Wintery Knight

…integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square

Must you agree with a person who threatens to kill himself if you don’t?

The latest from Life Site News about Stanford’s University’s attempt to suppress a pro-natural-marriage group’s campus event.

Excerpt:

At a recent GSC meeting, SAS co-president Judy Romea reminded student leaders that not only is the SAS not “anti-gay,” it stood “in solidarity” with homosexual groups against the controversial Westboro Baptist Church when it held a protest on campus.

But that wasn’t enough for campus gay activist groups, who turned out en masse for the same GSC meeting to demand that funding for the event be pulled.

“Their viewpoint kills people,” Jeffrey Cohen, vice president of GradQ, a homosexual advocacy group for graduate students, told the GSC.  “There’s a lot of research published in top psychology journals that have looked at university environments, both positive and negative. An event such as this would be a negative event, [and] in schools that have negative events there is a statistically significant increase in suicide.”  He said the last time a pro-marriage speaker visited the campus, someone told him “they wanted to kill themselves.”

Cohen said he was especially “bothered by the idea that their conference is trying to create better ways to deliver [the pro-marriage] message. … The idea that they are learning how to deliver their message scares [me].”  Cohen suggested SAS cancel its conference and instead hold a joint event with GradQ in which gay activists would have a chance to promote their message too.

Ben Holston, chair of the undergraduate senate, also threw his weight behind the gay groups. “This is an event that hurts the Stanford community,” Holston said. “To express a belief that, for some reason this event is not discriminatory, is completely off-base. This event as it stands, given the speakers, and given that they have said the event is supposed to ‘promote one-man one-woman [marriage],’ which promotes stripping away rights of people in this room, is unacceptable on Stanford’s campus.”  He urged the GSC to withdraw its funding for the conference.

Now I’m chaste, and a virgin, so I was just imagining what it would be like for me at Yale during Sex Week, when my student fees (hypothetically) would be used to bring in sex addicts to instruct college students that my view is sick and twisted and that binge drinking and premarital promiscuity is morally praiseworthy. Does anyone here seriously think that I would threaten to commit suicide unless people who disagreed with my chastity and virginity stopped disagreeing with me? No. A sex addict’s disapproval of my chastity and virginity doesn’t make me want to commit suicide, because I am not insane. I’m also not engaged in immoral behavior by being chaste and remaining a virgin. Criticism of me for being moral doesn’t bother me – that’s your problem if you disagree with morality.

If you tell me that what I’m doing is wrong, I’ve got piles of papers in peer-reviewed journals showing me that for my plans – life-long married love and influential Christian children raised by a stay-at-home mom – chastity is the best plan. But it doesn’t bother me if you disagree with me, and I’m not going to attack your place of work with guns, vandalize your church, or force you to lose your job – because I’m not a gay activist. I don’t care that you disagree with me, because I believe that there is a right to free speech and no right to force you to celebrate and fund my sexual orientation.

That gay activist sounded insane, but I don’t think that most gay people agree with him.

Look:

Ben, a graduate student in neuroscience, told the GSC that even though he is homosexual, he believes the SAS should be able to access the same student funding as any other group.

“What bothers [me] the most is that in the name of tolerance, we are silencing and taking away support from a view that we don’t agree with,” Ben said. “These views are out there, we should listen to them. I totally disagree with these people, but we need to hear what they have to say.  We need to hear SAS.”

Now there is a gay person I can tolerate – because he tolerates me.

Filed under: News, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Warning: if the Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage, you could lose your church

Hillary Clinton and the Human Rights Campaign

Hillary Clinton and the Human Rights Campaign

This is by John Zmirak, who is writing at The Stream. You should read the whole thing.

He writes:

If you aren’t following the arguments over same-sex marriage before the Supreme Court, you should be. Even if you don’t cater weddings or sell pizza in Indiana, your religious freedom is in danger. For detailed accounts of the debate and the questions asked by justices that might be readable tea leaves, see Ryan Anderson’s analysis and the capsule summary provided by Russell Moore and Andrew T. Walker.

The outcome of this week’s debate will determine whether orthodox American Christians will fall to the status of dhimmis, the third-class Christian citizens of sharia Muslim states. (Dhimmis have bare freedom of worship, but pay special, heavy taxes and are excluded from any positions of influence.) If the court imposes same-sex “marriage,” it will be exposing the churches attended by the majority of Americans to sustained legal attack. Does that sound like crazy alarmism? The Solicitor General of the United States agrees with me. Except that he is in favor of it.

Justice Samuel Alito asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli whether acceptance of same-sex marriage would subject orthodox Christian churches to the treatment once accorded Bob Jones University, which lost its tax-exempt status because its ban on interracial dating contradicted federal policy. Verrilli seemed a little taken aback, then answered yes, “it’s certainly going to be an issue.”

In other words, if the Supreme Court votes against natural marriage, it will free up the feds to target organizations you might have heard of, such as the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention. (In theory, the feds might also take aim at every mosque in America, but something tells me that the mosques are likely to get a pass.) Remember that the Obama administration has already tried to force these same churches to provide abortifacients to their employees. Attacking their tax-exempt status over biblical sexual ethics is peanuts next to that.

In case you don’t follow tax policy as a hobby, see Joe Carter’s detailed account of the grave consequences this would have for churches. Put briefly, most would close. Unless, of course, they caved.

Imagine if your house of worship needed to turn a hefty profit, so it could pay the same taxes on its property and income as a casino or a strip joint — unlike Planned Parenthood, since that abortion business is a tax-exempt (and federally funded) “charity.” Imagine if none of the money you gave your church were deductible from your taxes, unlike the money you sent to Greenpeace. Many if not most religious schools and colleges would also shut their doors, unable to pay the same business taxes as for-profit diploma mills.

The First Amendment won’t prevent any of this. When the dictates of a religion conflict with what courts have ruled is a constitutional right, the church’s claims give way every time.

Practical point:

When presidential candidates come to our states to court us during the primaries — the only time faithful Christians exercise any real leverage in this country — the issue of same-sex marriage must now rival abortion in its importance. Any hopeful should be pressed repeatedly to give a straight, unambiguous answer to this question: “Do you support a constitutional amendment restoring natural marriage? If not, then what exactly will you do to protect my religious freedom? If nothing, why should I support you?” We should print that question on cards and distribute it in Iowa and New Hampshire, and candidates should hear nothing else from us till they answer. We need to know whether a year from now we will be living like Americans, or increasingly like Christians in China.

You don’t have to speculate about these things, you just have to look north to Canada, or east to Europe, where the secular leftists are much stronger. Same-sex marriage is a club that the secularist leftists can use to get publicly expressed religious convictions out of the public square, once and for all. All they have to do is leverage sentiments of tolerance that come from religion to pass the gay marriage law, and then use the gay marriage law to get rid of the moral convictions that make it harder for them to do what they want without feeling ashamed. And it’s working, because we have reduced Christianity to emotions, instead of grounding it on reason and evidence. It’s all about feeling good now, and feeling good is more important to most Christians than respecting God’s actual character.

Filed under: News, , , , , , ,

GoFundMe shuts down fundraising accounts of pro-marriage baker and florist

 

Gay activist vandalizes pro-marriage sign

Gay activist vandalizes pro-marriage sign

Here’s the latest, from The Daily Signal.

Excerpt:

Less than 48 hours after the crowdfunding website GoFundMe shut down a campaign setup for Sweet Cakes by Melissa, GoFundMe yanked a similar fundraiser for a 70-year-old Washington florist facing seven-figure financial penalties for violating her state’s anti-discrimination law.

The campaign, created for Barronelle Stutzman, a Christian florist who refused to make flower arrangements for a gay couple’s wedding, had been operating on GoFundMe for over two months.

It wasn’t until GoFundMe removed the Sweet Cakes by Melissa campaign—meant for Aaron and Melissa Klein, the Oregon-based bakers who were fined $135,000 for refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding—that it closed the account for Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers.

Before it was shut down, Stutzman’s GoFundMe page had raised more than $174,000 in donations.

[…]Meanwhile, the Sweet Cakes by Melissa campaign had raised more than $109,000 in nine hours before being removed.

What happened?

A Facebook group, called “Boycott Sweet Cakes by Melissa, Gresham, OR,” sought to shut the account down.

In multiple posts, the group linked to the Klein’s GoFundMe page, writing, “How fast can we shut this down.”

Kristen Waggoner, the attorney representing Stutzman on behalf of Alliance Defending Freedom, told The Daily Signal that opponents are trying to bully people like Stutzman and the Kleins who are trying to live in accordance to their faith.

“It’s not enough to have the government redefine marriage or to punish those who disagree,” she said.

The opponents of freedom have to ruin every aspect of the lives of those who disagree—denying them a living, the ability to feed their families, and the opportunity to raise money to pay the so-called ‘victims.’ This type of vindictive, hateful behavior is terrifying. Corporations like Apple, Salesforce, and GoFundMe want to make sure they can live and work consistent with their beliefs about marriage, but then deny that same right to people like Barronelle Stutzman who lovingly served her customer for nearly a decade but simply couldn’t participate in the celebration of his same-sex wedding.

I’m not expert, but it seems to me that the businesses who receive death threats and are put on trial and fined tens of thousands of dollars are bigger victims. But I guess now the “right to not be offended” is more important than freedom of religion. All I want to be able to say in public is that marriage is better for children than divorce, cohabitation, single motherhood by choice, and same-sex marriage – because children need their mother and father. Apparently, it’s now illegal to say that, and not just in the way that a parking ticket is illegal. This is serious. I think a lot of Christians on the margin are going to be even more intimidated about speaking out and donating to pro-marriage causes the more these persecutions intensify.

Filed under: News, , ,

Hillary Clinton: let’s use government to force Christians to stop being pro-life

My friend Mary from Marin tweeted this story from Life News.

It says:

In a speech last week, Hillary Clinton lamented that too many women are supposedly denied abortions. The Democratic presidential candidate came under fire for that pro-abortion comment, but she also is drawing widespread condemnation for another remark in the speech.

The comment has Hillary Clinton essentially saying that Christians must be forced to change their religious views to accommodate abortions.

“Far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth. All the laws we’ve passed don’t count for much if they’re not enforced,” Clinton said, using the euphemism for abortion.

“Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper,” Clinton argued. “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed,:

That is not going over well with pro-life advocates.

Bill Donohue of the Catholic League let Hillary have it in his remarks to LifeNews.

“It was not surprising that Hillary Clinton, who strongly opposes a ban on partial-birth abortion, would tell her feminist audience that she supports Planned Parenthood. What was surprising was her comment on the need to change religious beliefs on abortion,” he said. “In others words, Hillary has a problem with the Catholic Church’s teachings on abortionthey must be changed.”

“Never before have we seen a presidential candidate be this bold about directly confronting the Catholic Church’s teachings on abortion. It’s time for Hillary to take the next step and tell us exactly what she plans to do about delivering on her pledge. Not only would practicing Catholics like to know, so would Evangelicals, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and all those who value life from conception to natural death,” Donohue added.

David Ripley of Idaho Chooses Life also condemned her remarks.

“We have known for some time that abortion would be Hillary’s primary campaign message,” he said. “What made this particular speech unique was Hillary’s bold declaration that God needed to get His act together on this whole abortion thing. It was past time to update the Ten Commandments.”

“Now, of course, most of those “religious beliefs” are based upon clear teachings within Scripture that teach us to hold children precious, to sacrifice ourselves for others – and, above all, not to kill the innocent. What Clinton and her comrades on the Left do not seem to understand is that our religious beliefs are not a matter of personal opinion, but, rather, one of submission to our Creator,” Ripley continued. “Clinton is not the first self-proclaimed leader to shake a fist at the Almighty. One can presume that He is not particularly impressed; though His heart is undoubtedly grieved.”

“And we can all be grieved that a person of such arrogance stands a chance of becoming president over this great nation,” he concluded.

Here she is speaking to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider:

Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood

Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood

And Planned Parenthood gets taxpayer funding.

A lot of evangelical Christian women will be voting for Hillary just because she is a woman. Do you know any? Why don’t you ask them?

Filed under: News, , ,

California Democrats introduce bill to force pregnancy centers to refer abortions

The bill was introduced by two Democrats:

Assemblymembers David Chiu (D-San Francisco) and Autumn Burke (D-Los Angeles) introduced AB 775, a bill that helps ensure women receive prompt access to affordable, comprehensive reproductive-health care and are empowered to make fully informed decisions. AB 775 will be heard in the Assembly Committee on Health tomorrow, on April 14th.

AB 775, the Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care and Transparency (FACT) Act, requires licensed facilities that provide family planning and pregnancy-related services to inform patients about available assistance for affordable contraception, abortion, and prenatal care, including how to obtain that assistance.  Facilities that offer similar services but do not have a medical license must disclose that they are not licensed facilities and do not have a licensed provider on staff. The bill is sponsored by NARAL Pro-Choice California and Black Women for Wellness.

Life News explains what the bill actually does to pro-life crisis pregnancy centers:

A California committee has approved a bill that would force pregnancy centers providing women with abortion alternatives to refer women for abortions.

Thousands of pregnancy centers across the nation are the counterbalance to the abortion industry by providing women with tangible help and real alternatives to abortion. But pregnancy centers in California may soon find themselves forced to promote abortions under legislation pending in the California legislature.

AB 775, the Pregnancy Counseling Discrimination Rule, would require all pregnancy centers to promote abortions to their clients. There is no conscience clause or opt out for centers that provide pregnant women assistance without abortions or abortion referrals. Failure to comply carries a $500 fine for first offense and $1,000 for each subsequent offense. The bill authorizes the Attorney General, city attorney, or county counsel to impose the civil fines.

I’ve been posting a lot of stories lately about how the secular left forces people who support natural marriage to be in favor of redefining marriage. But secular leftists are willing to use the power of big government to bully people of morality elsewhere – this time on the abortion issue. Yes, when they’re not busy denying children their mothers or fathers, they’re trying to kill them with abortion. And if you disagree with being forced to do evil things to born and unborn children, well, that’s what courts and prisons are for. I guess they think that if everyone is forced to be complicit, either by funding it or participating in it, then no one is innocent. Then what they are doing is not really wrong at all. That’s what they tell themselves.

Filed under: News, ,

Click to see recent visitors

  Visitors Online Now

Page views since 1/30/09

  • 5,146,077 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,814 other followers

Archives

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,814 other followers

%d bloggers like this: