Last fall Breakpoint’s John Stonestreet posted an op ed titled and subtitled, “LGBT Is not a Color: Stop Hijacking Civil Rights,” and here was the introduction: “Are sexual orientation and gender identity the same as race? That message is being snuck in all over the place.”

He writes about the “conflation between skin color and sexual orientation”:

Nobody wants to be on the wrong side of today’s equivalent of the Civil Rights struggle, or to be viewed like racists by future generations.

But the fact remains, the two issues are just not the same. And black leaders—many of whom fought for the right to be treated as equal human beings decades ago—keep telling us this.

Writing at the Charlotte Observer last summer, Clarence Henderson, the chairman of the North Carolina Martin Luther King, Jr., Commission, called it “insulting to liken African Americans’ continuing struggle for equality” to the LGBT movement.

“The language of ‘civil rights’ shouldn’t be hijacked to give privileges to the politically vocal while taking away freedoms” for everyone else, said Bishop Patrick Wooden at a gathering of black faith leaders in Raleigh. And Pastor Leon Threatt of Christian Faith Assembly in Charlotte, agreed: “Restrooms and showers separated by biological sex is common sense.”

. . .

The Civil Rights comparison will continue to crop up, but we’ve got to vocally and repeatedly point out why it’s false. Sexual urges don’t determine who we are, and recognizing the fact that God created us male and female isn’t racism. It’s reality.

“Sexual urges don’t determine who we are” isn’t difficult to understand; no one should be confused. Yet the advance of the “LGBT agenda” owes its success in promoting identity politics to just that kind of lack of understanding.

The premise of this series is that one important way to breakthrough to the confused is to make it clear how many possible “identities” there are, and thus just how many letters follow the first four — “LGBT.” It’s time for our next paraphilia — today let us focus on “fetishism.”

As previously noted, this investigation into the many paraphilias is a remedial education effort to put the discussion of so-called “gay rights” in its proper perspective. Experiencing and acting upon same-sex attraction is not comparable to race, but rather is comparable to the myriad and many ways people experience sexual arousal outside of natural sex between men and women.

Here is the Wikipedia page on fetishism as this article goes to press:

Sexual fetishism or erotic fetishism is a sexual fixation on a nonliving object or nongenital body part. The object of interest is called the fetish; the person who has a fetish for that object is a fetishist. A sexual fetish may be regarded as a non-pathological aid to sexual excitement, or as a mental disorder if it causes significant psychosocial distress for the person or has detrimental effects on important areas of their life. Sexual arousal from a particular body part can be further classified as partialism.

One more note of interest that actually increases our list of possible letters to follow “LGBT” — here is Wikipedia’s paragraph on types of fetishes:

In a review of 48 cases of clinical fetishism, fetishes included clothing (58.3%), rubber and rubber items (22.9%), footwear (14.6%), body parts (14.6%), leather (10.4%), and soft materials or fabrics (6.3%). A 2007 study counted members of Internet discussion groups with the word “fetish” in their name. Of the groups about body parts or features, 47% belonged to groups about feet (foot fetishism), 9% about body fluids, 9% about body size, 7% about hair (hair fetish), and 5% about muscles (muscle worship). Less popular groups focused on navels (navel fetishism), legs, body hair, mouth, and nails, among other things. Of the groups about objects, 33% belonged to groups about clothes worn on the legs or buttocks (such as stockings or skirts), 32% about footwear (shoe fetishism), 12% about underwear (underwear fetishism), and 9% about whole-body wear such as jackets. Less popular object groups focused on headwear, stethoscopes, wristwear, and diapers (diaper fetishism).

Are you overwhelmed with what the future holds as all these categories demand their rights and equality and recognition?

Let’s close with our next question in our long list of questions regarding all the various paraphilias: How will schools respond to requests to start pro-fetishism clubs to support students who experience such feelings and who seek to come out of the closet? Will the Day of Silence expand to include fetishism?

Up next: Leftists Can’t Navigate it Either.

