Homosexuality is Not a Civil Right by Peter Sprigg

Early in 2004, San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom began giving out marriage licenses—illegally—to same-sex couples. One of the homosexuals who traveled to San Francisco in search of a marriage license explained his rationale succinctly: “I am tired of sitting at the back of the bus.”1

The allusion, of course, was to the famous story of Rosa Parks. Parks is the African-American woman who, one day in 1955, boarded a racially segregated city bus in Montgomery, Alabama, sat down near the front, and refused the driver’s order to “move to the back of the bus.” Parks’ act of civil disobedience violated one of the “Jim Crow” laws that enforced racial segregation in various public services and accommodations in some states.

Parks’ arrest for her courageous defiance sparked the Montgomery bus boycott, led by a young minister named Martin Luther King, Jr., which is generally viewed as the beginning of the great civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. It culminated legislatively in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, banning racial discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations.

The stories of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr. have become an inspiring part of American history. It’s not surprising that homosexual activists have tried to hitch their caboose to the “civil rights” train. They do this in the context of efforts to change the definition of marriage in order to allow same sex “marriages” (by comparing same-sex “marriage” to interracial marriage) and efforts to pass “hate crime” laws (which stigmatize opposition to homosexual behavior as a form of “hate” comparable to racism). The arguments in this essay are relevant to those debates, but focus particularly on laws that would ban employment “discrimination” on the basis of “sexual orientation” (such as the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which is regularly introduced each Congress).

This essay is not a legal treatise, but an exploration of the philosophical justification for including various characteristics as categories of protection under historic civil rights laws—and why “sexual orientation” simply does not compare with them.

Defining Terms: What Are “Civil Rights,” Anyway? …

Read the rest of the article here:
“Homosexuality is Not a Civil Right” by Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at the Family Research Council

Advertisements

Scandal and the New Media – How Should Christians Respond?

By Jay Rogers

(Originally posted on http://www.forrunner.com on November 11, 2010. Note: This article is not copyrighted and may be reproduced in any form without permission.)

I got an email recently notifying me of an advertisement that U.S. Representative Bob Barr (R-GA) is appearing as a speaker on the Cruise for Liberty in January along with a couple of Christian authors whose work has greatly influenced me. The problem is that Barr, a former Libertarian candidate for president, brings a new meaning to the slogan, “Cruise for Liberty.”

Controversies over Bob Barr’s personal conduct

In 1999, during Clinton’s impeachment trial, Hustler publisher Larry Flynt offered money to anyone who could provide evidence that a prominent Republican had engaged in an extramarital affair. According to the American Journalism Review investigators for Flynt said that Barr was “guilty of king-size hypocrisy.” According to a sworn affidavit by Barr’s ex-wife Gail: Barr (a longtime outspoken opponent of abortion) had acquiesced to and paid for the termination of his then-wife’s pregnancy in 1983. In accordance with his public offer: Flynt subsequently paid a sum of money to Gail Barr after she had made her sworn affidavit. Barr never publicly disputed the contents of his ex-wife’s affidavit. Investigators also reported that Barr invoked a legal privilege during his 1985 divorce proceeding, so he could refuse to answer questions on whether he’d cheated on his second wife with the woman who is now his third.

In the early 1990s, Barr was photographed at a fundraising event licking whipped cream off of a woman. According to the Washington Post, “Two people who observed the act say it wasn’t exactly a bosom lick but more like a neckline lick, at the sort of event where business and civic leaders perform dares to raise money. ‘Not exactly Mr. Effusive’, says Matt Towery, the former chairman of Newt Gingrich’s political organization, who observed the brief and awkward licking. ‘You can hardly get the guy to smile.’”

I realize that conference speakers sometimes have to appear on a platform with people who they don’t agree with. However, this is billed as a Christian event with speakers who supposedly uphold God’s Word as a blueprint for liberty. It’s ironic that they feature Bob Barr, a man who is on his third wife and was accused by his second wife of having committed adultery and having paid for an abortion.

Or am I just being a busybody? Am I participating in scandal-mongering by posting this? Even if I knew nothing about the abortion and adultery allegations, it would still irk me that a man on his third wife is lecturing Christians about liberty.

