope than same-sex marriage. Actually, the reverse is true, even if it may not be chronologically true in America.

Simply stated, throughout human history, the essential components of marriage have always been a man and a woman, not merely two people. This means that polygamy represents a less radical redefinition of marriage than does same-sex marriage, since polygamy includes the essential components of male and female.

And, even though the vast majority of Americans are fundamentally opposed to polygamy (for good reason), it has been practiced throughout history and it remains common in many countries today. Polygamy is even found in the Bible, although it is consistently painted in a negative light and the ideal set forth in the Scriptures is the lifelong union of one man and one woman. In short, polygamy is a serious distortion of the divine ideal, whereas same-sex marriage, from a scriptural viewpoint, is a complete perversion of that ideal.

The offshoot of all this is simple: If we don’t have the wisdom and the will to resist the radical, gay redefinition of marriage, we will certainly not be able to resist the movement towards polygamy.

It’s time to wake up, America. We are further down the slippery slope than we realize, and we can’t afford to lose any more ground.

An Outrageous Apology from Canada’s “Conservative” Newspaper

October 13, 2011

On September 24th, the National Post, considered to be one of the most conservative mainstream media outlets in Canada, ran a compelling ad featuring the face of a little girl (perhaps four or five years old) with this caption: “Please! Don’t confuse me.” Beneath her photo the text continued: “I’m a girl. Don’t teach me to question if I’m a boy, transsexual, transgendered, intersexed or two spirited.”

As reported by Thaddeus Balklinski of LifesiteNews.com, the ad, which was sponsored by The Institute for Canadian Values, argued “that the Toronto District School Board’s pro-homosexual curriculum [was] corrupting and confusing children.”

Balklinski reported that the ad pointed to the school board’s “Equity curriculum, called ‘Challenging Homophobia and Heterosexism,’ [which] instructs teachers to encourage boys and girls ‘to play opposite roles.’”

“‘At times boys may play girls and rely on sexist stereotypical behaviour with which they are familiar,’ states the curriculum.”

“The curriculum also encourages teachers to ‘search Images of Pride Week’ and to make posters for the school board float in the Pride Parade. ‘Additionally, students could have their own Pride Parade in their school,’ it says.” Yes, this is part of the Ontario school curriculum.

Six days later, on September 30th, to the shock of many of its readers, the Post apologized “unreservedly” for running the ad. The Post noted that the ad, which had “caused some controversy . . . argued against aspects of the Ontario school curriculum . . . . Specifically, it objected to teaching young children — those between junior kindergarten and Grade 3 — about transsexual/transgender/intersexed/two-spirited issues.”

Are you rubbing your eyes? Checking your glasses? Well, your eyes did not deceive you. These subjects are being taught to kids as young as four, and yet it is the ad, not the curriculum, that is controversial. What planet are we living on? (For those unfamiliar with the “two-spirit” concept, it is found among the native populations of North America, where a person is believed to be both male and female and is often highly venerated rather than rejected.)

Let’s put this in perspective. One father, outraged over the newspaper’s apology (which, you’ll see in a moment, gets much worse), posted this comment: “My daughter just started [Junior Kindergarten] this fall. She is the most beautiful and innocent child imaginable. Friends, parks, chocolate milk, forts, stickers and unicorns - these are the things that occupy her thoughts. She will not stay this way forever - nether should she - but the thought of anyone discussing this material with her at her age, literally rips me apart inside. It is mine and my wife’s role to address these topics with her when the time is right and she has reached an appropriate level of maturity.”

What a picture: From “friends, parks, chocolate milk, forts, stickers and unicorns” to transexuality and gay pride parades. It’s easy to share the father’s indignation.

In its apology, the Post explained that it values free speech and open public debate, even if some readers find some of the points of view to be offensive. And it claimed that the curriculum highlighted in the ad should be part of a public debate. Yet, according to the Post, the ad violated some of its policies and should not have been run.

“Where the ad exceeded the bounds of civil discourse was in its tone and manipulative use of a picture of a young girl; in the suggestion that such teaching ‘corrupts’ children, with everything that such a charge implies; and in its singling out of groups of people with whose sexuality the group disagrees.”

To be sure, the word “corrupts” could have seemed a bit inflammatory to some readers, but that’s not the first point made by the Post. Rather, it is the utterly outrageous reference to the “manipulative use of a picture of a young girl.” Has the Post lost its corporate mind? They are telling us that it is the ad, not the educational curriculum, that is manipulative. What?

It is certainly not manipulative to show a picture of a little girl who is being taught these very things in school. (That is called truth, not manipulation.) But it is totally manipulative to teach these things to a little child, to forbid parents to take their kids out of these classes, and to require all instructors to teach this material.

That is where the problem lies, and that’s where the entire nation should stand up and apologize to these little ones for confusing them at such a tender age. Instead, the Post apologizes for being “manipulative” by showing a picture of a precious little child saying, “Please! Don’t confuse me. I’m a girl. Don’t teach me to question if I’m a boy, transsexual, transgendered, intersexed or two spirited.”

But there’s one last kick in the gut: “The Post will also be donating the proceeds from the advertisement to an organization that promotes the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people.”

Words fail.

The Death of a Gay Activist Pioneer

October 19, 2011

Franklin H. Kameny died on October 11th at the age of 86. Recognized as a founding father in the gay activist movement, he made his mark more than a decade before the Stonewall riots of 1969.

In a strange quirk of history, I got to know him on a more personal level the last seven months of his life, an unexpected development that took place because of my daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire. When the program began to air in his hometown of Washington, DC, in March of this year, he became a regular listener, calling in several times over the months.

The first time we spoke on the air, I told him that I genuinely admired his courage and pioneer spirit but that I categorically rejected his morals, as he was both a gay activist and a radical sexual libertarian. For his part, he was all too pleased to tell me that the God I worshiped was a “sinful, abominable, homophobic bigot who needed to repent.” That’s how our interaction began.

After I sent him a copy of my book A Queer Thing Happened to America (in which he was mentioned in the Introduction), he took up my invitation to be in contact via email, leading to several interesting e-exchanges between us.

When he learned that we both graduated from Queens College in New York (although he preceded me there by more than 30 years), he emailed me with many details about his background, writing, “As two former Queens-ites, I would be delighted to communicate with you on all of this.” I replied in kind.

When he heard me say that I mourned the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (while appreciating the fact that many LGBT’s have served our nation in the military), he wrote to me as a proud veteran of WWII: “We Gay Americans are not going away. We are not going to disappear. We are not going to become invisible or silent. And as gay people we and our homosexuality are going to have full, precise, absolute, unswerving, unyielding equality with you and your heterosexuality in EVERY aspect of societal, cultural, national, and legal functioning, bar NONE. . . .

“Gay IS Good. It IS OUR military equally along with yours.”

I replied (in part): “I know how passionately you feel about these things, I recognize how long you have fought for your ideals, and I understand how much you have sacrificed for your convictions, but I am 100% sure that in the end, God’s gracious and good ways will triumph on the earth -- either in my lifetime or after -- and you will realize that He does, in fact, have a better way than gay.

“I look forward to the day when your message is that GOD is good, not that GAY is good.”

When he heard about our participation in the “God Has a Better Way” outreach at the Pride Charlotte event last August, he took issue with me again: “You will say, at your counter- demonstration tomorrow that ‘God has a better way.’”

“I say: ‘No. You need a better god.’ For us, our homosexuality is THE best way. . . If there be a god at all, then our homosexuality is a divinely-inspired gift and blessing from that true god, to be (as I said above) enjoyed to its fullest exultantly, exuberantly and joyously and that includes sexually. THAT is TRUTH. DO get a better god. Your present one is such a shoddy inept incompetent.”

I wrote back to him that his candid email deserved a candid response, which I closed by saying: “When I read your email, I thought of a man who lived in a beautifully furnished cave and who thought that he was the happiest man alive, enjoying all the wonders and beauties of life.

“One day someone went into his cave and said to him, ‘But you’ve never seen a sunset! You’ve never heard the roar of the ocean waves or felt the water at your feet. You’ve never seen a blue sky or a moonlit sky. Oh, what you are missing!’ But the man in the cave castigated his fellow, assuring him that he was full of judgmentalism and bigotry towards cave-dwellers. [I was not calling gays cave-dwellers; I was illustrating how limited one’s perspective can be without realizing it.]

“I pray you will experience something more wonderful than the glories of nature just described. I pray that you will meet with the love of the heavenly Father.

“Wishing you that sunset and more,

Michael.”

He called the show for the last time one week before he died, wanting to weigh in on a different subject, namely that regardless of ethnicity or color, there is only one race, the human race. He was appreciative of the fact that I recognized his voice and spoke graciously to him.

If we had the opportunity to interact more, I’m quite sure we would have found ourselves passionately divided on many key moral and social issues, but I’m equally sure of this: If there were more people on the side of conservative, biblical values who had the commitment, tenacity, and fearlessness of the late Frank Kameny, the world would be a much better place.

A Fat Pride Revolution

October 24, 2011

I hate to admit it, but somehow, I missed a landmark publication from NYU Press. (This is all the more shameful in light of the fact that I earned my M.A. and Ph.D. from NYU.) The book in question came out in November, 2009, and it marked a watershed moment in fat studies, in particular, the field of women’s fat studies. (I kid you not.)

I’m speaking of The Fat Studies Reader, edited by Esther Rothblum and Sondra Solovay, winner of the 2010 Distinguished Publication Award from the Association for Women in Psychology as well as winner of the 2010 Susan Koppelman Award for the Best Edited Volume in Women’s Studies from the Popular Culture Association.

According to the blurb, “Edited by two leaders in the field, The Fat Studies Reader is an invaluable resource that provides a historical overview of fat studies, an in-depth examination of the movement’s fundamental concerns, and an up-to-date look at its innovative research.”

Perhaps I was not the only one ignorant of the field of “fat studies” or the existence of a “fat pride” movement? But this is meant to be serious stuff, starting with the Foreword by Marilyn Wann: “Fat Studies: An Invitation to Revolution.” A fat pride revolution?

Part 1 of the book is entitled, “What Is Fat Studies? The Social and Historical Construction of Fatness,” containing these two foundation-laying chapters: “The Inner Corset: A Brief History of Fat in the United States” and “Fattening Queer History: Where Does Fat History Go from Here?” (I’m not making this up.)

Part 2, “Fat Studies in Health and Medicine,” includes chapters like, “Widening the Dialogue to Narrow the Gap in Health Disparities: Approaches to Fat Black Lesbian and Bisexual Women’s Health Promotion,” and “Quest for a Cause: The Fat Gene, the Gay Gene, and the New Eugenics.”

If you think you see a pattern emerging (fat pride and gay pride; a fat gene and a gay gene), you’re right, as confirmed in Part 3 of the book, with chapters on, “Fat Youth as Common Targets for Bullying” along with “Double Stigma: Fat Men and Their Male Admirers.” Indeed, LGBT parallels are prominent in the book, especially in the chapter “No Apology: Shared Struggles in Fat and Transgender Law.” And, just as “gay” replaced “homosexual,” this book makes clear that “fat” should replace “obese.”

Part 4 is entitled, “Size-ism in Popular Culture and Literature” (another “ism” to be deconstructed), while Part 5 focuses on, “Embodying and Embracing Fatness,” indicating that fatness is something to be embraced (and celebrated?). And this paves the way for the concluding section of the book, “Starting the Revolution,” which ends with the chapter, “Are We Ready to Throw Our Weight Around? Fat Studies and Political Activism.” Following this is Appendix A: “Fat Liberation Manifesto, November 1973.”

Well, I must confess my ignorance. I had no idea such a manifesto existed, let alone one dating back to 1973 (the same year that homosexuality was depathologized by the American Psychiatric Association), and so, I decided to educate myself in the area of fat pride.

I learned about NAAFA , the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance, founded in 1969 (the same year as the Stonewall riots). “NAAFA’s goal is to help build a society in which people of every size are accepted with dignity and equality in all aspects of life” (naafa.org).

I discovered the Fat Times Pride publication, billed as “Breaking Food News You Can Use Since 1985,” and I picked up a new word, “avoirdupois,” having to do with a person’s weight or heaviness, as found in Juliet Samuel’s October 23, 2007 article posted on Reason.com, “Fat Pride World Wide: The growing movement for avoirdupois acceptance.”

According to this article, fat pride activists claim that “the American medical establishment has lost its head over the nationwide ‘obesity epidemic,’ and its prejudice is claiming victims.” In response to these perceived abuses, “fat people are mobilizing. The ‘fat pride’ or ‘fat acceptance’ movement might provoke the scorn of skinnies, but it is growing in number and makes a compelling case.”

To be sure, there is an unhealthy overemphasis on perfect bodies in our society today (especially for women), not to mention the image of almost skeletal fashion models, while on the flip side, there certainly is an obesity epidemic in America. And no one who has ever struggled with his or her weight would make light of those struggles.

Still, I wasn’t quite ready for a fat uprising, a fat pride movement, or a fat revolution. Who knew?

The Boy Who Joined the Girl Scouts

October 31, 2011

Just when you think you’ve heard it all, something even more bizarre and disturbing occurs, and you can only scratch your head and wonder, “What’s next?”

Consider these recent news stories.

1) September, in Georgia. The “father” of a 7 year-old girl (who gave birth to her before undergoing sex-change surgery) announced that he/she was suing the McIntosh County Public School system in rural Georgia in an attempt to force his/her daughter’s school to allow her to use the boy’s bathroom. The father/mother claimed that his/her daughter had begun to identify as a boy at the age of 18 months (!) and insisted in the law suit that she be able to use the boy’s bathroom.

The school had initially agreed to let the girl use the boy’s bathroom when it was unoccupied, then, when that was deemed unsatisfactory, the school made arrangements to let her use the faculty bathroom, but the father/mother wasn’t satisfied, announcing legal action.

And is it just a coincidence that a child raised by her-mother-who-became-her-father is herself suffering from gender confusion?

2) October, in California. It was reported in the news that the adoptive lesbian mothers of an 11 year-old boy have put him on hormone therapy to block the onset of puberty with the goal of having him undergo sex-change surgery as soon as possible. His lesbian parents claim that he began to say that he was a girl when he was just three years-old, and they began to “transition” him into becoming a girl when we was only 8. Mental health professionals have rightly called this child abuse.

And is it just a coincidence that a boy raised by two lesbians (who might not have the healthiest view of men) thinks that he is a girl?

3) October, in Colorado. In this, the most recent story, the mother of a 7 year-old boy who likes to dress like a girl asked that he be allowed to join the local Girl Scouts.

Initially, the mother’s request was turned down by the local troop leader. This, however, was quickly reversed by Girl Scout officials, who issued this statement: “Girl Scouts is an inclusive organization and we accept all girls in Kindergarten through 12th grade as members. If a child identifies as a girl and the child’s family presents her as a girl, Girl Scouts of Colorado welcomes her as a Girl Scout. Our requests for support of transgender kids have grown, and Girl Scouts of Colorado is working to best support these children, their families and the volunteers who serve them.”

As explained by Rachelle Trujillo, vice president of communications with Girl Scouts of Colorado, “We make the distinction that if a child is living life as a girl and the family brings the child to us and says my daughter wants to be a girl scout, we welcome her.” But there is a line they draw: Trujillo said boys who are living like boys will not be admitted. “The child must be living life as a girl.”

And there you have it. A boy who thinks he is a girl and is “living life as a girl” (or, his family “presents” him as a girl) can become a girl scout, since the organization is “inclusive.”

This is patently absurd, nothing better than linguistic and sociological gibberish. In short, you can be as “inclusive” as you want to be, but that doesn’t alter reality. (See also my recent article, The Girl Who Thought She Was a Werewolf.)

It’s one thing to say that a grown man who has undergone sex-change surgery is now a woman (although I would still dispute that claim). It’s another thing to say that a little boy is now a girl simply because he says he is. And it is still another thing for an organization to accept that child’s beliefs as reality.

A Girl Scout leader who called my radio show reminded me that the girls in her group often talk about girl things, meaning things that only genuine girls can relate to, and they often camp out together and share bathroom facilities as well.

A boy who thinks he is a girl has no right intruding on these other girls, especially at the onset of puberty and beyond, and to allow him to do so is insanity.

Think about it. If an Asian boy is absolutely convinced that he is a Native American and his family “presents” him as such, should he be entitled to government benefits set aside for Native Americans? If a Caucasian teen is sure that he is really black and his family “presents” him as such (whatever that would mean), should he be considered for a college scholarship for minority students?

The sky is really the limit, and if a boy can be a girl scout, anything is possible.

That is a frightening thought.

“Mutant” as a Codeword for “Gay” in the X-Men Movies

November 03, 2011

The X-Men movie series, based on the comic books of the same name, is well-known for its unusual cast of gifted mutants and for its extraordinary special effects. What is not as widely known about the X-Men is the fact that the movies, along with the comic books, draw many clear parallels between the mutants and the gay and lesbian community. It is an open secret that the most recent movie in the series, “X-Men First Class,” which serves as the prequel for the other films, is especially overt in presenting these parallels.

Zach Stenz, one of the First Class screenwriters, explained on a Facebook comment posted in June: “I helped write the movie, and can tell you the gay rights / post-holocaust Jewish-identity / civil rights allegory stuff was put in there on purpose. Joss Wheldon designed the whole ‘Cure’s storyline in the comic books specifically as a gay allegory, and Bryan Singer wove his own feelings of outsiderdom as a gay man into the movie series. The whole ‘Have you ever tried NOT being a mutant’ coming out scene in X2 [released in 2003] is even particularly subtle, while it is effective.”

Who exactly is Bryan Singer? He is the openly gay producer, director, and/or writer of X-Men, X2, and X-Men First Class, and a reviewer on the Fridae website (“Empowering Gay Asia”) noted that Singer stated in an interview on BBC “that ‘mutant’ was a stand-in for ‘gay.’” Those are the words of Singer, not my own.

The reviewer, named Helmi, explained, “X-Men is supposed to be the superhero series that secretly took gay issues into massive mainstream territory. Since the comic appeared in the 60s, pop-culture critics have drawn parallels between the mutants’ struggle to gain wider acceptance for being genetically ‘different,’ and the gay community’s struggle for acceptance and recognition.”

Singer cast some famously gay actors in key roles, most notably Sir Ian McKellen, who said at the Cannes Film Festival shortly before the release of X-Men 3: “As a gay man, some people think that it ought to be cured and made normal again, and I find it as offensive as someone saying that they have a cure for the color of their skin. This particular story was close to my heart; it has an important message to young people who may for one reason or another be disaffected with society because society points at their differences and says that they’re inferior to the rest of us.”

Writing in 2006 in RelevantMagazine.com about “X-Men: The Last Stand,” ex-gay author Chad Thompson noted, “I saw the movie and discovered that almost every scene in it somehow parallels the struggle to integrate gay and lesbian people into society.”

He was not exaggerating when he said, “almost every scene.” Another viewer of X-Men 3 commented to me, “As I watched the film, the connections and similarities were startling. You could have made the X-Men gay and the script would have worked perfectly.”

Thompson explains, “In a world where some are born ‘normal’ and others are born with genetic mutations that give them superpowers, those without the mutations decide to formulate a serum that can normalize the mutants. Most of the mutants argue that they don’t need a cure, asserting that their mutations are innate to their identities, but still some who aren’t happy with their mutations embrace the chance to change.”

In X-Men: First Class, Dr. Henry “Hank” McCoy concocts a serum that will hide his mutation (seen in his feet) without removing his powers, only to discover that the serum actually accelerates his mutation, turning him into a powerful beast. In other words, therapy designed to turn a homosexual into a heterosexual will not work. Instead, it will result in a stronger homosexual identity.

In light of the whole theme of X-Men: The Last Stand, this message is certainly intended.

In perhaps the movie’s most obvious example of “mutant as a stand-in for gay,” when Hank McCoy is first revealed to be a mutant, he is questioned by his coworkers as to why he hadn’t reveal his true identity before. He replies, “You didn’t ask, I didn’t tell.” Gays in the military under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell couldn’t have said it better.

Alyssa Rosenberg, writing on the ThinkProgress.org website, called X-Men First Class “a great gay rights metaphor,” noting that already in X2, “Iceman’s visit to his parents took the form of a coming-out sequence, complete with confusion and rejection by a sibling. In First Class, those comparisons are even more explicit.”

Explicit is hardly an overstatement, as the mutants proclaim themselves to be out and proud towards the end of the flick. It appears that subtlety is no longer needed.

But this should come as no surprise. After all, Elizabeth Taylor famously said, “If it weren’t for gays, honey, there wouldn’t be a Hollywood.”

A Gay Activist Butchers the Bible

November 3, 2011

Ross Murray’s article on CNN’s Religion Blog, entitled “My Take: Why Christians are embracing their LGBT neighbors,” is the most recent in a steady stream of editorials and articles on liberal news outlets devoted to promoting a common theme: The Bible really doesn’t speak against homosexual practice and enlightened Christians are recognizing this in ever increasing numbers.

Although Murray repeats much of the standard rhetoric, he does distinguish himself by offering one of more egregious applications of a scriptural passage I have seen in nearly 40 years of studying and teaching the Scriptures. But first a word of background.

Murray is director of religion, faith and values at GLAAD, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. This is a gay activist organization which would better be called the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Disagreement, glaringly demonstrated in their petition earlier this year which called on CNN to stop inviting “anti-gay” guests on their network to offer opposing viewpoints. (Yes, this is the voice of “inclusion,” “tolerance,” “equality,” and “diversity.”)

In his article, Murray argues that while “there is still a variety of scriptural interpretations, an increasing number of Christians are reading scripture and understanding that God’s design for the world includes LGBT people.” Those who with agree with his position he dubs “good Christians”; those who differ are described as “vocal anti-gay activists” who are putting forth “vocal misinformation” and becoming “more shrill.”

This is GLAAD-talk at its biased best, and to decode the language used, you are “anti-gay” if for religious, moral, social, or any other reasons you do not affirm homosexuality, no matter how much you love LGBT people; you are “vocal” if you write, say, or post anything that GLAAD does not agree with (although those on the LGBT side can write, say, or post anything they want without being “vocal”); you are spreading “misinformation” if you have any scientific, academic, or theological differences with the gay activist mantras; and you become “more shrill” if you do not capitulate to gay activist pressure.

And what is it that drives the views of the “vocal anti-gay activists” who by implication are not “good Christians”? It is “fear” and “lies,” since, in the logic of GLAAD, only fear and lies could cause a Bible-believing Christian to think that God is not giddy about homosexual practice. In contrast, LGBT Christians “build up love and break down fear.”

As for the “good [straight] Christians,” they are embracing LGBT people and their practices because they realize that “if God made them, then [they are] called to love and support them.”

But didn’t God make everyone? Didn’t he make the “vocal anti-gay activists” too? Then why does Murray disparage them? Why doesn’t he feel “called to love and support them”? And aren’t there others whom “God made” whose lifestyles or convictions Murray rejects?

Murray observes that, “Whole Christian denominations have accepted and embraced the reality of LGBT believers within their ranks and in their leadership. Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, the United Church of Christ and Unitarians have formally accepted LGBT people within their denominations.”

What he fails to note is that these denominations (or the parts thereof that are gay-affirming) have also moved away from other historic biblical values and beliefs, meaning that their embrace of homosexuality should be seen as a sign of spiritual regress rather than progress.

In similar fashion, he points to the large ideological gap “between those ages 18 to 29 and those ages 65 and older . . . with younger Americans gravitating toward [LGBT] equality,” without pointing out that surveys indicate that less than one percent of these young people have a biblical worldview.

But all this is standard fare. It is his closing (mis)use of Scripture that is so troubling.

He writes, “Those who oppose equality can call it what they like, but the reality is that we are living in a society that has learned how to value LGBT people as they would others. That attitude doesn’t rely on fear or lies, but on caring relationships and trust. It lives out the apostle Paul’s wish for the Corinthians that someday we will know fully, even as we are fully known. It is a biblically informed reality that is helping to make the world a better place.”

