Rally to draw attention to ‘Repeal Obergefell’ movement

Ex-gays to speak in favor of traditional marriage

 

marriage_definition

When the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling that Chief Justice John Roberts argued in dissent was unconnected to the U.S. Constitution, created same-sex “marriage” in 2015, progressives cheered.

But the impact went beyond marriage,  creating a conflict between newly acquired LGBT rights and the constitutional right of citizens to exercise their religion.

Among the victims was Jack Phillips, who was sued over and over for refusing to use his wedding artistry to promote what the Bible defines as sin. And Melissa Klein, for the same. In addition, wedding venue operators, calligraphers and photographers have been targeted because of their beliefs.

Now a rally is being held to promote a movement to repeal of the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision.

It’s being organized by Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality and others.

He contends the “gay marriage” decision was based on the lie that homosexuality is immutable, like race.

How does he know? He will have a number of former homosexuals, including David Arthur, confirm that.

The rally, on a public sidewalk near the Supreme Court in Washington, will point out the fundamental flaw in the majority opinion from Anthony Kennedy, now retired, who claimed homosexuality or sexual orientation is immutable.

“Yet many men and women have left this immoral lifestyle behind,” LaBarbera’s announcement said.

“Arthur and several others who came out of homosexuality and gender confusion (transgenderism) will speak at this year’s ‘Repeal Obergefell’ rally,” the announcement said.

It was held  at 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, June 26.

That day is the fourth anniversary of the decision that, rally organizers say, gave America the “unconstitutional, immoral and tyrannical Obergefell v. Hodges.”

The announcement says: “They have the media. They have the power. They have the money. But we have the truth.”

Speakers included former homosexual Stephen Black of First Stone Ministries, former female-to-male transgender Laura Perry, Pastor Stephen Broden of Fair Park Bible Fellowship. Others are LaBarbera, Arthur, Bruce Johnson of Metropolitan Marriage Association and constitutional law expert William Olson.

The issue has been in headlines because Democratic candidate Pete Buttigieg, a professing Christian, has attacked the Christian beliefs of Vice President Mike Pence and others on the issue.

But LaBarbera described Buttigieg as “a living, walking and breathing example of the politicized sham that is religious-left ‘Christianity’ today. He claims that God created him as a homosexual – a self-serving blasphemy as audacious as it is biblically nonsensical.”

The announcement said, “Predictably, ‘Mayor Pete’ has quickly become the darling of a media who incessantly promote all things ‘gay’ and ‘trans’ — and who loathe socially conservative Christians who actually believe the Bible in humility, and fear God in reverence.

“The simple truth is that homosexual behaviors are wrong, unnatural, and often unhealthy – yet can be overcome through the grace and power of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 6), as testified by countless ex-‘gays’ and former ‘transgenders.’ No faithful Christian proudly identifies by his or her besetting sins, nor seeks to justify them before a holy God.”

Original here


Differing Views on Christian Doctrine, Identity and Homosexuality – Charts

A Liberal Order That Seeks To Shut Down Christian Charities Doesn’t Deserve To Survive

Christian post-liberals on the right have seen how readily the liberal center-left and the Chamber-of-Commerce right surrender to the extreme and illiberal left. It makes them wonder: Why not us?

A Liberal Order That Seeks To Shut Down Christian Charities Doesn’t Deserve To Survive

Dec 26, 2019

It is a basic Christian teaching that good works are insufficient for spiritual salvation. We should also remember they are unlikely to suffice for cultural and political salvation either.

Chick-fil-A’s abandonment of The Salvation Army is yesterday’s news, but its lessons should be remembered, for they explain our cultural and political trajectory. That the chicken chain capitulated even though everyone was “eating mor chikin” is instructive regarding the power of the LBGT lobby and its allies. That they directed this power against a Christian organization dedicated to feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and sheltering the homeless — including those who identify as LGBT — is even more instructive.

It exemplifies how hard-liners are driving the cultural left. It is not clear that a majority even of those who identity as LGBT hate The Salvation Army. For example, Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg volunteered for the organization (albeit for a photo op) a couple of years back. Now he is facing criticism from LGBT activists, as those running the movement want total victory, not coexistence. And they are winning.

The campaign included government officials from Buffalo, New York, to San Antonio, Texas, retaliating against Chick-fil-A for its support of The Salvation Army. Even without full control over the government, the left has been aggressive in its use of government power against Christians who believe traditional teachings on human sexuality. The left seems to target particularly those engaged in charitable work, rather than protecting them on account of their good works.

The left’s legal wing is trying to compel Christian hospitals to perform abortions and sex-change surgeries, Christian schools to affirm same-sex relationships, and Christian charities such as women’s shelters to pretend men can be women. A purportedly serious Democratic presidential candidate wanted to tax dissenting Christian organizations, including churches, into oblivion.

The left won’t even spare elderly nuns. When the Trump administration ended Barack Obama’s legal campaign against the Little Sisters of the Poor, various Democratic attorneys general made a point of continuing that unholy effort.