The epistemologist (one who studies belief systems) should understand how compromise works to hijack our worldview. We end up allowing the worst demons of our own depravity to share a platform with the angels of our better nature. We wink at a little indiscretion from time to time due the excuse that we are “all sinners saved by grace.” We slowly allow this to turn slowly into an egregious violation of God’s moral law. In this case, the other conference speakers are winking at an allegation of adultery and murder through abortion. I don’t know if the allegations are true, but I also don’t see where other Christian speakers have addressed the propriety of appearing alongside this man.

To be completely fair, I should address that fact that the “dirt” on Barr was uncovered by Larry Flynt, a pornographer with an open political agenda, during the Bill Clinton impeachment hearings. However, it appears that the allegations were substantial and had enough traction to make it into the mainstream press. Here is an interesting article from the American Journalism Review that discusses the propriety of the “main stream media” exposing the Bob Barr scandal. It also discusses the role of the Internet as the driving force behind the “new media.”

The conclusion I have drawn after 15 years of administrating Forerunner.com is that the Internet is no different than a newspaper press except that it requires no money or training to publish. Therefore, scandal in the new media is so common that most take it with a grain of salt. The downside of this is that nothing is shocking anymore. If scandalous behavior becomes Internet “news” or is already part of public record for those who will connect the dots, then we are repeating what may already be found elsewhere. We should realize that allowing others to read public record and draw their own conclusions cannot be avoided. Most of the time people are commenting on what has already been commented on a thousand times before – Mel Gibson, Tiger Woods, Bob Barr, and so on – even before a civil suit can be written or jury can render a verdict. For better or for worse, the new media is the police, judge, jury and executioner of human character.

For many years, people found it acceptable for journalists to blow the lid off political and private life scandals if the story made it through the rigorous grid of ethical procedural journalism. This was their job. They knew best. Or did they? Now with the Internet, anyone may by pass through this ethical grid with no rigor. As Christians, we are dealing with a new species of animal with the ability to reach thousands at our fingertips in a few microseconds.

The ethics of doing so needs to be examined, but we’ve passed into a time when the genie is out of the bottle. By the time of the Cruise for Liberty in January, many of the attendees will know all about Bob Barr due to the Internet and they will have drawn their own conclusions.

____________________________________________________________

Jay Rogers is the Founder of The Forerunner International (a/k/a Media House International) and has been writing since the 1980’s. Jay has also acted as script writer and associate producer for several Christian videos, including The Real Jesus and God’s Law and Society. He has a heart for Missions, is a fierce pro-life advocate and activist, and is currently the Director of The Forerunner – http://www.forerunner.com . He and his lovely wife Kalia now live in Kissimmee, Florida.

Free Speech Rights Under Fire – Harassment and Death Threats Against Prop 8 Supporters

Source: Mapping Political Persecution by Chuck Colson

Posted 2/24/2009
http://www.breakpoint.org/

Dotting the streets on a certain online map are hundreds of red teardrops. Click on a teardrop at a particular address, and come up with the words, “Patricia Greenwood. Insurance agent. $100.”

Miss Greenwood had better watch her back. Angry supporters of same-sex “marriage” are using Google Maps to tell the world exactly where she lives, and that she donated money to support Proposition 8—the California initiative banning same-sex “marriage.” Now, I made up the name Patricia Greenwood, but the names and addresses on this map belong to real people.

The only point of identifying Proposition 8 supporters is to encourage people to harass them. And the tactic is working.

Opponents of traditional marriage have sent threatening emails and vandalized churches. They have forced supporters out of their jobs and boycotted their businesses. They’ve made abusive telephone calls and even threatened their neighbors with death. Hundreds of cases of harassment have been documented.

Ron Prentice, chairman of the pro-Proposition 8 group ProtectMarriage.com, says the message of the maps “is unmistakable: Support traditional marriage, and we will find you.”

This is unbelievable in a democracy. In fact, domestic terrorism is not too strong a word to use for what’s occurring in California—and it’s a reminder of what happened when citizens allowed similar tactics to go unchallenged in another time and place.

Seventy-odd years ago, Adolf Hitler turned loose his brown shirts on Germany. These vicious young thugs went street by street, seeking out Jews and communists and trade union leaders. They beat them up and destroyed their places of business. In this way, Germany, a strong country, was taken over by an evil man and regime.

