Monday, September 08, 2008

Pulpit Freedom Sunday on Sept. 28th

Hooray for ADF (Alliance Defense Fund)!! IT'S CERTAINLY ABOUT TIME that this unconstitutional ban against churches was scrapped!!

Ban on Political Endorsements by Pastors Targeted

Isn't it amazing how all of the political talk given by Rev. Wrong was not vilified by groups like the ACLU (Against Christ, Loves Ungodliness) or the Americans United for Separation of Church and State? Yet, when churches desire to have their freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of religion rights reinstated through participating in "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" - which is designed to throw out this ridiculous 54 year old ban - the leftist groups start screeching and complaining!! They didn't threaten Obama's church (because they know the church agrees with their leftist ideology) but they certainly are quick to threaten Christ honoring, Bible teaching churches with punishment - claiming that their tax exemption status will be taken away.

What is wrong with this picture, people?

Plenty!!

Excerpts:

"For so long, there has been this cloud of intimidation over the church," ADF attorney Erik Stanley said. "It is the job of the pastors of America to debate the proper role of church in society. It's not for the government to mandate the role of church in society."



Defining its latest mission, the ADF declared that pastors have "too long feared" the loss of tax exemptions.

"We're not encouraging any congregation to violate the law," Stanley said. "What we're encouraging them to do is exercise their constitutional right in the face of an unconstitutional law."


Way to go ADF! I hope that hundreds of churches participate in Pulpit Freedom Sunday!!

rjwusa over at Digg makes a great point:


The 'kabash' was put into place under the Johnson(D) administration when the tax exempt laws were re-written to limit the speech within a church to not include political statements. A church should enjoy tax exempt status just as any other not-for-profit organization does. N.O.W. enjoys tax exempt status as does Jessie Jackson's Rainbow coalition. The Christian church contributes millions upon millions of dollars to charitable causes, and this alone should suffice as a valid reason for tax exemption. The 501(c)(3) tax exempt status is not equally administered across the spectrum. That alone should cause it to be trashed.



HT: Washington Post

*******
Update 9/9/08 @ 10:52 a.m. PT

Additional resource:

Alliance Defense Fund and Family Research Council's letter to thousands of pastors informing them of their free speech rights.

*******
Update 9/9/08 @ 11:05 a.m. PT

Over at my other blog Protect Biblical Marriage I have posted an article and link to the latest onslaught against traditional marriage from the rabid, homosexual agenda activists and advocates.

Slap in the Face Against Traditional Marriage

Mythbusters out in liberal licentious land may want people to think that:


There is no "homosexual legal agenda" - all that activists desire is "tolerance" and "equality".


Well, the following article will convince you otherwise! I encourage you to purchase the book offered at the end of the article. It will open your eyes (Just like the Marketing of Evil book did) to the real goal(s) of the homosexual legal agenda going on in America today.

From ADF:


These terms often mean different things to activists than to ordinary Americans. The homosexual agenda was outlined by activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in a 1987 article titled “The Overhauling of Straight America,” and a 1989 book titled After the Ball.

These publications outlined a six-point strategy to dramatically change America’s perception of homosexual behavior.1 The six points were:


Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and often as possible.
Portray gays as victims, not aggressive challengers.
Give homosexual protectors a “just” cause.
Make gays look good.
Make the victimizers look bad.
Solicit funds: the buck stops here (i.e., get corporate America and major foundations to financially support the homosexual cause).

And this strategic campaign is not concerned with truth. As Kirk and Madsen said, "It makes no difference [if portrayals of homosexuals] are lies, not to us...not to bigots. We're talking about propaganda."


"Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and often as possible"


In “The Overhauling of Straight America,” Kirk and Madsen noted, “The principle behind this advice is simple: almost all behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances.”

The media has been a willing participant in this strategy. Conservative media critic Michael Medved remarked, “A Martian gathering evidence about American society, simply by monitoring our television, would certainly assume that there were more gay people in America than there are evangelical Christians."

Episodes of Will & Grace, and recently, Law & Order: SVU, have mocked those who have overcome homosexual behavior. Far from neutral, these shows attempted to discredit the effectiveness of counseling men and women who desire to leave the homosexual lifestyle.

After one particularly disturbing episode of Will & Grace, Mike Haley, a former homosexual who works with Focus on the Family, sent a letter to Jon Kinnally, the executive story editor of the show. In his response, Kinnally said:


“…come on, Mike, even you’ve got to admit that fags trying to pretend they’re straight is pretty funny. In response to your request for a meeting, well, I think I can read between the lines on that one. I’m about 6’1”, brown hair, green eyes, and I’m into rollerblading, baking cookies, and cleaning up afterwards. My dislikes include game-playing, negative attitudes, and condoms.”
2


"Portray gays as victims, not aggressive challengers"


Despite demographic statistics to the contrary, homosexual activists have skillfully portrayed themselves as a victimized class in need of special protections. Closer examination shows just the opposite. According to The Human Rights Campaign, 82 percent of the Fortune 50 offer sex-partner benefits. What's more, a Comm Group/G Society study released in October 2001 shows that the median household income of homosexual households is $65,000 - compared to the national average of $40,800. Also, 47 percent of homosexual men and 40 percent of lesbians hold professional or managerial jobs - more than twice the figure for the general population.


"Give homosexual protectors a 'just' cause"


Activists have repeatedly turned tragedies into opportunities to advance the homosexual agenda. Matthew Shepard's murder was horrible: two nonreligious thugs shamefully and brutally killed this young homosexual man by hanging him on a fence to die. However, homosexual activists blamed this senseless crime on conservative Christian organizations such as Focus on the Family .3

Appropriately, the media expressed outrage over this horrible killing.

Yet, the same media was virtually silent when 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising was raped and murdered by homosexuals. Dirkhising's attackers drugged him, strapped him to a bed, gagged him with his own underwear, sodomized him repeatedly, and tortured and strangled him. This gruesome crime received coverage totaling 46 stories. In contrast, the Shepard murder saw more than 3,000 stories published.4


"Make gays look good"


Kirk and Madsen were well aware of the potential problems inherent in revealing too much, too soon, saying, “In the early stages of the campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible.” They added, “First let the camel get his nose inside the tent – and only later his unsightly derriere!”

Homosexual activists are subtle in their public demands as well, insisting that they want only "equality." This statement is heard the loudest in their demands for homosexual "marriage." Yet their plans for the institution of marriage are much bigger, and much more ominous. Activist William Eskridge admits he hopes gay marriage "will dethrone the traditional family based on blood relationships in favor of families we choose."5

Michelangelo Signorile has told activists "to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely...to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.... The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake...is to transform the notion of 'family' entirely."6

Others tell us the goal is the abolition of marriage entirely.


"Make the victimizers look bad"


Perhaps most alarming is the growing trend of intolerance toward any individual who does not express complete and unconditional support for homosexual behavior. Betty Sabatino, an employee for a San Antonio bank experienced this animosity first hand. During a mandatory session of "fair employment practices," Betty participated in the question-and-answer portion (billed as a "safe zone") by asking why the company provided special considerations for employees based on sexual behavior. Her boss expressed "concern" about her question following the session, and within a few weeks, Betty was fired due to "management's loss of confidence" in her. 7

The Boy Scouts have faced unrelenting pressure and attack for refusing to admit homosexual scoutmasters to help lead and form the character of young boys. Columnist Mike Thomas of the Orlando Sentinel offered this opinion to the world:


"If I were the United Way, and all the agencies that depend on it, I'd build a big pile of wood with a pole stuck in the middle of it. Then I'd tie the leaders of the Boy Scouts of America to the pole, using only the most secure half-hitches and square knots. Then I'd rub two sticks together and work on that campfire merit badge."8


So much for tolerance.


"Solicit funds: the buck stops here"


The Gill Foundation reports that donations to gay and lesbian groups have grown to $100 million.9

In stark contrast, many organizations lobbying for family values are constantly seeking cash just to keep the doors open.

For more on this subject, contact us about receiving a copy of The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today.


Footnotes
1 Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill, "The Overhauling of Straight America," Guide, November 1987.
2 Correspondence between Mike Haley of Focus on the Family and Jon Kinnally
3 Julia Duin, "NBC Flooded with Calls after Couric's Remarks: Family Groups Irked at Links to Death of Gay Man," Washington Times, October 16, 1998
4 Toby Harnden, "Liberal Media Ignores Rape-Killing of Boy, 13," The London Telegraph, March 30, 2001
5 William N. Eskridge, "The Case for Same-Sex Marriage," 1996.
6 Michaelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT, December-January 1994.
7 Robert Knight and Kenneth L. Ervin II, "Can I question Homosexuality? Don't Bank on It," from The Other Side of Tolerance: Victims of Homosexual Activism, Family Research Council, 1997,8.
8 Mike Thomas, "United Way Makes Giving Not Easy," Orlando Sentinel, July 23, 2001
9 Jim Hopkins, "Gay Entrepreneurs Pour Tech Cash into Causes," GFN.com, June 19, 2001.

