CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

Hate Crimes and the Religious Left

May 12, 2009

Christians know that in this world they will suffer persecution and tribulation. Jesus promised this would happen to all true followers of his. But one of the more ominous warnings that Jesus gave was that this persecution would often be at the hands of other religious folk.

In John 16:2-4 for example Jesus said this: “They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God. They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me. I have told you this, so that when the time comes you will remember that I warned you.”

So we should not be surprised when those who may even claim to be Christians will also take part in this persecution of true followers of Jesus. And we have plenty of examples of this occurring today. For example, when two Christian pastors were charged with religious vilification in Victoria earlier this decade, some “Christians” actually sided with the Muslims against the pastors.

Another example of this comes from the US, where a federal hate crime law is being debated. As I have documented elsewhere, these bogus laws have nothing to do with justice, and everything to do with promoting the homosexual agenda and silencing Christians. They have nothing to do with protecting ordinary citizens but everything to do with pushing radical activist causes.

Bible-believing Christians who take seriously their faith and the biblical view of sexuality, marriage and family will be the first to be targeted by such nefarious laws. I have provided numerous examples of this elsewhere on this site. Yet incredibly some Christians are calling for the passage of these laws.

Here is how one website discusses this worrying development: “Prominent members of the Evangelical left have endorsed a bill before Congress that would add sexual orientation and gender identity as official categories to ‘hate crimes’ law. Liberal evangelist Tony Campolo, founder of the Evangelical Association for the Promotion of Education, joined a Capitol Hill rally this week organized by the Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual advocacy group, which also distributed supportive statements by Christian ethicist David Gushee, Sojourners’ Jim Wallis and Florida megachurch pastor Joel Hunter. The rally additionally touted legislation that would protect transsexualism in the work place. ‘We Evangelicals who have such a high view of scripture should want justice for gays, lesbians and transgendered persons,’ said Campolo, ‘Justice is love translated into social policy … This [legislation] is a chance to practice that love’.”

Of course people like Campolo have long been pushing the homosexual agenda, wrongly assuming that there is some sort of biblical warrant to do so. So it should come as no surprise to see these people on the wrong side of this debate.

As Mark Tooley, President of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, remarked: “Why are self-proclaimed evangelicals echoing the secular culture by endorsing ideologies wrapped around ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘sexual identity’? Increasingly the Evangelical Left is indistinguishable from the secular Left. Christians of all traditions are called to transform the culture, not conform to it. But the Evangelical Left repeats arguments from The New York Times’ editorial page and seems to think such cultural conformity will win applause. History shows that accommodationist Christians are ultimately irrelevant Christians.”

Exactly right. The Bible clearly warns about conforming to the world and its ideology, but some leftist believers think it is their obligation to be spokespersons for the secular left’s radical agendas, no matter how unbiblical they might be. No wonder why we are so often losing the culture wars. With religious friends like this, who needs enemies?

Two other recent articles speak of the folly of hate crime laws. Jerry Kane notes, “The hate crime bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives April 29 is an attempt by democratic socialists and progressives to silence dissent against alternative lifestyles. Their incessant iconoclastic attacks on once established values and morality have nearly eroded this nation’s spiritual and cultural legacy. Instituting same-sex marriage and prosecuting hate speech will complete the process and shatter the remaining hopes for cultural regeneration and tear down the last vestiges of the country’s Judeo-Christian ethic.

“In America’s brave new post-modern multiculture, homosexual and transgender people will become a federally-protected class under the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, HR-1913. Under this act, anyone who publicly opposes the practice of homosexuality or any of the 30 other sexual orientations as designated by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) could be charged with expressing ‘hateful words’ and convicted of a ‘hate crime’.”

He continues: “Hate crimes legislation allows a country’s legal system to disregard any notion of equality under the law, and apply it unequally and selectively, which means that some citizens are harassed, prosecuted, and convicted, while others are not. In Canada and European countries, hate crime prosecutions of heterosexuals, non-Muslims, or non-Socialists exceed those of homosexuals, Muslims, and socialists.

