Thank God for a man with the courage to tell the Truth. Send General Pace a word of gratitude HERE, for as you can see, he will be the target of much opposition:

“General Pace’s comments are outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in our armed forces… It is inappropriate for the Chairman to condemn those who serve our country because of his own personal bias. He should immediately apologize for his remarks.” — C. Dixon Osburn, Executive Director of the pro-homosexuality Servicemembers Legal Defense Network

Excerpted from Top General Calls Homosexuality ‘Immoral’, by Aamer Madhani, published Mar 12, 2007, by Chicago Tribune:

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Monday that he supports the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays serving in the military because homosexual acts “are immoral,” akin to a member of the armed forces conducting an adulterous affair with the spouse of another service member.

Responding to a question about a Clinton-era policy that is coming under renewed scrutiny amid fears of future U.S. troop shortages, Pace said the Pentagon should not “condone” immoral behavior by allowing gay soldiers to serve openly. He said his views were based on his personal “upbringing,” in which he was taught that certain types of conduct are immoral.

“I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts,” Pace said in a wide-ranging discussion with Tribune editors and reporters in Chicago. “I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.

“As an individual, I would not want [acceptance of gay behavior] to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else’s wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior,” Pace said.

Continue reading in Chicago Tribune…

A press release dated Mar 7, 2007, from The Lawyers Christians Fellowship (UK):

GOVERNMENT PUBLISH LANDMARK INTOLERANT LEGISLATION
SETTING GROUND FOR CLASH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

After spending 9 months drafting the proposed SEXUAL ORIENTATION REGULATIONS (SORs), the Government have today published the final version of the new law without making any significant concessions to protect the rights of Christians and others with deeply held religious beliefs.

The SORs can be found by clicking HERE.

The Regulations, which make discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation unlawful in relation to the provision of goods, services, premises, education and public functions, are due to come into force on the 30th April 2007.

Under the Regulations:

• It will be illegal for a Christian printer to refuse to print material promoting homosexual sex,
  
• It will be illegal for a Muslim website designer to refuse to build a website for homosexual dating, and
  
• It will be illegal for a Jewish conference centre to refuse to accept a booking from a Gay and Lesbian society who wish to hold a meeting promoting homosexual practices.

Thomas Cordrey, Barrister and Public Policy Analyst at the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship, commented:

“This legislation is unprecedented in its complete intolerance of those who have religious beliefs. The Government did not put forward a single piece of evidence to justify the need for the Regulations, they have ignored 72% of the public[1] who opposed their approach to this law, and they have ignored the majority of the 3000 responses to their consultation. Despite this weak basis to the law, the Government is prepared to take the landmark step of making it illegal for Christians to hold to the Bible’s clear teaching that God loves everyone and wants all people to know him, but also, that extra-marital sexual conduct (whether homosexual or heterosexual) is wrong.”

“To think that the Government would prefer to shut down the widespread and compassionate voluntary services provided by Christian adoption agencies, drug rehabilitation centres, homeless shelters and community centres, rather than accept that Christians should not be forced to promote homosexual practices, is astounding.”

Andrea Williams, Public Policy Officer at the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship commented:

“Whilst Christian groups have been clear from the outset that they would not in any way wish to deny the provision of basic goods and services to homosexuals, the Government have refused all calls that the Regulations should contain a simple clause that no-one should be forced by this law to promote or actively condone any sexual practices which are contrary to their deeply held religious belief.

“Rather than balancing rights the Government have chosen to draft these Regulations so that in almost every case the right to live a homosexual lifestyle trumps the right to live a religious lifestyle.

“Every concern held by the Church of England and Catholic Church on the issue of gay adoption is magnified by the publication of these Regulations. The new morality being imposed by the Government on the British people has just taken a giant leap forward.”

