The leftwing liberal progressive Democrat Party culture has determined that they are the masters of morality. Despite what Christianity or Judaism has been teaching and preaching for thousands of years, because a small percentage of the population has decided that their sexual behavior should be a "right." Anyone who dares to disagree with that kind of behavior are being labeled as bigots. Refusal to bow down to the god of sexual immorality is now considered discrimination. Refusal to comply with the mandate that marriage should be redefined, and men in dresses must be able to use the same bathroom as your little girls and wives, will result in a loss of one's cake business or pizza parlor. Refusal as a State of the Union to comply will result in corporate boycotts (despite the complaint by the liberal left Democrats that corporate money has no business in politics) and a royal edict by Fuhrer Obama that refusal to kneel to the god of sexual perversion will result in a stripping of federal funding for the State and its schools (well, so much for that free lunch program for poor little Suzie).
The Daily Beast found a "religious leader" to support its leftwing assault against religious freedom with an article titled: Washington Gets In on the LGBT Animus, Hitches It To The Almighty.
To make sure its uninformed leftist readers understand the word "animus", the article defines it for them in order to hammer home its anti-religion message. . .
Animus: (noun, A-ni-mus) “a usually prejudiced and often spiteful or malevolent ill will.”
The writer, Gene Robinson, whose article is categorized under the label of "obscene" begins his hateful and unbecoming of God rant with "An appalling federal bill would enshrine the right to discriminate as long as the person doing it really, sincerely wants to do it."
Opposition to homosexuality using the law to force its will upon the public, or transgenderism being forced upon the public through bathroom madness, is not discrimination, prejudice, or even spiteful or malevolent ill will as Mr. Robinson and the sexual lifestyle revolution would like you to believe.
Let's consider what is going on here. A group of people whose behavior is considered by another group of people to be a deviance or a mental illness have gotten a group of politicians who ironically call themselves democratic (yes, we are not a democracy, but we do have certain democratic processes built into our republic) to declare their sexual behavior (be it homosexuality, or the urge to dress and act like the opposite sex) as not being what they do (behavior), but what they are (born with, despite evidence to the contrary) and then through threats, edicts and judicial rulings they have changed it from being immoral to moral through man's definitions (regardless of God's definitions), and now wish to use government coercion to force their will upon the people despite a massive opposition by the majority.
Now, to the horror of the writer of the Daily Beast article, the U.S. House of Representatives is willing to side with the States battling against this insanity. Mr. Robinson calls the proposed law "twisted." While the writer mocks Congress for calling their proposed legislation "freedom of religion" and "religious liberty," which he says is "guaranteed" in the Constitution's Bill of Rights, he says that their proposals "has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with animus toward gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people."
There is no animus against gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender people. The attempt is to guard against the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people using their "animus" against those who dare to disagree with them. The attempt by Congress is to protect religious liberty against a group of people willing to use Hitlerian tactics to squash dissent, and silence those who dare to speak out against their "lifestyle." My message to Mr. Robinson is that it is not "animus" that drives the "religious right." It is animus that drives the homosexual and transgender lobby against the religious right.
The bill in question is H.R. 2802, sponsored by Raul Labrador of Idaho and co-sponsored by 167 of his Republican colleagues along with sole Democrat Daniel Lipinski of Illinois. The bill is subtitled “A Bill to prevent discriminatory treatment on any person on the basis of views held with respect to marriage.” It has the short title of the “First Amendment Defense Act,” or FADA. The bill proposes that “the Federal Government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.”
First, the internal issue of marriage and bathrooms is none of the federal government's business. There is no authority in the Constitution that grants to the federal government, nor the federal courts, to even have an opinion on this issue. However, Congress feels compelled to initiate H.R. 2802 because President Barack Obama, and an army of leftwing federal judges, have made it the federal government's business (despite the illegality of federal involvement). As for Mr. Robinson's statement about "rights guaranteed in the Constitution's Bill of Rights," we must remember that we do not have constitutional rights. The Constitution does not grant rights, nor does the government. It is not government's job to guarantee those rights, either. . . much less define them. Our rights are God-given. If our rights are God-given, as indicated in the Declaration of Independence (I am sure you remember that "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" line, right?), then our rights are also God-defined.
Chew on that for a moment, Mr. Robinson. You do say you are a man of the cloth, right? Would God sanction gay marriage? How about forcing upon the little girls of the world grown men in dresses using the women's bathroom?
Mr. Robinson claims "The First Amendment is not under attack, nor is religion. No ordained person of any faith can be compelled to preside at the wedding of a same sex couple (or anyone else, for that matter)."
Mr. Robinson claims "The First Amendment is not under attack, nor is religion. No ordained person of any faith can be compelled to preside at the wedding of a same sex couple (or anyone else, for that matter)."