What does Murray mean when he speaks of “the apostle Paul’s wish for the Corinthians”? He is referring to 1 Corinthians 13:12, which is not a “wish” but rather a prophetic anticipation of what will happen when Jesus returns. At that time, Paul writes, “I shall know fully, even as I am fully known [by God],” in contrast with our present, earthly state, in which “we see in a mirror dimly” and “know in part.”

So, the glorious hope that we will know God fully at the second coming of Christ is twisted into a wish that we will get to know LGBT people better, thereby making the apostle Paul, arguably the strongest voice in the Bible against homosexual practice, into a gay advocate.

This is what happens when GLAAD does theology. Would it be an overstatement to call this a perversion of the Scriptures?

Are Evangelicals Obsessed with Homosexuality?

November 5, 2011

Writing in the On Faith blog for the Washington Post, Orthodox rabbi Shmuley Boteach claimed that “the people who talk about values and are a large voting block - primarily evangelical Christians – [have] utterly marginalized themselves with their obsession over homosexuality.” Is this true? To be sure, in the aftermath of the elections, a lively debate is taking place as to whether evangelicals have been marginalized politically or, to the contrary, have actually increased in influence. But what about our alleged obsession with homosexuality?

When Rabbi Shmuley made this accusation in a November 1st debate we had on the subject of homosexuality, I conducted an impromptu survey of the audience, which was almost exclusively evangelical, asking them to respond to four questions: How many of them heard a sermon in the last year on the importance of marriage? Virtually every hand went up. The importance of devoting time and energy to the raising of their children? Same response. The dangers of sexual sin (and/or pornography)? The same response again. A sermon about gay activism? Not a single hand.

This, however, was unimpressive to Christian psychologist and professor Warren Throckmorton, who wrote on his own blog, “While I mean no disrespect to his audience, I am not going to trust that they are a representative sample. I certainly disagree with Brown about the obsession of some evangelicals with homosexuality. Worldnetdaily is obsessed.” (Throckmorton proceeded to list other examples that he felt supported his claim.) So then, are the rabbi and the psychologist correct? Was my audience not representative? (Bear in mind that these people were interested enough in the subject of homosexuality to come to the debate, yet somehow, if Throckmorton is correct, they were less focused on the subject than those who were not there. Go figure.)

Let’s step back and think about this in real life terms. Every year, there are hundreds of thousands of sermons preached in evangelical pulpits across America, and it is the custom of many churches to post these sermons online. Take a look at the websites of 100 of the largest evangelical congregations, and look at the list of sermons preached in 2010. How many are focused on homosexual issues? Less than 1% would be a fairly good estimate. In fact, an executive serving very large and mega-churches recently wrote to me stating (in certainly exaggerated terms), “You’re the only one speaking out about gay issues.”

Every year there are thousands of evangelical Christian books that are published, from novels to devotionals to commentaries to sermon collections to testimonies to books on doctrine, theology, prayer, discipleship, marriage, family, childrearing, worship, education, politics, missions, abortion, social action, and more. How many are focused on homosexual issues? Less than 1% would be a fairly good estimate. (I invite Rabbi Shmuley or Prof. Throckmorton to challenge this estimate factually.)

Turning to Christian ministries on radio and TV, how many of them have as their exclusive (or even primary) focus homosexuality? Roughly 0%. What about the shows on Christian radio and TV? How many programs focus on homosexuality? Once again, less than 1% would be a fair estimate. What about the hundreds of evangelical Bible schools, ministry training centers, colleges, universities and seminaries? Out of the total number of courses they offer, how many focus on issues related to homosexuality? Certainly, less than 1%.

I think by now you get the point: For the great majority of evangelical Christian, homosexuality and/or gay activism is not on their primary list of concerns.

What about pro-family organizations like Focus on Family? Haven’t they been obsessed with homosexuality? Actually, under the leadership of Dr. James Dobson, who stressed the importance of evangelicals being involved in the political process, less than 3% of the Focus budget was devoted to homosexual issues, including funds that were designated to help people overcome same-sex attraction. So, out of a budget that topped out at roughly $130 million, less than $4 million was devoted to homosexual issues. Contrast this with the budget of an organization like the Human Rights Campaign, devoted entirely to promoting gay activism, and topping $35 million in 2010. Yet it is evangelicals who are allegedly obsessed with the issue?

As for evangelical voting in the elections, it is true that certain moral issues are important to evangelicals, such as abortion and same-sex marriage, but for better or worse, issues like the economy or the reach of the government play a much more dominant role. Plus, how much of our time and energy is spent voting or politicking?

A more realistic assessment of the situation would be this: When a very small minority of evangelical leaders raise their voices to address things like the queering of elementary education, or the loss of religious freedoms to gay activism, or the encroachment of same-sex marriage – all of which, to be sure, came knocking at our door, as opposed to being sought out by us – we are told that we are obsessed with homosexuality and are marginalizing ourselves.

As a colleague commented privately to me, “It’s quite a racket that’s been set up. We’ll transform your world into what we want to see with concentrated effort, and if you say anything about it, we’ll convince everybody (even your religious leaders) that you’re an obsessed homophobe, and probably a repressed homosexual. If you sit down and shut up, we win. If you stand up and expose us, we win.”

Ironically, although a random sampling of the World Net Daily website, mentioned specifically by Prof. Throckmorton, yielded more than 100 headlines, with precisely zero dealing with homosexuality, the November 2010 of the WND magazine, The Whistleblower, is entitled, “AMERICA’S ‘GAY’ OBSESSION: Culture, politics, marriage, even the military – why homosexuality is advancing.”

Could it be, then, that the reality is the opposite of that perceived by Rabbi Shmuley? Could it be that gay activism has become the darling of the American media (dare we say that they are obsessed with homosexuality?), and the moment evangelicals raise their voices in protest, they are called obsessed? Try speaking out yourself and watch what happens.

But at this point I better stop writing. Otherwise, it will prove that we evangelicals are terribly obsessed with homosexuality. Maybe we should make things easier and just go in the closet and shut the door?

(Posted on the Washington Post “On Faith” page as, “What the rabbi doesn’t get.”)

How Do You Feel About A “Christian” America?

November 08, 2011

According to social commentator Bill Muehlenberg, “The fate of a nation is intimately tied up with its moral and spiritual condition.”

If this is true, would it be wrong for conservative Christians, within the parameters established by our Constitution and laws, to do everything in their power to take the lead in the political and educational and media and business sectors of our country? Or does the very thought of that send shivers up your spine?

In support of his thesis, Muehlenberg points to statements by leaders and thinkers ranging from Thomas Jefferson to Will Durant to Alexis de Tocqueville. He can even cite General Douglas MacArthur and Joseph Stalin to back up his claim.

MacArthur said, “History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject to moral decay have not passed into political and economic decline. There has been either a spiritual awakening to overcome the moral lapse, or a progressive deterioration leading to ultimate national disaster.” As for Stalin, the atheistic dictator observed, “America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.”

Some sociologists have argued that it was the secularizing of America in the 20th century that lies at the heart of our national decline, while even non-religious educators have pointed to the destructive, anti-God mentality so prevalent in many of our higher learning institutions.

Why then do so many Americans have such a visceral reaction to the notion of a “Christian” America, despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans profess Christianity? Why is there serious concern that Christian politicians are covertly (or even overtly) trying to impose a theocracy?

One answer is that some Americans are secular to the core, and they would rather see freedom from religion than freedom of religion. The further we are from God, the happier they are. For them, separation of Church and state means that the only legitimate place for religious expression is within the four walls of a church building (or synagogue or mosque).

Others have had it with “Christian politics,” even though they themselves profess the Christian faith. Among them is David P. Gushee, distinguished professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University in Georgia. He writes in an op ed piece for USA Today, “Once again a presidential race is becoming a piety contest.”

He continues, “As an American and also as an evangelical Christian, I can hardly bear to watch this nightmare unfolding all over again. It’s bad for America. It’s bad for Christianity. Christian politics is corrupting both Christians and politics. Our nation is in too much trouble to endure another round of this sorry spectacle.”

What then do we make of comments from our founding fathers that underscore the importance of the spiritual vitality of the nation? George Washington said, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” John Adams was even more emphatic: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

How do we sort this out? Does vibrant faith contribute to the health of the nation, or are we unwisely trying to mix the spiritual with the secular? Here are some important principles to keep in mind.

First, there is a difference between true faith and political rhetoric. Talk is cheap, and empty religious talk is downright offensive. But if a politician’s life has been positively impacted by his or her faith, if it helps them find a stronger moral base and gives them wisdom to govern and lead all the people, then the more faith the better.

Second, Christianity is not Islam, by which I mean that true Christianity does not succeed by imposing its version of Sharia law on a populace or by following in the footsteps of Constantine who “Christianized” Rome. Instead, it succeeds by transforming lives, by demonstrating the superiority of its ways, by serving the needs of the society with tangible acts of love. It is true that Islam also believes in these principles (at least, to some extent), but it also believes in advancing by the power of the sword.

Third, if it is right for secular (or anti-religious) educators and politicians and movie producers and business leaders and judges to rise to influential positions in our society, it is right for religious educators and politicians and movie producers and business leaders and judges to do the same. How could anyone raise a legitimate objection to this? The very foundations of our nation argue against keeping religion in the closet.

The bottom line is this. If we believe the biblical maxim that “Godliness makes a nation great, but sin is a disgrace to any people” (Prov 14:34), then we need to prove it. What’s stopping us?

Dead Flies and the Legacy of Joe Paterno

November 10, 2011

There is one verse in the Bible that begins with the words “dead flies,” found in the King James translation of Ecclesiastes 10:1: “Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honour.” In more contemporary language, the verse states, “As dead flies cause even a bottle of perfume to stink, so a little foolishness spoils great wisdom and honor” (New Living Translation).

The story of Joe Paterno, not just a heralded college football coach but a living icon who helped transform a whole university, provides eloquent testimony to this biblical maxim.

Consider first Coach Paterno’s legacy as of October 29th of this year, as headlines proudly announced, “Joe Paterno passes Robinson as winningest coach in Division I,” meaning that the 84 year-old Paterno had amassed more wins as a coach than any other man in the history of major college football.

He accomplished this extraordinary feat by coaching the same team from 1966 until his sudden dismissal this week for his failure to take sufficient steps to report an alleged pedophile. This amounts to more than 45 straight years of successful coaching, because of which he has already been inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame. “Without debate,” wrote sports journalist Dejan Kovacevic, “he’ll go down as the most accomplished coach college football has ever known.”

And despite Paterno’s age, his team is currently ranked 12th, meaning that some of the best prospects in the nation were still going to Penn State in order to play for him, and also meaning that he was still able to put a quality team on the field each week.

But that is only a small part of the legacy of the man affectionately called “JoePa.” As noted by ESPN columnist Ivan Maisel, “Joe Paterno devoted his entire career to a belief in the power of athletics, but only when coupled with the power of academics. His will and his enthusiasm provided a public face for the transformation of Pennsylvania State University from a regional agricultural school to one of the most important public universities in the nation.”

Paterno and his wife Sue personally contributed $4 million to different departments and colleges within the university, and he helped raise $13.5 million for the expansion of the main library, after which it was renamed the Paterno Library.

There is a Paterno statue outside Beaver Stadium, which seats more than 100,000 (making it one of the largest stadiums in the world), and students who camp out in tents before the games in order to get the best seats call their camp Paternoville. There is even a campus ice cream flavor named Peachy Paterno.

None of this is achieved overnight. In fact, legacies like this can only be built over the course of a lifetime, perhaps only over the course of a long lifetime. And legacies like this can only be built without scandal, which makes the accomplishment all the more difficult.

To use a “celestial” play on words, there are many “rising stars” who quickly become “falling stars,” many “shooting stars” whose impact lasts for a moment, many “superstars” whose accomplishments are all but negated by their personal failures.

This was not the case with Coach Paterno, whose personal life, career achievements, and longevity made for a very solid “threefold cord” that could not be easily broken (see Ecclesiastes 4:12b for the concept).

And then one scandal. One tragically serious oversight. One failure to go beyond formal procedure (of reporting the incident to his authorities, which he properly did) and take further action (by going to the police, or at least, by assuring that something was being done, since the same accused man continued to serve as a trusted member of his senior staff for years). In Paterno’s own words, “This is a tragedy. It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more.”

A tragedy indeed. As Maisel wrote, “The idea that Paterno’s legacy, built with the highest of ideals, will be stained by the vilest of scandals should test the faith of all of us.”

In the future, it is possible that Paterno will be remembered more for his decades of service to Penn State than for the current scandal, and that “distance and perspective will eventually create a more nuanced legacy.”

But there can be no doubt that his extraordinary legacy has been tarnished, as headlines are now reading, “Scandal sullies Joe Paterno’s legacy” and “Paterno’s legacy a sad, sorry finish.”

Dead flies indeed, and a sobering lesson for us all.

Will Newt’s Moral Failures Hold Him Back?

November 15, 2011

The major headline on the Drudge Report said it all: NEWT ON TOP. Largely written off as a potential Republican candidate for president as recently as last month, Newt Gingrich has suddenly surged to the head of the pack. But do his past moral failures disqualify him from leading a party that claims to stand for strong, conservative family values?

It’s obvious that Gingrich’s rapid rise in the polls is tied to his excellent performance in the debates, just as Gov. Rick Perry’s rapid fall from the top is directly related to his poor showing. And while former Gov. Mitt Romney continues to perform well, he has not been able to convince his detractors that he is a true moral conservative. At the same time, surprise frontrunner Herman Cain has been dogged by accusations of sexual harassment.

But can you be a true moral conservative and violate your marriage vows, not once but twice? And are the accusations against Cain, even if true, any more serious than Gingrich’s affairs and divorces, with the added fact that Gingrich is now married to the woman with whom he committed adultery? (This was also the case with his second wife.) Or do glaring moral failures such as these have little or nothing to do with his ability to lead the nation? (After all, Ronald Reagan was divorced and remarried too, albeit only once.) Or has Gingrich learned from the error of his ways and emerged a better man?

On the positive side, Gingrich is a political statesman with vast experience and knowledge, a man who could easily dominate President Obama in a debate. In the current campaign, he has not waffled in his positions, he has not put his foot in his mouth, he has focused attention on defeating Obama rather than sniping at his Republican opponents, and he has been quick to call out the media for its all too obvious bias. And for years, he has consistently pointed to the importance of faith and has spoken without apology about the need to recover our Judeo-Christian heritage.

On the negative side, the man who helped craft DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, has been married three times, leading to the very relevant question, Which is more destructive to the institution of marriage, heterosexual adultery and divorce or homosexual unions? We should also remember that while Gingrich was leading the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton he was committing adultery. This is not simply a moral failure but one that speaks of real hypocrisy, not to mention that all adulterous affairs involve deceit and disloyalty.

On the other hand, rather than defending or denying his past transgressions, Gingrich has acknowledged and renounced them. Considering that the great majority of potential Gingrich voters will be professing Christians, should they extend him forgiveness? Or is forgiveness granted but trust earned?

In a 2007 radio interview with Dr. James Dobson, Gingrich said, “There were times when I was praying and when I felt I was doing things that were wrong. But I was still doing them. I look back on those as periods of weakness and periods that I’m not only not proud of, but I would deeply urge my children and grandchildren not to follow in my footsteps.”

Has Gingrich learned from the error of his ways, gotten to the roots of his destructive behavior, and moved forward as a loyal husband and devoted father and grandfather, worthy of serving as the leader of our nation? Or can we put our confidence in someone who engaged in such immoral and hypocritical acts in the past? Or is this whole discussion completely irrelevant?

As one of my Facebook friends asked, “Are we electing a president or appointing a church elder?” After all, many Americans are far more concerned with the economy and foreign policy than with the private lives of their presidents, and it can be argued that you can be a good family man and a lousy president or a lousy family man and a good president.

I personally believe in the power of forgiveness and the potential of redemption and restoration, and, in many ways, I hold Newt Gingrich in the highest regard. At the same time, I have serious concerns.

What about you? Would you vote for him as president?

What Could End Rush Limbaugh Career?

November 17, 2011

It was surprising to hear Rush Limbaugh say the words, “I don’t have the guts to bring it up,” but he did, on November 8th, to his massive radio audience.

Rush Limbaugh lacking the guts to address something publicly? Rush Limbaugh not willing to tackle controversy? Really?

He was responding to a statement by a caller named Lawrence as they discussed Joe Paterno and the scandal at Penn State.

RUSH: “You know, if I really wanted to retire today I could answer you in a way that would end my career. Well, of course I’m therefore not gonna say it. . . . There is a part of this story -- it’s glaring; it’s right in front of everybody -- and nobody’s got the guts to say it. Nobody, including me. I don’t have the guts to bring it up. Nobody does.”

CALLER: “What’s that?”

RUSH: “Nobody has the guts to actually give the explanation for what was going on and why there was trepidation in reporting it, and that’s all I’ll say. If you can figure it out on your own, fine and dandy. . . .”

What was Rush talking about?

Let’s put this in context. If there is any prominent figure in America who does not bow down to political correctness or media pressure, it is Rush Limbaugh. In fact, he’s on record as saying that when people try to silence you, you should shout louder.

Long-time listeners of his show remember his 8-year assault on President Clinton as Slick Willie (an assault that continues to this day), his constant mocking of Vice President Al Gore as Algore (as in “Igor”), his reviling of the “environmentalist wackos,” his attacks on the “feminazis,” his mocking of Black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan as Calypso Louie, his insulting imitation of Senator Barney Frank (to name one among many), his renaming of TV channels, such as PMSNBC, and his incessant criticism of “Barack Hussein Obama, mmmm, mmmm, mmmm,” not to mention his frequent playing of the “Barack the Magic Negro” musical parody, featuring the “voice” of Rev. Al Sharpton.

He takes on the president, the Congress, and the media (not to mention his derisive attacks on foreign leaders and even radical Muslims), but there’s one group he won’t take on, one subject he won’t touch.

What is it that, in his words, could end his career? What is it about the Penn State scandal that is “glaring; it’s right in front of everybody,” and yet “Nobody has the guts to actually give the explanation for what was going on and why there was trepidation in reporting it”?

Could it be that the sex abuse scandal involved a man abusing boys, meaning that the acts were homosexual in nature? And could it be that even Rush Limbaugh didn’t have the guts to address this? (Contrary to the protestations of some, a man who is sexually involved with boys is a homosexual pedophile; a man who is sexually involved with girls is a heterosexual pedophile.)

Of course, the fact there are homosexual pedophiles does not mean that all (or most) gays are child abusers. Certainly not! And yet even Rush Limbaugh, it appears, would not address this directly.

Perhaps Dr. Laura, another radio giant, could weigh in on this. After she expressed her respectful differences with homosexuality during her shows more than 10 years ago, the Stop Dr. Laura campaign was birthed to thwart the launching of her new TV program.

According to StopDrLaura.com, “The year-long campaign against Dr. Laura . . . so exposed Dr. Laura’s anti-gay rhetoric to the world, that she could not even sneeze without the major national media, and thousands of individual activists like yourselves, watching, recording her every word, and pouncing when action was needed. As a result of the 50+ million hits this pro bono site received in just 10 months, and the 300,000 visitors per month that we continued to get throughout the campaign, protests were organized in 34 cities across the country and Canada, over 170 advertisers dropped Dr. Laura’s TV show (including some 70 or so advertisers that Canadian activists got to drop her in that country alone!), and over 30 advertisers dropped her radio show, reportedly costing her over $30 million in advertising.” (For details on this, including a simultaneous attack on Dr. Laura on the West Wing TV show, see my book A Queer Thing Happened to America, a book the publishing world felt was too hot to handle.)

Is this what the fearless Rush Limbaugh feared?

Within the last few months, both Microsoft and the CEO of Starbucks capitulated to gay activist pressure after two separate petition drives yielded signatures numbering in the hundreds at Change.org (that’s right, in the hundreds). And one year ago, Apple caved in to gay activist pressure and removed a conservative political and religious app (the Manhattan Declaration), stating that the app was deemed “offensive to large groups of people.” Yet Apple continued to host apps for anonymous gay sex encounters, despite calls for their removal. This is not “offensive to large groups of people”?

But we return to Rush. If, in fact, I misunderstood him, then he has my profound apology. If I understood him correctly, then he has my profound appeal: Speak up, Rush, and don’t be afraid. Surely you have the guts.

Rush Limbaugh Exposes the Elephant in the Closet

November 21, 2011

Rush Limbaugh has now confirmed what I wrote last week, explaining to a caller on Friday, November 18th that the elephant in the room in the Penn State scandal was that the alleged pedophile acts committed by Jerry Sandusky were homosexual in nature.

So much for those who scorned the suggestion, and kudos to Rush for speaking his mind.

Here’s the relevant background. On November 15th, two of my articles were posted online, The Pedophile Elephant in the Gay Activist Closet and What Could End Rush Limbaugh’s Career?

In the first article I stated that, “I personally believe that the great majority of homosexual men also deplore Sandusky’s alleged acts. At the same time, there is a very large pedophile elephant that is hiding in the gay activist closet.” (I was referring to the celebration of pederasty in gay history, along with the fact that a number of 20th century gay icons supported NAMBLA, the notorious North American Man Boy Love Association.)

As for Rush, I drew attention to a statement he made to a caller on November 8th about Penn State, namely, that, “Nobody has the guts to actually give the explanation for what was going on and why there was trepidation in reporting it, and that’s all I’ll say.”

In response to this I asked, “Could it be that the sex abuse scandal involved a man abusing boys, meaning that the acts were homosexual in nature? . . . Of course, the fact that there are homosexual pedophiles does not mean that all (or most) gays are child abusers. Certainly not! And yet even Rush Limbaugh, it appears, would not address this directly.”

After the National Organization for Marriage excerpted my article, gay websites like Equality Matters and Towel Road drew mocking attention to it, writing, “Brown, of course, had his own theory for what Limbaugh was referring to,” and RightWingWatch felt my words deserved to be scorned.

Some readers also dismissed my conclusion: “It’s not the gay community Rush is worried about, it’s the sports fans”; “Call it a hunch but the author of ‘A Queer Thing Happened to America’, probably has an agenda and an ax to grind”; “Oh, stop. I really don’t think he is worried about that”; “Mr. Brown is creating a straw man argument in order to imply that Rush Limbaugh is a braggart and not really unafraid to discuss any subject”; “Michael Brown ridiculously delights in prattling on about nothing”; and, “I think we’ve had Rush around long enough to know, there is no way in hell he is going to bow down to the idea of political incorrectness. I’d be willing to bet my life, you don’t have the full story, and you don’t know what his implications were.”

The best comment came via email from a Townhall reader: “What’s your angle here you moron; by the way who are you, never heard of you and never will read anything from you again. Another 4th string writer taking a shot at Rush...he can handle it though. I can only assume your motivation is via money ‘under the table’ being sent to you. Good luck to you Pal; perhaps you should start looking at retiring.”

This past Friday, Rush set the record straight:

CALLER: I’d like to take a stab at the elephant in the room that you mentioned regarding Jerry Sandusky.

RUSH: Yeah, okay.

CALLER: I think that the thing you said everybody is afraid to mention is that we’re always told that homosexuals are not pedophiles, but in this case he sure was and the same thing with Michael Jackson. Is that what you had in mind?

RUSH: Not pedophiles, but I do think it’s the elephant in the room that it’s not called a homosexual problem or scandal or what have you, and the reason, there is a very powerful political gay movement, and it’s oriented towards supporting the Democrat Party. Just like in every segment of society, not every gay person is a predator, just like not every man is a predator like the feminists tried to say. Every group of people has its own bad actors. But because the political aspects homosexuality, which they’ve got a very powerful lobby and they’re liberal and they support the Democrat Party, they succeed in stifling conversation about it. And so you don’t dare mention it. People don’t mention it. It’s like not showing cartoons of Muslims. You just don’t go there because they wreak havoc on you, and it’s the path of least resistance.

But, yeah, it’s not so much pedophilia, although that’s what this is, but it’s Sandusky has to be a gay guy. Nobody’s mentioning that aspect because it’s too dangerous. And the reason why is because of the power of the gay lobby, which is very leftist. But I don’t want to be misunderstood. Sandusky does not represent all of homosexuality, just like the priests in the Catholic church don’t represent all of homosexuality, just like the aberrant criminals in heterosexual society don’t represent all heterosexuals, but because the gay lobby is very powerful, people don’t go there, people don’t address it, they don’t talk about it, and as such an element of the problem never gets dealt with.

