Counterculture Con HQ

October 8, 2011

Cultural Marxism in the classrooms

The cultural marxists are on the move.  Let’s take a little peak inside their virulently anti-Christian sec prog minds, shall we?

Teacher penalizes students for saying “bless you”

FRESNO, Calif. (KFSN) — A Northern California teacher says he doesn’t want to hear a common courtesy in his classroom. He’s even lowering students’ grades if they say “bless you” after someone sneezes. Steve Cuckovich says the practice is disrespectful and disruptive. He’s banned saying “bless you” in his high school health class in Vacaville. He even knocked 25 points from one student’s grade for saying the phrase in class. Cuckovich says the policy has nothing to do with religion, but says the phrase is just a outdated practice and disrupts class time. “When you sneezed in the old days, they thought you were dispelling evil spirits out of your body,” Cuckovich said. “So they were saying, ‘God bless you’ for getting rid of evil spirits. But today, I said what you’re doing doesn’t really make any sense anymore.” After parents complained about students losing points for saying “bless you”, Cuckovich says he decided to stop the practice. However, the teacher says he will just find another way to discipline students for saying “bless you” in class.

Source

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Notice how the loon tries to explain his reasoning in order to justify himself in a “rational” way.  But none of it explains his own deeply visceral response about something so harmless and irrelevant.  That alone gives him away.

Some people say Liberalism is a mental disorder.  But it’s actually a religion, and all religions seem totally wack to outsiders looking in.  They hide their militantly secular religion behind a mantra of “separation of church and state”, but their deepest desire is to remove any mention, nay memory, of God from society altogether.  The examples are countless.

Incidents like these illustrate just how deeply the cultural marxists have infiltrated our institutions in their quest to gut our judeo-christian culture from the inside out.  Without going into any of the 1st amendment issues raised by this kind of PC run amuck, it further reveals just how interrelated the Gay Agenda (i.e., the normalization of homosexuality) is related to this war on Christianity and traditional values:

School Punishes Boy for Opposing Homosexuality

An honors student in Fort Worth, Texas, was sent to the principal’s office and punished for telling a classmate that he believes homosexuality is wrong.  Holly Pope said she was “absolutely stunned” when she received a telephone call from an assistant principal at Western Hills High School informing her that her son, Dakota Ary, had been sent to in-school suspension.  “Dakota is a very well-grounded 14-year-old,” she told Fox News Radio noting that her son is an honors student, plays on the football team and is active in his church youth group. “He’s been in church his whole life and he’s been taught to stand up for what he believes.”  And that’s what got him in trouble.

Dakota was in a German class at the high school when the conversation shifted to religion and homosexuality in Germany. At some point during the conversation, he turned to a friend and said that he was a Christian and “being a homosexual is wrong.”  “It wasn’t directed to anyone except my friend who was sitting behind me,” Dakota told Fox. “I guess [the teacher] heard me. He started yelling. He told me he was going to write me an infraction and send me to the office.”

Dakota was sentenced to one day in-school suspension – and two days of full suspension. His mother was flabbergasted, noting that her son had a spotless record, was an honor student, volunteered at his church and played on the school football team.  Officials at the high school did not return calls for comment. However, the Fort Worth Independent School District issued a statement that read:

Krause called the incident “mind blowing” and said the teacher had frequently brought homosexuality into ninth grade classroom discussions.  “There has been a history with this teacher in the class regarding homosexual topics,” Krause said. “The teacher had posted a picture of two men kissing on a wall that offended some of the students.”  Krause said the picture was posted on the teacher’s “world wall.”  “He told the students this is happening all over the world and you need to accept the fact that homosexuality is just part of our culture now,” Krause said.

October 4, 2011

The Gender Benders: Google+ offers Male, Female, and “Other”

A world with no gender

I learned something new today: PGP.  Preferred Gender Pronoun.  It’s for those days when you wake up in the morning and you aren’t sure whether you want to be a boy or girl.  Which is where the new social networking site Google+ comes in handy.  Aren’t sure what your sex is?  Simply sign in as “Other”.  That’s choice!  That’s freedom!  No limits baby!  From the New York Times:

The Freedom to Choose Your Pronoun

A FEW weeks ago, Katy Butler, 16, updated her status on Facebook with an enthusiastic shout-out for Google+, the social network’s latest rival. “Oh my God Google! I love it! I was signing up for Google+ and they asked me my gender and the choices were male, female or OTHER!!!!! Oh ya Google!”  Katy, a high school junior in Ann Arbor, Mich., first encountered “other” as a gender option at a meeting of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Questioning and Allies (LGBTQQA) in seventh grade. “For those of us in the nonconforming gender community, it is great to see Google make the option more mainstream,” she said.

Though Google created the “other” option for privacy reasons rather than as a transgender choice, young supporters of preferred gender pronouns (or P.G.P.’s as they are called) could not help but rejoice. Katy is one of a growing number of high school and college students who are questioning the gender roles society assigns individuals simply because they have been born male or female.  “You have to understand, this has nothing to do with your sexuality and everything to do with who you feel like inside,” Katy said, explaining that at the start of every LGBTQQA meeting, participants are first asked if they would like to share their P.G.P.’s. “Mine are ‘she,’ ‘her’ and ‘hers’ and sometimes ‘they,’ ‘them’ and ‘theirs.’ ”

P.G.P.’s can change as often as one likes. If the pronouns in the dictionary don’t suffice, there are numerous made-up ones now in use, including “ze,” “hir” and “hirs,” words that connote both genders because, as Katy explained, “Maybe one day you wake up and feel more like a boy.”  Teenagers are by nature prone to rebellion against adult conventions, and as the gender nonconformity movement gains momentum among young people, “it is about rejecting the boxes adults try to put kids in by assuming their sexual identity labels their personal identity,” said Dr. Ritch C. Savin-Williams, director of the Cornell University Sex and Gender Lab. “These teens are fighting the idea that your equipment defines what it means for you to be a boy or girl. They are saying: ‘You don’t know me by looking at me. Assume nothing.’ ”

Australia last month issued new passport guidelines allowing citizens to give their official gender as male, female or indeterminate. In Britain, the Home Office is also considering a third gender category on passports, according to reports.  In the United States, the transgender movement is beginning to find advocates in high schools. There are now nearly 5,000 Gay-Straight Alliance Clubs, high school organizations offering support to teenagers, registered with the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, a national organization whose mission is “to assure that each member of every school community is valued and respected regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.”

“More students today than ever are thinking about what gender means and are using this language to get away from masculine and feminine gender assumptions,” said Eliza Byard, the network’s executive director.  Some colleges, too, are starting to adopt nongender language.  Last month, students at Pomona College in Claremont, Calif., voted to edit the student constitution so that it contains only gender-neutral language. And in 2009, the University of Michigan Student Assembly passed a resolution eliminating gender-specific pronouns from the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities.

Source

And they say Big Business is conservative?  Really???  lol  They aren’t even Republican, let alone conservative.

Here we have yet more proof that Leftism is the greatest threat to Western civilization since the bubonic plague.  Everything it promotes, it seems, take us one step closer to cultural oblivion.  Today’s example of their suicidal madness is the war the Left is waging on gender identity.  I’m not talking about the mere tinkering around the edges which was the shift in gender roles starting in the 70s.  You know, that women get to have a career and men help around the house.  Radical stuff back in the 70s, but how quaint that all seems today.  No sir, cutting edge 21st century Leftism is concerned with obliterating the very notion of gender itself.

The Left despises “distinctions”.  You see this contempt in their moral relativism which rejects absolutes, blurring the lines between good and evil (even rejecting the very notion of “evil”).  Distinctions, they believe, divide people and cause friction and strife.  The distinctions we see between nations must be eradicated because they cause conflicts and wars, and they imagine a world with no countries nor borders.  Gender distinctions oppress women and gays because these differences are the originator of gender roles and the “patriarchy”, so it too must be obliterated (which is ultimately why “gay marriage” is so heavily promoted even as they do everything in their power to undermine traditional marriage).  The Left doesn’t promote equality, it promotes sameness.

We often wonder what crazy kook cockamamie idea the Left will latch onto next after they win the battle for marriage. What will the Left declare as the next frontier of “progress”.  Polygamy?  Pedophilia?  Seems we now have the answer.  These are the same people, mind you, who seek to portray conservatives as “crazy” and “extremist” and “radical” because they want to protect and preserve the best of our Judeo-Christian civilization from these rapacious culture destroyers.  Could anything be more upside down?  I mean, wow.

And here the New York Times and Google, Inc.  (both Big Businesses) do their part to imagine a world with no sexes/genders.  This is the Left’s trajectory.  This is secular progressivism.  This is mainstream Liberalism today.

UPDATE:  And to further illustrate our point, Lefties celebrate gender bending as “art” here.

October 1, 2011

Temporary marriages, Gay Liberation, and the “Patriarchy”

Until death do us part?

Yet more proof that everything the Left does advances the clock of civilizational collapse.  I only had to read the headline to instantly realize the Left’s fingerprints were all over this one.

Mexico mulls 2-year marriage

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) – Mexico City lawmakers want to help newlyweds avoid the hassle of divorce by giving them an easy exit strategy: temporary marriage licenses.  Leftists in the city’s assembly — who have already riled conservatives by legalizing gay marriage — proposed a reform to the civil code this week that would allow couples to decide on the length of their commitment, opting out of a lifetime.  The minimum marriage contract would be for two years and could be renewed if the couple stays happy. The contracts would include provisions on how children and property would be handled if the couple splits.  “The proposal is, when the two-year period is up, if the relationship is not stable or harmonious, the contract simply ends,” said Leonel Luna, the Mexico City assemblyman who co-authored the bill.

“You wouldn’t have to go through the tortuous process of divorce,” said Luna, from the leftist Party of the Democratic Revolution, which has the most seats in the 66-member chamber.  Luna says the proposed law is gaining support and he expects a vote by the end of this year.  Around half of Mexico City marriages end in divorce, usually in the first two years.  The bustling capital, one of the world’s largest cities, is much more liberal than the rest of the country, where the divorce rate is significantly lower although on the rise.

Abortion is legal in Mexico City, while the Supreme Court ruled this week to uphold state laws in Baja California that say life begins at conception.  Leftist Mayor Marcelo Ebrard, who angered the Catholic Church when he made Mexico City the first Latin American city to legalize gay marriage in late 2009, announced this month he would soon step down to run for president.  The church criticized the proposed change.  “This reform is absurd. It contradicts the nature of marriage,” said Hugo Valdemar, spokesman for the Mexican archdiocese. “It’s another one of these electoral theatrics the assembly tends to do that are irresponsible and immoral.”  The Church holds considerable sway in the country with the world’s second largest Catholic population after Brazil.

[.]

What "gay marriage" is ultimately about.

Hurray!  Divorce is even more hassle-free now.  So why are they doing this, you ask?  Because it promotes statism and the secular progressive value system.   This simultaneous promotion of gay marriage while undermining traditional marriage is all part of a larger plan in furtherance of their secular progressive utopia.  Leftism has always hated the institution of marriage as an instrument of oppression and the status quo.  They call it “the Patriarchy.”   Gay activist and atheist Martha C. Nussbaum puts it this way:

Gays and lesbians are a symbol, in much of the public imagination, for sex without reproduction, for the decoupling of marriage from commitment to raising a family in the traditional way, which has certainly been a male-dominated way. …The connection between recognition of gay unions and the erosion of traditional marriage is that if sex is thought to be available outside of the marriage bond, women will have fewer incentives to embark upon marriage and child rearing, and may not wish to do so if marriage continues to be a largely patriarchal and unequal institution.

Wow, that’s pretty blatant stuff.  You won’t often hear it so candidly put.  So it’s no coincidence that the same Mexican Leftists who legalized gay marriage in Mexico City are also behind this temporary idiocy.  And who suffers the consequences of these broken marriages of convenience in a country without a safety net such as Mexico?  Why, the children!  The children who then require the State to intervene as their surrogate daddy lest they end up on the streets and starve to death.  And if no such paternalistic state currently exists, why, then it shall be created!  See how they operate?  And now you know the ultimate reason why these Marxists are trying to destroy marriage and the “patriarchy.”

And of course, this is happening right under our noses but the dots aren’t being connected, so nobody even notices or cares.

UPDATE: Even the Huffington Post is now weighing in on this AWEMAZING idea!  And don’t neglect the comments section there which is always a pretty good barometer of just how far gone those people are.

December 15, 2010

Secular Perverted: Incest just like homosexuality

"Loving" father, Prof. David Epstein.

In the secular progressive la la land of moral relativism/equivalency, the notion of “consent” is the moral key stone.  It is the sole moral standard on which they base their sexual taboos.  That’s why, for example, bestiality is wrong– because the animal cannot give (verbal) consent.  It’s wrong, they believe, not because the act is necessarily vile, unnatural, and against God’s law, but because one of the parties “lacks consent.”  That’s why homosexuality, on the other hand, is perfectly excusable in their moral universe– because it involves full consent of both parties.  This is how the modern Lib defends homosexuality against comparisons to pedophilia and bestiality.  Fine.  But what if the pedophilia does involve consent?  What then?  And that’s what the perv below wants to know; and honestly, I’ve applied all the secular progressive reasoning powers at my disposal, and I can’t say I find fault in his logic!  His secular progressive reasoning is sound.

‘We Have To Figure Out Why Some Behavior Is Tolerated And Some Is Not’

The lawyer representing David Epstein, the Columbia professor accused of sleeping with his daughter, recently spoke out about his client’s controversial case.  Epstein was charged last week with one-count of third-degree incest for what was allegedly a consensual three-year sexual relationship with his 24-year-old daughter.

Epstein’s lawyer, Matthew Galluzzo, gave comment to ABCNews.com:

“Academically, we are obviously all morally opposed to incest and rightfully so,” Galluzzo said. “At the same time, there is an argument to be made in the Swiss case to let go what goes on privately in bedrooms.”
“It’s OK for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home,” he said. “How is this so different? We have to figure out why some behavior is tolerated and some is not.”

Galluzzo also said that even though Epstein’s daughter had emerged as a victim in the case, she could “be best described as an accomplice.”  In an interview with the Huffington Post, Galluzzo questioned if prosecuting incest was “intellectually consistent” with the repeal of anti-sodomy laws that resulted from Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. “What goes on between consenting adults in private should not be legislated,” he said. “That is not the proper domain of our law.”

Galluzzo continued: “If we assume for a moment that both parties [involved in incest] are consenting, then why are we prosecuting this?”

Source

We all knew the normalization of homosexuality would eventually lead to this, didn’t we?  It was only a matter of time.