“Hate crime laws are rarely enforced when slurs, insults, invectives, and ridicule are hurled at members in the majority group. For example, in May 2006, a Belgium man filed a complaint with the police against the Center for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism because he was offended by the agency’s use of the words ‘Dirty Heterosexual’ in its postcard distribution campaign. The agency director said that stigmatizing or discriminating against majorities is ‘not real discrimination’ and dismissed the man’s objections with laughter saying, ‘Discrimination is something that by definition affects minorities.’

“Hate crime laws establish a preferential justice system and create a double standard in the legal system that fosters distrust, conflict, and intolerance in a society. Such laws suggest that members of a minority group deserve a higher level of justice than those of the majority, which makes members of the minority group more important and morally superior. In Austria, it’s not considered degrading to Christians if Jesus is portrayed in homosexual acts with his apostles, but it is degrading to Muslims if the historical fact that Muhammad married a six-year old girl is mentioned.”

There are numerous examples of Christians being persecuted directly because of these laws: “In Britain, a 69-year-old evangelical was prosecuted for displaying a protest sign with the words ‘Stop Immorality. Stop Homosexuality. Stop Lesbianism.’ Objecting to his peaceful protest, hecklers knocked him down, threw dirt on him, poured water over his head, and tried to take his placard. The police came and arrested the protester, but did nothing to those who assaulted him.

“The magistrates’ court ruled that the words on the placard could be harassing, alarming, and distressful for homosexuals who may find the words threatening, abusive, or insulting. Consequently, the evangelical protester was fined and ordered to pay court costs for displaying words that might offend the delicate sensibilities of a protected class member, but the criminal actions of the hecklers who assaulted him were disregarded and left unpunished.”

He concludes, “Hate crime laws violate the fundamental notion that man’s natural equality entitles him to impartial justice, which is the underlying principle of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. How ironic the counterculture left that chanted in the 1960s, ‘I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,’ now fights to enslave all Americans to the will of a totalitarian bureaucracy.”

Steve Chapman also notes the dangers of hate crime legislation. He writes: “Congress never stops trying to ensure full employment for FBI agents and U.S. attorneys. The latest stimulus is the Matthew Shepard Act, billed as an overdue effort to prevent violence against gays and lesbians. The logic behind the proposed measure is hard to follow. Says sponsoring Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), ‘No members of society – none – deserve to be victims of a violent crime because of their race, their religion, their ethnic background, their disability, their gender, their gender identity, or their sexual orientation.’ Which raises the question: Who exactly does deserve to be the victim of a violent crime?

“The bill targets actions we would all like to eliminate – physically injuring or trying to injure someone with ‘fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device.’ But it’s hard to imagine that it would reduce the prevalence of such conduct, which is already 1) really, really illegal and 2) subject to harsh penalties. This legislation would add extra punishment for attacks designated as hate crimes. But if a criminal is not deterred by the fear of five years behind bars, he’s probably not going to be pushed onto the straight and narrow by the prospect of six.”

As I have argued in other articles, rights talk is the major arena in which anti-Christian legislation is being passed. It all sounds good: shouldn’t we be in favour of human rights? But these laws are really about giving special rights to activist minority groups, and taking them away from the majority.

I began with a quote from Jesus, and will finish that way. He told his followers, “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves” (Matt. 10:16). We certainly need this wisdom when fellow believers end up supporting laws that will criminalise Christianity.

www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09051110.html
editorials.americandaughter.info/?p=372
townhall.com/columnists/SteveChapman/2009/05/10/empty_symbolism_on_hate_crimes

[1549 words]

23 Responses to Hate Crimes and the Religious Left

  • According to the Bible, the Religious Left makes God want to vomit (Revelation 3:15-16).

    Nino Suraci

  • It is a long time since I was up to date with what Tony Campolo was doing. Then he was into showing the love of Christ to the unlovely, eg prostitutes and gay people, while continuing to deplore the sins they were committing. To me this does not sound like a ‘lukewarm’ person (who would make God vomit).
    I am also concerned that everyone on the religious ‘left’ is being tarred with the same brush. Many people have a very active social conscience – yet are fiercely determined to stand for the truth of God’s word and for His ways.
    Katharine Hornsby

  • Thanks Katharine

    I have written about Campolo elsewhere, eg:

    https://billmuehlenberg.com/2007/09/13/religion-and-the-political-spectrum/
    https://billmuehlenberg.com/2008/03/03/on-reading-jesus/

    My reading of him is that he has not really taken a strong biblical stance on homosexuality. Of course as you say we are to love all sinners, but this never means letting them believe that no repentance is necessary. The good news for homosexuals – like for any other sinner, which includes every one of us – is that God is in the change business. The best and most loving thing we can tell a homosexual is that he does not have to be homosexual, and that God is in the business of turning lives around. Campolo seems to be rather weak on this.

    Some years ago Joel Belz of World magazine said this concerning those, like Campolo and others of the religious left, who say we should be kinder to homosexuals and abortionists: “I’ve never heard one of these critics say something like this: ‘We all know that racism is a sin, but in our zeal to confront racism, let’s be careful to show love for the racist. The church has got to learn to welcome racists.’ Nor have I heard them plead the cause of the capitalist oppressor, explaining patiently how the tendency to use one’s economic position to exploit others may be at least a lifelong habit, or maybe even something genetic. For some reason, the kindness and civility these friends urge us to exercise is always in just one direction.”

    I think he is quite right. But we may have to agree to disagree on some of these issues.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • The Religious Left is looking less and less like a legitimate flavour of Christianity and more and more like its nemesis.

    Ewan McDonald.

  • Hi Katharine,
    Try and get a straight answer as to whether Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation from some of these guys in the religious left and the emerging church. Their answers often get us back to Rev. 3:15-16.

    Nino Suraci

  • Katharine,
    Whether you like Tony Campolo or not is really beside the point. Whether having a “social conscience” – whatever that is – is also beside the point. I ask just two simple questions:
    1. Do you deny that factual material that Bill has adduced?
    2. If you affirm what Bill has adduced, do you then regard this as a serious attack on religious freedom, and freedom of speech, which the so-called Christian left professes to uphold?
    I await your reply.
    Murray Adamthwaite

  • As for the alleged “social conscience” of the Evanjellyfish Left, it is rarely about personal generosity and often about lobbying government to take from the productive by force to give to the unproductive.

    Envy + rhetoric = social justice —Thomas Sowell.

    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  • Seems like some blacks in the US are starting to get fed up with homosexual extremists using their historical civil rights campaign for their own selfish agendas:

    http://www.blacknews.com/news/gwen_richardson801.shtml

    A key quote is the last paragraph:

    Be on the lookout in the near future for gay activists’ challenges to churches’ tax exempt status for refusing to denounce their religious beliefs. Any religious leaders who are tapped for high-profile government positions will be subjected to a gay rights litmus test. Remember that the true goal is not equal rights; the ultimate objective is to bully, intimidate, subdue and control all opposition.

    We’ve already seen that here in Australia with the rejection of Warwick Marsh in that government men’s health ambassador role last year, despite probably being overqualified to do that job. It appears that guys like Tony Campolo have capitulated (in varying degrees) to the pressure of adopting worldly principles on something that God is pretty unequivocal on. Never mind the fact that the homosexual act is just plain unnatural* and makes no moral, social, or biological sense to advocate or endorse, let alone celebrate. Katharine might consider that the attributes of the Kingdom of Heaven (of which I would argue a “social conscience” is just one component – eg. Luke 14:13-14) cannot come if you deny truth and doctrine, (see Luke 11:42,46 & compare John 14:6 & 15:10,14) no matter how antagonistic the listener may be to your message. There are people who prefer lies to truth, no matter how hard you might work to convince them, either by a loving attitude or logic (preferably both in tandem). Sometimes you just have to leave them alone to concentrate on those who will listen, but no matter what you do, always ask God for help (ie. pray) And with the militant agendas of perversity increasingly now being forced on everybody, true Christians have no choice but to respond. I would ask everyone, how will you respond? According to the world or according to God’s Word? (Or even just to biology?) To some extent, I believe God is allowing this to sort out the wheat from the weeds. I want to be wheat. It is folly to elevate “social conscience” above other parts of the Gospel, because it will quickly become the main thing, or even the only thing. …and excuse me for rambling a little…

    John 3:19-21
    Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43
    Matthew 10:17 (funnily enough, just two verses after Jesus mentioned Sodom and Gomorrah)
    John 15:9-25

    * – btw, That’s unnatural defined as being at variance with what is normal or to be expected, or something natural used in a way it was never designed or intended for. I’m aware of the deceptive way some activists attempt to change that word’s meaning midway through the argument and use examples such as air conditioning or synthetic materials, etc. (ie. unnatural defined as ‘artificial’) and then ridicule the point. Unfortunately for them, they only display their foolishness in changing definitions. But readers can be awake to that now…
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unnatural
    in case you still aren’t sure about that…

    Mark Rabich

  • Thanks for your article, Bill.

