The Homosexual War against Christianity
Chapter 10
The realities of war
Besides the analysis of Ed Vitagliano there were other reviews of
After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred
of Gays in the ’90s. After all, the book was a best seller; its contents
were not secret. Mention should especially be made of Joe Carter's
April 7, 2014 article, "The Most Influential Essay You’ve Never Heard
Of,"
published at the site, Canon and Culture. Several quotes from this paper
will be cited here. It has special importance for any study of the
anti-Christian agenda of homosexual activists. However, it also
is important to return to Vitagliano's article even if at this point
center stage for Carter's essay is called for.
What is especially interesting is how Mr. Carter outlined his change
of mind as his research on the subject of homosexuality progressed.
He had started out basically sympathetic to the concept that the
issue of homosexuality should be one of long overdue civil rights,
that there wasn't any other argument to make that was true to
the facts. As Carter put it in his own words:
"My original thesis was that several years ago LGBQT activists gave
assurances that their agenda did not have to conflict with religious
liberty rights
and that they rejected any claims that opposing homosexual rights was
akin to racial discrimination." Carter then added: "I had thought the
claims
that those who opposed homosexual behavior were “bigots” and “essentially
arguing for homosexual Jim Crow laws” was a recent change in radical
rhetoric. But I was wrong."
What brought about Joe Carter's epiphany? At one point he spent several
weeks when he searched to find a single prominent LGBQT activist who
supported religious conscience exemptions for individuals." That was
when Carter realized that there was something wrong with his original
hypothesis. As he said in disbelief: "I could not find a single one."
Instead what he did find, over and over again, was a concerted effort to
vilify religious believers who oppose homosexual behavior."
"I used to believe" said Carter, "such claims were the overheated
rhetoric
of misguided Christians. And even until recently, I would have disputed
that
vilification of religious opponents to homosexuality was a widespread
phenomena within the community of LGBTQ rights activists and their
supporters. But the indisputable fact is that...[v]ilification has been a
primary
tactic of the homosexual rights movement for at least thirty years."
Much else has been going on, of course, there isn't some one homosexual
source that matters which is nothing but an anti-Christian diatribe. That's
not
how this works. Yet there is plenty that is included among other materials
and when added up what you get, indeed, is a plan for all out war against
Christians -plus Jews for good measure, and other faiths when they
are important in a local population.
Most homosexuals are anti-religion not just anti-Christian even though
the focus of their attention is Christianity, the "enemy" that must be
destroyed.
Being out front about attacking Christians is expedited by the fact that
the places
where there are the most homosexuals, America's coastal states and college
towns, are also home to most of America's Atheists. Implicit, in so many
words,
is an alliance between homosexuals and Atheists. Which makes sense when
you
consider the fact that most homosexuals are political Leftists who,
somewhere
along the line, have been influenced by Marx, who made no secret
of his own anti-religion views.
Regardless of relative openness about what they were doing, the homosexuals
nonetheless were careful about what to do first, what to do next, and how
to
manufacture public opinion in stages until it came close to full agreement
with stated homosexual values.
This was accomplished through a process of desensitization whereby, to
begin,
homosexuals did everything possible to convince others that they are little
different than everyone else, that they are as respectable as anyone you
may know. Their views was that only when this image has become indelible
in the public mind should the terms of the discussion change -to as much
open discussion as possible, in as many contexts as possible, so that
the topic itself seems to be "normal."
When this happens, when enough people have the view that homosexuality
is simply one more topic to talk about in public, then it will have become
'one more thing,' no big deal, and be perceived as a "preference" that way
that men and women have preferences in movies or vacation destinations
or clothing. Homosexuality becomes a matter of indifference and
as such why shouldn't it be accepted?
As Kirk and Madsen added:
"Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least
divided
on the subject, and that a sizable segment accepts or even
practices homosexuality."
That is, when what would ordinarily be regarded as a threat to the family
and
American civilization itself is made to seem non-threatening then the final
stage of the process should commence, the actual homosexualization
of society, replacement of Judeo-Christian values with their opposite,
the nihilistic values at the heart of homosexuality. "Anything goes."
Throw all caution to the winds. Be as ugly and repulsive as you want,
indulge in all the sado-masochist acts you desire, it doesn't matter.
But destroy anyone who disagrees.
All of which set the stage for the homosexual war against religion
in general and Christianity in particular. All that was required to pull
this off
was acquiescence of the media and conversion of political opinion leaders
to become supportive of homosexual causes as if everything is a question
of human rights, justice, and freedom. Rather than what it really is, a
matter
of the mental illness which homosexuality consists of, a matter of
necessary
values for a healthy society, and a matter of defending normal sexuality
and the family.
The mass media was won over by 1993, maybe a few years later in some
instances. The election of William Clinton was the turning point. The clear
majority of the Democratic Party supported homosexual "rights." And in
a few years approximately half of the Republican Party followed suit.
What came next was the start of a campaign to demonize Christians and
Christian faith. The 1990s were only the beginning, however...
The reason why this became a homosexual priority was because it was
recognized early on that, according to homosexuals in their own words,
"while public opinion is one primary source of mainstream values, religious
authority is the other. When conservative churches condemn gays, there are
only two things we can do to confound the homophobia of true believers."
