Prof. Ken Howell

This is Part One of AFTAH’s interview with Professor Ken Howell, Senior Fellow at the School of Catholic Thought of the John Paul II Newman Center, which resides at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC).  Prof. Howell was fired (and the reinstated) by the University of Illinois (Champaign) last year for teaching the Catholic “Natural Moral Law” understanding of homosexuality. This interview was pre-recorded and aired Nov. 5, 2011. Howell explains the circumstances surrounding his firing, and how he ended up at UIC (but not actually teaching for UIC).

HOW TO LISTEN: This is an mp3 file, supported in most operating systems by Windows Media Player, Quick Time and/or I-Tunes.  Real Player is not supported and there may be difficulty when attempting to listen with it.  Left click once on the link below to play. (Please be patient, depending upon the speed of your internet connection it may take a moment or two to load.)  OR right click the link then “save target as” to download the whole show.

11-5-11, Ken Howell, Part One

Pastor John Kirkwood

This is Part One of the AFTAH interview with John Kirkwood [click HERE to listen], pastor of Grace Believer Church in Bensonville, IL (near O’Hare Airport at the intersection of Route 83 and 290). This interview was pre-recorded and aired September 24, 2011. John and AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera discuss Christian political correctness surrounding homosexuality — and why so many Christians are ineffectual in the “Culture Wars.” Kirkwood and Grace Gospel Fellowship Church are hosting a fund-raising talk by Scott Lively (author of “The Pink Swastika”) Friday, Oct. 14th at 7:00 PM. The next day, at the annual AFTAH banquet feating Dr. Erwin Lutzer (held at the Christian Liberty Academy), Lively receives the 2011 AFTAH “Truth Teller” Award for his years of struggle as a leader opposing the homosexualist movement. To hear a talk LaBarbera gave Sunday at Grace Gospel, go HERE (click second of two videos under the video graphic). Write us at americansfortruth@gmail.com to RSVP for either event, or for more information. Go HERE for information on the Oct. 15 banquet (only $10/person to attend; $20 at the door).

HOW TO LISTEN: This is an mp3 file, supported in most operating systems by Windows Media Player, Quick Time and/or I-Tunes.  Real Player is not supported and there may be difficulty when attempting to listen with it.  Left click once on the link below to play. (Please be patient, depending upon the speed of your internet connection it may take a moment or two to load.)  OR right click the link then “save target as” to download the whole show.

9-24-11, John Kirkwood

A man holds a sign with the message, “Is Willow Creek Qualified to Lead” as part of AFTAH’s sign vigil outside Willow Creek Community Church’s campus during their two-day “Global Leadership Summit.” We will continue to ask why a Christian church would ever honor people who use their leadership gifts (given by God) to advance ungodly agendas. In 2009, a key Leadership Summit speaker was former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who used his “leadership” tenure to aggressively push homosexuality in the name of civil rights in the U.K.

Dear Readers, this story is fluid. AFTAH has been having serious web issues – in part due to hacking — so please pardon the delay in posting this item. Here is the press release on Willow Creek that AFTAH sent out yesterday via Christian Newswire. At our small vigil outside Willow Creek yesterday morning, we met WCCC spokesman Susan Delay, who assured me  (contradicting my statement below) that Willow Creek’s break with Exodus International in 2009 had nothing whatsoever to Willow Creek’s meeting with the homosexual activist group Soulforce the previous year. Delay said that Willow senior pastor Bill Hybels soon would be issuing a statement on the church’s approach toward homosexuality.

I informed Ms. Delay that the concerns with Willow go far beyond the Soulforce incident, and raised the 2009 Leadership Summit’s featuring of former Britich Prime Minister Tony Blair — who championed homosexuality during his “leadership” tenure in the U.K. Certainly we continue to question why a Christian church — or a related church-sponsored leadership ministry — would honor a man (and men) who used their executive gifts to advance explicitly ANTI-BIBLICAL agendas in the culture. The story goes far beyond Willow Creek to the purpose of Christians as defenders of God’s unchanging Truth (as opposed to subjective, man-centered “truths”) in a sin-soaked world.

One more thing: nothing here takes away from the important work that Willow Creek Community Church does in the community through its many ministries. I spoke to two friends in Illinois – a man and a woman — who have been deeply blessed by acts of Christian charity carried out through the church’s giving programs. AFTAH focuses on homosexuality, in this case Christian fidelity to politically incorrect Scriptural teaching: we believe that steadfast honoring of biblical truth (no matter the cost) — combined with selfless love – defines the believer’s calling. We’ll keep you updated. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

____________________________________

AFTAH Protests Willow Creek’s Lack of Biblical Leadership in Breaking with Ex-Gay Ministry

August 11, 2011

Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 630-717-7631; americansfortruth@gmail.com

S. BARRINGTON, Illinois — Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) President Peter LaBarbera announced a peaceful sign vigil today and tomorrow outside Willow Creek Community Church—to protest the mega-church’s puzzling disassociation from a Christian ministry that helps men and women overcome unwanted homosexual desires.

The Americans For Truth vigil targets Willow Creek’s annual “Global Leadership Summit” – which draws thousands of Christians annually to the church’s campus in Barrington, Illinois. AFTAH’s banner message – “Is Willow Creek Qualified to Lead?” – will greet Summit attendees Aug. 11-12. That and other messages such as “Willow Creek Caves to Gay Activist Pressure,” will highlight the influential mega-church’s failure to boldly proclaim the Gospel’s life-changing truth on the homosexual issue.

“Christians across the nation were stunned to learn that Willow Creek had abandoned its friendly working relationship with Exodus International, the world’s largest ‘ex-gay’ ministry,” LaBarbera said. “Worse, the break came in 2009, shortly after Willow Creek’s leaders met with Soulforce, a homosexual activist group. Soulforce activists target mega-churches and Christian ministries like Focus on the Family — demanding a (politicized) “dialogue” even as they accuse leaders who defend the Bible’s clear, historic prohibition of homosexuality of “spiritual violence.”

In 2008, to protest the WCCC-Soulforce meeting, AFTAH held a silent sign vigil just outside Willow Creek’s entrance. Upon learning of our small protest, WCCC’s chief of security belligerently tried to block AFTAH from setting up our banner – apparently ignorant of our First Amendment right to protest on a public sidewalk. Ultimately, police were called in and the peaceful protest went forward.

In recent days, AFTAH placed several calls to Willow Creek inquiring as to whether the 2009 break with Exodus was linked to the church’s hosting of Soulforce and subsequent “dialogue,” but our calls were not returned. Many observers, including Exodus President Alan Chambers, a former homosexual, believe the disassociation stems from Soulforce’s meeting at Willow Creek.

LaBarbera agrees: “Are we to believe it is just a coincidence that Willow Creek dropped a hopeful ministry like Exodus – which testifies to Jesus Christ’s power to transform lives – shortly after WCCC’s meeting with a contingent of homosexual activists, who pressed Willow Creek to end its ‘prominent partnership with Exodus’?”

“This is a stunning capitulation to the “gay” lobby,” LaBarbera said. “We expect the world to reject truth on sexual morality. But churches like Willow Creek that profess to be biblically faithful must not surrender to the notion that somehow homosexuality is too hard for God to change – or that it is the basis for a healthy identity.”

Willow Creek’s dumping of Exodus is hardly its first controversial act. The church has been widely criticized for bringing in heretical teachers, and its global “Summit” has featured leaders like former British Prime Minister Tony Blair who are at odds with traditional biblical morality. Blair counts among his greatest achievements the advancement of homosexual rights in Britain.

Two men or two women cannot get "married" truthfully before God any more than they can produce a child on their own. Homosexual "marriage" may be legal in some states and nations, but it will always be immoral in the eyes of God. This graphic was adapted from the website of "gay" blogger Jeremy Hooper (pictured at right; www.goodasyou.org).

By Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

The Manchester Union-Leader in New Hampshire – which has a long and storied history of defending conservatism – has rejected publication of a “marriage” announcement for a male homosexual couple (who are going through a ”marrage” ceremony today). [Editor's Note: AFTAH always puts homosexual "marriage" in quotation marks because -- although "same-sex marriage" is legal in New Hampshire --  two men cannot "get married" before God any more than they can produce a child on their own.]

TAKE ACTION: The Union-Leader is now being attacked by pro-homosexuality activists. Contact the Union-Leader HERE. The following is Publisher Joseph McQuaid’s statement: 

This newspaper has never published wedding or engagement announcements from homosexual couples. It would be hypocritical of us to do so, given our belief that marriage is and needs to remain a social and civil structure between men and women, and our opposition to the recent state law legalizing gay marriage.

That law was not subject to public referendum and the governor (John Lynch) who signed it was elected after telling voters that he was opposed to gay marriage. Indeed, in no state where the public has been allowed a direct vote on the subject has gay marriage prevailed.

We are not “anti-gay.” We are for marriage remaining the important man-woman institution it has always been.

While the law sanctions gay marriage, it neither demands that churches perform them or that our First Amendment right to choose what we print be suspended. In accordance with that right, we continue our longstanding policy of printing letters to the editor from New Hampshire citizens, whether or not they agree with us.”

–Joseph W. McQuaid Publisher

Here is my note to the Union-Leader:

Oct. 23, 2010

To the Manchester Union-Leader:

Thanks for Defending Marriage

Thank you for your stand in NOT recognizing counterfeit “gay marriages.” Although I believe the Union-Leader has compromised its principled, conservative reputation in recent years by NOT resolutely resisting ALL efforts by the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) lobby to normalize homosexuality — a sexual perversion and a sin — I commend you and publisher Joseph McQuaid for not capitulating on the timeless definition of marriage.

Respectfully,

Peter LaBarbera

Americans For Truth About Homosexulity

www.AFTAH.org

Molotov Mitchell of Illuminati Pictures (and WND.com) created this “For the Record” video about loving a homosexual friend enough to tell him the truth from the Bible (1 Corinthians 6). PFOX’s Greg Quinlan, a former homosexual himself, shared this video at the recent AFTAH Truth Academy:

Dr. Kenneth Howell, Adjunct Associate Professor of Religion, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, was fired after a liberal student complained about an e-mail he sent to his students explaining Natural Moral Law.

By Peter LaBarbera

The University of Illinois has fired Dr. Kenneth Howell, a Catholic adjunct religion professor who was doing his job of teaching a class on Catholicism — after a liberal student complained to the university about an e-mail Howell sent to his students explaining Natural Moral Law. (The professor’s instructive e-mail and the student’s complaint e-mail are reproduced below.)

TAKE ACTION: Contact Michael Hogan, the University of Illinois’s new president, and urge him to reinstate Prof. Howell immediately: phone: (217) 333-6400; Fax: (217) 333-5733. Tell President Hogan that Howell’s firing is a nationwide advertisement that the University of Illinois is bigoted toward and intolerant of people of faith — giving lie to U-I’s mission statement to be “inclusive” and to ”treat each other with dignity and respect.” Board of Trustees: contact the U. of Illinois Bd. of Trustees at 217-333-1920 or write: UIBOT@uillinois.edu.]

The U. of Illinois’ “religion department’s website says Howell was recognized for excellent teaching in the spring and fall semesters of 2008 and 2009,” the Champaign News-Gazette reports.

Howell’s terminatioin draws attention to the emerging, cold reality of modern, politically correct America: in cosmopolitan areas and certainly in academia, you are more likely to be terminated, punished or persecuted on the job for opposing homosexuality than for “being gay.”

Here we are — on the verge, with our Democrat-controlled Congress, of creating federal employment “rights” based on homosexuality (and transgenderism), and people are being fired merely for expressing their sincere religious beliefs — which, in Howell’s case, was his job. Even as homosexual activists falsely claim that thousands of homosexuals face job losses because of “who they are,” the number of anti-Christian firings is piling up: remember the Allstate firing of Matt Barber? Crystal Dixon?

As you can see from below, Dr. Howell is a clear thinker who was doing what he was paid to do – teaching Catholic morality to his students. The complaint e-mail that got him terminated dismissses Howell’s e-mail as “absurd…It sickens me to know that hard-working Illinoisans are funding the salary of a man who does nothing but try to indoctrinate students and perpetuate stereotypes.”

If you want to know about the homo-fascist impulse that dominates so many institutions of “higher learning” (hah!) today, here are the key paragraphs from the News-Gazette story:

In a series of e-mail exchanges between [Robert McKim, head of the U-I religion department] and UI administrators about how to proceed regarding Howell’s teaching and his appointment as an adjunct professor, McKim states he will send a note to Howell’s students and others who were forwarded his e-mail to students, “disassociating our department, College, and university from the view expressed therein.”

In another e-mail, Ann Mester, associate dean for the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, wrote that she believes “the e-mails sent by Dr. Howell violate university standards of inclusivity, which would then entitle us to have him discontinue his teaching arrangement with us.”

Inclusivity? What about U. of Illinois’ “inclusion” of traditional Catholic students and students who adhere to historic Judeo-Christian morality? ‘Diversity” has become a code-word for punishing those who dissent from liberal, pro-homosexuality groupthink. Please read the excellent e-letter below on Natural Moral Law by Prof. Howell. And  take action to urge the University of Illinois to correct this injustice. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

______________________________________________

Dr. Kenneth Howell’s Teaching E-mail to Students:

The following is the e-mail to students that U. of Illinois religion professor Ken Howell sent to his students, as reported by the Champaign News-Gazette:

From: Kenneth J. Howell

Date: Tue, May 4, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Subject: Utilitarianism and Sexuality (for those in 447 FYI)

Dear Students:

Since there is a question on the final exam about utilitarianism (see the review sheet), I thought I would help with an example. I realized after my lectures on moral theory that even though I talked about the substance of utilitarianism, I did not identify it as such and so you may not have been able to see it.

It turns out that our discussion of homosexuality brings up the issue of utilitarianism. In class, our discussion of the morality of homosexual acts was very incomplete because any moral issue about which people disagree ALWAYS raises a more fundamental issue about criteria. In other words, by what criteria should we judge whether a given act is right or wrong?

Before looking at the issue of criteria, however, we have to remind ourselves of the ever-present tendency in all of us to judge morality by emotion. The most frequent reason I hear people supporting same-sex marriage is that they know some gay couples or individuals. Empathy is a noble human quality but right or wrong does not depend on who is doing the action or on how I feel about those people, just as judging an action wrong should not depend on disliking someone. This might seem obvious to a right thinking person but I have encountered many well-educated people who do not (or cannot?) make the distinction between persons and acts when engaging moral reasoning. I encourage you to read the final essay editorial I sent earlier to reflect on this. In short, to judge an action wrong is not to condemn a person. A person and his/her acts can be distinguished for the purposes of morality.

So, then, by what criterion should we judge whether sexual acts are right or wrong? This is where utilitarianism comes in. Utilitarianism in the popular sense is fundamentally a moral theory that judges right or wrong by its practical outcomes. It is somewhat akin to a cost/benefit analysis. So, when a woman is deciding whether it’s right to have an abortion, the utilitarian says it’s right or wrong based on what the best outcome is. Similarly, a man who is trying to decide whether he should cheat on his wife, if he is a utilitarian, will weigh the various consequences. If the cheating side of the ledger is better, he will conclude that it’s okay to cheat. If the faithful side is better, he will refrain from cheating.