The Rise of Post-Liberal Christianity

This should not surprise us. Jesus promised that the powers of this world would hate his followers, not that they would love us if we were virtuous. While we Christians should always strive to be more like Christ, we should not succumb to a quasi-Pelagianism that presumes our winsomeness determines how others receive the gospel. Christ himself was crucified, and the grace and charity many martyrs exemplified did not save them from persecution unto death.

But that we should expect trouble in this world does not mean we should be disinterested regarding politics, nor does it excuse governments that oppose the church and oppress its people. That our nation seems to be starting down this path has intensified Christian reconsiderations of liberal political theory. Although our government ostensibly protects the freedoms of religion, association, and speech, procedural liberalism increasingly appears insufficient to protect our rights or to ensure a culture of tolerance and pluralism that includes Christians who maintain the traditional teachings of our faith.

The supposedly neutral principles of the legal left consistently restrict the rights and opportunities of orthodox Christians, and the left always pushes the envelope. Christian litigators should, of course, do their best to defend our rights, and thank God for their efforts, but it should be no surprise that more and more Christians are intrigued by varieties of post-liberal thinking, including previously marginalized ideas such as Catholic integralism. It is understandable that Christians are turning against the system of liberal democratic capitalism as it turns against them.

Post-liberal Christians are unlikely to find their minority status daunting, for they see that minorities can win if they are determined and the institutions they face are weak and full of cowards. After all, a minority of hard-line leftists control cultural, economic, and political pressure points that grant them power far beyond their numbers.

For example, the 2020 Democratic field is so radically pro-abortion that even The New York Times has noticed. The Democratic Party stands for abortion today, abortion tomorrow, and abortion forever, as Sen. Elizabeth Warren illustrated in promising that at her inauguration — angels and ministers of grace defend us! — she will wear swag to rep the nation’s largest abortion chain.

Christian post-liberals on the right have seen how readily the liberal center-left and the Chamber-of-Commerce right surrender to the extreme and illiberal left and wonder: Why not us? A decadent and despairing culture with weak institutions and degraded elites is precisely the sort that a determined minority might govern.

Thus, they see an opportunity as our culture disintegrates despite its wealth and technological prowess. Liberal individualism seems to be devouring itself: Fertility is down, loneliness and depression have increased, and deaths of despair from suicide, drugs, and alcohol are way up.

Should Liberalism Be Preserved?

Perhaps it is time to be bold and reorder society toward the highest good, rather than accepting liberalism’s dishonest promises of “live and let live” neutrality. As some post-liberal thinkers note, we increasingly live in a non-Christian integralist society that mandates belief in sectarian dogmas, such as the mystical belief that a man may become — indeed, may already be — a woman. Therefore, they see the alternative to post-liberal Christian politics not as liberalism, but as some sort of post-Christian illiberal politics.

I am sympathetic to some of the post-liberal thought developing on the right. I see the appeal, especially as liberalism’s promise of legal neutrality is exposed as so much fiction. I share many of the critiques of liberal political theory and find its discourse far more interesting than the stale talking points of neoliberals and neoconservatives.

But I am neither Catholic nor Calvinist enough to be much of an integralist, and I remain more skeptical of the likelihood of governmental efficacy and rectitude than many post-liberals seem to be. I also remain attached to many liberal practices, such as the right to trial by jury.

I am, in short, still thinking over these matters and am not entirely in either camp. From this in-between, I would recommend post-liberal thinkers reflect on the frailty and fallibility of human institutions. I also suggest that the defenders of liberal democratic capitalism take the critiques of post-liberals seriously. A liberal order that seeks to shut down Christian charities for nonconformist views on human sexuality does not deserve to survive.

Nathanael Blake is a Senior Contributor at The Federalist. He has a PhD in political theory. He lives in Missouri.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/12/26/a-liberal-order-that-seeks-to-shut-down-christian-charities-doesnt-deserve-to-survive/

Sydney Archbishop Cautions Against ‘Safe Spaces’ and ‘Trigger Warnings’

SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA - DECEMBER 16: Archbishop of Sydney, Most Reverend Anthony Fisher celebrates a mass to pay respect to the victims of the Martin Place siege on December 16, 2014 in Sydney, Australia. Sydney siege gunman Man Haron Monis, was shot dead by police in the early hours of Tuesday …

 

THOMAS D. WILLIAMS, PH.D. 25 Dec 2019

Sydney Archbishop Anthony Fisher warned against the dangers of identity politics in his Christmas morning homily, suggesting that today’s snowflakes risk falling victims to a toxic narcissism.

“As desires change, we can revise our bodies surgically or our beliefs ideologically,” the archbishop said. “But reducing ourselves to our tastes or to a single attribute risks neglecting other important things about us.”

“Amidst celebrity adulation and identity politics, narcissism is now endemic. Too much focus on identity can be distorting,” he warned.

Preaching to a standing room-only crowd of some 2,000 Catholics at St. Mary’s Cathedral Wednesday morning, Fisher said that the modern “era of liquid personality” and “self-generated identities” runs counter to people’s true identities before God.

“Some of our I.D. comes from family, nation and culture,” he said. “But modernity prefers self-generated identities. Much of it is said to be about what we identify with.”

“Sometimes it’s just code for self-indulgence,” Fisher declared. “We humor our preferences with the excuse ‘it’s who we are.’ No need to abide by laws of faith and reason, or to compromise to the needs of others.”

“Safe spaces and trigger warnings coddle our fragile egos,” he added.

Much of the archbishop’s homily seemed aimed at modern theories of gender identity, which propose that a person’s sexual identity is fluid rather than biologically anchored and that sexual orientation is the defining attribute of personal identity.

Fisher said there were “forces” seeking to marginalize the Christian identity in particular, which require a recommitment to the faith from believers.

“If we are confused about values and vocation, we’ll be disinclined to plan or commit. Disengaged from family, Church and society, we fall easy prey to isolation or extremism,” he said.

“Forces threaten our identity and even our existence from the first moment of conception. Some seek to marginalize Christian identity in particular,” he said.

At the same time, people continue to seek God and his truth, the archbishop suggested, as evidenced by the presence of so many at Christmas Mass.

“But your presence here today speaks volumes. It says that our core identity as Christians graces us to be, not just better believers, but better friends and lovers, children and parents, citizens and colleagues,” he said.

In the end, Christmas brings a message of salvific love and turning to Christ means looking for our redemption — and our identity — in Him.

“To call Him our Saviour is to say we need saving – from sin, death, enemies, even ourselves,” Fisher said. “We need liberation – from vices, addictions, all that cages our spirit.”

“To call Him Son, Grace and Glory of God, is to acknowledge that we need a power greater than ourselves. To call Him Wonder-Counsellor, Almighty God and Prince of Peace is to recognize that He has remade us as the wisdom, peace and glory of God,” he said.

https://www.breitbart.com/faith/2019/12/25/sydney-archbishop-cautions-against-safe-spaces-and-trigger-warnings/

VIDEO Latest ‘Marketing of Evil’: ‘Life-changing’ or ‘worst book ever’?

Re-release of David Kupelian’s culture-war classic rekindles fiery controversy

Nov 23, 2019

Dear friends,

marketing-of-evil-paperback

It’s been viciously attacked in leftwing circles as “hate speech,” “despicable” and “the worst book ever” – and even formally condemned by faculty vote on one college campus,  resulting in lawsuits and campus hysteria. But my first book, “The Marketing of Evil,” which has just gone through its (I think) 15th printing and is now available in paperback, is still driving some people crazy, while inspiring others to say it has changed their lives.

In case you’re unfamiliar with it, “The Marketing of Evil” basically explains why and how millions of today’s Americans have come to strongly embrace ideas and behaviors that are corrupt, destructive or insane.

As I explain in the book’s introduction, “Within the space of our lifetime, much of what Americans once almost universally abhorred has been packaged, perfumed, gift-wrapped, and sold to us as though it had great value. By skillfully playing on our deeply felt national values of fairness, generosity, and tolerance, these marketers have persuaded us to embrace as enlightened and noble that which every other generation has regarded as grossly self-destructive – in a word, evil.”

And although the book has been popular and influential – conservative marketing guru and former Heritage Foundation VP Rebecca Hagelin recently described it as “one of the most important books of the last 20 years” – unfortunately not everyone feels so warmly about it.

For example, within a few months of its release, “The Marketing of Evil” became the focal point of a national scandal when several openly homosexual professors at Ohio State University brought “sexual harassment” charges against head librarian Scott Savage, a Christian, after he recommended “The Marketing of Evil” as required reading for all incoming freshmen. The gay profs maintained that merely recommending the book constituted an act of “harassment due to sexual orientation.” (Chapter 1 documents, in LGBT leaders’ own words, their brilliant but little-known strategies for mainstreaming homosexuality and sexual anarchy in a largely Christian country.)

The rest of the faculty members were so intimidated by the angry gay professors that they either voted in agreement with them or abstained out of fear. It was so obviously bizarre and unjust that major media exposure by Sean Hannity, Brit Hume on Fox’s “Special Report,” MSNBC, the New York Post, Human Events and many others – plus stout legal pressure from the Alliance Defending Freedom – caused the university to cave and drop the absurd charges.

As a direct consequence of being publicly branded as “hate literature” and “homophobic tripe” by the Ohio State University faculty, “The Marketing of Evil” immediately became one of the hottest-selling books in the country, topping Amazon’s daily “Current Events” bestseller chart for more than a week.

‘It changed my life!’

Meanwhile, on Amazon, the controversial book has garnered over 500 five-star reader reviews. While a few nasty one-star reviews describe the book as “horrendous,” “truly despicable” and “serving the anti-Christ,” and even accuse me personally of being a “Nazi,” “scum” and “social blight,” the vast majority are much more positive:

  • “Opening this book is like turning on the Sun. … Mr. David Kupelian has written a remarkable book that reveals how the American public has been taken down the slippery slope of moral relativism.”
  • “I finished ‘The Marketing of Evil’ over a month ago. It absolutely changed my life.”
  • “Prepare to see your world with new eyes!”
  • “The way Kupelian writes is phenomenal. … Give this book to everyone you know, you’ll thank me.”
  • “This book has put a powerful voice to many things that truth-loving people in America have felt in their spirits for a long, long time. … I for one am forever changed.”

