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.
“The liberal media might be expected to reject what God and common sense tell us about sexuality. But there is no excuse for the conservative brain trust to ignore this threat.” — Robert Knight
Talk show host Mike Gallagher has capitulated on most aspects of the homosexualist agenda, but still calls himself a "happy conservative." Gallagher supports repealing the ban on homosexuals in the military, and supports government benefits for same-sex "civil unions," but opposes homosexual "marriage."
Folks, our good friend Bob Knight of Coral Ridge Ministries is right. When “conservatives” like talker Mike Gallagher (right) stop being conservative on whatever issue is being debated, public policy disasters often result. In addition to contacting Congress on homosexuals-in-the-military, we need to be urging conservative media to get engaged in the fight to stop our Armed Forces from becoming the next “battlefield” for Sexual Correctness. More on AWOL “conservatives” later. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
____________________________________________
Conservative Media Fiddle While the Military Burns
By Robert Knight
Barney Frank and his friends are rolling their tanks through Congress while everyone is talking about something else. As we reel from one crisis to the next, homosexual activists and their allies are muscling through their agenda, with nary a peep from the nation’s conservative talking heads.
This week, their target is the military. Soon, it will be passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would criminalize traditional morality in every workplace with 15 or more employees. After that, they will try to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. Finally, they aim to pass an “anti-bullying” law that will threaten schools with losing federal funds if they refuse to force kids to read Heather Has Two Mommies and Gloria Goes to Gay Pride. The agenda is breathtakingly ambitious, and would be unimaginable to previous generations.
What price will America pay to celebrate “gay pride” in our Armed Forces?
Aubrey Sarvis of the homosexual Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) said it was "not a big deal" serving in the Army as a homosexual way back in the 1960s. The gays-in-the-military debate is NOT about discreet homosexuals serving in the Armed Forces, but the desire of homosexuals to be "out and proud" even in the conservative military culture.
Folks, note how homosexual activist and former Army infantry sharpshooter Aubrey Sarvis of the Servicemember’s Legal Defense Network (SLDN) — the “gay” organization lobbying for homosexuals in the military — answers this question by MSNBC host Chris Matthews on his show Feb. 2, 2010:
MSNBC’s Matthews: “As a gay man, what was it like [serving in the Army]? You were not out in the open, obviously. What was your experience in that regard? What did you learn in terms of this issue of whether gay people should be allowed to serve openly?
Sarvis replies: “Well, by and large, even in the ’60s, Chris, I found that gays and lesbians serving — and most were serving in silence then — it was not a big deal. But all gays and lesbians want to serve openly. They want to be honest about their service to their country. And as Adm. Mullen said today, it comes down to integrity, and every servicemember counts — gay or straight.” [more analysis follows video….]
Sarvis’ comment is most reasonably interpreted to mean that it was “not a big deal” for homosexuals like himself to serve — i.e., they were not harassed or persecuted, presumably as long as they kept silent about their homosexuality. By extension, he may also be asserting that it was “no big deal” to the majority of straight soldiers that there were (discreet, non-public) homosexuals in the Army.
Like Peter Sprigg of Family Research Council, I believe that “homosexuals” [for purposes here: people who practice homosexuality or claim a (deviant) sexual attraction to members of the same sex] should not serve in the military. That is the law. But think back to the days of Arvis’ youth 40 years ago — when homosexuality was much more condemned by society than it is today. If men or women were capable of serving (as secret homosexuals) then — without major difficulties — what is behind the current, politically manufactured “gays-in-the-military “crisis” that supposedly necessitates a revolution in our military conduct policy during wartime?
Throckmorton asserts that proclamations of truth constitute a “considerable offense” [against people practicing homosexuality]. Someone should ask him if he thinks Paul’s “vilification” of homosexuality constitutes a “considerable offense.” — Laurie Higgins
__________________________
By Laurie Higgins, for Americans For Truth
Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton has written a self-serving and exploitative analysis of Letter # 7 in C.S. Lewis’ classic The Screwtape Letters, which Throckmorton correctly sees as a warning to Christians not to allow cultural issues to supplant the central message of the Gospel.
