Exposed: The Left’s Most Egregious Catch-22

I’ve been talking about this for years (as have many of my fellow conservatives).

It is something that should continue to be pressed relentlessly. In the politically correct analysis of what constitutes ‘hate speech,’ whose agenda reigns supreme?

I’m speaking specifically of the two most hostile sects of American citizenry these days: Militant gays and Militant Muslims.

We now have mega corporations and our own government bowing and capitulating to the sensitivities and preferences of Constitution-defying militants above and beyond the general population. Such sensitivities often result in the troubling manifestation of threats, lawsuits, and boycotts against private citizens (as well as public officials) who merely choose to exercise their first amendment right to free speech/expression of faith. Not only are people losing their businesses and livelihoods, but they are even threatened with bodily harm by activists determined to have their worldview imposed on the majority. Are we still living in America?

Our own president continues to lecture and admonish various non-Islamic (i.e. Kenya, India, etc.) countries for their lack of inclusivity and forward thinking (while ignoring the least tolerant – Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.). However, there must certainly come a time when the Islamic–easily the most prominent and aggressive persecutors of gays–call for adherence and sharia compliance will include the ‘LGBTs.’

Why are the proposed boycotts in places like Indiana not extending to those countries that throw poor souls alleged to exhibit same-sex desires off buildings?

These are the types of questions that must be asked of every liberal commentator, activist, theologian, and politician loudly and aggressively time and time again. This must be done boldly and repeatedly before even one more religious conservative is unjustly targeted, maligned, and vilified for soundly maintaining a right of conscience on well-founded religious and existential grounds. The general lack of moral consistency from the left is astounding.

Ultimately, this is the crux of the culture war. Thrust open this Pandora’s box, and we get to the true spiritual heart of the matter. The extended denial of the hypocrisy at play can only lead to one logical conclusion – complicity by design. We would be correct to recognize George Soros’ arbitrary global standard of morality as conceived in his reworked Open Society ideology to account for the seemingly incompatible dichotomy, no doubt.

Let the ramifications of a forced disclosure fly, that the one true God be soundly presented as The Solution!

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Boy Scouts President Just Made Stunning Move Regarding Gay Scout Leaders

Boy Scouts of America President Robert Gates ruffled more than a few feathers this week with a recommendation he made at the organization’s annual national meeting. The BSA’s longstanding ban on homosexual scout leaders, he said, is a policy in need of revision.

Citing a cultural shift in how gays are viewed in America – along with legal challenges against the right of Christians to speak out against homosexuality – Gates explained that it is only a matter of time before the Boy Scouts are taken to court because of its perceived discrimination against gays.

“If we wait for the courts to act,” he cautioned, “we could end up with a broad ruling that could forbid any kind of membership standard.”

Instead, Gates recommended a proactive policy allowing individual troops to set their own policies.

“Such an approach,” he explained, “would allow all churches, which sponsor some 70 percent of our Scout units, to establish leadership standards consistent with their faith. We must, at all costs, preserve the religious freedom of our church partners to do this.”

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which sponsors more Boy Scout troops than any other faith, has already responded to the new proposal. In a statement released this week, the church did not lay out any concrete plans, instead stating that if Gates is correct in his assurance that local groups may establish their own standards, “then the church is not likely to be affected.”

Gates’ recommendation was not the first controversial stance the BSA has taken regarding homosexuality. As Western Journalism reported in 2013, the organization lost support among some churches following its decision to allow homosexuals to become scouts.

Will allowing gay scout leaders further alienate the Boy Scouts from its faith-based supporters? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

If You’re Going To Have Two TV Icons Go Gay, At Least Have Aaron Sorkin Write It

I’m sorry.

I just cannot handle President Josiah Bartlett kissing New York District Attorney Jack McCoy on the lips.

I know that Grace and Frankie (a Netflix original series) is supposed to be a comedy about Martin Sheen and Sam Waterston coming out as gay and leaving their wives, Jane Fonda and Lily Tomlin, to marry each other.

I understand that homosexuality is the new big thing.

I understand that homosexuals have a lobby that would make the National Rifle Association or the Realtors blush.

I understand that according to their own lobby, 3.8% of Americans identify themselves as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. That’s as opposed to the 2% of Americans Mensa considers geniuses.

But wait. Only 1.7% of that 3.8% consider themselves gay or lesbian, which means that if their own statistics can be believed, there are actually more geniuses in the United States than people who have been making society uncomfortable with their attraction to the same sex.

That’s all great, but now we’re screwing with icons.

Liberal icons, but TV icons nonetheless.

I actually had to watch an episode of West Wing—fortunately, also on Netflix—to get rid of the bad taste of President Bartlett kissing DA McCoy on the lips. (“Decisions are made by those who show up.” Season 1 finale.)

And, with all due respect to the people who could put Martin Sheen, Sam Waterston, Lily Tomlin, and Jane Fonda in a single cast, it was hardly Aaron Sorkin’s (West Wing) or Dick Wolf’s (Law and Order) writing.

In fact, it wasn’t even the Dick Van Dyke Show. (Where’s Rose Marie when you need her?)

That’s right. You can have the best jockeys in the history of racing–but if they’re riding dogs, you lose in the gate.

This show might have had legs with better writing. It will get some favorable reviews because it is about being gay. It will get other favorable reviews because of the cast.

But, at best, it will have its life prolonged only because it is on Netflix and not a broadcast TV network where the ratings are transparent.

If Netflix really wants to make a contribution to TV, it should pick up West Wing where the series left off, convince Sheen to become a Supreme Court Justice to Jimmy Smits’ President, and make Waterston the Attorney General. That ought to be good for another four seasons. In the words of President Bartlett, what’s next?

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Watch: Jewelry Store Posted This Sign Inside Their Shop, Now They’re Under Attack For It

The religious owner of a jewelry store in Newfoundland, Canada, is being forced to defend himself following a public attack by a lesbian couple that bought a set of rings from the business. According to recent reports, Nicole White and Pam Renouf were encouraged to visit Today’s Jewellers when they were in the market for engagement rings. At that time, there was no apparent disagreement between the customers and retailer; and both women put money down on their purchases and left satisfied.

White and Renouf were apparently so pleased with the experience that they recommended the shop to others – an act that ultimately resulted in the current controversy. At some point since their purchase, the women heard from a friend who visited the store on their referral that the owner had hung a sign defending traditional marriage.

“The sanctity of marriage is under attack,” the sign said. “Let’s keep marriage between a man and a woman.”

White said that, despite her positive experience as a customer, she was incensed upon hearing that such a sign would be hung in a public place.

“It was really upsetting,” she complained, suggesting the sign showed “how much they are against gays, and how they think marriage should be between a man and a woman.”

The couple has subsequently demanded a refund, a request co-owner Esau Jardon granted. Nevertheless, the backlash his business received from local media has forced him to respond. Some of the backlash, he said, has come in the form of direct threats against the business and its owners.

Jardon defended the sign, insisting it is in no way a prohibited form of expression and does not imply any discriminatory beliefs on his part.

He concluded that he feels “really bad” about the customers’ hurt feeling, though he declared “we will not retract from what we believe.”

Should business owners be allowed to operate according to their religious convictions? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Hundreds Of Pastors Have Had Enough Of Obama: ‘Please, Leave The Preaching To Us’

Despite the familial connection he has with the East African nation, more than a few pastors in Kenya are fed up with Barack Obama’s constant pressure to accept what they feel is a sinful lifestyle. The 700 pastors who make up the Evangelical Alliance of Kenya recently released a statement decrying Obama’s defense of homosexuality during previous trips to Africa.

“President Barack Obama is welcome to visit Kenya this summer,” the statement read, “—but please, leave the preaching to us.”

The sentiment was embellished by group’s leader, Bishop Mark Kariuki, who said the pastoral alliance has a “strong message” for Obama.

In an interview, Kariuki implored Obama not to make an endorsement of homosexuality “part of his agenda, as it has been his tendency whenever he comes to Africa.”

He went on to say that Obama should “respect the faith, culture and people of Kenya when he comes in July.”

Kariuki’s is not the only Kenyan group – or religion – to speak out against Obama’s frequent derision of those who oppose the homosexual lifestyle. The Inter-Religious Council of Kenya similarly expressed disappointment in the treatment Kenyans have received under the current U.S. administration.

“We are not prepared to accept, hear or listen to anyone lecturing us on how our culture is good or bad,” declared IRCK Chairman Adan Wachu.

Kenyan Deputy President William Ruto confirmed the country’s position as “sovereign and God-fearing,” explaining the gay lifestyle “goes against our customs and traditions.”

Obama has also sparred with the religious communities in other African countries – such as Sierra Leone and Malawi – over their stated position regarding homosexuality.

Should Obama intervene on behalf of homosexuals in nations like Kenya? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth