Friday, January 22, 2010

The Intolerance of the Homosexual Rights Movement

This article is taken from the website of Christian Concern for Our Nation, a conservative Christian group that is resisting the culture of death and the increasing persecution of Christians in the UK. Readers of this blog know that the Labor government of the past decade has pushed the envelope of cultural Marxism to the fullest extent possible in its quest to weaken the influence of the Christian Church and weaken the family. See their website for a 3 minute video on the proposed Equality Bill that could be used to force churches to hire practicing, unrepentant homosexuals as staff, among other travesties.

This story below, however, refers to Obama's America in which the same direction is being followed by the Obama administration as the Blair-Brown government. Thank God that the Obama regime is unlikely to last as long as the Labor one. Based on events this week, it looks like a lame duck already and within 12 months its ability to do damage will likely be contained. But this story gives a glimpse into where it would go if left to its own devices.

My comments are in red and [square brackets].

"A new nominee for the American Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is reported as saying that private religious beliefs that adversely affect homosexuals should not be tolerated.

Chai Feldblum, an openly lesbian Law Professor at Georgetown University (US) and political activist has been nominated by President Barack Obama to serve on the EEOC. In her article in a legal journal she wrote:

‘Just as we do not tolerate private racial beliefs that adversely affect African-Americans in the commercial arena, even if such beliefs are based on religious views, we should similarly not tolerate private [so the "commercial arena" equals "private beliefs"? This is gross intolerance; in fact, much more intolerant than Christianity has traditionally been toward homosexuals.] beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity that adversely affect LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] people.’ [So just to get this straight: she is saying that even my "private" belief that her belief is wrong "adversely affects her."]

Professor Feldblum, has worked for the American Civil Liberties Union and the Human Rights Campaign Fund, groups that promote homosexual and abortion ‘rights’, and is known to have created in academic circles the term ‘identity liberty’ as it conflicts with ‘belief liberty’. [Identity liberty is an outgrowth of identity politics and just as spurious.] According to her view, a person’s sexual identity ‘rights’ must routinely trump ‘belief liberty’ which is currently guaranteed by the US Constitution’s First Amendment (Freedom of Speech). [She is pretty open about her totalitarian opposition to freedom of speech and her ideology is extremely dangerous. It is what we would have had if either World War II or the Cold War had been lost. She is a straightforward enemy of Western freedom and of the US Constitution.]

The nominee wrote that she recognises that elements of the homosexual agenda may infringe on Americans’ religious liberties. However, she argues that society should ‘come down on the side’ of homosexual equality at the expense of religious liberty. She said the conflict between the two is ‘irreconcilable.’ [Living together is possible from a Christian perspective, but not from her perspective. She reminds me of the radical Islamist hatred of Western liberty. It is "irreconcilable" with her totalitarian agenda.]

‘For those who believe that a homosexual or bisexual orientation is not morally neutral, and that an individual who acts on his or her homosexual orientation is acting in a sinful or harmful manner (to himself or herself and to others), it is problematic when the government passes a law that gives such individuals equal access to all societal institutions,’ she wrote. [I wonder if she wants us to wear a distinguishing mark on our clothing so we can be singled out for spitting on and public humiliation? Or would she be content (for now) with expelling us from all the professions, higher education, government and the legal system? This kind of hatred directed toward a defined group is the usual prelude to some sort of organized attack.]

‘Protecting one group’s identity liberty may, at times, require that we burden others’ belief liberty. [OK, if this is true, then I suggest that it be homosexuals whose liberty is taken away. I don't think this is true; I think we can tolerate homosexuals. But she doesn't think she can tolerate Christians. So I can't see how she leaves us any choice but to defend ourselves with the democratic vote.] This is an inherent and irreconcilable reality of our complex society.

‘But in dealing with this conflict, I believe it is essential that we not privilege moral beliefs that are religiously based over other sincerely held core, moral beliefs. [This is dishonest. She isn't talking about "privileging anything except her own moral beliefs]

'Laws passed pursuant to public policies may burden the belief liberty of those who adhere to either religious or secular beliefs,’ she added. [Of course this is true. It would be nice, however, if she were concerned to minimize this burden instead of expanding it for one particular group.]