The reactions of the Huffpo’s Lib commenters provide us a few chuckles as well as insight.  Most of them (not all) seem as naturally outraged by this pervy behavior as the rest of us.  But allow yourself a knowing smile as you watch them wrestle with the why this consenting pedophilia is wrong.  They are unable to articulate it.

December 7, 2010

Homophobic Zoo Separates Gay Avians

Filed under: gay — Tags: — Jesusland @ 20:45

Endangered species: Griffon vultures

This isn’t the Onion, it’s secular progressivism.  Apparently when male vultures find themselves in the absence of a female over a period of time they will gravitate to another male and bond with each other instead.  That’s what happened at this German zoo.  But when a female Griffon vulture was eventually introduced into their pen so they could breed in the hopes of keeping their endangered species alive, gay activists were shocked and dismayed that the homosexual avians were being torn apart by the homophobic zoo keepers!  As you can see, the havoc the social disorder we know as secular progressivism is wreaking on Western fertility rates is not isolated to the human population.

Gay Community Protests After Zoo Separates Same-Sex Vulture Couple

(NewsCore) – Members of Germany’s gay community were outraged Tuesday after a pair of homosexual vultures were forcibly parted and made to mate with females.  The pair, Guido and Detlef, have become the poster boys for protests against intolerance, even though they are both predatory males.

The griffon vultures, Gyps fulvus, showed no interest in female company. They were happy in their own world, grooming one another with tender sweeps of their savage beaks between rearranging the sticks that made up their nest, although the other vultures kept stealing materials as if to spite their arrangement.  Dirk Wewers, the zoo’s curator, said: “They always sat so closely together. They defended their nest from the other vultures. A suitable female was missing and in such a case vultures look for companionship from the next best thing, even if it is a male. Detlef looked for a bird of the opposite sex but settled with Guido.”

Guido was removed last week, however, to be replaced by a flighty female from the Czech Republic who, it is hoped, will tickle Detlef’s fancy and eventually produce little vultures.  “Detlef is reorienting himself now,” said Dr Wewers, who dismissed criticism from gay groups at the decision to break up a happy home.

So far, Detlef and the unnamed Czech bird have yet to do the wild thing. Guido, transferred 400 miles (650km) east to a zoo in Ostrava, in the Czech Republic, is also reportedly not too enamored with the heterosexual lifestyle that is being forced upon him.  Will it be too late to teach an old vulture new tricks? Both Detlef and Guido are 14 and it is uncertain that the libido of either can live up to the expectations of keepers.

There has been one protest near the zoo gates by a small group of homosexuals standing beneath a rainbow flag, while the German blogosphere is buzzing. “This is like in the Dark Middle Ages, forcibly making a creature sexually reorient itself by tearing its partner from its side,” wrote one campaigner. While the Roman Catholic Church in the arch conservative area of Munsterland is jubilant, homosexual federations and animal protection organizations from the whole world over are indignant.

Source

November 28, 2010

Anglican Crackup: church faces ‘piece by piece dissolution’

Opposing camps: Robinson and Rowan

Rowan Williams is a Liberal at heart who knows modern Liberalism has gone too far.  Intellectually (if not in his heart), he understands the homosexualization of the Church is the wolf in sheep’s clothing warned about in Scripture.  Teh Gay Bishop Gene Robinson responds that the Archbishop of Canterbury has been ‘abducted by aliens’ for attempting to save his denomination.

Gay Bishop: Rowan Williams “Abducted by Aliens.”

The Archbishop of Canterbury has been accused of  being ‘abducted by aliens’  over the issue of homosexual clergy.  Controversial American Anglican bishop Gene Robinson condemned Dr Rowan Williams for failing to stop internal rows over the ordination of women and gay priests.

The Bishop of New Hampshire said: ‘I pray for him every day.  ‘I have clergy friends who literally studied at  Archbishop Williams’  feet and who have said to me it is almost as if aliens have come and taken Rowan away from us.

‘They have left something that looks like him but we don’t recognize him any more.’ Bishop Robinson  who is openly gay and whose sexuality caused controversy when he was elected  in 2003, told the Times that Dr Williams is a wonderful human being and a faithful Christian.

But he [Robinson] added: ‘I’m not at all sure that his attempts to hold us together as a communion at all costs is the kind of leadership that this time calls for.’ Bishop Robinson claimed Dr Williams had been tougher on the American church  and demanded a ‘higher standard’  than in other parts of the world.

Meanwhile, Dr Williams claimed that many Church of England parishes could be left without clergy as vicars ‘jump ship’ to the Catholic Church.  He made the warning after meeting Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican during an event to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity.

It comes just days after it was revealed that five senior CoE bishops were quitting and converting to Catholicism under a scheme launched by the Pope last year.  Known as the English Ordinariate, it allows for Anglicans unhappy at plans to introduce female bishops to ‘switch to Rome’ but still maintain aspects of their CoE faith.

Source

So there you have it.  To dissolve or not to dissolve.  The gay Bishop Gene Robinson actually WANTS the dissolution of the worldwide Anglican communion over the issue of openly practicing gay priests, and Rowan Williams has lost his mind to aliens for trying to prevent it.  This from the same priest who once said the furor over his ordination would “calm down” and pose no threat to the Church once folks realized it wasn’t a big deal.  Meanwhile, Rowan Williams warns against the ‘piece by piece dissolution’ of the church.  But how to respond to this threat without compromising his own visceral commitment to Lib PC?  It’s a conundrum, and he finds himself powerless to respond because HE WON’T TAKE SIDES on the core substance of the issue.

Anglican church faces ‘piece by piece dissolution’

Dr Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, warned of the risk of “piece-by-piece dissolution” of worldwide Anglicanism in a heartfelt personal plea today to warring factions in the Church of England.  At the opening of the church’s general synod in London, he called for all parties to put aside their disputes and agree on a fresh framework for settling differences across the 70 million-strong international communion.

The synod votes tomorrow on the Anglican covenant, which has been seven years in the making, and sets the Church of England at a crucial crossroads. The church is already facing probable defections to Roman Catholicism by some priests opposed to the ordination of women bishops.

The vote will be crucial as not only is the Church of England the mother church of the communion, but Williams is its spiritual head. A senior church official told the Guardian: “There is no Plan B. If this falls, the communion is in ruins.”

Williams used his presidential address to the first day of the general synod to urge both sides to calm down, listen to each other and work through their differences.  “For God’s sake,” he said. “Don’t let us waste time and energy talking or behaving as if there were competition going on here … I don’t think we are doing the job for which God has called us here if we reproduce the worst aspects of secular partisanship.”

Williams, who has tried to keep disparate churches talking rather than leave the communion altogether, articulated the hopelessness of taking up entrenched positions on homosexuality, criticising both sides in the debate.  “It is unthinkingly treated by some as almost the sole test of biblical fidelity or doctrinal orthodoxy. It is unthinkingly regarded by others as one of those matters on which the church must be brought into line with what our culture can make sense of … The covenant proposals are the only sign at the moment of the work that has to be done.”

The archbishop acknowledged that he was “bound to accept” his share of “reproach” for the lack of progress in major debates and invited the synod to help him do better by creating an “ambience where better understanding may happen”.  Earlier, the supreme governor of the Church of England, the Queen, addressed the synod, reflecting on the “difficult, painful choices” ahead.

Source

Too late, my dear Archbishop.  The “worst aspects of secular partisanship” come part and parcel with the secular humanist “new tolerance” that has infiltrated the Church.  The flock is scattering to the four winds because the Anglican Church has invited the wolves to dinner.

