Facebook puts Bible-and-homosexuality scholar in “jail” after post critical of conference recognizing homosexuals as “sexual minority”

Robert Gagnon

Folks, my friend Robert Gagnon, the world’s foremost authority on the Bible and homosexuality, last week penned this critique of the Revoice conference going on right now in St. Louis. Revoice aims to recognize and celebrate LGBTQ-identified celibate Christians as a “sexual minority” in the Church. It has been widely challenged by orthodox Christians for undermining Scriptural truth; see this article on Revoice’s speakers.

After publishing his piece on Facebook, Gagnon was was put in “Facebook jail” for 24 hours–the second time this has happened to him in recent weeks. That’s very troubling, as is the fact I and several other Christians were BANNED from attending Revoice after we were “checked out” by organizers.

Gagnon wrote in an email:

“I have been blocked again for 24 hours from Facebook, with a warning that the next time I am blocked it will be for 3 days. They blocked me for a mild post expressing concern about the upcoming Revoice Conference (pasted below). Could the Revoice people have complained about me?…”

We will be following this story very closely, as I share the belief of others that Revoice is the LGBTQ activist camel’s nose under the tent of the evangelical Christian church. — Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera

______________________________

Concerns with the upcoming Revoice Conference and Spiritual Friendship Folk

By Robert A. J. Gagnon

While I am glad for the fact that persons at the upcoming Revoice Conference (July 26-28, St. Louis, in a PCA venue) and those who align with the “Spiritual Friendship” program want to refrain from engaging in same-sex intercourse and thereby uphold this part of the orthodox witness, I have seven consequential concerns about their views.

1. Inadequate engagement with the need for “renewal of the mind” as regards homosexual desires. Is there any asking of: “What is the false narrative that gives these impulses particular strength? Why am I viewing a person of the same sex as a sexual complement or counterpart to my own sex? Why am I aroused by the distinctive sexual features of my own sex, by what I already have? Am I thinking of myself as only half of my own sex? What kind of strategies for renewing my mind can I use to counter this false narrative beyond ‘washed and waiting’?” Instead, the benefits of a generalized “gay” perspective (minus the sex) are celebrated or lifted up. Even if one’s attractions may not change with such an evaluation, they can be disempowered by exposing the lie that lies behind attempts to gratify same-sex desire or (for “transgenders,” so-called) to deny one’s biological sex altogether. There is more to be addressed here than refraining from homosexual sex.

Schools Are LGBTQ Propaganda Zones: Here is part of a supposed history lesson by the homosexual activist group GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network). It is false and misleading: homosexual “marriages” were not common nor legal in Roman society, and same-sex unions were often ridiculed, according  to (pro-“gay marriage”) classicist Michael Fontaine, who writes: “This confusion brings us back to Roman law. Marriage in ancient Rome was forever aimed at producing legitimate children for the state. Other sexual relationships were surely common, but a gay partnership was not one of those the state dignified with legal recognition.” Source of graphic: GLSEN online report, “LGBTQ History.” Click to enlarge.

Folks, this is from pro-family education advocate Donna Garner, a Texas-based conservative hero. She writes about a new Republican National Committee (RNC) resolution supporting parental rights in sexuality education (sex-ed). Of course, as with all political party resolutions, they’re not worth too much if the politicians ignore them (as GOP pols are wont to do, for example, their failure to steadfastly resist the advances of Big LGBTQ). Congrats to RNC Committeewoman Cynthia Dunbar and all those who helped to push this common-sense resolution through. —Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH.org; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera

Donna Garner writes:

_______________________

Landmark Resolution to Protect Children from Unsuitable Content — Passed by Republican National Committee

July 22, 2018 by Donna Garner Education Policy Commentator

From Cynthia Dunbar, Republican National Committeewoman

7.20.18

A landmark Resolution supporting parental rights was unanimously adopted this week by the Republican National Committee. Cynthia Dunbar, National Committeewoman for Virginia and sponsor of the Resolution stated, “I’m thrilled we were able to get this Resolution adopted. This should not be a partisan issue. Parents everywhere deserve the right to know what their children are being taught and have an opportunity to consent to it. Passage of this Resolution is a huge victory and will hopefully serve as the impetus for state legislation across the nation.”

=====================

7.20.18 — REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, Austin, Texas

RESOLUTION TO PROTECT STUDENTS FROM EXPOSURE TO POTENTIALLY UNSUITABLE CONTENT BY SUPPORTING A PARENT’S RIGHT TO GRANT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT FOR SEX EDUCATION

WHEREAS, parents are a child’s first and foremost educators, and have primary responsibility for the education of their children. Parents have a right to direct their children’s education, care, and upbringing; (1)

WHEREAS, education is much more than schooling. Education is the whole range of activities by which families and communities transmit to a younger generation, not just knowledge and skills, but ethical and behavioral norms and traditions. It is the handing over of a cultural identity; (2)

WHEREAS, American education has, for the last several decades, been the focus of constant controversy, as centralizing forces from outside the family and community have sought to remake education in order to remake America. This has done immense damage; (3)

WHEREAS, school administrators routinely ask parents for their prior written permission for students to participate in various school-related instruction and activities, including, but not limited to: field trips, sports, and distribution of medicine;

WHEREAS, parents and their students should be afforded the same respect with regard to the increasingly sensitive and controversial nature of human sexuality instruction;

WHEREAS, much of the content in human sexuality instruction centers on contentious and sensitive issues, including but not limited to: abortion, birth control, sexual activity, sexual orientation, transgenderism, and/or gender identity;

WHEREAS, the content often includes a personal analysis or survey that reflects or influences the student’s opinions on sensitive topics such as religious beliefs and practices, sexual orientation, and/or sexual activity;

WHEREAS, most states grant an obscenity exemption that allows content that would otherwise be deemed harmful to minors to be disseminated for educational purposes, creating the potential for inappropriate content to be included within human sexuality instruction;

WHEREAS, such information, content, or ideology is most appropriately placed within the discretion of the parents or guardians;

WHEREAS, the current opt-out paradigm assumes parental consent to student participation, allowing schools to automatically enroll students in potentially explicit, sensitive, and/or controversial human sexuality instruction without prior written permission;

WHEREAS, human sexuality instruction frequently places the wishes and concerns of the parents and/or guardians at odds with those of the school district; and

WHEREAS, the wishes and concerns of the parents and/or guardians are preeminent to those of the School District and should be acknowledged by simply affording parents and/or guardians the right to grant permission for such instruction; therefore

RESOLVED, that public schools must disclose the content contained within human sexuality instruction to the parents and/or guardians of all unemancipated students and shall only enroll those students whose parents and/or guardians provide prior written permission to opt their student into human sexuality instruction;

RESOLVED, that the default shall be that no human sexuality instruction shall be provided to any student not yet emancipated without prior written consent from their parent and/or guardian, making an opt-out default an insufficient protection for either the safety of the student or the rights of the parent;

RESOLVED, that all state legislatures are encouraged to enact legislation that implements these notices and safeguards to protect students from exposure to potentially inappropriate and salacious content and to acknowledge the right of the parents and/or guardians to direct their children’s education, care, and upbringing, including their right to protect them from exposure to content they find unsuitable.

_____________________________________

1 Platform of the Republican Party, Issued by the Republican National Committee, page 33 (2016, Cleveland, Ohio).

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid.

Adopted by the Republican National Committee, July 20, 2018

Family Man, Foe of Judicial Activism: SCOTUS nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh stands with wife Ashley and their two daughters, Margaret (left) and Elizabeth (Liza) (right), before being introduced to the nation by President Trump Monday night at the White House. In a 2017 speech Kavanaugh praised the restrained judicial approach of former Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist and called him his “first judicial hero.” Photo taken from White House video.

Folks, here is Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver’s take on Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump’s nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. The monumental question before us is this: how would a future “Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh” decide on past cases like Roe v. Wade (coupled with Doe v. Bolton: Court-imposed nationalization of abortion-on-demand) and Obergefell v. Hodges (Court-imposed nationalization of homosexuality-based “marriage”), both of which relied heavily on an activist-minded judicial approach that displaced the legislative process?

Also, please note in the media discussions about Kavanaugh that commentary on the potential repeal of Obergefell is muted, despite it being only three years (as opposed to 45 for Roe) since the Court invented a new “constitutional right” by radically redefining marriage–effectively blocking the American people’s voice and votes in dozens of states from preserving real and natural marriage. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera

Press release by Liberty Counsel, July 10, 2018:

Kavanaugh’s Judicial Philosophy

WASHINGTON, D.C. — President Trump nominated D.C. Court of Appeals Judge Brett Kavanaugh to fill retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy’s vacancy on the Supreme Court.

Judge Kavanaugh, who has written over 300 judicial opinions, said in his nomination speech last night that his judicial philosophy has been “straightforward. A judge must be independent and must interpret the law, not make it.” Kavanaugh also stressed he believes in interpreting statutes and the Constitution as they are written, “informed by history and tradition and precedent.”

In his speech, “From the Bench: The Constitutional Statesmanship of Chief Justice William Rehnquist“ that Kavanaugh presented for the 2017 Walter Berns Constitution Day Lecture at the American Enterprise Institute about Chief Justice Rehnquist, he said Rehnquist was “his first judicial hero.” Kavanaugh’s lecture focused on the impact that Rehnquist had on the Supreme Court, noting that the “Court unquestionably changed and became more an institution of law, where its power is to interpret and to apply the law as writing, informed by historical practice, not be its own person and policy predilections.”

Regarding the Supreme Court’s abortion decisions, he pointed out that Rehnquist dissented from the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision. In Casey, Rehnquist was originally writing the majority opinion to overrule Roe, but 30 days into the writing phase, Justice Kennedy changed his vote from striking down Roe to upholding Roe. The opinion was now removed from Rehnquist who then found himself in the dissent.

Rehnquist believed a judge must apply the law, not create it. He believed that fundamental rights must either be enumerated in the Constitution (like free speech) or deeply rooted in history and tradition. Abortion was neither an enumerated right nor deeply rooted in history and tradition. While Rehnquist’s views on abortion never became the majority opinion, he did write the majority opinion in the 1997 so-called “right to die” case known as Washington v. Glucksberg. Writing for the 5-4 majority, Rehnquist said that the “right to die” was neither an enumerated right nor deeply rooted in history and tradition. Here, Rehnquist’s originalist views did prevail.