We've heard rumors in recent years that Gordon College is not as solidly anchored in Biblical Christianity as it once was. Doctrinal and political liberalism have crept in. But it's still surprising and disappointing to see that the school has INVITED homosexual extremists, Soulforce's "Equality Riders", to the college to propagandize students. Yet the institution concurrently puts out statements that it's preserving its orthodox Christian stand!
"Equality Riders", a project of the radical pseudo-Christian organization "Soulforce", go to colleges around the country (as described by the radical homosexual "news" organ Bay Windows): "... young activists trek across the country in buses, stopping at Christian colleges and universities with anti-gay policies and trying to start a dialogue with students and administrators about embracing LGBT people and ending their discriminatory policies." But for Gordon College to invite them is to accept Soulforce's premise that Gordon College is wrongly discriminatory, and unchristian.
Soulforce especially targets Focus on the Family: Demonstrators recently invaded the Focus office and "refused to leave until the organization's founder, James Dobson, takes a step toward reconciliation with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) communities by ceasing his misleading statements about research on lesbian and gay parents. For more than a decade, members and allies of Soulforce have confronted Focus on the Family's anti-gay rhetoric and publicized its harmful impact on the lives of individuals, parents, and children." Clearly, this is a radical group.
From Bay Windows:
Equality Ride coming to Mass.The Equality Riders will touch down in the Boston area later this month. Beginning April 15, Equality Riders will take three days to visit Wenham’s Gordon College, a non-denominational Christian college that bans homosexuality. Kyle DeVries, a rider who is helping organize the eastbound bus of the two-bus Equality Ride tour, said the college has invited the riders to hold two forums on campus, talk with students during classes, and meet with them informally on campus.“Gordon College has actually been one of the most hospitable colleges we’ve dealt with,” said DeVries.On the first day of their visit the Equality Riders will hold a community rally at the North Shore Unitarian Universalist Church in Danvers starting at 6 p.m.
From The Christian Post, on the seminary connected to Gordon College:
With the baton passed on to [its new President James E.] White, Gordon-Conwell is seeking to advance to be the "vanguard of evangelical movement." "We're prepared and we're ready to roll," said White.
In an earlier talk with the Rev. Billy Graham, co-founder of Gordon-Conwell, ... White was enlightened with the original vision that the world-renowned evangelist had when he started the school ... He wanted to create a "force of change" – a school that would bring together evangelicals, uphold biblical orthodoxy, and be the "leader of leaders." ...
Acting on a vision to advance Christ's kingdom in all of life and culture without losing biblical orthodoxy, White commented, "If you don't have biblical orthodoxy but you're trying to reach the culture, then you're not offering the world what it doesn't [already] have."
Gordon-Conwell is also in conversations with such leaders as Chuck Colson, founder of think tank The Wilberforce Forum, to create a center on Christian worldview. The center would help Christians reclaim the culture ...
Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary is a multi-denominational, evangelical Protestant graduate school serving more than 2,000 students on campuses in South Hamilton and Boston, Mass., and Charlotte, N.C., and an extension site in Jacksonville, Fla. It is the fifth largest seminary in the nation.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Monday, April 2, 2007
Gov. Patrick's and the Globe's NewSpeak on "Legal Marriages"
The Boston Globe reported today that Gov. Deval Patrick ordered his new Commissioner of Public Health (a man "married" to a man) to record 26 "gay marriages" for out-of-state couples. This despite the FACT that there is still a law on the books barring marriages from taking place in Massachusetts which would not be legal in the state where the couple are residents.
But you'd never really understand what's going on if you read the Globe's twisted reporting, which claims former Gov. Romney was responsible for blocking the supposed marriages "from being entered into the state's vital records." But it wasn't Romney standing in the way, it was the law! There is one line in the Globe story that almost tells the truth:
The issue is largely symbolic; neither Romney's refusal to record the marriages nor Patrick's reversal of that order affects the legal status of the marriages.
But this line is immediately followed by this absurd, contradictory quote:
"There was no legal basis for separating these certificates in the first place," said Kyle Sullivan, a spokesman for Patrick. "It appears like the prior administration was politicizing a routine administrative function."
