Focus on the Family web ad rejected by the NCAA.

Behold the latest pathetic capitulation to the Homosexual Lobby by a “mainstream” American institution, the NCAA. It is corporate cowardice of this nature that breeds homo-fascism, a term describing aggressively intolerant homosexual activism that will come to be understood by Americans — as larger and larger portions of the culture cave into the idea that disagreeing with or offending homosexuals (people practicing homosexuality) is beyond the pale. From a logical, historical and spiritual perspective, such an assertion is preposterous, but in the current zeitgeist, emotion, secularism and sheer intimidation trump reason, tradition, and spiritual truth.

Whoever would have thought that 1-3 percent of the population — united around the practice of deviant, unhealthy sex — could command such power? (Only in a declining society, we maintain.) Focus on the Family employs a “soft” resistance to the aggressive “queer” movement (too soft, in our view); if they can’t place an innocuous ad on the NCAA website, then no group defending traditional sexual morality can.

And the hucksters (homosexual and straight) who push the “gay” agenda do so in the name of “diversity.” What a sham. Memo to homosexual extremists: keep demanding such bans on opposing viewpoints — and cheer loudly whenever a pro-normalcy group is silenced! The more you do, the more the American people will see your true colors — which do not match a rainbow’s but rather the oppressive black of a censor’s pen. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.ogl

__________________________________________

– The following is reprinted from OneNewsNow, the news ministry of American Family Association; subscribe to ONN’s daily news briefs HERE and their e-alerts HERE.

NCAA nixes family ad, Focus ‘befuddled’

The NCAA has withdrawn Focus on the Family’s banner ad on its website, apparently because of the organization’s stance on homosexual relationships.

Associated Press reports the National Collegiate Athletic Association heard from some of its members that the banner conflicted with the organization’s policy of inclusion, regardless of sexual orientation. The ad — part of the pro-family group’s “Celebrate Family – Celebrate Life” campaign — was pulled without any notice, according to Focus on the Family’s Gary Schneeburger.

“We’re a little befuddled, I guess is the best way to say it, that an ad that clearly that was not controversial,” he responds. “It was not even political — it was simply about a father wanting the best for his son….”

The ministry spokesman suggests the banner ad was taken down “not…because the ad itself was offensive, but because the very existence of Focus on the Family apparently to some people is offensive.”

The major governing body of college sports says ads must be in agreement with NCAA principles, and its own standards allow it to exclude advertising and advertisers that it deems “do not appear to be in the best interests of higher education and student athletes.”

“What that tells us,” says Schneeburger, “is that we’re not allowed to advertise our family help services because we have biblical values on issues like marriage.” And if such material were “all of a sudden labeled hate speech,” he says “we have deeper problems in our country than we even know.”

Schneeburger points out that Focus spends 90 percent of its budget on parenting and marriage resources, and only 10 percent advocating on behalf of the unborn and for traditional marriage. The supposedly controversial Super Bowl ad featuring Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam, was part of Focus’s “Celebrate Family – Celebrate Life” campaign.

Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton -- who is on record affirming homosexuality as "natural, normal and healthy" despite the College's biblical faith charter -- has joined homosexual activists in crusading against Uganda's proposed Anti-Homosexuality law. Perhaps Throckmorton, who has lost his faith in the ability of Jesus Christ to help "homosexuals" leave the lifestyle, could learn something from the more biblically faithful Ugandans.

TAKE ACTION: contact Grove City College HERE and GCC President Richard G. Jewell (rgjewell@gcc.edu; 724-458-2500) and request a written explanation as to why they employ an activist professor who undermines the Bible’s clear teachings on homosexuality as a changeable sin (and not a natural “orientation”).

___________________________

Folks, I’ve been trying to avoid the Ugandan “Culture War” on homosexuality because I figure we’re busy enough with our own here in the USA. But that hasn’t stopped American homosexual activists and fellow travelers like Professor Warren Throckmorton of the “evangelical” Grove City College from insinuating themselves into the Ugandan situation. (Sadly, Warren has lost his faith in the ability of God to radically change homosexuals through Christ, and now busily works — even in Uganda! — to promote the faithless and disheartening message that most “gays and lesbians” cannot change their basic “orientation”; see his Uganda Independent column in which he makes that assertion HERE.)

Here’s the question I keep asking myself about the Uganda controversy: just what is it that qualifies the United States of America to lecture the Ugandans about homosexuality? Is it our public policy that enshrines immoral sexual behavior (oops: “sexual orientation”) and gender confusion (er…”gender identity and expression”) as a “civil right”? Is it our homosexual “marriage” laws that make a mockery of this divine institution (laws about which Prof. Throckmorton is curiously silent)? How about our pro-homosexuality educational propaganda in K-12 schools that corrupts young students’ minds in the name of “tolerance”? Or the 24/7 “gay bathhouses” and sex clubs that proliferate in urban centers across the United States to facilitate quick-and-easy (and anonymous) deviant sexual hook-ups? (“Come to America: where you can have all the safe sodomy you want! Discounts for students (no joke) and free condoms available for your perverted pleasure!”)

Tell me: does Uganda have something to learn from Christian “defectors” like the opportunistic Prof. Throckmorton — who is now a de facto promoter of homosexuality as normal, natural and healthy while ostensibly still claiming some sort of “Christian” mission at GCC? (Grove City College boasts in evangelical circles that it is “authentically Christian” — an advertising claim of diminishing accuracy the longer it abides likes of Throckmorton.)

[TAKE ACTION: contact Grove City College HERE and GCC President Richard G. Jewell (rgjewell@gcc.edu; 724-458-2500) and request a written explanation as to why they employ an activist professor who undermines the Bible's clear teachings on homosexuality as a changeable sin (and not a natural "orientation").]

