By Sonja Dalton

On The View, during a debate over the 2008 presidential election, the Iraq war, and the Patriot Act, Rosie O’Donnell lashed out at Elisabeth Hasselbeck, calling her “young and wrong.” When Elisabeth, 30, objected to Rosie’s “ageism,” Rosie defended herself by saying (emphasis added):

“I know, but it’s the way that I’m able to be on this live broadcast
and love and support you
in spite of the fact that I disagree so abhorrently
with most of the things you believe,
so it is what I tell myself in order to not get into the RAGE I feel
at at some of the IGNORANT comments,
so that’s what I have to do!”
— Rosie O’Donnell on The View, Feb 28, 2007
(see the clip on ABC’s website: select “Hot Topics, War on Iraq Part 2”)

Two questions:

• If Rosie wants us to demonstrate “tolerance” (which in homosexual activist speak really means “approval of”) toward her, her homosexual “partner,” the exposure of their children to their lesbian lifestyle, and her radical political views, then why can’t she simply listen to Elisabeth Hasselbecks conservative viewpoint without feeling and expressing RAGE?

• What if this discussion had been the other way around? What if Elisabeth Hasselbeck had lashed out at Rosie O’Donnell and said “Sometimes I can barely contain the RAGE I feel at your IGNORANT comments?” Somehow, I suspect Elisabeth would either be issuing a public apology and going to “homophobia” therapy or else watching her media career go up in flames. But neither Barbara Walters or ABC insisted on a public apology from Rosie. Why is okay for Rosie O’Donnell to talk to her co-workers like this?

Her blog poetry makes obvious that Rosie O’Donnell feels badly about her lack of self-control — and that she needs Jesus Christ to heal her heart and transform her life. Keep her in loving prayer.

From Why Christians Embrace ‘Gay’ Porn Stars, by Kevin McCullough, published Mar 11, 2007, by Townhall:

Diabolical liberals are once again showing their disdain for homosexuals, and their lack of love for those who struggle with sexual sin. They are adverse to truth about sexual behavior. And when a sexual sinner is brave enough to say so, liberals become the most homophobic mouth foamers the universe has ever seen.

Take the case of Marine Cpl Matt Sanchez. (Also affectionately known as ‘the other CPAC scandal’.)

Following his acceptance of the Jeanne Kirkpatrick Academic Freedom award he was “outed” by homosexual bloggers (bloggers who write about and engage in homosexual behavior) as being a “Gay Porn Star.”

The reason so many of these homosexual bloggers knew this is simple. They are rabid consumers of homosexual pornography and have spent days, months, possibly years in front of their television screens acting out on the urges within them. They have been enslaved by the unforgiving voices that have told them since birth to act upon every sexual urge they have. The thought of personal sexual restraint is foreign to these bloggers. Thus they have near cataclysmic system failure when someone they believed was homosexual turns a corner in his life and leaves that filth behind.

Writing for Salon.com this week Sanchez spoke about his past and what being employed in the homosexual porn business did to his heart, mind, and life.

Porn reduces the mind and flattens the soul. I don’t like it. That’s not hypocrisy talking; that’s just experience. I sometimes think of myself, ironically, as a progressive: I started off as a liberal but I progressed to conservatism. Part of that transformation is due to my time in the industry. How does a conservative trace his roots to such distasteful beginnings? I didn’t like porn’s liberalism. In porn, everything taboo is trivialized and everything trivial is magnified.

Being in the adult entertainment industry was sort of like being in a cult, and like all followers of a cult, I have a difficult time figuring out when I stopped believing in the party line. I can tell you, though, that by the time I finished my brief tour of the major studios, I was pretty disgusted with myself. It was an emotional low, and the people who surrounded me were like drug dealers interested only in being with the anesthetized in order not to shake off the stupor of being high.

It needs to be immediately understood that Sanchez committed two cardinal sins here.

The first is – he stopped having homosexual sex. The ability to “choose” one’s actions particularly as it relates to which gender one has sex with is supposed to be unchangeable in the mind of liberals. The whole “made that way” argument tends to get decimated when someone like Sanchez simply decides that it is an empty, sad, and destructive life that brings him no joy.

The second is — he began to pursue truth. The maniacal hold on belief that liberals force upon their followers is not based on belief system of absolutes. So little can be trusted, verified, and believed. Sanchez saw it for the first time when he as a Marine reservist was smeared “baby-killer” on his college campus. After his successful and brave fight for free speech at Columbia University, and thus the recognition at CPAC, those who felt threatened by the change his life represents felt it necessary to drag up his pornographic past. He referenced as much in his op-ed.

Why did I become a conservative? Just look at what I left, and look at who is attacking me today. Let’s face it: Those on the left who now attack me would be defending me if I had espoused liberal causes and spoken out against the Iraq war before I was outed as a pseudo celebrity. They’d be talking about publishing my memoir and putting me on a diversity ticket with [a top presidential Democratic contender]. Instead, those who complain about wire-tapping reserve the right to pry into my private life and my past for political brownie points.

The discussion from cable airwaves on Keith Olbermann’s show on MSNBC, to prominent left wing blogs like AMERICAblog operated by John Aravosis, sought to injure Sanchez for deeds committed over a dozen years ago but also to bludgeon conservatives — many of whom are faith-based, Bible-believing Christians for “allowing someone like that” to be honored for true bravery.

The truth is that such criticism shows a fundamental lack of understanding about what the Christian message of redemption is.

Many if not most of these same liberals grew red faced and blasted spittle at those who criticized then President William Jefferson Clinton for engaging in adultery with a much younger intern in the People’s house. The argument, “everybody does it” seemed logical given that his defenders all grew up in the era when the predominant way of thinking was “do what feels good.” But it did not make it right.

Repentance is not merely saying one is sorry. It is a more all encompassing idea of turning away from that which you are sorry for – and going steadfastly in the other direction. Clinton by any generous assessment would not measure up to that.

Sanchez does. His example condemns not only the left’s hypocrisy but its deliberate sinfulness. That is why they must have his head.

Sanchez admitted that he wondered how his outing would affect his future.

By the way, as a political minority on the Columbia campus, people are always asking me, “How can you be a conservative? They’re so hateful.” That wasn’t the feeling I got when I accepted my award. And it’s not what I’ve been hearing from the conservative community since my “outing.”

I am embarrassed to admit that was I worried that my fellow conservatives would distance themselves from me when the news about my film career broke. The opposite has happened.

That’s the way it should be. As my new good friend Bryan Preston reminded us this week, we’ve all got things in our past that we are not proud of. As I detail very clearly in my new book, liberals would prefer us to stay stuck in those terrible behaviors to boost their own egos. God-fearing, Bible-thumping conservatives want us to repent (turn and walk away from). Knowing that one path leads to death and destruction, the other to ultimate knowledge, wisdom, and peace — which side would you say truly cares about the well being of the individual.

So should we be surprised that Christians and conservatives have embraced a man who starred in ‘gay’ porn? Of course not — Jesus would have!

And then he would say to us today, what he said two thousand years ago, “go and sin no more!”

Something’s awry: On one hand, the APA asks homosexuals to appoint members of a task force to evaluate reparative (ex-“gay”) therapy, thereby ensuring that only those hostile to the concept will be on the committee. Meanwhile, a parent who expressed disapproval of a pro-“gay” video for her third-grader is barred from serving on a committee to evaluate the curriculum.

——————————-

Excerpted from Gay Parents Video To Be Reviewed in Evesham, by Matt Katz, published Mar 12, 2007, by Courier-Post:

The district is set to announce today that it has formed a committee that will make a recommendation about a controversial video featuring gay parents, but committee members’ names will remain secret to protect them from harassment.

Nine PTA parents will serve on the committee, district spokeswoman Jeanne Smith said, along with a group of teachers.

The controversy, which has garnered national media attention, began in January when a father complained anonymously to a local TV station about That’s a Family! after it was shown at Van Zant School.

The film, part of a third-grade health curriculum about different family structures, depicts parents who are divorced, those who are raising children as grandparents and those who are in same-sex relationships…

Susan Trimble, a parent, said she was initially told that since she spoke out against the video, she would be barred from serving on the special review committee…

Continue reading in Courier-Post…

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.

Excerpted from Can Religious Freedom Survive Gay Liberation?, by David Frum, published Mar 9, 2007, by National Review:

…The movement for gay equality has rapidly evolved into movement to restrict personal freedoms, including freedoms of religion and conscience. The British example is not a special case. What is being done there today will be demanded here tomorrow…

Update: Andrew Stuttaford raises an excellent point on the Corner.

The more interesting question however is the extent to which religious belief should be privileged above all others. You can, quite legitimately, question the range and definition of anti-discrimination laws, but once a democracy has put those laws in place, I can think of no particular reason why some people should be exempted from that law, simply on the grounds of religion. To do so is to say that religious belief is somehow more deserving of special protection than other (perhaps no less deeply held) ideologies, an idea that, however well-intentioned, is irrational at best, dangerous at worse.

And of course he is right! When general laws are passed, they must apply to all.

That is precisely why the gay rights movement is inherently an illiberal one. When you decide to extend your nondiscrimination principles to behavior condemned by your society’s majority religion, you are embarking on a course that will sooner or later require the state to police, control, and punish adherents of that religion.

That was (or should have been obvious) from the start.

Continue reading at National Review…

By Peter LaBarbera

Ann Coulter has been roundly denounced for using the “F-word” (six letters) — see this article by Matt Barber of Concerned Women for America and this article by Albert Mohler). I’m a Coulter fan, but she crossed the line on this one.

There are larger issues at stake here for American freedom: today it’s the F-word, which has been banished as the sexual equivalent of the N-word. Tomorrow it could be certain applications of the G-word: G-A-Y. Many students use “That’s so gay” to connote something that they think is stupid or weird: should they be forced to undergo sensitivity re-education — or perhaps attend a “Gay Pride” parade?

Where will the PC “hate speech” enforcement stop? AP recently reported:

“When a few classmates razzed Rebekah Rice about her Mormon upbringing with questions such as, “Do you have 10 moms?” she shot back: “That’s so gay.”

       “Those three words landed the high school freshman in the principal’s office and resulted in a lawsuit that raises this question: When do playground insults used every day all over America cross the line into hate speech that must be stamped out?”

The AP story points to the threat that official speech codes pose to Americans’ most fundamental freedoms. Homosexual activists routinely and outrageously blame Christian pro-family groups for violence against homosexuals, and there are many on the Left who will go to extraordinary lengths to turn any derogatory use of ‘gay” into an opportunity to spread their pro-homosexual ideology. 

Coulter was joking. These activists are dead serious. Students and parents, take note.

As a rule we do not, like Fred Phelps, use the term “fag.” Coulter’s stunt was childish and, despite her protestations, she was clearly calling family man John Edwards a “faggot” — even as she also poked fun at the Left’s quirky “hate” formula by which they vilify their foes, then jump up and down when their own PC speech taboos are violated. (Example: saying George Bush is like Hitler — NOT HATE; saying we should love people practicing homosexual behavior but hate their sexual sin — HATE.)  Coulter’s reference point was Grey’s Anatomy star Isaiah Washington, who, after publicity grew about his calling a homosexual co-star a “faggot,” apologized and checked himself into rehab for a “psychological assessment.”

People involved in homosexuality should not be the object of taunts or hatred, and Christians, especially, are called to apply the Biblical command to speak the truth in love. We are called even to love our enemies so name-calling simply is not an option. (I confess that I once called homosexual blogger Joe Brummer, who is obsessed with AFTAH, a “twit,” but you might too if you read the tripe that he puts out on an almost daily basis. (A recent Brummer blog entry accuses Sonja Dalton and me of being “extremely responsible [sic] for the climate of violence that plagues gays and lesbians.”)

“That’s So Gay” 

The reality we face is that many on the pro-homosexual side, even as they recklessly smear committed Christians as bigots and haters (and murderers for what we believe!), want to define any negative use of the word “gay” as evidence of “hate speech” requiring punitive and corrective action. The AP story continues:

Testifying last week about the 2002 incident, Rice, now 18, said that when she uttered those words, she was not referring to anyone’s sexual orientation. She said the phrase meant: “That’s so stupid, that’s so silly, that’s so dumb.”

 

But school officials say they took a strict stand against the putdown after two boys were paid to beat up a gay student the year before.

 

“The district has a statutory duty to protect gay students from harassment,” the district’s lawyers argued in a legal brief. “In furtherance of this goal, prohibition of the phrase ‘That’s so gay’ … was a reasonable regulation.”

Proof that homosexual “rights” will take precedence over freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech…

Excerpted from UK: Religious Schools May Not Teach Christian Sexual Morals “As if They Were Objectively True”, by Hilary White, published Mar 5, 2007 by LifeSite News:

…The Joint Committee on Human Rights, made up of members from Parliament and the House of Lords, has issued a report on the implementation [in April] of the [Sexual Orientation Regulations] recommending that religious schools be required to modify their religious instruction to comply with the government-approved doctrine of “non-discrimination”.

Although religious schools will be allowed to remain open and may continue to give instruction in various religious beliefs, instruction must be modified “so that homosexual pupils are not subjected to teaching, as part of the religious education or other curriculum, that their sexual orientation is sinful or morally wrong.”

The report says the Regulations will not “prevent pupils from being taught as part of their religious education the fact that certain religions view homosexuality as sinful,” but they may not teach “a particular religion’s doctrinal beliefs as if they were objectively true”.

Published February 26, the report says, “We do not consider that the right to freedom of conscience and religion requires the school curriculum to be exempted from the scope of the sexual orientation regulations.”

…The homosexual political doctrine, accepted by the British as well as other governments, requires that no distinction be made between the person, the act and the condition or “orientation”, making any criticism of the movement’s political goals an offence against persons.