[1] See the independent Communicate Research Opinion Poll See the independent Communicate Research Opinion Poll

Contrast Mr. Jackson’s Biblical perspective to that of lesbian blogger Pam Spaulding, where she says (emphasis ours):

“Saturday’s coverage of the Summit includes a press conference with Rev. Dr. Michael Eric Dyson and other pastors speaking out against homophobia in the black church; Dyson’s speech, “The Theology of Homoeroticism;” and a debate featuring anti-equality pastor Bishop Harry Jackson. Sorry to say it doesn’t appear that Jackson learned much; spews some of his hoary anti-gay rhetoric in a Town Hall column that appears today.”

Her account of the debate is posted HERE.

——————————

From Black Gays Aggressively Enlist in the Culture War, by Harry R. Jackson, Jr., published March 12, 2007, by Townhall:

This last week I sat in a historic black American site – Mother Bethel Church in the heart of downtown Philadelphia. In keeping with the city’s tradition of being a cradle of American freedom, the Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church was the first black congregation founded in the north. Established in 1793 by Richard Allen, a black minister who eventually became the first bishop of the AME denomination, this facility has stood as a symbol of the black struggle for freedom in both social and religious matters.

Unfortunately, last Saturday it was the site of a debate between liberal black clergy and conservatives concerning the acceptance of gays in the black church.

I felt compelled to raise my voice against the sponsoring group’s attempt to legitimize the gay life style in the black church. It took a little courage for me to attend such an event because of the lack of civility that the gay community often displays. In fact because of my conservative stand, I have been physically threatened with violence on several occasions.

Why would I risk appearing at such an event? The answer is clear in my mind. Such rallies and debate forums consist of both ardent followers and young people whom these folks are attempting to influence. In other words, I had an opportunity to dissuade some of their new converts.

Let me take a moment to give you a historic and sociological perspective of the gay movement in the black church. Most national polls in recent years have shown that blacks are more socially conservative than whites in their personal attitudes about things like same sex marriage than their white counterparts.

Despite these personal convictions, these same black citizens often vote for people that do not share their conservative perspective of the social landscape.

In a similar manner, black churches have often majored on developing an atmosphere of love and acceptance of all individuals. They preach that they serve a God of a second chance. One of the greatest examples of this attitude is Marion Barry’s 1995 winning campaign for Washington, D.C.’s mayoral post.

Barry ran on a saved-by-grace campaign. He won, despite the fact that he had been caught on video tape in the Vista Hotel using cocaine and having an adulterous liaison with a woman. Gays have enjoyed that “second chance” opportunity in black churches. Therefore, a gay appearance or someone’s past life does not stigmatize black church attendees. After all, how can someone reform if there is no dialogue or opportunity for exposure to truth.

Regretfully, gay acceptance doesn’t stop there in many cases. Many of our churches have had a “don’t-ask-don’t-tell” approach to gay members of congregations, choirs, and clergy. This means that openly gay behavior has not been condoned, but leaders in churches and denominations have not probed to identify or remove gay people. Often, rumors of gay activity outside of the church are overlooked as long as there are no incidents of solicitation or liaisons at church sponsored events. One minister I know proudly told a few other clergymen confidentially that he had been hired by a new congregation who had already employed a closeted gay music leader. His approach was to have a heart to heart talk in which he warned the man that he would report any problems he observed on church property. He went on to add that what the man did off site was his own business.

In my view, the “don’t-ask-don’t-tell” approach to this problem is the height of hypocrisy. Politics may be the place for compromise and consensus. The Church, on the other hand, should be a place of conviction and truth.

The Bible is clear in its statements against gay sexual activity.

Unfortunately, few churches preach biblical sexuality well. If they did, there would be fewer out-of-wedlock births as well as fewer practicing gays in the black church.

Church leaders must stand against the acceptance of the gay lifestyle because of social ramifications as well. Recent studies concerning same-sex marriage have shown that in Sweden and the Netherlands, where such unions have been allowed, marriage is devalued—resulting in fewer and later marriages. Secondly, they lead to rising out-of-wedlock births akin to the current black community dilemma in the U.S.

In addition to the damage that gay marriage does to the black family structure that is already under stress, legalization of gay marriage has the potential of endangering the next generation. Statistics show that children do better in school and are greater contributors to society when a mother and a father are present in the home.

In conclusion, let me state that the battle concerning same sex marriage and gay rights is just warming up in America. I am not willing just to give into the current cultural idiom which says, “Gay is Okay!” There is too much at stake.

I have compassion for people who live a gay lifestyle. Just like Jesus, I will take every opportunity to love the sinner and hate the sin. What about you?

Will you stand with me in this culture war?

Harry R. Jackson Jr. is founder and Chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition as well as author of The Warriors Heart: Rules of Engagement for the Spiritual War Zone.

…and 61% still oppose homosexual “marriage.”

From The Culture and Media Institute:

The National Cultural Values Survey
America: A Nation in Moral and Spiritual Confusion
March 7, 2007

The Culture and Media Institute (CMI) unveiled its first Special Report,
“The National Cultural Values Survey: America: A Nation in Moral and Spiritual Confusion,” at a press conference today at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
The survey reveals that 74 percent of Americans believe the nation is in moral decline, and that a culture war is indeed occurring in America.

From page 24 of the 32 page pdf:

Thought Question: How many of San Francisco’s elected officials object when nudity and perverted acts take place in public, with children present, in their city — for instance, during Folsom Street Fair — a sadistic sex celebration in which several city blocks are cordoned off — or the annual “gay pride” parade? Interesting that these men find committed Christian teenagers more offensive than public indecency, homosexual bathhouses, etc.

“San Francisco has found the limit of its tolerance in BattleCry’s morning worship service.” — Tony Perkins, Family Research Council

Excerpted from A Youth Ministry Some Call Antigay Tests Tolerance, by Jesse McKinley, published Mar 8, 2007, by The New York Times:

…When the group in question is a Christian ministry from Texas that condemns homosexuality, and the place is San Francisco, often referred to as “the gayest city in America,” the civic welcome wagon collapses pretty quickly.

A two-day event called BattleCry starts Friday at AT&T Park, the downtown baseball stadium. Organizers say the gathering…is a way for young Christians to speak out against what they view as destructive cultural elements, including sex on television, obscene music and violent video games…

But several prominent San Francisco political leaders say Mr. Luce’s group is the one doing the damage, using its young members as a conduit for a message of intolerance.

“They are being fed, spoon-fed, hate,” said Tom Ammiano, a member of the city’s Board of Supervisors, who is gay. “And it is incumbent on any group receiving that hate, particularly gay people, to speak out.”

Aaron Peskin, the board’s president, called BattleCry “reckless and irresponsible.”

“We need to increase understanding of our human differences, not teach our kids to be suspicious and hateful towards people unlike them,” Mr. Peskin said in a statement.

…The dispute may come to a head on Friday afternoon when hundreds of Christian teenagers are expected to congregate on the steps of City Hall to pray and “raise their voices on behalf of their generation,” organizers said. A group opposing BattleCry plans to protest alongside.

Opponents have said that the rhetoric used onstage during these events is overtly antigay and subtly militaristic…“imposing their biblical fundamentalist worldview on the country.”

…Mr. Luce [said] his group loves gay people, but does firmly believe their sexuality is sinful.

“We see homosexuality like a lot of other things that do harm to us, like lying, or cheating, or stealing,” he said, adding that he said he had seen studies suggesting that many gay people are depressed or unhappy. “And it’s not very loving to leave them in that state and not show them another way.”

…Joe D’Alessandro, the president of the San Francisco Convention and Visitors Bureau…said its organizers should be allowed to hold BattleCry nonetheless.

“I think we have to practice tolerance, whether or not they practice tolerance,” Mr. D’Alessandro said. “I’m gay myself, and I find their beliefs very offensive. But they have a right to come to our city.”

Continue reading in The New York Times…

The deconstruction of the biblical God and biblical sexuality as a philosophical and ideological program is already deeply embedded in our collective unconscious. Some powerful leaders see the future as the brave new global world of sexual and spiritual pluralism, where liberty of self-expression in these areas is the essence of human progress. One could even imagine a society of pagan religious syncretism where bi-sexuality and homosexual androgyny would be the spiritual and social ideal, the sexuality of choice for those in power, while heterosexuality would be tolerated, considered inferior, and strictly controlled — for it has happened before. — Dr. Peter R. Jones

This is a long, but scholarly and informative, article that we encourage you to read in its entirety.

——————————

Excerpted from Androgyny: The Pagan Sexual Ideal, by Dr. Peter R. Jones, published Jan 2000 by Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society:

1 Introduction

Like the ancient pagan Sodomites pounding on the door of Lot’s house millennia ago, the modern gay movement is gathering at the doors of our churches, our academies and our once traditionally “Christian” culture, demanding entrance and full recognition. Notable scholar, David A. J. Clines, professor of Old Testament at Sheffield University, for one, appears ready to lay down the welcome mat. He wrote in 1998: “…[though] queer theory has yet to show its face at the SBL [Society of Biblical Literature], gayness is challenging…all that we hold dear. When we begin to redraw the alterity map, the boundaries between same and different…we find ourselves having to think through everything, and not just sexuality, from scratch.” Clines, who not long ago was known for his conservative theological position, illustrates how far acceptance of the gay movement has come in recent years, even among those from strongly biblical backgrounds.

This movement has come a long way fast. It will not go away soon, I believe, because it is so intimately tied to deep changes in modern society, in particular, those associated philosophical Postmodernism. Because in the Postmodern hermeneutic all meaning is socially generated, queer commentary has little methodological difficulty finding a place in the contemporary religious and theological debate. In cooperation with feminist biblical interpretation, which has “destabilized normative heterosexuality” by alleging “sexist” bias, queer readings merely seek to take one more step in the hermeneutics of suspicion and expose the “heterosexist bias” of the Bible and Bible interpreters. Identifying exegesis as an exercise in social power, queer theorists reject the oppressive narrowness of the Bible’s male/female binary vision, and boldly generate textual meaning on the basis of the “inner erotic power” of the gay interpreter. What could be more Postmodern? Employing such a widely accepted methodology, and with “straight” Bible scholars now ready “to redraw the alterity map,” gay theology appears to have a bright future everywhere.

The theoretical progress is mirrored in popular society where resistance to the gay life-style is more and more impugned as anti-democratic and un-American. But the urgency of the situation for Bible-believing scholars is not merely the pressing need for a scholarly ethical response to an unfortunate moral aberration. The contemporary appearance of a homosexual movement says something about the particular times in which we live, granted both that pagan spirituality is enjoying a popular revival, and that throughout the Bible, Sodom and Gomorrah have always served as the symbol for endtime pagan idolatry, ultimate moral disintegration and eschatological divine judgment. The subject, in its spiritual, religious and even eschatological dimensions, needs to be treated and debated among us, not simply as an unfortunate social deviation or ephemeral social fad, but as a cutting-edge component of a rising, all-encompassing, religious world view that is diametrically opposed to the world view of Christian theism.

One fruitful way to approach this pressing issue is to consider the religious roots of homosexuality. The recent radical changes in our society, include, simultaneously, both the liberation of sex and the rediscovery of pagan mystical spirituality. Is such a pairing pure coincidence or is it the result of a necessary organic relationship? Has there always existed an ineluctable connection between pagan religion and pagan sex? For instance, while radical pagan feminists speak of the need of a “change of [religious] consciousness,” such spiritual transformation is always proposed by way of a radical recalibration of our perceptions of sexuality. In other words, sexuality appears central not peripheral to the spiritual quest. This, I believe, will become more and more evident in the homosexual movement, namely, that this particular sexual life style will be the promoter of a particular kind of religion. Thus, while sexual liberation in its popular, successful, government-financed versions, strategically associates itself with “civil rights,” with pro-choice civic values and with politically-correct tolerance, often studiously avoiding any obvious religious dimension, its ultimate legitimization [since all human beings are religious] proceeds from the age-old dogmas of paganism, which, unlike their modern equivalent, never tried to hide behind a thin veil of temple/state separation. If everything is indeed political, as the radicals often proclaim, everything is also spiritual, and thus the spiritual is also sexual. Charles Pickstone, a pagan believer in Anglican orders, affirms this in his recent book The Divinity of Sex: “…sex is the spirituality that reveals the sacramental richness of matter.”