Image credit: Breakpoint.

Articles in this series, from oldest to newest:

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Introducing a Series

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Incest

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Body Integrity Identity Disorder

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Impact & Transgenders

Transgenderism a Choice or Disorder?

Why the Term “Sexual Orientation” is Nonsense

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Man’s Search for Meaning

Subscribe to the IFI YouTube channel
and never miss a video report or special program!

Written by Rev. Dr. Eric M. Wallace, PhD.

In my lifetime I have seen a number of organizations and movements pull at the heartstrings of the African American community. In 1995 it was the Million Man March calling on black men to atone for their failings. Today, it is the Black Lives Matter movement that draws our attention and concern. Who of African descent can disagree with the idea that black lives matter? My mother is black. My father is black. My brother and cousins are black. My wife and children are black. How could I not be interested in this movement? How could we not be concerned about the young black men dying at an alarming rate at the hands of police officers and gang violence?

A few months ago, I reluctantly accepted an invitation to speak on the topic of whether Christians should be involved with the Black Lives Matter movement. The topic was especially timely because of growing racial unrest over the murder of Laquan McDonald in Chicago (October 2014), the shooting death of Michael Brown (August 2014) and the gang assassination of Tyshawn Lee. It was also timely because in July 2015, our organization, Freedom’s Journal Institute, held a conference titled “In Defense of Life: Why All Lives Matter.”

The video of Laquan McDonald’s murder had just come to light, and demonstrations were happening in Chicago. These demonstrations were led by people I didn’t necessarily agree with and whose tactics I did not view as glorifying to God. Once I visited the Black Lives Matter (BLM) website, however, I was glad I had accepted the speaking engagement. The BLM website specifically identifies itself with the black liberation movement:

#BlackLivesMatter is a call to action and a response to the virulent anti-Black racism that permeates our society….It goes beyond the narrow nationalism that can be prevalent within Black communities, which merely call on Black people to love Black, live Black and buy Black, keeping straight cis Black men in the front of the movement while our sisters, queer and trans and disabled folk take up roles in the background or not at all.

Black Lives Matter affirms the lives of Black queer and trans folks, disabled folks, black-undocumented folks, folks with records, women and all Black lives along the gender spectrum.  It centers those that have been marginalized within Black liberation movements.  It is a tactic to (re)build the Black liberation movement.

The history, leadership, and troubling emphases of the BLM movement–including how it addresses homosexuality and gender confusion–must be exposed.

The differences between the Civil Rights Movement and the black liberation movement are significant. While the Civil Rights Movement was led by ministers, many of whom held a biblical worldview and infused their protests with prayer, the black liberation movement was associated with the Black Panthers, Angela Davis, and Marxist ideology.  Unfortunately, today’s civil right leaders have largely abandoned a biblical worldview.

The identity of the founders of BLM helps explain the radical underpinnings of the BLM movement. Three community organizer/activist women founded this organization after the death of Trayvon Martin. Two of the three, Alicia Garza and Patrisse Cullors, identify as “queer” black women. The third founder, Opal Tometi, executive director of Black Alliance for Just Immigration, explained in an interview with The Nation that “we are diligently uplifting black trans women and so the work on the ground in many places does reflect that.”

According to Truthout, Tometi, who is the child of parents who immigrated to the United States illegally, explains that BLM was “[n]ever simply a reaction to police violence against African Americans in the United States, Black Lives Matter was always conceived of as a strategic response to white supremacy.”

In an interview with Cosmopolitan Magazine, Ms. Cullors shared that she is inspired by Assata Shakur who was convicted of first-degree murder for the killing of a New Jersey state trooper and who escaped from federal prison and has been living freely in Cuba since 1984. Shakur was also a member of the former Black Panthers and Black Liberation Army.

Christians who take the Bible seriously must not affirm either homosexuality or gender-confusion. In Romans 1:18-32, Paul teaches  that God unequivocally condemns homosexual practice. Paul also made clear in 1 Corinthians that God can bring deliverance from sins—including homosexual practice:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.  11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

By affirming what God condemns, BLM stands in opposition to the transformative power of Jesus.

