Peace in Our Time? Apparently some evangelical “leaders” are taking their cues from 20th-Century British appeaser Neville Chamberlain in seeking to work out an unbiblical compromise with the powerful homosexual-bisexual-transgender lobby–supposedly to preserve their religious freedoms. No Christian should support the creation of “rights” based on sinful sexual behaviors that are changeable and do not define a person.

“Jesus didn’t formulate the Golden Rule to provide special legal protections for, and promotion of, immoral behavior.”

*      *      *

“These Evangelical appeasers have the ‘innocent as doves’ demeanor down but not the ‘wise as serpents’ part.”— Prof. Robert Gagnon

Take Action: Contact the National Association of Evangelicals at their DC office at 202-479-0815 (or online HERE), and the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities HERE (Phone — choose option #8: 202-546-8713). Voice your opposition to their unbiblical compromise that would create and recognize federal “rights” based on immoral homosexual and transgender lifestyles.

Related info:

• NAE compromise proposal (obtained by WORLD mag): [HERE]
• WORLD magazine article, “Boards Back SOGI Compromise,“
• Ryan Anderson’s article in Daily Signal: “Misguided Proposal From Christian Leaders and LGBT Activists Is Anything but ‘Fairness for All’”

_______________________

Folks, the largely Christian social conservative movement never seems to learn that by constantly “playing defense” and backing up in the face of a hyper-aggressive LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer) movement, we will always lose. Now a group of “leaders” from two evangelical associations are getting in the game, floating a disastrous and cowardly compromise with “gay” and “transgender” activists that if enacted, will only help advance the normalization of sex-and-gender perversion in the United States. Prof. Robert Gagnon, probably the world’s leading authority on the Bible and homosexuality, ably responds to their misguided proposal below. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera 

_____________________________

Dr. Robert Gagnon’s Response to Evangelical Leaders’ Compromise with LGBT Activists

Written by Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon, 12-17-18, reprinted from Illinois Family Institute

In a blog post titled “‘Fairness For All’: Smart Politics, Or A Sellout?” (Dec. 13), Rod Dreher, senior editor at The American Conservative, reports a defense of the recent decision by the boards of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) and the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) to support “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” “federal anti-discrimination law in exchange for religious liberty guarantees written into the same law.” The defense was made by “a prominent conservative Evangelical political strategist who works at both the national and state levels” and whom Dreher calls “Smith.” Rod himself professes to be unsure about the whole subject; an uncertainty that appears to be fueled by his usual belief that voting Republican changes nothing.

The substance of the defense is essentially born of naïve utilitarianism, overlaid with a veneer of high rhetoric about standing up for the “rights” of LGBTQ persons. In effect: We are losing the battle over human sexuality in the culture so, while we still can, let’s cut a deal with proponents of all things “gay” and “transgender” that gives us something in return. They will (allegedly) recognize our good will and then become favorably disposed to protect our “religious liberties” in both the short- and long-term.

The problem with the argument is that it amounts to a policy of appeasement with sexual extremists who advocate (from our perspective) a grossly immoral sexual policy and have never exhibited a “we’ll stop here approach” before. It is an appeasement that requires us to sacrifice our basic principles to get some statutory assurance that can easily be retracted by legislative vote after a full-court indoctrination surge, predicated on the new law, overwhelms remaining resistance. In addition, it is an appeasement that provides only the narrowest of exemptions for religious institutions while throwing under the bus the vast majority of Christians who work and live outside those institutions.

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.