Simon Says: Tolerance According To Gays Means “Do What I Say, Not What I Do”

Photo credit: Lisandro Sanchez (Flickr)

Houston mayor (and lesbian) Annise Parker’s recent actions exemplify history repeating itself, the necessity for understanding context, and realizing that the simplest solution is found amidst child’s play.

Parker and gay agenda supporters immediately bring to mind the children’s game Simon Says (and other themes from children’s rhymes.) The game’s primary rule, “Do what I say, Not what I do,” is designed to teach children to observe and differentiate between commands and actions. The same skills are necessary for adults. The definitions of tolerance, equality, morality, or societal and behavioral norms differ depending on who uses them.

For example, regarding Houston’s Equal Rights Ordinance, nearly triple the number of required signatures were obtained to petition for its repeal. Yet Parker and Houston’s city attorney redefined the requirement and rejected the petition. In response, Houstonians sued. Parker countered, by subpoenaing Christian ministers’ sermons and emails, then revised it to “speeches and presentations.”

Parker is not alone. Judge Vaughn Walker, also gay, overturned California’s Proposition 8, a law supported by the majority of California voters and unsupported by only a minority of Americans.

Walker is not alone. In more than five states, from Indiana to North Carolina, judges are reversing the will of voters by overturning state marriage laws determined by ballot initiatives and constitutional amendments.

Judges are also demanding that ministers be imprisoned for believing and teaching their faith, and that small businesses be fined and closed because their owners won’t bake cakes, take photos, or arrange flowers. And the IRS recently agreed to audit churches.

Many Americans wonder, why follow any law if the only relevant law is what a mayor chooses? Or why vote at all if a judge can nullify the outcome? Why express your faith if you might lose your job?

Simon Says is obviously more than fun and games.

Over the last 25 years, nearly every area of society has been transformed by a successful rebranding scheme devised by Harvard-educated intellectuals and gay activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. In 1990, they initiated an aggressive marketing campaign, detailing their approach in After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s. Their strategy incorporated six points:

  • “Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible.”
  • “Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.”
  • “Give homosexual protectors a just cause.”
  • “Make gays look good.”
  • “Make the victimizers look bad.”
  • “Get funds from corporate America.”

The gay agenda does not solely want tolerance, the right to privacy, or legal protection, but affirmation of the gay lifestyle as a societal and legal norm. Its only obstacle has been, and will always be, Christians who remain faithful to biblical teaching and those who support several millennia of social norms understood as fundamental to human flourishing.

The gay agenda, like Simon Says and very much like Humpty Dumpty, seeks to distract, confuse, and completely bewilder. Brilliantly portrayed by Lewis Carroll through a preposterous and lengthy conversation in Through the Looking Glass, Humpty Dumpty best explains their approach. He says to Alice:

Pages: 1 2

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 – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Black News Site Rejects Commentary on MLK’s Letter from Birmingham Jail-Why?

A minister recently produced an article dealing with MLK’s Letter from Birmingham Jail. The minister, Reverend Clenard H. Childress, produced his commentary entitled, “The Church in America Has Forgotten,” and quoted King in the piece:

“…If I lived in a communist country today where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I believe I would openly advocate disobeying these anti-religious laws…”

This line captures Dr. King’s belief in civil disobedience against the government when necessary. So what is the controversy? Black PR News decided not to accept Reverend Childress’ commentary after all. What made it unacceptable to them? Black PR News stated:

This column is a sermon with your personal doctrinal beliefs, and we have received many complaints in the past about distributing such material.

 Reverend  Childress took issue with the Black PR News Response and said:

This obviously exposes a deliberate agenda to silence opposing minority voices who have opposing views to abortion and homosexuality.

He added:

Their reasons are absurd. I make it my business to be respectful and empirical. This article holds true to those principles. Commentary always reflects the ‘belief system’ of the commenter.

Dr. Childress clearly believes homosexuality and abortion are sin and that MLK’s Christian ethics would have lead MLK to oppose these things. Black PR News refuses to include the commentary. What do you think?

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 – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Is It Too Much To Expect Integrity From Our Leaders?

The Governor of California facilitates passage of a law mandating so-called cap and trade for industries in the state. The law requires companies exceeding pollution limits to pay fees for credits so they can pollute within the law; funds from their fees are to address environmental issues. But that same governor decrees – in defiance of the law – that a quarter billion cap and trade dollars be diverted to fund his unpopular and court-stalled bullet train project. That same governor – and his predecessor – decided a few years back to disagree with the voter-adopted amendment to the California Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman. They refused their obligation to defend the laws and constitution of the state and actually attacked them in court, effectively preventing even private parties from standing for those laws.

The President of the United States decides to disagree with federal law defining marriage. He later chooses to disagree with immigration law; he most famously disagrees with his own healthcare law – after seeing the fruit. In the first two, he and his like-minded attorney general simply refused to enforce and even attacked these laws in court; in the last, he has unilaterally re-written the law twenty-seven times. None of these actions – state or federal – is within the authority or the oaths of these officials. Now, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring announces he will not tolerate the marriage provisions of his state’s constitution. Is integrity in political office a reasonable expectation?

Let me ask another way. If we cannot reasonably expect integrity from our leaders, why ask them to swear an oath to exercise their duties faithfully and in accountability to the laws and constitutions supplying their authority? But – we hear – these men and women have a conscience of their own, and surely they are entitled to act within their convictions. Really?

They are so entitled; they are even morally obligated to so act. But when they cannot in good conscience keep the oath they swore and the accountability they assumed, the honorable thing is to resign their office and press for change as the advocates they long to be. To simply usurp power they were never granted is neither conscientious nor honest. It is arrogance masquerading as integrity, and those who practice it should be removed from office and treated with disdain.

Officeholders and other governmental types do not corner the market on phony integrity. Those who seek to advance the gay agenda by presenting themselves as prophets of civil rights are classic examples of scam artists seeking to mold conviction. They have the brass to claim Dr. Martin Luther King would be marching beside them if he were alive today. The circular reasoning is: Dr. King was the greatest civil rights leader – true enough – and gay rights are a civil right; therefore, King would support gay rights. Michael Long’s 2012 book about King and gay rights is a recent addition to the mountain of unsupported inferences. The problem is the facts get in the way.

Dr. King’s daughter Bernice says of her father, “He did not take a bullet for same sex unions” at his graveside calling for a constitutional amendment defining marriage in Biblical terms. He was a Bible-believing Christian all his life who rarely spoke about homosexuality; when he did, he was Biblically consistent. Through his advice column for Ebony Magazine in the late fifties, he wrote these words to a struggling young man: “The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired. You are already on the right road to a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.” King’s love for all persons comes across; just as clear is his conviction God did not make people gay and that there are solutions to every problem if we seek God and His healing. Reality is that King’s words, written more than half a century ago, are in sync with the most reliable scientific evidence regarding causation of homosexuality.

People who differ with me on this issue are doubtless grinding their teeth in rage. Well and good. Make your case. But don’t stoop to putting words in another man’s mouth. Alongside all the loving things Jesus said were confrontive words like, “Thou shalt not bear false witness,” and of the Pharisees, “You shut the Kingdom of Heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.” He came to bring abundant life, but the gift requires honesty and integrity in order to be received.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

MLK: Homosexuality A ‘Problem’ With A ‘Solution’





Race Industry MLK Memory SC

This past week, America honored both the life and noble work of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., a Bible-believing Christian minister who did more to advance the cause of race-based civil rights than perhaps any other person in recent history.

Regrettably – and as they do each year – the same flock of opportunist “LGBT”-activist vultures quickly swooped in, picking the live flesh from MLK’s character-based “dream” to advance their own behavior-based nightmare.

In what amounts to a sort of soft racism, this mostly white, left-wing faction has, over the years, disingenuously and ignobly hitched its little pink wagon to a civil rights movement that, by contrast, is built upon the genuine and noble precepts of racial equality and humanitarian justice.

What was MLK’s position on the homosexual lifestyle and so-called “gay rights”? While he said little in public on the issue, what he did say made his viewpoint abundantly clear. Unlike the “LGBT” lobby, I’ll let Dr. King speak for himself.

In 1958, while writing an advice column for Ebony Magazine, Dr. King responded to a young “gay” man looking for guidance. To avoid being accused of “cherry-picking,” here is the exchange in its entirety:

Question: My problem is different from the ones most people have. I am a boy, but I feel about boys the way I ought to feel about girls. I don’t want my parents to know about me. What can I do? Is there any place where I can go for help?

Answer: Your problem is not at all an uncommon one. However, it does require careful attention. The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired. Your reasons for adopting this habit have now been consciously suppressed or unconsciously repressed. Therefore, it is necessary to deal with this problem by getting back to some of the experiences and circumstances that led to the habit. In order to do this I would suggest that you see a good psychiatrist who can assist you in bringing to the forefront of conscience all of those experiences and circumstances that led to the habit. You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.

No amount of leftist spin can muddy Dr. King’s lucid position on the homosexual lifestyle. He recognized it as a “culturally acquired” “problem” in need of a “solution” – a “habit” stemming from a series of negative “experiences and circumstances.”

Although homosexual activists desperately cling to the fact that, after his death, Dr. King’s wife, Coretta Scott King, did voice some level of support for the homosexualist political agenda, the undeniable reality remains that, based upon his own words, Dr. King supported neither homosexual conduct nor “LGBT” political activism.

Indeed, it strains credulity to suggest that MLK would have thrown his weight behind a political movement hell-bent on justifying sexual appetites and behaviors that he properly identified as “a problem” demanding a “a solution” – a “type of feeling” that requires “careful attention” – up to and including “see[ing] a good psychiatrist.”

No, MLK was a Christian minister who both embraced and articulated the biblical “love the sinner, hate the sin” model on homosexuality. Every Christian should follow his lead. After all, it is the lead set by Christ Himself.

Gary Glenn is a candidate for the Michigan State House. He is also president of the pro-family group AFA Michigan. Of Dr. King’s public position on homosexuality, Glenn recently noted a glaring – if not utterly twisted – irony: “If homosexual activists had been holding awards ceremonies back in 1958,” wrote Glenn, “they would have labeled Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. a bigot for his published views on homosexual attraction.

“And under today’s Orwellian ‘hate crimes’ laws in Britain and other countries of Europe,” he concluded, “Dr. King would have faced criminal investigation, or worse, for publicly expressing those views.”

Indeed, were he still alive today, and when judged against today’s empty, politically correct standards, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. – quite literally the “King” of civil rights – would be perpetually smeared as a “bigot,” “hater” and “homophobe” by the ever-”tolerant” left.

The polls are unequivocal. The vast majority of African-Americans resent the left’s comparison of sexual sin to the color of their skin. They understandably find such dishonest parallels both repugnant and highly offensive.

And well they should.

The left has hijacked MLK’s dream. For decades now, this pleasure-based, sex-centric political movement – delineated by deviant sexual appetites and behaviors – has ridden his coattails. They’ve dared to equate demands for celebration of bad behavior to Christian notions of racial equality. They’ve perverted the genuine civil rights movement to fit their own disingenuous designs.

It’s disgusting, and it needs to stop.

Dr. Alveda King is the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. She agrees. Alveda has picked up her like-minded uncle’s civil rights mantle, dedicating her life, primarily, to achieving equality for pre-born children.

Still, in the years since his death, Alveda has poignantly articulated how, arguably, based upon his published position on homosexuality, Dr. King might feel about “LGBT” activists’ misappropriation of his Christian legacy for their counter-Christian purposes.

“To equate homosexuality with race is to give a death sentence to civil rights,” said Alveda in 1997. “No one is enslaving homosexuals … or making them sit in the back of the bus.”

In 1998 at the University of North Carolina, she said, “Homosexuality cannot be elevated to the civil rights issue. The civil rights movement was born from the Bible. God hates homosexuality.”

And in 2012, Alveda publicly chastised the NAACP for abandoning its founders and constituents, saying, “Neither my great-grandfather, an NAACP founder, my grandfather Dr. Martin Luther King Sr., an NAACP leader, my father, Rev. A. D. Williams King, nor my uncle Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. embraced the homosexual agenda that the current NAACP is attempting to label as a civil rights agenda. …”

Indeed, it is high time that all supporters, from all races, of the historical civil rights movement stand together and demand that “progressive” propagandists stop misusing and abusing the language of genuine civil rights to propagate self-interested moral wrongs.

It’s time for the left to begin honoring the true beliefs, work, life, and legacy of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

 

Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an author, columnist, cultural analyst and an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. Having retired as an undefeated heavyweight professional boxer, Matt has taken his fight from the ring to the culture war.





MLK’s Legacy Hijacked To Sell ObamaCare





Photo credit: UIC Digital Collections (Creative Commons)

Each January, America takes time to remember the lasting impact Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. made during a dark period of this nation’s history. As racial tensions reached a fever pitch, King embraced a non-violent approach toward civil rights that was completely at odds from the views of contemporaries including Malcolm X.

In the decades since his assassination, however, King’s legacy has been misused to insinuate he would have supported any number of leftist causes. One of the latest – and most egregious – examples came during Health and Human Service Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ recent comments in recognition of Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

In a thinly-veiled plug for the monumentally unpopular ObamaCare law, Sebelius made a clumsy attempt to equate King’s fight for equality to the federal government’s dismantling of the nation’s healthcare system.

“As we celebrate the inspirational life of Dr. King,” she said, “please join us in this historic effort by helping your friends, neighbors, and loved ones get covered through the Marketplace.”

This was not the first time King’s memory was used by the Obama administration to sell socialized medicine to an unreceptive public. Last year, in recognition of the 50th anniversary of the famous civil rights march in D.C., Barack Obama himself suggested King would have been a supporter of the law.

Now, as the push to salvage ObamaCare has escalated, Sebelius is returning to that well in an apparent effort to convince wary citizens that, if he were alive, King would be a vocal supporter of the boondoggle.

“Dr. King memorably described inequality in health care as the ‘most shocking and inhumane’ form of injustice,” Sebelius claimed, suggesting “there is nothing more essential to opportunity than good health.”

Proponents of ObamaCare have already resorted to calling on leftist celebrities to pressure their fans to sign up for coverage. With the results of those efforts obviously lacking, the administration is now using the memory of an iconic civil rights leader to hawk the troubled law.

For the rest of the nation, however, it is a day to acknowledge the selfless, faith-driven mission King carried out during his quest to achieve equality for all Americans.

–B. Christopher Agee

Have an idea for a story? Email us at tips@westernjournalism.com

Photo credit: UIC Digital Collections (Creative Commons)