[Active-l] (NEWS) Today's Cultural Warfare Update
Dara (R'ykandar Korra'ti)
kahvi at murkworks.net
Sat Jun 23 00:17:52 PDT 2007
Today's CWU is unusual in that there's an extended section of links
mostly provided by lj:dogemperor (dogemperor.livejournal.com),
documenting the continued promotion of the "homosexuals ran the Nazi
party and slaughtered the Jews" Holocaust revisionism. I heard this
from a variety of sources in the late 1990s, but did not know it was
still around; it is, but at the state level, rather than national.
Still, it is apparently a part of the subtext for the "gay ==
tyranny" argument being made at a slightly more refined level
nationally.
And now, today's news.
I include this one mostly because various people continue to insist
to me that the theoconservative movement is not critical to the
Republican party; it's Raw Story covering a meeting between President
Bush and James Dobson (and others);
Courtesy lj:dogemperor (dogemperor.livejournal.com), here are a whole
set of links about something I thought had died out in the late 1990s
but in fact continues to this day: the fundamentalist holocaust
revisionism that blames gay people for both the Nazi party and the
Holocaust, asserting that gay people - gay men in particular - were
behind the Holocaust, rather than victims of it. Most of the links in
this section are provided courtesy lj:dogemperor
(dogemperor.livejournal.com):
Leadership U., a spinoff of Campus Crusade for Christ
( http://www.leaderu.com/menus/aboutus.html ), promotes
the book _The Pink Swastika: Homosexuals and the Nazi
Party_. The book's author, Scott Lively, is or was head of
the California branch of the American Family Association
( http://www.afa.net/affiliates/california.asp ), though that
branch may now be inactive and the AFA may now be
trying to hide this. Google cache of the web page here:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:EU5giCYSXAcJ:www.afa.net/
affiliates/california.asp+%22scott+lively%22+california+%22American
+Family+Association%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=safari
Abiding Truth Ministries hosts the 4th Edition of _The Pink
Swastika_, quoting a variety of reviews praising the book
for showing how the Holocaust really happened - it wasn't
those good Germans, it was the fags, whose perversion
leads to fascism. Abiding Truth Ministries also sells another
book, _The Poisoned Stream_, which also blames gay
people for fascism (quoting their summary, it "traces the
'poisoned stream' of homosexual influences throughout
history, particularly in Germany between 1890 and 1945");
The Annotated Pink Swastika, a refutation of the book, made
in response to a Wisconsin group redistributing the original;
Scott Lively's article above is reprinted by "Life and Liberty
Ministries";
Life and Liberty Ministries calls for the recriminalisation of
GBLT people, along with arrests, prosecution, and punishment
of all GBLT people;
The Southern Poverty Law Centre quotes Family Research
Council wonk Dr. Howard Hurwitz praising _The Pink Swastika_,
and Pat Robertson saying that lots of Nazis were gay, and also,
by the way, Satanists, and that the two go together; Pat
Robertson is well known and needs no introduction; the
Family Research Council is, of course, a spinoff of James
Dobson's Focus on the Family. James Dobson is an extremely
powerful fundamentalist theoconservative, and is a leading
voice in the weekly GOP national strategy calls;
lj:dogemperor also finds and posts ties between Life and
Liberty Ministries and several explicitly-dominionist and/or
Christian Reconstructionist groups.
Back to our normal programme, Focus on the Family's ad today is for
their book, _101 Frequently Asked Questions about Homosexuality_,
which tells fundamentalists how to reject the idea that being gay is
acceptable;
Focus on the Family promotes the 32nd "Exodus International Freedom
Conference," an "ex-gay" quackery group;
Focus on the Family pleased that the GOP stopped an embryonic stem-
cell research bill by voting against it as a bloc; Focus calls it the
"Clone-and-Kill Bill";
Focus on the Family ACTION ITEM to thank Congressional
representatives who voted to maintain the "international gag rule" or
"Mexico City policy" of barring foreign aid to groups that provide or
discuss abortion services;
FotF: New Jersey lesbian couple denied rental of a beachfront
pavilion (normally rented to the public) because they are lesbians;
it turns out that "Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association" is owned by
a Methodist organisation, so they're claiming religious exemption;
FotF promotes the fundamentalist "biotech conference" hosted at the
Bethany Bible Church by pastors called, "The Biotech Century: Facing
Our Future";
Concerned Women for America's Matt Barber condemns the Massachusetts
vote not to overturn marriage rights for GBLT couples, calling it
Frankenstein's monster "terrorising the countryside," alleges
bribery, condemns "political treachery" leading to the "no" vote,
says that legal gay marriage means legal incest, and calls for a
Federal anti-gay amendment to make the Massachusetts legislative vote
moot;
CWA kinda-sorta ACTION ITEM to continue requiring abstinence-based
AIDS prevention programmes overseas;
CWA comments Bush veto of Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007;
CWA's condemnation of GBLT-friendly churches, "The Gay Gospel: How
Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible," has a working audio link now.
CWA's Matt Barber discusses the book with Joe Dallas, the author.
There's not all that much red meat in this one, tho' it's neat
watching Barber try to get Dallas to get into it; Dallas doesn't
bite, though; but wtf is "body ministry," anyway? Barber recommends
it as a way of dealing with "sexual sin," and all I can think of is,
"...IF you know what I mean";
Traditional Values Coalition laments poll showing that 60% of
Americans think "homosexual relations should be legal," noting that's
up from 47% in 1977. I'd like to click through to that poll, but I
can't. TVC then wonders if American values would change if "they
understood that 'sexual orientation' can include bestiality,
necrophilia, pedophilia, and sexual attraction to the stumps of
amputees." Mmmmm, breathless new lows.