Whether you agree with what he had to say, you can no longer dispute what he danced around on November 8th, and to be candid, it didn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

Is God Performing Football Miracles for Tim Tebow?

November 23, 2011

I can give you a laundry list of reasons why it is preposterous to suggest that Almighty God, the Creator of the Universe, is performing football miracles for Tim Tebow. On the other hand, there are some things that make me wonder if the Lord might actually be involved in this after all.

At the risk of literally playing the devil’s advocate, I’ll start with ten reasons why this whole idea of God performing miracles for Tim Tebow should be rejected.

1) There are millions of people experiencing terrible suffering, including children dying in agony, yet they are not receiving miracles of healing. Why would God get involved in a football game while apparently ignoring the cries of these sufferers?

2) The American obsession with the NFL borders on idolatry, and during football season, many pastors are especially time conscious on Sunday mornings lest the service goes too long and the football-focused parishioners get offended.

3) There are plenty of fine Christians on other NFL teams. Why would God favor Tim Tebow over them? Why would he grant special blessings to the Denver Broncos?

4) The NFL is a concussively violent sport, with many NFL vets hobbled (or even crippled) for life. Doesn’t the Bible say that God hates violence?

5) It is irreverent to think that the Creator and Sustainer of the universe manipulates sporting events, let alone NFL games.

6) Jesus taught that we should keep our acts of piety private. Tebow is being hypocritical by praying in public and always bringing up his faith.

7) There are actually no miracles taking place. If Tebow didn’t play so terribly until the last five minutes of the game, his team wouldn’t need to make so many “miraculous” comebacks.

8) There are plenty of athletes who have a special quality and can rally their team together for a sensational victory, and it has nothing to do with religious faith.

9) Why we must always equate God’s blessing with winning and success? Some of the most blessed people in history have been anything but successful in the eyes of the world.

10) Football is matter of hard work, discipline, and execution, and while players may make exceptional plays, none of those plays can be categorized as “miraculous.”

On the other hand, there are some considerations that make me wonder if there could, indeed, be divine intervention taking place.

1) Tebow has made it clear that football is ultimately a platform through which he can influence the next generation, and he has been called the role model we have been waiting for. Would you rather have your kids emulate Tim Tebow or Lady Gaga?

2) Tebow reminds us that football is just a game and that there are far more important things in life. After his most recent “miraculous” victory over the NY Jets, he affirmed his passion for playing but then explained that he was far more excited about building a hospital in the Philippines.

3) Tebow is making a clear statement about priorities. When he became the first college sophomore to receive the Heisman Trophy (for best football player in the nation), he stated that his priorities were: “number one, my faith in God; number two, my family and my relationships with my family; number three, academics; and number four is football.”

4) The same Jesus who warned about hypocritical displays of piety also called his followers to let their light shine before the world, also warning them that he would be ashamed of them if they were ashamed of him.

5) Since tens of millions of people follow the NFL, why shouldn’t God take advantage of the opportunity and use a football player who has the attention of the nation?

6) The Bible does not present God as a distant and detached Creator but as one who is intimately involved in our day to day affairs. Is the NFL outside of his gaze or potential involvement?

7) We are not going to answer the question of the problem of suffering in an 800 word article (those interested in this difficult subject can watch my debate with Prof. Bart Ehrman), but isn’t Tebow addressing this problem in a practical way by helping to build hospitals in impoverished parts of the world? And would he be able to do this without his football income and fame?

Obviously, we can only give our opinions here, but most of us do have an opinion. So what’s your take? Is God working miracles on behalf of Tim Tebow?

Transanity

November 28, 2011

I have the utmost sympathy for men and women who feel they are trapped in the wrong body. At the same time, Western society is heading in the direction of what can only be called transgender insanity, or transanity for short.

Consider these recent examples.

1) In England, two married men (and fathers) divorced their wives and began living together as a gay couple, after which they decided to identify as a transsexual “lesbian” couple (yes, male “lesbians”), after which one of the men had sex-change surgery, which makes them eligible to be married as husband and wife, even though the husband still identifies as a woman.

2) Chaz Bono recently received criticism from the transgender daughter/son of Warren Beatty and Annette Bening, born Kaitlyn but now, at age 19, known as Stephen. (Remember that Chaz, who remains female from the waist down, danced as a male on Dancing with the Stars, raising the legitimate question: What constitutes male or female?)

After Chaz had explained that being transgender could be likened to having a “mismatched” brain and body, similar to a “birth defect like a cleft palate,” Stephen wrote on his blog that, “Chaz is a misogynist. He is a trans man who seems to believe that his female-assignedness and his female socialisation makes him immune from being a misogynist, and he is manifestly wrong.”

And how does Stephen describe “himself”? He is “a gay trans man for whom both identities are equally important, a white anti-racist, a feminist, and a poet.”

So, rather than remain Kaitlyn and be a young woman attracted to men, Stephen (who is still female) identifies as a gay man as well as a feminist.

3) Dan Savage is a gay sex columnist and a vocal critic of traditional Judeo-Christian morals, best known today for spearheading the “It Gets Better” campaign.

Recently, he became the target of trans activists who glitter bombed him twice in November. He was branded a “transphobe” for using terms like “shemale” and referring to “freak tranny porn” (although Savage, on his part, claims that he was simply repeating words used by a questioner in his audience).

One of his critics, writing on the Bilerico Project, is Tobi Hill-Meyer, whose bio states, “Tobi Hill-Meyer is just about your average multiracial, pansexual, transracially inseminated queerspawn, genderqueer, transdyke, colonized mestiza, pornographer, activist, writer.”

Does this qualify as transanity?

Before you dismiss all this as totally fringe, remember that Chastity/Chaz Bono is a very public figure, that in 2006, New York City’s Metropolitan Transit Authority ruled that men who identified as women could use the ladies bathrooms at all subway stations, that more and more TV shows are normalizing (and even celebrating) transgenderism, and that, in one high school, a male teen was voted class queen while in another school, a female teen was voted class king.

And let’s not forget that Massachusetts just passed a radical transgender bill, according to which, “‘Gender identity’ shall mean a person’s gender-related identity, appearance or behavior, whether or not that gender-related identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person’s physiology or assigned sex at birth.” (Yes, this is now the legal definition in Massachusetts.)

The MassResistance website explains that that the bill, “Forces charter schools to allow cross-dressing and other transgender behavior by students, and to include that in their published non-discrimination statement.” MassResistance also warns, “You could soon see your day-care provider, second-grade teacher, waiter, school bus driver, store clerk, etc. be a man wearing a skirt and lipstick, possibly with hormone-enhanced breasts” (their emphasis).

But why this should surprise us? After all, the mayor of Silverton, Oregon, Stu Rasmussen, was first elected as a fairly typical, heterosexual male, but then, after “acquiring cleavage,” he was reelected as a heterosexual, cross-dressing, cleavage-flaunting man (who has a girlfriend too).

He did come under criticism for one specific incident, though, and in August 3, 2009, he was censured by the city council after making an appearance at a children’s meeting in an inappropriate outfit, specifically, an open-backed bathing suit, a mini-skirt, and high-heels. Yet those criticizing Mayor Stu were careful to point out that they had no problem with him dressing as a woman at this children’s meeting. They only had a problem with him dressing immodestly as a woman.

This is nothing less than transanity.

When the MTA made its 2006 transgender bathroom ruling, Gloria David, a retiree from Connecticut, remarked, “I would not like that. I have nothing against gay men or drag queens, but they can use the men’s room. I just don’t want to go to the bathroom next to a man.”

Today, Ms. David’s perfectly understandable comments would be labeled transphobic.

Should we have compassion on those who feel there is a “mismatch” between their body and their brain? Absolutely. But we should devote our energies to understanding the causes of their mental and emotional conflict with the goal of helping them from the inside out. Otherwise, if we craft laws and embrace social categories based on how people identify themselves, we had better get ready for more and more “feminist gay trans men” along with “pansexual genderqueer transdykes” – and that’s just the beginning.

In a word, get ready for transanity.

Sex-Ed Classes and the Rape of Our Children’s Innocence (Part 1)

December 01, 2011

Did you hear about New York City’s comprehensive drug education program for all students in middle school and high school? The teachers inform the students that abstaining from drug use is best, but since it’s impossible to stop them from doing drugs, the teachers give out cards that list the most common drugs, explaining which are the most dangerous. They also distribute needles to kids who are involved in shooting drugs to help them avoid getting contaminated needles, thereby reducing their chances of contracting or passing on communicable diseases.

You haven’t heard about this? It sounds almost criminal to you? Well, the truth be told, I made it all up, but I did so to illustrate a point, namely, that much of the current sex-ed curricula in our schools borders on being criminal and, in many ways, it is just as irresponsible as my fictitious scenario.

Consider what’s happening in some of our nation’s schools.

In October of this year, New York City announced an aggressive, comprehensive, and quite graphic curriculum that would consist of one full semester of sex education in 6th or 7th grade (meaning, beginning with kids as young as 11) and again in 9th and 10th grade. Yet the age of consent in New York is 17.

This means that these schools (along with thousands of other schools throughout the nation) are giving kids practical instructions on having sex even though it is illegal for them to do so. (If my suggested drug analogy doesn’t work for you, then think in terms of the schools teaching 12 year-olds about responsible drinking of alcohol, since later in life, it will be legal for them but to do so at their current age is currently illegal.)

It can even be argued that, on some level, these schools fail to do everything in their power to prevent statutory rape, since in New York, it is “second-degree rape for anyone age 18 or older to engage in sexual intercourse with someone under age 15,” and that is certainly what is happening with many of these kids. Either way, the activities are illicit, be they consensual acts between 13 year-olds or consensual acts between an 18-year-old and a 14-year-old.

How, then, can the schools teach anything other than abstinence? Why are they teaching our children about “safe sex”?

A New York health department report in 2005 revealed that 1 in 10 kids reported having sex before the age of 13. As shocking as that statistic is, it also means that 90% of these kids did not have sex before that age. Why introduce them to all these sexually-charged (and often sexually titillating issues)?

I am fully aware that many of these kids are anything but “innocent,” being exposed to sexual issues a hundred different ways every single day, among their peers, through the media, and online. But I have no doubt that many of our schools could do a much better job of of pointing them towards morality more than encouraging then to have “safe sex.” (If you say that the schools have no business teaching our kids morality, then why are they teaching them immorality, or at the least, condoning immorality?)

Returning to the new curriculum being introduced in New York City, the New York Post reported that some of the workbooks include these assignments (as you read this, ask yourself if this will encourage or discourage teen and pre-teen sex; what follows is extremely graphic, even for adults):

* High-school students go to stores and jot down condom brands, prices and features such as lubrication.

* Teens research a route from school to a clinic that provides birth control and STD tests, and write down its confidentiality policy.

* Kids ages 11 and 12 sort “risk cards” to rate the safety of various activities, including “intercourse using a condom and an oil-based lubricant,’’ mutual masturbation, French kissing, oral sex and anal sex.

* Teens are referred to resources such as Columbia University’s Web site Go Ask Alice, which explores topics like “doggie-style” and other positions, “sadomasochistic sex play,” phone sex, oral sex with braces, fetishes, porn stars, vibrators and bestiality.

Is it any comfort to parents that the Department of Education still encourages abstinence as the best choice? As noted by child and adolescent psychiatrist Miriam Grossman, “Kids are being told to either abstain or use condoms -- that both are responsible, healthy choices.” She also notes “that the [text]books minimize the dangers that pregnancy can still occur with condom use, and that viruses such as herpes and HPV live on body parts not covered by a condom.”

According to a staggering report released by the Centers for Disease Control in 2008, at least one in four teenage girls has a sexually transmitted disease, which means that, at best, the schools are teaching the students how to have less risky sex, similar to playing Russian roulette with fewer bullets.

Are we just going to sit idly by?

Sex-Ed Classes and the Rape of Our Children’s Innocence (Part 2)

December 02, 2011

As outrageous as it is to hear about the new sex-ed curriculum for New York City schools, beginning with middle schools, there are some school districts for which the program does not start early enough. And so, in June, 2010 the Provincetown, Massachusetts school board voted unanimously to begin distributing condoms to elementary school children upon the student’s request, beginning in first grade and without parental knowledge or consent. (What possible use could a 6-year-old have for a condom?)

After a public outcry, the district agreed to consider restricting condom distribution to grades five and up, meaning, to kids as young as 10. According to the official policy, “the school nurse is to give counseling and abstinence information to a student prior to handing out the condom,” although without parental knowledge or consent.

Is this so far removed from my fictitious account of a school handling out needles to kids shooting drugs (see the beginning of Part 1)?

As for the question of criminality, the age of consent in Massachusetts is 16 (under certain circumstances, it is 18), and in answer to the question posed by a 16 year-old boy who was having sex with his 13 year-old girl girlfriend, the SexLaws.org website explained that, “Any sexual conduct with a child age 13 [is] a very serious matter in Massechusetts [sic] whether you are a minor or an adult” (their emphasis).

Doesn’t that mean that this school’s condom distribution is contributing to criminal behavior, not to mention to dangerous and harmful behavior? How can this be allowed?

In a recent article for American Thinker, family activist Linda Harvey notes “that America as a whole is still horrified by child sexual abuse” yet she points to books recommended by GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, better named the Gay, Lesbian, Sex Education Network) that recount the sexual experiences of boys as young as 13 with men more than twice their age. How is this not criminal?

Think about it. We are rightly outraged when we hear of the alleged acts of child rape by trusted adults (such as Jerry Sandusky at Penn State), but is there not a rape of a different kind – at the least, an assault on innocence – when schools show virtually pornographic movies in sex-ed classes or conduct lessons in which girls put condoms on boys’ fingers? (For a shocking report, see this article by Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Policy Institute.) And in the countless cases where these kids are anything but innocent, at the least, these schools are condoning, if not actually encouraging immorality.

One mother posted this on my Facebook page: “I visited the sex-ed teacher at the high school our children were going to attend in 1992. I had heard stories about some of her techniques and was very concerned. When I asked her about modesty, she told me that is something she tries to get the kids over as quick as possible. My daughter brought home the curriculum from the class and I was appalled. There were several pages of vocabulary they would have to know, including every perversion I had ever heard of and some that I never heard of. The definition they had for virgin was someone who had never had the opportunity to have sex. The list included polygamy but not monogamy. It even said that sometimes it is beneficial for a marriage if there is an affair.” And that was back in 1992.

On November 30th, a high school teacher from New York City called into my radio show, wanting me to know that things were far worse in the schools than I could imagine, from the way the kids dress and act to the fact that many of them spend far more time playing terribly violent (and often sexually charged) video games than reading books.

He also told me that in his school, there is a table in the hallway with condoms and lubricants. The students can take them freely, as desired. (Does this surprise you?) The other day, a student put a pile of Gideon’s Bibles on the table, also for the students to take freely. As a result, there was outrage in the school – outrage over the presence of the Bibles, not the presence of the condoms.

Is it an exaggeration to say that we need a massive moral and cultural revolution?

During that same broadcast, I received another called from a man in New York City who was involved in teaching sex education to high school students. As part of the program, he tells these students which condoms work best, among other things.

When I asked him, “Then shouldn’t you also teach the kids about responsible drug use and give out clean needles to intravenous drug users?” he responded, “Yes, we also teach about them drug use as well as where they go for clean needle exchanges.”

It looks like my fictitious scenario was not so fictitious after all.

We need a revolution.

Do American Muslims Want To Take Over Our Country?

December 06, 2011

Do Muslims living in our land want to see an Islamic America, with prominent mosques dotting the landscape of every major city, with Islamic laws instituted throughout the nation, with the name of Muhammad revered throughout society, with the Koran memorized by children, with American men stopping five times daily to pray to Allah, with American women dressing modestly, with Islamic dietary practices strictly followed and the whole nation fasting during the daylight hours of Ramadan?

Of course they do, unless they are more nominal, secular Muslims. Those who are deeply devoted to their faith certainly want to convert us to Islam and bring us into submission to Allah.

You might say, “So what’s the big deal? Islam, like Christianity, is a missionary religion, and both want to spread their faith around the world. Don’t devoted Christians have similar ambitions?”

Yes and no. On the one hand, conservative Christians and Muslims both believe they have the true revelation of God for the world, the former in the Bible, the latter in the Koran. They both believe that their way is the best way, and they both believe in proselytizing.

On the other hand, Islam is a law-based religion (similar to Judaism, except that Judaism is not devoted to converting the world), and “Islam” actually means “submission,” specifically, submission to Allah and his law. And so for Muslims, this is not simply a matter of converting people to a faith but also of bringing the society under Islamic rule.

That’s why it’s easy to name countries that are Muslim, like Iran or Saudi Arabia, in which the citizens are required to live by Islamic law, whereas there’s not a country on the planet that is “Christian” in a parallel sense.

As explained by JihadWatch.org, “There is no separation between the religious and the political in Islam; rather Islam and Sharia [law] constitute a comprehensive means of ordering society at every level.”

In keeping with this, “Islamic scholarship divides the world into dar al-Islam (the House of Islam, i.e., those nations who have submitted to Allah) and dar al-harb (the House of War, i.e., those who have not). . . . Then as now, Islam’s message to the unbelieving world is the same: submit or be conquered” (ibid.).

As expressed by the late Ayatollah Khomeini, the man who spearheaded the radical Islamic revolution that toppled the Shah in the late 1970’s and from there spread worldwide, “those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. All the countries conquered by Islam or to be conquered in the future will be marked for everlasting salvation” (from his book Key to the Secrets).

Islam doesn’t just look to convert people, it looks to convert countries, and conversion means conquest.

Even when Muslims are in the great minority, they have a way of exerting a disproportionate influence and making disproportionate demands. That’s why here in America, Butterball turkeys are being slaughtered in conformity with Islamic law, which presumably means they were slaughtered in Allah’s name. And that’s why the name Muhammad (or, Mohammed) has become the most popular boy’s name in countries like England (surpassing Jack in 2010) or in cities like Oslo and Amsterdam.

And let’s not forget that radical Muslims number at least 150 million worldwide, to use a very low number. For them, Islam can also advance by the sword. (In contrast with Islam, such views are almost universally repudiated by Christians today as standing in clear violation of the teaching and example of Jesus who urged his followers to put down the sword and take up the cross.)

As Khomeini stated: “Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! . . . Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! . . . Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! . . . There are hundreds of other psalms [from the Koran] and Hadiths [sayings and acts of Muhammad] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”

In all probability, the more secular Muslims among us would strongly reject these words, but there are tens of millions of Muslims (perhaps several hundred million) who are in complete harmony with Khomeini, and it is foolish to ignore the violent rhetoric of a people so numerous and passionate.

The stark reality is that Muslims worldwide are working to turn America into an Islamic nation, whether by proselytism, societal influence, ideological dominance, legal imposition, or, in some cases, even the sword. And that includes plenty of Muslims living in our midst today.

What Christian Orphans in India Can Teach Our American Youth

December 09, 2011

They sleep side by side on the cement floor, as many as 59 in one room. What they own individually could barely fill a shoebox. Yet they are the richest children I have ever met, and their smiles light up the room. Our American kids with their iPhones in hand, wearing the latest designer jeans, and eager to get their first car when it’s time to drive, are woefully impoverished in comparison.

This is one of the reasons I go to India every year, just completing my 18th ministry trip there since 1993. The founder of the ministry I work with, a man named Yesupadam, is based in the city of Visakhapatnam in Andhra Pradesh. Raised an untouchable, he almost died of malnutrition as a boy, eventually becoming so embittered with the caste system that he signed his name in blood and became a Maoist Communist at age 11.

By the time Yesupadam was in his 20’s, he was a staunch atheist, a violent man, and an alcoholic. But he had an epiphany of Jesus, encountered God’s love, and became a committed Christian. Since then, this former untouchable has established several orphanages, built a children’s school, several pastor’s schools, an old folks homes, a nursing school, a junior college, a training center for the disabled, and one hospital so far. (Plans are currently underway for a larger hospital that will also function as a medical training center. Contributions are warmly welcomed.)

Grads from the pastor’s schools have planted 1,000 new churches in previously unreached tribal areas (think mountains and jungles and tigers and monkeys), often at great personal danger. Not a few of them have been beaten. Some have been martyred. (I have met some of the widows, and they remain totally committed in their faith and have forgiven their husband’s murderers.)

On this last trip, a medical doctor accompanied me, doing some medical work for the kids. He is also a videographer, and he offered to do a documentary of our days there, which included spending time with the kids in the children’s home, a total of 59 girls and 81 boys ranging from four to 15. I wish every person in America – especially our young people – would have the opportunity to meet these precious little ones.

Some of them have lost both parents. Others have only one parent who is unable to support them. (In some cases the one parent was ostracized by his or her Hindu family upon becoming a Christian, leaving them in even greater financial distress.) Some of them are children of pastors in the tribal regions, where there is no formal education available, where disease is often rampant, and where it is very difficult to raise a family.

All the kids, including the very youngest, start their day with prayer from 5:00-5:30 AM, washing up from 5:30-6:00, then doing Bible study from 6:00-6:30. With this, they stand head and shoulders above many (or most?) of the ministers in America in terms of daily spiritual disciplines.

They attend the ministry’s school, a school which has become so highly regarded by the local government that official testing is done there for students in the region, and many of the kids have gone on to higher education upon graduation. Quite a few are now engineers and nurses, others are studying to become doctors, and some have become pastors. And every single child who was raised in the children’s home has continued in their faith to this day.

I spent some time talking with the teenage girls one night while the younger ones were already asleep on the cement. They were bilingual (Telugu and English), and with their long braided hair and totally modest, brightly beautiful Indian dress, they were the picture of innocence. Is there any place in the world that could be farther from Jersey Shore? Could you find a greater contrast between them and the Teen Mom reality TV show?

Each child has a cubby hole on the wall, in which are all their possessions, including clothes. Yet you will never meet a more joyful bunch of kids, nor will you find any that are more content.

Unlike many children in India, they get three good meals a day, they get love and care and nurture, they get solid academics combined with solid biblical teaching, and they learn what really matters most in life. They are so much more rich than most of us.

One of the teenage boys told me with a great big smile that he had been living there – sleeping on that same cement floor in another room – for ten years now, and you just know that his future is as bright as the glimmer in his eyes.

Our American kids, sleeping in their comfortable beds, awash in the latest technology, and enjoying the latest episode of Glee, should be downright envious.

While there’s certainly nothing wrong with a nice bed and a soft pillow, there’s something woefully wrong with the superficiality and carnality of our culture. Let’s learn some lessons from these super-blessed Indian orphans. As Jesus once said, “Life is not measured by how much you own.” (Luke 12:15, NLT)

Hillary Clinton’s “Gay Rights” Speech and American Hypocrisy

December 15, 2011

On December 6th, in a speech in Geneva marking international human rights day, Secretary of State Clinton called for all nations to embrace the goals of LGBT activism, declaring that “gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights,” and that, “It is a violation of human rights when governments declare it illegal to be gay, or allow those who harm gay people to go unpunished.”

Unfortunately, her speech, which was hailed by gay activists worldwide, was an exercise in hypocrisy, not to mention an insult to several billion people worldwide.

She rightly stated that, “It is [a] violation of human rights when people are beaten or killed because of their sexual orientation, or because they do not conform to cultural norms about how men and women should look or behave.” But this was only the tip of the iceberg.

Mrs. Clinton had the audacity to compare religious or cultural objections to homosexual practice to “the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning, or female genital mutilation,” as if the religious and moral objection to men having sex with men is somehow equivalent to the Muslim practice of honor killings or the Hindu practice of burning widows.

“In each of these cases,” she said, “we came to learn that no [religious] practice or tradition trumps the human rights that belong to all of us.” And she said this in our name, as Americans.

She stated that “opinions [on homosexuality] are still evolving,” just as opinions evolved over time with slavery, and “what was once justified as sanctioned by God is now properly reviled as an unconscionable violation of human rights.”

In other words, if you have an issue with the lewd sexual displays at your city’s gay pride parade, or if you’re not comfortable with a man who dresses as a woman using the ladies bathroom, or if you don’t want to see a kid raised by two lesbians and thereby deprived of having a father, or if you believe that God made men to be with women, then you are the moral equivalent of a slave trader or a slave owner.

All this (and more) came from the lips of our Secretary of State at the same time that President Obama issued a memorandum instructing government officials to “ensure that US diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of lesbian, gay, and transgender persons” around the world. (The president’s memorandum is far-reaching and should be read carefully.)

There was an immediate reaction from African leaders, and the Christian Science Monitor noted that, “The enshrinement of equal rights for homosexuals into US foreign policy activities has drawn quick ire from African nations, with one senior figure saying the notion is ‘abhorrent’ across the continent.”

As expressed by Uganda’s John Nagenda, a senior adviser to the president, “I don’t like her tone, at all. . . I’m amazed she’s not looking to her own country and lecturing them first, before she comes to say these things which she knows are very sensitive issues in so many parts of the world, not least Africa.”

Of course, Mrs. Clinton stated that America still had a way to go on the issue of “gay rights,” but it is sheer arrogance to claim that the religious and moral views of several billion human beings must change. Based on what criteria?

By all means we should champion the equal protection of all human beings, regardless of their perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. But that is only a small part of our government’s agenda. The greater goal is the complete normalization and even celebration of everything LGBT, with the corollary removal of all opposition, be it in word or deed.

The truth be told, the modern gay rights movement is a fruit of the radical counterculture of the 1960’s, and it is grounded not in the civil rights movement (despite persistent claims to the contrary) but in the sexual revolution, a revolution for which we are still paying the price.

And this leads to a larger question: Who appointed America as the moral leader of the world? Not only are we the world leader in exporting pornography (by a landslide), but as Bill Bennett noted, at the end of the 20th century, America had:

•The highest percentage of single-parent families in the industrialized world

•The highest abortion rate in the industrialized world

•The highest rate of sexually transmitted diseases in the industrialized world (by a wide margin)

•The highest teenage birth rate in the industrialized world (also by a wide margin)

•The highest rate of teenage drug use in the industrialized world

And we are lecturing the world about morality? We are telling whole nations that their religious, cultural, and moral objections to homosexual practice are no different than the endorsement of widow burning in India or the approval of a Muslim father killing his daughter because he didn’t like the boy she was dating? Seriously?

While our country certainly has been a force for worldwide good in many ways, when it comes to sexual morality we should be hanging our heads in shame, not lecturing others.

Mrs. Clinton’s speech was a source of national embarrassment, not pride.

Was “Christ” Ever in “Christmas”?

December 19, 2011

About this time every year a campaign is launched to “keep Christ in Christmas,” as Christians protest against the “Happy Holidays” mantra that removes any mention of Christmas or against the ban on nativity scenes in schools and government buildings or against the “Xmas” abbreviation that removes any mention of “Christ.” But was “Christ” ever in “Christmas”?

It has become a custom on my radio show to hold an annual debate on whether Christians should celebrate Christmas, a debate totally driven by callers, who tend to be equally divided over the issue.

On the “con” side callers will present arguments like these:

1) We can be almost certain that Jesus was not born on December 25th, so why celebrate his birthday then? Do we celebrate our own birthdays on the wrong day of the year? (Some of the callers will argue that Jesus was most likely born in the fall, during the Festival of Tabernacles, Sukkot.)

2) While it is biblical to celebrate the Savior’s death and resurrection, there is no scriptural mandate to celebrate his birth. Plus, Jesus and his first followers, all of them Jews, would have celebrated Hanukkah, not Christmas.

3) Christmas is nothing but a pagan holiday taken over by the Catholic Church. (The name “Christmas” comes from the words “Christ’s Mass,” pointing to its Catholic roots after being borrowed from paganism.) The feast of the Babylonian god Isis was celebrated on December 25th, replete with gluttonous eating and drinking, while the Romans celebrated the festival of Saturnalia on this date. The various Christmas customs also have pagan origins, including the making and adorning of the Christmas tree and the burning of the yuletide logs. And what does Santa Claus have to do with the birth of Jesus?

4) Christmas has become nothing more than an excuse for materialism and greed. What could be further from the self-sacrificing example of Jesus?

5) Jesus taught that “the world” would hate his followers the same way it hated him (see John 15:18-20), and yet the world loves Christmas, with even irreligious people putting up Christmas trees, giving Christmas gifts, and attending church services. If “the world” loves it, that’s a bad sign, not a good sign.

On the “pro” side callers will present arguments like these:

1) It is true that December 25th was a pagan holiday, but with so many pagans coming to faith in Christ, this was the Church’s way of redeeming the day, taking something with pagan origins and making it into a Church celebration. Isn’t that what Jesus is all about, namely, redeeming sinners and sinful things?

2) The Gospel writers take considerable time to describe the Messiah’s birth (see Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2). Shouldn’t we also take time to remember this amazing event, one that has changed the world forever? This is a great time of the year to meditate on these extraordinary chapters in the Bible.

3) Just think of all the wonderful hymns that we sing at this time of the year, like “Joy to the World” and “Come Let Us Adore Him” – there’s even the special custom of singing Christmas carols from door to door – and only a spiritual Grinch would want to steal this joy from us.

4) This is a special time for families to enjoy quality time together, a time for thanksgiving that the Savior has come into the world, a rare family-oriented, holy day on the Christian calendar. If we get rid of this, what are we left with?

5) Although many irreligious people love the trappings of Christmas, “the world” actually hates Christmas and the Christ after whom it is named. That’s why there’s such an effort to remove Christ from Christmas and to secularize completely the holiday season. This alone should be a sufficient sign to Christians that this is a sacred holiday worth fighting for.

So, Should Christians celebrate Christmas? Should we fight to keep “Christ” in Christmas? Or should we celebrate Hanukkah instead? What are your thoughts?

Let the debate begin.

A Great Time to Love Our Enemies

December 28, 2011

Most of us are familiar with the words of Jesus spoken in the Sermon on the Mount, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” (Matthew 5:43-44)

Here in the West, we don’t experience much physical persecution, but some of us do have quite a few enemies because of the religious and moral stands we take. And so, as 2011 comes to a close, I would like to take a moment to express my heartfelt sentiments to those who might consider me their enemy.

Of course, all of us who engage in public discourse will receive our share of hate mail, especially if we tackle controversial issues, and isolated expressions of hatred and anger are to be expected.

For example, one pro-pedophile reader was not happy with my article about the alarming push for pedophile rights, writing: “Go and [expletive] yourself you uneducated [expletive] for brains. You are a brainwashed fool who knows absolutely nothing about the topic of human sexuality. Views like yours are going the way of rocking horse droppings whether you like it or not. . . . You would have to have [expletive] between your ears not to realise this. Oh please, just put a gun to your head and spare society from your evil propaganda.”

Some readers took exception to my articles about Rush Limbaugh, sending me comments like these: “You’re an idiot. You throw words out there without listening to your target for more than 10 minutes.” And, “What’s your angle here you moron; by the way who are you, never heard of you and never will read anything from you again. Another 4th string writer taking a shot at Rush. . . . I can only assume your motivation is via money ‘under the table’ being sent to you. Good luck to you Pal; perhaps you should start looking at retiring.” There was even one reader who accused me of being a “foolish brain dead liberal.”

But these are isolated emails as opposed to concerted and consistent attacks. In contrast, with my outspoken opposition to many of the goals of gay activism, such attacks from LGBT readers are hardly isolated, and quite understandably so.

A leading gay blogger blasted my recent article on Hillary Clinton’s “gay rights” speech, eliciting comments like these: “That clown is a total fool, and yes a[n expletive].” And, “Michael Brown is one of the biggest [expletive] [expletive]s in the country, someone to be reviled by fair-minded people everywhere.” And, “Yes, Michael, you are the moral equivalent of a slave trader or a slave owner.” And, “Well, I think the [expletive] is right: he is morally equivalent to a slavetrader.” And, “Mr. Brown just doesn’t want to admit he is a blackhearted evildoer.” And, “Get used to it, you filthy [expletive] witchburner. Your days of hating with impunity are over.” And, “As for that Fascist named Michael B., keep promoting violence towards and persecution of innocent LGBT HUMAN BEINGS. Fair notice, it’s your prison cell.” (The fact that I renounce violent actions and words against LGBT people and that I call for equal protection for every human being failed to impress these readers.)

Earlier in the year, I was graced with an article entitled, Michael Brown Is an Anti-Gay Monster – an unusual honor, to be sure – while readers of one of my other articles wrote, “Dr. Michael Brown is truly a heartless monster!” And, “You, sir, are a monster. . . . It is a shame that you [evangelical Christians] cannot be the victims as well as the perpetrators: that would save the rest of us a lot of grief and despair.” And, “You are an idiot. You are a bigger reason for this type of crime than any gay rights activist. . . . You’re a narrow minded, ignorant bigot.” And, “The level of sheer satanic evil demonstrated in this ‘article’ is mind boggling.” And, “What a worthless stain on humanity you are.”

One writer at the Daily Kos website referred to me as a “viciously anti-gay personality,” while others added, “Evil and disgusting,” and “Michael Brown is one sick . . . oh, h-ll, there aren’t enough expletives in the world to describe what he is.”

I think I can safely say that such people count me as their enemy, feeling that I am an intolerant bigot who opposes their rights, opposes true equality, and opposes all that is good in the world, to be likened to the KKK, the Nazis, and the Taliban.

To each one individually, and to all those who write or post on some of the more vocal websites – from JoeMyGod to TruthWinsOut and from RightWingWatch to ExGayWatch – and to their ideological colleagues who add their comments here, I wish you an extraordinarily blessed new year, one in which the love of God touches every area of your lives in a way beyond your wildest dreams. And thanks for reading!

Gay Rights Still Trumping Freedom of Speech, Religion

January 25, 2012

Did you hear what happened to Aryeh Ralbag, chief rabbi of Amsterdam? He was suspended from his post by his own Orthodox Jewish community “for cosigning a declaration which said homosexuality was a ‘treatable’ inclination.” Oh the crime!

The declaration, signed to date by 185 rabbis, community leaders, and mental health professionals, states that, “The Torah makes a clear statement that homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle or a genuine identity by severely prohibiting its conduct.” It also claims that, “Same-sex attractions can be modified and healed,” that “Behaviors are changeable,” that there is a “process of healing,” and that there is a Jewish commandment of “love and compassion.”

The end of the statement reads, “We need to do everything in our power to lovingly uplift struggling individuals towards a full and healthy life that is filled with love, joy and the wisdom of the Torah.”

Yet for signing this very kosher, Orthodox Jewish statement, the Orthodox Jewish community of Amsterdam suspended their chief rabbi.

They were concerned that, “Rabbi Ralbag’s signature may give the impression the Orthodox Jewish community of Amsterdam shares his view. This is absolutely untrue. Homosexuals are welcome at the Amsterdam Jewish community.” (Presumably this includes sexually active, out and proud, “Orthodox gays.”)

Rabbi Ralbg told The Jerusalem Post he found it “scandalous that a chief rabbi cannot state the Torah viewpoint for his community without being penalized.” And he described his suspension as “intolerant on the part of the Jewish community – it is to deny the community’s rabbi the right to express the halachic [Jewish legal] standpoint. This is unheard of.”

Apparently he was not aware that freedoms of religion and speech are frequently trumped by gay rights and perceived gay sensitivities, even in (or, especially in?) a “tolerant” country like the Netherlands. He has now learned that when it comes to gay issues, “tolerance” is a one-way street, and rather than being “unheard of,” such discriminatory acts are becoming more common, not to mention more egregious.

Out of the scores of examples that could be cited (including two concerning my friend and colleague, Dr. Frank Turek, well-known to Townhall readers), here are just three from 2010 and 2011.

On September 27, 2011, the Culturewatch website cited a report from the UK that, “Jamie Murray was warned by two police officers to stop playing DVDs of the New Testament in his cafe following a complaint from a customer that it was inciting hatred against homosexuals. Mr Murray, 31, was left shocked after he was questioned for nearly an hour by the officers, who arrived unannounced at the premises. He said he had turned off the Bible DVD after an ‘aggressive inquisition’ during which he thought he was going to be arrested and ‘frog-marched out of the cafe like a criminal’.” (Yes, you got that right: Murray was interrogated by police for playing Bible DVD’s in his own Christian café.)

Here in the States, Dr. Kenneth Howell, an adjunct professor at the University of Illinois, was fired in 2010 “after a student complained that he was ‘offended’ by Howell’s academic discussion of the Catholic Church’s position on homosexual behavior in an Introduction to Catholicism course. The student was not even enrolled in the class.”

So, a Catholic professor teaching a course on Catholicism (within the school’s Religion department, at that) was fired for accurately conveying to the students what Catholics believe about homosexuality. (In Howell’s own words, written in an email to the students, “I tried to show them that under utilitarianism, homosexual acts would not be considered immoral whereas under natural moral law they would.”)

It was only after a national outcry, along with pressure from attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, that Howell was reinstated.

More recently, Vicki Knox, a special education teacher at Union High School in New Jersey with 20 years of experience, was suspended because of anti-homosexuality comments she posted on her personal Facebook page. She was upset because a display board was put up in her school celebrating Lesbian Gay Bi Transgender History Month, expressed her disapproval on her Facebook page, along with her abhorrence of homosexuality. (She also expressed her strong Christian faith.)

Whether you agree with the tenor of her comments or not, she certainly had the legal right to express herself. Yet she has been suspended and there are ongoing attempts to get her fired. Whatever happened to freedom of speech?

As expressed by John Paragano, a former local government official and municipal judge, “Hateful public comments from a teacher cannot be tolerated. She has a right to say it. But she does not have a right to keep her job after saying it.” Really?

So, it is fine for a school to publicly celebrate homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism – no matter how many students or teachers are offended – but when a teacher expresses her personal disagreement, she is in danger of losing her job.

That’s why I’ve been urging my fellow religious leaders, along with all those in roles of moral and educational influence, to “speak now or forever hold your peace,” and to do so today. Tomorrow might be too late.

“You Should Be Called Out, Fired, Fined and Shamed”

January 30, 2012

For years I have been saying that those who came out of the closet one generation ago (speaking of gay activists) want to put us in the closet today. For making that statement, I have been derisively scorned and ridiculed: “No one is trying to put you in the closet!” But as the tide continues to turn in favor of the gay activist agenda, I’m noticing a shift. People are now saying to me, “Bigots like you belong in the closet!”

Last Wednesday (January 25th), Dr. Frank Turek and I engaged in a radio dialogue-debate with gay activist Mitchell Gold, founder of Faith in America, which is devoted to “ending the harm of religion-based bigotry.”

Speaking at a reception on Capitol Hill December 2, 2011, Gold made reference to this alleged “religion-based bigotry,” saying, “I know those . . . three words might seem harsh or incendiary to some, but unfortunately those are the words that best describe the disease that has and is dividing our country and too many families.”

In other words, if you have any moral or religious or social objection to homosexual practice you are suffering from a divisive and destructive “disease.” In fact, if you simply affirm that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, not the union of two people, you are suffering from the “disease” of “religion based-bigotry.” And bigots, of course, should not be tolerated.

In the midst of our very spirited debate (the three of us are from New Jersey or New York), I repeatedly told listeners they needed to read the book Mitchell edited, Crisis: 40 Stories Revealing the Personal, Social, and Religious Pain and Trauma of Growing Up Gay in America. In keeping with the sub-title, I reiterated that it was important that those of us who opposed gay activism understood the personal dimensions involved. In fact, I started the show by asking Mitchell to tell his own story, wanting others to know the pain he suffered growing up with same-sex attractions.

I also made clear that rampant, no-fault divorce among heterosexuals (including all too many Christians) had done more to destroy marriage than all gay activists combined.

Still, when I asked Mitchell what he thought I should do with my deeply held spiritual and moral convictions, the fruit of 40 years of study, prayer, and reflection, he basically said that I needed to keep studying until I abandoned my opposition to homosexual practice. So much for tolerance, diversity, and religious freedom.

The emails I received from those in Mitchell’s camp were even more enlightening (I have not corrected the typos).

From Rosemarie: “You are the one that is blinded by bigotry. Read how the churches handled slavery, mixed marriages, etc. . . . You and others like you will have a lot to answer for at the judgement. You might make it in the gates and you will most likely be surprised who is there and who is not there.”

From John: “I just finished listening to your program featuring Mitchell Gold, and I feel like crying. . . . It’s such a bold, unquestioned arrogance. . . . I’m a very loving, open-minded athiest as an adult. I whole-heartedly wish that all of humanity would abandon belief in god(s) and truly learn what it is to be kind, and loving and gentle to each other. In all likelihood, it will never happen, but I sincerely believe it’s the only way we will avoid extinction. Upon hearing the message of your show... (devicive, bigotted, self-righteousness) wrapped in the guise of love, I am far-from-assured in my hope for humanity.”

From Cindy: “As a Christian, I was deeply offended by your comments as well as Frank Turek’s comments. . . . Your arguments are outdated and preposterous. You and Mr Turek reminded me of my grandmother when she would rant on and on about black folk. She was fearful.”

From Jeana: “More than 60% of the congregation in my church are divorced. Don’t blame that on the gays. There are 4 pregnant unwed teenagers in my church. Don’t blame that on the gays. Porn addiction is an epidemic among the married men in my church. Don’t blame that on the gays. In other words stop blaming the world’s problems on the gays just so you can justify your hate. You can deny your hate all you want but if you listened to yesterday’s broadcast, your disgust and hate comes through loud and clear.” (My emphasis.)

From Jess: “I couldn’t believe how obnoxious you and Mr. Turek were to Mitchell Gold. You two acted like immature teenage boys...bullying someone who’s diiferent than you.” (But of course. Bullying!)

And clearest of all, from Pablo: “Free speech espousing hate even disguised as pseudo or real religious speech is still hate speech. Hate speech in any and all circumstances is not protected by US law. If you use religion to disguise your hatred of other groups you should be called out, fired, fined and shamed.”

Now, go back and re-read the opening paragraph and tell me if it sounds far-fetched to you.

Tolerance Is Still Not a Two-Way Street

February 07, 2012

Mike Adams recently reported on the landmark ruling of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Julea Ward case, noting that the decision eloquently defended “fundamental religious freedom against a full-frontal assault from the LGBT community.” In the court’s own words, “Tolerance is a two-way street. Otherwise, the rule mandates orthodoxy, not anti-discrimination.”

Unfortunately, there are daily reminders that tolerance is anything but a two-way street in America, and I’m not just talking about extreme personal opinions, like the ones expressed in this email from a man named Boris (yet another listener to my dialog with gay activist Mitchell Gold). He took exception to my affirmation that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, writing:

“So you advocate for human rights violations against gays. You want gays to be executed, killed and tortured in the name of religion? You don’t think gays deserve ANY human rights or protections and in the name of religion you can do anything to gays.

“You are pure evil. Pure evil personified. I know that it must hurt you not to be able to kill or detain and torture your fellow American citizens just because they are gay but at least you can condone violence against black and Arab gay persons.

“You are [a] sick, vile person without any human decency.

“I despise you and the violent hatred you espouse. I hope that one day you, your children and grandchildren will face precisely the fate you advocate for gays to endure.

“You are one sick puppy.

“Without any respect whatsoever, because I do not respect people who love violence and murder in the name of their religion.”

Ah yes, the enlightened voice of tolerance! It reminds me of a comment posted by a viewer of a YouTube clip which included my interview on the Tyra Banks show where I dared to suggest that the best case scenario for a child struggling with Gender Identity Disorder was that the child be helped from the inside out, with the goal that the child would eventually feel at home with his or her body. (I advocated for this as opposed to a boy going to school dressed in girl’s clothing, then being put on hormone blockers to delay the onset of puberty, then going through sex-change surgery at the youngest possible age, then being on hormones for life, still never becoming a fully-functioning male or female).

In response to this apparently outrageous suggestion on my part, a 16 year-old girl commented, “He [meaning me] deserves to be beaten, just like trans women get beaten worldwide, and murdered even. . . . I would like to do a lot of violent things to him too. I would horse kick him in the [expletives] while wearing high heels. I hate that man. YES!!!!! He is a [EXPLETIVE] IDIOT!!!!! Don’t you just hate him??!!”

And how did she describe herself? “I’m a 16 year old girl, who is fairly intellectually mature; I’m probably the most intellectually mature teenager in my school. I am open minded, and a loving person.” Indeed!

The sad fact is that these individual voices reflect a prevailing sentiment: Extreme intolerance, even to the point of rank hatred, is justified when it is directed against those perceived to be intolerant. As I have been told more than once, “It’s a good thing to be intolerant of the Nazis and the KKK, and you are no better than them.”

And what does this look like in practice? Just ask Martha Boggs, manager of the Bistro at the Bijou in Knoxville, Tennessee. When Republican State Senator Stacey Campfield came in for breakfast, she made clear to him that he was not welcome there. Why? He introduced a bill that “prohibits the teaching of or furnishing of materials on human sexuality other than heterosexuality in public school grades K-8,” and he has stated that AIDS is primarily a gay male disease, with apparent sordid origins.

According to Campfield, who exited graciously, Boggs greeted him with these words, “I’m not serving you, you’re a homophobe and hate gay people.”

As she explained, “When I saw him at the front door, I told him to leave. It’s just my way to show support for the gay community and stand up to somebody I think is a bully. He’s really gone from being stupid to dangerous. I think he needs to know what it feels like to be discriminated against.”

There you have it. “Senator Campfield, you deserve to be discriminated against. You’re a dangerous homophobic bully, and I have every right not to serve you” – in Knoxville, Tennessee, of all places, where blacks used to be refused service because of their color.

For her actions, Boggs has received thousands of affirmative posts and emails, and she is being hailed as a hero in the LGBT community.

What was that about tolerance being a two-way street?

Why O’Reilly Was Wrong About Ellen

February 13, 2012

Bill O’Reilly was really off point in his recent article, A Gay Time at JCPenney, claiming that the conservative group called “One Million Moms” was guilty of “witch-hunting against certain people” when they opposed JC Penney’s hiring of Ellen Degeneres as their new spokesperson.

The “One Million Moms” website urged JC Penney to “replace Ellen DeGeneres as their new spokesperson immediately and remain neutral in the culture war,” saying, “Funny that JC Penney thinks hiring an open homosexual spokesperson will help their business when most of their customers are traditional families.”

O’Reilly begged to differ, writing, “While I sympathize with folks not wanting to deal with homosexuality, I think the Moms are wrong.” He argued that “Kim Kardashian is a far worse role model than Ellen,” adding that “there are scores of media people who are celebrated for bad behavior. If the Moms want to be consistent in their outrage about dubious behavior, they are going to be very busy.”

Actually, a quick search of the Moms’ website indicates that they have been very busy, criticizing the fast-food restaurant Carl Jr.’s for a salacious ad featuring the aforementioned Kim Kardashian in 2010. They have also called on Macy’s to discontinue its “two-grooms” ad in a recent catalogue and they previously urged JC Penney to pull their TV ad featuring the new (and quickly discontinued) program “The Playboy Club.”

So, the Moms can hardly be accused of “witch-hunting against certain people” – unless by “certain people” is meant those who glorify extra-marital sex or who treat women as sexual objects or who celebrate homosexuality.

O’Reilly, however, compares the attitude of the Moms to that of the McCarthyism of the 1950s that “got a whole bunch of Americans fired from jobs because he said they were communists. There was even a blacklist in Hollywood that banished perceived leftwing job seekers from employment in the entertainment industry. That was awful and flat-out un-American.”

But is this comparison apt? And does O’Reilly really grasp the reason for the Moms’ opposition to Ellen? On both counts, the answer is no.

Writing in Time Magazine in 2007, gay journalist John Cloud noted that today’s kids are “exposed constantly to an entertainment culture in which gays are not merely accepted but in some ways dominant. You rarely see a reality show without a gay cast member, while Rosie O’Donnell is a coveted free agent and Ellen DeGeneres is America’s sweetheart.”

In January, 2010, Jarrett Barrios, president of GLAAD, stated that, “It’s not enough to be ‘Will and Grace’ any more. The benchmark is higher.” (GLAAD is the acronym for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation; in my opinion, a more accurate name would be the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Disagreement.)

