A "Safe Colleges" conference was recently held at Tufts. Why are these people's ideas taken seriously? Just read this sampling of seminars from that event, and you'll see their confusion. They don't know what to call themselves; whether or not their "sexual orientation" is inborn ("Does bisexuality even exist?" they ask); what role trauma plays in their development; what the difference is between sexuality and sexual identity; etc. But we must give them everything they want, even when they can't define who they are or what they want.
Bisexuality 101: Myths and Realities. What is bisexuality? Is there no such thing as bisexuality or is everyone really bisexual? Or is it more complicated than that? In this workshop we will examine these questions as well as biphobia in lesbian, gay and heterosexual communities with the goal of better understanding bisexuality and bisexual identities -- and identities in general. People of all sexual orientations are welcome to attend.
Robyn Ochs is a long-time activist, and the editor of the Bisexual Resource Guide and the new anthology Getting Bi: Voices of Bisexuals Around the World. She has taught courses in Tufts' Experimental College on topics including GLBT history & politics in the United States, the politics of sexual orientation, and the experiences of those of us who transgress the binary categories of gay/straight, masculine/feminine, black/white and/or male/female. Her writings have been published in numerous bisexual, women's studies, multicultural, and GLBT anthologies. She lives in Massachusetts, and on May 17th, 2004—on the first day it was legal—she married Peg Preble, her long-time partner. She is a professional speaker and workshop leader.
Choosing to Label: What's in a Name. Bi, lesbian, gay, straight, queer, questioning, choose-not-to-label. How do you decide what words to use to describe yourself? What are the advantages of choosing a label? What are the disadvantages? Why do other people care so much what you call yourself? This will be a participatory workshop, and all are welcome.
Robyn Ochs
Tools for Building Trans-inclusive College Communities. All too often, the “T” in LGBT is merely an afterthought. However, a growing number of college students are embracing transgender labels. Join us for a discussion of the many ways to make schools more welcoming for transgender and genderqueer students, faculty and staff....Led by members of the Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition ...
Queer Theory, Queer Sex, Queer Politics. In this workshop, students will have the opportunity to investigate some of the concepts and arguments fundamental to current developments in queer theory. We will explore, in particular, a recent debate in queer studies about the idea of "queer love" as a political practice. What is the relationship between sex and politics? Theory and sex? Politics and theory? Is a politics of love viable for queers? What if "Love Won Out," after all?
A graduate student in the Tufts University English Department, Ashley Shelden specializes in queer theory, film, and 20th Century British Literature.
Sexual Identity and Trauma: Navigating Both, Understanding Each. This workshop will explore sexual identity in the context of growing up in a less-than-perfect home environment. We will discuss how trauma and abuse can shape our sexuality and not our identities and, why there is limited research in this area compared to our heterosexual counterparts. The emphasis here is not on sharing details or memories but rather on discussing/understanding how the multiple identities of being queer and a survivor, in addition to our race and class identities, affect us in the present.
Kathy Girod is the Coordinator of the Rainbow Lounge at MIT where she runs groups on coming-out and healthy/un-healthy relationships. She also facilitates a coming-out group for LBT women at the Women's Center in Cambridge and, sits on the board of The Network/La Red, an organization that works to end abuse in the Queer Community. She is a Master's candidate at Simmons College of Social Work and graduates in May.
Monday, April 10, 2006
Saturday, April 8, 2006
Cancel "Day of Silence" Say Lexington Citizens
Citizens for Freedom
P.O. Box 471
Lexington, MA 02420
citizensforfreedom@verizon.net
An Important Message about the “Day of Silence”
To Our Friends and Supporters in Lexington:
For many parents and residents of Lexington, it is not acceptable to have the public schools taking sides, or even appearing to take sides, in the contentious political and cultural battles that mark the so-called “culture wars.” Last year the town gained national notoriety after a parent was arrested while protesting the schools’ unwillingness to accommodate his request to be notified so that he could withdraw his young son from classroom programs that teach issues of human sexuality from a perspective contrary to his personal values.
Many of these programs may appear harmless individually. But taken as a whole, they could reasonably be construed to present a political position on the part of the Lexington school administration. Students get the message that there is a right way to look at these issues (represented by the schools’ point of view) and a wrong way, represented by reactionary or bigoted parents. The divisive results of this policy were seen last year, and will be seen again this year.
