Christian Views on Homosexuality Deemed "Hate Speech" For the benefit of those who should know better , but don't, the following news story makes something crystal clear that ought to have been obvious long ago : toleration of homosexuality = intolerance of Christian faith The fact is that the Bible, hence all people who accept the Bible as the authoritative word of God, as morally necessary in life, condemns homosexuality unequivocally. To say it again, no less than 10 books in each Testament, a minimum of 25 verses altogether, are clearly opposed to same sex sexuality. Some of the condemnations, especially in Romans 1, spell out in gory details exactly why such conduct and disposition is unacceptable. Faced with the testimony of the Bible, and in consideration of its place as a foundational part of Western civilization, you would think that the best course of action would be seeking to verify the Biblical position on the issue. At a minimum, the point of view in the Bible should be on the table for psychology professionals to take into consideration. And, actually, this has been the case and continues to be the case, if not universally, widely. Yet there also is a tendency in the profession to reflexively regard the Bible as wrong on principle, something that can only be disproved, never shown to be the best counsel in our troubled world. Which is not to say that there aren't legitimate criticisms to make. But how "essential" to the book's core message are many of these criticisms ? Does it matter all that much if a Biblical author garbled a genealogical lineage or misquoted a source ? While it does matter that some texts ( scrolls ) in the Bible have multiple authors who may or may not have been consistent with each other, and even more serious problems might be identified , --this is anything but an inerrantist argument-- what has always given the Bible its high value in the public realm has been its moral clarity and, with few discrepancies, its moral consistency. Moreover, in virtually all the "great religions of the world" one finds pretty much the same thing when it comes to the three defining moral laws each regard as crucial to social well being. Marriage can only be between men and women. Abortion, except in special cases, is morally indefensible, and Homosexuality is an unspeakable evil. While abortion is a separate issue , even if there is an indirect relationship to homosexuality, the other two issues are directly related to homosexuality. That is, there is a moral divide here that simply cannot be ignored. To boil it all down, a choice has to be made between the usefulness of the Bible, and religion generally, to the well being of society, OR toleration of homosexuality. Obviously this does not say a choice between religion and persecution of homosexuals. All Christians of whom I am aware seek therapeutic treatment for homosexuals so that they can overcome their pathology and become fully functional members of society. But a choice is nonetheless imperative. What those who support the political Left on this issue are doing, whether or not they want to be honest about it, is taking a position in opposition to religion and specifically to the Bible and, for instance, several Buddhist scriptures, Taoist sacred texts, Zoroastrian holy writings, etc, which are all negative toward homosexuality. In America, to focus on our own country, those who align themselves with homosexual causes are decidedly anti-Christian, or anti-Jewish. To be sure, there is a so-called modernist wing of Christianity and also Judaism, but just as clearly this wing has little to do with actual Christian faith or actual Jewish religion. This wing, in reality, is only vestigially Christian or Jewish, in essence it is a social club writ large. Or maybe more accurately, it is the religious version of Leftist politics. The point is that once we become clear about the issue it is a good idea to become equally clear about the major implications of toleration of homosexuality. It is false that toleration of homosexuality can co-exist with authentic Christian faith or authentic Judaism. Official government institutions are making THEIR decisions, here and abroad, against Christian faith and against Jewish religion. For example, this recent news story about denial of Christian rights at Hastings College of Law-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- JESSE J. HOLLAND Associated Press Writer updated 6/28/2010 WASHINGTON — An ideologically split Supreme Court ruled Monday that a law school can legally deny recognition to a Christian student group that won't let gays join, with one justice saying that the First Amendment does not require a public university to validate or support the group's "discriminatory practices." The court turned away an appeal from the _Christian Legal Society_ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37975223/ns/politics/#) , which sued to get funding and recognition from the University of California's Hastings College of the Law. The CLS requires that voting members sign a statement of faith and regards "unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle" as being inconsistent with that faith. But Hastings, which is in San Francisco, said no recognized campus groups may exclude people due to religious belief or sexual orientation. The court on a 5-4 judgment upheld the lower court rulings saying the Christian group's First Amendment rights of association, free speech and free exercise were not violated by the college's nondiscrimination policy. "In requiring CLS — in common with all other student organizations — to choose between welcoming all students and forgoing the benefits of official recognition, we hold, Hastings did not transgress constitutional limitations," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who wrote the 5-4 majority opinion..... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------