I think it’s fair to say that many, maybe most Americans employ some type of utilitarianism in their moral decision making. But there are at least two problems. One is that to judge the best outcome can be very subjective. What may be judged good for the pregnant woman may not be good for the baby. What may be judged good for the about-to-cheat-husband may not good for his wife or his children. This problem of subjectivity is inherent in utilitarianism for a second reason. Utilitarianism counsels that moral decisions should NOT be based on the inherent meaning of acts. Acts are only good or bad relative to outcomes. The natural law theory that I expounded in class assumes that human acts have an inherent meaning (remember my fist vs. extended hand of friendship example).

One of the most common applications of utilitarianism to sexual morality is the criterion of mutual consent. It is said that any sexual act is okay if the two or more people involved agree. Now no one can (or should) deny that for a sexual act to be moral there must be consent. Certainly, this is one reason why rape is morally wrong. But the question is whether this is enough.

If two men consent to engage in sexual acts, according to utilitarianism, such an act would be morally okay. But notice too that if a ten year old agrees to a sexual act with a 40 year old, such an act would also be moral if even it is illegal under the current law. Notice too that our concern is with morality, not law. So by the consent criterion, we would have to admit certain cases as moral which we presently would not approve of. The case of the 10 and 40 year olds might be excluded by adding a modification like “informed consent.” Then as long as both parties agree with sufficient knowledge, the act would be morally okay. A little reflection would show, I think, that “informed consent” might be more difficult to apply in practice than in theory. But another problem would be where to draw the line between moral and immoral acts using only informed consent. For example, if a dog consents to engage in a sexual act with its human master, such an act would also be moral according to the consent criterion. If this impresses you as far-fetched, the point is not whether it might occur but by what criterion we could say that it is wrong. I don’t think that it would be wrong according to the consent criterion.

But the more significant problem has to do with the fact that the consent criterion is not related in any way to the NATURE of the act itself. This is where Natural Moral Law (NML) objects. NML says that Morality must be a response to REALITY. In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same. How do we know this? By looking at REALITY. Men and women are complementary in their anatomy, physiology, and psychology. Men and women are not interchangeable. So, a moral sexual act has to be between persons that are fitted for that act. Consent is important but there is more than consent needed.

One example applicable to homosexual acts illustrates the problem. To the best of my knowledge, in a sexual relationship between two men, one of them tends to act as the “woman” while the other acts as the “man.” In this scenario, homosexual men have been known to engage in certain types of actions for which their bodies are not fitted. I don’t want to be too graphic so I won’t go into details but a physician has told me that these acts are deleterious to the health of one or possibly both of the men. Yet, if the morality of the act is judged only by mutual consent, then there are clearly homosexual acts which are injurious to their health but which are consented to. Why are they injurious? Because they violate the meaning, structure, and (sometimes) health of the human body.

Now recall that I mentioned in class the importance of gaining wisdom from the past. One part of wisdom we gain from such knowledge is how people today came to think of their bodies. I won’t go into details here but a survey of the last few centuries reveals that we have gradually been separating our sexual natures (reality) from our moral decisions. Thus, people tend to think that we can use our bodies sexually in whatever ways we choose without regard to their actual structure and meaning. This is also what lies behind the idea of sex change operations. We can manipulate our bodies to be whatever we want them to be.

If what I just said is true, then this disassociation of morality and sexual reality did not begin with homosexuality. It began long ago. But it took a huge leap forward in the wide spread use of artificial contraceptives. What this use allowed was for people to disassociate procreation and children from sexual activity. So, for people who have grown up only in a time when there is no inherent connection between procreation and sex –- notice not natural but manipulated by humans –- it follows “logically” that sex can mean anything we want it to mean.

Natural Moral Theory says that if we are to have healthy sexual lives, we must return to a connection between procreation and sex. Why? Because that is what is REAL. It is based on human sexual anatomy and physiology. Human sexuality is inherently unitive and procreative. If we encourage sexual relations that violate this basic meaning, we will end up denying something essential about our humanity, about our feminine and masculine nature.

I know this doesn’t answer all the questions in many of your minds. All I ask as your teacher is that you approach these questions as a thinking adult. That implies questioning what you have heard around you. Unless you have done extensive research into homosexuality and are cognizant of the history of moral thought, you are not ready to make judgments about moral truth in this matter. All I encourage is to make informed decisions. As a final note, a perceptive reader will have noticed that none of what I have said here or in class depends upon religion. Catholics don’t arrive at their moral conclusions based on their religion. They do so based on a thorough understanding of natural reality.

Kenneth J. Howell Ph.D.

Director, St. John’s Institute of Catholic Thought

Adjunct Associate Professor of Religion, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

_________________________________________________

U of I Student’s Complaint E-mail about Religion Prof Ken Howell:

The following is the e-mail complaint from student about U-I religion instructor Ken Howell, as reported by the News-Gazette:

Prof. McKim,

This past semester, a friend of mine took RLST 127: Introduction to Catholicism. Throughout the semester, he would consistently tell me how the teacher [Ken Howell], who I believe is a priest at the Newman Center, would preach (not teach) his ideology to the class. Many times, my friend (whom I wish to remain anonymous) said the instructor would say things that were inflammatory and downright insensitive to those who were not of the Catholic faith–it should be noted that my friend and I were both brought up Catholic. Anyways, my friend informed me that things got especially provocative when discussing homosexuality. He sent me the following e-mail, which I believe you will agree is downright absurd once you read it.

I am in no way a gay rights activist, but allowing this hate speech at a public university is entirely unacceptable. It sickens me to know that hard-working Illinoisans are funding the salary of a man who does nothing but try to indoctrinate students and perpetuate stereotypes. Once again, this is a public university and should thus have no religious affiliation. Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing. Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another. The courses at this institution should be geared to contribute to the public discourse and promote independent thought; not limit one’s worldview and ostracize people of a certain sexual orientation.

I can only imagine how ashamed and uncomfortable a gay student would feel if he/she were to take this course. I am a heterosexual male and I found this completely appalling. Also, my friend also told me that the teacher allowed little room for any opposition to Catholic dogma. Once again, he is guilty of limiting the marketplace of ideas and acting out of accord with this institution’s mission and principles.

I have Cc’d Leslie Morrow, director of the LGBT Resource Center, on this e-mail as well as (name redacted), former features editor at the Daily Illini (I’m sure they’d like to hear about this), and Siobhan Somerville, a former teacher of mine and the founder of the queer studies major.

I didn’t go to Notre Dame for a reason,

(name redacted)

___________________________________________

Bio of Kenneth J. Howell, Ph.D. from the St. John’s Catholic Newman Center at the U. of Illinois

Kenneth J. Howell
Director & Senior Fellow, Institute of Catholic Thought
kenneth.howell@sjcnc.org

In addition to being the Director and a Senior Fellow of the Institute of Catholic Thought, Dr. Howell is also an Adjunct Associate Professor in the Program for the Study of Religion in the University of Illinois. Dr. Howell studied theology at Westminster Theological Seminary where he concentrated in biblical languages and systematic theology.

In 1978, he was ordained a Presbyterian minister and served parishes in Florida and Indiana. After completing his Ph.D. in linguistics at Indiana University, he taught Greek, Hebrew, and Latin at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi. His teaching duties involved theological research which led to his conversion to Catholicism in 1996. During this time, he obtained another Ph.D. in the history of Christianity and Science from the University of Lancaster (U.K).

Dr. Howell is the author of four books and numerous articles. God’s Two Books: Copernican Cosmology and Biblical Interpretation in Early Modern Science (University of Notre Dame Press, 2002), Mary of Nazareth: Sign and Instrument of Christian Unity (Queenship Press, 1998) is a scriptural study of Marian doctrine. Meeting Mary Our Mother in Faith (Catholic Answers Press, 2003), Questions College Students Ask…about God, Faith, and the Church (co-authored with Christine Pinheiro) (Champaign, IL: The St. John Institute of Catholic Thought, St. John’s Catholic Newman Center, 2006), The Eucharist for Beginners: Sacrament, Sacrifice, and Communion (San Diego: Catholic Answers, 2006).

“[A blog article] supposes that I ever quoted Leviticus that homosexuality is an abomination.  That never happened.  I repeat: that never happened.  I never said that.  I don’t believe that….

“In fact, I was one of the earliest radio hosts to support organizations such as PFLAG (you know, Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) and other efforts to encourage openness and acceptance of gays in their own families, much less society.”  – Dr. Laura Schlessinger, “Setting My Record Straight about Gays,” June 22, 2010, Schlessinger’s blog

The famous radio host, "Dr. Laura" Schlessinger, now praises the radical homosexual group PFLAG (Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays). In 2000, homosexual militants targeted Schlessinger with a cyber-boycott because she said (correctly) that homosexuality is a "biological error."

TAKE ACTION: Write Dr. Laura Schlessinger through her blog and urge her to stop promoting the homosexual activist group PFLAG. Respectfully ask her to instead support PFOX, a pro-family support group for parents and friends of ex-gays (and gays). Also urge her to refrain from sanctioning homosexual relationships, which are always wrong, and to instead use her powerful voice to support the ex-gay movement. Another way to contact Schlessinger is through her website, DrLaura.com, but you have to join first to e-mail her this way. Or you can write: webmaster@drlaura.com.
The call-in line for Dr. Laura’s radio show is 1-800-DR-LAURA (800-375-2872). (Calls must come between 11:30 and 3:00 PM Pacific Time Monday-Friday.)

______________________________________

By Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

I’m sad to report that Dr. Laura Schlessinger – the “Dr. Laura” of radio moralist fame — has chosen to sell out the truth about homosexuality because she either: 1) stopped believing it; or 2) couldn’t take the pressure or the potential loss of income and prestige resulting from hostile “gay” activism.

Note that I did not say that Schlessinger has sold out on opposing “gay marriage.” She hasn’t, and still publicly defends traditional marriage. But she has reversed course on homosexuality, which is by far the more politically incorrect battle these days. Let’s face it, “protecting marriage” in our “gay”-saturated culture is a much easier task than opposing the extremist homosexual agenda — which Dr. Laura knows better than anyone because she herself was savaged by ’GLBT’ cultural bullies ten years ago for describing homosexuality as unnatural.

(I want to stress that Schlessinger’s retreat on homosexuality does not negate her immense contributions to the culture in teaching people to take responsibility for their own lives, and in helping to build healthy marriages and families. For example, I know just from conversations with friends and family that her book, The Proper Care & Feeding of Husbands, has blessed many women and, by extension, their husbands and marriages.)

‘Gay’ Cyberwar Target

A decade ago, Schlessinger was the target of a “gay” activist cyber-campaign after she referred on her show to homosexuality — not “gay people,” as was widely misreported — as a “biological error.” Of course, Dr. Laura was right: as we’ve noted, Nature itself clearly discriminates against homosexuality; just look at the skyrockeing sexual diseases including HIV among “men who have sex with men.” Or observe the simple biological fact that any child can understand: that two men or two women alone cannot produce a child without borrowing from heterosexuality, as it were.

Indeed, homosexual “equality” can never be more than a mere political slogan.

Because Schlessinger reasonably asserted on radio that homosexual practice is deviant, she and her new TV show were targeted by a vicious homosexual boycott campaign that ultimately led to the TV show being canceled. To get an idea of the massive cyber-boycott unleashed against her, visit the the archive of the website “StopDrLaura.com,” created by homosexual militant and blogger John Aravosis. Going down the list of the StopDrLaura actions and “victories” on their home page is a valuable lesson in the dedication and fanaticism (and cruelty) of homosexual activists. One item even approvingly cites a column by feminist lawyer Gloria Allred speculating on whether the demonized Dr. Laura could have been sued for “discrimination” under California’s “sexual orientation” law for making her remarks critical of homosexuality (see 9/27 item “Could Dr. Laura Be Sued?”).

Homosexaul activists mocked Dr. Laura and took her comments about homosexuality being a "biological error" out of context to demonize the talk show host. Their boycott of Dr. Laura's advertisers led to her TV show being cancelled -- a campaign that surely has had a chilling effect on other radio talk show hosts. This photo -- note the message, "Are you a BIOLOGICAL ERROR?" -- is taken from the "StopDrLaura.com" archive website.

The cyber-boycott worked to perfection, but Schlessinger made it worse by proceeding to take out not one but two full-page ads in the Hollywood newspaper Variety to apologize (as a then-Orthodox Jew) to the “gay community.” If life were fair, it should have been the intolerant ”queer” activists like Aravosis apologizing to Dr. Laura, but unfortunately, politics and cultural warfare often reward bullies.  The Variety ads were a pathetic capitulation — especially coming from a tough-talker like Dr. Laura who did nothing wrong. It was sort of like the abused schoolboy paying and praising his tormenters for not stealing his lunch on Friday after they did so every other day of the week.

Chilling effect from rewarding bullies

The StopDrLaura web campaign was the first of its kind targeting a radio talk show host and its success certainly had a chilling effect on other talk shows. As we have often bemoaned, these days even most “conservative” talkers carefullly avoid taking on the homosexual activist movement, and some, like self-described “Happy Conservative Warrior” Mike Gallagher, have thrown up the white flag of surrender on the homosexuality debate. (Curously, Gallagher complains when “conservatives” sell out on issues that he cares about.)

I can almost hear Dr. Laura telling one of her callers: “You never reward bullies.” But that’s exactly what she has done, and she continues the appeasement with her sporadic attempts to disprove a false claim arrising from the cyber-boycott: that she  “hates gays and lesbians.” (Memo to Dr. Laura: why even bother to answer this straw-man smear? When you chastise your callers who are practicing adultery or fornication, does that mean you “hate” adulterers and fornicators?)

Promoting PFLAG, promoting homosexuality

As part of her perverse penance, Schlessinger — who once was a convert to Orthodox Judaism but left that religion in 2003 — now champions the radical homosexual organization PFLAG (Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays). PFLAG supports “gay marriage” and promotes the anti-biblical notion that homosexual practice is not sinful; in fact, it expends a lot of resources undermining Scriptural truth about homosexuality and marriage.

PFOX President Greg Quinlan, a former homosexual and one-time “gay” activist, recently outlined some of PFLAG’s anti-Christian activities in his speech to PepsiCo’s shareholders meeting highlighting PepsiCo’s financial support of PFLAG:

PepsiCo, Inc. is the leading corporate sponsor of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, known as PFLAG. PFLAG’s latest publication, a religious guidebook, instructs its members to protest against religious conferences which feature ex-gay speakers like me. PFLAG’s religious guidebook even directs members on how to create picket signs for these protests. It also urges members to hold press conferences and issue press releases against ex-gay religious events “to remind people that there is more than one faith message.”

My church welcomes the ex-gay community. Why does Pepsi fund groups like PFLAG that disrupt Christian events which support former homosexuals like me? Why does PepsiCo fund an organization like PFLAG which issues religious publications urging readers to undermine other religions with which PFLAG disagrees? Why does Pepsi fund hate? Why?

We must ask: why is Dr. Laura giving free publicity to a group that encourages hostility against Bible-believing Christians and wars against God’s wonderful, created order for sex and marriage? In leaving Orthodox Judaism, why did Schlessinger also throw out biblical truths, such as the Old Testament’s prohibition of homosexual acts as an abomination (detestible)? Is Dr. Laura smarter than God?