The thesis of this paper is that to understand the contemporary sexual revolution, we need to see the “new sexuality,” [particularly in this paper in its homosexual expression], as an integral expression of age-old religious paganism. In our response, we cannot follow Lot, who would have sacrificed his daughters to placate the aggressors. Nor can we claim personal moral superiority. We must always hear, in the clamor for acceptance and recognition, the cry of divine image-bearers, however marred and broken. However, we must not shrink back from seeking to do justice to the whole Christian, biblical dimension of the problem. In a time of moral confusion and politically correct intimidating “tolerance,” we owe such clarity to our culture, to our sons and daughters, and to God, Creator and Redeemer, for whom all things exist.

The following letter is one couple’s effort to motivate their church leaders to become aware of the pro-GLBT indoctrination our kids are facing in the public schools:

Although you will read about this in Sunday’s bulletin, we thought we should personally ask you to consider coming to College Church in Wheaton this Sunday night. You will learn about the “gay” indoctrination that children you know and care about in this church — and this would include your own children — are encountering on a regular basis at area schools…

My 16-year-old daughter, who goes to [name deleted] ministries with your kids, has told me that there are a number of kids at our church — right now — who don’t know if they are “gay” or not because of the homosexual speakers who have come into the local schools challenging them with such questions as, “How do you know you’re heterosexual?”

My daughter has said to me,

“Mom, our church needs to be talking about this. There are a lot of confused kids at our church over this issue. It is because of the ‘gay’ speakers who come into their schools and talk about homosexuality. Nothing is being taught about it at church, and they really need to be doing something.”

…You, as church leaders, will not minister as effectively as you could if you understood what is creating this new area of counseling… When people walk through your office door, you’re encountering the fruit of this propaganda. By coming to this meeting, you will gather information to instruct you about the root of the problem. With knowledge comes understanding, and with understanding comes help. From a professional standpoint, you need to come Sunday night.

Watch this clip (posted at MLive/Jackson City Patriot) of John Nemecek and his wife explaining his experience with “Gender Identity Disorder” — and then read Gary Glenn’s Biblical response below.

From John to Julie
Spring Arbor University prof John Nemecek decides
to be true to his inner woman.

——————————

From Good and Noble Intolerance, by Gary Glenn of AFA Michigan, submitted Mar 7, 2007, to Jackson City Patriot:

In Sunday’s editorial regarding Spring Arbor’s praiseworthy refusal to legitimize and enable the obvious mental and emotional illness of a male college professor who thinks he’s a woman, the Citizen-Patriot commented,

“Individual reactions may incline toward the good and noble, or the critical and intolerant.”

If your first concern is protecting the welfare of teenage college students, the only good and noble reaction is to be firmly critical of the bizarre political agenda embodied by Mr. Nemecek’s demands and immovably intolerant of the threat that harmful agenda poses to young people.

Mr. Nemecek’s DNA is that of a male. Hormone treatment or even surgical self-mutilation will not change that immutable biological fact.

One obviously disturbed individual’s delusions to the contrary, and their effects on him and his family, may warrant our sympathy and prayers, but certainly not our complicity in socially or legally enabling and legitimizing such delusions. If homosexual and transgender political activists have their way, it certainly will not end with Mr. Nemecek’s demand to wear a dress and makeup on campus.

Openly homosexual Congressman Barney Frank, D-Mass., explained why he initially refused, until being attacked by transgender activists himself, to include in his federal “gay rights” legislation the creation of a new federally protected class based on so-called “gender identity”:

“There are workplace situations — communal showers, for example — when the demands of the transgender community fly in the face of conventional norms and therefore would not pass in any Congress,” Frank said. “I’ve talked with transgender activists, and what they want, and what we will be forced to defend, is for people with penises who identify as women to be able to shower with other women.” (Paragraph 102, page 25)