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.

Watch this clip from The O’Reilly Factor to see the reaction of some radical San Francisco homosexual activists — including the anti-Catholic “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” (men dressed in drag as freakish mock “nuns”) — to 22,000 Christian young people gathering for BattleCry:

Culture War Clash

Christian youth versus secular progressive activists in San Francisco

(You’ll hear adult men demonstrating homosexual tolerance by yelling at children — for example, one screams “We don’t wanna get married, we just wanna f*** you guys.”)

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…

Proving once again that homosexual behavior (like all sinful behaviors) is changeable…

“I don’t like porn, it reduces the mind, flattens the soul.

“That’s not hypocrisy talking, that’s experience…

“I can tell you that by the time I finished my summer tour
of major [pornography] studios, I was pretty disgusted with myself.

“I’ve moved forward a lot and this past stuff is not something I want to drag into my future.”

— Marine Corporal Matt Sanchez, 36
(formerly homosexual porn star known as “Rod Majors” and “Pierre LaBranche”)
as quoted in Republican Activist Defends Porn Career,
by Alexis Hood, published Mar 9, 2007,
by the pro-homosexuality PinkNews

Excerpted from Policy Changing After Gay Porn Studio Lauded, by Cecilia M. Vega, published Mar 3, 2007, by San Francisco Chronicle:

San Francisco Mayor (pictured right) Gavin Newsom’s administration will change its policy on issuing laudatory proclamations after a gay porn studio was honored last week without the mayor’s knowledge, city officials said Friday.

Conservative activists and pundits nationwide belittled the city after Newsom’s office declared Feb. 23 to be Colt Studio Day, honoring the 40th anniversary of a San Francisco movie company whose Web site invites visitors to “come inside to experience the hottest man-on-man action.”

…The proclamation was written by Neighborhood Services staffers after they learned state Assemblyman Mark Leno (pictured left), D-San Francisco, and city Treasurer Jose Cisneros had issued similar commendations.

Neither of those elected officials expressed regrets Friday.

Leno attended the company’s anniversary party Feb. 23 and publicly thanked Colt Studio for producing images he said contributed to his development as a gay man. On Friday, he issued a statement saying Colt produces “adult, gay, male home entertainment.”

“The owners of the studio are taxpaying, law-abiding San Francisco employers who promote safe sex,” Leno (pictured left) said. “With a war out of control and the planet’s temperature rising, I would have hoped Bill O’Reilly had more pressing issues to discuss. Clearly, with his viewership currently plummeting, he thinks denigrating gay male entertainment will be his lifeline.”

Cisneros (pictured right), who sent a representative to the anniversary party, said Friday that issuing a proclamation to Colt Studio “was fine. We acknowledged a business that has been in business for a long time.”

…O’Reilly also chastised city officials Tuesday during his show “The O’Reilly Factor.”

“There is not another city in the country that has ever had a ‘gay porn day,’ ” he said. “And you wonder why San Francisco values is mocked and your city is mocked and it’s looked upon as a modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah.”

This is the second time in recent months that the pornography business in the city has been in the news. In December, the online porn company Kink.com bought the old armory on Mission Street, where it now films X-rated bondage videos…

Continue reading at San Francisco Chronicle…

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.

From ‘Gay’ Group Sponsors Breast-Removal Workshop, published Feb 16, 2002, by WorldNet Daily:

The nation’s largest homosexual lobby group is sponsoring a conference this weekend for “female-to-male” “transgenders” that will include sessions on “chest surgery” for young women who want to have their breasts removed in their quest to become “transmen.”

The Human Rights Campaign has signed on as an official sponsor of the “True Spirit Conference,” which is scheduled to be held at a hotel in the nation’s capital Feb. 15-18. In a TV talk show debate Wednesday, HRC spokesman Wayne Besen said he was “proud” of his group sponsoring the event and defended the “chest surgery” sessions for women seeking to remove their breasts.

Besen made his comments on the Fox News Channel’s debate show “Hannity & Colmes” after being challenged about HRC’s role in the transsexual event by Peter LaBarbera, senior policy analyst for the Culture & Family Institute of Concerned Women for America, who was also a guest on the show.

On the Fox program, LaBarbera asked Besen, “There’s actually a doctor coming from New York who is talking about ‘breast reconstruction’ – chopping off the breasts of these girls because they want to become men. We think that’s dangerous. How can you justify teaching that as normal in the schools?”

Besen replied, “First of all, we’re very proud of supporting this type of conference. As Peter said, there are doctors and medical professionals there to deal with this particular issue. He ought to get educated on it.”

Sadistic sex, polygamy workshops

The True Spirit conference also includes a panel on “How to Do SM [sadomasochism]” and one devoted to “Polyamory,” an activist term for multiple-partner sexual unions (“Polyamory can work, if you do it right, we promise!” says the True Spirit website.) In addition, the program contains sessions devoted to sexual tips for “transgenders.”

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)