Also in January, 2010, Scott Harris, writing for InsideMovies.com, noted that, “For a while now, kissing has been a popular pastime, but over the last few years a particular sub-genre has emerged as perhaps the hottest gimmick in Hollywood: girl on girl.”

Things have certainly come a long way since film critic and radio host Michael Medved observed, “A Martian gathering evidence about American society, simply by monitoring our television, would certainly assume that there were more gay people in America than there are evangelical Christians.” (This quote dates back to at least 2004.) And how long ago was it that Elizabeth Taylor famously remarked, “If it weren’t for gays, honey, there wouldn’t be a Hollywood”?

Simply stated, in a media culture where out and proud lesbians like Ellen, Rachel Maddow, and Suzie Orman are as American as apple pie, O’Reilly’s reference to the McCarthyism of the 1950s “that banished perceived leftwing job seekers from employment in the entertainment industry” could hardly be more irrelevant.

But that is really secondary to the larger issue, namely the reason for the Moms’ opposition to Ellen as a spokesperson for JC Penney. O’Reilly notes that “DeGeneres is an American citizen,” adding that, “She has committed no crime. If she wants to promote equality for gays or gay marriage, that is her constitutional right. She should not be dismissed from anything.”

Of course, that is her constitutional right and of course she has committed no crime, but that is not the point. In fact, O’Reilly began his article expressing his sympathies for people who “oppose the in-your-face tactics of some homosexuals” at public events like parades in New York City. “They simply want to be left alone. They don’t want to see explicit displays in public that offend their moral or religious point of view.”

And that is precisely the issue here. Ellen is the poster-girl par excellence for gay and lesbian causes and her 2008 “marriage” to Portia DeRossi was celebrated on the front cover of People Magazine. Her 1997 TV announcement that she was gay made television history, and she is an ever-present, always winsome, spokesperson for gay activism.

That is the context for the Moms’ opposition to her being a spokesperson for JC Penney, and it is hard to think that the chain wasn’t aware of the message they would be sending when they hired her. It is surprising that O’Reilly’s logic failed him here.

The Hate Mail Gets Even Uglier

February 15, 2012

All these emails were sent to us after Dr. Frank Turek and I debated gay activist Mitchell Gold on the Line of Fire broadcast. Please pray for God’s light to shine on these poor souls!

From Boris:

So you advocate for human rights violations against gays. You want gays to be exeduted, killed and tortured in the name of religion? You don’t think gays deserve ANY human rights or protections and in the name of religion you can do anything to gays.

You are pure evil. Pure evil personified. I know that it must hurt you not to be able to kill or detain and torture your fellow American citizens just because they are gay but at least you can condone violence against black and Arab gay persons.

You are sick, vile person without any human decency.

I despise you and the violent hatred you espouse. I hope that one day you, your children and grandchildren will face precisely the fate you advocate for gays to endure.

You are one sick puppy.

Without any respect whatsoever, because I do not respect people who love violence and murder in the name of their religion.

Also from Boris (after we reached out to him):

You are a murderer. You advocate for violence against gays and you support all forms of prosecution and murder. You are a vile despicable excuse for a human being.

From Rosemarie:

You are the one that is blinded by bigotry. Read how the churches handled slavery, mixed marriages, etc. I heard your words at the end of the program as if a prayer. Yes Jesus died for us all, we are all make in God’s image, Father. Son. Holy Spirit: Body, Soul, Spirit. You want to kill someone’s spirit and deny their bodies and souls the human love our Lord puts in our hearts for someone.

You and others like you will have a lot to answer for at the judgement. You might make it in the gates and you will most likely be surprised who is there and who is not there.

From Cindy:

Your arguments are outdated and preposterous. You . . . reminded me of my grandmother when she would rant on and on about black folk. She was fearful.

From Bob:

You seem to feel the need to speak for God, but really if you search your heart, truly you will find you are just blowing wind, selling books , and making money.

From Devin:

Homophobia is a disease which does not have to exist. You fear gays & there is no reason for it. Can’t you just relax?

From Derek:

Religionists, your time is up. You may now leave the building.

From Jeana:

We all listened to your Q&A yesterday regarding homosexuality. I let the office tune in and we all got a good laugh. A few people are convinced that you’re a comedian and this is simply your shtick because your assertions are so preposterous. Linda said you needed to “fall on your face” a little harder to knock some sense into it. And she’s a 62 year old conservative Christian grandmother. We were laughing so hard. I personally think you’re just a notch below Pat Robertson on the crazy meter. “The world’s about to end because people are doing gay things.” Haha! On a serious note, there’s medication you could take. Have a good day Chicken Little.

From Nancy:

Do you really not understand that your vicious homophobia, and that same attitude from so many Christian Evangelists, contributes massively to the hate filled actions of gay-bashers, gay-bulliers, and those who beat up and sometimes kill homosexuals. Millions of Christians think that their hateful actions are OK, because people like you say so.

Please try to understand that our Constitution is not based on the Bible. Stop your hate filled campaign against homosexuals...they do no harm to you.

Richard Dawkins and His ‘Oh God’ Moment

February 17, 2012

It was a truly classic moment as the arch-atheist Richard Dawkins, struggling for words during a radio interview, uttered a brief, almost suppliant, “oh, God.” But before we get to that, I must say that I agree with the overall point Prof. Dawkins was making: Most of Britain’s Christians are anything but Christian.

The interview in question took place on February 13th and aired on the Today program in England, where Rev. Giles Fraser and Dawkins discussed the findings of a recent survey conducted by the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. As reported by Stephen Pollard in the Telegraph, “The statistics purport to show that most people who identify themselves as Christian turn out, when questioned on what they actually think, to be ‘overwhelmingly secular in their attitudes on issues ranging from gay rights to religion in public life’. Dawkins’s conclusion is that these self-identified Christians are ‘not really Christian at all’.”

To be sure, it is absurd to think that Dawkins is the last person who should be making pronouncements on who is or is not a Christian, and Fraser, an ultra-liberal himself, took Dawkins to task, arguing that people who professed to be Christians were entitled to be recognized as Christians.

But is self-identification an accurate measure? Is there no such thing as a religious hypocrite? What about a nominal Christian? And didn’t Jesus tell us that we should judge a tree by its fruit?

According to data from the Dawkins survey, “the research found that fewer than three in ten (28%) say one of the reasons is that they believe in the teachings of Christianity. People are much more likely to consider themselves to be Christian because they were christened or baptised into the religion (72%) or because their parents were members of the religion (38%) than because of personal belief.”

Come again? If more than 70% of them do not “believe in the teachings of Christianity,” how can they call themselves Christian?

But it gets worse: “The majority (60%) have not read any part of the Bible, independently and from choice, for at least a year.” And, “Over a third (37%) have never or almost never prayed outside a church service, with a further 6% saying they pray independently and from choice less than once a year.” Also, “Only a quarter (26%) say they completely believe in the power of prayer, with one in five (21%) saying they either do not really believe in it or do not believe in it at all.”

A Christian who does not read the Bible, pray, or believe in the power of prayer?

But it gets even worse: “Just a third (32%) believe Jesus was physically resurrected, with one in five (18%) not believing in the resurrection even in a spiritual sense; half (49%) do not think of Jesus as the Son of God, with one in twenty-five (4%) doubting he existed at all.”

How wonderful! “Christians” who don’t believe their Savior rose from the dead – which basically ends the story right there, the truth be told – and who don’t believe he was the Son of God or, for some, that he even existed. Yet they identify as Christians?

This would be like people identifying as Muslims and yet denying that the Koran was God’s Word, denying that Muhammad was Allah’s prophet, and denying that Islam is the true path to God. Could they rightly be called Muslims?

As strange as it feels to write these words, I must say that, yes, I agree with Richard Dawkins: These people who deny the most fundamental tenets of the Christian faith and who evidence no relationship with God cannot rightly be called Christian. And it is therefore not surprising or even noteworthy that, “Three quarters (74%) strongly agree or tend to agree that religion should not have special influence on public policy, with only one in eight (12%) thinking that it should.”

Why should it? If “religion” hasn’t affected their private lives, why should affect public policy?

All that being said, it was Dawkins who was embarrassed in much of the interview, and after he chided professing Christians who could not identify the first book of the New Testament, Fraser asked him,

Richard, if I said to you what is the full title of The Origin Of Species, I’m sure you could tell me that.

Dawkins: Yes I could.

Fraser: Go on then.

Dawkins: On the Origin of Species…Uh…With, oh, God, On the Origin of Species. There is a sub-title with respect to the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. (Dawkins actually left out the “Natural Selection” part of the title, even though it is the cornerstone of Darwin’s evolutionary theory.)

Of course, we can’t accuse Dawkins of actually praying during his “oh, God” moment, but it was still enjoyable to hear the world’s most famous atheist have this very public slip of the tongue. Would to God that it would prove to be a Freudian slip.

The Kids Are Not Always Alright

February 28, 2012

According to a popular 2010 movie, the children of anonymous sperm donors are often successful at tracking down their donor dad(s), and in the end, to use the movie’s title, “The Kids Are Alright.” The AnonymousUs.org website, which features the real life stories of “voluntary and involuntary participants in these [reproductive] technologies,” paints a very different picture.

In 2010, Elizabeth Marquardt and a team of family scholars produced a deeply disturbing 140 page report entitled, “My Daddy’s Name is Donor: A New Study of Young Adults Conceived through Sperm Donation.” According to the report, “on average, young adults conceived through sperm donation are hurting more, are more confused, and feel more isolated from their families. They fare worse than their peers raised by biological parents on important outcomes such as depression, delinquency and substance abuse. Nearly two-thirds agree, ‘My sperm donor is half of who I am.’ . . . More than half say that when they see someone who resembles them they wonder if they are related. Almost as many say they have feared being attracted to or having sexual relations with someone to whom they are unknowingly related.”

Most of this would come as quite a surprise to viewers of “The Kids Are Alright,” a drama-comedy which told the story of two children conceived by artificial insemination and raised by their lesbian mothers. USA Today gave the movie high marks, saying that it “approaches perfection.” The reviewer called it “probing, poignant and, above all, highly entertaining,” without suggesting for a moment that there was anything controversial about two lesbians deciding to have kids through (anonymous) artificial insemination, thereby choosing to deprive children of a father.

But what’s the big deal? Everybody’s doing it these days, right? Just ask Elton John and his partner, who decided to bring a little boy into the world at the expense of him being raised by his biological mom. After all, what’s the big deal about having a mom and a dad?

This poem, entitled “Uncertainty is Killing Me,” just one of many on the AnonymousUs website, gives us the child’s perspective. Do we dare to stop, read, and listen?

Who are you?

Will I pass you in the street?

Will you hold the door for me and smile as I walk into a gas station during my travels?

Will you look at me and wonder if I belong to you?

You have the pleasure of knowing I could be here.

For nineteen years, I was denied of knowing you even existed.

What was MY grandmother, YOUR mother like?

What about MY grandfather, YOUR father?

Why do you get to selfishly keep them all to yourself?

Who are you to deny me half of my family tree--

Branches rich and strong with stories I may never be told?

Who are you to give away my heritage, knowing it will be replaced with something false?

Do I have brothers and sisters with my dark hair, my deep brown eyes?

Will I be attracted to a familiar stranger in my classes?

Will I fall in love with him and kiss him passionately in an act of accidental incest?

Have you told your wife?

Have you told your partner?

What about your children?

Have you told your brothers and sisters about their mysterious niece?

Are you dead?

Will you ever read this?

Have you dismissed it as something in your past that you did to make ends meet?

Did they pay you to give me away?

What did you spend the money on?

Did you buy a sparkly necklace for your ex-girlfriend?

Did you buy books?

(The bank you went to would have paid you half of my College Algebra book for the donation that included me).

Did you buy a candy bar at a gas station?

Was I worth it?

Do you miss me?

Do you ever think of me?

Do I even cross your mind?

Does the uncertainty drive you crazy?

Was it worth it?

Do you wonder when my birthday is?

What color gown I wore to my graduation?

Would you be proud to know I was the Valedictorian of my senior class?

Would you support that I am Christian?

Would you even want me in your life?

I want you in mine.

I will accept anything about you, if I could just get the privilege of knowing who you are, of knowing who my family is.

Actor Mark Ruffalo, who played the sperm donor in The Kids Are Alright, appears to have no idea that such pain exists, saying of those who stand for natural, organic (= male-female) marriage that, “It’s the last dying, kicking, screaming, caged animal response to a world that is changing, a world that’s leaving a lot of those old, bigoted, un-accepting views behind. It’s over. Those against it are very tricky and they’re using really dark ways to promote their ideas.”

Perhaps Ruffalo can tell the author of “Uncertainty is Killing Me” that the sentiments expressed there are “very tricky” and “really dark,” part of a “last dying, kicking, screaming, caged animal response to a world that is changing”?

It was Dietrich Bonhoeffer who said, “The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world it leaves to its children.” What kind of world are we leaving to our children?

Is Kirk Cameron an Accomplice to Murder?

March 07, 2012

It’s one thing to be called an intolerant bigot. It’s another thing to be called “an accomplice to murder,” but that’s the latest charge being raised by gay activists and their allies, and it needs to be exposed for what it is: an outrageous lie.

Last weekend, actor Kirk Cameron appeared on the Piers Morgan show to discuss his new movie Monumental, and somehow Morgan turned the interview to the subject of homosexuality (surprise!), asking him if he thought gay marriage was a sin and wanting to know what he would teach his children. Cameron stated that according to his beliefs, marriage “was defined by God a long time ago … one man, one woman for life, till death do us part.”

Morgan then asked him, “Do you think homosexuality is a sin?” to which Cameron replied, “I think it’s unnatural, that it’s detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.”

The backlash was immediate and intense (surprise again!), coming from gay activist organizations like GLAAD (which, I have pointed out, really stands for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Disagreement, not Defamation) and from celebrities like Roseanne Barr, who said: “Kirk or kurt or whatever Cameron is an accomplice to murder with his hate speech. So is rick warren. Their peers r killing gays in Uganda.”

Does she really believe this? Let’s deconstruct the rhetoric point by point.

First, the technicalities: It is not true that “peers” of Cameron and Pastor Rick Warren in Uganda are killing gays. The much discussed anti-homosexuality bill is still not law, and the killing of a gay man or woman in Uganda is a crime. And American Christian leaders like Rick Warren have been outspoken in their criticism of the bill as initially written. (For the record, when I was asked about the bill in 2009, I told a local gay correspondent that “I have very serious issues with the proposed law as currently constructed. I believe it has the potential to hurt far more people than it could possibly help, potentially inflicting great suffering on many.”)

Second, the larger realities: It is completely and utterly false to claim that Cameron’s words make him in any way “an accomplice to murder with his [alleged] hate speech.” Can anyone calmly, rationally, and logically make such a ridiculous accusation? Or is this asking too much, since over-the-top gay rhetoric like this is hardly the product of serious thought (or, conversely, is hardly meant to provoke serious thought)? And since when was it forbidden to express views like those held by Cameron?

A variation of this “accomplice to murder” charge (and one that is becoming more common by the day) is that any opposition to homosexual practice or any suggestion that marriage means the union of a man and a woman will result in gay teen suicides. Gay activist Mitchell Gold made this explicit claim while on my radio show in January, making clear that voting for the marriage amendment in North Carolina on May 8th would send a discouraging message to these gay kids, leading some to commit suicide.

Gold said: “For a 14-year-old kid trying to understand their sexuality, to have an amendment in the public discourse in this big public discussion to have people saying gays are sinners and an abomination, that they are not entitled, that it’s not God’s plan to have it this way. . . . This is why kids jump off bridges. This is why kids hang themselves.” (Actually, the bill simply states, “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.”)

How should we respond to these charges? First, we should point out that gay kids do not simply kill themselves because they are told that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. In the vast majority of cases, gay teens kill themselves (like other teens do) because of deeper emotional and psychological problems, so we must do whatever we can to help them deal with the deeper issues in their lives. Without a doubt, each of these deaths is a terrible tragedy, but these kids must not be used as pawns to advance a social agenda, nor they should be told that their suicides are somehow expected or unavoidable.

Second, we should ask gay activists if anti-obesity campaigns are causing obese kids to commit suicide. If so, wouldn’t this make Michelle Obama complicit in the suicides of kids who were bullied because of their obesity? (In no way do I minimize the horrific tragedy of a teen suicide, whatever its cause. I simply want to expose the folly of the “accomplice to murder/suicide” accusation.)

Third, since evangelical Christians like Cameron and I are being criticized for our faith-based convictions, we need to stand up even more strongly for what we believe, proclaiming without shame that we have a message that saves people from suicide, depression, hopelessness, substance abuse, and a host of other things. (That message is called “the gospel,” which means “good news.”)

Let the gay voices of intolerance make the ludicrous claims that we are accomplices to murder and suicide. The truth is that we are ambassadors of life.

Exposing the Hypocrisy of GLAAD

March 19, 2012

It is time to expose the hypocrisy and intolerance of GLAAD, which is really the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Disagreement (not Defamation), as I have pointed out many times before. Not only does GLAAD seek to silence or discredit opposing voices, but it also praises those who attack those voices, even in the most vulgar and crass ways.

This sums up the duplicity of GLAAD: It urges the media to beware of conservative Christian leaders like Chuck Colson, Maggie Gallagher, and Tony Perkins, even calling on CNN to ban some of them from appearing on their shows, and then gives its first Outstanding Blog award to the JoeMyGod website, famous for entries like this one (from March 5, 2012), which mockingly tells readers that if they follow the directions of a particular, outspoken Christian leader “and squint and clench and pray SUPER hard for Super Tuesday, then maybe He’ll make sure that a true earthly spokesmodel for the Holy Dead Zombie gets into office. But please be brief. God is SUPER busy killing babies and giving people cancer.” And this earns praise from GLAAD.

Last week, GLAAD launched its Commentator Accountability Project (CAP), which “aims to put critical information about frequent anti-gay interviewees into the hands of newsrooms, editors, hosts and reporters. . . . Have you seen these anti-LGBT voices in your local media? Let GLAAD know today.”

GLAAD singled out 36 “anti-gay interviewees,” stating in a follow-up article that, “‘accountability’ does not necessarily mean keeping these people out of the media. But if a reporter is interviewing someone who insinuates that his or her political opponent is controlled by the devil, it’s the reporter’s journalistic responsibility to put that person’s opinion in perspective.”

(As an aside, I had to smile at GLAAD’s selection of 36 commentators, since according to Jewish tradition, there are always 36 righteous people in the world, because of whose merit the world is not destroyed. How ironic!)

Among the 36 “anti-gay interviewees” were Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler, Catholic leader Bill Donohue, Brian Brown and Maggie Gallagher (the National Organization of Marriage), Jim Daly, Candi Cushman, and Glenn Stanton (Focus on the Family), Chuck Colson (Breakpoint), Don Wildmon and Tim Wildmon (the American Family Association), political pundit Gary Bauer, Bishop Harry Jackson, World Net Daily’s Joseph Farah, Mat Staver and Matt Barber (Liberty Counsel and Liberty University), Peter Sprigg and Tony Perkins (the Family Research Council), Princeton Professor Robert George, and yours truly.

Each name was linked to a personalized page, citing quotes which allegedly demonstrated our bigoted anti-gay views, like Chuck Colson’s statement that homosexual behavior was more dangerous to one’s health than smoking or Robert George’s questioning of New York governor Andrew Cuomo’s commitment to Catholicism in light of his ardent support for same-sex marriage. Yes, according to GLAAD, the media needs to be aware of such dangerous, extremist viewpoints.

At the same time, GLAAD honors men like Joe Jervis, whose JoeMyGod website contains tags describing Christian leaders as “con men, evil, frauds, liars, scam artists, and douchenozzels,” among those tags that can even be listed here.

The JoeMyGod website is also used as a rallying point to target others in the most vulgar and profane ways. I know this firsthand, since it was Joe Jervis’s website that helped launch a short-lived (and ultimately unsuccessful) campaign against my book A Queer Thing Happened to America. Commenters joined the attack with posts like these: “Boys and girls, it’s time to tag-spam. Have at it: [with a link to the listing on Amazon]”; and, “Tag bomb it like Sally Kern’s book,” and “Make sure you leave appropriate tags on the Amazon book review. My favorites ‘author loves rimming’ and ‘guide to fisting.’” (Note that these comments were never removed from the website.)

So, in the upside-down world of GLAAD, blogs like this are praiseworthy while men like Chuck Colson and Robert George are not worthy to share their views on the air. This is nothing less than a hypocritical witch hunting campaign by GLAAD, and a poorly executed one at that.

And for those who claim that GLAAD is not trying to engage in censorship, note well that at the end of 2010, GLAAD launched a petition drive urging “CNN to Make a New Year’s Resolution: Keep Away From the Anti-Gay Industry.” Yes, said GLAAD, “It’s time for outlets to finally drop several hundred pounds of unhealthy weight, which they’ve been carrying around for years, in the form of anti-gay activists. . . . CNN and the rest of the media are doing nothing but exposing their viewers to dangerous anti-gay rhetoric when they invite members of these anti-gay groups onto their programming. Starting in 2011, this needs to stop.”

This must be labeled for what it is, namely, bigotry, intolerance, and attempted censorship, which is why – to repeat yet again – I say that we recognize GLAAD for what it is: the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Disagreement.

Help spread the truth by sharing this article as widely as you can.

The Not-So-Massive Non-Believers Rally in DC

March 26, 2012

The event was expected to be the “largest gathering of the secular movement in world history,” a “massive rally” that could provide “a sort of ‘Woodstock for Atheists,’ a chance for atheists to show their power in numbers and change their image.” But when pre-rally hype gave way to reality on Saturday, March 24th, on the Mall in DC, the results were hardly earth-shattering, let alone movement-making and message-sending (especially to politicians, part of the targeted audience of the so-called “Reason Rally”).

The crowd that turned out for this drizzly Saturday was estimated at between 8,000-20,000 (I have seen atheist reports, however, that put the number at 30,000), which is actually less than some American mega-churches draw every week in their Sunday services.

There were blatantly sexist speakers at the rally, like Bill Maher and Penn Jillette, but their presence was justified by atheist bloggers like Hemant Mehta, who explained that, yes, these men “have their faults, but they amplify our way of thinking more than just about anyone else.” Therefore, Mehta explained, it is still worth having them speak because “we need big-name celebrities to attend. . . . This isn’t just about spreading science and atheism. This is about drawing attention to our movement. This is about getting media attention.”

If that was the goal, the event certainly fell short of its mark, as the Reason Rally Facebook page complained about the lack of media coverage while the Drudge Report didn’t even mention the rally in its weekend news coverage, finding items like this more newsworthy: “Hippies head for Noah’s Ark: Queue here for rescue aboard alien spaceship. Thousands of New Agers descend on mountain [in France] they see as haven from December’s apocalypse.” (It looks like the hippies are living out their legacy while the atheists are still waiting for their “Woodstock” moment.)

Prof. Richard Dawkins was one of the keynote speakers, calling on the faithless not only to reject religious beliefs but also to “ridicule and show contempt” for religious doctrines and sacraments, including the Eucharist (Holy Communion). (In keeping with this, he once referred to Mary, the mother of Jesus, as a “submissive cosmic doormat.”) Yes, such are the enlightened sentiments of one of the self-styled “brights” – a self-defeating designation if ever there was one – and we can only imagine how beautiful the world would be if the Dawkins’ mentality ruled the day. (Sarcasm intended.)

And while it is true that “the brights” are still trying to figure out the origin of life, physicist Stephen Hawking has now explained how the universe began without God, stating in his book “The Grand Design,” “Because there is a law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing.” Yes, nothing (which is really something) created everything! How did we miss that for so long?

As pointed out by Oxford mathematician and scientist Dr. John Lennox (unfortunately, not one of “the brights”), “The main issue . . . is that gravity or a law of gravity is not ‘nothing’, if [Hawking] is using that word in its usual philosophically correct sense of ‘non-being’. . . . If, therefore, we say ‘X creates X’, we imply that we are presupposing the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. This is obviously self-contradictory and thus logically incoherent – even if we put X equal to the universe! To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its own existence sounds like something out of Alice in Wonderland, not science.” (From his book “God and Stephen Hawking.”)

But I digress from the main topic at hand, namely the “Reason Rally.” Perhaps the most illustrative part of the day was the talk given by 16 year-old atheist Jennifer Alquist, who successfully fought to have a prayer banner removed from her Rhode Island High School. Hailed as a hero at the rally, she wanted everyone to know that if she could bring about change, anyone could.

And what, exactly, was so offensive about the prayer banner? It contained these words, written with the encouragement of school leadership almost 20 years ago:

Our Heavenly Father.

Grant us each day the desire to do our best.

To grow mentally and morally as well as physically.

To be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers.

To be honest with ourselves as well as with others.

Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win.

Teach us the value of true friendship.

Help us always to conduct ourselves so as to bring credit to Cranston High School West.

Amen.

If only those values were inculcated in our schools across America! What a dream that would be. But for the atheists, if those values are associated with God on a banner, then they and God must go.

Atheist David Silverman, one of the event organizers, stated before the gathering that, “We’ll look back at the Reason Rally as one of the game-changing events when people started to look at atheism and look at atheists in a different light.”

I believe he was right. From here on, we’ll probably look at them with more pity.

Can a Muslim Lead the Christian Campus Club?

April 06, 2012

If we follow the logic of the Supreme Court, a Muslim could lead the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship club on your local campus. As absurd as this sounds, it is the very real, potential outcome of some recent Court rulings, and it is in keeping with the decisions made independently by a number of colleges and universities.

In June, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the “University of California’s Hastings College of the Law acted reasonably, and in a viewpoint-neutral manner, in refusing to officially recognize and give funds to a campus chapter of the Christian Legal Society because the group refused to abide by the school’s requirement that student groups open their membership to all” (as reported by Peter Schmidt for The Chronicle of Higher Education).

The university had been sued by the Alliance Defense Fund when, “The school refused to recognize the campus Christian Legal Society chapter, Hastings Christian Fellowship (HCF), because it [would] not agree to a non-discrimination policy that would require the group to admit homosexuals and non-Christians as members and officers.”

In expressing the majority opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that it is “hard to imagine a more viewpoint-neutral policy than one requiring all student groups to accept all comers,” noting that, “Hastings, caught in the crossfire between a group’s desire to exclude and students’ demand for equal access, may reasonably draw a line in the sand permitting all organizations to express what they wish but no group to discriminate in membership.”

In a strongly-worded dissenting view for the minority, Justice Samuel Alito claimed that “the majority opinion rested on the principle of “no freedom of expression that offends prevailing standards of political correctness in our country’s institutions of higher learning,” warning that, “The court’s treatment of this case is deeply disappointing” and its decision “arms public educational institutions with a handy weapon for suppressing the speech of unpopular groups.”

The court’s decision also opens the door for campus lunacy. What if a bunch of ardent Republicans decided to take over the campus’s Democratic club? Or atheists decided to take over the Hindu club? Or Jews for Jesus decided to take over the Hillel club? Or Greenpeace devotees decided to take over the hunting club? Or meat-lovers decided to take over the PETA club? Or gay activists decided to take over the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship club? Or evangelical Christians decided to take over the LGBT club? (Oh wait. I’m sure someone would find a way to stop that.)

Is it unreasonable that campus groups would require members – let alone officers – to adhere to their values and beliefs? Isn’t that the purpose of the club?

Yesterday, the Washington Post reported on the decision by Vanderbilt Catholic (a campus group with 500 members) to leave Vanderbilt University “in a dispute over the school’s non-discrimination policy that bars student groups from requiring their leaders to hold specific beliefs.” (All students are allowed to attend meetings but the leaders must adhere to specific beliefs.) As P.J. Jedlovec, the group’s president, stated, “If we were open to having non-Catholics lead the organization, we wouldn’t be Catholic anymore.” This is not exactly rocket science.

While Vanderbilt Catholic has simply chosen to buck the system, other Christian groups still trying working within the system at Vanderbilt have been suspended. (For the record, Vanderbilt was founded as a Methodist institution.)

The Post article noted that, “Similar disputes have taken place in California, New York and North Carolina. The University of Buffalo suspended the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship in December after a dispute over a gay student member. The University of North Carolina-Greensboro refused to recognize a Christian group called Make Up Your Own Mind because it discriminated on the basis of faith for leaders. The school relented after being sued.”

Note carefully the words “discriminated on the basis of faith for leaders.” How can it be called “discrimination” when a Christian group requires its leaders to hold to Christian values and beliefs? Rather, it is “discrimination” when the university refuses to allow a Christian group to be Christian.

Last month, the Supreme Court turned down an appeal brought by the Alliance Defense Fund on behalf of Christian groups challenging the policy at California state universities which did not allow them to restrict “membership in their groups to people who agree with their Christian values and beliefs.” Unfortunately, as noted by ADF attorney Jeremy Tedesco, “one of the key points in the whole case is that every other group on campus is allowed to restrict their membership and their officers to people who agree with the values the group was formed to advocate on campus.”

So, according to the court’s decision, it is not discriminatory for the College Democrats to require that its leaders be Democrats, but it is discriminatory for a Christian group to require that its leaders be Christian. How remarkable.

It appears, then, that a PETA campus group might not be overrun (or run) by cheeseburger-munching students but a Christian group just might be overrun (or run) by Muslim students. I can hear Justice Alito (and the other dissenting justices) saying, “I told you so!”

The Day of Silencing

April 11, 2012

On April 20th, in thousands of schools across America, your hard-earned tax dollars will help underwrite the homosexual indoctrination of your kids. Yes, April 20th will mark the annual Day of Silence, described on its website as “a student-led national event that brings attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in schools.” As for those who do not support a special school day devoted to gay indoctrination, they are the ones who can expect to be silenced.

Originally the brainchild of some college students in 1996, the Day of Silence has been aggressively promoted for the last 12 years by GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network. (Based on its activities, GLSEN would better be described as the Gay & Lesbian Sexual Education Network.) GLSEN calls on students to remain silent during non-instructional school times on the Day of Silence, thereby standing in solidarity with LGBT youth who are silenced through bullying and harassment.

But don’t some schools already have generic, anti-bullying programs in place along with special, daylong events to highlight the destructive effects of bullying? Of course they do, but that’s not enough. GLSEN insists that a special focus must be put on LGBT kids, as if bullying a gay kid was worse than bullying a fat kid.

And there’s more: A pro-homosexuality message must be sent to the students, with teachers and administrators promoting homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism over the course of the day. That’s why thousands of schools will officially participate in the event, with the strong encouragement of GLSEN.

What about other messages being introduced during the day to balance the discussion? Perish the thought.

This year, PFOX (Parents and Friends of ExGays and Gays) announced its intention to hand out literature on the Day of Silence. As expressed by PFOX president Greg Quinlan, “PFOX is calling on students to distribute flyers promoting acceptance of ex-gays. Former homosexuals and their supporters are ridiculed and forced to live in silence. Our nation’s schools deny students with unwanted same-sex attractions any support or fact-based information that feelings can and do change.”

How was this announcement welcomed? According to one gay journalist, “the fact that they are attempting to sneak in their harmful message on the Day of Silence, a day which is supposed to show support for those who are forced into silence by outside pressures, shows just how deceptive their message truly is.” How dare they introduce their message on the Day of Silence! As expressed in 2004 by gay activist Kevin Jennings, founder of GLSEN and recently President Obama’s Safe School Czar, “Ex-gay messages have no place in our nation’s public schools. A line has been drawn. There is no ‘other side’ when you’re talking about lesbian, gay and bisexual students.” Ah yes, the voice of tolerance once again.

What about the Day of Dialogue, sponsored by the evangelical Christian organization Focus on the Family on the day before the Day of Silence? This event encourages “student-initiated conversations about the fact that God cares about our lives, our relationships and our sexuality. [Jesus’] example calls us to stand up for those being harmed or bullied while offering the light of what God’s word says.”

Surely this event will be welcomed, right? Not a chance. As expressed by a woman who professes to be a Christian (with a self-described “hair-trigger sensitivity for the protection of LGBT youth”) the Day of Dialogue has something “very rotten” at its core. She writes (on LGBTQNATION.com), “Allowing Focus on the Family to export their historical and counter-productive sacred discrimination of the LGBT community to Christian youth is a mistake.” To repeat the words of Kevin Jennings, “There is no ‘other side’ when you’re talking about lesbian, gay and bisexual students.”

Last week an elementary school teacher from Florida called into my radio program, identifying himself as a black male but not wanting to give any specifics about the grade he taught at school. He was concerned that his job could be in jeopardy if he dared speak out against the gay activist sponsored “Day of Silence.” (Other elementary school teachers have told me privately that they dare not speak out against the clear homosexual activism they see on a regular basis in their schools – remember, we’re talking about elementary schools – for fear of losing their jobs.)

Although the Day of Silence had not yet been introduced to this gentleman’s school in Florida, the faculty members were discussing strategies for its future implementation, with explicit instructions to present this as a civil rights issue. (Needless to say, this black American did not approve of equating gay activism with the civil rights movement.) And what should the teacher do if a student raised a religious or moral objection to homosexuality? The conversation should immediately be turned back to gay civil rights, and no religious or moral objections should be entertained.

Yes, the Day of Silence has become the Day of Silencing – unless parents and educators and students determine to let their voices be heard. Now would be a good time to start.

Censorship in London and Moral Insanity in Rhode Island

April 17, 2012

I would love to take a break from writing about gay-related issues, but it’s hard to keep silent in light of some of the things taking place here in America and in the UK.

Consider this brazen case of censorship in London, coming straight from Boris Johnson, the mayor. In 2007, gay activists in England launched a campaign “to tackle homophobic bullying in schools” with a simple message: “Some people are gay. Get over it!”

According to the Stonewall.org website, “After the launch, 600 billboard panels, kindly donated by Titan Outdoor Advertising Ltd, depicted this legend in giant, tabloid-style capital letters, on a bright red background at sights in England, Scotland and Wales. In September 2009 the simple, striking poster campaign appeared on 20 major railway stations advertising screens and on 3,500 interior bus panels in November 2009 for Anti-Bullying week.”

In response, an ad campaign was recently launched by Core Issues, which describes itself as “a non-profit Christian initiative seeking to support men and women with homosexual issues who voluntarily seek change in sexual preference and expression. It respects the rights of individuals who identify as ‘gay’ who do not seek change.” The Core Issues group purchased ads to be carried on a number of buses reading, “Not gay! Ex-gay, post-gay and proud. Get over it!”

This was too much for Mayor Johnson, who explained, “London is one of the most tolerant cities in the world and intolerant of intolerance. It is clearly offensive to suggest that being gay is an illness that someone recovers from and I am not prepared to have that suggestion driven around London on our buses.” What a remarkable statement.

Aside from the fact that the ads did not say that “being gay is an illness that someone recovers from,” it is absolutely outrageous that the mayor of London – “one of the most tolerant cities in the world” – would deny the right of free expression to those who identify as “not gay, ex-gay, or post-gay,” especially in light of the ubiquitous “Some people are gay. Get over it!” campaign.

Some observers suggested that Johnson had ulterior motives in his actions, specifically, his own campaign for reelection, and his main rival in the upcoming election, Ken Livingstone, criticized Johnson for even allowing the ads to be booked: “London is going backwards under a Tory leadership that should have made these advertisements impossible. They promote a falsehood, the homophobic idea of ‘therapy’ to change the sexual orientation of lesbians and gay men.” Yes, censorship is alive, well, and being fully justified in “most tolerant” London.

To add insult to injury, after Alexander Boot, a regular opinion columnist for the Daily Mail, published an article entitled, “So attack on free speech is a sign of tolerance,” there was an outcry from the gay community, branding it a “startlingly homophobic column.” The Daily Mail responded by pulling the article.

It appears then that even criticism of censorship is to be censored, with one Facebook comment asking, “Actually isn’t the article a crime or against the law? Because of laws against homophobia or incitement to hatred?”

Turning now to Rhode Island, we move from the outrageous to the absurd, from censorship to moral insanity.

Two weeks ago, a 17 year-old student-artist at Pilgrim High School painted a mural depicting the stages of a boy’s life, from childhood, to teen years, to graduation in cap and gown, to marriage and family. The last image showed the boy, now a man, standing with his wife and son, with wedding rings over the couple’s heads.

This was too much for the school, and the administration decided to paint over the last image, since “some of the members of the Pilgrim High School community suggested that the depiction of a young man’s development from boyhood through adulthood as displayed may not represent the life experiences of many of the students at Pilgrim High School.” I kid you not!

How dare this young artist depict an image of a traditional family, since this “may not represent the life experiences of many of the students.”

Do you see why I call this moral insanity?

The artist, Liz Bierendy, herself raised in a single-parent home, explained, “I felt bad because I didn’t want to offend anyone. I was scared that maybe it would go out to our homosexual community and I didn’t want them to get in an uprise because I was not trying to preach that’s the right thing to do at all.”

Can you imagine this? She “didn’t want to offend anyone” and she was “scared” that it would provoke a negative reaction from “our homosexual community.” And all this over an image of a married couple with their child. What has become of America?

The school ultimately let Liz decide how to complete her mural, and she stood by her initial decision. But as long as incidents like these continue to happen – here and in other parts of the world – I’m going to continue to write about them.

The best way to combat censorship is to speak out more loudly and clearly, while the best way to combat moral insanity is to expose it.

Do You Support “Anyone But Obama”?

April 23, 2012

Let’s assume that you stridently oppose the reelection of President Obama but you are just not sold on Governor Romney, the presumptive Republican candidate. Do you vote for Romney, since “anyone is better than Obama,” or do you chart a very different course, even sacrificing this election for the long term sake of the country?

Obama’s critics would tell us that we simply cannot afford four more years of his presidency, that his policies are destroying the very fabric of what makes America great, that he is undermining the economy, weakening the military, hurting us internationally, waging war against the Church, and attacking our moral, family values. Four more years of an Obama presidency would also mean the selection of least one, if not two or even three new Supreme Court justices, which would have major implications for decades to come.

The choice, then, for many is simple: “I’m voting for anyone but Obama. The only thing that matters is getting him out.”

Conservative critics of Gov. Romney would say, “Yes, it’s true that we need to defeat Obama, but there’s hardly any difference between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. And a vote for Romney is not a vote for change.”

Amy Contrada, founder of MassResistance, is one of Romney’s staunchest critics, documenting her concerns in meticulous detail in her 600-plus page book Mitt Romney’s Deception. (Needless to say, this does not appear to have been on Ann Coulter’s reading list.) The book’s subtitle says it all, speaking of “His [Romney’s] Stealth Promotion of ‘Gay Rights’ and ‘Gay Marriage’ in Massachusetts.” (Gay activists recently reported with approval that, “Richard Grenell, an openly gay former official in the administration of President George W. Bush, has been tapped to serve as a spokesman for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign on issues pertaining to national security and foreign policy.”)

Conservative author Gregg Jackson states that Romney is responsible for the “$50 co-pay tax payer funded abortion” and calls him “the most uber-leftist governor in our nation’s history.” And then, of course, there is the issue of RomneyCare.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, would not commit to supporting Gov. Romney during an April 11th appearance on MSNBC, while Orthodox Jewish rabbi Yehuda Levin has recently argued that “it is far more acceptable religiously, spiritually & morally not to vote for Romney & have a loyal opposition, G-D willing, in the Senate & the House.” Not surprisingly, Gregg Jackson is among an increasing number of conservatives who are asking, “Time for Christians and conservatives to break ranks with the GOP?” Could it be?

Could it be time to send a loud message to the Republican establishment? Could it be time for a third party to form with its sights set on future elections? (Let’s not forget that the Republican Party was once the new kid on the block.)

For the “anyone but Obama” camp, this kind of reasoning is as foolhardy as it is off limits. In four more years, they would argue, America will be unrecognizable and broken beyond the point of recovery, at least for the immediate future. And, they would be quick to remind us, Obama himself told President Medvedev of Russia that in his next term, he will have “more flexibility,” a chilling prospect, to be sure. And what about those Supreme Court justices Obama will appoint?

On the other hand, if America needs a radical course correction, what’s the use of electing another status quo (or worse) president, if, in fact, that’s what Romney would be? If the political establishment is a big part (the biggest part?) of the problem, then the only way to bring about real change is to challenge the establishment or to work outside the establishment. If not now, then when?

The question becomes even more acute when it comes to conservative Christians, especially the large block of Evangelicals who vote Republican. Year after year and election cycle after election cycle we are promised the moon by the latest “savior” candidate, only to be disappointed four years later. (My article on Don’t Put Your Trust in a Political Savior is relevant here.)

And, as people of faith, when we see ongoing moral decline in our nation (the fault, we would be quick to add, of the evil Democrats), we pray like crazy for revival and reformation, only to take our foot off the gas once the latest and greatest Republican becomes president.

Perhaps we conservative Christians need the bottom to drop out before we really get serious? Perhaps we need the worst case scenario to unfold before we realize that the kind of change we desire will not come from the White House or the Congress as much as it will come through each of us living out our faith without compromise or shame?

I understand that talk like this is completely sacrilegious in most conservative circles, but it’s talk that needs to take place.

So what do you think: Is anyone better than Obama or is this the time to chart a far more radical course for change?

Gay Activists Expose Secret Rightwing Cabal (Or Not)

April 25, 2012

It read like a chapter out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, instead this time, the evil protagonists were not Jews (for the most part) but rather rightwing anti-gay zealots whose secret Facebook group was infiltrated by undercover moles who then spread the word to gay activists who then trumpeted the news across the airways and throughout cyberspace. In reality, the sensationalistic reports were totally false and what was true is hardly sensational.

The Facebook group in question is called Truth4Time, and contrary to gay blog posts and articles, it was not disbanded this week – not for a split second – nor are there any plans to disband it. (As one of the group’s administrators, I have firsthand knowledge of this.) The group is private (at present, and by design, with less than 100 members) and it was formed last year by a young man who wanted “to counter the comments made by the homosexualists that are made on articles published and posted by . . . pro-family warriors” including “Peter LaBarbera, Dr. Michael Brown, Linda Harvey, Matt Barber, etc.”

Some of us in the pro-family camp had noticed that when we posted articles on Christian websites, our articles were immediately bombarded by hostile gay commenters, and so it seemed like a great idea to have a Facebook group that could respond fairly and honestly to these comments while pooling relevant documents that summarized important research and news. We also became aware of gay activists who were trolling various pro-family Facebook pages, reporting them as hate-sites and trying to shut them down, and we wanted to expose this.

So, why all the fuss? And how did this relatively benign group merit a headline like this in the Huffington Post: “Truth4Time, Secret Religious Right Facebook Group, Included NOM Co-Founder, Fox News Pundit And More”? (To the credit of the editor in the Huffpost Gay Voices section, he responded to me immediately when I raised concerns about the factual content of the article, he was courteous and helpful from first to last, and he posted my corrections within the text of the article itself.)

What about the “big names” involved in this nefarious, clandestine group, including Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and Fox News contributor Dr. Keith Ablow? The simple truth is that one of the administrators added their names so they could have access to the group, but they were never present on the Facebook site and, to the best of my knowledge, never knew the group existed or had any idea their names had been added. So much for the smoking gun!

One online comment mocking Truth4Time asked if this was the best we could do with all the money we had. (After all, NOM and Fox have deep pockets!) What money? Not a dime has been invested in the Facebook page nor is there any money available to invest. This is simply a small group of people (some public figures but most not) wanting to combat gay cyber-bullying in an organized, truthful, and respectful way. A more relevant question would be, Why is a small, unfunded, grassroots, Facebook group perceived to be such a threat? And what is the big secret that gay activists have uncovered?

Signorile reported that his gay informant had learned of “a plan, whether it will come to fruition or not, to bombard physicians and school boards with negative and distorted information about the gay community.”

Actually, there was never a plan to “bombard” anyone with anything. Rather, one member posted a comment asking for help in getting information to doctors about the health-risks associated with homosexual activity, as documented by the CDC. (In response to this point, which was posted as a correction at the end of the HuffPost article, the aforementioned gay informant noted that “the CDC has said that racism, poverty, and homophobia play a big role.” But of course! There are no special health risks associated with men having sex with men. How could we miss that?)

The real irony here is that gay activist organizations with tens of millions of dollars in their combined budgets (think HRC and the NGLTF and Lamda Legal and GLAAD and GLSEN, among many others, not to mention their mega-rich straight allies) are doing their best to lobby Congress, influence political races, win court cases, indoctrinate our kids, and flood the media with their message, while in times past, gay activists have used the web to thwart prominent personalities like Dr. Laura (remember the Stop Dr. Laura campaign?). Now, a little Facebook group bands together (quite informally at that) to combat gay cyber-bullying, and suddenly, there’s outrage and shock and disgust. How dare we!

But I’ve divulged enough secrets. I need to get back to the Protocols to learn what our next evil plot will be. And be forewarned. We are everywhere.

The SPLC Fails the Intelligence Test

April 30, 2012

What do you call an organization whose so-called intelligence reports are sometimes an insult to intelligence, an organization that brands some groups “hate groups” and yet, using its own criteria, should itself be branded a hate group? You call that organization the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center). The scary thing is that many people still take them seriously.

According to the SPLC website, its quarterly magazine, the Intelligence Report, “provides comprehensive updates to law enforcement agencies, the media and the general public. It is the nation’s preeminent periodical monitoring the radical right in the U.S.”

The radical right? Well, let’s do a fact check on the Spring 2012 edition, Issue Number: 145, entitled, “The Year in Hate and Extremism 2011,” so we can find out just who this “radical right” really is. I’ll focus on the article by Ryan Lenz (with help from Evelyn Schaltter), “NARTH Becomes Main Source for Anti-Gay ‘Junk Science’,” since I spoke at a conference the article describes and since I was able to have the article reviewed by a staff person at NARTH (the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality).

The article starts off with a dramatic (and hardly impartial) description: “PHOENIX: Michael Brown took the dais in a sterile Marriott ballroom last fall, beaming for the 40 or so therapists who form the devout core of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). With a hulking frame packed tightly into a three-button black suit, one of the nation’s most vociferous anti-gay activists began his speech with a dire warning.”

Well, the “hulking frame” description wasn’t too bad, but I didn’t begin the speech with “a dire warning” and there were probably 75-80 (not 40) in attendance. So, not the best start for an investigative report. As for being “one of the nation’s most vociferous anti-gay activists,” I had no idea I had achieved that status.

Moving on, here are some of the most egregious errors in the report. Describing the NARTH conference itself, the article states that, “True to form, the people speaking at that conference were not therapists promising revelations about human sexuality, but rather prominent culture warriors of the religious right, like Brown [and Sharon Slater].”

This is unmitigated nonsense. As noted by my NARTH source (and as I witnessed firsthand), Slater and I were “the only two speakers who were not clinical, research, and academic experts, not to mention the keynote presentation of Dr. Nicholas Cummings, the former President of the American Psychological Association.” Broken down by the hour, “Clinical/Research/Academic presentations = 29.25 hours (21 speakers), Policy presentations = 2.75 hours (2 speakers).”

All Lenz had to do was look at the conference program to get the facts right, but who cares about facts when you’re writing biased articles designed to advance a particular agenda? Why let truth stand in the way when your goal is to discredit people by claiming they belong to the “radical right,” along with skinheads and neo-Nazis and the like?

The article claims that, according to NARTH, “homosexuality is an unnatural deviation from normal sexual development, a form of mental disorder.” Actually, my source notes that “NARTH does not use that term [a form of mental disorder] to label homosexuality.” The best the SPLC could do was cite a 15 year-old quote from a NARTH co-founder, the late Dr. Charles Socarides, but this was simply his personal opinion and is not part of NARTH’s official statements or standards.

The article quotes (and attacks) Dr. Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute without mentioning that he has nothing to do with NARTH. But why quibble?

The article then approvingly cites gay activist Wayne Besen who claims that, “There’s no other play in the playbook except going back to the fire and brimstone.” Is he kidding? A professional counselor helping a client deal with unwanted same-sex attraction equals “fire and brimstone”? And this is part of an “intelligence report”? (I know. The term is sounding more oxymoronic by the second.)

In 2009, a conservative watchdog group ran this headline: “Prominent homosexual activists lead screaming demonstration, terrorize Boston church sponsoring ex-gay religious event.” And it was none other than Wayne Besen at the helm of this event, shouting through a bullhorn outside the church windows. And he is a trusted source for the SPLC?

Besen is also famous for his over the top, vitriolic rhetoric, yet the groups he attacks, rather than his own organization, make it onto the SPLC’s hate-group list. (To give one of the more amusing examples, in a single article, he described me as a pathological monster, a slick, sick, cynical, diabolical madman with a messiah complex, also accusing me of trying to incite a bunch of “unstable thugs [referring to Christian families in North Carolina] . . . to engage in a violent physical clash with LGBT people.”)

Returning to the SPLC article, it claimed that, in 2007, Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, then the president of NARTH, “came under fire after an essay seeming to justify slavery appeared on NARTH’s website,” as a result of which “Nicolosi stepped down as NARTH president after criticism mounted, but he remains instrumental in the group.” As noted by my NARTH source, this is a “total fabrication. Nicolosi was replaced as President by Dr. Dean Byrd, Byrd by Dr. Julie Hamilton, Hamilton by Dr. Christopher Rosik, all in good order as leadership changes on a regular basis.”

But I’m out of space. What is clear is that this “intelligence report” is riddled with fabrications, falsehoods, and fallacies, which means that either the SPLC is lying through its teeth or its research is so poor that it can’t even figure out how to read a list of conference speakers.

No wonder Townhall columnist and professor of criminology Mike Adams suggested to me that a more accurate name for the Southern Poverty Law Center would be the Intellectual Poverty Law Center.

Dan Savage Savages the Bible, Christianity and the Pope (Part I)

May 02, 2012

Should we be surprised when a gay activist famous for his bawdy sex column and known for his glorification of promiscuity attacks the Bible, ridicules Christian morality, and mocks the Pope in the lewdest of terms? Not at all.

Speaking to 3,000 high school students attending a journalism conference in mid-April, Dan Savage strayed from his appointed theme – anti-bullying – and launched into a tirade against the Bible, also castigating scores of Christian students who walked out during his presentation.

He said, “We can learn to ignore the ‘bull---’ in the Bible about gay people. The same way, the same way we have learned to ignore the ‘bull---’ in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about virginity, about masturbation. We ignore ‘bull---’ in the Bible about all sorts of things. The Bible is a radically pro-slavery document. Slave owners waved Bibles over their heads during the Civil War and justified it.”

After the students walked out in protest, Savage said, “It’s funny, as someone who’s on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible, how pansy-a--- some people react when you push back.”

Two weeks later, on April 29th, he issued a clear apology for using the term “pansy-a---” to describe the walkout of the students but emphatically denied that he was attacking Christianity: “I did not attack Christianity. I attacked hypocrisy. [His emphasis.] My remarks can only be read as an attack on all Christians if you believe that all Christians are hypocrites. Which I don’t believe.”

So, an attack on the Bible as a “radically pro-slavery document” which was also very wrong on human sexuality is not an attack on Christianity?

The same day Savage issued his apology, he launched into a similar tirade, this time while speaking in the chapel (!) of Elmhurst College in Illinois (once again, deviating from his anti-bullying topic). He also had some choice words for the Pope: “What the Pope is saying is that the only thing that stands between my [expletive deleted] and Brad Pitt’s mouth is a piece of paper....What the Pope is saying is that once we’re all gay-married we’re going to go extinct in a generation because once we’re all gay-married, we’re gonna forget which hole [expletive deleted] babies.” And I imagine that this was not an attack on Catholicism?

Savage posted another column on May 1st, further justifying his interpretation of Scripture: “There are untrue things in the Bible—and the Koran and the Book of Mormon and every other ‘sacred’ text—and you don’t have to take my word for it: just look at all the biblical ‘shoulds,’ ‘shall nots,’ and ‘abominations’ that religious conservatives already choose to ignore. They know that not everything in the Bible is true. All Christians read the Bible selectively. Some read it hypocritically—and the hypocrites react very angrily when anyone has the nerve to point that out.”

Perhaps there are actually principles of interpretation that help Christians (and Jews) understand and apply the Scriptures?

Let’s start here: Christians are quick to point to Leviticus 18:22 in their condemnation of homosexual practice: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”

Gay activists and their straight allies are quick to ask: “But what about all the other abominations listed in Leviticus?”

Actually, within Leviticus, only homosexual practice is singled out as an abomination, but elsewhere, the people of Israel are told that they should not eat shellfish (see Leviticus 11, although the word abomination is not used there) while in Leviticus 19, the text says, “You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material” (Leviticus 19:19). Why don’t Christians pay attention to these other verses?

The answer is simple. Within the Torah (God’s Teaching and Law), there were many laws given to Israel to keep them separate from the nations (like Leviticus 19:19). That’s why the Torah said that certain foods, like shellfish, were unclean for the Israelites but not for all people (see Deuteronomy 14:7, 19). On the other hand, there were laws given to Israel that were universal in scope, like the command not to murder.

When it comes to homosexual practice, not only it is the only sinful action singled out in Leviticus as an abomination, but it is part of a list of universal moral prohibitions, including incest and other forbidden sexual acts. We know this because the chapter states that the Lord judged the pagan nations for these very acts, and if acts were wrong for idol-worshiping pagans, and they were wrong for the people of Israel (see Leviticus 18:24-30). And when we see that the prohibition against homosexual practice is reiterated in the New Testament, the case is settled for those who accept the Bible as God’s Word.

Dan, are you following? I’m not angry with you at all. I’m simply trying to help. We’ll tackle the issue of the Bible and slavery next.

Dan Savage Savages the Bible, Christianity, and the Pope (Part II)

May 04, 2012

If the Bible is “a radically pro-slavery document” (Dan Savage), how is it that Christians who successfully fought for the abolition of slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries based their opposition to slavery on that very same Bible? The answer is simple: The Bible is actually not “a radically pro-slavery document.”

According to Savage (following atheist Sam Harris), “the Bible got the easiest moral question that humanity has ever faced wrong. Slavery! What’re the odds that the Bible got something as complicated as human sexuality wrong? 100% percent.”

To be candid, it’s easy to see where Savage and Harris are coming from. After all, in the Old Testament, the Law of Moses didn’t outlaw slavery, it legislated slavery. As for the New Testament, instead of renouncing slavery as an unjust and cruel institution, the authors taught slaves to obey their masters. So, the argument goes, if the Bible got the issue of slavery so terribly wrong, how can it be trusted on the complex issue of human sexuality? And if Christians today are willing to ignore what the Bible says about slavery, what gives them the right to quote the Bible when it comes to the prohibition of homosexual practice?

These are serious questions, and they deserve serious answers. (Dan, remember that I’m here to help!) In short, it was through a misuse of the Bible that Christians justified slavery (along with segregation and the oppression of women) whereas it is by a proper use of the Bible that Christians oppose homosexual practice, while affirming gays and lesbians as people created in God’s image who are objects of Jesus’ love.

Read rightly, the Bible is actually a book of liberation for slaves, a book of equality for the races, and a book of emancipation for women. It celebrates the liberation of the Israelite slaves from Egypt, teaches that in God’s sight, people from every race are equal, and has many glowing things to say about women (did you ever read Proverbs 31:10-31?). Women also played a prominent role in the ministry of Jesus and in the early Church. (There are whole books written on these subjects, but this 2008 lecture provides lots of useful information.) In contrast, there is not a single positive reference to homosexual practice in the Bible, while every reference to homosexuality in the Scriptures is decidedly negative.

Dan Savage stated that, “The shortest book in the New Testament [called Philemon] is a letter from Paul to a Christian slave owner about owning his Christian slave. And Paul doesn’t say Christians don’t own people. Paul talks about how Christians own people.” To the contrary, Philemon was one of the key biblical texts used by the abolitionists in their argument against slavery.

The letter tells the story of a man named Onesimus who had been Philemon’s slave before escaping and then meeting the apostle Paul, who was at that time a prisoner of Rome. Paul led Onesimus to faith in Christ and then wrote to Philemon urging him to receive Onesimus back, “no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother” (Philemon 16).

What a concept! This man was your slave, he ran away and has now become a Christian, so receive him back as your brother and no longer as a slave. Savage really got this one wrong.

As for the larger question of slavery and the New Testament, the Church in its infancy could hardly challenge the entire economic and social structure of Greece and Rome, so it worked within the system, setting in motion principles of liberation and equality, encouraging masters not to threaten their slaves but to provide them “with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven” (Colossians 4:1; Ephesians 6:9). And, to the shock of many readers, Paul taught that, in Jesus, there was neither slave nor free (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11; 1 Corinthians 12:13), while Jesus himself declared that he came to set the captives free (Luke 4:18). And then there’s that letter to Philemon.

That’s why Christians like William Wilberforce, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and William Lloyd Garrison were at the forefront of the abolition movement.

As for the Old Testament, slavery was ubiquitous in the ancient Near East, but the biblical system was much more humane. It was primarily a system of voluntary, indentured servitude lasting for six years unless the slave wanted to serve his master for life. Even then, both master and slave would rest on the Sabbath, if the slave was mistreated he would go free, and there was even a periodic declaration of amnesty when lifetimes slaves would be liberated.

It is only a gross misuse of the Bible that could possibly justify the American slave trade, marked by kidnapping, the murderous and merciless transatlantic middle passage, and then the selling of chained human beings like chattel – just for starts. Each of these acts is strictly forbidden by Old Testament ethics.

Added to all this was the overarching biblical principle of “love your neighbor as yourself,” and to follow this principle means to put an end to slavery. But it does not mean affirming something (homosexual practice) that the Bible explicitly forbids.

What about Old Testament laws that called for the stoning of women who had premarital sex? There’s one more article to come.

Dan Savage Savages the Bible, Christianity, and the Pope (Part III)

May 08, 2012

How can we quote the Bible in support of our moral values when the Old Testament contains laws calling for the stoning of a woman who lost her virginity before marriage? Actually, based on biblical principles, both Judaism and Christianity teach that such laws are not for today. But could you imagine what America would look like if sex outside of wedlock was as shocking and scandalous in our day as it was in ancient biblical times?

In his talk to high school journalism students, Dan Savage mocked the fact that the Bible “says that if your daughter’s not a virgin on her wedding night – if a woman isn’t a virgin on her wedding night – she shall be dragged to her father’s doorstep and stoned to death.”

Was this law ever justifiable? In ancient Israel, which the Bible states was a theocracy instituted by God himself (according to the Torah, God delivered the children of Israel from Egypt and then spoke his laws to them from Mount Sinai) and which was part of a culture where it was almost unthinkable for a girl to lose her virginity to another man before marriage, a law like this was hardly exceptional.

That being said, by New Testament times, Jewish leaders had virtually abolished the death penalty for such offenses, while Jesus stopped a Jewish crowd from stoning a woman caught in adultery and Paul taught that there were spiritual consequences rather than corporal consequences for such offenses. In keeping with this mentality, in absolutely no shape, size, or form would I dream of advocating such laws today any more than I would dream of advocating the death penalty for adultery or homosexual practice.

But let’s ask ourselves some honest questions. While both Dan Savage and I categorically reject the idea of stoning a woman who lost her virginity before marriage, is our society today really in a position to make judgments on ancient Israel when it comes to sexual morality?

In America today, one in four teenage girls has been infected with an STD, and out of the hundreds of thousands of cases of gonorrhea every year, “teenage girls between 15 and 19 account for more cases than any other age group.” Some of the gonorrhea strains are developing into incurable “super bugs.” And we are the enlightened ones?

The CDC reports that one in 5 gay men have HIV, while gay and bisexual men account for half of the new HIV infections in the U.S., having AIDS at a rate over 50 times higher than other groups. (The rates are alarmingly high among gay teens.) Despite this, Dan Savage and his “husband” Terry Miller advocate being “monogamish,” admitting to at least 9 extramarital encounters since they have been together, even claiming that it has been a “stabilizing force” in their relationship. And Savage is criticizing biblical morality?

Let’s also consider the effects of the 1960’s sexual revolution on America. In 1960, 23% of black children were born out of wedlock; by 2008, the out of wedlock birth rate among black Americans was up to 72.3%. In white America, children born out of wedlock rose from 2.3% in 1960 to 28.1% in 2008 – an increase of more than 1000%. According to a Brookings Institution report published in 1996, “Every year about one million more children are born into fatherless families. If we have learned any policy lesson well over the past 25 years, it is that for children living in single-parent homes, the odds of living in poverty are great. The policy implications of the increase in out-of-wedlock births are staggering.”

And what about the modern plague of pornography? Recent surveys indicate that 40 million Americans regularly visit porn sites, that 12% of all internet sites are pornographic, that 25% of search engine requests are pornography related, and that the average age at which a child first sees online pornography is 11. And we are the ones standing on the higher moral ground? (This recent headline from the UK says it all: “Generation XXX: 13-year-old boy sexually abuses 5-year-old sister thanks to porn, says therapist.”)

Perhaps rather than focusing on the issue of the death penalty for premarital sex in ancient Israel – which, to repeat, we categorically reject – we should take a hard look at the massive and destructive sexual promiscuity of our day. Perhaps rather than gloating about our “progressive” attitudes towards premarital, extramarital, and homosexual sex, we should rue the fact that in 1969, 21 percent of Americans believed that “Premarital sex is not wrong“ while in 2009, 60 percent stated it was not wrong.

Let the naked truth be told: America today is the land of Ashley Madison ads encouraging adultery, celebrity sex tapes ad nauseam, staggering rates of STD’s, and reality TV shows like “16 and Pregnant.”

All of which leads to a simple conclusion: Putting aside the harsh nature of the penalties involved in some Torah laws (which made sense in an ancient Near Eastern theocracy but not in our world today), I’ll take biblical morality over the Dan Savage version any day of the week. In fact, I have staked my life on it.

Does Billy Graham Advocate “Christian Sharia”?

May 10, 2012

Of all the attacks that have come against Rev. Billy Graham in his decades of ministry, a recent attack from gay activist Wayne Besen may be the most ridiculous yet. It was all because Graham took out a full-page ad in 14 North Carolina newspapers supporting the now-passed Marriage Amendment. How dare he!

The ad featured a large picture of Graham with these words: “At 93, I never thought we would have to debate the definition of marriage. The Bible is clear — God’s definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. I want to urge my fellow North Carolinians to vote FOR the marriage amendment on Tuesday, May 8. God bless you as you vote.”

That’s it. A simple statement by the most respected Christian leader in America in the 20th century reaffirming what was never disputed until recent years, despite the presence of homosexual relationships in various societies for countless centuries: Marriage is between a man and a woman, and, for those who care to know, there’s not a syllable in the Scriptures that gives the slightest hint that marriage is intended to be anything other than the union of a man and a woman.

How did Besen respond to the ad? He called Graham a “onetime anti-Semite,” referred to him as “this fraud,” grouped him with other “totalitarian preachers,” and claimed that “Graham is now trying to jam his own church’s rules and doctrine down my throat” and that “he thinks I should be forced against my will to live by its rules.”

Besen asked, “Do we now make our civil laws based upon Christian Sharia? Do we all have to follow his version of the Bible or be punished by government? And if this is the case, are we really a free country? Are we really much different than Iran, or is it only by a matter of degrees or a matter of time until these so-called ‘Christian Supremacists’ get their paws on all of our laws?” (Yes, this is meant to be taken seriously.)

Besen continued: “I’m not sure who Billy Graham thinks he is. But it seems like he believes he is superior and his followers have a mandate to hijack civil law and decide for the rest of us how we live.” As for what the Bible says about marriage, Besen stated that Graham is “dead wrong about the Bible being clear.”

John Becker, a colleague of Besen, wrote, “It says a lot about the man’s true character that he selected for what may be his final public gesture an act of malice, divisiveness, and discrimination.” (Yes, you read that correctly: reaffirming natural, organic marriage is “an act of malice, divisiveness, and discrimination.”)

According to actor Michael Varrati, implicit in the “First Amendment is the separation of church and state, a basic principle that was championed by Thomas Jefferson to ensure that you could celebrate your faith peaceably without crapping all over someone else’s rights or beliefs.”

How do we respond to this? It’s certainly tempting simply to ignore these charges, but since there are many who actually believe them to be true, here’s a brief response:

1) Reaffirming marriage as the union of a man and a woman (the only thing the human race has known throughout recorded history until the last 11 years) is as far from Sharia law as Billy Graham is from Wayne Besen. And this has nothing to do with actions of “Christian Supremacists,” a derogatory term used by Besen but one that is totally foreign to the people themselves. (Using Besen’s own criteria, would he qualify as a “Gay Supremacist”?) This simply has to do with American citizens saying, “We really don’t want an activist judge to redefine marriage in our state, so we’re going to secure that in our constitution.” For many of these citizens, this has nothing to do with the Bible.

2) To encourage Christians to vote based on their religious and moral convictions is not hijacking civil law or trying to jam church rules or doctrines down anyone’s throat. It’s called democracy in action. Ironically, when gay activists want to push their agenda or goals or religious convictions on everyone else, it’s called America at her best, a great example of equality and freedom.

3) This has nothing to do with someone’s “version of the Bible.” Every Bible in every language says the same thing regarding God’s intent about marriage. Read the words of Jesus himself in Matthew 19:4-6 if you have any doubt. Read them in any translation or in the Greek. They all say the same thing.

4) The “separation of Church and state” which Jefferson championed was meant to keep the state out of the church’s business, not to keep the church out of the state’s business. Once again, though, it is ironic that those who want to keep conservative Christians from being a political force – in the name of the separation of Church and state – strongly encourage liberal Christians to influence politics and government based on their interpretation of the Bible. Besen himself called for a “spirit of rebellion” that “should begin with mainstream Christians who should be absolutely livid and incensed.”

The bottom line is this: It would be one thing if conservative Christians in America wanted to pass laws that called for the hanging of gays or the beheading of adulterers (as still takes place in countries like Iran or Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia). It’s another thing entirely when they say, “We don’t believe God intended a man to marry a man, and we will vote accordingly.” To call that Christian Sharia is to admit that you have nothing of substance to say.

Equivocating or Evolving, President Obama is Wrong Either Way

May 12, 2012

We know the story well: Barack Obama was for same-sex “marriage” (1996) before he was against it (2004) before he was for it (2012), although in 2008, he was apparently for it and against it (although mainly against it). Based, however, on his strong support for gay activism during his “against” years, it seems clear that he was equivocating in his public opposition to same-sex “marriage.”

But let’s say his views really were evolving, as he claims. Either way, whether equivocating or evolving, he has proven himself to be untrustworthy in this very important matter.

Let’s first consider what appears obvious to many, namely that Mr. Obama has been anything but straightforward when expressing his views on same-sex “marriage.”

It is now common knowledge that he responded to questions posed by the Outline newspaper in 1996 by stating plainly that, “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” Flip-flopping in 2004, he explained, “My religious faith dictates marriage is between a man and a woman, gay marriage is not a civil right.”

In 2008, in the presidential debate hosted by Rick Warren, he stated, “I believe marriage is the union between a man and a woman. As a Christian it’s also a sacred union.” That same year, in a letter to San Francisco’s Alice B. Toklas Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Democratic Club, Obama wrote that he opposed “the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California constitution” with regard to marriage – quite an odd position for someone who could state that “marriage is the union between a man and a woman.” Why, then, would it be “divisive and discriminatory” to amend a state constitution to protect that sacred union?

Since 2008, Obama has aggressively supported the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, decided to stop defending DOMA, appointed men like gay educational activist Kevin Jennings as his Safe School Czar, and appeared at fundraisers for the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), even stating at their dinner in October, 2011 that progress comes when “a father realizes he doesn’t just love his daughter, but also her wife.” Yet it is only now that he can tell us that he endorses same-sex “marriage”? No wonder that Joe Solmonese, outgoing president of the HRC, said earlier this week that there was “no doubt in my mind that the president shares these values.” In other words, the president has not been forthcoming in his true position.

But what if Obama’s views really have been evolving and he was telling the truth when he said in 2010, “My feelings about this are constantly evolving. I struggle with this”? In my opinion, this would be even more disconcerting than if he were equivocating, since it would mean that his clear and unambiguous statements are subject to change at any time and that his religious convictions are as malleable as a piece of clay.

Let’s link together his most salient statements in one long quote: “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages. . . . My religious faith dictates marriage is between a man and a woman, gay marriage is not a civil right. . . . I believe marriage is the union between a man and a woman. As a Christian it’s also a sacred union. . . . At a certain point, I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married. . . . The thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the golden rule — you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated.”

Remember that these are the words of the man who today is the most influential political leader in the world, and yet his waffling on the marriage issue is painful to behold. And these are the words of a leader who makes frequent reference to his professed Christian faith, first to oppose same-sex “marriage” (“my religious faith dictates”; “as a Christian”), then to endorse it (with reference to “Christ sacrificing himself” and “the golden rule”). How deep could this “religious faith” be? And where was this “religious faith” in 1996 when he unequivocally supported redefining marriage?

I understand, of course, that all of us are on a journey and that, over time, our views can change, sometimes radically. But for a national leader (and now president of the United States) to make such extreme shifts, from dogmatically “for” to dogmatically “against” to dogmatically “for,” often in patently self-contradictory ways, is to be untrustworthy as a leader. And to refer to one’s faith as an important part of the flip-flopping decision making process is to be spiritually double-minded, which is why I say that whether equivocating or evolving, President Obama is wrong either way.

The Embarrassed Elites of North Carolina

May 14, 2012

This past Tuesday, May 8th, was a rough day for the liberal elites of North Carolina, as the people of their home state overwhelmingly passed the marriage amendment. It was so embarrassing for them that over the weekend, Gov. Beverly Perdue told a reporter, “We look like Mississippi.” For a liberal elite, what could possibly be worse than that?

There was, of course, the expected backlash from outside of North Carolina, with thousands of people signing the Change.org petition calling for the Democratic National Convention to be pulled from Charlotte, also eliciting comments like these: “As an LGBT Democrat married in Iowa, I wouldn’t set foot in North Carolina,” and, “Move the Convention out of North Carolina, don’t spend any monies in this retrograde state.”

Roseanne Barr, always good for an insightful quote, urged movie studios to “withdraw your productions from NC!” (Note to Ms. Barr: If memory serves me correctly, Hollywood is located in a California, a state which has twice passed marriage amendments. Perhaps you should call for all movie studios to withdraw their productions from there?)

And there were the expected headlines from ultra-liberal and/or gay activist websites. The Daily Kos reported, “The bigots win: North Carolina passes Amendment One,” and Queerty.com wrote, “It’s a sad day in North Carolina. Actually make that in the entire U.S.”

Some celebrities who hail from North Carolina were especially distraught, with American Idol Clay Aiken stating, “North Carolina … has a history of being a state that takes deliberate steps. “In general, we have always been a state that takes responsible steps and this is an example, the only example in my lifetime, of the state taking a very irresponsible step.” And actress Evan Rachel Wood tweeted, “Just bent over on set and cried over this outcome. I hope my children see a more peaceful and tolerant world.”

For the liberal elites still living within North Carolina, however, the passage of Amendment One by a 61-39% vote was almost too much bear. The headline to the Charlotte Observer editorial released minutes after it was clear that the marriage amendment would become law read, “Same-sex marriage amendment vote is just wrong.” The article stated bluntly that, “On Tuesday, North Carolina foolishly and shamefully joined 30 states with constitutional bans on same-sex marriages.”

It called the amendment “misguided,” claimed that it “unwisely writes discrimination into the state constitution,” argued that, “The state is on the wrong side of history on this matter,” and closed by stating, “The [voting] result doesn’t show love. It’s wrong and disgraceful.”

There was not the slightest attempt to disguise the newspaper’s bitterness and embarrassment and not a hint of journalistic restraint, as the editors three times described the actions of the strong majority of North Carolinians as “wrong,” also calling their vote foolish, shameful, unwise, discriminatory, not showing love, and disgraceful. As for the editors themselves, they were “disappointed” with the vote.