----- 1 -----
Bush met with Dobson and conservative Christian leaders to rally
support for Iran policy
Max Blumenthal
Raw Story
Published: Monday May 14, 2007
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/
Bush_meets_with_Dobson_Christian_right_0514.html
President George W. Bush met privately with Focus on the Family
Founder and Chairman James Dobson and approximately a dozen Christian
right leaders last week to rally support for his policies on Iraq,
Iran and the so-called "war on terror."
“I was invited to go to Washington DC to meet with President Bush in
the White House along with 12 or 13 other leaders of the pro-family
movement," Dobson disclosed on his radio program Monday. “And the
topic of the discussion that day was Iraq, Iran and international
terrorism. And we were together for 90 minutes and it was very
enlightening and in some ways disturbing too."
[...]
Dobson described Bush as “upbeat and determined and convinced,
adding, “I wish the American people could have sat in on that meeting
we had.”
Dobson went on to enumerate a series of meetings convened by
Christian right leaders in Washington to discuss the supposedly
existential threat to the United States from a nuclear Iran.
[...]
“The world looked at Hitler and just didn't believe him and tried to
appease him the way we're hearing in Washington today,” Dobson
remarked. “You know, the President seems to me does understand this,
as I told you from that meeting I had with him the other day, but
even there it feels like somebody ought to be standing up and saying,
‘We are being threatened and we are going to meet this with force --
whatever's necessary.’”
[More at URL]
----- 2 -----
Homosexuality and the Nazi Party
by Scott Lively
Scott Lively is co-author of The Pink Swastika: Homosexuals and the
Nazi Party (Keizer, Oregon: Founders Publishing Company, 1995). The
Pink Swastika is not available through Leadership U., but is
available by calling Jeremiah Films at 1-800-828-2290.
http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/lively.html
The pink triangle, symbol of the "gay rights" movement, is familiar
to many Americans. As the badge used by the Nazis to designate
homosexuals in the concentration camps, the pink triangle perfectly
expresses the message of "gay rights." That message is that
homosexuals are currently and historically victims of irrational
prejudice and that those who oppose homosexuality are hateful bigots.
This all-important victim status engenders sympathy for the
homosexual "cause" among well-meaning heterosexuals. Thus, millions
of otherwise rational Americans support a movement whose sole
unifying characteristic is a sexual lifestyle they personally find
repugnant.
[...]
While some homosexuals were interned in Nazi work camps, the role of
homosexuals in Nazi history cannot be accurately represented solely
by a pink triangle. Our review of more than 200 history texts written
since the 1930s suggests that a pink swastika is equally
representative, if not more so. For, ironically, while many
homosexuals were persecuted by the Nazi party, there is no doubt that
the Nazi party itself had many homosexuals within its own ranks, even
among its highest leadership.
[More at URL]
----- 3 -----
Reviewers Praise The Pink Swastika
Defend the Family, a service of Abiding Truth Ministries
(http://www.abidingtruth.com/)
Online as of 22 June 2007
http://www.abidingtruth.com/pfrc/books/pinkswastika/html/
the_pinkswastika_4th_edition_-_final.htm
“The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party is a thoroughly
researched, eminently readable, demolition of the “gay” myth,
symbolized by the pink triangle, that the Nazis were anti-
homosexual. The deep roots of homosexuality in the Nazi party are
brilliantly exposed . . .”
- Dr. Howard Hurwitz, Family Defense Council
“As a Jewish scholar who lost hundreds of her family in the
Holocaust, I welcome The Pink Swastika as courageous and
timely . . . Lively and Abrams reveal the reigning “gay history” as
revisionist and expose the supermale German homosexuals for what they
were - Nazi brutes, not Nazi victims.”
- Dr. Judith Reisman, Institute for Media Education
[More at URL]
----- 4 -----
The Annotated Pink Swastika
Citizens Allied for Civic Action (CAFCA)
Online as of 22 June 2007
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Barracks/8706/
(also at http://www.qrd.org/qrd/religion/anti/annotated.pink.swastika )
Click Below to Expose the Lies
1. What is The Annotated Pink Swastika?
2. What is The Pink Swastika?
3. Begin Reading (Table of Contents)
4. Download a Searchable ASCII Version
[More at URL]
----- 5 -----
Homosexuality and the Nazi Party - Part 1
January 09, 2005
by Scott Lively
Life and Liberty Ministries
http://www.lifeandlibertyministries.com/archives/000278.php
The pink triangle, symbol of the "gay rights" movement, is familiar
to many Americans. As the badge used by the Nazis to designate
homosexuals in the concentration camps, the pink triangle perfectly
expresses the message of "gay rights." That message is that
homosexuals are currently and historically victims of irrational
prejudice and that those who oppose homosexuality are hateful bigots.
This all-important victim status engenders sympathy for the
homosexual "cause" among well-meaning heterosexuals. Thus, millions
of otherwise rational Americans support a movement whose sole
unifying characteristic is a sexual lifestyle they personally find
repugnant.
[...]
The Homosexual Roots of the Nazi Party
The "gay rights" movement often portrays itself as an American
phenomenon which arose from the civil rights movement of the 1950s.
