General Pace

On "Christian News Wire", Rev. Rusty Lee Thomas writes:

Years ago, I wrote of the pathetic condition that we are experiencing today as our nation bows to the homosexual agenda. Institution after institution has caved to their perverted juggernaut that is running rampant today. No one dares to have the moral courage like General Pace to say the self-evident truth, lest they face the fierce wrath of the sodomites and the moral cowardice of his feminized peers.

Links added by me for my amusement.

You know, my father was a marine, as was my uncle. My grandfather was in the army air force. I work with military personnel professionally sometimes. I suspect if you called any of those men, or any of General Pace's peers, "feminized", they'd hand you your face.

He was forced to regret his statement that "homosexuality was immoral."

Let me be blunt: I think it's absolutely ridiculous to claim that anyone can force General Pace to do anything, except for the President. After all, they're the ones with the nuclear bombs, flamethrowers, and bazookas, and all we have are harsh words.

I'd also like to point out that General Pace didn't say he changed his mind or in any way disagrees with what he said, but rather, only that he feels he would have done better to focus on other aspects of his opposition to gay people serving their country.

Whether America wants to face it or not, tyranny of thought, belief, and practice is in full swing. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom to dissent is being monitored and controlled by the “powers that be.” [cut by TF] ... More and more the lawless are securing their crooked grip upon the sword of civil government and are beginning to wield it against anybody who has the nerve to stray from their politically correct reservation. Meanwhile, we are drowning in a sea of blood and perversion as the "sheeple" of America worship the "Emperor's New Clothes."

I couldn't have summarized my opinion of the present administration better. And remember, "politically correct" means to be deferential to the views and desires of those in power, and those in power are presently evangelical christian republicans. (Or at least they claim to be. Mr. Bush doesn't actually go to church, after all, unlike Mr. Clinton or Mr. Carter.)

Baptist Press publishes false statements about ENDA

Baptist Press claims:

Although Clinton didn't re-state her public opposition to “gay marriage,” she did say once again she supports same-sex civil unions, which grant homosexual couples the legal benefits of marriage.

Except, "civil unions" do not grant gay and lesbian couples the legal benefits of marriage. They only grant a limited subset of the over 1200 federal and state special rights which are granted to heterosexual couples. Ironically, many gay and lesbian people, including myself, oppose the passage of "civil union" laws because we are unwilling to accept second class status under the law.

Baptist Press also claims:

Clinton also re-stated her support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would ban discrimination against homosexuals, bisexuals and transgender people in both the public and private workplace. Pro-family groups have opposed ENDA because it equates homosexuality with such traits as race, ethnicity, gender and religion and because they say it would violate religious freedoms, forcing church ministries to hire people opposed to orthodox Christianity.

Of course, I don't believe for a moment that they actually believe this: ENDA very plainly contains an exemption for churches, so it's a flat lie to claim it would force churches to hire gay people if they don't want to.

So, I conclude that Baptist Press is bearing false witness.

Scottish Catholic Adoption

Scotland is preparing to implement law which will ban discrimination against gay people in provision of goods or services. The Catholic church is upset because this will ban them from discriminating in the adoption services they provide on behalf of the government.

From the article:

The Catholic Church insist this would force them to close agencies as it would be against their religious beliefs to place a child in a gay household.

The use of the word "force" in this context is what I would call a lie. When a government forces someone to do something, it does so at gunpoint. Under no circumstances is the church being forced to close its adoption agencies; quite the contrary, it is being asked to please keep them open. The fact that the church does not wish to comply with the anti-discrimination law and consequently plans to close its agencies means that it is choosing to close the agencies.

John Deighan, parliamentary officer for the Catholic Church in Scotland, said members of the Bishop's Conference were so concerned they were seeking legal advice on their rights.

[some quotes deleted here for brevity]

"What we are looking at is are the UK government stepping over their competence by bringing into law regulations that do away with rights under the European Convention of Human Rights? We are not even being allowed to follow our consciences in saying we think married couples provide a better home."

What right is being violated? They're still allowed to believe as they like, and they may provide adoption services in compliance with the anti-discrimination law or choose not to place children with gay couples by choosing not to provide adoption services.