I have not listened to Schlessinger’s show in a while (she’s not on a major network in Chicago), but I’m concerned with what her 2008 blog post below says about her apparent countenancing of homosexual relationships:

“When I helped a young male caller with his ‘boyfriend’ problems — which are no different in their content from ‘girlfriend’ problems: common sense, fears, communication, I got a spate of letters….”

So it doesn’t matter if a man has a boyfriend or a girlfriend? Really, Dr. Laura? A moralist who purports to defend absolute Bible morality cannot treat homosexual relationships as if they are OK because they are deeply immoral. Instead, she should tell such a homosexual: “You need to get out of that relationship and seek help in abandoning homosexual practice, which is wrong. There are plenty of places to get help, whatever your religious persuasion is, or even if you are not religious.” [See these ex-gay or change-oriented websites: NARTH; First Stone Min.; Exodus International; Regeneration Min.; Charlene Cothran's Evidence Ministries; Linda Jernigan's RescuingHomosexuals.net; and JONAH.]

PFLAG vs. PFOX

PFLAG relentlessly attacks pro-family groups, especially the one that Dr. Laura should be promoting: PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays). PFOX correctly believes that you can love your child without approving of his or her homosexual, bisexual, or “transgender” lifestyle. My friend, PFOX President Regina Griggs, has a homosexual son and she loves him as any mother would her son – I know, because I’ve had many conversations with Regina. She understands — as Dr. Laura surely would agree – that loving your child does not mean accepting everything he or she does. Regina loves her son but will never accept his homosexuality as part of “who he is.” She prays he will join the tens of thousands of “ex-gays” who have left this dead-end lifestyle behind. (Listen to my interview with ex-lesbian Linda Jernigan HERE.)

It’s called “tough love, “and Dr. Laura of all people should understand this concept – which makes it all the more galling that she now promotes the homosexualist group PFLAG with its artificial brand of homosexuality-affirming “love.” 

Now that I think of it, I challenge you, Dr. Laura, to invite Regina Griggs to your home and learn a few things about true love, and then give her an on-air interview to compensate for your radio promotion of PFLAG.

PFLAG promotes gender confusion in kids

I wonder if Dr. Laura has an any clue how extreme PFLAG is. In addition to propagandizing for homosexuality, PFLAG recklessly promotes “transgender” identities in children; see their booklet “Our Trans Children” HERE. (“A trans child can be treated with puberty blockers to suppress development of the secondary sexual characteristics of the birth sex.” — p. 5.) Here’s more from PFLAG’s “Our Trans Children” booklet:  

“If your child has come out to you [as transgender] before or at the beginning of puberty, you may consider puberty blockers. …They are completely reversible, so if the blockers are withdrawn, puberty begins. This allows your child to mature with their affirmed gender identity or revert back to their birth sex if they desire.If your child is ready for irreversible treatment (usually at 16 years or older) the absence of those unwanted secondary sex characteristics will make their full transition much easier and less expensive. ”  

How sad that a woman like Dr. Laura who claims to defend biblical morality, and who has done so much good in urging men and women to stop feeling sorry for themselves and to face their problems head-on, now boasts that she recommends a homosexual organization like PFLAG, which urges parents to “block” their child’s puberty as a way to help the child “transition” into a deviant, unnatural identity.

Who knows how many desperate parents with gender-confused children PFLAG has led astray!  

Dr. Laura needs to “do the right thing” (to quote her mantra) and stop pretending that homosexuality is OK and shilling for misguided ‘GLBT’ groups like PFLAG. It will take courage — of the sort she constantly encourages in her callers — but she should switch from supporting PFLAG to supporting PFOX and other groups that affirm God’s natural created design for men and women.

Dr. Laura needs to take personal responsibility for defecting away from truth on the homosexual issue. Pandering to an organized sin movement — however aggressive and skilled it is at intimidating and bullying good people – is not befitting a moralist like Schlessinger who counsels others to obey God and take the tough road toward living right.

Correction: in initially posting this piece, we mistakenly cited the American Psychological Association, instead of the American Psychiatric Association, regarding the changed DSM on homosexuality as a mental disorders. We apologize for the error. — AFTAH, www.aftah.org

________________________________________

“Nuance” — yet another manifestation of rhetoric serving the cause of sin. Where oh where is C.S. Lewis when we need him to poke holes in the fancy façade of sophistication that we sinners don to conceal our acquiescence to a fallen world?

Grove City College Professor Warren Throckmorton’s feet have been put to the fire recently regarding the Sexual Identity Therapy guidelines that he and Mark Yarhouse of Regent University have developed. Their guidelines state the following:

The emergence of a gay identity for persons struggling with religious conflicts is a possibility envisioned by the recommendations….some religious individuals will determine that their religious beliefs may become modified to allow integration of same-sex eroticism within their valued identity. We seek to provide therapy recommendations that respect these options.

How can a serious follower of Christ “envision” a homosexual identity, that is to say, an identity defined by disordered desire and objectively immoral behavior? Substitute another sin for homosexuality and imagine such a statement:

“The emergence of a polyamorous or promiscuous identity with religious conflicts is a possibility envisioned by the recommendations. Some religious individuals will determine that their religious beliefs may become modified to allow integration of polyamorous eroticism or promiscuity within their valued identity. We seek to provide therapy recommendations that respect these options.”

Throckmorton and Yarhouse’s statement could be made only by those whose allegiance to a secular worldview takes precedence over their allegiance to Christ. Unfortunately, Throckmorton and Yarhouse are not alone in their subordination of faith and truth to the demands of secular professional guidelines or requirements.

In an interview with One News Now [see ONN site HERE; AFTAH analysis and ONN story HERE], Throckmorton stated that “in a professional therapy situation” it is accurate to say that “homosexuals can live normal, natural, and healthy lives that are free of mental illness.” Throckmorton and Yarhouse quote APA guidelines which state that “Psychologists understand that homosexuality and bisexuality are not indicative of mental illness.” In the words of the infamous Gollum, this is tricksy rhetoric that calls for some careful parsing.

What constitutes “mental illness” is determined by the notoriously liberal American Psychiatric Association, which removed “homosexuality” from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in 1973 because of the political machinations of a group of homosexuals who stormed and disrupted an APA meeting and subsequently applied political pressure to any pockets of resistance.

But whether the APA considers homosexuality a mental illness or not should be irrelevant to a Christian mental health professional. Christian counselors ought not ignore serious moral issues when deciding how or whether to counsel a client. Neither polyamory nor adult consensual incest is considered a mental illness either. Does that mean that Throckmorton and Yarhouse would be complicit in helping a brother and sister who were involved in an incestuous relationship to work out their relationship conflicts?

Throckmorton asserts that “homosexuals can live normal, natural and healthy lives,” which raises the critical question of how he, as a Christian first, defines normal, natural and healthy. He quite obviously is not applying biblical understandings of normality, naturalness or health. I can’t imagine even what secular standards he is using to define these terms. [Editor's note: in a 2007 radio interview with homosexual activist Mike Signorile, Throckmorton was asked this question: "So you think it is normal, natural and healthy for people who come out and accept that being homosexual — accept being gay — and completely have no issues with their religious faith — you believe — would you describe the words as 'normal, natural and healthy' – that that is fine?" He responded:  "Yes. Yes, I have been very clear about that in my public statements, that the efforts to demonize people who accept their homosexuality and come out as gay have been futile."]

Since homosexuals constitute somewhere between 2-4 percent of the population, homosexuality can’t be considered normal. And since the predominant sex act between homosexual men is profoundly unhealthy and structurally damaging, and homosexual sex is inherently sterile, it’s hard to see how anyone would define homosexuality as natural or healthy.

But most important, as a Christian first, how is Throckmorton defining that which God calls abominable as normal, natural and healthy?