    I agree with you on the some of your points: we should not be so soft on the sin of the sinner, which is what does happen in many circles. The sinner is loved very well indeed, usually. However, the sin is not dealt with properly and over the long term gets accepted more than rebuked. The example of the man protesting in Britain is a clear example of injustice, too, although I would question his method of rebuke.

    We certainly need this wisdom when fellow believers end up supporting laws that will criminalise Christianity.
    This is not an unfair point, but pointing the finger at Campolo and Wallis is a rather odd thing to do; these men are genuine in my opinion, and are not interested in outlawing Christianity, which you did hint at at the end of the article. I also agree with Katherine about Campolo. I wouldn’t label him ‘liberal’.

    But, you’re right about the general trend: there is minority crying foul, and disallowing a majority to do as they should be allowed. I doubt the religious left is to blame, though.

    Simon Kennedy, VIC

  • Thanks Simon

    It depends on what you mean by “liberal”. Campolo claims to be an evangelical Christian and claims to have a high regard for Scripture, so he may well reject the claim that he is a theological liberal. (And one can debate just how high a view of Scripture he in fact has.) But there is no doubt whatsoever that he is a political liberal. Indeed, he would pride himself in his leftist political and social views.

    And it may not be the actual intention of people like Campolo or Wallis to outlaw Christianity. But of course things like hate crimes legislation will result in just that: it will mean that certain activities by Christians will be outlawed. I will soon pen a new article documenting this very thing.

    The truth is, religious lefties have little to fear from hate crime laws, because they tend to support the very thing these laws want to promote, including special rights for homosexuals. The Christians who need fear these laws are those who take the biblical warnings against homosexuality seriously, and who also take seriously the God-given institutions of marriage and family.

    When these laws are passed, it will not be people like Campolo who will be impacted by them (that is, fined or thrown in jail). But people like me certainly will be. In the same way, liberal Christians like some in the Uniting Church actually supported the Religious Vilification Act in Victoria and stood with the Muslims, while the ones who suffered under this law were conservative, Bible-believing Christians.

    And to the extent that the religious left supports things like hate crime laws, then yes, they are in fact complicit in this wave of anti-Christian sentiment and legislation. They are certainly lending their theological support to laws that will result in many Christian being turned into criminals overnight. So at best, these folk are naive, and at worst, they are aiding and abetting the persecutors of the church.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • The Religious Left displays a curious set of priorities. It seems they would rather have their fellow Christians in jail, than allow homosexuals to be offended.

    Even if they are right and God is OK with homosexuality (something the Bible clearly contradicts), surely any decent person would conclude that homosexuals having to put up with a bit of offence is surely the lesser evil here?

    That is why I do not think these compromising Christians are in any way genuine. They know the effect the legislation they’re pushing will have on their conservative “brethren”, but they don’t seem to care.

    Mansel Rogerson

  • BM: “And it may not be the actual intention of people like Campolo or Wallis to outlaw Christianity. But of course things like hate crimes legislation will result in just that: it will mean that certain activities by Christians will be outlawed.”

    I.e. they are what Lenin called “useful idiots”.

    But they are even worse than that. Campolo has explicitly supported Liberation Theology, which is violent Marxism. And Wallis has long been a supporter of murderous Communist regimes, including Castro’s. See Tony Campolo, Jim Wallis: The Marxist Delusion and a Christian Evangelist by David A. Noebel, 19 Feb 2008.