While BLM claims to seek justice for oppressed and victimized persons around the world, they fail to address the genocide of black babies through abortion or the deaths of young African American males from gang violence in their list of social injustices. Apparently, what matters most to BLM is ideology.

Reading the “Herstory” page on the BLM website illuminates the organization’s central concerns:

1. Black lives are systematically and intentionally targeted for demise.
2. Black Lives Matter is an ideological and political intervention.
3. Black people are deprived of basic human rights and dignity.
4. Black poverty and genocide is state violence.
5. When black people get free, everybody gets free.
6. Black liberation has played an important role in inspiring and anchoring, through practice and theory, social movements for the liberation of all people.

I was surprised to find that with the exception of the last one, I agree with these beliefs. I disagree, however, with the causes of the problems as well as the solutions. What is omitted from the concerns of BLM is the place that both liberal public policy and Planned Parenthood have had in “systematically and intentionally” targeting and destroying the black community. And because BLM gets the causes wrong, it gets the solutions wrong as well.

Whereas BLM sees white supremacy and institutional racism as the causes of the poverty and violence that afflict the black community, conservatives view the causes as bad governmental practices and policies. Most conservatives have long argued that liberal public policies have “systemically targeted” the black family. Blacks have been “deprived of their human rights and dignity” through government largess, which has perpetuated poverty and destroyed the black family. In other words, the “state” has committed violence against black people.

The very liberal social agenda embraced by “progressives” who pursue bigger, more intrusive government continues to harm the lives of blacks. For example, here in Illinois, the economy and public school system, shaped for decades by liberals and liberal policy, are among the worst in the nation. Whose lives are harmed most directly and significantly by our terrible economy and government schools? Black lives.

Worse still, Planned Parenthood (and the abortion lobby in general) has targeted the black community “for demise” since the days when its racist founder Margaret Sanger led the organization. Planned Parenthood continues to commit genocide against black babies.

According to BLM, “black liberation” can be achieved only by reversing the roles of master and slave. The tragic truth is that the policies sought by BLM only serve to keep the black community enslaved. The freedom BLM proposes is not freedom at all. It is slavery under a different master. It calls on black Christians who are already free in Christ to abandon their freedom for black solidarity, which for the Christian is a form of idolatry. The politics of BLM is the politics of racial grievance, a tool used to manipulate both blacks and whites alike.

Read part two HERE.

Dr. Eric Wallace is the co-founder and president of Freedom’s Journal Institute, and has organized the Black Conservative Summit and a one day conference “In Defense of Life: Why All Lives Matter.”  Dr. Wallace and his wife Jennifer live in the south suburbs of Chicago.

Support IFI

Please consider helping to support IFI’s ongoing work to educate, motivate and activate Illinois’ Christian community.  To make a credit card donation over the phone, please call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.  You can also send a gift to:

Illinois Family Institute
P.O. Box 88848
Carol Stream, Illinois 60188

Someone needs to thump some sense into syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts for his claim that the now-vetoed Arizona religious freedom bill would have allowed “businesses to refuse service to gay people on religious grounds.” Not so, but more on that in a minute.

Nine times in Pitts’ short column he repeats the mantra “Boycott Arizona,” perhaps hoping to hypnotize an intellectually and morally slothful public. One wonders how far Pitts and his ideological ilk will take their march against diversity and tolerance. Can Arizona citizens express their conservative views on issues related to homosexuality and gender confusion in letters to the editor without Pitts ordering a boycott? Can public libraries order books from conservative scholars without Pitts caterwauling “Boycott Arizona”? How do citizens employ their speech rights—which were intended to protect even unpopular speech—if promoters of tolerance like Pitts try to make it impossible to earn a living if they do so?

What makes his command to boycott Arizona even more troubling is he doesn’t seem to  understand what the law actually entails. Eleven law professors of diverse political persuasions and perspectives on same-sex “marriage” sent a letter to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer to correct the media’s misrepresentation of the law, which they describe as “egregiously misrepresented”:

SB1062 does not say that businesses can discriminate for religious reasons. It says that business people can assert a claim or defense under [Religious Freedom Protection Act], in any kind of case (discrimination cases are not even mentioned, although they would be included), that they have the burden of proving a substantial burden on a sincere religious practice, that the government or the person suing them has the burden of proof on compelling government interest, and that the state courts in Arizona make the final decision.

These law professors also explain that “The federal government and eighteen states have Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs). Another twelve or thirteen states interpret their state constitutions to provide similar protections.”

This bill would have merely clarified an Arizona law that has been on the books for fifteen years. National Review editor, Rich Lowry, explains that “A religious freedom statute doesn’t give anyone carte blanche to do whatever he wants in the name of religion. It simply allows him to make his case in court that a law or a lawsuit substantially burdens his religion and that there is no compelling governmental interest to justify the burden” (emphasis added).

In his fervor to command Americans not to vacation in or do business with Arizona, Pitts forgot to mention the federal equivalent of Arizona’s proposed law, which was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by then U.S. Representative Chuck Shumer (D-New York) and signed into law by President Bill Clinton twenty years ago. Pitts is going to be hard-pressed to find somewhere to vacation now that the entire country is off-limits.

Pitts accuses opponents of same-sex “marriage” of going “bughouse” over comparisons to the Civil Rights Movement, but he spends no time explaining why such a comparison bothers opponents—including African American opponents of same-sex “marriage.” And he glaringly fails to provide any evidence for his implicit claim that homosexuality per se is equivalent to race or skin color, which is necessary to justify his comparison of the push to normalize homosexuality to the Civil Rights movement.

Pitts does, however, provide evidence of his theological ignorance:

Don’t be fooled by pious babblespeak that claims these laws only protect the rights of religious people who object to homosexuality. No one seeks to compel any preacher to perform a same-sex marriage if doing so violates his conscience. But if that pastor works for a bakery during the week, it is none of his business whether the wedding cake he bakes is for John and Jan or John and Joe.

Pitts’ theological ignorance is evident when he says that the content of one’s labors is religiously irrelevant to people of faith. For true followers of Christ, there should be no area of life untouched by their faith.

Pitts may not be familiar with these verses:

• “Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men…”
• “Commit your work to the Lord, and your plans will be established.”
• “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.”
• “And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.”
• “Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.”

It is at minimum oxymoronic to argue that in the service of bringing glory to God, a Christian can take part in and profit from a ceremony that God detests.

Christians are also commanded to “Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness.” This means in part that though Christians may love, spend time with, and provide goods and services to homosexuals (and all the rest of sinful humanity), they should not take part in any way with same-sex pseudo-wedding ceremonies, which are, indeed, unfruitful works of darkness.

Further, Pitts’ assertion that the sex of the partners seeking to marry is none of the baker’s business is just silly. It becomes the baker’s business when the “grooms” tell him that he will be baking a cake—in other words, using his labors and profiting from—their unbiblical pseudo-wedding.

What Pitts is really saying is that the baker shouldn’t care about whether the cake is for a same-sex pseudo-wedding or a true wedding, but what the baker cares about is not Pitts’ business.

Pitts did offer this conciliatory message: “it’s time those of us who value comity, concord and tolerance make our voices heard.”

Yes, nothing says comity, concord, and tolerance quite like these preceding words from Pitts:

[T]hese laws amount to little more than temper tantrums by last-ditch bigots who don’t realize history has passed them by as a Ferrari does a traffic cone. But perhaps there is something to be said for inflicting economic pain as a way of saying, “Cut it out.” Perhaps the right wing’s proud embrace of ignorance and intolerance has grown so toxic they demand to be confronted.   

Pitts closes with a quote from Martin Luther King Jr., so I will too: “How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God.”

To which I say, Amen.

Click HERE to support the work and ministry of Illinois Family Institute.