These two things were, first, to confuse the issue, to mislead everyone
possible
about homosexual intentions, to create a middle-class-in-appearance smoke
screen, and, second, to make Christians look bad, to identify their faith
in the
public mind with everything that is retrograde and stupid and narrow
minded.
Above all the word "homophobia" must be hung around the necks of Christians
to identify them with hatred and prejudice. Hence, as After the Ball put
it,
"we can undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by
portraying them as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times
and with the latest findings of psychology. Against the mighty pull of
institutional Religion one must set the mightier draw
of Science & Public Opinion "
Christians were all-too-susceptible to this kind of attack. For instance,
it isn't so much that many Christians are anti-science as that they are
indifferent to it. Yes, science may be helpful in one's profession,
everything
from engineering to product development, but it has almost no place
at all in one's religious life. Not as Chriustians habitually see things.
Worse, where science should be a major factor, in discussing Origins,
a plurality of Christians still espouses some version of creationism,
calling this
bogus theory "scientific" when it is no such thing.
With respect to psychology, even if it is important to admit its
limitations,
Christians have little or no interest. In terms of the question of
homosexuality,
believers have abandoned the field to their enemies.
Nor were Christians prepared for smears against them made by homosexuals.
As After the Ball continued, cited by Carter, "we intend to make the
antigays
look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves
from such types."
What was so astounding to Christians was being compared with the
Ku Klux Klan, with Nazis, with lowlife punks, and with poorly educated
Southern bigots of a bygone era, as if this was still the 1950s and
Christians
all lived in rural Dixie. It did not matter that Evangelicals are found in
all parts
of the United States, including California and New York City, nor did it
matter
that much of today's South is as cosmopolitan as metropolitan Boston,
what counted was creating an image that could be made to stick
in the public mind.
As Carter said about all of these matters: "This is the reality that
religious
believers must recognize."
The question to ask is when will most Christians begin to recognize
any such thing?
Kirk and Madsen’s book provided a blueprint for action that could have been
abstracted from a good number of other sources, also published openly.
These
sources date to the early 1970s and were updated in the 1980s before
After the Ball appeared in print. Yet few -laughably few- Christians
ever
bothered to read any of this literature. To the extent that they opposed
the
homosexual agenda they were ignorant of some of the most important
dimensions
of the problem before them. As if the only conceivable way to deal with the
issue
was by reference to the pitifully few Bible verses they knew discussed
sodomy,
usually limited to scattered references, not the 30 verses in both
Testaments
that actually comment on this issue.
Researchers who knew the subject at a level of expertise, like Dr. Charles
Socarides, Claude Crepault, Joseph Nicolosi, Paul Cameron, Judith Reisman,
O. R. Adams, Robert Gagnon, or Dr. Neil Whitehead, were all essentially
ignored by those Christians who did make efforts to fight back against
homosexuals. After all, "do you mean to suggest that I should sully myself
by studying such a filthy subject which should make any decent person
vomit?
News report: Yes, this is a 'filthy subject, yes it is disgusting to even
think about.
It is extremely unpleasant. And to report my own feelings, I hate every
minute
it takes to study such diseased values and behaviors and psychological
sickness.
Homosexual subject matter is nauseating, it is demoralizing, it is insane.
And I
never in all my life ever wanted to pursue the study of epidemiology. But
there
is no alternative if you want to get to that place where, on the subject of
homosexuality, you actually know what you are talking about. You need
to approach it the way an epidemiologist approaches an infectious dread
disease, the first imperative being understanding exactly what it is
you are up against: Every unpleasant detail, every argument made
by homosexuals in support of their psychopathology, and every piece
of empirical evidence that is relevant to the issue.
What we have gotten from Christians so far has been just about completely
useless in any public political venue, almost nothing but religion-based
statements
of belief. Hey, this is not about convincing people who attend Sunday
School,
it is about life in the political jungle where only the most ferocious
prevail.
And kindly don't insult my intelligence, or anyone else's intelligence, by
saying,
smugly, that "the power of prayer" will make all the difference, that what
we really need is love and compassion and a non-judgmental attitude.
Not because love and compassion and other Christian virtues are "wrong"
in some sense, but because in a war of ideas the issue of values
necessarily
must take precedence. Wars are won by people like George Patton, not by
people like Mother Theresa or St. Francis of Assisi. We need more
exemplars of faith like Mother Theresa and St. Francis, but NOT
in time of war. We must be honest and realistic about what it is
we need to do in order to win a battle we cannot afford to lose.
As Carter continued:
"Most people who have been influenced by Kirk and Madsen’s agenda
have never even heard of these men. But that’s not unusual. As John Maynard
Keyes once wrote (a quote that can be attributed to him), “Practical men,
who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence,
are usually the slaves of some defunct economist."
Most people have never heard of Kirk and Madsen, either, yet millions
of this multitude express sentiments to the effect that homosexuals deserve
to be tolerated, deserve to overturn the laws of America that formerly had
protected families and the rest of society from the perverted, and even
deserve
a presumed "right" to marry -male with male, female with female- as if
none of this was in any way objectionable or abnormal. Where did their
ideas
come from? Answer: Kirk and Madsen, or similar homosexual leaders like
Alan Bell or Martin S. Weinberg, who proposed plans of action much like
those in After the Ball, but dating to ca. 1973 or 1974.
That is, many well-meaning people who pride themselves on being ever so
enlightened are nothing but dupes of homosexual propagandists. Or to use
a phrase once popularized by Lenin, they are "useful idiots."
When it comes to moral issues -except abortion, where there has been
massive and concerted effort over many years- today's Christians are
ineffective, uncommitted, uninformed, and unwilling to take a stand and
fight like hell to prevail. As Carter's article said, they have all (or
mostly)
been desensitized and have bought the crap that homosexuals have been
selling them. This is pathetic, really pathetic.
What is especially galling is how quick some Christians are to reply with
rationalizations, ignore just about all relevant facts pointed out to them,
and find any excuse they come up with to evade the issue,
to deny the obvious.
Unfortunately Carter's remedy for the problem of sodomy in contemporary
American society is milquetoast soaked in warm water: So much mush.
Pietism as policy. More, "hit 'em on their fists, really hard, with your
jaw,"
in other words.
Here is how Carter phrased his recommendations:
"First, we must not respond to the vilifying of religious believers
by vilifying others. Instead, we are to love and pray for them
(Matthew 5: 44)."
"Second, we must show love to our neighbor by pleading and
encouraging them to oppose engaging in actions that
invoke God’s wrath."
Lastly, "we must preach the gospel to our own brothers and sisters
who are helping to champion and lead the cause [against] unrighteousness
in whatever forms it takes. We must renew the Christian conscience
and develop it into a bulwark against sin."
With all due respect, this is really bad advice. And if you are going to
cite scripture it is a good idea to show cognizance of the fact that
sometimes the Gospels, not to mention Paul's epistles, have very
different views about what the best approach to take should be.
It isn't always peace and love and tender feelings. It can be the
diametric opposite. But the spell of pietism is what it is, not quite
all pervasive, as if the only good Christian necessarily is
a Quaker pacifist. Which is unmitigated nonsense.
For instance, to take this both literally in some circumstances as well
as figuratively in others, how about Luke 22: 36, "let the one who has
no sword sell his cloak an buy one." When a sword is called for it would
make no sense at all to go into battle armed with a palm frond instead.
Against homosexuals, against people who are trying to intimidate
or humiliate or injure believers, you need something other by way
of response than warm feelings and reluctant resistance.
As for "pleading" with militant homosexuals, that is about as foolish
as anything gets. Homosexuals should be confronted, criticized, and
condemned -just as the Apostle Paul confronted, criticized, and
condemned them. We should stand up to homosexuals and
not back down. They are evil people, they are mentally defective,
and they must be stopped.
Finally there is the usual Christian tack of diluting the message do that
no-one hurts the feelings of homosexuals. After all, so this approach
advises Christians to say, everyone is a sinner and heterosexuals have
plenty of sins to admit and live down. But some sins are abominations
and others are, we might say, misdemeanors. The Bible leaves no room
to doubt that homosexuality is a heinous sin, among the worst possible
sins,
and is something that should be eradicated from the face of the Earth.
"Sharing the blame" -a Christian's looking lustfully at a babe in a short
skirt
is not in any way equivalent to a homosexual playing in feces as part of
sexual
activities, or a homosexual ramrodding another's rear end- is a totally
illegitimate response to homosexual sickness and evil.
Anyone with a conscience also needs to demonstrate courage of convictions.
You need to stand your ground. You need to condemn evil for what it is
and not make excuses for those who live for evil and value evil and want
to persuade others to become evil themselves.
You've got to be willing to fight.
Especially since, which has also been shown repeatedly, the police may
do little or nothing to end homosexual mayhem and rioting. I count myself
as
pro-police. They put their lives at risk every day for the common good.
But when it comes to homosexuals the story often is different. The police
may facilitate homosexual interests, in the process preventing Christians
from asserting their just and moral views. This is unconscienable.
Some people, of course, and not willing to fight. These people may well
have redeeming virtues. They may be vital in your community. But they
should never be recruited to be leaders in any kind of war, including
a war of ideas; they are ill-suited for any such thing.
If you are called upon to fight you had better know how to fight and have
the skills necessary to be able to win. And this takes practice, "training"
so to speak, and desire to learn the skills any good fighter needs
if he, possibly she, expects to win.
Hopefully it is reasonably clear that this means fighting with logic, with
knowledge gained from a quality education, and with all available
instruments
that can be mustered, television, the Internet, blogs, printed newsletters,
poster art, film, radio programs, debates, public talks, music, drama,
and the like, and only in extreme circumstances any kind of physical
conflict
in defense of your rights and person. But this is serious business; there
is
no place in it for shrinking violets.
Homosexuals have shown repeatedly that they will use violence against
Christians.
If they do so, those they attack have every right to fight back.
They may also use violence against Jews, Buddhists, and others, who also
have every right to fight back.
This is the reality we need to be willing to confront -whole heartedly.
--
--
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
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
