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, the good people at Ligonier Ministries “buried the lede” in reporting their own poll, as editors say. The good news NOT highlighted in this Ligonier release is that evangelical Christian support for radical “gender” ideology is falling fast.
Below is a graphic on the key “State of Theology” poll question (Statement No. 29) that bears this out: from 2016 to 2020, the percentage of respondents who “strongly disagreed” with the statement, “Gender identity is a matter of choice” rose from 54 percent to 67 percent. The percentage who “strongly agreed” fell from 24 percent to 15 percent in the same period.
Things are very bad culturally and so many who call themselves “Christian” are succumbing to worldly, LGBTQueer activist propaganda, but at least things are moving in the right direction on the God- and nature-defying “transgender” agenda. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; @PeterLaBarbera
Here is Ligonier’s analysis of that section of the poll:
The unbiblical concept of relative truth has influenced every sphere of life in the United States, including the ethical issues that continue to be at the forefront of public debate. In 2020, a large percentage of U.S. evangelicals reject the arguments of “gender fluidity,” and this has been trending in a positive direction. Yet it remains concerning that one in five evangelicals still appears to reject the Bible’s teaching that our gender as male or female is given by God our Creator (Gen 1:27).
Here is Ligonier’s press release (after the jump):
Media: All Trans, All the Time: The dominant secular media have pushed the “transgender” agenda relentlessly in recent years, as illustrated by this 2014 TIME magazine story celebrating the alleged cultural “Transgender Tipping Point.” Pictured on the cover is biological male and “Orange Is the New Black” star Laverne Cox, who claims to be a woman and who crusades for “trans rights.” Click to enlarge.
The following news release was sent out by the pro-family legal group Liberty Counsel March 26, 2018:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – President Donald Trump issued a new memorandum last Friday disqualifying “transgender” individuals from serving in the military, stating that the Defense secretary and the Homeland Security secretary should “exercise their authority to implement any appropriate policies concerning military service by transgender individuals.”
The memorandum said individuals with a history of gender dysphoria, defined as “those who may require substantial medical treatment, including through medical drugs or surgery,” are disqualified from military service “except under certain limited circumstances.” Those who are currently in the United States military may remain in the ranks, but the Pentagon could require them to serve according to their gender at birth.
In a memo to the president, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis cited “substantial risks” about military personnel who seek to change or who question their gender identity. He found that individuals with a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria presented a risk to military effectiveness and “could undermine readiness, disrupt unit cohesion, and impose an unreasonable burden on the military that is not conducive to military effectiveness and lethality.” This new policy will enable the military to apply well-established mental and physical health standards—including those regarding the use of medical drugs—equally to all individuals who want to join and fight for the best military force the world has ever seen.
Mattis suggested three exceptions:
If a person diagnosed with gender dysphoria can demonstrate a period of at least 36 months where they no longer suffer from the psychological condition;
Those diagnosed with gender dysphoria who do not seek to “transition” (receive hormone drugs and undergo plastic and other surgery), and are deployable, may also serve; and
Those who have already been serving prior to the effective date of the new policy will not be discharged.
Two U.S. district courts, one in the District of Columbia and one in Maryland, previously blocked enforcement of President Trump’s proposed August 2017 ban on “transgender” persons in the armed services. According to the Defense Department, those courts required the branches to begin allowing such recruits to sign up for military service. A third order by a U.S. District judge also allowed the state to challenge the ban, stating that Washington has an interest in protecting its residents from discrimination.
America Corrupts the World: Even under Trump, the American Embassy in Kingston, Jamaica flies the LGBTQ-activist “rainbow flag” under Old Glory. But Jamaicans know that immoral “gay-” and “transgender” “rights” inherently destroy real freedoms. Photo: Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society, June 2017.
Folks, the following column was published Sunday in the Jamaica Gleaner. It is written by Shirley Richards, a wise Christian advocate for genuine rights and moral truth whom I had the privilege of meeting in Jamaica when I spoke there in 2013. Below Richards ably explains the difference between genuine rights based on a moral philosophy, rooted in timeless Judeo-Christian truth–and counterfeit “gay/transgender rights,” which “compete with, and undermine, fundamental human rights and freedoms.”