November 7, 2010

Gay Lobby Welcomes Pope to Spain

Filed under: gay — Tags: — Jesusland @ 14:40

Behold the face of modern Liberalism.  When Islam is running the show these guys will be tossed off tall buildings.

Gay Kiss-in Welcomes Pope

An estimated group of 200 gays and lesbians staged a protest with a five minute-long “kiss-in” in Barcelona as Pope Benedict XVI visited the city to defend the Catholic church’s family values, reports Sky News.

The kiss-in took place as the Popemobile droves past a crowd estimated at tens of thousands who had gathered in front of Barcelona’s Sagrada Familia. The pontiff attacked Spanish laws that allow same-sex marriage, quick divorces, and legal abortions, as he dedicated the iconic basilica.

“We are here to demonstrate against the pope’s visit and call for a change in the mentality of the Catholic institution, which still opposes our right to different ways of loving,” Sergi Diaz, a protestor, said.

Pope Benedict called for Europe as a whole to rediscover Christian teachings and apply them to everyday life, and continued to criticise the policies of Spain’s socialist government.

Source

November 4, 2010

You’re Fired! Iowans Send Liberal Judges packing

Three Iowa judges who tried to force gay marriage on the people are FIRED.  All judges who go beyond their mandate to interpret the law, not create it, should be tossed out on their ear.  Naturally, the judicially activist Left is horrified this might be an end to their usurpation of the courts to accomplish the culture destruction they could never achieve through fair elections.

Three Iowa Supreme Court justices lost their seats Tuesday in a historic upset fueled by their 2009 decision that allowed same-sex couples to marry. Vote totals from 96 percent of Iowa’s 1,774 precincts showed Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Justices David Baker and Michael Streit with less than the simple majority needed to stay on the bench.

Their removal marked the first time an Iowa Supreme Court justice has not been retained since 1962, when the merit selection and retention system for judges was adopted.  The decision is expected to echo to courts throughout the country, as conservative activists had hoped. “It appears we’re headed for a resounding victory tonight and a historic moment in the state of Iowa,” said Bob Vander Plaats, the Sioux City businessman who led a campaign to remove the justices because of the 2009 gay marriage ruling. “The people of Iowa stood up in record numbers and sent a message … that it is ‘We the people,’ not ‘We the courts.’ ”

In a statement issued early today, the three justices said: “We hope Iowans will continue to support Iowa’s merit selection system for appointing judges. This system helps ensure that judges base their decisions on the law and the Constitution and nothing else. Ultimately, however, the preservation of our state’s fair and impartial courts will require more than the integrity and fortitude of individual judges, it will require the steadfast support of the people.”

“In the end, the aggressive campaign to misuse the judicial retention vote, funded by out-of-state special interests, has succeeded,” Drake University Law School Dean Allan Vestal said. “The loss of these three justices is most unfortunate, and the damage to our judicial system and the merit selection of judges will take much to repair.”

Read the rest.

August 16, 2010

Gay Marriage supporters May appeal, Opponents cannot

Filed under: cultural marxism, gay — Tags: — Jesusland @ 00:09

Like when the candidates are in a race that’s too close to call, and the votes continue to be counted as long as the Democrat’s behind, but the counting ends whenever he takes the lead.  It’s like that.

Judge doubts gay marriage ban’s backers can appeal

SAN FRANCISCO – The federal judge who overturned California’s same-sex marriage ban has more bad news for the measure’s sponsors: he not only is unwilling to keep gay couples from marrying beyond next Wednesday, he doubts the ban’s backers have the right to challenge his ruling.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker on Thursday rejected a request to delay his decision striking down Proposition 8 from taking effect until high courts can take up an appeal lodged by its supporters. One of the reasons, the judge said, is he’s not sure the proponents have the authority to appeal since they would not be affected by or responsible for implementing his ruling.

By contrast, same-sex couples are being denied their constitutional rights every day they are prohibited from marrying, Walker said.  The ban’s backers “point to harm resulting from a ‘cloud of uncertainty’ surrounding the validity of marriages performed after judgment is entered but before proponents’ appeal is resolved,” he said. “Proponents have not, however, argued that any of them seek to wed a same-sex spouse.”

California voters passed Proposition 8 as a state constitutional amendment in November 2008, five months after the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex unions and an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples already had married.

Source

9/11 Mosque Imam responds to Gay Bar

jihad-poster1

Gay - Muslim Reconciliation

The New Tolerance will grind your faces into the dust if that’s what it takes to have their Muslim “reconciliation”.  So Greg Gutfeld offers some reconciliation of his own with his proposal to open a Gay Bar across the street from the victory mosque.  As you might expect, this is not sitting well with the mosque developers, however, nor with their Leftist enablers.

So the other night I announced plans to build a gay bar catering to Islamic men, near the proposed mosque site near Ground Zero.  The goal? To echo the mosque’s own website, which says it’s trying to promote integration and tolerance. I figured, I could return the favor, by opening a gay bar.

After all, Islam despises homosexuality – and this Muslim-friendly gay bar would help mend fences.

Right now the working name of the bar is Heaven and Halal. It will be two floors – one serving Hallel food, and other other serving cocktails. There will be 72 of them.  And they will be virgin.  So here’s an update, since last night.

Now, I’ve scoped out some properties. And, I’ve received countless inquiries regarding investment, folks who have offered up to six figures. But because some of them were drunk, they may have placed the decimal point in the wrong place.  I also contacted the Cordoba House, the folks behind the mosque – but they have not returned my calls.

So I tweeted them.  Here’s what they tweeted back.

You’re free to open whatever you like. If you won’t consider the sensibilities of Muslims, you’re not going to build dialog.

By the way, I’m not building dialog, I’m building a bar.  And as for the sensibilities of Muslims – which involves homophobia – thats not for me.  And that’s my point – its weird being educated in tolerance by an incredibly intolerant ideology. As long as gays and women are treated so poorly, how can they teach us compassion and generosity?

Anyway, I will keep you all up to date on the progress – and for more info, always come here.  If you don’t you’re probably a racist homophobe.

Source

August 10, 2010

Investor to open gay bar Next to Ground Zero Mosque

A prominent Rightwinger sounds dead serious about opening a gay bar next to the Ground Zero victory mosque.  Like the mosque itself, this will all be done in the name of reconciliation and “breaking down barriers” between Islam and teh gay community.   Naturally, the Left will not have a problem with this, but methinks the Muslims won’t be so eager for “reconciliation” when it’s their ox being gored.

So, the Muslim investors championing the construction of the new mosque near Ground Zero claim it’s all about strengthening the relationship between the Muslim and non-Muslim world.  As an American, I believe they have every right to build the mosque – after all, if they buy the land and they follow the law – who can stop them?

Which is, why, in the spirit of outreach, I’ve decided to do the same thing.  I’m announcing tonight, that I am planning to build and open the first gay bar that caters not only to the west, but also Islamic gay men. To best express my sincere desire for dialogue, the bar will be situated next to the mosque Park51, in an available commercial space.

This is not a joke. I’ve already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance.  As you know, the Muslim faith doesn’t look kindly upon homosexuality, which is why I’m building this bar. It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world.

The goal, however, is not simply to open a typical gay bar, but one friendly to men of Islamic faith. An entire floor, for example, will feature non-alcoholic drinks, since booze is forbidden by the faith. The bar will be open all day and night, to accommodate men who would rather keep their sexuality under wraps – but still want to dance.

Bottom line: I hope that the mosque owners will be as open to the bar, as I am to the new mosque. After all, the belief driving them to open up their center near Ground Zero, is no different than mine.  My place, however, will have better music.  For investment information, contact me at dailygut.com

Source

August 7, 2010

Same-Sex Marriage and the Assault on Moral Reasoning

This one adds reason and logic to our feelings of outrage.  Read it till the end.

By Matthew Franck

It is something of a consolation, albeit a small one, that the best arguments advocates for a constitutional “right” to same-sex marriage can muster are so transparently bad. Disconnected from nature, from history, from the canons of legal reasoning, and even from the standards of logic itself, their arguments betray themselves at every turn, as acts of the will and not of reasoned judgment. When the advocate advancing the arguments wears a black robe and sits on the federal bench, of course, even falsehood and fallacy have a decent chance of ultimate victory.

Such an advocate is Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. district court in San Francisco. After two and a half weeks of trial in January, and a day of closing arguments in June, he finally delivered his ruling and opinion in Perry v. Schwarzenegger on August 4, overturning California’s Proposition 8, an amendment to the state constitution adopted by the people in November 2008, declaring that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The California Supreme Court, in May of that year, had overturned an earlier popular referendum protecting marriage (that had only statutory status) on grounds that it violated the state constitution. And so the people of the state, against the odds and facing elite opposition, amended that constitution just six months later. Judge Walker has shifted the ground of the controversy to the federal constitution, and has flung wide the door of the federal courts to embrace (he hopes) some of the worst sophistical knavery that has been seen in quite some time in the pages of American jurisprudence.

Perhaps the most surprising thing in the judge’s opinion is his declaration that “gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage.” This line, quoted everywhere within hours with evident astonishment, appears to be the sheerest ipse dixit-a judicial “because I said so”-and the phrase “no longer” conveys that palpable sense that one is being mugged by a progressive. But Judge Walker’s remark here is actually the conclusion of a fairly complex argument. The problem is that the argument is not only complex but wholly fallacious.

Judges, especially those of the lower courts, know that their innovations in constitutional law are best armored by an appearance of continuity with history and precedent. And so Judge Walker begins by reminding us that the right to marry has long been considered “fundamental” in our jurisprudence. And so it has, for those-namely couples of men and women-considered capable of entering into the relationship of marriage. Are the same-sex plaintiffs in the Perry case asking then for a “new” right, or for admission without unjust barriers of discrimination to the enjoyment of an old one? At first glance it looks like the first of these is the case. But any road that leads to the second conclusion will be smoothest for the judge-advocate’s purposes, since it will provide that much-desired appearance of continuity with the law’s long history.

Yet how to pave that road? By distinguishing between the “core” attributes of the institution of marriage and those that are only incidental, those historical attributes that have been abandoned without harm to what is essential about marriage. Many American states, for instance, once considered race an important attribute, so that racial difference was a barrier to the formation of a marriage. But race is now universally understood not to matter, and the Supreme Court even said in 1965 that the Constitution did not tolerate such a legal rule.

By the same token, says Judge Walker, the doctrine of coverture, in the common law, in which a wife’s legal identity was subsumed by that of her husband as the superior partner in the marriage-that too has been abandoned by a more modern understanding of the sexes as equal partners. Thus, concludes the judge, there has been a “movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles.” And this has not been an essential change in the “core” of the marriage institution, but merely a shedding of an extraneous characteristic, thanks to “an evolution in the understanding of gender.”

And now watch carefully, for here the fallacious reasoning enters the equation. When “the genders” are no longer “seen as having distinct roles,” it is revealed that at marriage’s “core” there is ample space for same-sex couples too. Since “gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage,” indeed since it never really did, “plaintiffs’ relationships are consistent with the core of the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States.” There, you see? There is something eminently conservative about the admission of same-sex couples to the marital bond. What could we have been thinking, denying them this right for all these centuries?

Judge Walker seems to have committed the fallacy of composition-taking something true of a part and concluding that it is also true of the whole of which it is a part. If it is true that “gender” no longer matters as it once did in the relation of husband and wife, he reasons, therefore it no longer matters whether the relation is one of husband and wife; it may as well be a relation of husband and husband or of wife and wife, since we now know that marriage is not, at its “core,” a “gendered institution.” But restated in this way, it is quite plain that the judge’s conclusion doesn’t follow from his premises. To say that the status of men and women in marriage is one of equal partners is not to say that men and women are the same, such that it does not matter what sex their partners are. The equalization of status is not the obliteration of difference, as much as Judge Walker would like to pretend it is.

Once having admitted same-sex couples to the ranks of those holding the “fundamental right” to marry, the judge has easier sport in his sights, manipulating the “levels of scrutiny” that so afflict modern constitutional law, and concluding withal that the voters who approved Proposition 8 acted without any “rational basis” for their decision to preserve marriage in the only form in which our law has ever known it. Now conservatism gets a hiding from Judge Walker: “Tradition alone . . . cannot form a rational basis for a law.”

Well, yes, to be sure. Tradition must give its reasons-though in the common-law legal tradition, it is novelty that usually bears a heavier burden in this respect. And is it really as easy as the judge thinks to dismiss a “tradition” so bound up with commonsense understandings of nature, of human flourishing, of the purposes of marriage and family? Confidently sweeping aside such understandings, Judge Walker declares that “moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.”

This is a very telling conjunction. Once it would have been thought to strengthen the case for a law, that it rested on the moral views of the lawmakers, if no countervailing right against being governed by such views could be adduced. And it would have been a matter of no legal suspicion whatsoever that the moral views informing a law found confirmation in widely held religious views as well. For such moral principles are not articles of faith, in the sense of being specially revealed to the elect or the faithful. They are the conclusions of trains of reasoning about right and wrong, and about human ends and the fitness of the means to them. In language we might borrow from Plato’s Euthyphro, the moral norms that govern marriage are embraced by the pious not because they are mysterious commands of an inscrutable divine will, but because they are rationally knowable as good in themselves, and for this reason find support in the dictates of faith as well.

But for Judge Walker there is an odor of illegitimacy about merely “moral” views expressed in legislation, especially when morality finds support in religion. Thus he declares that Proposition 8 expresses only a “private moral choice,” not a considered public morality. And thus in his tendentious “findings of fact” (about the purpose of which, see this editorial in National Review), he makes the astonishing claim-purporting to be a fact found at trial, not a judgment of his own-that “religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful . . . harm gays and lesbians.”

Perhaps here, in this nadir of absurdity, we have found the real fundament of the judge’s thinking. Citizens who wish to defend the institution of marriage as they and their families have known it all their lives, and for countless generations, are irrational bigots. Worse still, if they are moved to act because of the union of their faith with their moral opinions, they are crazy religious folk, bent only on harming others whom they merely “dislike” on grounds that cannot possibly be defended before a tribunal of right-thinking people. And those others, the same-sex-couple plaintiffs? They must be rescued from the “harm” to their feelings that results from their exclusion from a historic civil and moral institution that has never hitherto been thought to have been built for them.

That Judge Vaughn Walker evidently cannot grasp what an effrontery his opinion is to the faith, the morals, and yes, the feelings of the vast majority of his fellow Americans is the final irony of his ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. But perhaps he can be taught a lesson about the violence he has done to the rule of law, and to the United States Constitution. His fellow citizens, more accustomed than he to governing themselves by canons of reasoned judgment, may have to teach the lesson, if his superiors on the bench will not do so.

Source

August 5, 2010

Prop 8: Your vote means nothing now

Vaughn Walker: Gay Judge

One single solitary (gay) Liberal lawyer in black robes overturns the votes of 7 million Californians with the stroke of a pen.  From Andrew Sullivan:

What strikes me about Judge Walker’s opinion is the amount of evidence he included there – numbered, paraphrased facts with direct citation to and quotation from the trial record. As a lawyer, I can’t say that I have ever seen a judge include that much of the trial transcript in an opinion. He would have done this to make his record so that when the case is appealed – as everyone knows it will be – he has included enough direct evidence produced at trial to support his application of the law. His clerks made that trial record their bitch, and Judge Walker took that dog for a walk.

Whether the appeals court overturns on the application of law is a different issue. But it’s not going to be a fact issue that does it. And then the way that he completely flicks away Prop 8 proponents’ experts’ testimony. The man is smart.

Here is a summary of the court’s findings of fact:

1. Marriage is and has been a civil matter, subject to religious intervention only when requested by the intervenors.

2. California, like every other state, doesn’t require that couples wanting to marry be able to procreate.3. Marriage as an institution has changed overtime; women were given equal status; interracial marriage was formally legalized; no-fault divorce made it easier to dissolve marriages.

5. Same-sex love and intimacy “are well-documented in human history.”

10. “Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital union.”

11. “Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals.”

12. “The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships.”

13. “Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages.”

And conclusions from Ace:

Here’s why that matters: in an equal protection or due process challenge like this case, findings of fact are reviewed on appeal for “clear error” while legal conclusions are reviewed “de novo.” In other words, the appelate courts will give great deference to the trial judge’s findings of fact, but can completely throw his legal conclusions out the window.

The fact that Judge Walker made pages and pages of factual findings indicates to me that he was extremely conscious of the standards of review and used the shoddy performance of proponents to produce evidence (who were actively sabotaged by putative-defendant the State of California) as a means of protecting his decision somewhat from appellate review.

Where would modern Liberalism be without its activist judges.  Appellate trials involving cases of great societal import are often decided on their politics.  Sure, the judges try to use the facts and law to justify their ruling, but the results they want to achieve are often a foregone conclusion based on their own personal bias, how the judge wants to be remembered by posterity, and the politics.  This is why elections matter, and why judicial appointments are so important.  Oh, and one thing they don’t mention is that the judge in this case is gay.  Bias?  What bias!  It’s one of those “unmentionables.”  And he didn’t recuse himself.  Will this “finding of fact” be considered by the Supreme Court?

August 3, 2010

Moar Gay: CBS President Apologizes for Not Having Enough Homosexual Propaganda

July 30, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) — CBS President Nina Tassler has apologized for the network’s low rating on the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation’s (GLAAD) recent “Network Responsibility Index,” which ranked broadcast and cable networks by the percentage of “LGBT-inclusive” hours in their original prime time programming.

“We’re very disappointed in our track record so far,” said Tassler at the Television Critics Association fall previews.  “We’ll try to do better.” CBS received the worst rating of the five broadcast networks evaluated, with 7% of its original primetime programming being classified as “LGBT-inclusive.”

GLAAD had faulted CBS for having no regular LGBT series characters.  CBS had homosexual characters in at least three reality shows, a recurring homosexual character in one series, and homosexual characters in single episodes of at least two other shows.

GLAAD also blamed CBS series such as “CSI” and “NCSIS: Los Angeles” for having “a track record of portraying LGBT people as only victims or pathological killers.”  “CBS needs to ensure that this does not happen in the future,” they said.

Promising to make up for past failures, Tassler said the show “The Good Wife” would introduce a homosexual character, and there would be a recurring homosexual character on “S#*! My Dad Says.” GLAAD President Jarret Barrios said that it was “encouraging that CBS shares our disappointment in the network’s lack of gay and transgender representation and we are hopeful that the new characters will help build awareness and understanding of our community among viewers.”

“After two years of receiving a ‘failing’ grade and a commitment last year to be more inclusive, we hope that CBS President Nina Tassler makes true on this promise to bring the network more in line with the industry standard.”

Source

And they say “What gay agenda”?   lol.

July 29, 2010

The New Tolerance: Student Who Opposes Homosexuality Expelled

Secular Progressives to Christians: change your religious beliefs or pay the price.

A federal judge has ruled in favor of a public university that removed a Christian student from its graduate program in school counseling over her belief that homosexuality is morally wrong. Monday’s ruling, according to Julea Ward’s attorneys, could result in Christian students across the country being expelled from public university for similar views.

“It’s a very dangerous precedent,” Jeremy Tedesco, legal counsel for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, told FOX News Radio. “The ruling doesn’t say that explicitly, but that’s what is going to happen.”  U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh dismissed Ward’s lawsuit against Eastern Michigan University. She was removed from the school’s counseling program last year because she refused to counsel homosexual clients.

The university contended she violated school policy and the American Counseling Association code of ethics.  “Christian students shouldn’t be expelled for holding to and abiding by their beliefs,” said ADF senior counsel David French. “To reach its decision, the court had to do something that’s never been done in federal court: uphold an extremely broad and vague university speech code.”

Eastern Michigan University hailed the decision.

“We are pleased that the court has upheld our position in this matter,” EMU spokesman Walter Kraft said in a written statement. “Julea Ward was not discriminated against because of her religion. To the contrary, Eastern Michigan is deeply committed to the education of our students and welcomes individuals from diverse backgrounds into our community.”

In his 48-page opinion, Judge Steeh said the university had a rational basis for adopting the ACA Code of Ethics.

“Furthermore, the university had a rational basis for requiring students to counsel clients without imposing their personal values,” he wrote in a portion of his ruling posted by The Detroit News. “In the case of Ms. Ward, the university determined that she would never change her behavior and would consistently refuse to counsel clients on matters with which she was personally opposed due to her religious beliefs – including homosexual relationships.”

Read the rest.

July 27, 2010

Elton John Slams Arizona Boycott

CCHQ awarded Elton John our Good Guy Award last month because he stands out as a genuinely swell guy in a debauched business known for its low lifes.  He’s against gay marriage, and is more than happy with civil unions.  He’s slammed his fellow artists for boycotting Israel.  He famously performed at Rush Limbaugh’s wedding despite the Liberal outcry.  He’s befriended and performed with Enimen, the rapper not exactly known for his PC attitudes about gays.  And now this.

Elton John’s choice words for boycotting musicians

Elton John didn’t mince words in slamming his fellow musicians for boycotting Arizona over the controversial SB 1070 immigration law. From the stage at his sold-out Tucson Arena concert Thursday night, John savored a few choice, not-so-family-friendly words:  “We are all very pleased to be playing in Arizona. I have read that some of the artists won’t come here.  They are (expletive)wits! Let’s face it: I still play in California, and as a gay man I have no legal rights whatsoever. So what’s the (expletive) with these people?”

John has never been one to cave into political pressure from his musical colleagues. He ignored an artist boycott of Israel in June over the flotilla fiasco and played a show in Tel Aviv. He also played Rush Limbaugh’s latest wedding reception in early June, which drew the ire of gays and lesbians. Limbaugh is vehemently anti-gay marriage; John is married to his longtime partner David Furnish.

Source

July 12, 2010

University of Illinois Instructor Fired Over Catholic Beliefs

Academia is the nerve center of the culture destroying Left.  Exhibit # 658: a university professor hired to teach the tenets of Catholicism is fired for teaching, well, the tenets of Catholicism.  Welcome to the New Tolerance:

URBANA, Ill. — The University of Illinois has fired an adjunct professor who taught courses on Catholicism after a student accused the instructor of engaging in hate speech by saying he agrees with the church’s teaching that homosexual sex is immoral.

The professor, Ken Howell of Champaign, said his firing violates his academic freedom. He also lost his job at an on-campus Catholic center.  Howell, who taught Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought, says he was fired at the end of the spring semester after sending an e-mail explaining some Catholic beliefs to his students preparing for an exam.

“Natural Moral Law says that Morality must be a response to REALITY,” he wrote in the e-mail. “In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same.”  An unidentified student sent an e-mail to religion department head Robert McKim on May 13, calling Howell’s e-mail “hate speech.” The student claimed to be a friend of the offended student. The writer said in the e-mail that his friend wanted to remain anonymous.

“Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing,” the student wrote. “Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another.”  Howell said he was teaching his students about the Catholic understanding of natural moral law.

“My responsibility on teaching a class on Catholicism is to teach what the Catholic Church teaches,” Howell said in an interview with The News-Gazette in Champaign. “I have always made it very, very clear to my students they are never required to believe what I’m teaching and they’ll never be judged on that.”

Howell also said he makes clear to his students that he’s Catholic and that he believes the church views that he teaches. McKim referred questions to university spokeswoman Robin Kaler, who said she couldn’t comment on Howell or his firing because it’s a personnel issue.

Read the rest.

July 1, 2010

The Greening of the church: When Ecology Replaces Theology

In the post-christian age, the Church no longer decides what’s moral and what isn’t.  Rather, it follows the social trends playing out in the secular world and jumps on that bandwagon.  That’s how a dying church stays “relevant” in a world where it has become all but obsolete.  It does not challenge the secular world and offer an alternative, but rather affirms the secular world.  The problem is folks don’t need to join a church in order to believe in gay marriage, global warming, or whatever else comes down the secular pike.  Both are offered in spades by the secular world, and Christianity’s eagerness to ditch traditional teaching in favor of secular progressive social norms further perpetuates its own obsolescence.  In the post-Christian era, the Church does not lead, it follows.

Is saving the earth what remains when liberal churches are no longer concerned for the salvation of souls? Have these churches replaced theology with ecology?

Frank Furedi is a British sociologist who teaches at the University of Kent. He is also a controversialist and a public intellectual. In a recent article published at Spike, Furedi suggests that some religious institutions are “busy reinventing themselves by promoting ecological virtues and preaching against the eco-sins of polluters.” He offers a most interesting argument.

Furedi contends that a crisis of authority has shaken many churches, and that modern societies the have largely given up on saving traditional morality. In his words:

Sometime back in the 1980s, Western societies gave up on the project of rescuing ‘traditional values’ and morality. From time to time, conservative politicians and moral entrepreneurs have attempted to launch back-to-basics crusades promoting ‘family values’. However, their lack of popular appeal has only exposed society’s estrangement from these traditions. Indeed by the Eighties, even religious institutions found it difficult to uphold their own authority with conviction. Instead of influencing society many churches began to internalise the attitudes associated with the lifestyles of their increasingly individualised consumerist flock. The last quarter century has seen a steady diminishing of religious authority in Western societies. Debates about the role of women priests, homosexuality and marriage indicated that religious institutions have become confused about their own relationship to traditional values.

Furedi suggests that these churches are now seeking to find a new platform in order to assert a new claim to authority within the culture. This new platform appears to be ecology and the goal of saving the earth.  His argument is compelling:

In recent years, some in the church have sought to gain the public’s ear through the greening of traditional doctrines, and Christ the Saviour is fast becoming Christ the environmental activist. Western society is continually in search of rituals and symbols through which moral probity can be affirmed. It appears that, for many church leaders, the project of saving the planet offers more opportunities for reconstituting rituals and symbols than the saving of souls.

It is not just the odd priest offering absolution through the ritual of eco-confession. Church leaders have embraced the rituals of eco-morality to demonstrate their commitment to a higher good. Absolution through carbon offsets appears to be the way forward.

An observer of church life today, especially within the shrinking domain of liberal Protestantism, will find plenty of evidence for Furedi’s hypothesis. Ecological concerns appear to serve as a replacement for abandoned doctrines and outdated concerns — such as evangelism. Furedi finds plenty of support for his argument within contemporary Roman Catholicism, but here is his analysis of the situation within the Church of England:

In 2006, the Church of England launched an eco-crusade entitled ‘Shrinking the Footprint’. The Archbishop of Canterbury complained that ‘early modern religion contributed to the idea that the fate of nature is for it to be bossed around by a detached sovereign will, whether divine or human’. It seems possible that those misguided early modern religionists received that idea from the Book of Genesis, where God gives Man dominion ‘over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth’.  Now the head of the Anglican church protests about nature being ‘bossed around’ not only by Man, but by God. This year, the Church of England launched a booklet of green tips for the faithful entitled How Many Christians Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb? Its eco-commandments include: share cars on the road to church, use virtuous low-energy lightbulbs but cast out junk mail, and do not flush the loo at night.

So is Christ the Savior fast becoming Christ the environmental activist?  Furedi’s argument is both insightful and troubling. There can be no doubt that his argument is true with respect to many churches and denominations. And there is a clear warning here. When churches abandon or marginalize the central doctrines of the Christian faith, another religion soon takes its place. That religion might be a religion of therapy, social action, or ecology — or any number of other substitutes for the Gospel.

As Furedi explains, this particular temptation can be traced to “the powerful influence that environmentalism exercises over contemporary culture.” When churches lose confidence that they can speak to other issues in terms of right and wrong (sex, personal behavior, etc), environmentalism remains. In effect, it is the only socially acceptable form of moralism.

Read the rest.

June 29, 2010

Archbishop Rowan Williams call for restraint, Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori says no

Rowan tries to reason with the rebel Bishop.

More on the slow-motion train wreck that is the Anglican/Episcopalian church.  It provides us a case study of what Leftism does to a church.  Here rebel Presiding Bishop of the U.S. Episcopalians, Katherine Jefferts Schori, tells Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, where to stick it.  Notice her claim to victimhood with her manipulative, self-serving, and fundamentally dishonest use of “oppression” language.  I’m only surprised she didn’t come right out and call him a “racist.”

The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church has offered a scriptural defence for her church’s embrace of gay bishops and blessings.  Writing in response to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Pentecost letter, on June 2 Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori asked the Anglican Communion to engage in dialogue with the leaders of the Episcopal Church as “we believe that the Spirit is always calling us to greater understanding.”

The June 2 public letter follows upon private communications between Bishop Jefferts Schori and Dr. Rowan Williams about her continuing role in the councils of the Anglican Communion.  The press officer to the Secretary General of the Anglican Consultative Council has confirmed to The Church of England Newspaper that Canon Kenneth Kearon hand delivered a letter from Dr. Williams to Bishop Jefferts Schori at the April 17 consecration ceremony of Bishop Ian Douglas of Connecticut.

The chancellor to the Presiding Bishop, David Booth Beers, told bishops attending the May 24 to 28 Living Our Vows bishops’ training programme at the Lake Logan Episcopal Center in North Carolina that in this letter Dr. Williams had asked the Presiding Bishop to consider absenting herself from meetings of the Anglican Communion’s Standing Committee and the Primates Meeting in light of the Episcopal Church’s violation of the moratoria on gay bishops and blessings, those present tell CEN.