A central aspect of the controversy is the normalization of homosexual relationships. Since the Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled in the Goodridge decision that homosexuals could not be denied the right to marry, many believe the matter has been settled and there is no longer any reasonable ground for debate within the community. They believe that homosexual relationships are fully equal to heterosexual relationships, both before the law, and in terms of societal value. Thus they believe the teachings in the schools must reflect and encourage the acceptance of this change.
The reality, however, is quite different. Nothing approaching a consensus on this issue exists anywhere in the country. The entire issue remains a contentious and emotional one.
It is even more difficult when children are brought into the picture at a young age. Clearly, it is much easier to influence the opinions of the next generation if you are the first to teach them, while their minds are still immature and impressionable. The problem is that even in a town as liberal as Lexington, many parents do not wish their children to be taught that homosexuality is the equal of heterosexuality as a lifestyle choice. This has nothing to do with the fact that all people regardless of personal background are entitled to the protection of the laws on an equal basis.
The matter is only made worse when parents who do object are branded as bigots or haters, and when the school administrators refuse to listen; and when virtually the entire town government lines up at a demonstration disparaging the legitimate rights of residents who object to their children being used as pawns in a cultural battle.
CFF believes there is a constitutional requirement for the schools to remain strictly neutral with respect to religious, political or cultural particularities. As an example, students in the local schools come from a variety of religious backgrounds, including no religion. No one is suggesting that the schools must assert that all these religions, including atheism, are equally good and valid positions. No one is suggesting such an approach is necessary in order for children from these differing backgrounds to feel equally accepted in the school environment, or that the failure to do so constitutes some kind of discrimination.
Schools must be places where children from various backgrounds can feel at home without the pressures to conform to one or the other side in contentious political or religious disputes. We believe the schools can be made safe and welcoming places without involving students in the issues that divide and inflame their parents. To the contrary, the very introduction of these disputes makes the schools more divided, less safe, and less welcoming for all.
There are many ways in which mutual respect and tolerance can be taught in the schools. The coerced acceptance of non-traditional sexuality is not one of them.
What follows is an Open Letter to Dr. Paul Ash and the Lexington School Committee, which asks them to disassociate the schools from the upcoming Day of Silence and from the organizations that promote it. ... It will be sent to Dr. Ash and the members of the School Committee, and published in a local paper. ...
If you are a Lexington resident we strongly urge you to endorse this letter. Email your response to citizensforfreedom@verizon.net and say, I endorse the Open Letter, The schools, the students, and the town as a whole will be better off when the schools are returned to neutrality around this and other divisive issues.
Posted by John Moriarty and Jed Snyder
_____________________________________________________________
An Open Letter to Dr. Paul Ash and the Lexington School Committee
April, 2006
We the undersigned members of the Lexington Community call upon Superintendent Paul Ash and the Lexington School Committee to disassociate the schools from the annual Day of Silence scheduled for this month. By endorsing this event, the school administration is needlessly dividing the community and putting the town at the risk of eventual litigation over constitutional violations.
Whatever positive results were supposed to come from this staged event, they have not materialized. To the contrary, the Day of Silence has resulted in a more divided community, with students demonstrating less tolerance, and more stress and name-calling on both sides. Last year this intolerance culminated in a physical assault on a student who peacefully dissented from this activity. Programs that purport to teach respect and tolerance should not result in physical assaults on peaceful students simply because they hold to a different set of values from those being promoted by the schools.
Moreover, it is not the business of the public schools to challenge students’ core beliefs and values by applying pressure, subtle or otherwise, to get them to conform their thinking to a particular political or cultural viewpoint. The considerable persuasive power of teachers as role models should be used to encourage those values the entire community can unite in embracing, not to choose sides in contentious cultural issues.
For students, there is no reasonable way to opt-out of the Day of Silence. It is a school wide, day long event. By endorsing this event, the school leadership is sending a strong message to all those who do not share the views of the event’s organizers that they are unwelcome in the schools when the Day of Silence and related programs are taking place.
Welcoming children and adults from a variety of backgrounds is a worthy goal we can support as a community. But we cannot all support the Day of Silence, or the views and actions of its organizers. Practicing toleration and respect does not mean we must endorse others’ lifestyle choices any more than it means we must endorse others’ religious choices. It does not mean that the gay community must be upheld year after year as history’s most prominent victims. Respect does not come through coercion, whether subtle or blunt.