But no one said it better than the Democratic Governor of North Carolina, Beverly Perdue, who, if I recall, was actually elected to office by the people of her state, whom she now freely disparages. Replying to a reporter on Saturday, Gov. Perdue stated, “I think it’s wrong for North Carolina, clearly and simply.”

Yes, “People around the country are watching us and they’re really confused, to have been such a progressive, forward-thinking, economically driven state that invested in education and that stood up for the civil rights of people, including the civil rights marches back in the 50’s and 60’s and 70’s.”

“Folks are saying what in the world is going on in North Carolina. We look like Mississippi.”

Could you find a better example of the arrogance of the liberal elite? Or could you imagine a worse insult for a supposedly “progressive, forward-thinking, economically driven state” then to say it looked like Mississippi?

Governor Perdue and the Charlotte Observer not only insulted the people of their home state (my home state too, since 2003) but they also disgraced themselves with their open hostility.

Worse still, they demonstrated their inability to grasp the fact that there is a difference between the civil rights movement and gay activism, that skin color is different than romantic attraction and sexual behavior and that gays and lesbians are not being kidnapped as slaves and being forced to sit at the back of the bus. To the contrary, they are some of the most prominent and influential people in our society. (For much more on this, see the chapter “Is Gay the New Black?” in my book A Queer Thing Happened to America.)

Most importantly, these liberal elites seemed unable to comprehend that for the vast majority of people in North Carolina, there two moms or two dads don’t equal a mom and a dad, that there’s a reason marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and on their watch, they won’t have an activist judge redefining marriage and thereby deciding what their kids will be taught in school.

And that’s why when the final annals of history are written, it will be the liberal elites who were found to be on the wrong side.

Why Do the Backwoods Bigots Get to Vote?

May 15, 2012

In my last article, I explained how embarrassed the liberal elites were in the aftermath of North Carolina’s decisive passage of the marriage amendment. In their view, it was a triumph for backwoods bigotry. But there was a deeper sentiment lurking beneath the headlines and the sound bites: It’s hardly fair that these bigots get to vote! Just think of how wonderful America would be if only the enlightened ones could make the decisions.

A headline last week on the militant, gay activist site Truth Wins Out read, “North Carolina chooses bigotry over prosperity.” The article went on to say, “Those who live in the intelligent parts of North Carolina voted overwhelmingly against Amendment One, but unfortunately, there just aren’t enough intelligent parts of North Carolina.”

So, those living “in the intelligent parts” of the state, meaning primarily the counties and cities with major university populations, recognized how idiotic it is want to safeguard natural, organic marriage. Unfortunately, most North Carolinians were too dense to understand that a man has the civil right to marry another man. Presumably, the intelligent ones – the university students and their friends, not to mention the professors – have learned what really matters from authoritative sources like “Will and Grace,” a show justly touted for changing American opinion by no less a cultural pundit than our vice president, Joe Biden.

A commenter on another website, self-identified as a white gay woman exclaimed, “As I sit in the back of the bus and can only WISH the president would stop letting these backwoods S.O.B’S push me to the back of the bus as if me and my family do not contribute to this country!”

Backwoods S.O.B.’s indeed. Unintelligent bigots and boars. How do they (we?) even have the right to vote? It’s not fair to the enlightened ones (apparently akin to the “brights,” as some atheists self-defeatingly describe themselves). Presumably none of the intelligent ones live in Mississippi either.

Last week, on my Line of Fire broadcast, I received a call from a young lady named Sophie, a student at the University of North Carolina, living in Durham. She too was terribly embarrassed by the voting actions of her fellow North Carolinians, but she was quite proud of her county and city, since they had voted against Amendment One.

This was part of our conversation:

Sophie: And I don’t think that is any coincidence that the counties that are heavily populated, developed and have universities all voted against the amendment.

Brown: So the smart ones, in other words.

Sophie: I’m not saying the smart ones

Brown: The educated ones?

Sophie: I’m just saying the people who were educated about the amendment and understood the consequences of voting for the amendment, because this is way more than marriage because if it was just about marriage then we wouldn’t have an amendment at all because it’s already illegal in North Carolina.

Brown: No, Sophie the reason for the Amendment, is so no activist judge can … redefine marriage and when people go for civil unions that’s just a step towards it. It was 100% to do with marriage...

A little later in the conversation, we got down to brass tacks:

Sophie: Well, this just shows the downfall of direct democracy. I mean sometimes I think that some things really should be left to the people who understand the consequences of the law and I think a lot of political . . . Almost every person who is high up in the North Carolina government has voiced their, their thoughts against this amendment, including the former democrat and republican mayor of Charlotte.

Brown: So Sophie, I think we . . . we just need the smart people, the educated people who think like you, to take control and to weed out these bigoted backwoods, Bible preachers like me, and America will be a better place. Why don’t you just say it? Why don’t you just say it?

Sophie: You’re putting words in my mouth. You’re putting words in my mouth.

Brown: Well those are the words you just. . . . OK then say it.

Sophie: I think if people understood the consequences of the amendment, that they would not have voted for it.

There you have it. The people who live in the “intelligent parts” of North Carolina, “the counties that are heavily populated, developed and have universities, all voted against the amendment.” Yes, “Almost every person who is high up in the North Carolina government” opposed the marriage amendment, leaving only the backwards, uneducated, bigoted blue-collar workers to vote for it, and sadly, they constituted a substantial majority. And “this just shows the downfall of direct democracy.”

So I have a proposal. Let’s be fair to America and honor the elites, and let’s get out of the way of the inevitable social progress that is coming our way, like marriage ceremonies pronouncing lesbian couples “bride and broom” (this really happened). And let’s leave it to the cultural “brights” to rule the day.

Surely, no group of highly educated, intelligent and enlightened progressive, social elites has ever hurt their country. Surely we have learned by now that “some animals are more equal than others.”

Separation of Church and State: Misinformation and Hypocrisy

May 18, 2012

No sooner had I expressed my differences with the president’s announcement supporting same-sex “marriage” than a young man named Collin posted on my Facebook page, “You have to leave your stupid religious dogma behind when talking about state and national issues. You are basing your objection to homosexual marriage on the Bible which would be violating the American principle of separation of church and state.”

Not only is this the opposite of what our Founding Fathers intended, but it is also completely hypocritical, since Collin voiced no objection to the president pointing to his religious beliefs in support of same-sex “marriage.”

And so, President Obama can invoke “Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf,” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi can invoke her Catholic faith, Episcopal bishops in North Carolina can invoke the Bible and their religious traditions, even to the point of actively campaigning for gay “marriage,” and virtually no one (perhaps with the exception of Barry Lynn) is crying out, “Separation of church and state!”

But let conservative Christians invoke the Bible or quote the words of Jesus or point to their religious traditions in opposition to redefining marriage, and comments like this one come pouring in faster than you can count them: “I live in North Carolina where the separation of Church and State doesn’t exist.” (This was from “Eric R.” after the marriage amendment passed on May 8th.)

I have even been told that I have no right to cast a vote for a candidate or a bill if my viewpoint is based on the Bible. What? This notion is as idiotic as it is outrageous.

Let’s set the record straight for those who might be misinformed. First, “the separation of church and state” is not mentioned or alluded to in the Constitution. Second, the concept of “the separation of church and state” is found in the First Amendment, the relevant part of which simply reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In other words, the state needs to stay out of the church’s business. It was not until 1947 that the Supreme Court invoked the principle of “separation of church and state” in a legal ruling.

Third, the wording for “separation of church and state” is based on Thomas Jefferson’s reply to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut in 1802, but as Yale law professor Stephen Carter pointed out, “The separation of church and state, properly understood, comes from the work not of Thomas Jefferson, as is widely perceived, but from the insights of Roger Williams.”

It was Williams who “developed the metaphor of the garden and the wilderness. The garden was the place where the people of faith would gather to struggle to understand God’s Word. The wilderness was the rest of the world; the world where the light had not yet been received. Between the garden and the wilderness stood a wall. The wall existed for one purpose only. It was not there to protect the wilderness from the garden; it was there to protect the garden from the wilderness.”

What does this mean to us today? Listen again to Prof. Carter: “The wall of separation between church and state is not there to protect the state from the church; rather, it is there to protect the church from the state. It stands as a divide to preserve religious freedom. And one needs to protect the church from the state because the latter will utilize its enormous powers to do what the state has always done – either subvert the religion or destroy it. If we continue our slide toward a state that breaches the wall of separation whenever it is convenient, then I worry about the great risk to religious freedom. In the end, such a breach could destroy our ability to form the communities of resistance that are crucial if we are going to have a chance to transform the nation.” (This quote is worth reading again and posting as widely as possible.)

Based, however, on modern misconceptions of the separation of church and state, there could have been no abolition movement to eradicate slavery, since it was led by Christians with the Bible as their principle ideological text, nor could there have been a Civil Rights movement (other than, say, the Malcolm X version), since it too was a church-based movement led by ministers quoting the Bible.

Dr. Martin Luther King, who was one of those ministers, expressed things succinctly when he said, “The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool.” But King also gave a sober warning: “If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority.”

What America really needs, and what many of our country’s founders envisioned, is a vibrant, healthy, non-hypocritical church functioning as “the conscience of the state.” As John Adams famously wrote in 1798, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Why Gay Is Not the New Black

May 22, 2012

Repeating what has been a rallying cry of gay activism for years, the cover of the December 16, 2008 issue of The Advocate announced, “Gay is the New Black: The Last Great Civil Rights Struggle.” Last week, on May 19th, headlines across the nation announced, “NAACP endorses gay marriage as ‘civil right.’” So, is gay the new black?

There are prominent black leaders who say yes, including Congressman John Lewis, who was active in the early Civil Rights movement. There are other prominent black leaders who say no, like Timothy F. Johnson, founder and president of the Frederick Douglass Foundation.

For a number of reasons, I concur with Johnson and others who say that gay is not the new black.

1. There is no true comparison between skin color and behavior. Although gays and lesbians emphasize identity rather than behavior, homosexuality is ultimately defined by romantic attraction and sexual behavior. How can this be equated with the color of someone’s skin?

Skin color has no intrinsic moral quality, and there is no moral difference between being black or white (or yellow or red). In contrast, romantic attractions and sexual behaviors often have moral (or immoral) qualities, and there is no constitutional “right” to fulfill one’s sexual and romantic desires.

Also, skin color cannot be hidden, whereas a person’s sexual orientation is, generally speaking, not outwardly recognizable (unless it is willfully displayed). Put another way, blacks do not have to “come out,” since their identity is self-evident, whereas gays and lesbians have to come out (or act out) for their identity to be clearly known.

2. The very real hardships endured by many gays and lesbians cannot fairly be compared with the monstrous suffering endured by African Americans. Conservative gay journalist Charles Winecoff wrote, “Newsflash: blacks in America didn’t start out as hip-hop fashion designers; they were slaves. There’s a big difference between being able to enjoy a civil union with the same sex partner of your choice – and not being able to drink out of a water fountain, eat at a lunch counter, or use a rest room because you don’t have the right skin color.”

Today, we have openly gay members of Congress, openly gay celebrities, openly gay CEO’s, openly gay financial gurus, openly gay sports stars, openly gay Hollywood moguls, and openly gay college professors, bestselling authors, scientists, and on and on. In the days of segregation in America, there were few, if any, blacks in such prominent positions, not to mention the fact that in many cities in America, even the lynching of blacks was accepted. Where in America are gays and lesbians being lynched today with societal approval? And what is the LGBT equivalent to the American slave trade?

3. Skin color is innate and immutable; sexual orientation is not. Contrary to popular opinion, there is no reputable scientific evidence that people are born gay or lesbian. Even the unabashedly pro-gay American Psychiatric Association stated that, “to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.” As expressed bluntly by lesbian author Camille Paglia, “No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous.”

John D’Emilio, a gay activist and a professor of history and of gender and women’s studies at the University of Illinois, wrote, “What’s most amazing to me about the ‘born gay’ phenomenon is that the scientific evidence for it is thin as a reed, yet it doesn’t matter. It’s an idea with such social utility that one doesn’t need much evidence in order to make it attractive and credible.”

Also contrary to popular opinion, there are former homosexuals; there are no former blacks (despite the best efforts of the late Michael Jackson). This also underscores the fact that skin color cannot be compared to behavior, since even someone who remains same-sex attracted can modify his or her sexual behavior. A black person cannot modify his or her blackness.

Stated another way, genetics determine skin color, not behavior. Otherwise, if genetics unalterably predetermined behavior, then someone with a so-called violent gene could tell the judge, “My genes made me do it!” (For more on this important subject, see the chapter “Is Gay the New Black” in my book A Queer Thing Happened to America.)

4. Removing the unjust laws against miscegenation (interracial marriage) did not require a fundamental redefinition of marriage and family; legalizing same-sex “marriage” does. Marriage between a black person and a white person always included the two essential elements of marriage, namely a man and a woman (as opposed to just two people), and as a general rule, interracial marriage could naturally produce children and then provide those children with a mother and father. In contrast, same-sex “marriage” cannot produce children naturally and can never provide children with both a mother and father. (Another newsflash: Two dads or two moms do not equal a mom and a dad.)

Removing the laws of miscegenation simply required the removal of anti-black bigotry (since a white man could marry a Native American woman but not a black woman), whereas legalizing same-sex “marriage” requires the redefinition of marriage (opening the door to polyamorists, polygamists, and advocates of incestuous “marriages,” who are already mounting their legal and social arguments) and the normalizing of homosexuality (beginning with elementary school education), among other things.

That’s why many black Americans are rightly upset with the hijacking of the Civil Rights movement by gay activists.

Malik Zulu Shabbaz, David Duke, and Me

May 25, 2012

I never expected to be on the same list with the leader of the New Black Panthers (Malik Zulu Shabbaz), a former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (David Duke), a Jew-bashing White Supremacist (Don Black), and a Neo-Nazi (Morris Gullet), but thanks to the investigative genius of the Southern Poverty Law Center (the SPLC), I have made it into the big time.

Yes, according to the SPLC’s latest “Intelligence Report” (Summer 2012, Issue Number: 146), I am now on the illustrious list of 30 New Activists Heading Up the Radical Right. (You may want to think twice about reading the rest of this article. It’s possible that your computer or digital device will be tracked by anti-radical-right cybermoles.)

Also on the list were Pamela Geller (anti-Muslim!), Joseph Farah of World Net Daily (Patriot movement and birther!), and David Barton (anti-gay historical revisionist!), among others. Yes, these are just some of the “new activists heading up the radical right.” How ominous.

In keeping with their pattern of not always getting the facts right, the SPLC lists my year of birth as 1967, which would make me really precocious (and probably all the more dangerous), since it would mean that I was bar-mitzvahed at the age of one in 1968 (surely a first in Jewish history), that I graduated high-school at the age of 6 in 1973, was married at the age of 9 in 1976, and became a father at the age of 10 in 1977, the same year I graduated from college. That should get me membership in Mensa rather than a place on the SPLC’s hit list.

Interestingly, what the SPLC actually reports about me is not that bad: I am “not typical of most who push the idea that a cabal of liberal media elites have orchestrated a so-called ‘homosexual agenda’ to indoctrinate children into a lifestyle that makes a mockery of Christian values.” But I have “ventured beyond seminary walls to take on a new, activist anti-LGBT project, selling [myself] as an expert speaker on the issue of ‘cultural revolution.’” Regarding the silencing intimidation of gay activists and their allies, the SPLC quotes me as saying, “Speak now or forever hold your peace.” I plead guilty as charged!

So what is it that earns me the honor of making the big list of 30? The article actually states that, “Unlike many other voices on the religious right, Brown generally has avoided the kind of slashing rhetoric that often devolves into rank defamation. His work is heavily footnoted and avoids the blanket pronouncements that have gotten others in trouble.”

Well then, what’s the problem? Apparently it is this: “But he still can sound conspiratorial.” How dastardly of me to dare suggest that gay activist organizations share common goals and visions!

Here, then, are the very worst quotes that the SPLC can lift from my 691-page book A Queer Thing Happened to America. “When it comes to denying the existence of a gay agenda, there is ‘immense unity’ in the gay community. Why? It is because the denial of that agenda is part of the agenda. … That is the necessary piece of the puzzle.” And, “[I]t is not good that homosexual behavior is presented as just another alternative to heterosexual behavior, that bisexuality is celebrated, that transgenderism [sic] is normalized, that sex-change surgery is presented as the thing to do, that ex-gays are ridiculed and their very existence denied.”

Quotes like that earn me a place on the SPLC’s hit list? These are the words of a dangerous, radical right activist? Regarding the first quote, doesn’t the LGBT community constantly mock the idea that there is such a thing as a “gay agenda,” all while the clearly articulated goals of that agenda are unfolding before our eyes? Regarding the second quote – well, just read it again. How in the world can it possibly be called “radical”?

To be clear, I am flattered to be on the SPLC’s hit list and I wear it is as a badge of honor. And being associated with a “radical” cause is hardly an insult to me if that cause be a righteous one. The more radical, the better. I’m just exposing the ridiculous nature of the SPLC’s “evidence.”

All of which makes me wonder if, perhaps, there was something else that earned me a place on their list. Could it be the fact that I’ve written articles like, The Southern Poverty Law Center Debunks Itself, and, Isn’t the Southern Poverty Law Center the Real Hate Group? and The SPLC Fails the Intelligence Test?

Either way, I want to publicly thank the SPLC for making my day and bringing a real smile to my face. Coupled with the fact that in March, I made it onto GLAAD’s Commentator Accountability Project list of 36 Christian leaders to avoid, I am overflowing with thanksgiving and appreciation. As Jesus said, “Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man [meaning, Jesus]. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their fathers treated the prophets.” (Luke 6:22-23)

Please take a moment and leap for joy with me. I can hardly wait to see what’s coming next.

About the Author

Michael L. Brown is the founder and president of FIRE School of Ministry in Concord, North Carolina, director of the Coalition of Conscience, and host of the daily, nationally, syndicated talk radio show, The Line of Fire, as well as the host of the Jewish-outreach, documentary TV series, Think It Thru, which airs internationally on the INI network. He became a believer in Jesus 1971 as a sixteen year-old, heroin-shooting, LSD-using Jewish rock drummer. Since then, he has preached throughout America and around the world, bringing a message of repentance, revival, reformation, and cultural revolution.

He holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and has served as a visiting or adjunct professor at Southern Evangelical Seminary, Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary (Charlotte), Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Fuller Theological Seminary, Denver Theological Seminary, the King’s Seminary, and Regent University School of Divinity,, and he has contributed numerous articles to scholarly publications, including the Oxford Dictionary of Jewish Religion and the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament.

Brown is the author of 22 books, including, Our Hands Are Stained with Blood: The Tragic Story of the “Church” and the Jewish People, which has been translated into more than twelve languages, the highly-acclaimed five-volume series, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, a commentary on Jeremiah (part of the revised edition of the Expositor’s Bible Commentary), and several books on revival and Jesus revolution. His newest books are A Queer Thing Happened to America: And What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been (2011) and The Real Kosher Jesus: Revealing the Mysteries of the Hidden Messiah (2012).

Brown is also a national and international speaker on themes of spiritual renewal and cultural reformation, and he has debated Jewish rabbis, agnostic professors, and gay activists on radio, TV, and college campuses. He is widely considered to be the world’s foremost Messianic Jewish apologist.

He and his wife Nancy, who is also a Jewish believer in Jesus, have been married since 1976. They have two daughters and four grandchildren.

Legendary talk radio pioneer Barry Farber recently described Brown with these words: “Relevant. Articulate. Courageous. VALUABLE in mobilizing America for the struggle ahead (my opinion!). This man all by himself enriches the air across America whether he’s talking, answering, analyzing, commenting or taking destructive bulls by the horns and tossing them out of the arena."

Let’s Stay Connected!

If you have enjoyed these articles and want to stay in touch with what I’m doing, here are different ways you can connect:

Line of Fire Radio: To join me live on the air, Monday-Friday, from 2-4 PM, EST, or to listen to the archived shows or subscribe by podcast (all free!), click HERE.

AskDrBrown E-list: To receive emails when new articles or audio messages are available, or just to keep up with what we’re doing, click HERE to sign up.

Facebook: Join me on Facebook at AskDrBrown. You’ll enjoy the real-time discussions about hot topics on the Line of Fire broadcasts as well as receive updates on new articles as they post.

Twitter: If tweeting is your thing, follow me at DrMichaelLBrown.

Table of Contents

Copyright

Preface

Gay Is Good or Bullying Is Bad? A Teachable Moment

The Southern Poverty Law Center Debunks Itself

From Chastity to Chaz: Thou Shalt Not Criticize

Are We on the Wrong Side of History again?

A Right Wing, Fundamentalist Christian Mass Murderer?

Leftists, Beware: The Christian Revolutionaries Are Coming Your Way

It’s the Morality, Stupid!

Please Stop Sexualizing Our Children (Part 1)

Please Stop Sexualizing Our Children (Part 2)

Why Are We Surprised with the Push for “Pedophile Rights”?

Bad Reporting, Bias, or Both at the Charlotte Observer

CNN, the Seminary Grad, and Errors Galore

Must a President Be Smarter Than a Fifth-grader?

The Most Important Quality You’re Looking for in a President

Did Gay Activism Play a Role in the Murder of Lawrence King?

Did Gay Activism Play a Role in the Murder of Lawrence King?

Are We as Devoted as the 9/11 Terrorists?

Why Have Some People Called Me a “Heartless Monster”?

The Man Who Married the Goat (And Reflections on the Meaning of Marriage)

When a Gay Jewish Liberal Tries to Redefine Christianity

Don’t Put Your Trust in a Political Savior

The Girl Who Thought She Was a Werewolf Vampire

Is It Racist to Criticize Your Own Race?

Is Polygamy Worse Than Same-Sex Marriage?

An Outrageous Apology from Canada’s “Conservative” Newspaper

The Death of a Gay Activist Pioneer

A Fat Pride Revolution

The Boy Who Joined the Girl Scouts

“Mutant” as a Codeword for “Gay” in the X-Men Movies

A Gay Activist Butchers the Bible

Are Evangelicals Obsessed with Homosexuality?

Dead Flies and the Legacy of Joe Paterno

Will Newt’s Moral Failures Hold Him Back?

What Could End Rush Limbaugh Career?

Rush Limbaugh Exposes the Elephant in the Closet

Is God Performing Football Miracles for Tim Tebow?

Transanity

Sex-Ed Classes and the Rape of Our Children’s Innocence (Part 1)

Sex-Ed Classes and the Rape of Our Children’s Innocence (Part 2)

Do American Muslims Want To Take Over Our Country?

What Christian Orphans in India Can Teach Our American Youth

Hillary Clinton’s “Gay Rights” Speech and American Hypocrisy

Was “Christ” Ever in “Christmas”?

A Great Time to Love Our Enemies

Gay Rights Still Trumping Freedom of Speech, Religion

“You Should Be Called Out, Fired, Fined and Shamed”

Tolerance Is Still Not a Two-Way Street

Why O’Reilly Was Wrong About Ellen

The Hate Mail Gets Even Uglier

Richard Dawkins and His ‘Oh God’ Moment

The Kids Are Not Always Alright

Is Kirk Cameron an Accomplice to Murder?

Exposing the Hypocrisy of GLAAD

The Not-So-Massive Non-Believers Rally in DC

Can a Muslim Lead the Christian Campus Club?

The Day of Silencing

Censorship in London and Moral Insanity in Rhode Island

Do You Support “Anyone But Obama”?

Gay Activists Expose Secret Rightwing Cabal (Or Not)

The SPLC Fails the Intelligence Test

Dan Savage Savages the Bible, Christianity and the Pope (Part I)

Dan Savage Savages the Bible, Christianity, and the Pope (Part II)

Dan Savage Savages the Bible, Christianity, and the Pope (Part III)

Does Billy Graham Advocate “Christian Sharia”?

Equivocating or Evolving, President Obama is Wrong Either Way

The Embarrassed Elites of North Carolina

Why Do the Backwoods Bigots Get to Vote?

Separation of Church and State: Misinformation and Hypocrisy

Why Gay Is Not the New Black

Malik Zulu Shabbaz, David Duke, and Me

About the Author