Okay, let's stop there. The word to add is "yet." No ordained person can be compelled to preside at the wedding of a same sex couple, yet. Actually, in other countries where the leftwing homosexual agenda is much further along, that is exactly what is happening. Preachers are being compelled to preside over homosexual weddings, and are being arrested if they don't. And, the American gay lobby has said that is exactly what they are going after. They want to force churches to hire homosexual personnel, and force pastors to preside over gay weddings. That is their ultimate goal (well, actually their ultimate goal is the complete destruction of religion). Don't kid yourself by believing that just because right now you haven't seen any person compelled to preside over the wedding of a same sex couple, that it's not happening, or not going to happen.
Despite Mr. Robinson's writings, Christian conservatives are not proclaiming victim-hood. We are not crying out like we are victims. We are recognizing, and taking action to defend against, a coordinated attack against marriage, and religion. We understand that leftism, and the homosexual agenda, are waging an all-out war against the Judeo-Christian foundation of the United States of America. The rise of the sexual lifestyle revolution is a direct attack designed to fundamentally change the American System, and to oust God in the process.
There is no discrimination being perpetrated against homosexuality or transgenderism. A behavior cannot be discriminated against. A segment of the population simply disagrees with their behavior, and has said, "Hey, practice your behavior in the privacy of your life, but don't force your behavior upon us by using the law and judges to coerce society into compliance regarding baking cakes, having gay weddings, or forcing us to allow transgenders to use the same bathrooms our daughters and wives use." And if anything, if you want to claim that beliefs or behavior can be discriminated against, would not what the leftist homosexual agenda is doing to those who hold moral convictions differently than them be considered a form of religious discrimination?
Homosexuals are crying because their behavior is not seen as wonderful to everyone, so, they are using coercive tactics to force everyone to be happy about their decision to be gay. "Approve of us, and be supportive of our lifestyle, or we will destroy your business, destroy your church, and use the force of law to fine or jail you for daring to disagree."
Homosexuals are crying because their behavior is not seen as wonderful to everyone, so, they are using coercive tactics to force everyone to be happy about their decision to be gay. "Approve of us, and be supportive of our lifestyle, or we will destroy your business, destroy your church, and use the force of law to fine or jail you for daring to disagree."
It's not a civil rights movement. It's a temper tantrum against those who refuse to approve of their sinful behavior.
Theirs is an authoritarian move against a segment of the population for daring to think differently than them. You might as well have thought-crime laws in place. The push by the homosexual lobby against any dissent is Orwellian as hell.
The liberal left and Homosexuals say "live and let live", but there is this small print below that which says "You can think whatever you want, but it better not disagree with us."
FADA is an attempt to put a stop to this madness, to get under control the fascist tyranny we are facing that is dressed up in rainbow wrapping and bows. Despite what they say, the homosexual agenda is simply designed to force the homosexual agenda upon every place of business, and every household, whether you like it or not, and FADA is an attempt to guard against that kind of authoritarianism.
Mr. Robinson, at one point in his article, goes way off the reservation with this statement: "As a religious leader, I am offended by such crass and self-serving use of religion. The god of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam calls the faithful to compassion and justice, not bigotry."
Mr. Robinson, at one point in his article, goes way off the reservation with this statement: "As a religious leader, I am offended by such crass and self-serving use of religion. The god of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam calls the faithful to compassion and justice, not bigotry."
Stop. First, Allah is not the same god as the God of Jadaism and Christianity. Allah is a hate-filled counterfeit worshiped by a group of people who have been fooled into believing that shedding the blood of fellow human beings is the way to paradise. Second, while I agree that being a person of Faith we must be compassionate and just, I do not see compassion and justice in the act of supporting and encouraging sinful behavior. While I love these people no differently than anyone else, that love does not carry with it the condition of bowing down and accepting their immoral behavior. When my child lied to me when he was young, I did not stop loving him. When I called him out for lying, it was not an act of bigotry or discrimination. When I recognized his lie as being sinful, and told him about it, I was being compassionate and just and I hoped he would learn from it. In the end, however, the decision to turn away from lying was his decision to make. The same goes for the homosexual lobby. If I was to turn my head the other way and pretend like I was fine with their sinful behavior, I would be neither compassionate, nor just.
Again, this is not discrimination. We are talking about sexual behavior. We are talking about something people do, not what they are.
Again, this is not discrimination. We are talking about sexual behavior. We are talking about something people do, not what they are.
There is no animus, here. What exists in FADA, and other legislation trying to protect those who are not in agreement with the homosexual agenda, is simply a way of saying, "just because men make something legal, it doesn't make that thing moral in the eyes of God." Just because a bunch of deviants find a way to use the law to force their anti-God agenda upon God's people, it does not mean that disagreeing with that agenda is bigotry or discrimination.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment