Excerpted from Outlawing Conscience, by Chuck Colson, published Mar 20, 2007, by Breakpoint:

…The persecution against the Church has taken a decisive turn in the cradle of civil liberty—the United Kingdom (UK). And it will happen in America, also, if we do not wake up to the danger.

In London last month, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended regulations that would make it illegal for private, religious schools to teach that homosexual conduct is immoral…

And we know about this. Last summer, the British government closed down our IFI unit because we teach that sex should be limited to heterosexual marriage. And if these regulations violate the rights of Christians—what does the government say? “Too bad.”

Luke Gormally, a fellow at London’s Linacre Centre, a Christian bioethics institute, put it this way:

“The Committee could not be clearer in saying that they believe the freedom to live a practicing homosexual lifestyle trumps the freedom to live a religious lifestyle.”

…Last Thursday, a House of Commons committee met to decide on the Sexual Orientation Regulations. Many MPs protested the Blair government’s refusal to allow a full debate in the House of Commons. And despite repeated appeals for a postponement, the chairperson insisted on taking an immediate vote: The regulations were upheld.

Now, the Blair government is attempting to rush the law through both houses of Parliament before opponents have time to organize. The vote will take place on Wednesday.

On that day, many Christians will be found at a prayer vigil in Old Palace Yard near the entrance to the House of Lords. [TAKE ACTION –] We need to be praying with them, because it is going to take a miracle to keep this law from passing.

Continue reading at Breakpoint…

Will it go this far in America before we wake up?

From Quebec Readies All out Fight Against “Homophobia” with Pro-Gay Gov’t Ministry, Ads, Education, by John-Henry Westen, published Mar 16, 2007, by LifeSite News:

A report issued at the behest of the provincial government of Quebec directs the government to fight homopshobia and heterosexism in every sphere of public life and especially in schools.  Quebec’s Justice minister asked the Quebec Human Rights Commission to create a task force in 2005, and that group has published its report called “From legal equality to social equality: toward a national strategy to fight against homophobia.”

The report ascribes to homophobia negative consequences of what many acknowledge as problems associated with disordered sexuality.  The report says that homosexual, bisexual and transsexual persons are “a population at risk,” noting that they experience higher rates of psychological distress, depression, illegal drug use, alcoholism, and suicidal tendencies.  The report claims that these afflictions are the result of heterosexist “social stigmatization” and “homophobia.”

While psychologists who assist people to overcome disordered sexuality see many of the afflictions mentioned as symptoms of the homosexual disorder, the report uses the plight of the many people who find themselves in such heart-rending situations to urge for political action which will threaten freedom of religion and freedom of speech regarding the immorality and dangers of the homosexual lifestyle.  “The despair felt by too many young people of sexual minorities at the very significant stage of their coming out is alone enough to demand urgent action,” said Marc-Andre Dowd, vice-president of the Commission, in a press conference on the release of the document.

The report defines homophobia as “feelings of fear and aversion which certain people have toward homosexuality and people of homosexual orientation, or toward any person whose appearance or behavior does not conform to the stereotypes of the masculinity or of femininity.”

The report defines heterosexism as “the assertion that heterosexuality is the social norm or superior to other sexual orientations.”

The report calls for an all out assault on homophobia and herterosexism, going so far as to demand a separate government ministry be established to oversee the fight against homophobia.  It recommends that the new administration to fight homophobia be granted adequate resources to ensure development and implementation, and that the government engage in media campaigns to promote positive attitudes towards homosexuality and lesbianism.

From Was It Something I Said?, by Dr. Albert Mohler, published Mar 16, 2007:

Well, never doubt the power of the media. My recent article on homosexuality ignited a firestorm in the public square. Why? We may never know — but the controversy represents both a challenge and an opportunity.Several thoughts:

I must admit much frustration about the way many in the media have handled the issue. Headlines proclaimed “Seminary President Says Babies Born Gay” — something I neither believe nor said. Other articles and reports claimed that I suggested that homosexuality may be genetic in origin and that genetic therapies should be used to create customized and corrected babies. I never even mentioned genetic therapies or germ-line experiments, and I am adamantly opposed to genetic therapies of such a sort — real or hypothetical. Reading these reports and headlines was a painful and exasperating experience. If I believed those things attributed to me, I would not agree with myself and would condemn myself…