The public schools belong to all the citizens of Lexington, not just those who subscribe to one favored point of view. The school administration has already demonstrated that it is incapable of guaranteeing the physical safety of students who do not wish to participate in this divisive annual ritual. This year, we urge you to take the first step in returning the public schools to the practice of political neutrality, where students, parents and teachers from a variety of backgrounds and beliefs can feel equally safe, welcomed and at home. Cancel the Day of Silence.
P.O. Box 471
Lexington, MA 02420
citizensforfreedom@verizon.net
An Important Message about the “Day of Silence”
To Our Friends and Supporters in Lexington:
For many parents and residents of Lexington, it is not acceptable to have the public schools taking sides, or even appearing to take sides, in the contentious political and cultural battles that mark the so-called “culture wars.” Last year the town gained national notoriety after a parent was arrested while protesting the schools’ unwillingness to accommodate his request to be notified so that he could withdraw his young son from classroom programs that teach issues of human sexuality from a perspective contrary to his personal values.
Many of these programs may appear harmless individually. But taken as a whole, they could reasonably be construed to present a political position on the part of the Lexington school administration. Students get the message that there is a right way to look at these issues (represented by the schools’ point of view) and a wrong way, represented by reactionary or bigoted parents. The divisive results of this policy were seen last year, and will be seen again this year.
A central aspect of the controversy is the normalization of homosexual relationships. Since the Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled in the Goodridge decision that homosexuals could not be denied the right to marry, many believe the matter has been settled and there is no longer any reasonable ground for debate within the community. They believe that homosexual relationships are fully equal to heterosexual relationships, both before the law, and in terms of societal value. Thus they believe the teachings in the schools must reflect and encourage the acceptance of this change.
The reality, however, is quite different. Nothing approaching a consensus on this issue exists anywhere in the country. The entire issue remains a contentious and emotional one.
It is even more difficult when children are brought into the picture at a young age. Clearly, it is much easier to influence the opinions of the next generation if you are the first to teach them, while their minds are still immature and impressionable. The problem is that even in a town as liberal as Lexington, many parents do not wish their children to be taught that homosexuality is the equal of heterosexuality as a lifestyle choice. This has nothing to do with the fact that all people regardless of personal background are entitled to the protection of the laws on an equal basis.
The matter is only made worse when parents who do object are branded as bigots or haters, and when the school administrators refuse to listen; and when virtually the entire town government lines up at a demonstration disparaging the legitimate rights of residents who object to their children being used as pawns in a cultural battle.
CFF believes there is a constitutional requirement for the schools to remain strictly neutral with respect to religious, political or cultural particularities. As an example, students in the local schools come from a variety of religious backgrounds, including no religion. No one is suggesting that the schools must assert that all these religions, including atheism, are equally good and valid positions. No one is suggesting such an approach is necessary in order for children from these differing backgrounds to feel equally accepted in the school environment, or that the failure to do so constitutes some kind of discrimination.
Schools must be places where children from various backgrounds can feel at home without the pressures to conform to one or the other side in contentious political or religious disputes. We believe the schools can be made safe and welcoming places without involving students in the issues that divide and inflame their parents. To the contrary, the very introduction of these disputes makes the schools more divided, less safe, and less welcoming for all.
There are many ways in which mutual respect and tolerance can be taught in the schools. The coerced acceptance of non-traditional sexuality is not one of them.
What follows is an Open Letter to Dr. Paul Ash and the Lexington School Committee, which asks them to disassociate the schools from the upcoming Day of Silence and from the organizations that promote it. ... It will be sent to Dr. Ash and the members of the School Committee, and published in a local paper. ...
If you are a Lexington resident we strongly urge you to endorse this letter. Email your response to citizensforfreedom@verizon.net and say, I endorse the Open Letter, The schools, the students, and the town as a whole will be better off when the schools are returned to neutrality around this and other divisive issues.
Posted by John Moriarty and Jed Snyder
_____________________________________________________________
An Open Letter to Dr. Paul Ash and the Lexington School Committee
April, 2006
We the undersigned members of the Lexington Community call upon Superintendent Paul Ash and the Lexington School Committee to disassociate the schools from the annual Day of Silence scheduled for this month. By endorsing this event, the school administration is needlessly dividing the community and putting the town at the risk of eventual litigation over constitutional violations.
Whatever positive results were supposed to come from this staged event, they have not materialized. To the contrary, the Day of Silence has resulted in a more divided community, with students demonstrating less tolerance, and more stress and name-calling on both sides. Last year this intolerance culminated in a physical assault on a student who peacefully dissented from this activity. Programs that purport to teach respect and tolerance should not result in physical assaults on peaceful students simply because they hold to a different set of values from those being promoted by the schools.
Moreover, it is not the business of the public schools to challenge students’ core beliefs and values by applying pressure, subtle or otherwise, to get them to conform their thinking to a particular political or cultural viewpoint. The considerable persuasive power of teachers as role models should be used to encourage those values the entire community can unite in embracing, not to choose sides in contentious cultural issues.
For students, there is no reasonable way to opt-out of the Day of Silence. It is a school wide, day long event. By endorsing this event, the school leadership is sending a strong message to all those who do not share the views of the event’s organizers that they are unwelcome in the schools when the Day of Silence and related programs are taking place.
Welcoming children and adults from a variety of backgrounds is a worthy goal we can support as a community. But we cannot all support the Day of Silence, or the views and actions of its organizers. Practicing toleration and respect does not mean we must endorse others’ lifestyle choices any more than it means we must endorse others’ religious choices. It does not mean that the gay community must be upheld year after year as history’s most prominent victims. Respect does not come through coercion, whether subtle or blunt.
The public schools belong to all the citizens of Lexington, not just those who subscribe to one favored point of view. The school administration has already demonstrated that it is incapable of guaranteeing the physical safety of students who do not wish to participate in this divisive annual ritual. This year, we urge you to take the first step in returning the public schools to the practice of political neutrality, where students, parents and teachers from a variety of backgrounds and beliefs can feel equally safe, welcomed and at home. Cancel the Day of Silence.
Wednesday, April 5, 2006
GLSEN Seminar: It Is All About "Queer Sex"
Don't miss this gem from the original article on the GLSEN/Fistgate conference in 2000. According to the queer activist (Margot Abels) currently suing Brian Camenker, Scott Whiteman, and Parents' Rights Coalition for exposing her hideous workshop (in March 2000): YES, IT IS ALL ABOUT QUEER SEX!
Tired of denying it: Margot Abels opened by telling the room full of teachers (and two high school students), "We always feel like we are fighting against people who deny publicly, who say privately, that being queer is not at all about sex... We believe otherwise. We think that sex is central to every single one of us and particularly queer youth."
So let's see, the queer activism in question would include: The story book about "different kinds of families" given to David Parker's kindergartner in Lexington. [Remember: Lexington activist Meg Soens, who got the book into the school, gave a seminar at that same GLSEN conference in 2000 on incorporating gay & lesbian issues in the elementary curriculum!]. The "Day of Silence". The Gay-Straight Alliance clubs in the high schools. Diversity Days. Ally Days. GLBT "rights" however you name them. It's all about queer sex.
Tired of denying it: Margot Abels opened by telling the room full of teachers (and two high school students), "We always feel like we are fighting against people who deny publicly, who say privately, that being queer is not at all about sex... We believe otherwise. We think that sex is central to every single one of us and particularly queer youth."
So let's see, the queer activism in question would include: The story book about "different kinds of families" given to David Parker's kindergartner in Lexington. [Remember: Lexington activist Meg Soens, who got the book into the school, gave a seminar at that same GLSEN conference in 2000 on incorporating gay & lesbian issues in the elementary curriculum!]. The "Day of Silence". The Gay-Straight Alliance clubs in the high schools. Diversity Days. Ally Days. GLBT "rights" however you name them. It's all about queer sex.
Degradation at Weston HS - "Urinetown" a "Family-Friendly" Musical?
MassResistance is revolted once again. Why would any high school choose to produce Urinetown, a crass and degrading satirical musical with anti-corporate, environmentalist overtones? [This according to reviews - needless to say, we haven't seen it!]
Driving through beautiful Weston today, we saw signs advertising the upcoming production of Urinetown by the high school drama club. And sure enough, the local newspaper confirmed this appalling lack of decency in that most wealthy of Massachusetts towns. What sort of sick people are running our high schools? Has anyone in Weston spoken up? [From the Weston newspaper review:]
The plot deals with a dark vision of the future, when water is so scarce that people must pay to pee. Corporations grow fat off of the misery of the poor as they sing "Rich folks get the good life/Poor folks get the woe/In the end, it’s nothing you don’t know."
One day the fees are raised and a young man, after seeing his father taken off to "Urinetown" for free peeing, decides to lead a rebellion against "Urine Good Company," the oppressive monopoly which controls the water. His rebellion stirs the poor, as he cries in the obligatory Act One finale, "We’re suffering now such lives of sorrow - don’t give us tomorrow, just give us today!"
"Urinetown" mocks its own absurdity and pulls the audience in for two hours of nonstop laughs while simultaneously asking them to think about pressing environmental issues. Hailed as the freshest, edgiest theater to hit Broadway in years, this family-friendly and hilarious show is a guaranteed hit with all ages.
Driving through beautiful Weston today, we saw signs advertising the upcoming production of Urinetown by the high school drama club. And sure enough, the local newspaper confirmed this appalling lack of decency in that most wealthy of Massachusetts towns. What sort of sick people are running our high schools? Has anyone in Weston spoken up? [From the Weston newspaper review:]
The plot deals with a dark vision of the future, when water is so scarce that people must pay to pee. Corporations grow fat off of the misery of the poor as they sing "Rich folks get the good life/Poor folks get the woe/In the end, it’s nothing you don’t know."
One day the fees are raised and a young man, after seeing his father taken off to "Urinetown" for free peeing, decides to lead a rebellion against "Urine Good Company," the oppressive monopoly which controls the water. His rebellion stirs the poor, as he cries in the obligatory Act One finale, "We’re suffering now such lives of sorrow - don’t give us tomorrow, just give us today!"
"Urinetown" mocks its own absurdity and pulls the audience in for two hours of nonstop laughs while simultaneously asking them to think about pressing environmental issues. Hailed as the freshest, edgiest theater to hit Broadway in years, this family-friendly and hilarious show is a guaranteed hit with all ages.
Tuesday, April 4, 2006
Rep. Gohmert on "Hate Crimes" & "Sexual Orientation"
One of the more entertaining and fearless people we heard at the Vision America conference in D.C. last week was Rep. Louie Gohmert, a former judge in Texas, elected U.S. Representative in 2004. We picked up a copy of one of his speeches, arguing against "hate crimes" legislation. Gohmert gets it: The very concept of "hate crimes" is irrational, and since the phrase "sexual orientation" is nowhere defined, it opens up the door to anything imaginable.
In the [Texas] dragging death case, I personally might support punishment by allowing the victim's despondent family to choose the rope or chain and the terrain over which to drag the heartless defendant to inflict the death penalty. But the hate crime laws do not offer a more painful form of capital punishment. The one yesterday [9-14-05] certainly does not, so it would have had absolutely no effect on the very cases its proponents often herald as poster examples.
What was done yesterday created a vague, ambiguous Federal offense which sends a message that random, senseless acts of violence are far more preferable in our society than such acts with a motive. Never mind that sociopaths or antisocial personalities who commit random, senseless acts of violence are unlikely to be rehabilitated. They will not get punished under this new law passed out of this House yesterday.
This new hate crimes bill that passed yesterday, this body said to the world that "sexual orientation" and not just "gender," which should be respected, but "gender identity," whatever that is, are in the same category as those unfortunate individuals who have suffered because of the color of their skin or their religious preference.
Have the Members ever stopped to think about the words "sexual orientation"? Regardless of what definition they may give those words, when we pass laws, the words used create an exceptional chance that at some point down the road someone is going to say the words mean exactly what they say. In the case of "sexual orientation," someday someone can look at those words and say they have the very meaning they state: That includes those who are sexually oriented towards animals, those who are sexually oriented towards corpses, those who are sexually oriented towards children. That is abominable. But someday those words could be cited by some appellate court as having their very plain meaning, not just the meaning that is socially or culturally accepted at the time they were passed.
There is another aspect that is not discussed or debated but is coming some day through this new law. It is true that the law addresses crimes of violence or attempted crimes of violence. However, under Article 18 U.S. Code 2(a) of the Federal Criminal Code, "whoever aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures' a crime's commission is punishable just as if he is the principal."
Do the Members understand what that means? Let me ask my colleagues if a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim religious leader teaches and preaches that homosexuality is wrong or is a sin and someone in the leader's flock commits a crime against a person who chooses to practice such acts, has the religious leader counseled or induced such an act through his or her teaching? Someday someone will say so, and ministers will be arrested for their preaching. They will be said to have incited such conduct through hateful teaching. As a matter of fact, some people already blame religious leaders for acts of violence in such cases, and I do not defend any minister who encourages such conduct. That should be punished.
They are wrong. But having harshly sentenced people who have committed crimes of hate, and also those who have committed crimes at random, cold-blooded, heartless thugs, I can tell my colleagues that the victims and their loved ones in all of these cases are all traumatized and distraught and deserving of sympathy and compassion.
So what is the message our great hate crime legislation sends? Apparently, through hate crime legislation, we are simply saying to the world, if you are really going to hurt me, please, please do not hate me. Instead, make it a random, cold-blooded, senseless act of violence. That is what we prefer in this country, according to this bill.
[Emphasis added.]
In the [Texas] dragging death case, I personally might support punishment by allowing the victim's despondent family to choose the rope or chain and the terrain over which to drag the heartless defendant to inflict the death penalty. But the hate crime laws do not offer a more painful form of capital punishment. The one yesterday [9-14-05] certainly does not, so it would have had absolutely no effect on the very cases its proponents often herald as poster examples.
What was done yesterday created a vague, ambiguous Federal offense which sends a message that random, senseless acts of violence are far more preferable in our society than such acts with a motive. Never mind that sociopaths or antisocial personalities who commit random, senseless acts of violence are unlikely to be rehabilitated. They will not get punished under this new law passed out of this House yesterday.
This new hate crimes bill that passed yesterday, this body said to the world that "sexual orientation" and not just "gender," which should be respected, but "gender identity," whatever that is, are in the same category as those unfortunate individuals who have suffered because of the color of their skin or their religious preference.
Have the Members ever stopped to think about the words "sexual orientation"? Regardless of what definition they may give those words, when we pass laws, the words used create an exceptional chance that at some point down the road someone is going to say the words mean exactly what they say. In the case of "sexual orientation," someday someone can look at those words and say they have the very meaning they state: That includes those who are sexually oriented towards animals, those who are sexually oriented towards corpses, those who are sexually oriented towards children. That is abominable. But someday those words could be cited by some appellate court as having their very plain meaning, not just the meaning that is socially or culturally accepted at the time they were passed.
There is another aspect that is not discussed or debated but is coming some day through this new law. It is true that the law addresses crimes of violence or attempted crimes of violence. However, under Article 18 U.S. Code 2(a) of the Federal Criminal Code, "whoever aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures' a crime's commission is punishable just as if he is the principal."
Do the Members understand what that means? Let me ask my colleagues if a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim religious leader teaches and preaches that homosexuality is wrong or is a sin and someone in the leader's flock commits a crime against a person who chooses to practice such acts, has the religious leader counseled or induced such an act through his or her teaching? Someday someone will say so, and ministers will be arrested for their preaching. They will be said to have incited such conduct through hateful teaching. As a matter of fact, some people already blame religious leaders for acts of violence in such cases, and I do not defend any minister who encourages such conduct. That should be punished.
They are wrong. But having harshly sentenced people who have committed crimes of hate, and also those who have committed crimes at random, cold-blooded, heartless thugs, I can tell my colleagues that the victims and their loved ones in all of these cases are all traumatized and distraught and deserving of sympathy and compassion.
So what is the message our great hate crime legislation sends? Apparently, through hate crime legislation, we are simply saying to the world, if you are really going to hurt me, please, please do not hate me. Instead, make it a random, cold-blooded, senseless act of violence. That is what we prefer in this country, according to this bill.
[Emphasis added.]
Monday, April 3, 2006
Canadian Tyranny a Warning to U.S.
Rev. Tristan Emmanuel, of the ECP Centre in Canada ("Equipping Christians for the Public Square"), was the dynamic speaker at our recent MassResistance/Article 8 Alliance banquet.
Describing the tyranny in Canada concerning any opposition to the extremist homosexual agenda, Rev. Emmanuel made it all too clear that we're traveling down that same road in America, with "hate crimes" legislation, laws and regulations protecting any imaginable "sexual orientation" (never defined in law!), etc. What Emmanuel calls "Christophobia" is really an attempt to silence the Christian Gospel, first on issues of homosexuality, then on other moral teachings.
Here's a report from Agape Press by Gail Besse, who attended the banquet. Excerpts:
Christians are being humiliated, intimidated, and stopped from expressing their beliefs in public, Rev. Tristan Emmanuel recently told a gathering concerned about judicial activism and the erosion of free speech in Massachusetts. He outlined the situation in Canada, where same-sex "marriage" is legal and a 2004 law criminalized the criticism of homosexuality as a hate crime. America is headed the same way unless people of faith stop apologizing for their sincerely held beliefs, said Emmanuel...