What is happening across the United States --and Europe-- is that the moral teachings of the Bible are being thrown out . In case after case the reason is because leaders of various kinds now take the view that placating / appeasing a pathological minority is far more important than maintaining the cultural traditions on which our country was founded. Traditions which, you would think, every imaginable historical test have demonstrated are empirically necessary for social well-being. Below is yet another example, this from Europe, in which Christian faith is disregarded and attacked for the sake of homosexuals. My own view is that a vote for a candidate who regards toleration of homosexuality as a "good" is simultaneously a vote against Christian faith, against Jewish faith, against the Bible, against Buddhism, against Hinduism, against Taoism, against Confucianism, and you name it. All moral issues do not reduce to a pro-life stand, in opposition to abortion. It has been a blunder of colossal proportions for "values voters" to focus so single-mindedly on that one problem. Especially since the candidates they have voted for , primarily in the Republican Party, have been all talk and little or no action. What politicians cannot do in a pluralistic democracy is insist upon the truths in the Bible as the only truth. Yet this has been the thrust of the political pressures brought by the Religious Right. Such people have made a tragic mistake, have horribly miscalculated. What can be pointed out is that the issue of homosexuality deserves renewed attention and that the issue deserves to be re-framed in terms of the choice it is forcing upon everyone, toleration of psychopaths ( now falsely attributed with normality ) vs faith in Jesus or faith in the Torah, or still other faiths such as Buddhism. Which is it going to be ? Homosexuals or Jesus Christ ? Sexual degenerates or Moses ? The psychologically ill or the teachings of Buddhist sages respected for millennia ? You cannot have it both ways. Billy R. ======================================================== Christian Views on Homosexuality Deemed "Hate Speech" by European Rights Agency By Hilary White ROME, June 30, 2010 (_LifeSiteNews.com_ (http://www.lifesitenews.com/) ) – When a European Christian pro-family group applied to join the Fundamental Rights Platform (FRP) of the EU’s Human Rights Agency, they did not expect to be denounced as promoters of “hate.” The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) objected to a statement by the Alliance of Romania’s Families (ARF) calling same-sex “marriage ” an example of “human degeneration,” and denied their request for membership. The ARF, a group lobbying to retain Romania’s traditional Christian social and legal underpinnings, had written on their website that, “So-called alternatives such as ‘families’ consisting of same-sex, are nothing but expressions of human degeneration.” The FRA responded, saying, “The qualification of other people’s sexual orientation as human degeneration is not an acceptable basis for creating a structured and fruitful dialogue.” In a letter to the ARF’s president, Peter Costea, the agency called this “ a fundamental rights perception that is incompatible with the participation in the FRP.” The agency also explained that their position was based upon the belief that ARF's views amount to "hate speech." Costea responded to the FRA, saying that the rejection was “ideological and political.” He defended his organization, saying that members “believe in human rights and dignity for all, in diversity and mutual respect.” “We believe in civilized dialogue and robust debate on issues of wide social impact and importance. Nevertheless, we need to point out, respectfully yet unambiguously, our view that your decision to deny ARF membership … is discriminatory and improper.” “To us it evinces an attempt to weed out organisations that express, based on their freedom of expression and religion, views that are different from those officially espoused by the Agency.” In 2009 the Fundamental Rights Agency invited all “stakeholding” nongovernmental organizations from EU countries to submit applications for membership in the Platform. The purpose of the platform, the agency says, is to engage in a “structured dialogue with civil society,” to ensure that the EU and national governments respect the fundamental rights of all persons. While turning down the ARF, the Fundamental Rights Agency accepted the application of the British Humanist Association (BHA), one of Britain's most outspokenly anti-Christian lobby groups that works for the removal of all signs of Christianity from public life in Britain. The BHA features a who’s who list of Britain’s most hostile anti-Christians, including atheist Richard Dawkins and its current president, radical feminist journalist Polly Toynbee. The group is best known recently for its “ atheist bus” _campaigns_ (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09012009.html) and its political work to disestablish the Church of England, to abolish daily worship in schools and to “reform” religious education to exclude religious belief. -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