Smart Jamaicans–and peoples all over the world–are trying to learn from the USA’s and the West’s failed experiment of creating sodomy-based “rights,” which became the foundation for the modern Western abomination of “same-sex marriage.” Meanwhile, the United States and other decadent Western nations–and leftist organizations like the George Soros-funded Human Rights Watch–are pressuring Jamaica and many other nations to join our illicit “rights” revolution.
At right is a current photo of the American Embassy in Kingston, flying the LGBT “rainbow flag” (as it did under Obama)–thereby telegraphing to this small nation that, even under Trump, we will use our immense political and economic power to “persuade” them to embrace a system of newfangled legal “rights” that inherently destroys liberty. Let’s hope we don’t prevail, and that Donald Trump gets America out of the business of exporting the immoral, anti-Christian LGBT “rights” revolution. — @Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth; see my LifeSiteNews articles here.
___________________
Majority view on gay rights must have sway
By Shirley Richards
Published in Jamaica Gleaner, June 11, 2017
In an article written by Dr. Carolyn Gomes published [in the Jamaica Gleaner] on Sunday, May 28, 2017, she stated, in relation to the development of the [Jamaican] Charter of Rights: “The Parliament, however, appears to be timid. It has not acted on the recommendation to ensure that all citizens are protected from discrimination on the basis of disability, health status, if they speak Patois, have a mental illness, or are different in sexual orientation and gender identity.”
These were recommendations made by various interest groups. They were debated by the joint select committee of Parliament on the Charter of Rights (Constitutional Amendment) Bill and decisions were made to accept or reject accordingly.
The Parliament had then, and still does have, a responsibility to allow for citizens to make submissions, but there was, and still is, the corresponding responsibility to sift submissions and to decide which ones are in the best interests of the country. Parliament must examine all the relevant studies and data. They must also have an understanding of the impact of these decisions on the country both now and in time to come and be satisfied that such decisions are in fact for the good of the country.
In determining what is in the “best interests” of the country, they cannot afford to disregard the voice of the people. Specifically, the members of the House of Representatives are there to represent the people, not to foist their own viewpoints on the people, a point Justice Minister Delroy Chuck, as a member of said House, may do well to remember. As the late [First Premier of Jamaica] Norman Manley, QC, said on the occasion of the passage of the 1962 [Jamaican] Constitution:
“As a politician, sir, I would be the first person to acclaim every instance in which the public succeeds in having their way … for we, sir, are their servants and are here to execute their will.”
Non-discrimination
As it relates to the issue of “sexual orientation”, the joint select committee (1999-2001) debated the request by the Jamaica Forum for Lesbians, All-Sexuals and Gays to protect ‘sexual orientation’ as grounds for non-discrimination. The committee expressly decided not to protect this term. The committee was concerned about the impact of such a term on the institution of marriage and on parenting.
Once you destroy the male-female boundary for marriage that has stood since the beginning of time, all boundaries are open to question. Ditto for male, female and “gender identities.” — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH
____________________________
Why Can’t I Marry the Robot I Love? The Rise of Robosexuals
Do people have the right to marry the one they love, even if the one they love is a robot? If not, why not? After all, in the words of Lilly from France, who has fallen in love with her robot, “We don’t hurt anybody; we are just happy.”
Isn’t that what matters in the end, that people are happy?
Lilly calls herself a “proud robosexual,” and she fully plans on marrying her robot, whom she named InMoovator.
As explained in the Daily Mail, “Lilly is reportedly engaged to the robot and says they will marry when human-robot marriage is legalized in France.”
But why should this surprise us? People have not only married their same-sex spouses (which has the merit of joining together fellow-humans, albeit completely opposite to the God-ordained male-female pattern), but they have married animals and inanimate objects and, with increasing frequency, married themselves.
Indeed, it was just a few days ago that Good Housekeeping—not some radical, far-out, tabloid—ran the story, “WHY I MARRIED MYSELF. Self-marriage is a small but growing movement around the world.”
“Race and Transgenderism are utterly incomparable, and so are common sense bathroom laws and racist segregation. Yet this hasn’t stopped immoralists and pro-LGBT advocates from drawing a false equivalence between the two.”–Bruce Smith Jr.
Folks, we welcome Bruce Smith Jr., founder of Purity Quest Ministries, as a contributor to Americans For Truth. Smith analyzes the LGBT analogy between “transgender women” (men in dresses) being denied entry into female restrooms and racist Jim Crow laws of the past. Former GOP presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson has called such analogies “a bunch of crap,” and we agree. Smith is also the author of the book, The Truth About Homosexuality, which I encourage you to purchase.–Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; @PeterLaBarbera
_______________________
By Bruce Smith Jr.
We’re being lied to and the liars at the fore of the “transgender” movement hope we don’t notice. The problem is their falsehoods are so obvious that it is impossible to overlook them– except for those who just aren’t paying attention and the liberals who actually believe the lies are true.
In any case, it is time to set the record straight on the “transgender” activist movement, the lies on which it is based, and the liars that are perpetuating this insanity.
Let’s begin with the term itself. The common liberal definition of “transgender” is a person trapped inside the body of the opposite sex. This is telling because it assumes that it is possible for someone to be trapped in the wrong body, which is a false assumption. Moreover, it establishes that “transgenderism” is based entirely on feelings and opinions; it is a concept that only exists in the mind of the subject.
Thus, “transgenderism” is subjective not objective. In other words, it does not correspond to reality. This is why “transgenderism” has been diagnosed as a “gender identity disorder.”
Race, on the other hand, is objective. I am a multiracial man—some would say person of color; that is a fact. Race is not limited to the mind of the subject. It is actual, it corresponds with reality and is verifiable.
Upside-Down: Like homosexual activists before them, “transgender” ideologues say the problem is with society, not them. This 2014 tweet (in the “transgender pride” colors of baby blue and pink) by Transgender Graphics reads: “There’s nothing wrong with you. There’s a lot wrong with the world you live in.”–Chris Colfer (actor and former Glee star). Click to enlarge.
By Sharon Kass
When it comes to social issues, conservatives from all walks of life need to be able to make brief, concise, multi-faceted arguments. On the transgenders-in-public-bathrooms issue, here is mine:
The need and wish for modesty between males and females is the original and eternal justification for sex-segregated, public, multi-use bathrooms.
The Equal Protection Clause (EPC) of the Fourteenth Amendment did not originally, and does not now, apply to the sexes.
Even supposing that the EPC did apply to the sexes to some degree, the S. Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that, based on fact, the sexes are not “similarly situated” in all situations and that the law may recognize this. Relevant cases include Reed v. Reed(1971), Rinaldi v. Yeager (1966), Parham v. Hughes (1979), Califano v. Webster (1977), Schlesinger v. Ballard (1975)and Kahn v. Shevin (1974).
“I’m allowed to be exactly who I am, and I don’t have to apologize or make excuses why I’m different. I can’t deny I was married. I can’t deny I have children. But I’ve moved forward now and I’ve gone back to being a child. I don’t want to be an adult now, and I live my life like I couldn’t when I was in school.”–Paul Wolscht, 52-year-old man with seven children who believes he’s a 6-year-old girl, “Stefonknee”
Folks, my son introduced me to Steven Crowder YouTube videos, and Crowder is spot on with this video response to a 52-year-old Canadian man, Paul (“Stefonknee”) Wolscht, who abandoned his wife and seven children a few years ago to embrace a “transgender” identity as a six-year-old “girl.” This pathetic story is astonishingly creepy and wicked at the same time. Crowder is right: this guy is mentally disturbed–but I do believe that he’d still be with his family if he did not have his “transgender” activist enablers egging on his delusion.
To say that Wolscht is self-absorbed might be the understatement of all time. As a Transgender Project website video on Wolscht’s story shows, several years ago his own children expressed their anger and embarrassment in letters to him about his wanting to be a “girl” (see photo below). No matter–he continued to pursue his twisted alter ego–and was encouraged in his “gender identity” by his new “progressive” friends including an LGBTQ “church.” Then he wonders why his desperate wife Maria fears that their kids would be “corrupted” by him living with them?! … [More comments and photos after the video and the jump:]
Much evil has come out of the LGBTQueer revolution, and many victims have been left in its wake–like Maria and her seven children. Does your heart not ache like mine in thinking about the suffering of Mrs. Wolscht and what these poor children have gone through after their dad embraced this sick, freakish “identity”? This is a form of child abuse–and everyone who supports Wolscht in his delusion is complicit.