Emmanuel stressed the danger involved when a legislative body defers to a judicial one ... In Canada, he said, human rights tribunals started out as watchdog groups but became empowered by Parliament with police powers. The tribunals investigate what they consider to be human rights violations, "educate" people with mandatory sensitivity training, then prosecute and judge on grounds of guilty until proven innocent, according to the pastor. One case involved a Toronto printer who refused to print material on lesbianism. The ensuing court battle -- which the printer lost -- lasted nine years and cost the printer $170,000....
Describing the tyranny in Canada concerning any opposition to the extremist homosexual agenda, Rev. Emmanuel made it all too clear that we're traveling down that same road in America, with "hate crimes" legislation, laws and regulations protecting any imaginable "sexual orientation" (never defined in law!), etc. What Emmanuel calls "Christophobia" is really an attempt to silence the Christian Gospel, first on issues of homosexuality, then on other moral teachings.
Here's a report from Agape Press by Gail Besse, who attended the banquet. Excerpts:
Christians are being humiliated, intimidated, and stopped from expressing their beliefs in public, Rev. Tristan Emmanuel recently told a gathering concerned about judicial activism and the erosion of free speech in Massachusetts. He outlined the situation in Canada, where same-sex "marriage" is legal and a 2004 law criminalized the criticism of homosexuality as a hate crime. America is headed the same way unless people of faith stop apologizing for their sincerely held beliefs, said Emmanuel...
Emmanuel stressed the danger involved when a legislative body defers to a judicial one ... In Canada, he said, human rights tribunals started out as watchdog groups but became empowered by Parliament with police powers. The tribunals investigate what they consider to be human rights violations, "educate" people with mandatory sensitivity training, then prosecute and judge on grounds of guilty until proven innocent, according to the pastor. One case involved a Toronto printer who refused to print material on lesbianism. The ensuing court battle -- which the printer lost -- lasted nine years and cost the printer $170,000....
Saturday, April 1, 2006
The War on Christians: We're Fighting Back!
We recently attended a great conference in D.C. on the war on Christian values here in the U.S. You know who is behind the assault: the activist judiciary, the ACLU, assorted "progressive" liberal politicians, the abortion lobby, the homosexual lobby, Unitarians and other assorted secular humanists, etc.
The conference was sponsored by Vision America. They've worked with some of the best conservative thinkers in America to draw up their" contract with Congress" to promote an "American Renewal." The ten points [not exact quotes]:
1. Affirm the national relationship with God in our places of worship, schools, mottos, and public spaces.
2. Secure our national interest in the institutions of marriage and family.
3. Secure our fundamental right as parents to the care, custody, and control of our children.
4. Secure our God-gifted right to life [vs. abortion, human cloning, human embryo research].
5. Protect religious freedom [including blocking "hate crime" legislation].
6. Protect property rights.
7. Pass legislation to restrict obscenity and pornography [and against its inclusion as a First Amendment right].
8. Secure just taxes through tax reform.
9. Secure our national borders.
10. Call for judicial restraint and an end to judicial activism.
Read their declaration of principles at ValuesVoter.org. The largest, boldest print in the text is reserved for their call for "Judicial Restraint and and end to Judicial Activism" -- which makes us very happy! And they're developing a website focused on stopping activist judges.
The conference was sponsored by Vision America. They've worked with some of the best conservative thinkers in America to draw up their" contract with Congress" to promote an "American Renewal." The ten points [not exact quotes]:
1. Affirm the national relationship with God in our places of worship, schools, mottos, and public spaces.
2. Secure our national interest in the institutions of marriage and family.
3. Secure our fundamental right as parents to the care, custody, and control of our children.
4. Secure our God-gifted right to life [vs. abortion, human cloning, human embryo research].
5. Protect religious freedom [including blocking "hate crime" legislation].
6. Protect property rights.
7. Pass legislation to restrict obscenity and pornography [and against its inclusion as a First Amendment right].
8. Secure just taxes through tax reform.
9. Secure our national borders.
10. Call for judicial restraint and an end to judicial activism.
Read their declaration of principles at ValuesVoter.org. The largest, boldest print in the text is reserved for their call for "Judicial Restraint and and end to Judicial Activism" -- which makes us very happy! And they're developing a website focused on stopping activist judges.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)