The Globe always gets it wrong when it says "May 17, 2004, the date gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts." Of course the Globe doesn't report the fact that there's been no change in Mass. laws, to either permit Mass. homosexual couples to "marry", or to allow out-of-state couples to have their Mass. "marriages" recorded here. (That's why the homosexual lobby has filed bills to do both these things.)
But the Globe is doing its propaganda best to change everyone's perceptions by repeating its lies over and over. Note the story never refers to the statutes in question by Mass. General Laws chapter and section. So how's the average Joe going to check?
But you'd never really understand what's going on if you read the Globe's twisted reporting, which claims former Gov. Romney was responsible for blocking the supposed marriages "from being entered into the state's vital records." But it wasn't Romney standing in the way, it was the law! There is one line in the Globe story that almost tells the truth:
The issue is largely symbolic; neither Romney's refusal to record the marriages nor Patrick's reversal of that order affects the legal status of the marriages.
But this line is immediately followed by this absurd, contradictory quote:
"There was no legal basis for separating these certificates in the first place," said Kyle Sullivan, a spokesman for Patrick. "It appears like the prior administration was politicizing a routine administrative function."
The Globe always gets it wrong when it says "May 17, 2004, the date gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts." Of course the Globe doesn't report the fact that there's been no change in Mass. laws, to either permit Mass. homosexual couples to "marry", or to allow out-of-state couples to have their Mass. "marriages" recorded here. (That's why the homosexual lobby has filed bills to do both these things.)
But the Globe is doing its propaganda best to change everyone's perceptions by repeating its lies over and over. Note the story never refers to the statutes in question by Mass. General Laws chapter and section. So how's the average Joe going to check?
"Day of Silence" Silences Opposing Views
Favored speech, special rights: The "Day of Silence" propaganda event is looming in our high schools. Sponsored, organized, and promoted by the national radical homosexual/transgender advocacy group GLSEN, this is billed as a "student-led" event so that school administrators can hide it from parents. Its feebly framed goal is to raise awareness of students for the "oppression" suffered by GLBT people across America. Students supporting this goal remain silent all day, with their school's blessing. (Check the Day of Silence web site to see the incredible machinery behind this event.)
It's set to occur in hundreds of schools across Massachusetts the week after spring vacation, on April 25 in most schools. Why does a tiny fraction of the population, defined by unnatural sexual practices condemned over thousands of years of civilization by its great religions, get to propagate this viewpoint in our public high schools?
Call your local high school and see if this event is scheduled there. A national movement is taking shape to boycott the schools allowing this to happen. See NotOurKids.com.
Check Dennis Byrne's excellent op/ed (Chicago Tribune, 3-27-07): "Free Speech and the Right to Disagree" on a free speech case coming out of this event in Illinois:
If a high school gives students permission to openly express their support of homosexuality, then why shouldn't other students be allowed to voice their disapproval? A federal court judge in Chicago might have to answer that question after a high school student in Naperville, IL, a suburb southwest of Chicago, filed suit charging that her civil rights were violated by school officials by not letting her wear a pro-heterosexual T-shirt last year.
Neuqua Valley High School's refusal to let Heidi Zamecnik, 17, wear a T-shirt saying "Be happy, not gay" on the back and "My day of silence, straight alliance" on the front was especially egregious because it came on the same day that the school permitted other students on the national "Day of Silence" to openly express their support of homosexuality....
Gay activists may say that the heterosexual message is more inflammatory than theirs because of the "long history of bullying, harassment and discrimination" that homosexuals and students of uncommon sexual orientation have had to suffer in schools. But, why should that restrict the free speech of someone who has not participated in "bullying, harassment and discrimination"? Or do you have to prove that you did not engage in such behavior before you are allowed to speak?
Or is the school saying her T-shirt itself constitutes "bullying, harassment and discrimination"? That would be a ridiculous assertion, because the T-shirt does not meet the generally accepted definitions of the terms. Unless we now want to restrict speech that "bothers someone." This is tricky, because it gets into the debate over how "offensive" speech must be before it can be restricted....