The problem is that Throckmorton uses Lewis’ prescient warning to chastise only those Christians who work tirelessly to counter the spate of lies spewed by the culture on the topic of homosexuality, lies which even our public schools have been recruited to disseminate.
Throckmorton writes as follows:
Screwtape encourages his apprentice to foster devotion to a cause. This then takes him further away from the real encounter with God and the faith relationship. Indeed, if Wormwood’s human “patient” can put movements and organizations and crusading ahead of all else then he is of no real threat to Screwtape.
I think this passage provides caution to those who believe fighting the culture war is Christian ministry. When fighting the culture war becomes more important than a witness to the gospel, then the mischief really begins. Specifically, in the past several years, I have seen people who are so concerned with the “gay agenda” that they overlook cult involvement in people because they are “ex-gay.” Some here in the US who are willing to tolerate the very unChristian stance of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill because, in Lou Engle’s words, ”Uganda has become ground zero” in the fight against the gay agenda.…
Some might argue that I am just as guilty because of my advocacy against the Uganda bill. And I would not take that criticism lightly. My view is that freedom of conscience is necessary for the Church to have the greatest impact. Advocacy for that position is important business but it is not the main business. I doubt that such advocacy will lead anyone away from the redemptive business of the church. On the other hand, my great concern is that culture warring lulls people into feeling that that the cause justifies the considerable offense that comes with vilifying those the church yearns to reach.
Companies must aggressively promote homosexuality to get 100% rating
Funding Homosexual "Pride": One of the criteria by which a corporation gets a perfect "100 percent" pro-"gay" HRC rating is by either funding homosexual events or organizations, or buying positive ads in homosexual publications. Thus, funding "gay pride" parades like the one shown above -- with all their attendant perversions -- is one way for a company to get a perfect HRC score. Scantily clad go-go boys like the above, riding atop a "gay pride" float, can be found at any big-city "pride" parade. We added the box to accentuate that to gain a perfect "gay" rating, corporations are required to finance the celebration of immoral conduct and lifestyles.
By Peter LaBarbera
Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) begins its project of regularly informing readers about “100-percent” pro-homosexual corporations, according to the rating system set up by the homosexual lobby group Human Rights Campaign (HRC). We will be updating this page with further details about the system, through which HRC is effectively pressuring companies to go along with — and subsidize — its radical pro-homosexual and pro-transsexual agenda.
To earn a perfect 100-percent ranking by HRC and its “Corporate Equality Index” for 2010, a corporation must meet five sets of “positive-behavior” criteria and avoid one set of “negative” behaviors. The bulk of HRC scorecard’s involves getting points for implementing “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” nondiscrimination policies and providing corporate benefits to homosexual/transgender employees and their same-sex partners. To see the HRC requirements, go to page 5 on this online PDF document.
Criterion 1 requires that the corporation establish a “sexual orientation” corporate nondiscrimination policy and engage in “diversity training” to implement it. (AFTAH readers will be well aware that such “training” usually propagates only a homosexualist ideology and makes no room for teaching respect for and understanding of moral or religious opponents of homosexual behavior.)
CHICAGO, Ill. — In the wake of AP’s report that Solicitor General Elena Kagan is President Obama’s choice to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) reiterates its call for Kagan to answer the question: ‘Are (or were) you a practicing homosexual?’
According to some reports it is an open secret that Kagan is a practicing lesbian — to which AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera responds:
“If Kagan is practicing immoral sexual behavior, it reflects on her character as a judicial nominee and her personal bias as potentially one of the most important public officials in America. The popular mantra — even among conservatives — is that Kagan’s sexuality is ‘irrelevant.’ But a Justice Kagan would help decide some critically important constitutional issues dealing with: homosexual ‘marriage’ as a supposed civil right; religious liberty and freedom of conscience; and the First Amendment as applied to citizens’ right to oppose homosexuality. So it certainly matters if she, as a lifetime judge, could emerge as a crusading (openly) ‘gay’ advocate on the court.