    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  • Bill, there is nothing naive about the position that the “Christian left” holds to. If they claim to be real Christians as they do, then backing these so-called hate crime laws is nothing less than a deliberate betrayal of the Church. Furthermore, to endorse a bill that would add sexual orientation and gender identity as official categories to ‘hate crimes’ law is clear proof of treachery. These people are not confused, they very well know that the support of these laws equates to the support for the homosexual agenda. And the homosexual lobby is actively seeking to silence real Christians by any means. As you have rightly said, these liberals have already been exposed by siding with Muslims against Christian Pastors in the past. We put up with them but they are not real Christians, they are socialists. It is imperative that the Christian veneer is stripped away from them for the sake of the poor souls who might stumble into one of their Churches looking for Jesus.
    Like Judas Iscariot who walked among the twelve and then betrayed Jesus into the hands of the Roman government, so is the “Christian left” walking among the brethren determined to follow in Judas’ footsteps.
    Nino Suraci

  • Secularism is a heresy. A hundred years ago, GK Chesterton predicted that the next great heresy would be against morals, and specifically sexual morals.

    The world needs the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It does not need secularists with a bit of God sprinkled on top. That is what these so-called “liberal Christians” are – just secularists with a religious dressing.

    But I’d encourage you all to read the second last chapter of GK Chesterton’s “The Everlasting Man” which notes that at least five times in history (and probably many more) Christianity died — and then rose from the dead! “The sons were fanatical for the faith where the fathers had been slack about it.”

    http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/chesterton/everlasting/part2c6.htm

    This story isn’t over yet. Fight the good fight, Bill!

    Louise Le Mottee, Hobart

  • Another great article Bill, summing up where things are at.

    Great quote Lousie, “The sons were fanatical for the faith where the fathers had been slack about it.”

    When I read books about Christianity, revivals, expositions of the Bible, I tend toward books from earlier last century or even past centuries – simply because their approach to Christianity is simpler and more clear cut. The modern Western world, including many who represent western Christianty have strayed so far from the truth that they cannot recognise it anymore.

    It is of no surprise to me that Christianity today is argued about in terms of left and right, socially responsible or fundamental – for many purporting to be Christian have turned from the truth in droves. Jesus showed us there is only one way, and it is fundamental, it is fanatical and it books no competititors to the sovereignty of God in our lives.

    All of the apostacy of modern churches, and all of the persecution of Christians is bringing us to the same place that the developing world has been suffering for the best part of the century – and fast. Are we ready for it?

    Garth Penglase

  • To feel hatred or antipathy of what formerly was considered by the majority of society as gross sin but which is now considered a virtue (four legs are good and two are bad) will be a crime and if a person is physically attacked because of communicating not just their hatred but displeasure or even criticism of sexual behaviour that they find offensive, it will be the fault of the one feeling hatred. So if a man feels hatred for someone committing adultery with his wife and the ones committing the adultery are made aware of this hatred, they will have every right to maybe murder him, claiming self -defence, or simply to report him to the police.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1115502/MELANIE-PHILLIPS–Harmans-latest-men-bashing-policy-just-odious–turns-morality-inside-out.html?ITO=1490

    Perhaps, Mr Garry Newlove had acted unreasonably in remonstrating with youths who had been vandalising his wife’s car, knowing full well that they would find this offensive. His is a very sad story and shows the sort of permanent damage that those who conspire to encourage feelings of hatred in the behaviour of feral teenagers can do. He was responsible for aggravating the murderous rage of the gang, by standing up to them, and they convinced him of this by kicking him to death. No doubt about it. He and his family got all they deserved.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1575822/Garry-Newloves-widow-condemns-Government.html (Garry Newlove)
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560278/Heartbreaking-letter-to-father-who-lay-dying.html (Garry Newlove)

    Christians are no longer able to complain or appeal to a justice system, for the fact that they are offended, distressed or feel intimidated by homosexuals. Christians no longer have any right feel anything except the joy of seeing sin and evil displayed in our streets.

    http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=GE6FDMJEiyo&feature=related

    David Skinner, UK

  • Bill,
    Not very on topic, but I came across this on Justin Taylor’s blog, and thought you and others would be interested.

    http://theologica.blogspot.com/2009/05/money-greed-and-god-why-capitalism-is.html

    Simon Kennedy, VIC

  • Simon Kennedy, yes, indeed I am very interested, so thanks for posting that link.
    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  • Nino, please don’t amend the text of Holy Scripture. Lukewarm, yes. My Bible doesn’t say ‘Religious Left’.
    Murray Bentham

  • Hi Murray, the point I was making is that the religious left is lukewarm. Hope that helps.