Then what if Zamecnik and her friends decide to have their own Day of Silence, to protest the other Day of Silence? This is an important question because gay activists are allowed to remain silent in class even if called upon by their teachers. Would the school allow Zamecnik to organize hundreds of students in opposition to homosexuality, a day on which they could refuse to answer a teacher's questions without facing disciplinary action?
The school has backed itself into this corner by sanctioning the pro-gay Day of Silence for political purposes. Who next will demand equal time? Peace activists, war supporters? Nazis? Communists? The limits of free speech in K-12 schools is a tricky issue, involving freedom of the press, freedom to publicly criticize administration and faculty, and so forth. But the issue in Naperville shouldn't be a problem. The school is practicing speech discrimination based on a certain belief, and that is unconstitutional.
It's set to occur in hundreds of schools across Massachusetts the week after spring vacation, on April 25 in most schools. Why does a tiny fraction of the population, defined by unnatural sexual practices condemned over thousands of years of civilization by its great religions, get to propagate this viewpoint in our public high schools?
Call your local high school and see if this event is scheduled there. A national movement is taking shape to boycott the schools allowing this to happen. See NotOurKids.com.
Check Dennis Byrne's excellent op/ed (Chicago Tribune, 3-27-07): "Free Speech and the Right to Disagree" on a free speech case coming out of this event in Illinois:
If a high school gives students permission to openly express their support of homosexuality, then why shouldn't other students be allowed to voice their disapproval? A federal court judge in Chicago might have to answer that question after a high school student in Naperville, IL, a suburb southwest of Chicago, filed suit charging that her civil rights were violated by school officials by not letting her wear a pro-heterosexual T-shirt last year.
Neuqua Valley High School's refusal to let Heidi Zamecnik, 17, wear a T-shirt saying "Be happy, not gay" on the back and "My day of silence, straight alliance" on the front was especially egregious because it came on the same day that the school permitted other students on the national "Day of Silence" to openly express their support of homosexuality....
Gay activists may say that the heterosexual message is more inflammatory than theirs because of the "long history of bullying, harassment and discrimination" that homosexuals and students of uncommon sexual orientation have had to suffer in schools. But, why should that restrict the free speech of someone who has not participated in "bullying, harassment and discrimination"? Or do you have to prove that you did not engage in such behavior before you are allowed to speak?
Or is the school saying her T-shirt itself constitutes "bullying, harassment and discrimination"? That would be a ridiculous assertion, because the T-shirt does not meet the generally accepted definitions of the terms. Unless we now want to restrict speech that "bothers someone." This is tricky, because it gets into the debate over how "offensive" speech must be before it can be restricted....
Then what if Zamecnik and her friends decide to have their own Day of Silence, to protest the other Day of Silence? This is an important question because gay activists are allowed to remain silent in class even if called upon by their teachers. Would the school allow Zamecnik to organize hundreds of students in opposition to homosexuality, a day on which they could refuse to answer a teacher's questions without facing disciplinary action?
The school has backed itself into this corner by sanctioning the pro-gay Day of Silence for political purposes. Who next will demand equal time? Peace activists, war supporters? Nazis? Communists? The limits of free speech in K-12 schools is a tricky issue, involving freedom of the press, freedom to publicly criticize administration and faculty, and so forth. But the issue in Naperville shouldn't be a problem. The school is practicing speech discrimination based on a certain belief, and that is unconstitutional.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Sen. Susan Fargo & Breast Confusion
Senator Susan Fargo is confused about the female breast. She has filed conflicting bills. On the one hand she supports breastfeeding as a glory of nature and public health. On the other hand, she supports a bill that would declare it normal for women to surgically remove their breasts.Two of her bills recognize and praise nature: one providing educational information to the public on the health benefits of breastfeeding (S1223), and another declaring breastfeeding most healthy for mother and child, as well as society, and therefore allowing public breastfeeding (S78).
But if Sen. Fargo believes in the goodness of the breast and its place in the natural scheme of things, why is she also sponsoring a loony bill (H1722) which would deny nature, and promote and protect "transgenderism" and so-called "gender expression"? We have learned that in quite a few cases, women "identifying" as males choose to remove their breasts. (To say nothing of the men who "grow" breasts through hormone injections.) Is this also part of the natural scheme of things? Is this good for the public health? Sen. Fargo seems to think so. Here's some of the public "gender expression" Sen. Fargo wants to protect:
"Tranny Bois" marching at a Boston Pride event [Bay Windows photo].
Sen. Fargo: Should female breasts be used as God intended them, or removed? Should male-to-female transsexuals be allowed to breastfeed in public?
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Jeff Jacoby's Heteronormative Propaganda
Dear Jeff Jacoby,
In your "Messages to my son" column (3-28-07), you clearly have not gotten the message from the Massachusetts powers-that-be, including a federal judge: Your son will never grow up to be a good citizen unless he learns to view homosexual "marriages" as a perfectly good option. And you are teaching him that he must marry a woman and have children! Horrors!
Don't you realize that you are spewing heteronormative propaganda? Why, it could even be considered hate speech. Bad enough that you say these things behind closed doors, but to publish these ideas in a public forum? How dare you! Don't you realize that implying something (such as heterosexual marriage, or being a father to children) is to be preferred, or is a norm, is hateful to others who don't share your sexual orientation, your outlook on family life? Don't you realize that as a good citizen (you say you want to be "good") you should be presenting your son with all possible options for his adult life? You need to apologize for writing these hate-filled words:
I want you and Micah [his younger brother] to become loving fathers and husbands, so I make sure that open affection is something you see and get a lot of. Some men are inhibited about kissing or hugging their wives, or addressing them with terms of endearment; you're growing up in an environment where your father makes no secret of his love for your mother. I hope your children will grow up in a similar environment. Speaking of your children, I have been shamelessly propagandizing you for years on the advantages of marrying early and having lots of kids -- two things I didn't do but wish I had....
Jeff, don't you know that you should leave it up to the state to disseminate proper values to your sons? We hope you've received a stern warning from your editors at the Boston Globe. And you'd better watch out: We may have to report you to the Dept. of Social Services for emotional abuse of your son.
In your "Messages to my son" column (3-28-07), you clearly have not gotten the message from the Massachusetts powers-that-be, including a federal judge: Your son will never grow up to be a good citizen unless he learns to view homosexual "marriages" as a perfectly good option. And you are teaching him that he must marry a woman and have children! Horrors!
Don't you realize that you are spewing heteronormative propaganda? Why, it could even be considered hate speech. Bad enough that you say these things behind closed doors, but to publish these ideas in a public forum? How dare you! Don't you realize that implying something (such as heterosexual marriage, or being a father to children) is to be preferred, or is a norm, is hateful to others who don't share your sexual orientation, your outlook on family life? Don't you realize that as a good citizen (you say you want to be "good") you should be presenting your son with all possible options for his adult life? You need to apologize for writing these hate-filled words:
I want you and Micah [his younger brother] to become loving fathers and husbands, so I make sure that open affection is something you see and get a lot of. Some men are inhibited about kissing or hugging their wives, or addressing them with terms of endearment; you're growing up in an environment where your father makes no secret of his love for your mother. I hope your children will grow up in a similar environment. Speaking of your children, I have been shamelessly propagandizing you for years on the advantages of marrying early and having lots of kids -- two things I didn't do but wish I had....
Jeff, don't you know that you should leave it up to the state to disseminate proper values to your sons? We hope you've received a stern warning from your editors at the Boston Globe. And you'd better watch out: We may have to report you to the Dept. of Social Services for emotional abuse of your son.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
"Gay" Adoption Mess in Georgia
Here's a story bringing together the craziness of adoptions by non-biological homosexual "parents", the fluidity of "sexual orientation", and the willingness of the judiciary to ignore state laws.
Lesbian Argues Ga. Gays Can't Adopt Kids
AP, 3-25-07
ATLANTA -- Sara Wheeler's life has become a contradiction. Once a proud lesbian, she's now a pariah in the gay community. Once in a committed relationship with a female partner, she's rethinking her sexuality. And now she's doing something she once would have considered unthinkable -- arguing that gays don't have the legal right to adopt children.
Wheeler is coming to grips with the fact that she's become an outcast for taking this step in a custody fight for her child. But she says that isn't what her fight is about: "It's about motherly rights."
Wheeler, 36, and her partner, Missy, decided to start a family together and share the Wheeler last name. In 2000, Sara Wheeler gave birth to a son, Gavin, through artificial insemination. Two years later, they decided Missy Wheeler should adopt the child and legally become his second parent. Georgia law doesn't specifically say whether gay parents can adopt a child, so the decision was up to a judge in the Atlanta area's DeKalb County. After an adoption investigator determined that both partners wanted it, the judge cleared the request. ...
But then the couple broke up, and the biological parent, Wheeler, wanted sole custody of her son. She asked the court to "toss the adoption that she had previously pushed for, claiming it should never have been approved because it runs afoul of state law." Her lawsuit was rejected by the county judge and state Court of Appeals, then went to the Georgia Supreme Court, which refused to hear it (but is reconsidering). The local GLBT newspaper accused Wheeler of "self-hating".
"There's nothing that states this is an acceptable adoption," [Wheeler] said. "If Georgia wants to allow it, it needs to make proper laws." Aside from a few gay friends, she has turned away from the gay community. She no longer dates, and doesn't go to gay clubs or events any more. She said she is rethinking whether she is still a lesbian or whether she should abandon dating for good.
"I just don't feel comfortable in that scene," she says. "I'm just trying to figure it all out." She knows she's seen as a betrayer; but in a sense, she feels she was the one betrayed. "Before I'm anything -- gay or lesbian -- I'm a mother," she says. "And the most important thing is to make sure my son has a relationship with his biological mother."
Lesbian Argues Ga. Gays Can't Adopt Kids
AP, 3-25-07
ATLANTA -- Sara Wheeler's life has become a contradiction. Once a proud lesbian, she's now a pariah in the gay community. Once in a committed relationship with a female partner, she's rethinking her sexuality. And now she's doing something she once would have considered unthinkable -- arguing that gays don't have the legal right to adopt children.
Wheeler is coming to grips with the fact that she's become an outcast for taking this step in a custody fight for her child. But she says that isn't what her fight is about: "It's about motherly rights."
Wheeler, 36, and her partner, Missy, decided to start a family together and share the Wheeler last name. In 2000, Sara Wheeler gave birth to a son, Gavin, through artificial insemination. Two years later, they decided Missy Wheeler should adopt the child and legally become his second parent. Georgia law doesn't specifically say whether gay parents can adopt a child, so the decision was up to a judge in the Atlanta area's DeKalb County. After an adoption investigator determined that both partners wanted it, the judge cleared the request. ...
But then the couple broke up, and the biological parent, Wheeler, wanted sole custody of her son. She asked the court to "toss the adoption that she had previously pushed for, claiming it should never have been approved because it runs afoul of state law." Her lawsuit was rejected by the county judge and state Court of Appeals, then went to the Georgia Supreme Court, which refused to hear it (but is reconsidering). The local GLBT newspaper accused Wheeler of "self-hating".
"There's nothing that states this is an acceptable adoption," [Wheeler] said. "If Georgia wants to allow it, it needs to make proper laws." Aside from a few gay friends, she has turned away from the gay community. She no longer dates, and doesn't go to gay clubs or events any more. She said she is rethinking whether she is still a lesbian or whether she should abandon dating for good.
"I just don't feel comfortable in that scene," she says. "I'm just trying to figure it all out." She knows she's seen as a betrayer; but in a sense, she feels she was the one betrayed. "Before I'm anything -- gay or lesbian -- I'm a mother," she says. "And the most important thing is to make sure my son has a relationship with his biological mother."
Monday, March 26, 2007
Phony Basis for Federal "Hate Crimes" Bill
Is there an epidemic of transgender bashing? Not according to FBI crime statistics. Yet Rep. John Conyers, who again introduced the federal "hate crimes" bill last week, falsely claims that there is. Let's hope President Bush has the sense to veto this crazy bill.
Then we have to deal with the transgender rights and "hate crimes" bill that's been filed here in Massachusetts! More on that soon...
From Traditional Values Coalition:
Pro-Homosexual/Drag Queen ‘Hate Crimes’ Bill Introduced
March 22, 2007 – Far left Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) has once again introduced his so-called “hate crimes” bill to provide special federal protection for homosexuality, cross-dressing, and transsexualism. H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, is a rehash of his 2005 bill, according to sources in Congress.
H.R. 1592 claims there is an epidemic of “hate” against homosexuals and cross-dressers that is so pervasive throughout our nation, that local law enforcement officials are overwhelmed in dealing with the problem. In addition, Conyers’ and his congressional cohorts claim – without any evidence whatsoever – that homosexuals, cross-dressers, etc., are so persecuted in their home states that they are fleeing into neighboring states to avoid persecution. The legislation asserts that violence against these groups forces “such members to move across state lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence.” Liberals also claim things are so bad for homosexuals, cross-dressers, etc., that these individuals are prevented “from purchasing goods and services; obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.” The bogus claim that interstate travel is involved in “hate,” is needed by Conyers to invoke federal involvement in local law enforcement through the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution....
Contrary to what John Conyers claims, there is no epidemic of hate against individuals because of their sexual orientation. FBI hate crime statistics from 2005 (the latest available) report only 1,171 cases of sexual orientation bias against individuals. Of those, 301 were listed as “intimidation,” which is name-calling. Another 333 were listed as “simple assault,” which is pushing or shoving. Only 177 were listed as aggravated assault against a person because of his sexual orientation. “In a nation of 300 million, the existence of 1,171 “hate crimes” against individuals hardly constitutes a national epidemic that is overwhelming local police departments or sheriff’s departments [said Andrea Lafferty of Traditional Values].
“The ultimate goal of Conyers’ bill is to silence all opposition to the homosexual/transgender political agenda. So-called ‘hate speech’ will be suppressed because it supposedly incites individuals to violence against homosexuals/ transgenders. Defined by homosexuals, hate speech is any verbal or printed materials that criticize the normalization of sodomy in our culture. The goal is to undermine the First Amendment and persecute Christians who oppose homosexuality” said Lafferty.
Then we have to deal with the transgender rights and "hate crimes" bill that's been filed here in Massachusetts! More on that soon...
From Traditional Values Coalition:
Pro-Homosexual/Drag Queen ‘Hate Crimes’ Bill Introduced
March 22, 2007 – Far left Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) has once again introduced his so-called “hate crimes” bill to provide special federal protection for homosexuality, cross-dressing, and transsexualism. H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, is a rehash of his 2005 bill, according to sources in Congress.
H.R. 1592 claims there is an epidemic of “hate” against homosexuals and cross-dressers that is so pervasive throughout our nation, that local law enforcement officials are overwhelmed in dealing with the problem. In addition, Conyers’ and his congressional cohorts claim – without any evidence whatsoever – that homosexuals, cross-dressers, etc., are so persecuted in their home states that they are fleeing into neighboring states to avoid persecution. The legislation asserts that violence against these groups forces “such members to move across state lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence.” Liberals also claim things are so bad for homosexuals, cross-dressers, etc., that these individuals are prevented “from purchasing goods and services; obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.” The bogus claim that interstate travel is involved in “hate,” is needed by Conyers to invoke federal involvement in local law enforcement through the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution....
Contrary to what John Conyers claims, there is no epidemic of hate against individuals because of their sexual orientation. FBI hate crime statistics from 2005 (the latest available) report only 1,171 cases of sexual orientation bias against individuals. Of those, 301 were listed as “intimidation,” which is name-calling. Another 333 were listed as “simple assault,” which is pushing or shoving. Only 177 were listed as aggravated assault against a person because of his sexual orientation. “In a nation of 300 million, the existence of 1,171 “hate crimes” against individuals hardly constitutes a national epidemic that is overwhelming local police departments or sheriff’s departments [said Andrea Lafferty of Traditional Values].
“The ultimate goal of Conyers’ bill is to silence all opposition to the homosexual/transgender political agenda. So-called ‘hate speech’ will be suppressed because it supposedly incites individuals to violence against homosexuals/ transgenders. Defined by homosexuals, hate speech is any verbal or printed materials that criticize the normalization of sodomy in our culture. The goal is to undermine the First Amendment and persecute Christians who oppose homosexuality” said Lafferty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)