11 comments:

Wayne said...

Great article ... I've linked to it from Against pressure the religious right working is hard to get the vote out

Christinewjc said...

Thank you for sharing that link, Wayne! After reading your post, I noticed many more links at your site. I want to read them all!

This is just one more very important issue happening in our culture today.

The election decision, the Prop. 8 vote here in CA, and the pulpit freedom reinstatement are such extremely important and valuable culture preserving issues!

I am SO GLAD that the Christian community has FINALLY woken up from it's years of slumber - where previously - they let the liberal, secular humanists run roughshod over our values, morals and ethics! It's time to bring America back to what the Founding Fathers envisioned for us!

God bless you!

Christine

P.S. Added your site to my links today!

Sosthenes said...

I can name a church that accepted a $20,000 donation from the Democratic Convention.

I already pay taxes and now I can't say what I want in church? It is the liberal taxation without representation and limiting the freedom of expression and practice of religion.

Christinewjc said...

I hear ya loud and clear, Sosthenes.

Just received an email from the ACLJ regarding another case involving extreme religious discrimination. Here are some portions of it:

Dear Christine,

Just when you think it couldn't get worse ...

The attacks on your faith and your constitutional freedoms keep on coming. In fact, they are intensifying.

In the midst of pressing deadlines and round-the-clock preparations for our upcoming crucial First Amendment Supreme Court case ...

We must confront the University of California and a federal court's decision IN FAVOR OF RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION.

... we absolutely cannot ignore this dangerous ruling and will file an amicus brief to protect Christian school students' rights.

Here are the disturbing facts of the case:

The University of California (UC) has decided Christian school graduates don't meet its required "educational standards."

Under their flawed admissions policy, UC rejected multiple courses offered by Calvary Chapel Christian School and, therefore, would not consider their graduating high school students for admission.

For example, a history course taught at Calvary Chapel Christian School was rejected for, among other things:


failure to "teach critical thinking and modern historical analy[sis]" because it "instructs that the Bible is the unerring source for analysis of historical events, attributes historical events to divine providence rather than analyzing human action, [and] evaluates historical figures and their contributions based on their religious motivations or lack thereof...."


However, the federal court's decision to reject the Christian school's argument of discrimination may be the most unbelievable - and most fundamentally detrimental - aspect of this case.

Imagine ... graduates from a Christian high school told that their education is not good enough - that their course credits don't count - and that they won't be admitted to college.

The court's disregard for the basic rights of Christian school students is disastrous. It flies in the face of our constitutionally protected religious rights.

This case literally has the potential to impact Christian high schools and students across the country - making it much more difficult for students at Christian high schools to gain admission to public universities and forcing Christian schools to consider changing their curriculum.


Source:

American Center for Law and Justice
P.O. Box 90555, Washington, D.C. 20090-0555
Phone: (800) 296-4529
Copyright©2008, ACLJ

The ACLJ is an organization dedicated to the defense of constitutional liberties secured by law.

American Center for Law and Justice is a d/b/a for Christian Advocates Serving Evangelism, Inc., a tax-exempt, not-for-profit, religious corporation as defined under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, specifically dedicated to the ideal that religious freedom and freedom of speech are inalienable, God-given rights. The Center's purpose is to educate, promulgate, conciliate, and where necessary, litigate, to ensure that those rights are protected under the law. The organization has participated in numerous cases before the Supreme Court, Federal Court of Appeals, Federal District Courts, and various state courts regarding freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Your gift is very much appreciated and fully deductible as a charitable contribution. A copy of our latest financial report may be obtained b y writing to us at P.O. Box 450349, Atlanta, GA 31145-0349.

Christinewjc said...

Additional resource:

Alliance Defense Fund and Family Research Council's letter to thousands of pastors informing them of their free speech rights.

Christinewjc said...

Update 9/9/08 @ 11:05 a.m. PT

Over at my other blog Protect Biblical Marriage I have posted an article and link to the latest onslaught against traditional marriage from the rabid, homosexual agenda activists and advocates.

Slap in the Face Against Traditional Marriage

Mythbusters out in liberal licentious land may want people to think that:


There is no "homosexual legal agenda" - all that activists desire is "tolerance" and "equality".

Well, the following article will convince you otherwise! I encourage you to purchase the book offered at the end of the article. It will open your eyes (Just like the Marketing of Evil book did) to the real goal(s) of the homosexual legal agenda going on in America today.

From ADF:


These terms often mean different things to activists than to ordinary Americans. The homosexual agenda was outlined by activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in a 1987 article titled “The Overhauling of Straight America,” and a 1989 book titled After the Ball.

These publications outlined a six-point strategy to dramatically change America’s perception of homosexual behavior.1 The six points were:


Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and often as possible.
Portray gays as victims, not aggressive challengers.
Give homosexual protectors a “just” cause.
Make gays look good.
Make the victimizers look bad.
Solicit funds: the buck stops here (i.e., get corporate America and major foundations to financially support the homosexual cause).

And this strategic campaign is not concerned with truth. As Kirk and Madsen said, "It makes no difference [if portrayals of homosexuals] are lies, not to us...not to bigots. We're talking about propaganda."


"Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and often as possible"
In “The Overhauling of Straight America,” Kirk and Madsen noted, “The principle behind this advice is simple: almost all behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances.”

The media has been a willing participant in this strategy. Conservative media critic Michael Medved remarked, “A Martian gathering evidence about American society, simply by monitoring our television, would certainly assume that there were more gay people in America than there are evangelical Christians."

Episodes of Will & Grace, and recently, Law & Order: SVU, have mocked those who have overcome homosexual behavior. Far from neutral, these shows attempted to discredit the effectiveness of counseling men and women who desire to leave the homosexual lifestyle.

After one particularly disturbing episode of Will & Grace, Mike Haley, a former homosexual who works with Focus on the Family, sent a letter to Jon Kinnally, the executive story editor of the show. In his response, Kinnally said:
“…come on, Mike, even you’ve got to admit that fags trying to pretend they’re straight is pretty funny. In response to your request for a meeting, well, I think I can read between the lines on that one. I’m about 6’1”, brown hair, green eyes, and I’m into rollerblading, baking cookies, and cleaning up afterwards. My dislikes include game-playing, negative attitudes, and condoms.”2
"Portray gays as victims, not aggressive challengers"
Despite demographic statistics to the contrary, homosexual activists have skillfully portrayed themselves as a victimized class in need of special protections. Closer examination shows just the opposite. According to The Human Rights Campaign, 82 percent of the Fortune 50 offer sex-partner benefits. What's more, a Comm Group/G Society study released in October 2001 shows that the median household income of homosexual households is $65,000 - compared to the national average of $40,800. Also, 47 percent of homosexual men and 40 percent of lesbians hold professional or managerial jobs - more than twice the figure for the general population.


"Give homosexual protectors a 'just' cause"
Activists have repeatedly turned tragedies into opportunities to advance the homosexual agenda. Matthew Shepard's murder was horrible: two nonreligious thugs shamefully and brutally killed this young homosexual man by hanging him on a fence to die. However, homosexual activists blamed this senseless crime on conservative Christian organizations such as Focus on the Family .3 Appropriately, the media expressed outrage over this horrible killing.

Yet, the same media was virtually silent when 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising was raped and murdered by homosexuals. Dirkhising's attackers drugged him, strapped him to a bed, gagged him with his own underwear, sodomized him repeatedly, and tortured and strangled him. This gruesome crime received coverage totaling 46 stories. In contrast, the Shepard murder saw more than 3,000 stories published.4


"Make gays look good"
Kirk and Madsen were well aware of the potential problems inherent in revealing too much, too soon, saying, “In the early stages of the campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible.” They added, “First let the camel get his nose inside the tent – and only later his unsightly derriere!”

Homosexual activists are subtle in their public demands as well, insisting that they want only "equality." This statement is heard the loudest in their demands for homosexual "marriage." Yet their plans for the institution of marriage are much bigger, and much more ominous. Activist William Eskridge admits he hopes gay marriage "will dethrone the traditional family based on blood relationships in favor of families we choose."5 Michelangelo Signorile has told activists "to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely...to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.... The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake...is to transform the notion of 'family' entirely."6 Others tell us the goal is the abolition of marriage entirely.


"Make the victimizers look bad"
Perhaps most alarming is the growing trend of intolerance toward any individual who does not express complete and unconditional support for homosexual behavior. Betty Sabatino, an employee for a San Antonio bank experienced this animosity first hand. During a mandatory session of "fair employment practices," Betty participated in the question-and-answer portion (billed as a "safe zone") by asking why the company provided special considerations for employees based on sexual behavior. Her boss expressed "concern" about her question following the session, and within a few weeks, Betty was fired due to "management's loss of confidence" in her. 7

The Boy Scouts have faced unrelenting pressure and attack for refusing to admit homosexual scoutmasters to help lead and form the character of young boys. Columnist Mike Thomas of the Orlando Sentinel offered this opinion to the world:
"If I were the United Way, and all the agencies that depend on it, I'd build a big pile of wood with a pole stuck in the middle of it. Then I'd tie the leaders of the Boy Scouts of America to the pole, using only the most secure half-hitches and square knots. Then I'd rub two sticks together and work on that campfire merit badge."8
So much for tolerance.