It is not uncommon to hear homosexualists (those both "gay" and
"straight" who promote the legitimization of homosexuality)
characterize "gay rights" as the natural third wave of civil rights
activism (following blacks and women). In reality, however, Germany
was the birthplace of "gay rights," and its legacy in that nation is
truly alarming.
[More at URL]
----- 6 -----
Sodomy Is A Crime
Life and Liberty Ministries
February 04, 2005
http://www.lifeandlibertyministries.com/archives/000094.php
After confronting people out on the street with what the Word of God
says and then reading what is happening in the news, I have to ask
the question, "Why are the pro-family groups having such a hard time
discussing the crime of sodomy?" What has become evident to me is the
fact that most of these groups do not publicly address sodomy as a
crime and then demand that our civil authorities arrest, prosecute,
and punish the sodomites.
Christians need to understand that this is the same mistake that the
pro-life groups made years ago by not addressing the criminal
activity of murder -- by abortion. In the 60's and 70's when
criminals began to proclaim a right to commit murder (abortion
right), pro-life groups capitulated to the false notion that a
"right" to murder innocent people by abortion, in fact, existed,
which led them to erroneously conclude that a particular method of
murdering people could then be regulated legislatively (abortion
regulations). Many Christians who bought into that tragic mind-set
now find themselves entangled in endless debate over medical
procedures, licensing regulations, etc., while criminals are allowed
to murder children with impunity.
We see exactly the same thing happening with the false claim of gay
rights. Many pro-family groups are capitulating to the false notion
that "gay rights," in fact, exist and therefore, are not maintaining
their focus on addressing the truth that sodomy is a crime.
Consequently, these groups are now finding themselves in protracted,
defensive strategies while criminals are allowed to sodomize each
other and members of society with impunity.
[...]
Not only should Christian men fight for the safety of their families
by demanding that these civil officials repent, or resign from office
immediately, Christians should be demanding the strongest laws and
punishments against sodomy be put into effect so as to cleanse the
pestilence from our society. (Lev. 20:13)
Sodomy is an "abomination" (Lev.18:22), and those who engage in
sodomy are so vile that their very presence defiles the land (Lev.
18:22,25). Through the administration of Justice, God gives the civil
officials the authority to prevent society, the land, from being
defiled. The civil officials swing the sword to "...execute wrath
upon him that doeth evil" (Rom. 13:4) -- and in this case sodomites
-- "...shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon
them" (Lev. 20:13).
[More at URL]
----- 7 -----
Making Myths
Anti-gay religious crusaders claim homosexuals helped mastermind the
Holocaust. They're not telling the truth
By Bob Moser
Southern Poverty Law Centre
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=328
For decades now, "Holocaust revisionists" in the U.S. and Europe have
published pseudo-scholarly papers and books claiming to prove that
the Nazis never carried out a systematic extermination of Jews. In
1995, a book called The Pink Swastika made similar claims about the
Nazis' treatment of homosexuals during the Holocaust.
Written by fundamentalist activists Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams,
The Pink Swastika says that rather than being victimized by the
Nazis, gay men in Hitler's inner circle actually helped mastermind
the Holocaust.
[...]
"When lawlessness is abroad in the land, the same thing will happen
here that happened in Nazi Germany," Pat Robertson once warned
viewers of his 700 Club. "Many of those people involved with Adolf
Hitler were satanists. Many of them were homosexuals. The two seem to
go together."
The Pink Swastika has been promoted by anti-gay groups like the
Family Research Council. The FRC's Dr. Howard Hurwitz called the book
"a thoroughly researched, eminently readable, demolition of the 'gay'
myth, symbolized by the pink triangle, that the Nazis were anti-
homosexual."
[...]
There is no question that the Nazis saw homosexuality as one aspect
of the "degeneracy" they were determined to extinguish. When it came
to power in 1933, the Nazi Party moved quickly to strengthen
Germany's existing penalties against homosexuality. On Oct. 11, 1936,
Hitler's security chief, Heinrich Himmler, went further, announcing
that homosexuality was to be "eliminated" in Germany, along with
miscegenation between the races.
In 1942, the death penalty was instituted for homosexuality.
Offenders in the German military were routinely shot. "That wasn't a
punishment," Himmler explained, "but simply the extinguishing of
abnormal life. It had to be got rid of, just as we pull out weeds,
throw them on a heap, and burn them."
[More at URL]
----- 8 -----
Oh my. THIS is quite interesting
lj:dogemperor ( dogemperor.livejournal.com ) responding to this post
( http://community.livejournal.com/dark_christian/851802.html ) on
the Livejournal "dark_christian" community
( dark_christian.livejournal.com )
10 June 2007
http://community.livejournal.com/dark_christian/851802.html?
thread=10879834#t10879834
Warning: links on first paragraph go to Army of God website. Do not
visit if easily squicked, if your employer logs visits to websites,
or if you have other reasons to be concerned about visiting a website
belonging to a domestic terror organisation that has advocated the
murder of clinic workers and terrorist attacks against women's
clinics, up to and including publications of manuals on how to
conduct domestic terrorism.
[More at URL]
----- 9 -----
101 Frequently Asked Questions About Homosexuality
Mike Haley
Paperback
Focus on the Family
http://resources.family.org/product/id/102566.do?code=OL07XFARC3
The rhetoric surrounding the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle
is everywhere. Parents have children suddenly "coming out."
Organizations are accused of "intolerance." And it seems that
everyone agrees it's okay to be gay. Learn how to address the issues
surrounding same-sex attraction and its implications for society in
this thought-provoking book by a man who's been there.
