If you don't want to miss anything posted on the Americans For Truth website, sign up for our "Feedblitz" service that gives you a daily email of every new article that we post. (This service DOES NOT replace the regular email list.) To sign up for the Feedblitz service, click here.
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.”
Robinson claims homosexuals are “born” that way despite lack of evidence and his own abnormal upbringing
“Every piece of evidence that can be culled from the text’s literary and historical context confirms that the Bible’s prohibition of homosexual practice, like its prohibition of adult incestuous unions, is absolute, rejecting all forms of homosexual practice regardless of consent and commitment.” —Robert Gagnon, Associate Professor of New Testament, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
“St. Paul was talking about people that he understood to be heterosexual engaging in same-sex acts. It never occurred to anyone in ancient times that a certain minority of us would be born being affectionally oriented to people of the same sex. So it did seem like against their nature to be doing so.” — Homosexual Episcopal Bishop V. (Vicky) Gene Robinson, interview with CNSNews.com
TAKE ACTION AND LEARN: Educate yourself about the Bible’s clear teaching against homosexual conduct and relationships. Begin by reading the article below, taken from Prof. Robert Gagnon’s paper, “What the Evidence Really Says about Scripture and Homosexual Practice: Five Issues, and sharing it with your Christian friends, especially those bending to pro-“gay” advocacy. And please support Prof. Gagnonby ordering his excellent 2008 DVD series, “Love, the Bible and Homosexual Practice” (cost is $42 including shipping & handling). As Christians, it is our duty to respond intelligently to false “gay” theology, which is gaining a foothold in the Church and in the culture. And for those who are not Christian, you need to understand the bogus history that activists like (Vicky) Gene Robinson are using to advance their pro-homosexuality agenda.
_______________________________________
Dear Readers,
Please watch this short video interview of homosexual activist and Episcopal Bishop V. (Vicky) Gene Robinson’s latest attempt to discredit the biblical (Romans 1) prohibition against homosexual practice (courtesy Eyeblast TV and CNSNews.com):
You can read a transcript of Bishop Robinson’s CNS interview HERE. It is extraordinary to behold a major denominational “Christian” leader dedicate a sizable part of his professional life to undermining the clear witness of the Bible and tradition against a particular sexual sin — which just so happens to be the one with which he identifies. Unfortunately for Robinson, his rehashed “gay” theology does not square with history, as Prof. Robert Gagnon — the world’s leading orthodox authority on the Bible and homosexuality — reveals below.
Liberty University School of Law will host a one-day conference followed by a one-day symposium addressing homosexuality and its consequences. The Friday, February 12, conference is entitled “Understanding Same-sex Attractions and Their Consequences.” On Saturday, February 13, the Liberty University Law Review will host a legal symposium entitled “Homosexual Rights and First Amendment Freedoms: Can They Truly Coexist?”
Focus spokesmen said homosexual “orientation” would not have been stumbling block for potential Obama Supreme Court pick
“Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, contends the position held by Focus on the Family is the equivalent of ‘moral retreat.’ ‘It’s not just the damage caused by Focus on the Family’s moral retreat on the issue,’ Glenn argues. ‘[That explanation] will be used by homosexual activists and their allies in the media to further marginalize and delegitimize any pro-family organization that continues to take a Biblical standard.'”
It's hard to imagine former longtime Focus on the Family leader James Dobson saying that pro-family groups should not consider a homosexual judge's "sexual orientation" as a factor in evaluating that judge.
The issue of openly homosexual judges is back in the news, providing us the opportunity to publish this 2009 One News Now piece and agree with our friend Gary Glenn of AFA-Michigan on a very significant “moral retreat” by Focus on the Family. Back when there was talk of President Obama possibly nominating a lesbian judge to the Supreme Court, two Focus analysts asserted that a judge’s homosexual “sexual orientation” would not be a major consideration for Focus in evaluating such a judge. It is precisely this sort of naïveté that helps explain why aggressive homosexual lobby groups are winning major battles against their pro-family opponents.
I’ll issue the same challenge to Focus that I have made to Grove City College’swayward, “gay”-affirming prof Warren Throckmorton: show me where you can find (benign) “sexual orientation” or (in Throckmorton’s case) “sexual identity” in the Bible, and I’ll change my tune that you are selling out Christian, biblical principles. After all, Focus launched a “Truth Project” that teaches believers how to have a “biblical worldview” — and it’s a huge leap from “abomination” to “sexual orientation.” Surely committed Christians should understand how the latter term has been used to strip morality out of the homosexuality equation. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
Should homosexuality be a ‘litmus test’ for high court?
by Jim Brown
Conservative political activists are divided over whether homosexual behavior should disqualify a judicial nominee from consideration for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Focus on the Family’s judicial analyst, Bruce Hausknecht, recently told liberal (Washington Post) blogger Greg Sargent that Focus would not oppose a Supreme Court nominee solely because of their homosexual behavior. “Our concern at the Supreme Court is judicial philosophy,” Hausknecht said. “Sexual orientation only becomes an issue if it effects their judging.”
“Most of the studies of gay men [couples] report about 50% are monogamous—they have been Bay Area studies and studies that were done all over the US and Australia and Western Europe.” —San Francisco State University researcher Colleen Hoff in e-mail to lesbian couples therapist Michele O’Mara of Bilerico.com. See the comments following O’Mara’s Bilerico column.
O’Mara asks, “I also wonder, does the open option work better for men than for women? Is this really an issue that is rooted in sexual orientation, or one rooted in gender?” Let me answer: the “open option” is rooted in the anything-goes mores of the Sexual Revolution, which served as a catalyst for the modern “GLBT” movement. Homosexual behavior is immoral and perverse: why would anyone expect monogamy — of the sort that imitates a faithful marriage — from a promiscuous sin movement? And men are simply more promiscuous than women. (Note that the fact that O’Mara professes to practice monogamy with her lesbian partner confers no legitimacy on her sinful relationship, nor does it negate the damage that her intentionally fatherless parenting will do to the boys they are raising.)
No matter what Hollywood or the media say, lesbian conduct is immoral (Romans 1:24-27). Shame on Dakota Fanning’s parents for allowing her to be exploited by the film industry — first in Hounddog — in which she was filmed semi-naked in a simulated child-rape scene — and now in The Runaways. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com
[Warning: This story contains graphic content that may offend some readers.]
Fifteen-year-old child star Dakota Fanning is starring in yet another provocative movie role – snorting cocaine in bathrooms and participating in a steamy lesbian kiss and heavily implied sex scene with her female co-star.
Her latest movie, “The Runaways,” is rated “R” and will release March 19. It premiered at this year’s Sundance film festival.
Fanning plays the role of Cherie Currie, lead vocalist of The Runaways, an all-girl hard-rock band popular in the 1970s. Former “The Twilight Saga” star Kristen Stewart, 19, plays openly lesbian rocker Joan Jett, the band’s guitarist.
According to an early version of the script, the opening scene includes a splotch of menstrual blood hitting the sidewalk. Fanning’s character is seen with blood dripping down her leg as she begins her first menstrual cycle.
Jett is a rebellious teenager who curses, shoplifts leather pants, urinates on electric guitars, smokes, pops pills, takes part in several sexually charged scenes and smashes objects. Jett teaches another band member, Sandy, how to masturbate to Farrah Fawcett.
Fanning’s character cusses often, acts out, appears scantily clad in bed with “twenty-something surfer dudes,” drinks, uses cocaine and pops prescription pills. At age 15 she is abandoned by her mother, who moves to Indonesia with her boyfriend, and her father is an alcoholic.
Sec. Gates and Adm. Mullen should be fired by the American people for abetting Obama’s radical plan
TAKE ACTION: Call your U.S. Representative and Senators [House: 202-225-3121; Senate: 202-224-3121; www.congress.org] and urge them NOT to allow President Obama or Defense Secretary Gates to unilaterally stop enforcing the existing law banning homosexuals in the military. Urge your Congressman and Senators to OPPOSE HR 1283, a bill that would implement a pro-homosexual “nondiscrimination” policy in our Armed Forces, thus eviscerating the current law banning homosexuals. For the best information on the dangers of homosexualizing the U.S. military, go to the Center for Military Readiness.
At a time of recession and a potentially long-lasting jobs crisis, a two-front war and an ongoing national security threat from Islamic radicals who would just love to see a planeload of Americans be bombed into smithereens, I doubt that a top priority in the minds of most Americans is to promote open homosexuality in our military. And yet that is the course that President Barack Obama — and apparently some of his sycophantic military advisers — have chosen. With Defense Secretary Robert Gates‘ pledge today to draw up plans to implement President Obama’s goal of homosexualizing our military — and to remove a key means of identifying violating homosexual servicemembers — America now faces the spectacle of another grinding (and unnecessary) Left-driven policy debate.
The problem for Obama — and Gates — and every liberal that celebrates the prospect of sexual perversion gaining a stronger foothold in the Armed Forces of the greatest nation on earth– is that the American people have a say in stopping this latest “gay” capitulation. Make no mistake: the downsides of effectively putting a “Welcome” sign up for open homosexuals at every military recruitment center have hardly been contemplated. Allowing/encouraging homosexuals in the military would:
devastate morale in our Armed Forces;
lead to a drop in enlistment and retention of good soldiers;
discourage moral-minded and religious men and women of high character from seeking military service;
Over at Republicans For Family Values, a political site, I examine the case of a local DuPage County, Illinois candidate running on a strong “pro-family” record — Debra Olson — who has engaged in adulterous affairs — as revealed mainly by the aggrieved wife of David Allen, Olson’s former illicit partner. To some voters, that’s a serious issue and a big story. To others, it’s just that much more “religious right” prudery.
Here’s how Illinois liberal political blogger Rich Miller (Capitol Fax Blog) tries to slam my RFFV story:
One of Peter LaBarbera’s websites is currently attempting to out a suburban county candidate for having adulterous affairs. No link [read: Miller refuses to link to the story]. Try to avoid the Google. It’s really disgusting. LaBarbera has stooped to a new low.
Ouch, Rich. You wouldn’t want your readers to actually READ the piece you are criticizing, would you? Bottom line: Miller is an intolerant leftie who hates social-issues conservatives. Why is it a “new low” to investigate and expose serious moral compromise in the life a very public Republican “Christian pro-family” leader? (Of course, when Miller exposes hypocrites, it’s OK.)
Well, for the same reason that liberals like Miller despise those who oppose the pro-homosexuality movement. The secular Left’s “non-judgmentalism” is applied liberally when it comes to NOT criticizing those who transgress historic Judeo-Christian values. But as you can see, their nasty judgments overflow when it comes to bashing people and groups who stand up for traditional morality.
America is waking up to the reality that the Secular Left is a mean-spirited and highly intolerant political force that is bad for America. “Consensuality,” “choice,” “my truth” (versus absolute truth), “tolerance,” “diversity”: these are some of the Left’s self-satisfied buzzwords. But watch out if you uphold a divinely-ordered morality that pays no heed to their worldly, politically correct — and, yes, selfish — trends. Then you are anathema.
In other words, today’s liberals are fundamentalists of different stripe. And remember: don’t read that piece! — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