"Solicit funds: the buck stops here"
The Gill Foundation reports that donations to gay and lesbian groups have grown to $100 million.9 In stark contrast, many organizations lobbying for family values are constantly seeking cash just to keep the doors open.

For more on this subject, contact us about receiving a copy of The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today.


Footnotes
1 Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill, "The Overhauling of Straight America," Guide, November 1987.
2 Correspondence between Mike Haley of Focus on the Family and Jon Kinnally
3 Julia Duin, "NBC Flooded with Calls after Couric's Remarks: Family Groups Irked at Links to Death of Gay Man," Washington Times, October 16, 1998
4 Toby Harnden, "Liberal Media Ignores Rape-Killing of Boy, 13," The London Telegraph, March 30, 2001
5 William N. Eskridge, "The Case for Same-Sex Marriage," 1996.
6 Michaelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT, December-January 1994.
7 Robert Knight and Kenneth L. Ervin II, "Can I question Homosexuality? Don't Bank on It," from The Other Side of Tolerance: Victims of Homosexual Activism, Family Research Council, 1997,8.
8 Mike Thomas, "United Way Makes Giving Not Easy," Orlando Sentinel, July 23, 2001
9 Jim Hopkins, "Gay Entrepreneurs Pour Tech Cash into Causes," GFN.com, June 19, 2001.

Christinewjc said...

The title of the article written by homosexual activists Kirk and Madsen included the term "overhaul."

Let's take a look at that word and its meaning:

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This o·ver·haul Audio Help (ō'vər-hôl', ō'vər-hôl') Pronunciation Key
tr.v. o·ver·hauled, o·ver·haul·ing, o·ver·hauls


To examine or go over carefully for needed repairs.
To dismantle in order to make repairs.
Nautical To slacken (a line) or to release and separate the blocks of (a tackle).
To make extensive renovations or revisions on; renovate: proposals to overhaul the health care system.
To catch up with; overtake.

n. (ō'vər-hôl')

An act of overhauling.
A repair job.


So, we can see that the "overhauling of straight America" has several goals. I have set in bold the most dangerous definitions.

We are definitely seeing "dismantling," "extensive revisions," and the attempt to "overtake" the freedom of speech of Christians (as well as other religion traditions), the freedom of association, and freedom of religion rights that our Founding Fathers had written into the Constitution.

The "act of overhauling" straight America is not a tolerant, kind, or "rights" issue.

It is the attempt to overtake and revise what thousands of years of tradition has dictated about proper sexual relationships given by God and evidenced through the Bible.

It is the attempt to normalize what is considered an abomination and sin in Holy Scripture.

It is the attempt to ruin traditional, biblical marriage through using the ruse of so-called "homosexual rights;" while, the true goal of these activists is to lie their way into silencing us.

They attempt to make us "victimizers" in order to make us look bad.

In addition, they continually claim victimhood, whereas what they are really attempting to do is silence any opposition that Christians present for the purpose of teaching our children what is right and what is wrong regarding sexual relationships.

Well, I'm not going to stay silent! And, anyone who doesn't like it...

TOUGH!

Kevin said...

Hey Christine,
Churches can say what they want about politics to their congregations at any time and for as long as they want. However, they have to give up their tax-free status if they do. However, they don't want to give up their tax-free status. It appears that money is the root of the issue here--and not keeping politics out of churches.

Sosthenes said...

Hi Kevin,

It isn't as simple as just being about money. It is about blackmailing churches into silence. It is about jeopardizing many free services that people don't get a tax credit for.

To my knowledge, if I give money to the RNC or DNC, the money is not taxed. Why are Christians unfairly targeted if we want to talk about political issues? Why can't we pay the same taxes that both parties aren't paying? It seems to me that we should lease the churches to the RNC, let them talk about religious issues and let them pay the same tax that the Democrats do. And if the Democrats object, we can give them equal time so when they come to speak, we can all walk out during their equal time.

Sosthenes

Kevin said...

Hi Sosthenes,
I will definitely think about your comments!

Sosthenes said...

Kevin,

Thank you,

When churches start to get taxed, the question becomes "How much of my church is going to disappear?" And when they start to disappear, wouldn't it be apparent that someone violated the Constitution by prohibiting us through tax laws?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. (Amendment 1)


The Salvation Army already accepts public funds to take care of people so would it make sense to take that money away again?

Sosthenes