God’s condemnation of sin is not determined by science, but by God’s Word. The Bible could not be more clear — all forms of homosexual behavior are expressly condemned as sin. In so doing the Bible uses its strongest vocabulary and places this condemnation in the larger context of the Creator’s rightful expectation of our stewardship of the sexual gift. All manifestations of homosexuality are thus representations of human sinfulness and rebellion against God’s express will. Nothing can alter this fact, and no discovery in science or any other human endeavor can change God’s verdict…

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 the Apostle Paul condemns an entire list of sins, including explicit references to homosexuality. Then he reminds the church, “such were some of you.” The complete text reads: “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” [1 Corinthians 6:11]. God brings glory to himself through the salvation of sinners — and Paul includes homosexuality in that list…

Continue reading at Dr. Mohler’s Blog…

Excerpted from The Crime of Conviction, by Chuck Colson, published Mar 15, 2007, by Breakpoint:

…While the world should be applauding a man who proposes that one of the most important institutions in our country should have moral integrity, instead we hammer him for having a conviction.

But I believe this goes far beyond the whole question of homosexuals in the military and the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. This cuts to the core of the question of whether anyone in public office is free to speak his deepest religious or moral convictions. The Constitution says there will be no religious test for office, and yet we are applying one. We are basically saying that if you are the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, you are not allowed to express your moral or religious views — especially on matters of sexual preference and behavior.

This is another sign that we live in an age that no longer believes in objective truth or a moral order. Moral relativism is the rule, and personal preference trumps all. And government is there to ensure that no one place any restraint on the pursuit of our own desires.

I have long said that C. S. Lewis was prophetic when in 1943 he wrote about the irony of our education system, saying, “Such is the tragicomedy of our situation — we continue to clamour for those very qualities we are rendering impossible. . . . In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.”

Ironic that today, the head of our Joint Chiefs of Staff argues that the military should have consistent policies of moral integrity, and the world demands an apology. Maybe it is time to lock him up: General Pace is guilty. He has committed the intolerable crime of our day: He has stated his conviction in a value-free society that respects only so-called “tolerance.”

As for me, well, General Pace makes me proud that I am a former Marine.

Continue reading at Breakpoint…

From Marine Gen. Pace Praised for Calling Homosexuality ‘Immoral’, by Jim Brown and Jenni Parker, published Mar 14, 2007, by One News Now:

A pro-family leader is applauding America’s leading general for declaring that homosexuality is immoral and should not be condoned by the military. In a recent interview with the Chicago Tribune, U.S. Marine Corps General Peter Pace likened homosexuality to adultery, which he also condemned.

Hear This Report

Homosexual activist groups are now calling on the general to apologize for the remarks he made to the Chicago Tribune, which quoted him as saying, “I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts.” But Peter LaBarbera, director of the pro-family group Americans for Truth, says it took a lot of courage for General Pace to say what he did, because the homosexual lobby will now be going after his job.

“Their idea of civil rights is that we can’t voice our moral beliefs about homosexuality,” LaBarbera notes. “And this is whole problem with treating homosexuality as a so-called civil right,” he says. “You know, the fact is, he has a right to state his beliefs.”

And those beliefs are shared by a majority of the people in America, the pro-family advocate contends.

“I think, at least half the country — according to a recent Culture and Media Institute poll — agrees with [Pace] that homosexual acts are wrong,” he says.

Homosexual activist groups are condemning General Pace and, predictably, attempting to intimidate him for stating the obvious, LaBarbera contends.

“If you say that homosexuality is wrong, they come after you,” he says; “and, ultimately, we have to believe that they are going to want to ban [speaking out against] it, just like is happening in Canada, and England, and other countries.”

The homosexual lobby in the United States “has been very silent about this censorship that’s going on abroad, where we see people not even being allowed to say that homosexuality is wrong,’ the Americans for Truth spokesman observes. “And so,” he asserts, “you’ve got to believe that, under a ‘hate-crimes’ agenda, in the long term the gay lobby is going to want to silence people.”