Speaking to a group of bishops during an informal after dinner session, Mr. Beers stated the Presiding Bishop had rejected the Archbishop of Canterbury’s suggestion, observing that he had no authority to remove her from the Primates Standing Committee as she had been elected by the North and South American primates.  She also objected to Dr. Williams’ claim to have the authority to ban her from the councils of the church.

Bishop Jefferts Schori stated “the Spirit does seem to be saying to many within the Episcopal Church that gay and lesbian persons are God’s good creation, that an aspect of good creation is the possibility of lifelong, faithful partnership, and that such persons may indeed be good and healthy exemplars of gifted leadership within the Church, as baptized leaders and ordained ones.”

She conceded that this “growing awareness does not deny the reality that many Anglicans and not a few Episcopalians still fervently hold traditional views about human sexuality. This Episcopal Church is a broad and inclusive enough tent to hold that variety.”  For the past “50 years” the Episcopal Church has been “listening to and for the Spirit” to guide it on issues of human sexuality.  Not all were agreed on what the Spirit was saying, but the “willingness to live in tension is a hallmark of Anglicanism” she said and “diversity in community” was a hallmark of the Anglican ethos.

Dr. Williams’ efforts to dictate uniformity of belief was un-Anglican, Bishop Jefferts Schori said.  “We live in great concern that COLONIAL attitudes continue, particularly in attempts to impose a single understanding across widely varying contexts and cultures.”

She also noted the “troubling push toward centralized authority” by Dr. Williams, adding that the Church of England and the Episcopal Church had both arisen from “concerns over self-determination in the face of colonial control.”

The presiding bishop objected to the sanctions proposed by Dr. Williams and accused him of a “failure of nerve” and “double-mindedness” by holding private opinions at variance with his public stance.  She also gave an oblique criticism to the Church of England’s tolerance of unofficial gay blessings saying “we are further distressed that such sanctions do not, apparently, apply to those parts of the Communion that continue to hold one view in public and exhibit other behaviors in private. Why is there no sanction on those who continue with a double standard?”

Conservatives in the United States have welcomed the presiding bishop’s robust defence of her views, but are un-persuaded by her arguments. In a 3100-word response, Prof. Christopher Seitz of the Anglican Communion Institute stated Bishop Jeffert Schori’s “account of the Spirit as bringing a truth without prior testimony or dominical warrant, which at the same time gives rise to diversity as a pentecostal gift, diverges in extreme ways from the Gospel of John and the Acts of the Apostles.”

“It is a teaching lacking continuity and agreement with the witness of Christians in our present day, in the worldwide body, and because without biblical warrant, it is also nowhere attested in the history of the church’s teaching,” he said, adding that this “teaching comes from a conviction already held, independently of what is customarily sought in respect of a warrant of God the Holy Spirit because of cultural assumptions about the intentions of sexual activity in our age and because [the Episcopal Church] has already acted on these.”

While applauding the presiding bishop’s decision to “to defend her views by recourse to Christian Scripture” and to clarify “what she understands to be the biblical warrant for her view of the Holy Spirit as an agent of new truth,” such a view is “not consistent” with the witness of Scripture and the “church would be in error should it follow her novel reading,” Prof. Seitz said.

Source

June 23, 2010

The New Normal

Incremental change is the Sec Prog M.O. when it comes to the culture.  The reasons for this strategy are obvious– move too fast, and risk a devastating political backlash by an outraged populace.  There’s no need to rush it.  Their Culture-Media Complex isn’t going anywhere.  It will still be here long after Obama disappears from the scene, changing the very air we breathe.  Whether we be Libs or Cons, Dems or Repubs, the odorless fumes of progress work their mind altering magic on all of us.  The fringe slowly becomes the mainstream, and the never ending Prog agitation simply becomes the normal background static to our lives.  It no longer registers in the outrage meter.  And so it goes on, year after year, decade after decade– ever Leftward.  It becomes the new normal.

Obama embraces incremental response to gay agenda

WASHINGTON (AP) – President Barack Obama is chipping away at his long list of promises to gay voters but has yet to win the enthusiastic backing of the reliably Democratic voting bloc.

The Obama White House has accomplished more than any other on gay rights, yet has drawn sharp criticism from an unexpected constituency: the same gay activists who backed the president’s election campaign. Instead of the sweeping change gays and lesbians had sought, a piece-by-piece approach has been the administration’s favored strategy, drawing neither serious fire from conservatives nor lavish praise from activists.

Obama on Tuesday planned to tick through some of the accomplishments at a meeting with grass-roots gay activists at the White House. His administration planned to announce Wednesday that the Labor Department would order businesses to extend unpaid leave for gay workers to care for newborns or loved ones.

The move, coming less than five months before November’s congressional elections, seems likely to incite conservatives and Republicans who stood in lockstep against the Obama administration’s earlier efforts to repeal a ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military. It also appears likely to be popular with loyal Democrats and organized labor.

Just not with some gay activists, who long ago stopped giving Obama the benefit of a doubt.  “We still need laws passed that achieve what these minimal efforts attempt to do piecemeal,” said Lane Hudson, a gay activist who last year interrupted Bill Clinton as he defended his administration’s handling of gays and lesbians in the military.

“The little things that the Beltway crowd pays attention to – and the White House uses to say ‘We’re making so much progress’ – that doesn’t translate outside the Beltway,” Hudson said.  The White House boasts a long list of accomplishments to tout during meetings with gay and lesbian organizations, but their reach is limited.

For instance, Obama signed a hate crimes bill into law, expanded benefits for partners of State Department employees and ended the ban on HIV-positive persons from visiting the United States. He referenced families with “two fathers” in his Father’s Day proclamation last week and devoted 38 words of his State of the Union address to repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the ban on gays serving openly in the military.

“There’ve been some mixed signals from his staff from time to time, but at the end of the day we’re on the path toward repeal,” said Aubrey Sarvis, the executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which is trying to end the military ban.

“Initially, we saw the president and his team were a bit cautious and measured, I think in large part because they didn’t want to repeat the mistakes of the Clinton administration. That was understandable. But we’re long past that,” he said.

Obama’s campaign pledged to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” yet that goal remains years away. His Justice Department invoked incest in a legal brief defending the traditional definition of marriage, prompting some gay donors last year to boycott the Democratic National Committee. And just last week, a committee at his Health and Human Services Department recommended the nation retain its policy barring gay men from donating blood.

“Two wars, a financial crisis, now an oil spill, plus a fundamental unwillingness to act boldly on gay rights, have rendered Obama agenda-less on this issue,” said Richard Socarides, who advised Clinton on gay policies.  Obama’s allies say the small-bore changes are the best activists can hope despite Democrats controlling the White House, the Senate and the House.

“The reason why these policy changes are important is because we do not have ironclad LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) majorities in either house of Congress,” said Fred Sainz, a vice president at the Human Rights Campaign, Washington’s largest gay rights organization.

“People wrongly assume that having Democratic majorities in Congress means that your legislative goals will be met. That’s not the case,” Sainz said.

It’s small consolation for gay rights activists.  “The people in the White House have to realize that issues of equality are not controversial,” Hudson said.  A Gallup poll last month found 70 percent of American favor allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. That same poll, however, included a reminder: 53 percent opposed legalizing gay marriage.

Source

Older Posts »

Blog at WordPress.com.