    Love Nino

  • I realize this thread is a bit old now, but I had to add this:

    Sadly, the more I dig into Tony Campolo’s public declarations, and then, even worse, what his wife Peggy has to say on the subject, they obviously do not consider the Gospel to have authority over fallible man. They claim a high view of Scripture but it is obvious that if there is a choice between offending man and offending God, then it is pretty obvious who will lose.

    http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3469&Itemid=9

    http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/campolo.htm

    A good comment here:
    http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.asp?id=348&department=CFI&categoryid=cfreport

    Pictures of Campolo on the following link from early in May. So we know what he stands for. (But I would love to believe there was a tiny voice in his conscience telling him that it was wrong to be there.)
    http://www.theird.org/Page.aspx?pid=1022

    When I had a quick look at the ‘Human Rights’ website, I was quite simply gobsmacked. The distortion and twisting of what God says is rampant. But Jesus gave us a very simple litmus test:

    “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

    “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
    Matthew 7:15-23

    By their fruit… so what is the fruit of homosexuality? No children (obviously) but also this – homosexual behaviour kills. HIV/AIDS and rectal cancer are but two sicknesses that rob the community of otherwise productive human beings (not to mention, family, friends, colleagues) and in the meantime often force us to pay for their treatment via tax dollars. (Of course a cure for AIDS would be great, but having less cases would be even better to begin with.) And sure, those conditions are not exclusive to those who have homosexual sex, but the behaviour (especially male-to-male) is definitely substantially riskier than normal sex. (For AIDS especially, I’m talking about extremely risky, something you’re not likely to hear widely because it’s not PC) The cost of all this in economic terms must be astronomic. The cost in human terms is too tragic to think about. That Christians could endorse this behaviour is unconscionable.

    Homosexual behaviour is simply unhealthy compared to normal sex.
    http://www.rethinkingaids.com/Portals/0/RaArchive/1997/RA9709SexLiesAndBrody.html

    “I’m not saying that it is impossible for unprotected vaginal intercourse to transmit HIV from a positive to a healthy adult negative partner,” Brody told RA in a telephone interview from his Los Angeles-area home. “Anything’s possible. It’s possible to be struck by lightning. But the two risks share an analogous probability, effectively zero. If healthy, HIV-negative Americans want to worry about unprotected vaginal intercourse, they should worry about the drive over to their encounters. If their partners have never injected drugs or received rectal intercourse or blood therapy, they are more likely to be killed in an automobile accident on the ride over than they are to become HIV-positive.”

    Brody says that a risk-free American who has a single act of unprotected coitus with a random risk-free partner is about as likely to become HIV-positive as “be struck multiple times by lightning in one year, or win several state lotteries.”
    Scientists and physicians ignore these facts, and instead promote the politically correct idea that “everyone is at risk.” “Ideological knowledge about AIDS is far more likely to filter through society than scientific knowledge,”

    To add to all that, I wonder if those pictured in the theird.org link above have considered that Christians will be punished by the law if so-called ‘discrimination’ is ended? Yes, those who follow Christ faithfully, who think marriage is just about men and women, mums and dads and kids and grandkids, and uncles and aunts etc. etc. will be punished for daring to believe and live like God had a specific purpose in mind when he created the two halves of sex and that any deviation from the natural use of that is wrong. Would the Campolos applaud when children are effectively forced into ‘re-education’ while their parents are sent to jail for believing what just makes sense biologically? They might claim they don’t want that, but they would be deluding themselves that that would not be the outcome of what they are advocating, since it has already begun elsewhere. (Would love to be a fly on the wall if Sweden’s Ake Green or David Parker from Massachusetts ever met the Campolos) We already knew this society has a death wish, but why are Christians jumping on board this evil train? You cannot cheerfully condone something this diabolical – and simultaneously punish those who want to advocate something good – for an extended period of time and not pay a terrible price. And this is a price that everyone in that community has to pay, whether they want to, or not. And then, for each individual, there is eternity… What a ridiculous and untenable position the Campolos hold.

    So, considering all that, I would love any of those apostates pictured in the link above to give their comment on the following video (beware, graphic)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7j87OWaFx4&feature=player_embedded

    Strangely enough, I don’t consider it ‘loving’ or ‘welcoming’ or ‘affirming’ to condone behaviour that has a substantially greater chance of making you look like David in that video. Not remotely. I would hope people would understand it is the highest act of compassion to plead and campaign that people would reject that behaviour because it will hurt them (not to mention, spit in the face of God who made you with a glorious identity sexually fulfilled in the opposite.) I hasten to add, that I reject the methods of condemnation as exemplified by the infamous Westboro Baptist nutters. That is just the other false extreme to the Peggy Campolos and Bishop Spongs of this world.

    This is crucial: You are not heterosexual or homosexual, that is the behaviour – you are male or female, that is the identity. Too often even opponents of the ‘gay agenda’ allow that error to fly past unchecked, and it matters because it effectively concedes that homosexuality is as immutable as skin or eye colour or gender. It is not. Read that sentence in bold again if you do not understand that, it is absolutely critical that you do. Adopting the language of the activists (ie. calling someone ‘gay’) is halfway to losing the battle merely by allowing them to identify as ‘homosexual’ rather than addressing it as a behavioural deviation that can be resisted. I’ve fallen into that trap in the past myself, but people should be awake to it. The English language doesn’t seem to help here because saying “a person who engages in homosexual sex” is just too long a description. And ‘gay’ is a nice easy short word by comparison. Hence the problem.

    If you are a parent, then I guess you might be interested to know that the following shameless and evil indoctrination of children is also logically the kind of thing the Campolos effectively endorse:
    http://www.massresistance.org/media/video/brainwashing.html
    The scary thing is, the video is already 10 years old.

    “Tolerance is how far a mechanical part can deviate from the norm before it screws up the entire machine.” – any mechanic

    But to end on a positive note, one can be encouraged by this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy65tNr5FlQ&feature=player_embedded

    Jesus is still changing lives! He never stops changing lives. He offers real hope and clarity rather than this fuzzy feelgood worldy piffle that has stupified the Campolos, amongst others. Do not be deceived like them. Let us pray that we continue to be instruments of that change for good, and not accept the fatalistic chains of immorality, self-loathing, hatred, violence and despair that characterize the so-called ‘equal rights’ gay movement. Jesus rose from the dead, so miracles are possible, in fact, that is what the faith is based on. How sad if all here on earth was all the human race had to hope in.

    “…that is what some of you were.” 1 Cor 6:11 (my emphasis)

    For more on so-called ‘gay Christianity’, this site is worth keeping an eye on:
    http://gcmwatch.wordpress.com/

    Mark Rabich

  • Apologies to Murray twice: First I did not receive the notification of his comment, secondly I have no idea what his comment means. We have recently been involved through much prayer and hand holding etc in the completion of an important family event, so searching and blogging on the computer took a low priority for a time. Thank you, Mark for your links. I could not find the one on the Associated Baptist Press and rather resented having to log on to be allowed to see the (non existent) content. The other links were interesting. I failed to see how TONY Campolo has moved from the proper evangelical stance of rejecting homosexual practice though I am horrified by his wife’s stand on the subject. I believe we should, as Christians, hate sin but love sinners. I do not believe this means that we should vote for or in any way encourage legislation that muzzles the freedom of speech of Christians to call sin sin – whatever the sin is and I have mentioned this and the Christian organisation I support and use in order to combat (or try to) bad legislation in the UK (Christian Concern for our Nation).
    However, there have been cases where people have been attacked physically and verbally for their sexual orientation and again, as a Christian, I strongly believe such attacks should not be condoned, but condemned.
    My own son, shy and with Asperger’s syndrome and NOT gay was tormented while at school by boys saying to him “You’re gay and gays should be killed”. Eventually this led him into a nervous breakdown at the time of important school exams.
    I just hope that while we maintain truth and doctrine we do not forget mercy and the love of God for (all of) us “while we were yet sinners”.
    Katharine Hornsby

  • Thanks for your post Mark. I guess that Peggy Campolo wears the pants in the family. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who claims to be a Christian and then takes a stand promoting a homosexual lifestyle is a traitor. A traitor to God, His Word, the Brethren and to those perishing in their sin. I totally agree with Katharine’s comments to hate the sin but love the sinner as this is in keeping with the Lord’s teaching. But to love the sin as well as the sinner is no love at all, that is, it’s not “agape” love, which is the fruit of the Holy Spirit.

    Nino Suraci

Leave a Reply