Reportedly General Pace said he bases his opposition to homosexuality on his upbringing. He also told the Chicago Tribune that he supports the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy, which implements legislation signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994.

The law passed by Congress and signed by Clinton states that the U.S. Armed Services’ prohibition against homosexual conduct “is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.” The legislation also affirms that such conduct is grounds for discharge from the military.

From AFA calls on President Bush to support General Pace, published Mar 14, 2007, by American Family Association:

American Family Association (AFA) says its supporters have sent nearly 150,000 e-mails to President Bush asking him to stand behind Marine General Peter Pace. The e-mails came from the AFA’s website, afa.net.

AFA said several homosexual groups are trying to force Gen. Pace out of the military because of comments he made calling homosexual acts immoral.

Gen. Pace said homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and should not be condoned. “The homosexuals are angry because General Pace told the truth, something homosexual activists cannot stand,” said AFA Chairman Donald E. Wildmon. “They want to force the military to approve their perverted behavior.”

“These radical activists called Gen. Pace’s comments ‘insulting and offensive to the men and women who are serving in the military honorably.’ What is insulting and offensive is that, to these radicals, upholding military law isn’t important. An overwhelming number of military members find such acts insulting and offensive,” Wildmon said.

He said AFA is urging supporters to engage others to send e-mails to the president in support of Gen. Pace. “As Commander In Chief, the president should applaud Gen. Pace for upholding military law,” Wildmon said.

From Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Says He Depends on God Daily, by Richard Szczepanowski, published Feb 28, 2006, by Catholic News Service:

Marine Gen. Peter Pace, who was sworn in last September as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Catholic group in Washington April 21 that there are times every day when he thinks about his dependence on God.

“My belief that there is a God and that he has a plan for me is a major, calming influence in my life,” Pace, a Catholic, told members of the John Carroll Society, a lay Catholic organization based in Washington.

From Is a Christian Parent Unfit to Raise a Child Whose Other Parent Identifies as a Homosexual?, by Chris Stovall, published Mar 14, 2007, by Constitutionally Correct:

This week there is news that former New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey, who resigned from office after publicly announcing he is a “Gay American” who had an extra-marital affair with a male staffer, has amended his divorce lawsuit to seek custody of his 5-year-old daughter. The article gives us an important clue as to what may have prompted McGreevey to seek custody: “[McGreevey’s estranged wife Dina] Matos said last month that the two ‘continue to have profound differences about what our daughter should be exposed to, and until they are resolved, there will be no agreement.'”

Of course, we don’t know the specifics in the McGreevey case. But, this fits the pattern of a growing wave of attacks on parents with Biblical, traditional beliefs on sex and marriage. The Alliance Defense Fund receives a growing number of requests for assistance in this area (see, e.g., this ADF press release). One parent decides to identify as a homosexual, breaks up the marriage, and eventually moves in with a same-sex partner. Eventually, the parent who identifies as homosexual sues for custody, claiming it is not in the child’s best interest to remain in the custody of the non-homosexual parent, because that parent (often a Christian) cannot in good conscience condone or remain silent about the departed parent’s homosexual behavior. Typically, it is alleged that any discussion with the child of the Biblical teaching that homosexual behavior is sinful, or perhaps that God’s design for the family is for a man and a woman to unite to raise their children, violates a nondisparagement clause in the divorce decree meant to prevent one parent from turning the child against the other parent in the wake of a bitter divorce. Since it is not uncommon for these nondisparagement clauses to place a duty on the parents to ensure that third parties do not disparage the other parent in the presence of the child, taking the child to a conservative church that preaches the Biblical message on homosexual behavior can become grounds for losing custody.

Christian family law attorneys must start being vigilant about this issue in divorce litigation and settlement negotiations. Given that the historic Supreme Court cases which recognized the fundamental due process right of parents to raise their children have often involved issues of moral and religious instruction, this custody dispute scenario is yet another area in which it remains to be seen exactly what impact the ascendancy of the homosexual agenda in our modern era will have on the constitutional rights of parents who will not bow the knee.