Challenge to Accommodationists: I stand corrected if Prof. Throckmorton or any Grove City prof — indeed, any homosexual activist or pro-”gay” apologist — can show me anything resembling “sexual orientation” in the Bible as this concept is currently understood and posited in academia, the media and society.

Nope. What we’re seeing here is sheer Western activist arrogance. (Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media calls it “Homosexual Imperialism.”) I haven’t yet studied the proposed Ugandan legislation but I agree with Bob Knight’s analysis below — and AFTAH is clearly on record opposing draconian penalties for homosexuality like those imposed by jihadist Islamic radicals. But I do know this: Uganda would do well to avoid the example set by America of a cultural-elite-driven society that celebrates homosexuality (along with other sexual immoralities) — and then reaps the whirlwind that results, including the following:

• devastating (public) health crises that are prolonged by the politically correct protection of the very sexual misbehaviors that helped spread the disease in the first place;
• the proliferation of “gay” activist groups that war against Judeo-Christian values and cruelly smear people of faith who dare to defend those values;
• pro-homosexuality, politically correct indoctrination — even on the job — masquerading as “diversity” — i.e., the gradual replacement of Christian proselytization with the institutional advocacy of sin, disguised as tolerance;
• public immorality and annual “gay pride” parades that subject children to immoral displays including public nudity;
• the undermining of historic Judeo-Christian teachings on sex and marriage; “queer” theological attacks on the Bible and sacred texts due to their unambiguous teachings against homosexual acts;
• the rise of “gay”-sympathetic, anti-religious bigotry and even laws that criminalize the outworking of a biblically-informed conscience against homosexuality; legal and cultural harassment of moral-minded organizations like the Boy Scouts and Salvation Army that refuse to treat homosexuality as a civil right;
• the corruption and victimization of children — including ever younger “coming out” ages for children declaring their supposed “gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender” (“queer”) identity.
• turning the public schools into indoctrination zones for the “GLBT” ideology — all in the name of tolerance and “protecting kids”; the spread of “gay” school clubs, first to high schools, then to middle schools, and ultimately to grade schools.

As you can see, most of America’s “lessons” on homosexuality for Uganda are negative ones. Could it be that the more faith-filled and Bible-trusting African Christians have something to teach jaded Americans like Barack Obama and Warren Throckmorton about homosexuality?  – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org ; send us your thoughts at americansfortruth@comcast.net

__________________________________

The following is a column by Bob Knight in World Net Daily:

____________________________________________

All the bile that’s fit to print

Exclusive: Robert Knight hits N.Y. Times for ‘knee-jerk spasms’ targeting Christians

Posted on WND January 13, 2010

You cannot find a better example of selective outrage and character assassination than the Jan. 5 New York Times editorial, “Hate begets hate.”

This humdinger of a self-descriptive screed has it all: wild, unsubstantiated charges; villains; hysterical calls for action; and a smug, holier-than-thou tone that would put “Saturday Night Live”’s Church Lady to shame.

At issue is Uganda’s proposed law criminalizing homosexuality. But the editorial’s real focus is crucifying Christians who had given talks in Uganda and any part of Christendom that has not bowed its knee to the gay gods.

The Times notes that “three evangelical Christians, whose teachings about ‘curing’ gays and lesbians have been widely discredited in the United States, helped feed this hatred.” The editorial names Scott Lively, Caleb Lee Brundidge and Don Schmierer, who “gave a series of talks” last March that “claimed that gays and lesbians are a threat to Bible-based family values.”

I don’t know Mr. Brundidge, but I do know Mr. Lively and Mr. Schmierer. Both are honest and courageous men who, out of Christian compassion, dare to tell the truth about homosexuality. For this, the Times brands them as hatemongers.

While Mr. Lively has written perceptively and passionately about countering the homosexual activists’ political and cultural agenda, there is no evidence of “hate.” Trying to steer someone away from destructive, immoral, changeable behavior is an act of love, not hate. And it is beyond absurd to label as a bigot a man like Don Schmierer, who supports AIDS ministries and reaches out to sexually conflicted people with the life-changing gospel of Jesus Christ. Casting the gentle, soft spoken Mr. Schmierer as a “hater” is like calling Mother Teresa a foul-mouthed harpy.

These men discuss sexual behavior and its consequences for individuals, families and societies, and the blessings of God-given hope. As is typical for a fully owned subsidiary of the homosexual activist movement, the Times falsely claims that the Christian leaders oppose the people themselves. The Times has bought into and promoted the media-fed fiction that people are born gay, cannot change and therefore their volitional sexual behavior is synonymous with identity. In gay parlance, it’s “who they are,” not what they do.

This is nonsense. If we are defined by our sexual behavior, then men addicted to pornography are nothing more than “pornophiles.” It is homosexual activists who have insisted on making sexual desire the be-all and end-all of personal identity. They did this to hijack the moral capital of the black civil-rights movement, equating “sexual orientation” with immutable characteristics like skin color or ethnicity. One big problem remains for them, though. Skin color and ethnicity are morally neutral. Sexual behavior is fraught with moral, social and physical consequences and has been regulated by every society since time began.

The Times ignores the Christian men’s pointed criticisms of the proposed Uganda law and says, “We don’t have much hope that they will atone for their acts.”

Well, we don’t have a whole lot of hope that the Times will atone for its many portrayals of Christians as hate-filled bigots whenever the “gay” issue surfaces. They are following the playbook of “After the Ball,” a gay strategy manual from 1989 that instructs activists to “jam” opponents into silence through threats of guilt by association, outright smears and phony “scientific” claims that go unexamined. The strategy has worked brilliantly, as even conservative voices have been frightened into silence or into steadily ceding moral ground, circling the wagons only around the word “marriage.”

The Times is not alone, of course, in its relentless pursuit of homosexual orthodoxy. On Jan. 7, the Washington Post ran an editorial about Uganda entitled, “A barbaric proposal.” The Post editors, at least, did not engage in Christian bashing, and stuck to very real problems with the proposed law. They did repeat a gay mantra, however: “Being gay is not a choice.”

Science has by no means settled the issue. None of the highly publicized studies by gay researchers in the 1990s has been replicated, and several have been discredited. Then, too, there is the inconvenient existence of many people who engage in homosexuality for years and later embrace the straight life. The “ex-gay” movement is large and growing, but the media are keeping it one of the best-kept secrets out of deference to militant gay activists in the newsrooms.

Uganda has been in the cultural elites’ hot water before by bucking the U.S.-backed condom crusade in Africa and slashing its AIDS rate with campaigns for abstinence and fidelity. The current homosexuality bill is seriously flawed. It contains such overreaches as jail terms for people who do not report homosexual activity and life imprisonment for people who engage in the behavior. But the Times and the Post go beyond criticizing the harsher aspects of the law and attack the underlying concern of Ugandans to defend marriage and family, avoid the corruption of their children and put the brakes on AIDS and other diseases.

The Times and the Post warn that Uganda will become a “pariah” nation “shunned globally” if the law is passed. That may be so. But it might behoove the press to take a closer look at some other countries in Africa whose governments, in the grip of Muslim extremism, routinely cut off people’s heads merely for changing religions. Some nations, such as Egypt, have governments that look the other way as young Christian girls are abducted, raped and forced into Muslim marriages. Do these nations qualify as “pariahs”?

The Times’ editors need to come to terms with their knee-jerk spasms against evangelical Christians and others who defend family values. They routinely depict pro-marriage Americans as motivated solely by hatred and prejudice, never by genuine, heartfelt concerns.

In their editorial’s own words: “You can’t preach hate and not accept responsibility for the way that hate is manifested.”

If this is so, the next equipment the Times should order for its newsroom is … a mirror.

____________________________

Robert Knight is senior writer and correspondent for Coral Ridge Ministries and the author of “Fighting for America’s Soul” (Coral Ridge 2009) and the upcoming book “Radical Rulers.”

New York Times resident "conservative" David Brooks says it is hard to take Sarah Palin seriously, yet he relied on specious "queer" theology in an attempt to justify legal homosexual "marriage" as a supposed moral cause that conservatives should support. Turning the Bible on its head, Brooks says NOT allowing homosexuals to get married is an "abomination."

By Peter LaBarbera

New York Times columnist and TV pundit David Brooks is a liberal’s kind of conservative. The other day, Brooks made news deriding Sarah Palin as a “joke” on a Sunday talk show. Liberal Palin-haters couldn’t be more pleased, as they always are when “moderate” (read: socially liberal) Republicans deride pro-family conservative Republicans.

Said Brooks about the former Republican Governor of Alaska and GOP vice-presidential candidate:

“She’s a joke. I can’t take her seriously,” he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. “The idea that this potential talk show host is considered seriously for the Republican nomination, believe me, it will never happen. Republican primary voters are not going to elect a talk show host.”

I agree with conservative media critic Bernard Goldberg in explaining the dominant elite media’s contempt for Palin: she is a popular, pro-life, conservative, Christian woman — a mix that smug west- and east coast liberals don’t like and certainly not the kind of woman they want to see succeed, much less be President. Surely they are incredulous and envious of her popularity and power, which is far bigger than theirs will ever be (Brooks included).

But what about Brooks? His arrogant, rapid-fire put-down of Palin epitomizes the disdain that RINO (Republican In Name Only) Republicans have for the true, blue, pro-family conservatives who are the collective backbone of the GOP. Socially liberal Republicans whine about “tone” and “tenor” and the alleged harshness of the “religious right,” but I find that it is often the “moderates” who are cutthroat and even nasty in their dealings with religious conservatives in the party.

I don’t know who I will support for the GOP nomination in 2012, or even if Sarah Palin is running.  I hope she does. Palin has earned respect for her accomplishments and her generally principled, conservative positions and she should not be written off as some Republicans like Brooks are doing. Besides, anyone who has taken the hits that she has from the Left deserves a certain degree of appreciation — something the tone-deaf Brooks might have considered if only to keep from losing his truly conservative readers.

Yes, Palin certainly has all the right enemies — including snotty New York Times opinion writers who cheerlead for homosexual “marriage” as a moral — even a “sacred” — cause.

Brooks Backs Buggery

It’s funny. Just before I learned of Brooks’ rash and gratuitous slam on Palin, I stumbled upon a quotation of his that appeared in a booklet put out by the Human Rights Campaign — a powerful homosexual lobby organization — titled, “Answers to Questions about Marriage Equality.” HRC identifies Brooks as a “conservative columnist,” but no true “conservative” worth his salt gets cited favorably by a “gay” activist group that traffics in the worst kind of hateful, anti-Christian bigotry — and that spends millions of dollars every year electing mostly pro-homosexual-agenda and pro-abortion-on-demand Democrats. (HRC also backs a few socially left Republicans like Illinois’ Congresswoman Judy Biggert to create the appearance of bipartisanship.)

Here’s the Brooks’ quote cited by HRC (on page 13) from his November 22, 2003 column in the New York Times, “The Power of Marriage”:

We shouldn’t just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity.

Below is the full context of that quotation from Brooks’ 2003 column; this excerpt follows the contrast that he commendably draws between the noble “culture of fidelity” and the selfish “culture of contingency,” in which men flake out of their marital pledge like some “easily canceled contract.” He writes (emphasis added):

Still, even in this time of crisis, every human being in the United States has the chance to move from the path of contingency to the path of marital fidelity — except homosexuals. Gays and lesbians are banned from marriage and forbidden to enter into this powerful and ennobling institution. A gay or lesbian couple may love each other as deeply as any two people, but when you meet a member of such a couple at a party, he or she then introduces you to a ”partner,” a word that reeks of contingency.

You would think that faced with this marriage crisis, we conservatives would do everything in our power to move as many people as possible from the path of contingency to the path of fidelity. But instead, many argue that gays must be banished from matrimony because gay marriage would weaken all marriage. A marriage is between a man and a woman, they say. It is women who domesticate men and make marriage work.

Well, if women really domesticated men, heterosexual marriage wouldn’t be in crisis. In truth, it’s moral commitment, renewed every day through faithfulness, that ”domesticates” all people.

Some conservatives may have latched onto biological determinism (men are savages who need women to tame them) as a convenient way to oppose gay marriage. But in fact we are not animals whose lives are bounded by our flesh and by our gender. We’re moral creatures with souls, endowed with the ability to make covenants, such as the one Ruth made with Naomi: ‘‘Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried.”

The conservative course is not to banish gay people from making such commitments. It is to expect that they make such commitments. We shouldn’t just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity.

When liberals argue for gay marriage, they make it sound like a really good employee benefits plan. Or they frame it as a civil rights issue, like extending the right to vote.

Marriage is not voting. It’s going to be up to conservatives to make the important, moral case for marriage, including gay marriage. Not making it means drifting further into the culture of contingency, which, when it comes to intimate and sacred relations, is an abomination.

Here Brooks, though ostensibly on the right, evinces the Social Lefts’ disdain for biblically-based morality — and its penchant for stealing religious terminology and using sloppy, politically driven exegesis to advance a man- (not God-) centered agenda in the name of piety.

Not bound by our gender? Is Brooks a guest-lecturer in the Women’s Studies Department at Smith College? Whatever  happened to the truth of Genesis — of man and woman as God’s distinctive and complementary creations — as echoed by Jesus Christ:

“And He answered and said to [the Pharisees], ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said,  ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and  the two shall become one flesh’? — Matthew 19:4 (NKJV)

Yes, God created two “genders” (sexes) — not five or seven or whatever the number claimed by radicals is these days.

Homosexualizing Holy Scripture?

And why did Brooks’ choose the biblical example of Ruth and Naomi for his dubious proposition, anyway?  In the biblical account, Naomi was Ruth’s mother-in-law, and the devoted Ruth (a “woman of excellence”) went on to marry Boaz — so what does this noble relationship between two women have to do with homosexual “marriage”? In fact, although Brooks lacked the guts to come right out and say so, his allusion to the Book of Ruth is a mischievous sop to activist, homosexuality-affirming theologians who twist the Bible to claim that Ruth and Naomi were lesbian lovers [see the Human Rights Campaign's self-serving "Out in Scripture" interpretation of Ruth and Naomi's relationship HERE].

Thus Brooks joins the homosexualists in sexualizing and perverting a wonderful story about selfless love and faithfulness in a desperate attempt to legitimize sinful behavior. By including this nonsensical, “queer” theological misinterpretation of Scripture — which is rejected by the vast majority of serious Bible scholars — Brooks demonstrates his profound ignorance of theology and insensitivity toward pious Jews and Christians. He owes all Bible believers an apology, but as a mere Christian in flyover country (who doesn’t hate Sarah Palin) I’m not holding my breath.

Sacred Sodomy?

Brooks continues in his sophistic folly. He views the prohibition of homosexual “marriage” as scandalous when an intellectually honest reading of Scripture would lead us to declare it “scandalous” to attach marriage — the model of the relationship between Jesus Christ and his Church — to deviant relationships whose “love” is expressed by acts of homosexual sodomy clearly condemned as “detestable” by our loving Creator.

God created sex as the sublime expression of love, unity and commitment between husband and wife, for the purpose of procreation — that is, filling the earth with humankind. In contrast, two men attempting a sexual union produces … disease. The plain truth of the Bible is that secular liberals hate is that homosexual (erotic) love is always illegitimate — the outworking not of “sexual orientation” but the sinful orientation with which each human being struggles. The Old Testament prophet Jeremiah’s words about our deceitful hearts are relevant here. Tough love dictates that we uphold God’s truth about homosexual sin while reaching out with the love of Christ to those who struggle with this sin.

Nature clearly discriminates against homosexuality and, by extension, the oxymoronic notion of “gay marriage.” What larger purpose does anal sodomy serve — with its many health hazards? Can two women produce children without borrowing from heterosexuality? (So much for “equality” — and please, don’t even go there with the silly analogy between homosexual and normal, albeit infertile, couples: the latter do not model aberrant, immoral conduct. Rather, they only seek the blessing of children that their opposite-sex union would normally provide.)

Moving toward his dramatic conclusion, Brooks cavalierly implies that homosexual “intimacy” can be “sacred.” But such a claim begs the question: who defines sacred and what is sacredness? Who determines moral right from wrong?  Christians believe that a holy God defines moral truth and reveals it to man through his divinely inspired Word, the Bible. The Bible is the gold standard of moral authority and Truth — which is why the Homosexual Lobby, as the latest in a long line of rebels, is working so hard to undermine it and distort its teachings. (One HRC staffer, Harry Knox — who also sits on President Obama’s  “Faith Advisory Council” — defiantly declares that “being gay or lesbian is an immutable, unchangeable gift from God, one for which I am very grateful. And it would fly in the face of my respect for God to give that gift back.”)