Further, it is my understanding that the church receives funding from the Scottish government, paid for with tax dollars, to provide adoption services. In other words, it isn't just providing adoption services out of the kindness of its heart, but rather, is doing so under contract for the government. It is not only the government's right, but in fact the government's duty to set standards for the provision of adoption services, for the benefit of the children involved. I can not see how the church has any right to receive tax dollars and place children for adoption; that would seem to be a privilege under any circumstances. If the church does not feel it can comply with the anti-discrimination law, it is right for them to choose to close their agencies.

Further, claiming that "We are not even being allowed to follow our consciences in saying we think married couples provide a better home" is, to be blunt, entirely false. They're entirely able under the law to continue saying that. They're just not going to continue to receive the privilege of being paid by the government and permitted to place children for adoption if they can't do so in the manner required by law.

"Concerned Women for America" and their questionable claims

Associated Press is reporting on the possibility that the US Congress may pass gay laws to protect the rights of gay and lesbian Americans at long last. The article speculates about the possible passage of an employment nondiscrimination law, and a hate crimes law to cover hate crimes against gay people.

From the article:

This year, with Democrats now in control and many Republicans likely to join in support, the hate-crimes and workplace bills are widely expected to prevail.

"With liberals in control, there's a good possibility they'll both pass," said Matt Barber, a policy director with the conservative group Concerned Women for America. "They're both dangerous to freedom of conscience, to religious liberties, to free speech."

"Concerned Women for America" claims on their web site:

"We are the nation's largest public policy women's organization with a rich 28-year history of helping our members across the country bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy."

They also claim:

"The mission of CWA is to protect and promote Biblical values among all citizens - first through prayer, then education, and finally by influencing our society - thereby reversing the decline in moral values in our nation."

I feel compelled to question two aspects of this claim. The first is the claim that it's a "women's organization", since their spokesperson's name is "Matt".

But moreover, I question what "biblical principles" they could possibly be trying to promote.

An employment nondiscrimination act would enable a gay or lesbian person to honestly hold down an honest job in the knowledge that they won't be fired just for being gay. It isn't dangerous to freedom of conscience, to religious liberties, or to free speech to let a gay person keep their job. It doesn't violate freedom of conscience, because people will still be free to believe whatever they like about gay people. Every single gay rights law in the United States that protects gay people from employment discrimination has made an exemption for religious organizations. No one is asking for a federal nondiscrimination law to be any different. So, it doesn't violate religious liberties either. And it doesn't violate freedom of speech, because it doesn't prohibit people from saying whatever they like about their opinions about gay people. So, it looks like CWA's claims don't apply to an employment nondiscrimination law.

Hmm. What about the other one?

Federal hate crime laws do not actually make anything illegal that wasn't already illegal. Rather, they place an additional penalty on certain crimes which are already crimes. So, passing a law to make crimes against gay and lesbian americans based on hate covered under federal hate crimes law won't cause anyone to be convicted who wouldn't already be convicted without the new law. So, claiming that such a law would violate people's rights in some new way is false.

I believe the bible does have something to say about making false claims. Perhaps CWA should try reading it.

Now, let's look at what motivation someone could possibly have for opposing these laws, because I doubt CWA would bother opposing them if they didn't have a motive.

Why would someone oppose a law prohibiting discrimination in employment against gay people? Because they want people to discriminate against gay people. CWA is no doubt aware that as a religious organization CWA itself would be exempt, so I conclude that they must want their members and supporters to discriminate against gay people.

Is it really Christian to deny a gay or lesbian person the opportunity to make an honest living and support themself? Is it really Christian to want a gay or lesbian person to have no income, and to suffer the consequences of having no income in the US, including homelessness and starvation? Is it, for that matter, American to deny someone the right to pursue their happiness by earning a decent living?

Next, why would anyone oppose a law against hate crimes committed against gay and lesbian people? The only concievable reason why anyone would oppose such a law would be because they want such crimes to be committed, and want the criminals to get off easy. I conclude from this that CWA wants gay and lesbian Americans to be victims of the kinds of crimes covered under federal hate crimes law.

And what kinds of crimes are we talking about?

According to the FBI, the 5190 hate crimes reported in 2005 include physical intimidation, assault, murder, rape, robbery, arson, and vandalism.

It is my opinion that "Concerned Women for America", by opposing a hate crimes law to protect gay and lesbian Americans, is doing nothing less than expressing support by inference for intimidation, assault, murder, rape, robbery, arson, and vandalism, directed against innocent gay and lesbian Americans. And I think that makes "Concerned Women for America" thoroughly un-christian.