“Kagan has a strong pro-homosexual record, including, as Harvard dean, fighting to keep military recruiters off the campus because the military bars homosexuals. Americans certainly have a right to know if her activism is driven by deeply personal motivations that could undermine her fairness as a judge.”
“Besides, in an era of ubiquitous pro-gay messages and pop culture celebration of homosexuality, it’s ridiculous that Americans should be left guessing as to whether a Supreme Court nominee has a special, personal interest in homosexuality.
Mike Heath (left) -- pictured above with AFA founder Don Wildmon and Heath's wife, Paulie -- discusses political correctness within the pro-traditional-marriage movement on the "Americans For Truth Hour" radio program (April 24th). Heath is the new director of American Family Association of Maine, and AFA of New England.
To listen online to any AFTAH Hour Radio program: go HERE to access MP3s of the “Americans For Truth Hour” radio program, heard every Saturday night at 11:00 PM Central on Chicagoland station WYLL, AM-1160, www.wyll.com. On the “AFTAH Hour” page are interviews with Dawn Stefanowicz, Pete Lines, Brian Camenker, Michael Glatze and Mike Heath. Listen on May 1st for Part Two of our interview with Robert Knight, Coral Ridge Ministries.
Latest Program Highlights:Mike Heath, new executive director of American Family Association of New England (and AFA of Maine), discusses the new evangelical politics of the fight against “gay marriage.” Heath himself — despite his veteran status as the leading pro-family advocate opposing the homosexualist agenda in Maine — was “thrown under the bus” in the most recent pro-marriage campaign in Maine, because he was deemed too much of an “anti-gay” lightning rod.
“When you look back from a pro-life perspective, what were the gains there?” he asked, noting President Ronald Reagan’s judicial choices. A generation later, “we see a bit of fatigue. We don’t see the results for the energy, the money, everything else that’s been poured into the political sphere,” said [Focus on the Family CEO Jim] Daly … “We as a Christian community need to refocus a bit on what’s important in the culture. For us, it’s family. That’s our mission.”
Yet it’s clear Daly, who has met with gay activists, sees diminishing returns in continuing the culture wars.
“I’m not fearful that change will happen in America. It will happen. … I don’t know what will happen with same-sex marriage, but I’m not going to be discouraged if we lose some of those battles,” he said, noting that for “98 percent” of people, traditional marriage will remain relevant.
“It’s going to be difficult in this culture and the way the demographics are going right now,” he went on. “You look at the under-35 age group. I think it’s splitting 60-40 support for same-sex marriage. There’s a lot of people in the U.S. [who] basically come to the conclusion that this is something between two adults. I will continue to defend traditional marriage, but I’m not going to demean human beings for the process.” — Excerpted from AOL News online article about Jim Daly, Focus on the Family’s new CEO; “Dobson’s Successor Gives Mega-Ministry New Focus.”
Daly’s softness on public policy must be understood in the context of the ongoing evangelical retreat in the Culture War (typified by the book UnChristian). Many Christians are more concerned with the Church’s “image” than they are with confronting lies in the culture and standing against secular threats like “Gay” and Abortion Lobbies. They claim that Culture War activism hinders the Gospel. But I have found that there are certain questions that “Soft” Evangelicals are hard-pressed to answer:
“How can a Christian even in the service of mental or psychological consonance be open to a client assuming a same-sex identity when this therapist knows that consonance comes at the cost of his or her client’s eternal life?” — Laurie Higgins
Mark Yarhouse, Professor of Psychology, Regent University
Folks, it’s a heckuva long road from “abomination” (Leviticus 18:22) to “gay” (no Scriptural citation possible). Note the critical difference between acknowledging in a free society that people have the free will to make bad choices (i.e., embrace sin) — and respecting the sinful choices of such individuals as a “valued identity.” Laurie Higgins is right: Mark Yarhouse’s (and Warren Throckmorton’s) “Sexual Identity Therapy” puts Christian professionals in the dangerous position of doing the latter. Here is Yarhouse’s defense of SIT, “Understanding Sexual Identity Therapy.” And here is his and Throckmorton’s paper, “Sexual Identity Therapy: Practicing Guidelines for Managing Sexual Identity Conflicts.”