Harry is playing with fire and needs to repent: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20).

Here we must go to Noah Webster’s original 1828 “American Dictionary of the English Language” definition of “sacred,” which avoids the liberal corruption that associates the word with anything “spiritual” (including homosexualized religion):

SACRED, a …from L. sacer, sacred, holy …The sense is removed or separated from that which is common, vulgar, polluted …

1. Holy; pertaining to God or to his worship; separated from common secular uses and consecrated to God and his service.
2. Proceeding from God and containing religious precepts …;
3. Narrating or writing facts respecting God and holy things ….

Note that far from keeping the truly sacred things separate from the corruption of the world, Brooks and other fellow travelers with the “Gay” Lobby are intentionally corrupting the sacred by attempting to fuse it with sin. In their pride, they seek to create a New Morality based upon their own foolish ideas (of which “gay pride” is one). Insidiously, the most radical manifestation of “queer” activism is not the high-heeled drag queens marching down city streets every June — but the “conservative,” domesticated version of homosexual activism that redefines and dumbs down noble institutions like marriage and family — and Truth itself — to the point where words have no meaning.

Besides, even in their gut most people recognize that there’s something deeply wrong with homosexual acts: why else would we cringe at the thought inspired by this question: How do two men consummate their “same-sex marriage”?

Yuck. Behavior — not politically charged abstractions like “gay identity,” is the issue.

Sodomy is not sacred. Sodomy is sin. Homosexual behavior cannot be “sanctified” because it is directly opposed to God’s revealed will and His moral law, as confirmed by thousands of years of Judeo-Christian tradition. Thankfully, many men and women have found freedom from this destructive lifestyle through the healing power of Jesus Christ — but something tells me that David Brooks will not be writing a sympathetic column about happy and successful former homosexuals anytime soon. (If he did, would the Times run it?)

One last turn of the knife

But wait. It’s not over: Brooks saves his most obnoxious “gotcha” assault on biblical morality for his final sentence — proclaiming it an “abomination” for conservatives NOT to make the “moral” case for “gay marriage.”

What is it about secular, big-city elitists like Brooks that they are driven not only to redefine historic morality, but in so doing they appropriate the language of the divine to define deviancy up (to quote Charles Krauthammer)? Is it because — even though they regard ancient moral norms like keeping sex limited to marriage as quaint anachronisms –  they understand the power of traditional religion to define right and wrong authoritatively, even in this jaded modern era?

My Open Bible (Nelson: 1985; NASB) lists passages about “abominations” as “things utterly repulsive.” Is David Brooks really suggesting that it is “repulsive” to God for his followers to resist cloaking detestable behaviors like homosexual sodomy — which God condemns — in the beautiful robe He created called “marriage”?

Indeed, he is, but cheap rhetorical gimmicks make bad theology. The New Liberal “Morality” is bankrupt and has no compelling, divine authority — I’d use an Emperor-Has-No-Clothes reference but it hits too close to home. Therefore it must steal the words of holy revelation to feign legitimacy. Just as two domesticated homosexual lovers with their adopted child are playing house (to quote my ex-”gay” friend Steve Bennett), social liberals like Brooks who exploit holy words of old to promote trendy sins are playing church.

And boy do they love to “preach” their hollow, false “gospel” without boundaries to Americans, even as they ridicule our appeals to a Higher Authority for moral guidance.

So my message to Sarah Palin and all victims of Christian-bashing is this: don’t let social leftists — even those on the “Right” — get you down. Wear their derision as a badge of honor. In fact, take the fight to them and aggressively defend the old truths while tearing down their rootless, fake “morality” that preposterously elevates sin as “sacred.” You can even quote your Bible if you really want to drive the elitists nuts! Because, to paraphrase Brooks, when secularized liberals, libertarians and media pundits attempt to redefine moral Truth by manipulating and distorting the language of faith, it’s really hard to take them seriously.

Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
Let all that you do be done in love. (1 Corinthians 16:13-14; NASB)

__________________________________

Peter LaBarbera is president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality and an evangelical Christian.

Here’s the YouTube of the ABC “This Week” episode in which David Brooks attacks Sarah Palin:

Reprinted from the Christian Civic League of Maine website:

Nov 6, 2009

The normal routine of the League was interrupted Friday afternoon, when an anonymous caller called to say he owned guns and his next target was the former director of the League, Mike Heath (right). The death threat was apparently related to the recent win on Question 1, which revoked the right of homosexuals to be married in Maine.

The caller said the following:

“I am calling about Mr. Mike Heath, the Executive of your Christian Civic League of Maine.  He thinks that gay people should have our rights revoked that we already have. Well I can tell him this – I’m a gay guy who owns guns, and he’s my next target.”

The call was the latest and most serious example of intimidation by homosexual rights supporters after the win on same sex marriage. The League withheld publishing comments from homosexual rights supporters since the referendum vote, for fear the comments would be too offensive for our readers.

The death threat now provides our readers with the proper context for understanding these comments, which are as follows. They will not be suitable for some readers:

“Your ‘Pastor” is a BIGOT…..and [expletive deleted] CRAZY.”

“You sick (expletive deleted)!  You have nothing to offer except hate, bigotry, and lies.  …homosexuality is not a sickness and you know it. It is perfectly normal. If anything is a sickness and a scourge, it is your hatred. Excuse me while I go puke.”

“The real sin is not treating all people equal. You will all burn in hell.”