In a forthcoming article I will discuss the parallels of me-centered transgenderism and me-centered homosexuality. One thing they share is the idea that creating one’s own fictional reality–a distorted “identity” or “orientation” at odds with reason, God’s creation and objectively observed Nature–somehow justifies one’s actions. Since LGBTQ activists and their “progressive” allies demand that we “respect” the ever-expanding array of “gender identities,” are we obligated to respect Wolscht’s little-girl identity–his own specialized, subjective “truth”? The thing about godless moral relativism is that there is no bottom to its depravity because–to paraphrase the “progressive” pope–who are we to judge? — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; @PeterLaBarbera
Houston’s lesbian mayor put her pro-homosexuality politics above the rule of law.
“The homosexual political movement is a hate movement that discriminates against Christians….It is absurd to base minority status upon a person’s chosen behavior.”–Dr. Steven Hotze, Campaign For Houston
The following was released Friday by Conservative Republicans of Texas and the Campaign For Houston:. To read the Texas Supreme Court ruling, go HERE.
_____________________
July 24, 2015
For immediate release:
Contact Jeff Yates, Campaign for Houston: (832) 545-7644
Texas Supreme Court Decides in Favor of Houston Voters Mayor Parker’s (Un)Equal Rights Ordinance To Be Voted On In November
The Texas Supreme Court ruled today that “the legislative power reserved to the people of Houston is not being honored. The City Council is directed to comply with its duties, as specified in the City Charter, that arise when the City Secretary certifies that a referendum petition has a sufficient number of valid signatures. Any enforcement of the [Equal Rights] ordinance will be suspended…If the City Council does not repeal the ordinance by August 24, 2014, then by that date the City Council must order that the ordinance be put to popular vote during the November 2015 election.” In Re Jared Woodfill, Texas Supreme Court, No. 14-0667, p. 11-12 (July 24, 2016)
This means that unless the Houston City Council repeals the ordinance, the citizens of Houston will have the right to vote on Mayor Parker’s personal, liberal, pro-homosexual agenda this November.
“He who says to the wicked, “You are righteous, “peoples will curse him, nations will abhor him, but to those who rebuke the wicked will be delight, and a good blessing will come upon them.” (Proverbs 24:24–25)
Last year, Houston’s lesbian mayor, Annise Parker, and the Houston City Council passed an ordinance that violates religious freedom of businesses and individuals, grants minority status to those who choose to participate in homosexual activities and allows men, if they claim to be transgender or feel like they are a woman that day, to use women’s public restrooms and locker rooms. This is the reason that the ordinance was known as the ‘Sexual Predator Protection Act’ by the opponents of the ordinance.
The Houston City Charter requires only 17,169 signatures [to repeal an ordinance or put it up to a popular vote]. Almost 55,000 signatures were collected on petitions to allow the people an opportunity to vote on this very important issue. Anna Russell, the City Secretary, certified that there were adequate signatures but Parker refused to accept them.
“Mayor Parker arrogantly ignored the will of the people and the city charter, and unlawfully rejected the petitions,” said Dr. Steven Hotze, President of Campaign for Houston.
Jared Woodfill, Steven Hotze, M.D., Rev. F.N. Williams, Sr. and Rev. Max Williams then filed suit against Parker,Woodfill v Parker. During the course of the litigation, Mayor Parker issued subpoenas to several pastors who were not parties to the litigation, ordering them to turn over all communications regarding the ordinance, the mayor, homosexuality, and other related topics, including sermons regarding these topics.
After a month of trial, Democrat Judge Robert Schaffer ruled in favor of the city and against the people, denying Houstonians an opportunity to vote on this issue. Fortunately, the Texas Supreme Court quickly reviewed Judge Schaffer’s decision and concluded he was wrong and that Mayor Parker had broken the law. Despite Mayor Parker’s efforts to keep her personal, pro-homosexual agenda from the people, Houstonians will now have an opportunity to vote on this ordinance in November.