Pastors fired up

As a result of such notoriety, “The Marketing of Evil” eventually lit a fire in a place where it was more welcome – the nation’s churches. From small-town churches and prayer groups to one of America’s largest Presbyterian congregations, Christian leaders and laymen started getting hold of the book, sometimes by the case, to hand out to fellow churchgoers.

The biggest single church has been that of the late D. James Kennedy, who until his death was perhaps the world’s most influential Presbyterian minister and founder of Coral Ridge Ministries in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. Calling “The Marketing of Evil” a “powerful new book that I wish every Christian in America could read,” Kennedy took the dramatic step of printing 15,000 special-edition softcover copies which he sent to thousands of supporters.

‘A magician’s secrets’

Despite the ongoing controversy, many major conservative and Christian voices have singled out “The Marketing of Evil” as essential reading:

  • “David Kupelian is one of the very few must-read writers in the 21st Century.” – Dr. Ted Baehr, Chairman, Christian Film and Television Commission
  • “If you really want to understand the adversary’s thinking and help turn the tide of battle, read this book!” – David Limbaugh, columnist and bestselling author
  • “Like the dazzling disclosures in the final page of a gripping whodunit or the fascinating revelation of a magician’s secrets, ‘The Marketing of Evil’ irresistibly exposes how it was done.” – Rabbi Daniel Lapin, American Alliance of Jews and Christians
  • “Every parent in America needs to read this book.” – Michelle Malkin, columnist and bestselling author
  • “David Kupelian is one of the most thought-provoking and iconoclastic writers I know.” – Sean Hannity, host of the No. 1 rated Fox News’ “Hannity” show as well as “The Sean Hannity Radio Show”

Watch former “Saturday Night Live” star (and committed Christian) Victoria Jackson talk about “The Marketing of Evil” and its sequel, “How Evil Works.”

The big screen

In 2017, “The Marketing of Evil” was featured in the Hollywood movie “I am Michael” starring James Franco and Zachary Quinto.

marketing of evil i am michael

Scene from “I Am Michael”

In this amazing true story, Franco, playing the lead role of high-profile “gay rights” activist Michael Glatze, is shown reading “The Marketing of Evil” during the pivotal scene in which Glatze publicly renounces his “gay” identification and reveals he wants to live for God. The real-life Glatze, who left the homosexual lifestyle in 2007 and become a happily married Christian pastor, has said reading “The Marketing of Evil” played a significant role in helping him in his dramatic personal journey.

That’s all – except to say I’ve arranged to have the price dropped to its lowest ever, lower then Amazon, low enough for anyone wanting a few extra copies to give to friends and loved ones (like maybe for Christmas).

Thank you!

David Kupelian, Vice President and Managing Editor of WND, Editor of Whistleblower magazine, author of “The Marketing of Evil,” “How Evil Works” and “The Snapping of the American Mind”

SPECIAL OFFER: Get David Kupelian’s “The Marketing of Evil” in paperback for just $9.99!

And get “The Marketing of Evil” AUDIOBOOK – read by the author – for the super-discounted price of $9.99 (reduced from $27.99)!

Also, get the acclaimed sequel, “How Evil Works,” as well as his latest blockbuster, “The Snapping of the American Mind: Healing a Nation Broken by a Lawless Government and Godless Culture.”

Follow David Kupelian on Facebook.

Original here

Chick-fil-A Should Take A Lesson From The Salvation Army And Stop Bowing To The LGBT Left

In the left’s crusade against the Christian faith, it harms the people it purports to defend. This means good people must ensure no one in need is left behind, and for the record, The Salvation Army is very good people.

Chick-fil-A Should Take A Lesson From The Salvation Army And Stop Bowing To The LGBT Left

Nov 21, 2019 by By Chad Felix Greene

Chick-fil-A stated Monday that starting at the beginning of the year it will no longer donate to The Salvation Army, to which the restaurant franchise gave $115,000 in 2018. This decision came shortly after LGBT groups pressured Chick-fil-A into closing its first location in the United Kingdom.

Chick-fil-A was accused of donating money to, as CNN reported, “anti-LGBTQ” organizations, including The Salvation Army. GLAAD, an LGBT organization, argued LGBT people should “greet today’s announcement with cautious optimism,” while LGBTQ Nation dismissed the change as merely a PR move to make more money. The accusation of The Salvation Army as an “anti-LGBTQ” organization, however, requires a deeper dive.

If you read The Salvation Army’s page dedicated to LGBT concerns, you might imagine it was from any major LGBT advocacy website. The first posted statement concerns housing obstacles for some LGBT people. It states, “Because LGBTQ Americans living in poverty often experience unacceptable homophobia and transphobia, many become homeless.”

Arguing that nearly one-third of transgender people have been rejected from homeless shelters around the country, The Salvation Army provides details about a dorm in Las Vegas it built specifically to help this vulnerable group. Their messaging addresses substance abuse, access to food, job training, and suicide prevention.

Stating that a donation to its cause can provide three nights of shelter, the charity assures the reader, “When a transgender person seeks help from us, we serve them in the same manner as any other person seeking assistance.” It even offers rental and utility assistance, arguing on behalf of LGBT Americans, which it states are more likely to be poor.

This information is not buried deep within the website, either, to be found only through dedicated searching. On its What We Do page, The Salvation Army includes “Serving the LGBTQ Community” right alongside “Love the Elderly” and “Stop Domestic Abuse.” It clearly communicates that the burdens of LGBT people in need are just as urgent and important as everyone else’s.

Pop Culture Clashes with The Salvation Army

Yet British singer Ellie Goulding recently told her fans she would refuse to participate in the Dallas Cowboys versus Buffalo Bills game on Thanksgiving Day, sponsored by The Salvation Army, saying, “[S]upporting an anti-LGBTQ charity is clearly not something I would ever intentionally do.” Goulding previously worked with The Salvation Army and posted on her Instagram the work she had done.

She did so with pride. It was only after fans began inundating her with outrage that she changed her position. One fan lamented, “A little disappointed considering the salvation army has a long standing history of anti lgbtq+ rhetoric. i appreciate the positive things they do but there are other, better organizations that don’t discriminate against others.” Another said, “They only help *certain* people. Very homophobic, transphobic, anti-LGBTQIA+ organization. Please do your research before endorsing a company that continues to hurt our community.”

Goulding gave The Salvation Army an ultimatum. “Upon researching this, I have reached out to The Salvation Army and said that I would have no choice but to pull out unless they very quickly make a solid, committed pledge or donation to the LGBTQ community,” she said.

Jon Rich, a Salvation Army commander in the area serving the upcoming football game, quickly responded: “It brings attention to how inclusive we are as an organization and serving everyone no matter who they are, what their sexual orientation is, what their station in life is. We serve without discrimination.” After reaching out to Goulding and reassuring her of The Salvation Army’s equal treatment of all people, she agreed to do the show.

The Salvation Army Northern Division FAQ page provides insight, addressing concerns related to how it engages with LGBT people. The page firmly states, “Any person who comes through our doors will receive assistance based on their need and our capacity to help.”

The organization investigates and takes action in cases of alleged discrimination. It has spent $300,000 on diverse lobbying efforts in the last two decades, 0.0009 percent of its income. As Rich stated regarding same-sex employees, “Now, nationwide we offer health benefits to same-sex couples, no questions asked.” He continued, “But we think everyone should have access to healthcare. So why wouldn’t we do that?”

LGBT Media Goes After the Salvation Army Regardless

Despite this overwhelming assurance that The Salvation Army in no way endorses or engages in discrimination or hatred toward LGBT people, LGBT media overwhelming include it in lists of “anti-LGBT” organizations. ThinkProgress in 2019 argued, “The Salvation Army has a long record of opposing legal protections for LGBTQ Americans.” The Huffington Post cited the same reasoning, “The Salvation Army, which has an extensive record of anti-LGBTQ advocacy.”

Transgender activist Zinnia Jones published a list of the organization’s anti-LGBTQ history on the Huffington Post back in 2013, and it has been referenced ever since. The list begins in 1986 and covers the organization worldwide, which is active in 130 countries.

The official list includes five examples. In 1986, the New Zealand Salvation Army helped collect signatures to oppose a law that would decriminalize homosexuality and issued an official apology in 2008. In 1998 a branch in San Francisco chose to turn down money from the city that included a requirement to provide benefits to employees with same-sex partners.

In 2000, the Salvation Army of Scotland submitted a letter to Parliament opposing the teaching of homosexuality in public schools. In 2001, the U.S. branch lobbied to protect religious institutions from being held liable under anti-discrimination policies. The Salvation Army addressed this, saying, “[T]he effort was solely focused on allowing our clergy and those involved in our religious activities to work on federally funded social service programs without having to compromise core religious beliefs.”

In 2012, the only stated accusation of discrimination, Danielle Morantez, a case worker for the office in Burlington, Vermont, claimed she was fired after coming out as bisexual. The story’s latest update appeared in 2012 on the GLAAD website. Jones recognized then that The Salvation Army had already set up pro-LGBT pages and removed reportedly offensive information on its site.

Confusion Over Biblical Teaching on Sexuality

Also in 2012, a controversy arose, as the Washington Blade reported, “[A] Salvation Army spokesperson told an interviewer that gay people deserve death, according to scripture.” The Salvation Army addressed this as well, stating, “The officer was responding to a question about a Bible passage which most Christians understand to be a discussion of spiritual death, meaning a separation from God, their creator.” The organization widely condemned the statements shortly after the interview was reported.

Essentially, the issue for LGBT activists, despite the information the organization has provided over the last two decades, is as Jones puts it, “These statements completely ignore the reality that the Salvation Army continues to maintain anti-gay theological stances.”

Time and time again, the biblical belief system of the organization itself comes up as a fundamental argument used to demonstrate the hatred and bigotry the organization represents: “The Salvation Army states clearly they believe, The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God, and that they only constitute the Divine rule of Christian faith and practice.” For many on the left, this alone is enough to dismiss the organization as hateful.

In 2013 Jones made the plea, “Supporting the Salvation Army this season, whether by tossing your change in their red kettles or donating your used goods to their resale shops, means assisting an aggressively anti-gay church in furthering its goals of discrimination.”

In 2018, LGBT author James Finn wrote, “Did you know that when you give money to the Salvation Army, you’re giving money to a church? Did you know that the Church is viciously homophobic and transphobic, fighting all over the world for the right to discriminate against LGBTQ people?” This reasoning, in part, motivated Noah Michelson to pen his 2018 Huffington Post article titled “If You Really Love LGBTQ People, You Just Can’t Keep Eating Chick-fil-A.”

The Good Guys Shouldn’t Bow to the Outrage Mob

Regardless of the factual information, the context of several decades, scattered accusations firmly condemned by the core organization, and the open welcoming of LGBT people, all that matters for the left is the idea of Christian faith behind it all. As CNN reported, “The Salvation Army has said in the past that the Bible forbids sexual intimacy between members of the same sex, that gay Christians should embrace celibacy and that scripture does not support same-sex marriages.” This on its own seems enough to justify the left’s hatred.

The thing about attempting to appease those who hate you is that whatever you do will only deepen their suspicion of you. As GLAAD’s director of campaigns and rapid response Drew Anderson cautioned, “In addition to refraining from financially supporting anti-LGBTQ organizations, Chick-fil-A still lacks policies to ensure safe workplaces for LGBTQ employees and should unequivocally speak out against the anti-LGBTQ reputation that their brand represents.” It will never be enough when the opposition views you as a threat based on what they think you believe rather than on what you express to the world.

Christians should follow The Salvation Army’s lead and continue to stand for their faith while speaking to the accusations against them and opening their arms as they would anyway. But we cannot underestimate the power of propaganda and simply hope Chick-fil-A realizes the mistake it has made. The Salvation Army argued, “When misinformation is perpetuated without fact, our ability to serve those in need, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, religion or any other factor, is at risk.”

In the left’s crusade against the Christian faith it refuses to understand or tolerate, it harms the people it claims to defend and protect. This means good people must step up to ensure no one in need is left behind in the meantime, and for the record, The Salvation Army is very good people.

Chad Felix Greene is a senior contributor to The Federalist. He is the author of the “Reasonably Gay: Essays and Arguments” series and is a social writer focusing on truth in media, conservative ideas and goals, and true equality under the law. You can follow him on Twitter @chadfelixg.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/21/chick-fil-a-should-take-a-lesson-from-the-salvation-army-and-stop-bowing-to-the-lgbt-left/


I am a Salvation Army volunteer, including for  Katrina, and a former Board Chairman and former Board member 

City sued for demanding photographer violate faith

Yet another fight over ‘nondiscrimination’ ordinances that promotes the LGBT minority

Nov 23, 2019

(Image courtesy Pixabay)

 

Stop me if you’ve heard this one.

Oh wait, you HAVE heard this one.

Because it’s happening all over.

The newest situation where a local “nondiscrimination” demand is creating issues because of its claim to be able to force Christians to violate their faith in order to do business comes from Louisville, Kentucky.

Such situation already have erupted in Oregon, New Mexico, Colorado, California and dozens of other locations. Bakers, photographers, florists, video makers and calligraphers have been targeted, so far.

The situation, according to the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is working on behalf of photographer Chelsey Nelson and her Chelsey Nelson Photography, is that “Louisville law … forces her to use her artistic talents to promote same-sex wedding ceremonies if she photographs and blogs about weddings between one man and one woman.”

“The Louisville law also forbids [her] from publicly explaining to clients and potential clients through her studio’s own website or social media sites the religious reasons why she only celebrates wedding ceremonies between one man and one woman. Louisville considers such ‘communications’ as indicating that services will be denied or that someone’s patronage would be ‘objectionable, unwelcome, unacceptable, or undesirable’ because of sexual orientation,” ADF reported.

It was the U.S. Supreme Court that created the dispute, when it fabricated several years ago the idea of same-sex marriage. That opinion, according to the chief justice, was unrelated to the Constitution.

The opinion purported to assure Americans that those who believe in traditional marriage, a foundation of society for millennia, still would be protected. But Justice Samuel Alita, at the time, wasn’t convinced.

“I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools,” he warned.

That’s what’s happening, according to the new case.

Explained Kate Anderson, senior counsel for the ADF, “Artists shouldn’t be censored, fined, or forced out of business simply for disagreeing with the government’s preferred views,. The government must allow artists the freedom to make personal decisions about what art they can and can’t create.

“No matter one’s views on marriage, we all lose when bureaucrats can force citizens to participate in religious ceremonies they oppose or to speak messages they disagree with. On countless other topics, photographers and other artists can freely choose the stories they tell. Chelsey simply asks for the same freedom.”

Officials for Louisville declined to respond to a WND request for comment.

The ADF said its action is a “pre-enforcement challenge,” which lets citizens raise objections to city threats to their rights.

“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit and the Arizona Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of artists and filmmakers who brought similar pre-enforcement challenges against laws like Louisville’s. ADF attorneys are asking the court to halt enforcement of the law against Nelson and her business while her lawsuit proceeds,” the ADF said.

“Every American, including photographers and writers, should be free to peacefully live and work according to their faith without fear of unjust punishment by the government,” added ADF Senior Counsel Jonathan Scruggs. “Chelsey serves all people. But Louisville is trying to compel Chelsey’s speech, force her participation in ceremonies she objects to, and eliminate her editorial control over her photographs and blog. It’s unlawful to coerce an artist to create messages against her will and intimidate her into silence just because the city disagrees with her beliefs.”

The case is pending in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.

It explains the city law violates the U.S. Constitution, including the First Amendment’s Free Speech and Free Exercise clauses.

ADF said, “The complaint indicates that an online directory lists 91 photographers in Louisville and 314 photographers in Kentucky who will photograph same-sex weddings—many of whom express support for same-sex marriage by posting statements promoting same-sex marriage on their websites and by displaying photographs of same-sex weddings on their websites, blogs, and social media sites.”

There have been at least 15 cases – based on the 2015 Obergefell decision by the U.S. Supreme that established a right to same-sex marriage – in which Christians have been prosecuted for running their wedding-related businesses according to the principles of their faith.

That’s even though that original opinion claimed to assure: “Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here.”

 

Original here

Hiding Behind The Supreme Court Won’t Stop Beto O’Rourke’s Crusade To Punish Orthodox Religion

In addition to showing the left’s trajectory on religious freedom, O’Rourke’s comments also reveal why conservatives are faring so poorly on the LGBT front of the culture war.

Hiding Behind The Supreme Court Won’t Stop Beto O’Rourke’s Crusade To Punish Orthodox Religion

Oct 17, 2019

In 2003, the Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made a rather prophetic statement in his dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), a Supreme Court ruling that struck down anti-sodomy laws across the country. After excoriating the majority for simply waving away the long-held notion that sodomy was a form of sexual immorality that the state had a legitimate interest in prohibiting, Scalia wrote:

One of the benefits of leaving regulation of this matter to the people rather than to the courts is that the people, unlike judges, need not carry things to their logical conclusion. The people may feel that their disapprobation of homosexual conduct is strong enough to disallow homosexual marriage, but not strong enough to criminalize private homosexual acts — and may legislate accordingly. The Court today pretends that it possesses a similar freedom of action, so that that we need not fear judicial imposition of homosexual marriage. … Do not believe it.

In other words, Scalia was declaring, “It’s not within the nature of courts to remain neutral on moral issues. By declaring that the government can’t prohibit homosexual acts today, the court is guaranteeing that the government will be celebrating homosexual acts tomorrow.”

A mere 12 years later, the Supreme Court, via Obergefell v. Hodges, declared every state prohibition against same-sex marriage unconstitutional, with Justice Anthony Kennedy justifying the majority’s opinion by lauding the beauty of homosexual relationships. While Scalia’s words did indeed prove prophetic, they were not perfectly so.

Legalizing gay marriage may have been taking the court’s logic to the next logical step, but it wasn’t the logical conclusion of declaring that the state can’t punish those who engage in homosexuality. Rather, the logical conclusion of the court’s judgment in Lawrence is saying the state must punish those still clinging to the former orthodoxy.

O’Rourke Shows Left’s Trajectory on LGBT Issues

This is something presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke demonstrated in a recent CNN forum on LGBT issues. When Don Lemon asked him if churches and religious organizations that oppose same-sex marriage should lose their tax-exempt status, O’Rourke replied with a firm “Yes.”

Then O’Rourke explained his position by stating, “There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone or any institution, any organization in America, that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us. So as president, we’re going to make that a priority, and we are going to stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of our fellow Americans.”

While one might dismiss O’Rourke as an outlier, it’s worth noting that his response met cheers from the audience and tepid disavowals from a few of his fellow would-be Democrat nominees who couldn’t sufficiently explain why they disagreed, indicating the former congressman’s position is more mainstream among leftists than we might think, even if many on the left recognize it’s not wise to state that view publicly.

Quite simply, O’Rourke’s plan to tax religious groups opposed to same-sex marriage is not merely the hard-left pandering of an unserious candidate trying desperately to bring his poll numbers above negative-400 percent. It’s the logical conclusion of the illiberal philosophy embraced in Lawrence.

Yesterday the state said homosexuality is neutral. Today the state says homosexuality is good. Tomorrow the state will say opposing homosexuality is bad and must therefore be punished. While O’Rourke’s position may be too hot for the eventual nominee to embrace right now, don’t be surprised if it becomes the official platform of the Democratic National Committee the moment it becomes clear they can win the presidency while giving churches, synagogues, and mosques the sin tax treatment.

In addition to showing the left’s trajectory on religious freedom, O’Rourke’s comments also reveal why conservatives are faring so poorly on the LGBT front of the culture war.

While most Americans would probably describe their general approach to human sexuality as “live and let live,” most Americans also intuitively understand that the “live and let live” doctrine gets complicated when people’s sexual practices and identities follow them into public places. When that messiness arises, both conservatives and progressives have the chance to convince people that their respective solutions will get things tidied up. Why, then, are conservatives losing so many of these battles for the hearts and minds of the general public?

The Folly of ‘Live and Let Live’

To answer that question, consider transgenderism. “Live and let live” flies out the window the moment a man identifying as a woman shows up in the ladies’ bathroom and makes the women in the room uncomfortable. Likewise, how do you solve the problem when public schools demand that teachers use students’ preferred pronouns and some teachers object?

Progressives promise to clean up this mess by carrying their beliefs to their logical conclusion. Transgenderism, they argue, is a perfectly valid identity the state should celebrate and defend. And because it harms people to have their identity rejected, the state must therefore compel others to acknowledge it — thus, force institutions to have transgender bathroom policies. Force taxpayers to subsidize transgender surgery. Fire teachers for refusing to use students’ preferred pronouns. Follow Canada’s example and remove children from their parents if they refuse to embrace their kid’s trans identity.

Conservatives, however, have shown little willingness to follow their own principles likewise to their logical actions. By and large, we assert that transgenderism is, at best, a phase and, at worst, a form of mental illness, so it should follow that the way to clean up the mess is to use the state’s power to hinder those who would do physical and psychological harm to those struggling with a false sense of identity. Yet we are largely unwilling to urge the state to do this.

We aren’t willing to say that mothers who shove their supposedly gender-nonconforming children in front of TV cameras should have their children removed from their homes. We aren’t using the power we have in red states to pass laws promising revoked medical licenses and perhaps even jail time for doctors who prescribe puberty-blocking drugs to minors and chop off perfectly functional sex organs. When trans students show up at schools and demand that teachers use their preferred pronouns, we aren’t willing to say, “The solution to this problem is to forbid males from coming to school dressed as females and vice versa while they get the help they need.”

In all of this, we refuse to clean up the “live and let live” mess by carrying our beliefs to their logical conclusion, which frequently convinces the undecided public that they should probably side with the people who will. That’s why Sen. Elizabeth Warren didn’t consider it political suicide to cheer the bravery of a 9-year-old girl living as a boy. That’s why we’re losing.

Conservatives Need More Than a Supreme Court Ruling

It is, of course, important for conservatives to keep defending those dragged into court for refusing to accept the new LGBT orthodoxy. And God bless those florists, bakers, and educators who have refused to acquiesce to the state’s demands, but not everyone has the mettle or the ability to wait five years for a favorable Supreme Court ruling.

For their sake, it would behoove conservatives to remember that you don’t win culture wars by refusing to fight until you get to the courthouse steps. Likewise, it’s also worth remembering that those who lose culture wars will eventually lose the constitutional protections in which they’ve sought sanctuary.

Sure, O’Rourke’s vindictive tax policy would likely be ruled unconstitutional by today’s Supreme Court. But the more comfortable our culture becomes with the idea of destroying dissenting churches via the power of taxation, the less confident we should be that future justices will maintain today’s understanding of the First Amendment. After all, if the Supreme Court, high on elitist zeitgeist, can stick its hands into the void and invent a constitutional right to abortion or to marry anyone, it can also invent a constitutional right to a clean conscience, which can only be preserved by silencing those repentance-preaching pastors and priests.

Quite simply, conservatives need to win converts to prevent progressives from devouring us. And that won’t happen if we refuse to carry our beliefs to their logical conclusions. So at the risk of rekindling the Ahmari-French debate, when conservatives express discomfort with the concept of obscenity laws, see drag queen story hour as a “blessing of liberty,” and won’t scream in defense of gender-confused children who are being abused by the people who are supposed to protect them, we aren’t clinging to our first principles. Rather, we’re forgetting the very first principle — namely that earthly governments are instituted by God to punish the wicked and reward the good in order to give us a peaceful and quiet life.

Because of this, we shouldn’t hesitate to use the state’s power to defend ourselves and our children from the kind of metastasizing libertinism that rots every brick of the public square it touches. If we don’t, as the journey from Lawrence v. Texas to Beto v. Traditional Christians, Jews, and Muslims shows, those who have gotten comfortable using the state to impose their perverse morality on us won’t tire of doing so any time soon.

Hans Fiene is a Lutheran pastor in Illinois and the creator of Lutheran Satire, a series of comical videos intended to teach the Lutheran faith. Follow him on Twitter, @HansFiene.
Photo LifeSiteNews

 

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/16/hiding-behind-the-supreme-court-wont-stop-beto-orourkes-crusade-to-punish-orthodox-religion/