Here is more:

“Please pray that people in Maine see through the charade of religious (expletive deleted) spewed by Rev. Heath. He is NOT a Christian. He needs to simply shut up. Just because same-sex marriage, which was voted on by a majority (heterosexuals) to discriminate against a minority (homosexuals) doesn’t mean it was right.”

“You people are devil worshipers and are going to (phrase deleted) and get nailed to a cross by a man in leather chaps listening to Barbara Streisand and the rest of the world will cheer for your slow painful death. [Expletive Deleted] [Expletive Deleted] [Expletive Deleted]”

“Seriously…Jesus would hate you. Everyone else does. You are sinners and not Christians. Again [expletive deleted] [expletive deleted] do the world a favor by slitting your throats and the rest of your congregation too. [expletive deleted]  Pray for yourselves you idiots. You are the ones who will burn in hell… not believing in equality for all. God hates you. and you know it deep down inside.”

The League immediately reported the death threat against Heath to the Augusta Police Department, which is investigating the incident.

Enough trembling before the online “queer” thugs who want to punish people or frighten them for doing what’s right! I say: shame on the Homosexual Lobby — which has a knack for doing the most outrageous things to promote and defend its pet sin of homosexuality.

Nobody should be ashamed of being identified with the Truth on this issue or any social position that aligns with their faith. Life teaches us that you never reward a bully; you stand up to him. If that means that some creep might ring you up at midnight or call you a name or list your address on some twisted website, so be it. Christians in some parts of the world are maimed, tortured or even murdered for believing in Jesus Christ; their churches are burned down. Shame on us if we’re unwilling to be called a name for defending God’s wonderful created order of sex in marriage. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

P.S. In saner times, sinners were ashamed of their sin or at least knew deep down they were wrong. Some responded to Gospel preaching, were forgiven and became part of the body of Christ. Now sinners “preach” at us, coax us to approve of their errant lifestyles –  and even demand that Christians surrender truth on this issue by bowing to their immoral vision. Isaiah 5:20 applies.

Statement regarding threat to Yes on One TV ad spokesman

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 29, 2009     Contact: Scott K Fish
Communications Director
207-458-7185

STATEMENT FROM STAND FOR MARRIAGE MAINE
REGARDING THREAT TO YES ON 1 TV AD SPOKESMAN DON MENDELL

The following statement can be attributed to Marc Mutty, chairman, Stand for Marriage Maine:

“I want to alert you to a disturbing development that confirms what we have been saying about the larger threat that redefining marriage poses to every Mainer.

“Don Mendell, one of our spokesmen who appeared in a television ad for Stand for Marriage Maine, has come under attack by our opponents.

“Don is a high school guidance counselor and licensed social worker. His appearance in the television ad prompted a complaint to the Maine Department of Professional and Financial Regulation – requesting that his license to practice social work in the state of Maine be stripped away – simply because of his personal opinion on marriage.

“It is ironic that those who claim tolerance as their highest value prove themselves to be so intolerant that they would go so far as to threaten a father’s career and put his family’s future at risk. This latest attack highlights the true agenda of those who demand that marriage be redefined.

“No one who opposes Question 1 is in similar danger from those who support marriage between one man and one woman.

“Our opponents want to shut us down. We have no interest in limiting free speech and threatening the right of conscience for those who disagree. So who’s really intolerant?

“This attack proves that a “YES” vote next Tuesday is about much more than protecting marriage. It is also about preserving free speech, religious liberty and right of conscience and about what is taught to children.

“This threat to Don and his family’s livelihood is proof that those who demand marriage be redefined seek to punish and silence those who disagree.

“It is our hope that the Department of Professional and Financial Regulation dismisses this complaint for what it is – nonsense. The Alliance Defense Fund – a legal alliance of attorneys committed to defending the right of people to freely live out their faith – is considering potential action on behalf of Don’s fundamental liberties.

“If the people of Maine vote Yes on Question 1 to protect marriage, we have hope that free speech and religious liberty will be respected. If marriage is not protected, Don will only be the first victim.

WARNING: Offensive Images

Malice Targets Maggie: A photo of pro-traditional-marriage advocate Maggie Gallagher’s face is attached to a nude mannequin with “LIAR” written on the stomach — the rooftop creation of West Hollywood homosexual couple ChadMichael Morrisette and Mito Aviles. The deviant duo say the theme for their bigoted rooftop display is the “forces of evil 2009″ — seemingly oblivious to the nastiness of their crude attacks on religious and conservative leaders.

By Peter LaBarbera

Well, it’s Halloween again, so that means more über-tacky rooftop hate-displays by West Hollywood homosexual duo ChadMichael Morrisette and Mito Aviles. Delighted by their 15 minutes of fame last Halloween for infamously hanging a mannequin dressed up as Sarah Palin with a noose around her neck, the homosexual couple this year has broadened its hate campaign by loading their house’s rooftop with several new images attacking social conservatives.

Morrisette and Aviles painted “LIAR” on the stomach of a nude mannequin and attached as its head the face of Maggie Gallagher, the leader pro-family activist fighting “gay marriage.” Gallagher runs the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy and founded the National Organization for Marriage.

(Memo to liberal bloggers and media: please take care to spell Morrisette’s and Aviles’ names correctly when you write your nonjudgmental pieces about their “decorations” — and try not to think about how differently you would craft your piece were the story about “gay” leaders being cruelly depicted on a conservative couple’s rooftop.)

“The reason that ["Gallagher"] is naked is that we are exposing her lies,” Morrissette told Curbed LA.

In addition to the pitiably childish slam against Gallagher, the homosexual couple anti-religious creation features a chopped-in-half and bloodied, upside-down torso of a blond woman hanging from the roof — intended to be Carrie Prejean, the runner-up to Miss California 2009 who was infamously maligned by homosexual gossip columnist and pageant judge Perez Hilton because he didn’t like her sincere answer to a question about “same-sex marriage.”

ChadMichael Morrisette (left) and Mito Aviles stand proudly outside their home with its grotesque, anti-religious displays. Arrow from this "Curbed LA" article points to chopped and bloodied mock torso of "Carrie Prejean" hanging from their rooftop. Click on photo to enlarge.

Mormon missionaries also targeted in hate display.

Curbed LA reports: “Prejean is a ‘victim of Gallagher’s,’ according to Morrissette, because he says her image has been used by the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy.”

The West Hollywood attack-display also features a mock Mormon missionary (below) stuck and burning in a chimney flew — reflective of the larger “queer” activist movement’s disdain for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS)’ central role in passing Prop 8, a ballot amendment that reinstated traditional marriage in California.

Morrisette's and Aviles' handiwork from last Halloween: hanging of GOP vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin in effigy. Some media reported on the incident but the "gay" angle went largely unreported. The anti-Paln stunt was not popular with the homosexual activist couple's neighbors.

Folks, imagine if a Christian or conservative group publicized the phone number of a homosexual employee taking calls for a “gay” organization’s fundraiser, in an obvious attempt to harass the person and the group. Such a dirty trick rightly would be condemned by pro-family and conservative leaders as beyond the pale. Well, check out this little bit of nastiness by New York City-based atheist homosexual blogger Joe Jervis, creator of the “Joe.My.God” website [WARNING: this is a very dirty and vulgar website]. Jervis posts (North Carolina-based) AFTAH staffer Donna Miller’s phone number FOUR times in a 100-word post. Creepy. Homosexual militants love to rail against Christian “hate”– falsely equating traditional beliefs about homosexuality with malice and bigotry. But if this isn’t true hate and harassment, then nothing is. (If you have a thick stomach, check out the mean and twisted comments, mostly targeting Barber, that follow Jervis’ post.) — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org. [More info on AFTAH's Banquet HERE; sign up online with your donation HERE.]

From Jervis’ website (the links won’t work on this graphic, including the one to the announced Gay Liberation Network protest against our event):

Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego replied to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to defend ourselves before you in this matter. If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to save us from it, and he will rescue us from your hand, O king. But even if he does not, we want you to know, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up.” (Daniel 3: 16-18)

By Peter LaBarbera

Folks, in the few years I have known Matt Barber — I met him in 2005 after he was fired by Allstate Insurance Company after writing an article on his own time critical of homosexuality — I have come to see him is an antidote of sorts for the ills besetting the “anti-homosexual-agenda” movement. (Calling it “anti-gay” makes it sound like we’re against people when we really oppose destructive, unnatural and changeable behaviors that for centuries have been prohibited according to Judeo-Christian moral teachings; “gay” self-identity is a very new concept, historically speaking.)

Barber’s contribution to our noble cause should not be underestimated: he is just as unapologetic and aggressive for biblical truth as hell-bent activists like Kevin Jennings and HRC’s Joe Solmonese are for their evil agendas. That’s why coming to see him at AFTAH’s banquet on Saturday, October 24 will be so good for your soul. Each of us needs to have our batteries recharged to fight the anti-Christian Left — and there is no force, short of Muslim extremists perhaps, that poses a greater threat to our God-given American liberties than the homosexual/transsexual activist juggernaut.

Matt will pump you up to fight on for God, family and country and help put things in perspective about why we must resist the nefarious “GLBT” (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) lobby — or lose our nation and its precious freedoms as we know them.

STUDENT/PASTOR DISCOUNT:  I am so convinced that Matt will spur you on to do good deeds for the Kingdom that I have cut the price in half for pastors and teenage students to attend: from $50 to $25 per person. Would you please prayerfully consider sponsoring your pastor or teenage students (and their friends) for $25 to hear Matt’s talk? If you cannot muster up the $25, then e-mail AFTAH and we’ll find a way to get that person there — because I do not want anyone to miss this uplifting presentation for lack of money. You can call 910-308-7619 or write us at americansfortruth@comcast.net.

In a world of insane political correctness and perversion- and gender-confusion-based “rights,” our young people and spiritual leaders NEED to hear Barber’s bold defense of truth.

If it is true that religious America is filled with “evangellyfish” and “Catholic cop-outs” who are marked by their timidity in the public square and disdain for the “culture wars,” then Matt is just the shark we need to tear down their bogus excuses and restore a vision of courageous Christian citizenship in this blessed nation. He doesn’t try to be “nicer than Jesus,” as many Christians do today who cannot bear to apply God’s “tough love” standard to this Sin Movement euphemistically known as “gay civil rights.” Instead, Matt just stands fearlessly on the truth that flows from the Bible — backed by reason — and fights as hard for it today as he did in the ring as a professional heavyweight boxer who went undefeated before bowing out due to an injury. (Click HERE to watch Matt’s knock-out fights on YouTube.)