[Ed. Note: a link to the questions, but not the answers, in table-of-
contents form is here:
http://resources.family.org/images/en_us/local/products/detail/
P00059Btoc.pdf
]
----- 10 -----
California Exodus Freedom Conference Draws a Crowd – And Critics
'A unique and relevant voice' in the dialogue about homosexuality.
by Wendy Cloyd, assistant editor
Focus on the Family
6-22-2007
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000004897.cfm
Exodus International will host its 32nd annual Freedom Conference
June 26 - July 1 – celebrating the truth that change is possible for
people who are unhappy with their same-sex attraction. People from
all over the world – including Japan, Ireland, Britain and Australia
– will gather in Irvine, Calif., for the life-changing event.
Randy Thomas, executive vice president of Exodus International, said
his organization has "a unique and relevant voice" in the discussion
about homosexuality.
[More at URL]
----- 11 -----
Oregon House Stops Clone-and-Kill Bill
Focus on the Family
6-22-2007
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLBriefs/A000004893.cfm
An effort to use public funding to clone and to destroy human embryos
for research came up one vote short in the Oregon House on Thursday.
The bill needed 31 votes to pass.
The entire Republican caucus in the House voted against the bill.
[More at URL]
----- 12 -----
Representatives Who Support Life Deserve Thanks
More than 200 votes were not enough to keep tax dollars from foreign
abortion providers.
by Jennifer Mesko, associate editor
Focus on the Family
6-22-2007
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000004896.cfm
An amendment to keep tax dollars from supporting abortion overseas
failed in the U.S. House on Thursday, but more than 200
representatives who took a stand for life deserve to be thanked.
"Pro-family lawmakers are navigating their way through a minefield of
anti-family legislation and rhetoric this Congress," said Ashley
Horne, federal policy analyst for Focus on the Family Action. "Tell
them you support their efforts to stand strong amid such strong
opposition."
By a vote of 218-205, the House rejected a bipartisan amendment by
Reps. Chris Smith, R-N.J., and Bart Stupak, D-Mich., that would have
preserved the pro-life Mexico City policy — named after the location
where President Reagan announced it in 1984. It was rescinded by
President Clinton in 1993. President Bush reinstated the policy on
his first day in office. The policy denies foreign aid funds to
organizations that promote or provide abortions.
Bush has pledged to veto any bill that undermines his pro-life
policies. Supporters of the Mexico City policy believe they can
sustain a veto, according to Smith's office.
"Someday, future generations of Americans will look back on us and
wonder how — and why — such a rich and seemingly enlightened society,
so blessed and endowed with the capacity to protect and enhance
vulnerable human life, could have instead, so aggressively promoted
death to children by abortion," Smith said during Thursday's debate.
"They will note that we prided ourselves on our human-rights rhetoric
and record, while precluding all protection to the most persecuted
minority in the world today — unborn babies," he added.
Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life
Committee, said: "Regrettably, the pro-life amendment fell a little
short. The president will veto this bill, if necessary. And the veto
will be sustained.
"In the end, they have to decide if they want to get their bills
signed or vetoed. It is important for the members who voted for the
Smith-Stupak amendment to hear appreciation from constituents who do
not want their dollars used for abortion."
The Smith-Stupak amendment was part of the foreign aid spending bill,
which the House passed, 241-178. The Senate Appropriations Committee
could mark up its version of the bill next week.
TAKE ACTION
Check the list to see if your representative voted "Yes" on the pro-
life Stupak-Smith amendment.
Then say "thank you" to those who took a stand for life. If you are a
CitizenLink Daily Update subscriber, click on the blue "Take Action"
button in the e-mail to be automatically logged in to our Action
Center. Otherwise, click on this link.
----- 13 -----
Lesbians Barred From Beachfront Union Sue
Focus on the Famiy
6-22-2007
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLBriefs/A000004891.cfm
Two Ocean Grove, N.J., women who were denied the use of a beachfront
pavilion for a civil-union ceremony have filed a complaint against
the group that owns it, The Associated Press reported.
[...]
Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster submitted an application to use a
pavilion owned by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association. The
application was denied.
[...]
Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action,
said New Jersey statutes protect religious organizations. Under the
law, the Methodist association cannot be compelled to rent to anyone
it concludes does not "promote the religious principles for which it
is established or maintained."
"Although this should be a slam-dunk for the church," Hausknecht
said, "the political pressure that will be brought to bear by
homosexual activists – and the state bureaucrats who support them –
will be intense."
[More at URL]
----- 14 -----
Christians Can Find Answers at Biotech Conference
Focus on the Family
6-22-2007
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLBriefs/A000004890.cfm
The Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) and Focus on the Family are co-
sponsoring a biotech conference in November that will help Christians
answer tough questions about stem cells, living wills and end-of-life
issues.
"The Biotech Century: Facing Our Future" comes to Phoenix on November
3. Speakers include Wesley J. Smith of The Center for Bioethics and
Culture and Carrie Gordon Earll, senior analyst for bioethics at
Focus on the Family Action. Joni Eareckson Tada will be featured in a
special video message.
[More at URL]
----- 15 -----
"Gay Marriage" - It's Alive!
As for the "gay marriage" monster: In the words of Dr. Frankenstein -
"It's alive!" And it's pounding on the castle door.
Concerned Women for America
6/21/2007
By J. Matt Barber
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/13225/CFI/family/index.htm
With its 2003 Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health decision, the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court circumvented the constitutional
process and arbitrarily imposed "same-sex marriage" on the people of
Massachusetts in what amounted to a brazen and contemptuous act of
judicial activism. Now members of the liberal Massachusetts state
legislature have surrendered to the demands of the militant
homosexual lobby and have betrayed both the citizens of Massachusetts
and the democratic process by preventing voters from weighing in on
this crucial issue.
Prior to Goodridge, the concept of a man "marrying" a man or a woman
"marrying" a woman was widely and properly considered preposterous.
However, with their decision in Goodridge, four of the court's seven
social mad scientists have zapped artificial life into a cultural
"gay-marriage" Frankenstein monster. And that radical and bizarre new
concept has been terrorizing the countryside every since.
[...]
However, in order for the amendment to make it onto the 2008 ballot,
at least 50 legislators had to vote in support of the measure in two
consecutive sessions. But despite broad support and almost two
hundred thousand petition signatures, lawmakers thumbed their
collective nose at their constituents and voted by just over a three-
to-one margin (151-45) during the second session to deny the citizens
of Massachusetts a voice.
Several representatives inexplicably pulled a 180 degree turn. The
measure passed with 62 votes during the first term, but about a dozen
lawmakers crumbled under the pressure during the second term and
changed their position. There were even allegations of a quid pro quo
for some of those who changed their votes. It remains to be seen what
- if any - payoff they will receive for their political treachery.
[...]
There were four Massachusetts state legislators in particular who
were most disloyal to their constituents - two Democrats and two
Republicans - elected in 2006 after expressly running on a pro-family
platform and a promise to vote in favor of the amendment. Republicans
Richard Ross and Paul Loscocco and Democrats Angelo Puppolo and
Geraldo Alicea simply lied to their constituents by promising to vote
for the amendment and then shamelessly breaking that promise.
[...]
And what about incest? A brother and a sister? A father and a
daughter? If it's discrimination to prevent same-sex couples from
"marrying," then why not couples who just happen to be blood
relatives? Once the castle gate of traditional marriage bursts open
and that "gay marriage" creature escapes - there's nothing to contain
him … anything goes.
Thousands of years of history, every major world religion and good
ole' fashioned common sense dictate that legitimate marriage exists
only between a male and female and that it's a sacred and fundamental
cornerstone to any healthy society. Although this ballot initiative
wasn't perfect, in that it would have grandfathered existing "same-
sex marriages" in the state, the citizens of Massachusetts should
have at least been allowed to speak. But instead, Massachusetts
lawmakers have arrogantly and disdainfully told their own
constituents to shut up and go home.
[more at URL]
----- 16 -----
Learn Your ABCs to Prevent STDs
Sarah Rode
Concerned Women for America
June 21, 2007
http://www.cwalac.org/article_522.shtml
Editor’s Note: Representative Joe Pitts’ (R-Pennsylvania) amendment
to restore the provision in the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS
Relief (PEPFAR) authorization that requires 33% of HIV/AIDS
prevention funding to be spent on abstinence and fidelity promotion
program failed today (6/21/07) in the House 201-226. Pray that the
Senate will take action to restore this provision. [Ed. Note: That's
the CWA editor, not me, at the start of this paragraph. In case that
isn't clear.]
Everyone loses when Congress allows social agendas to trump saving
lives. That is exactly what may happen if Congress rejects the
allocation of foreign aid to programs which have reduced sexually
transmitted diseases in many countries, most famously Uganda and
Kenya. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-California) and others claim that
changing sexual behavior is not possible and that U.S. foreign aid
should only fund condom distribution and treatment for HIV/AIDS, not
programs that have proven to reduce diseases in the first place. The
ABC approach (A-Abstinence, B-Be faithful, C-use a Condom) has proven
effective at reducing sexually transmitted diseases and sexual partners.
South Africa has the largest number of AIDS infections in the world
with 5.3 million reported in 2003.1 A 2005 study by Human Sciences
Research Council showed that 10.8% of the population was infected
with HIV/AIDS.2 The country’s strategy for reducing the spread of
AIDS relies on generously distributing condoms. Craig Timberg
recently wrote in The Washington Post, “Researchers increasingly
attribute the resilience of HIV in Botswana — and in southern Africa
generally — to the high incidence of multiple sexual relationships.”
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has spread the
message of condom usage to 4,122,500 South Africans and their
government provides unlimited condoms free of charge.3 Timberg
explains, “Soaring rates of condom use have not brought down high HIV
rates. Instead, they rose together, until both were among the
highest in Africa.”4
South Africa has largely ignored the ABC approach to HIV prevention
and that nation is suffering as a result. Yet some in Congress hope
to exclusively fund this failing approach in other countries by
eliminating the amount of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS
Relief (PEPFAR) that is designated for promoting abstinence and
fidelity.
The effectiveness of the ABC approach is shown in numerous countries,
particularly Uganda. In 1991, 15% of Uganda’s population was
infected with HIV. Within 10 years, the prevalence of the virus
decreased with only 5% of the population being infected.5 The most
dramatic decrease of HIV infection is in Kenya. According to Dr.
Patrick Orege, director of Kenya’s National AIDS Control Council, new
infections have already dropped 3% in just the few years since the
ABC policy has been implemented.6
The reduction in HIV/AIDS infections is a result of behavioral
change, not condom usage. Abstinence and fidelity to a partner who
is not infected is 100% effective. Condoms are 80-90% effective
against HIV infection when used correctly and consistently and less
effective against other forms of sexually transmitted diseases.
Exclusively promoting a practice that protects only 80-90% of the
time at best, when a 100% effective practice is available, is bad
policy and dangerous for those not aware of the failures of even
consistent condom use.
Concerned Women for America President Wendy Wright said, “If a person
knows they may die as a result of a chosen activity, they can usually
muster the self-control to abstain from that activity. It’s
incredibly demeaning to assume that people, particularly people in
other countries, do not have the ability to make good choices and
restrain from life-threatening behaviors. The ABC programs prove that
people are not slaves to their sexual lusts and can make healthy
choices. U.S. foreign aid should not be based on a view that people
in other countries cannot control their behavior even if their lives
depend on it.”
Congress should stop pushing an agenda of sexual liberation and start
allowing proven methods of HIV reduction to prevail.
----- 17 -----
Ethics Wins Over Politics
Concerned Women for America
6/21/2007
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/13223/MEDIA/life/index.htm
Washington, D.C. — Today President Bush fulfilled his promise to veto
the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. Concerned Women for
America (CWA) is pleased to work with President Bush to ensure that
our tax dollars are not spent on destroying human embryos for
experiments.
By appropriating millions of federal dollars to destructive embryonic
stem cell research, Congress would force taxpayers to fund
experiments that kill embryos and delay real hope and real cures for
suffering people.
[More at URL]
----- 18 -----
The "Gay" Gospel
Concerned Women for America
6/21/2007
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/13203/CFI/family/index.htm
Homosexual activists are making inroads in the Evangelical community
by promoting a false gospel; one that views homosexual temptations as
normal. Joe Dallas, Pastoral Counselor and Director of Genesis
Biblical Counseling has just published a book on this trend titled
_The Gay Gospel_. Matt Barber, CWA’s Policy Director for Cultural
Issues, talks with Joe about this trend and how Christians can reach
out to their friends and family who may have fallen for this
deceptive theological error. Sound file: http://www.cwfamedia.org/
media/cw20070619a.mp3
[Joe Dallas: "I realise that the title _The Gay Gospel_ would raise
eyebrows; believe me, I do not believe that "gay" and "gospel" are
compatible. But today, as you know, there is a growing movement to
legitimise homosexuality not only in the eyes of the culture, but the
eyes of the church as well. And that is what I mean by the "gay
gospel." There is in essence a new gospel being preached which
teaches that homosexuality not only is legitimate, but is even God-
ordained, and that the church which believes homosexuality is wrong
needs to change its position. And this is a teaching that is growing
in prominence - more and more Christians are being faced with it - so
i wrote this book to equip the average believer to be able to answer
the claims of those who say, "I am gay, and I am Christian, and
that's fine with God."
Matt Barber: "Joe, I'm a little confused here, anyone who has read
the Bible knows that the Bible unequivocally condemns homosexual
behaviours as sinful behaviours, as immoral; how is that that
homosexuals can claim that the Bible does anything other than
prohibit or condemn homosexual behaviours?"
Dallas: "Well, Matt, there's a great old song by Simon and Garfunkel,
two of my favourite musitions from the 60s, called "The Boxer." And
the lyrics go something like this, "All lies and jest/still a man
hears what he wants to hear/and disregards the rest." I think that
many people are in the same position I was in about 30 years ago.
Back in the late 1970s, I was a Christian and I was sexually
attracted to men. And in that dilemma, my conflict between my faith
and my sexual feelings, I wanted to believe that somehow God would
condone my homosexuality. And so with that desire in mind, I heard
somebody tell me about the pro-Gay interpretation of the BIble, and
while that wasn't a very convincing interpretation - as you said,
anybody who reads the bible plainly will see that it condemns
homosexuality - but if you read the Bible through the eyes of someone
wanting the Bible to legitimise the behaviour, you can find something
entirely different. So I in essence heard what I wanted to hear. And
isn't that exactly what Paul told Timothy would happen, in the last
days? That in the last days, sound doctrine would become unendurable,
completely unacceptable, and that people would gather to themselves
teachers telling them what they wanted to hear. So I believe that the
pro-gay theology, or what I call in this book the gay gospel, is a
symptom of the problem of people wanting to believe something, and
then imposing that desire on the Bible, rather than reading the Bible
for what it says, they interpret it for what they want it to mean."
Dallas: "I think that if we look at the proper reading of scripture,
we would call it exo-Jesus, where we call the meaning of the document
from the document itself, as opposed to iso-Jesus, where we have a
preconceived meaning that we impose on the document. And, of course,
as you know, if you choke the BIble hard enough, you can make it say
whatever you want it to, and in my opinion, this is what pro-gay
theologians have done. However, what makes the pro-gay theology
distinct from other false teachings that are prominent today is that
it has a very powerful lobby behind it, it is gaining in popularity,
it has media support, Hollywood support, academic support,
psychological support, and so there is more and more pressure on the
church to either adopt a pro-gay interpretation of the Bible, or be
silenced. So we really are more and more facing those two options, or
the third option, which is the right one, of course, and that is to
lovingly but clearly speak the truth without regard to the culture's
response.
Barber: "And Joe, I had the pleasure of reading your book, _The Gay
Gospel_, and it accomplishes that goal, you very lovingly but clearly
address these issues, and address homosexual behaviour, and lay out
the Biblical foundation for why those behaviours are sin. How would
you recommend to - first of all, I want to recommend to anyone
listening right now that they get a copy of this book and read it, I
think, I found it enlightening, and our listeners would get a lot out
of this book. How would you recommend that Christians address that
neighbour, address that cousin, that friend, that relative, who is
engaging in homosexual behaviour, or has same-sex attractions, in a
loving way, and who is coming forward and saying, 'hey my pastor told
me, my church told me that homosexuality is a gift from God.' How do
we address people like that?"