In his interview with One News Now, Throckmorton also said that “he takes a more ‘nuanced’ view” on the topic of same-sex marriage. He said “that he opposes same-sex marriage but believes the Equal Protection Clause permits homosexual civil unions.” Tricksy rhetoric again. He cleverly avoids saying he supports homosexual unions, instead saying that the Equal Protection Clause permits homosexual unions.

First, if the Equal Protection Act actually required homosexual unions, it seems it would require same-sex “marriages” also.

Second, the question Throckmorton needs to answer directly is, does he, who claims to hold orthodox Christian views on homosexuality, believe that “civil unions” — which are really same-sex “marriages” in all but name — should be legalized? Some are interested not in what he thinks the Equal Protection Clause permits, but what he personally thinks should exist.

What seems clear is that many Christian mental health professionals are subordinating their faith to the professional standards established by a world largely hostile to faith. No serious Christian — no one who understands that Christ expects full submission of every aspect of the lives of those who accept the gift of eternal life that came at the cost of His life — would affirm to others either implicitly or explicitly profoundly sinful behavior, behavior that orthodox Christian doctrine teaches will lead to eternal damnation.

Increasingly, Christians from all walks of life are going to have to choose between their work and their faith, between friendships and faith, and perhaps even between family and faith. We shouldn’t be surprised: Jesus told us that,

Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law – a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.

Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. (Matt. 10:32-39)

_____________________

Laurie Higgins is a writer and analyst with Illinois Family Institute. She can be reached through AFTAH at americansfortruth@comcast.net.

LaBarbera was a guest today on Diane Gramley’s “American Family Focuses on Pennsylvania Issues” radio program, discussing Throckmorton’s de facto defection from the pro-family movement opposing GLBT activism. The pre-taped program airs tonight (Wed.) at 5:05 PM Eastern on Pennsylvania Christian radio WAWN-FM (89.5) out of Franklin, Penn., and reaches into several counties (it can be heard on the campus of Grove City). The program will then be available online at AFA of Pennsylvania’s website: www.afaofpa.org.

Today LaBarbera was also interviewed on the “Bob Dutko Show” in Detroit (WMUZ Christian radio). Dutko, like others who had once interviewed Throckmorton as a pro-family advocate defending the truth that homosexuals can experience profound change, expressed sadness that the GCC professor now believes most homosexuals cannot experience such change. (Writes Throckmorton: “I now believe durable change in basic attractions is very infrequent.”) Dutko agreed with LaBarbera that no faithful Christian should ever encourage a homosexual struggler in a positive “gay” identity, as Throckmorton’s (and Regent University Professor Mark Yarhouse’s) “Sexual Identity Therapy” does if such a self-identification brings about “client satisfaction.”

Tomorrow, LaBarbera will be interviewed by Martha Kleder for Concerned Women for America’s online radio program to discuss the GCC-Throckmorton-Biblical-faithfulness controversy, and on Monday he appears on Linda Harvey’s daily Christian radio show in Columbus, Ohio. Harvey is the founder and president of Mission: America, and her article on Throckmorton’s misapplication of the “Golden Rule” can be found HERE.

AFTAH has also learned that Throckmorton has been questioning the accuracy of the OneNewsNow story, and e-mailed ex-”gay” Michael Glatze regarding the accuracy of LaBarbera’s comments about Glatze below. We’ll have more from Glatze in an upcoming post.

OneNewsNow reports:

______________________________________________

Christian college prof encourages ‘gay identity’

Jim Brown – OneNewsNow – 3/10/2010

Dr. Warren ThrockmortonA conservative activist is asking a Christian college in Pennsylvania whether it supports the “sexual identity therapy” of one of its professors who is unwilling to discourage some of his clients from remaining in the homosexual lifestyle.

Dr. Warren Throckmorton of Grove City College was once a spokesperson for the ex-”gay” group PFOX (Parents and Friends of Gays and Ex-Gays) and produced a documentary titled I Do Exist, which highlighted the testimonies of former homosexuals who chose to leave that lifestyle.

But now Throckmorton is encouraging some clients to maintain their “gay identity,” even though it is at odds with scripture.  In a paper he co-authored with Regent University’s Mark Yarhouse titled “Sexual Identity Therapy:  Practice Guidelines for Sexual Identity Conflicts,” Throckmorton writes that “the emergence of a gay identity for persons struggling with religious conflicts is a possibility envisioned by the recommendations.”

The professor also states his therapy “respects” that “some religious individuals will determine that their religious beliefs may become modified to allow integration of same-sex eroticism within their valued identity.”

Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, believes Throckmorton has “lost his faith in God’s ability to change people.”

“Here’s the thing that troubles me the most: there are many people who have experienced profound change, and it seems sometimes Throckmorton has almost sought to downplay those individuals,” LaBarbera notes.  “I talked to Michael Glatze…a young man who was once sort of a gay activist. He was held up and featured by the homosexual side, [but] Michael Glatze has left the lifestyle.  He’s now going to Bible college, and he’s sort of got some hostile e-mails from Throckmorton along the idea of ‘it’s not smart to put out the idea that homosexuals can experience profound change.’”

The organization president adds that Grove City College, which bills itself as “authentically Christian,” needs to explain whether it sanctions what he calls Throckmorton’s “unorthodox, anti-biblical counseling approach.”

_____________________________________

From:  “Bier, David J.” [GCC e-mail address]
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 10:43:31 -0500
To: <americansfortruth@comcast.net>
Subject: Article on Warren Throckmorton

Dear Americans For Truth,

Your recent article on Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton is yet another of your pathetic attempts to mislead otherwise moral individuals into the belief that God disapproves of homosexuality.  Your unsolicited attack on Throckmorton isn’t surprising, but you should still know that Throckmorton has the support of the student body here.  Perhaps one day you will realize that the only thing doing “incalculable harm to many young people” is your ignorant and hate-inspired position on homosexuality.  Throckmorton’s Golden Rule Pledge simply encourages to do as Jesus did: accept others as they are, not as we want them to be.

Thanks for your time,

-David Bier, Grove City College Senior

______________________________________

Related Americans For Truth articles:

• “Is Grove City College Still ‘Authentically Christian’ if It Abides Pro-’Gay’ Professor Warren Throckmorton and his ‘Sexual Identity Therapy’?”
• “Grove City College Prof Throckmorton Misapplies the Golden Rule on the ‘Day of Silence’”

Would you want your child counseled at Grove City College? How can an evangelical Christian college like Grove City that claims to follow the Bible affirm a "gay" "sexual identity" that values "same-sex eroticism" -- especially for a person struggling in his conscience against homosexuality? The above excerpt is taken from Page 7 of GCC Professor Warren Throckmorton's (and Regent University's Mark Yarhouse's) paper, "Sexual Identity Therapy: Practice Guidelines for Sexual Identity Conflicts" (emphasis added).

TAKE ACTION: Contact Grove City College (President Richard Jewell: 724-458-2500; rgjewell@gcc.edu) and ask them if GCC professor Warren Throckmorton’s unorthodox views on homosexuality represent “authentically Christian” teachings on this issue. (GCC advertises itself as a solid, “authentically Christian” institution.) Request a written response as to whether Throckmorton’s writings on and approach toward homosexuality honor Grove City’s Christian charter “rejecting relativism and secularism.” Please share the response you receive with us at americansfortruth@comcast.net.

________________________________

By Peter LaBarbera

Folks, I had to laugh the other day when heretical Grove City College Assistant Prof Warren Throckmorton accused pro-family groups advocating a walkout on the nationwide, pro-homosexual “Day of Silence” with “mischief.” You see, “Mischief” is Throckmorton’s middle name. Here’s Warren taking a cheap shot at Americans for Truth About Homosexuality in one of his many Uganda posts.  (Note how Warren sounds like … well, a “gay” activist … in cynically accusing Ugandan pastor Martin Ssempa of “tak[ing] his pornography show to church”; Ssempa was using video to warn fellow Ugandan Christians about the reality of homosexuality.)

Question for Warren: is AFTAH doing a “porn show” when it exposes to the rest of America that twice a year in San Francisco, home of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — third in line to be President of the United States — “tolerance” is so distorted that men are allowed to walk around publicly by the hundreds completely naked as the authorities stand idly by?

Here’s one of Throckmorton’s particularly snarky posts against Christian ex-”gay” advocate Richard Cohen (what about that Golden Rule, Warren?). The latter is a frequent target of Throckmorton’s barbs, perhaps because Cohen — unlike the Grove City professor — actually has helped many, many people experience real change and overcome homosexual desires.

There are good defectors and bad defectors in this world. Exemplifying the former are ex-”gays” like Pete Lines — whom I just interviewed for AFTAH’s new radio show — who have walked away from homosexuality toward a biblically faithful life. Warren is a bad defector. Though he works for an evangelical institution, Pennsylvania-based Grove City College, which advertises itself on faith-based websites as “authentically Christian,” Warren promotes a new, morally neutral paradigm on homosexuality that affirms people’s “Sexual Identity” according to their feelings (and comfort level with same).

As you can see above, Throckmorton’s and Regent University’s Mark Yarhouse’s “Sexual Identity Therapy” model grants the possibility that some clients may come to embrace a positive “gay identity” that “modifies” their religious beliefs in such a way as to “allow integration of same-sex eroticism within their valued identity.” Hold on…. This is wholly against Scripture: there is nothing in the Bible or the long history of Judeo-Christian tradition that even hints at ascribing a morally-neutral or worse — a “valued identity” — to sexual sin.

And Warren Throckmorton has the audacity to lecture the Ugandans about their approach toward homosexuality?

Warren Throckmorton of Grove City College

We applaud Throckmorton’s past and current work affirming homosexual strugglers’ right to live by their own religious and moral creed and seek counseling help to move away from  “gayness.” But his  “nonjudgmental” Sexual Identity Therapy approach affirming those who choose to embrace a “gay identity” wouldn’t pass the smell test if it were applied to any other sinful temptation. (“Doctor, I am so happy now that I’ve finally decided to embrace my core identity as a Sexual Swinger….”)

So we say to Grove City College and Regent University: let Throckmorton and Mark Yarhouse apply their “gay”-tolerant theories on their own — privately — but if you continue to allow them to do so under the auspices of GCC (or Regent) — then stop misleading people by promoting Grove City as “authentically Christian” (and Regent as “education from a Biblical perspective”).

And further questions remain: what is Professor Throckmorton teaching his students about homosexuality and the pro-homosexual activist movement? Does he counsel students struggling with homosexuality at GCC — and if so, does the school sanction his unorthodox, anti-Biblical counseling approach?

Larger Issue: Course of Modern Christianity

Understand this: Throckmorton –  who was once a respected part of the pro-family movement before he lost faith in people’s ability to change and leave homosexuality behind — is not the issue. (“I now believe durable change in basic attractions is very infrequent,” he writes.)  The larger issue is what is “authentically Christian” teaching on the matter of homosexuality? What is sin, how relevant is the Bible, and what is the real application of the Golden Rule? The Christian Church is at a pivotal moment regarding homosexuality: will Christians abandon Biblical orthodoxy and begin recognizing and affirming “gays,” “gay Christians,” and/or a homosexual “sexual identity” — or will they adhere to the historic Christian understanding that holds homosexual practice as sinful and which rejects the notion of a positive “identity” based on homosexual desires?

I’ll apply this high-stakes question to the most important people in my own life. If one of my sons — God forbid — came home from college one day with the revelation that he is “gay,” I wouldn’t accept that “identity” for him. Instead, I would emphatically plead with him that “being gay” is NOT “who you are” nor even a part of “who you are.” (It may be a burden with which he would have to bear with God’s help.) Of course, I would love my son as much as I’ve always loved him, but I would warn and counsel him that practicing homosexuality is a sin; that it is extremely unhealthy; that if he does not repent and turn from it, this sinful embrace could lead to his eternal separation from God; and that the Lord can help him to be an overcomer in this struggle — just as He has aided untold millions of sinners struggling with other difficult, besetting sins.

In other words, I wouldn’t be “neutral” or “nonjudgmental” — and certainly not affirming — on the matter or make the primary determinant of my counsel to my son his “feelings or stated “attractions.” Instead, I would seek to imitate as best I could — with much prayer — God’s heart on homosexuality — balancing love and truth. The Lord is merciful, forgiving and just but being holy He cannot affirm “gayness” (homosexuality) any more than He could affirm porn-use or promiscuity, etc. (e.g., a “porno identity”). We’re all born sinners, but it is a cop-out to say our “orientation” or “identity” is tied to any special sin.

And by the way, I would throw the book at anyone who ever tried to harm my son in any way or whose only response to him would be to hate and ridicule him.

Today, in post-biblical America, “Christians” who defect from the Truth are a dime a dozen. The challenge for you — committed Christian — is to hold to the Truth and love “gays and lesbians” (the quote marks are there because sin does not define personhood) enough to tell them the truth: that God loves them and He will forgive them — that is why He sent his Son to die for their sin — but that they must repent and turn from that ungodly lifestyle.

My good friend Linda Harvey is right: Warren’s namby-pamby “Golden Rule Pledge” isn’t biblical, and it isn’t truly compassionate. God has a better plan for today’s youth than to confirm or affirm them in a “sexual identity” linked to behavior that He calls an abomination. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com

P.S. On behalf of Americans For Truth, I have asked Throckmorton for his views on “same-sex marriage,” “civil unions,” homosexual “special rights” (“sexual orientation”) laws, etc., but he has not answered my queries. We will be presenting these and other questions to Throckmorton publicly.

RELATED ARTICLES:

• Grove City College Prof Throckmorton Misapplies the Golden Rule on the ‘Day of Silence’
• What Qualifies the United States to Lecture Uganda on Homosexuality?
• Grove City Prof Warren Throckmorton Affirms Homosexuality as ‘Normal, Natural and Healthy’

Kathleen Parker

Folks, when even self-styled “conservatives” like Kathleen Parker (left) boast about how they teach their children to be accepting of homosexuality (she would use the PC parlance “gays and lesbians”), you know that those of us who believe in timeless moral standards have our work cut out for us.  I don’t know what led to Parker sellout out, but I’ve had it up to here with “conservatives” who no longer see the need (or have the guts) to conserve Judeo-Christian moral values. Funny how the likes of Parker talk a good game about not being “judgmental” but they have little problem judging the “Christian Right.” — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

P.S. Would it have killed Chris Matthews to include an actual opponent of homosexuals in the military in his MSNBC talkfest — or was the psuedo-conservative Parker his idea of “diversity”?

TAKE ACTION: Contact your Congressman and both Senators (202-224-3121; 202-225-3121; www.congress.org) and urge them NOT to allow open homosexuality in our military. Urge them to OPPOSE H.R. 1283, the Homosexualize Our Military Act (aka the ”Military Readiness Enhancement Act” ), which would establish a pro-homosexual “non-discrimination” code in the military — thus turning the conservative culture of our Armed Forces into a de facto “gay pride” zone where homosexuality — destructive, immoral and changeable conduct — is affirmed as a “civil right.” If H.R. 1283 becomes law, tradition-minded servicemembers would be “re-educated” to adhere to the new, twisted definition of ”tolerance.”

__________________________________________

Homosexuals in the Military 

By Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute, Feb. 17, 2010

The issue of homosexuals serving openly in the military is so complex that writing about it seems overwhelming.

First, there is the problem of reconciling both Article 125 of the Military Code of Justice and U.S. Code – Section 654 that strictly prohibit those who engage in homosexual acts or those who state that they are homosexual from serving in the military with the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy that serves as a defacto law superseding actual law.

“Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” implicitly says homosexuals can serve as long as they don’t openly acknowledge that they are homosexual. That’s like saying that company policy strictly bans the use of company computers to view porn, but employees can view porn as long as they don’t tell anyone. Either it’s permitted or it’s not.

Despite what some advocates of homosexuals serving openly in the military claim, military prohibitions against homosexuals serving in the military no more encourage deceit, than do laws prohibiting stealing encourage deceit. To claim that laws that prohibit certain behaviors encourage deceit is another way of saying people are always going to break laws. In this twisted logic, all laws encourage deceit because those who don’t want to abide by them willfully engage in deceit in order to do what they want without incurring the consequences.

We can’t always prevent lawbreakers from breaking the law, but that unfortunate reality should not compel society to repeal laws. In other words, society ought not repeal laws in order that those who refuse to obey them are freed from the consequences of lawbreaking. The fact that throughout history there have been homosexuals who enlisted in the military in violation of military law that prohibits them from serving should not compel the military to rescind the law.

Removing the prohibition against allowing openly homosexuals from serving in the military will result in a whole host of other problems, among which are the following:

• It will result in discomfort among some soldiers with engaging in private activities like showering with men who admit to being sexually attracted to other men. Yes, throughout history homosexual men have served in the military, but heterosexual men are unlikely to be uncomfortable showering with homosexual men when they don’t know they’re homosexual.
• If military law is changed to allow openly homosexual men and women to serve, there will undoubtedly be an increase in homosexual activity in the military. To argue otherwise is either disingenuous or naïve.
• Coercion between openly homosexual military officers and their subordinates will likely increase.
• Some men may choose not to enlist or re-enlist if they will be compelled to serve with openly homosexual men.
• Romantic affiliations will develop which will likely affect combat decisions.
• The military will eventually have to provide military housing for same-sex couples.

(For more on the potential impact of allowing openly homosexual men and women to serve in the military, click HERE to read an editorial by Richard H. Black, retired chief of the Army’s Criminal Law Division, who as a marine pilot flew 269 combat missions in Vietnam.)

Political commentator Chris Matthews made yet another silly statement on his Sunday morning program on Feb. 7 when he said that anyone who wants to serve in the military should be allowed to do so. Apparently, neither the mission of the military nor its needs must be allowed to supersede the almighty desires of any particular individual. His statement reflects the troubling thinking of so many Americans who now believe that any good or desirable thing constitutes the object of a right. If they see something they want or something they want to do, many people believe they have a Constitutional right to have it or do it.

Homosexual couples want to participate in the heterosexual institution of marriage, so same sex “marriage” is now their “right.” Homosexual couples who are designed to be sterile want babies, so having babies is now their “right.” Men who are sexually attracted to other men want to serve in the military, so now serving in the military is their “right.”

Homosexuals, and increasingly “transgenders,” are compelling society through erroneous and unproven ontological assumptions to radically redefine foundational societal institutions. All of their efforts are based on acceptance of the deceit that homosexuality is ontologically equivalent to skin color or other immutable conditions that have no behavioral moral implications open to moral assessment.

Homosexuality is not by nature equivalent to skin color, nor is it morally equivalent to heterosexuality. Conservatives especially need to recognize how much they have appropriated the absurd proposition that homosexuality is akin to race, and they need to stop treating it as if it were.

After reading about a recent poll that reveals that the opinions of both civilians and younger military personnel are shifting in favor of allowing openly homosexual men and women to serve in the military, I found myself wondering why the views are changing so dramatically. Chris Matthews posed that question to his guests MSNBC correspondent Norah O’Donnell, New York Times writer Andrew Sorkin, Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker, and Time Magazine assistant editor Michael Duffy, and received surprisingly insubstantial, question-begging answers.

In response to Matthews’ question, “Why have attitudes (on homosexuals serving in the military) changed since Bill Clinton confronted that issue back in ’93?” O’Donnell said “I think there’s greater acceptance.”

Sorkin said, “The world’s changed, but I’m going to say it’s about social networking, it’s about the Internet. I think so many people are so much more open in a whole new way than they’ve ever been, and therefore people who were unaccepting before now see it in a whole different way.”

Kathleen Parker said, “we parents have raised our kids to not be judgmental and to be accepting of gays. We all know more gay people than we used to, or think we didn’t know before.”

Duffy said, “the reason is that our teenagers are just 100 times more tolerant than their parents about everything.”

What these responses brought to mind was one of Jack Handey’s Deep Thoughts: “One day one of my little nephews came up to me and asked if the equator was a real line that went around the Earth, or just an imaginary one. I had to laugh. Laugh and laugh. Because I didn’t know, and I thought that maybe by laughing he would forget what he asked me.”

Parker responded by saying that children have been raised to be less judgmental, which really means that many have switched their judgment from homosexual acts are immoral to the judgment that homosexual acts are moral. Does Parker really want people to stop judging between right and wrong, or does she want people to make moral judgments with which she agrees. Does she want people to be non-judgmental when it comes to racist behavior, or adult consensual incest, or corporate malfeasance?

What none of Matthews guests did was to offer an account of the reasons why society’s judgments are changing, which is the crux of the matter. Has it happened through careful study of the best thinkers writing on the subject of morality, sexuality, the needs of the military, or the place of institutional disapproval in maintaining a healthy society?

Or have other factors and forces altered the judgments of society:

• Have judgments shifted through the relentless spate of images and ideas promulgated through music, films, novels, plays, essays, the news media, advertising, and public education that implicitly and explicitly affirm unproven assumptions about homosexuality?
• Have judgments shifted as a result of the absolute censorship in public schools of the writing of scholars who offer thoughtful, erudite expositions of conservative perspectives on the nature and morality of homosexuality?
• Have public judgments shifted as a result of relentless ad hominem attacks on anyone who dares to say publicly that volitional homosexual acts are immoral?
• Have public judgments shifted as theologically orthodox churches cowardly retreated from engaging in this public debate and from equipping their members to engage in it?

The tragic reality is that the affirmation of openly homosexual men and women serving in the military reflects not only society’s acceptance of the fallacious claim that homosexuality is analogous to skin color/race, but also of society’s rejection of any standards regarding sexual morality:

• Marriage has been severed from sex, and from procreation, and from childrearing, and increasingly from “gender.”
• Sex has been severed from marriage, procreation, childrearing, and “gender.” Polyamory-or as polyamorists like to call it, “ethical non-monogamy”-is increasingly visible and likely increasingly practiced.
• Fornication and co-habitation are not merely accepted; they’re expected.
• Homosexuality is everywhere promoted as normal and good.
• Exhibitionism is common on reality shows, primetime comedies and dramas, films, music videos, and college campuses.
• And paraphilias, also known as fetishes, are played for laughs on sitcoms.
• Even lighthearted references to and depictions of incest have appeared in television programs and films.

Why wouldn’t a generation weaned on positive images of sexual perversion and immorality support openly homosexual men and women serving in the military?

What society needs to think seriously about is whether some forms of institutionalized disapproval of sexual immorality through laws or policy serve a good and necessary social function.

Ellen DeGeneres is practicing lesbian behavior and she thinks it's OK. Does that give her any moral authority?

Theological/philosophical question for the day:

Is the rightness or wrongness of homosexual behavior dependent upon cultural acceptance of that behavior?

Modern application:

Does the fact that Ellen DeGeneres — a popular comedian, talk show host, and practicing lesbian — thinks homosexuality is OK make it OK?

Corollary question:

Do the condemnations by those who approve of homosexuality of those who do not (as “bigots,” “homophobes,” “haters,” etc.) have any moral authority?

Rephrased:

By what standard and authority is opposition to homosexual behavior deemed “immoral”?