If you fall into one of these categories, then hearing Matt’s tough but true message on Oct. 24 is just what you need:

• Are you overly defensive about fighting in the “culture war” or think that it gets in the way of Christians “ministering to the gay community”?
• Do you shy away from cultural confrontation and think it’s more “Christ-like” for believers to stay out of the messy Culture Wars?
• Do you have doubts about the rightness of our cause or whether God’s word remains valid in today’s “gay”-affirming culture? Are you sometimes embarrassed or resentful about the Bible’s strong prohibition against homosexual sin, or find yourself questioning God’s word even as you accept the flawed presumptions of homosexual apologists?
• Are you nervous about being called “intolerant” or hateful if you stand up for real marriage and against the many demands of the GLBT movement?
• Do you feel homosexuals largely have no choice about their “orientation” so why shouldn’t they have (homosexuality-based) “civil rights” like other minorities?
• Do you feel we’ve already lost this battle so what’s the point of fighting on? That “same-sex marriage” is inevitable? Or that the Culture War is futile because the “end times” are upon us and Bible predicts immorality will continue to grow anyway?
• Are you beaten down by the persistence and power of ungodly forces in our culture? Are you so sick of this issue you just don’t want to deal with it anymore?
• Do you think protecting the word “marriage” is the best we can hope for when it comes to stopping the GLBT movement?
• Do you feel like “gays and lesbians” are largely victims in our culture — including at the hands of “rigid,” pharisaical Christians — and that the Church should move away from its “obsession” with this issue and on to more pressing matters like Global Warming?
• Are you largely ignorant of the size, financial resources and clout of the GLBT movement? Would your attitude toward the Culture War change if you saw how outgunned pro-family forces are in this battle?
• Do you have trouble answering this question from the other side: “How does my gay marriage affect your marriage?”

Now be honest: most of us struggle with at least one of those questions, and many justify inaction using similar lines of thinking.

Matt Barber’s inspiring story is the answer to such Christian confusion and defeatism. He is the personification of that very non-obscure verse in the Book of Romans (8:28): “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.” He could never have predicted what his Heavenly Father had in store for him when he was fired by Allstate in a heavy-handed act of anti-religious bigotry. (If you doubt that, apply the “gay-Christian” substitution test: can you imagine a Fortune 500 corporation abruptly firing a homosexual employee who was privately championing “gay pride” on the web? Exactly.)

Matt and his wife faced financial ruin and a sudden dead-end to his solid career path thanks to Allstate’s liberal intolerance. However, through God’s amazing grace and provision, he now rhetorically battles the very same Homosexual Activist Lobby that cost him his job. (The homosexual group Human Rights Campaign, which played a key role in Matt’s demise at Allstate, is welcoming President Obama as keynote speaker at its fund-raising dinner Saturday night.) And frankly, Matt is amazed that so many fellow Christians are now bowing out of the “culture war” on the “gay” issue despite the clear and present danger that organized homosexuality poses to our children and to our First Amendment liberties — at at time when our political enemies are boasting that they are on the precipice of total victory!

God wouldn’t have us quit the battle for Truth in a free society and concede to a powerful special interest lobby that despises and twists His Inerrant Word to rationalize their particular besetting sin (one He calls “detestable”). We must defend the Truth no matter what comes — as Matt has — because God wins in the end, and His truth will set men free.

_________________________________

Read these Matt Barber columns:

Matt Barber Answers Charge that Christians Focus Too Much on Homosexuality

Matt Barber: Commies, Fascists and Perverts, Oh My!

Also relevant:

Dr. Michael Brown Corrects Andrew Marin and Emergent Evangelicals on their ‘Celebration of Ambiguity’ on Homosexuality

FRC’s Oct. 5 “Washington Update” follows:

“The totality of [GLSEN founder Kevin Jennings'] life has been the promotion of homosexuality, and much of it within education.” — Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa)

King of the Hill Takes on Czar of the Schools
The Obama administration is spending precious capital protecting its Safe Schools “czar,” but many believe that loyalty carries more political risk than reward. Last week, Kevin Jennings’s “aw, shucks” response to covering up child sexual abuse should have sounded the alarm over at the Department of Education. Instead, Secretary Arne Duncan used the opportunity to praise Jennings as “uniquely qualified” to serve on the team. That may not be the consensus for much longer, since FRC has uncovered a series of op-eds that show Jennings’s incredible hostility toward Christianity.

In at least two Huffington Post columns, Jennings attacks people of faith with complete and utter disdain. When the former director of GLSEN tried to implement a series of Gay Straight Alliances in classrooms back in 2007, Jennings described a Christian who fought the idea as having “not-yet-fully evolved views maybe because of his proximity to the Everglades (from whose ooze he may have recently climbed), [but] I can’t dismiss them as the ravings of a single troglodyte. Instead, they represent a classic example of how right-wing extremists continually try to mislead the public about the nature and purpose of GSAs.”

In another article, “Recruit, Recruit, Recruit!” Jennings called Christian students “hypocrites” and mocked the members of Young Life for trying to evangelize their friends. At one point in the column, Jennings says, “…[T]hey want everyone to have to believe the way they do.” Ironically, that’s what Jennings’ movement has been pushing for all along: forced acceptance! He and his activist friends want tolerance, but not for others.

Maybe that’s why leaders like Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) are calling for Jennings ’s head. “The totality of his life,” King says, “has been the promotion of homosexuality, and much of it within education.” His work, says Rep. King, is “a political movement… It’s not about protecting kids, it’s about promoting homosexuality and demanding public affirmation… President Obama should fire Kevin Jennings immediately.”

Obviously, the only “unique qualification” Jennings possesses is an ability to practice the same kind of intimidation his office is trying to prevent. As FRC has said for four months, a man charged with creating safe schools can’t possibly achieve it by turning America’s classrooms into a hostile environment for kids with religious beliefs. Otherwise, we’ve allowed the anti-bullying boss to become the biggest bully of all! For more information on what you can do to stop Jennings, visit our site.

_________________

Here is the original Americans For Truth “Lambda Report” article reporting Kevin Jennings’ comment at a GLSEN conference in 1997 that he indeed looks forward to the day when “promoting homosexuality” in schools will be seen in a positive light:

“‘Gay’ Leader Kevin Jennings Says Dream Is to ‘Promote Homosexuality’ in Schools”