Dallas: "Well, let's first keep our priourities straight. If we have
a friend or a neighbour who's homosexual, and they are not a
Christian, their homosexuality is not the main issue. They need to
hear the gospel. That really is the issue. If they are a professing
Christian though, then I think the best approach is to simply say,
'okay, you are a believer who believes in the authority of the Bible,
as am I, let's look again at what Scripture says. I'd like to hear
your take on Moses, in Leviticus, when he talks about male
homosexuality. Paul, in Romans chapter 1, or 1st Corinthians 6, and
I'd like to know how you read those scriptures. And then of course,
if I may, I'd like to respond to that.' Because there are many people
who have had a genuine born-again experience, have had a sincere
faith in Jesus Christ, but have adopted the pro-gay theology as what
I believe is a significant compromise. And so when we're talking to
friends and loved ones who've made that compromise, we're talking to
people who we're hoping God will correct. That's what we're hoping for.
Kleider: "Joe, how much of a foothold has the gay gospel received in
Christian circles? I would expect that certain more liberal-leaning
churches would be the first victims - and academia, Christian
colleges, universities, theological seminaries, you know, maybe
affiliated with secular institutions, would be the first to fall."
Dallas: "Unquestionably, that is how it's played out, but it hasn't
been limited to that. [Kleider: Ooh.] Certainly more mainline
denominations that have a liberal streak in them - and I don't mean
this to slam anybody, but realistically - the Episcopal church,
certainly, with the fairly recent ordination of an openly gay bishop;
the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church USA; the
Evangelical Lutheran Church of America; all of these denominations
have a very strong pro-gay group within them that are working hard to
change the denomination's official position on homosexuality.
Academia, certainly, has largely caved in to the pro-gay
interpretation of the Bible. But now there are some disturbing new
trends even among people who call themselves evangelicals. In my
book, I mention, for example, that the very well known gospel Cynthia
Clawson, who's a Dove and Grammy award winner and sings with the
Gaither Homecoming Concert, she has sung several times at gay
churches, and on her website she's very clearly said, 'Jesus said
nothing about homosexuality, it cannot matter much to him,' and in
essence she has defended her practice of participating in gay worship
services. Chuck Smith, Jr., who is the son of pastor Chuck Smith, one
of my favourite BIble teachers, he has gone on record as saying he's
no longer certain that the Bible condemns homosexuality; Brian
McLarin, a very well known author and speaker, went so far as to say
not only is he uncertain whether the BIble condemns this behaviour,
but we should all, in essence, take a five-year moratorium on
preaching against homosexuality, and revisit our view by reviewing
psychology, and philosophy, and sociology, as well as theology. So
those who are taking this position are no longer just limited to what
we could call theological liberals; there are even those who claim to
be more conservative who are now beginning to espouse, if not a
blatantly pro-gay viewpoint, at least a viewpoint that says, 'perhaps
the Bible does allow for homosexuality, I'm no longer certain.'"
Barber: "Well, Joe, that is just mind-boggling, and using that logic,
it seems to me there were a lot of things that Christ did not
directly address. I don't believe he addressed incest. Using that
logic, who are we to say that incest is not permissible from a
Biblical viewpoint?"
Dallas: "You know, Matt, it's an odd argument, this one that says
Jesus said nothing about homosexuality so it must not matter. First,
it presumes that we know everything Jesus said in his earthly
ministry, and we don't; the gospels don't even pretend to be some
sort of camcorder that followed him around picking up everything he
said, but it also suggests that the gospels are somehow more
authoritative than the rest of scripture, and that flies in the face
of what Paul told Timothy, that all scripture is inspired by God. We
have an entire canon, both old and new testament, all equally
authoritative, besides of all of which I should point out Matt,
Jesus did, when he was asked about sexual ethics, and about divorce
and remarriage, get right back to the account of Genesis when he
said, 'let's cut to the chase; don't you know from the beginning, God
made them male and female, for this cause a man shall leave his
father and mother and cleave to his wife, the two shall become one
flesh.' So while he did not mention all of the many sexual sins that
existed at his time, he certainly did state the standard for human
sexuality, that it's meant to be independent and monogamous and
heterosexual. And anything falling short of that is the definition of
sin."
Kleider: "Well, Joe, there's also the factor of negative press. Jesus
might not have said anything specifically about homosexuality, but
had he overturned old testament doctrine on that matter, I can see
the Pharisees screaming about it left and right, it would have made
it, Josephus would mention, that here is this man, proclaiming to be
Christ the Messiah, who is overturning what Moses has told us!"
Dallas: "And incidentally, what did he say about the law, other than
that hey, I came not to destroy it, just the opposite, I came to
fulfill it. And as you're mentioning and it's very true, it was
common knowledge, at the time he was teaching at any rate, what the
sexual ethics were as spelled out in the Law of Moses, and it
certainly wouldn't have been necessary for him to unnecessarily
expound on what people already knew. Most of what he taught, in fact,
was by way of shedding greater light on what people already knew,
rather than reiterating what was already obvious. So I'm not at all
surprised that he didn't take time to each against homosexuality,
that certainly would have been in most cases preaching to the choir."
Barber: "Well, Joe, what do you say to people who say, 'okay, I get
it, it's wrong, it's sinful, I have these desires, what do I do with
these desires, because wasn't I born this way, is there any way that,
isn't the idea of being an ex-homosexual a myth?' What do you say to
those people?"
Dallas: "Well now, that's a different group, by the way. As soon as
someone is saying, 'okay, I realise it's sinful,' now the
conversation takes a different turn. When you're talking to non-
believers, it's not a good idea to even argue homosexuality, the
thing to do is to promote the gospel. When you're talking to
believers who claim to be gay and Christian, you do need to argue the
ethics based on scriptures. But when someone says, 'okay, I realise
it's wrong,' now they are in essence admitting they are repentant,
and that's a good time to say, 'okay, you've got very deeply
ingrained desires. Just because they are deeply ingrained doesn't
mean they are inborn; we all have deeply ingrained desires that we
have to resist, sometimes on a daily basis, and perhaps your lot in
life, your cross to bear, will be resisting homosexual temptations
when they arise. And so the Bible does not require you to be relieved
of temptations; the BIble calls you to, by the grace of God, allow
your behaviour to be conformed to his standards, and allow him to
transform your heart towards that behaviour as well."
Kleider: "Joe, given that, how should we react to Christians who have
fallen back into that kind of sin? That's heartbreaking."
Dallas: "Oh it is heartbreaking, and of course I think we should
react dependent on their attitude towards it. If a Christian falls
back into sin and is repentant we should receive them back with joy.
If a Christian falls back into that sin and claims it is no longer a
sin, which many have done with the sin of homosexuality, then at some
point we have to say, 'look. If you are going to continue to practice
sexual sin, and you are a believer, and you are legitimising that
sin; I love you, I will pray for you, I respect your free will, but I
cannot be in fellowship with you. You are in essence living in
rebellion against your father, and I am going to pray for your
restoration, but neither can I agree with you nor can I really be in
communion with you, as long as you are deliberately practicing that
sin as a believer.' Now, I would not say that to a non-believer, and
Paul made it clear in 1st Corinthians 5 that there's no point in
disassociating from non-Christians who commit sexual sin because then
he said very practically, 'you'd have to leave the planet!' But
regarding a brother or sister who practices immortality, you really
cannot be in fellowship with those who are non-repentant."
Barber: "And Joe, for those who are believers, who have the question,
who ask you, 'how do I get out of this lifestyle, I don't want to
engage in these behaviours, how do I do that?', what do you tell them?"
Dallas: "Well, a great place to start is with your pastor and with
body ministry. There are people within the church who struggle in
different ways with homosexuality. Some are not sexually active,
their struggle is only with their desires and their fantasies. Others
are, at times, sexually active, and they need to repent, they need to
become accountable to someone, they need to get some godly council on
how to deal with the struggle between the flesh and the spirit; they
would probably be well-served by joining a kind of a support group or
a discipleship group for believers who struggle with different sexual
sins, where they can encourage each other and be educated and
exchange ideas and have a strong sense of support. And, in essence, I
think it's important not to many any sin so specialised [sic] that
the believer who struggles with it feels like he's a special case. We
are all in this life wrestling with the struggle between the flesh
and the spirit; we're all dealing with the pull of the world; to some
extent, we all have some conflict that we have to keep wrestling
with; and I think that what God requires of all of us is to live a
disciple's life, where we recognise that our primary goal in life is
not our own satisfaction, but rather what we can do to please our
master, and, of course, the great irony is, in doing that, we find
the greatest satisfaction. When I repented back in 1984, Matt, I was
doing it because I believed that was what God wanted me to do, and
that's true. But I, in essence, did it for God, because I believed
that as a Christian I must be obedient to him. Only now, 23 years
later, do I realise I was doing myself the biggest favour I could
have done myself. So it's a great paradox, but it's just like Jesus
said, if you really want to find your life, lose it."
Kleider: [Promotes Genesis Biblical Counseling]
Dallas: [promotes joedallas.com] [Promotes _The Gay Gospel_]
]
----- 19 -----
Public Evenly Divided Over Morality Of Homosexual Behaviors
Traditional Values Coalition
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3083
May 31, 2007 – Recent Gallup Poll survey results released in May
indicate that public support for “gay rights” to be “at the high-
water mark of attitudes recorded over the past three decades. There
is still considerable public opposition to complete equality for
gays, particularly with respect to marriage.”
One question asked individuals if they thought homosexual
relationships should be legal. In 1977, 43% answered yes. Today, 60%
answered yes.
On the morality of homosexuality, 47% said such relationships are
moral, compared to 40% in 2001.
On the question of nature or nurture on homosexuality, 42% think
homosexuality is inborn; 35% say it is due to parenting upbringing
and environment.
Other questions reveal a similar weakening of opposition to
homosexuality.
As TVC Chairman Rev. Louis P. Sheldon stated in his book, The Agenda:
“By sheer persistence, the gay-friendly media have been forcing
Americans to accept homosexuality as a normal and natural choice,
whether they believe it or not. … The great aim of the homosexual
lobby and its supporters … is to eradicate the moral framework of
American society and to elevate and legislate promiscuous couplings
of every imaginable type.”
[...]
“I imagine they would not have been so supportive of homosexuality if
they had understood the whole range of ‘sexual orientations’ being
normalized in our culture. They also might have been less supportive
of homosexuality if they understood that the ultimate goal of
homosexual activism is to destroy the concept of marriage altogether.
[More at URL]
More information about the Active-l
mailing list