If appointed as an EEOC commissioner, Prof Feldblum will decide cases involving alleged violations of US federal employment law, including gender, age, and race discrimination. [If that does not concern you, then you must be on her side.]

Pro-life, family and business groups are concerned that Prof Feldblum will use her power to try and strip First Amendment rights of freedom of expression and free exercise of religion, and exploit her position on the EEOC to use the force of government to change the social norms of private institutions. [As well they should be.]

Bob Ellis, a Dakota Voice columnist, wrote:

‘Putting this radical woman in charge of the EEOC is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house, or putting criminals in charge of the prison, or the inmates in charge of the asylum.

‘The American people, however, are in charge of the US government, and it is our responsibility to tell our government we will not tolerate such gross irresponsibility and contempt for the founding values of our nation.’ [If homosexuals take this kind of extreme position, which is rooted in contempt for Western traditions of religious liberty and for Christianity, they risk provoking an understandable backlash that could erode the gains they have already made. Backed into a corner, the people of the US will not allow themselves to be browbeaten into submission. And if that happens there is no use whining about how bad and evil conservatives are. Conservatives are not creating this situation; homosexual activists are.]

From 1986 to 1987, Prof Feldblum clerked for Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the Judge who handed down the decision in the Roe v. Wade case that has allowed more than 51 million abortions in the US. In 2009, she was the lead drafter of the US Employment Non-Discrimination Act, introduced by Barney Frank, an openly homosexual Democrat Party Representative (Massachusetts), which would prohibit employment discrimination based on someone’s real or perceived sexual orientation. [Ah, a protege of Barney Frank. Figures.]


If the only way the American people have to prevent individuals with these kind of intolerant views from being appointed to public office is to throw out the Democratic Party, then I believe this will be done. In fact, I believe it has already started in Massachusetts.


feetxxxl said...

you appear to fail to realize that a persons rights end(express religous views, etc)where they infringe on someones equal protection.(being forced to accept anothers religous views.

this country is founded on seperation of church and state. congress will make no laws supporting any religion.

as a believer i seriously challenge that scripture has ever said that homosexuality was a sin.

feetxxxl said...

if being homosexual(living a full homosexual life) is a sin(violates the spirit of christ or the holy spirit) please explain, how living this comes against the 2nd commandment(the summation of ALL new covenant law) and the fruit of the spirit( the essence of the spirit of christ)gal5...............................................or are you saying that homosexuality is a violation of regulation(apart from any violation of spirit(christs) as in deut 28 in the old covenant. that under the new covenant we still have a relationship to god thru regulation along with the relationship we have directly to the one who lives in each believer.

my understanding is that under the new we are led by the spirit (holy spirit).........."he will show you all truth" and that there is no law under the new covenant that isnt about the essence of the 2nd commandment.(the law to make us "conscious" of NOT loving our neighbor as ourself, romans) that concerning the law apart from the essence of the 2nd commanmndment "all things are permissible but not everything is constructive"1corr

slaveoftheking said...

feet, a few things:

The disestablishment clause in the constitution was about federal government, not state governments.

Romans 1:24-27 clearly states sexual acts between people of the same gender are debased and unnatural in God's eyes.

As for your understanding of the New Covenant: the NT consistently teaches that we are not under the Mosaic covenant considered as system, but simultaneously says repeatedly that there are moral norms for the church (and the human race in general). For example, 1 cor 6:9-10 gives a list of behaviours which will keep one from eternal fellowship with God (and since eternal life is something that begins now, they will also keep one from fellowship with God now).

You misunderstand the second greatest commandment. You seem to be inferring from the fact that it is to "love your neighbour" that that love is defined by whatever you might feel is loving. This is not the case. Just as in the Old Age, even in the age of the Spirit people are still sinful, sometimes drastically and habitually so, even if they are Christian, and so what we feel is loving is not a guide to what is really loving in God's eyes. We need to obey the words of Spirit-produced scripture to know what God thinks is loving, and scripture consistently portrays same-sex activity as against God's creative intentions for human sexuality.

Finally, the quote you gave from 1 Cor 6:12 is generally recognized by interpreters to be something the Corinthians have said which Paul is responding to, not something Paul himself is asserting.