How much easier the brown shirts’ job would have been with a Google map! If vigilante-type movements are allowed to bully their opponents, we’re not just talking about suppression of religious freedom. We’re talking about the undermining of the very character of democracy. Political zealots of every stripe will learn that if they cannot persuade their fellow citizens by reason, they can “persuade” us another way—with clubs, scorn, and social ostracism.

It could get to the point where people will be afraid to get involved in politics at all—and if that happens, it will sound the death knell of representative liberal democracy. This is precisely why laws were passed giving Americans the right to a secret ballot.

ProtectMarriage.com and the Alliance Defense Fund have gone to court to protect the privacy and free speech of those who contribute to future campaigns—and to protect them from harassment. They are challenging state campaign finance laws that force disclosure of personal information of those who donate even small amounts of money to political campaigns.

Campaign disclosure laws must balance the public’s right, of course, to know who is donating money to political campaigns with an individual’s right to privacy, freedom of expression, and the freedom not to be threatened for their beliefs.

And we need vigorous law enforcement. If we prosecute hate crimes, why shouldn’t federal and state prosecutors go after those thugs who are abusing innocent people for exercising their right to vote?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now a syndicated columnist, Charles Colson was once labeled a “hatchet man” during his tenure under former President Nixon and was feared in Washington and elsewhere by many in politics. Now as a repentant and devout Christian, Colson preaches a message of reconciliation to “the least of these” – prisoners and their families as well as crime victims and their families all over the world. PFM (formerly Prison Fellowship Ministries) was founded by Colson in 1976 and continues to minister to millions worldwide today.

The Day After the Elections – A Biblical Perspective

The cultural shift toward Darwinian humanism was displayed in its fullest form yet in the elections of 2008 in the US. Here is one theologian’s perspective that I HOPE will be the normal reaction from professing Christians to this year’s presidential election.

Since you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ, in God. Colossians 3:1-3

Discerning Ideologies in Political Positions – Reagan and “Spreading the Wealth”

How do you tell the difference between Democratic and Republican principles and those of the socialist and communist caste? What’s the difference between a private organization giving grants to individuals or other organizations and the government doing it? What is the role of government in people’s lives? Who are the government servants suppose to serve – themselves or the people?

This video is a brief but outstanding examination of the current competing ideologies at war for the right of entrance into the White House. Take some time to educate yourself on them. Compare them to your Constitution… how do they measure up?

“MAN IS NOT FREE UNLESS GOVERNMENT IS LIMITED.” Ronald Reagan in his farewell address to the nation.

(Video) Obama Blocked a BAIPA Bill in the Illinois State Senate – 4 times!!! How Will YOU Vote on Nov. 4th??

You Tube URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suTvLe7kYDE

Senator Barack Obama voted to block a BAIPA bill – Born Alive Infant Protection Act – in the Illinois Senate… 4 times. Is this the kind of man we want sitting in the Oval Office? Or do we want someone sitting there who will affirm life? You decide this Nov. 4th… with your vote. Don’t stay home and essentially vote present… cast an early ballot, or go to the polling place on election day.

Please repost this video on your personal blogs, and send it to your friends and family via email. Be sure to go to the You Tube page and rate it and feel free to leave a comment…

“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves,
for the rights of all who are destitute.” Prov 31:8 NIV

**********************************************

Related posts:
Massacre of Innocence

True Colors – The Blatant Arrogance of Eugenics

The Quick and the Dead

Abortionist Indicted in 2007 Abortion Death of 22 Year Old Woman

A Barnstable County, Massachusetts grand jury has indicted former Massachusetts abortionist Rapin Osathanondh in the abortion related death of 22 year old Laura Hope Smith. The grand jury investigation discovered attempts by Osathanondh, who was a Harvard Fellow, to cover up his neglect of safety procedures that resulted in the death of Miss Smith on September 13th, 2007.

Eileen Smith, Laura’s mother, spoke with CWA Policy Analyst Martha Kleder about this latest development.

Abortion Doctor Indicted in \"Legal\" Abortion Death. Evidence Shows Cover-up.

It’s time for the church to wake up on this issue. It’s not just the babies lives that are at stake.