In a stunning act of betrayal, Chick-fil-A’s charitable foundation, the Chick-fil-A Foundation, has announced it will no longer donate to the Salvation Army, Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA), or Paul Anderson Youth Home (PAYH). Though Chick-fil-A has not publicly acknowledged the reason for its betrayal, everyone knows what it is. Chick-fil-A is attempting to curry favor with the “LGBTQ+” community that is shredding our social fabric. This policy shift constitutes a cowardly betrayal of Chick-fil-A’s Christian ethos and its Christian customers who have stood by Chick-fil-A through all its trials at the hands of legions of supporters of sexual deviance. #LoveofMoney

Broods of vipers identifying as apostles of justice, equality, tolerance, diversity, inclusivity, and compassion have been protesting and maligning Chick-fil-A since 2012 when Dan Truett Cathy, chairman and chief executive officer, made some public statements in an interview with the Baptist Press supporting true marriage and opposing the legal recognition of homosexual unions as marriages. After homosexuals got wind of Cathy’s theologically orthodox and unremarkable statements, some part of hell broke loose and raged against Chick-fil-A. Fortunately for Cathy and Chick-fil-A, Christians turned out en masse all across the country to show their support with their time and money for Cathy’s stand for truth.

And this is how Cathy and Chick-fil-A repay them.

Chick-fil-A is the wildly popular fast-food franchise started by devout Southern Baptist Truett Cathy in 1967 and known for being closed on Sundays “so that … employees” can “set aside one day to rest and worship if they choose.” Dan Cathy once said that Chick-fil-a’s “corporate purpose” was “to glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us.”

Some feared a crack in Chick-fil-A’s Christian edifice would spread when a year after the 2012 attack by homosexuals, Cathy expressed his regret for his public statements about marriage:

Every leader goes through different phases of maturity, growth and development and it helps by (recognizing) the mistakes that you make. … And you learn from those mistakes. If not, you’re just a fool. I’m thankful that I lived through it and I learned a lot from it.

Does Cathy today believe that ceasing to support fine organizations like the Salvation Army, FCA, and PAYH signifies “maturity” and “growth”? Does he believe the reason for this decision signifies maturity and growth? If so, in what specific ways? What criteria does he use to determine maturity and growth?

A press statement released by Chick-fil-A includes this mealy-mouthed corporate-speak:

Starting in 2020, the Chick-fil-A is introducing a more focused giving approach to provide additional clarity and impact with the causes it supports.

In an interview with Bisnow, Tim Tassopoulos, Chick-fil-A president and chief operation officer doubled down on clarity:

“There’s no question we know that, as we go into new markets, we need to be clear about who we are. … There are lots of articles and newscasts about Chick-fil-A, and we thought we needed to be clear about our message.”

With a degree of irony only a hipster could fully appreciate, Chick-fil-A cloaks the reason for abandoning the Salvation Army, FCA, and PAYH in the rhetoric of “clarity.”

When wealthy and powerful men and women—who should be role models—demonstrate the kind of dishonesty and cowardice Cathy and his board just demonstrated, not only do the little people feel betrayed but also some lose hope. Some will wonder why they—with scant resources—should stand unequivocally for Christ and his kingdom when millionaires who are safe and secure with their buckets of ducats are unwilling to do so.

The betrayal must have been particularly painful for the staff and board of trustees of PAYH, a ministry that strives “to provide a Christ-centered, holistic, and therapeutic approach towards transforming the lives of young men ages 16-21” believing that “There is no single aspect of a young man’s development as important as his spiritual life.”

PAYH, which was started by famous weightlifter Paul Anderson and Dan Cathy’s father Truett Cathy in 1961, “exists to help transform the lives of troubled young men and their families” by 1. Planting God’s word in their lives and discipling them through mentoring and modeling, 2. Providing therapeutic counseling and substance abuse treatment, 3. Supplying a fully-accredited college preparatory high school and vocational training, and 4. Supporting our graduates long-term through our transition program.”

Cathy and the company his father founded have abandoned their nearly six decades-long support of PAYH that strives to raise up young men in the way they should go, and they are doing so in deference to the unholy desires of homosexuals whose ideology is destroying the lives of young men.

In just one hour on Monday, conservatives Rod Dreher, Mike Huckabee, Dana Loesch, Allie Stuckey, and Matt Walsh, all tweeted condemnations of Chick-fil-A’s decision. You know who liked it? Zach Stafford, editor-in-chief of the homosexual magazine The Advocate who tweeted, “THE GAYS HAVE WON.” That should tell us everything we need to know.

Add this to the growing list of ways Christians are affected by the “LGBT” ideology—you know, the ideology we were promised repeatedly would affect no one, no how, no way. #LyingLiarsLie.

“LGBTQ+” ideologues and their sycophants are going to see to it that owning a business—including even a teeny tiny business—or having a job will be conditioned on affirming homosexual acts and faux-marriage as good. Wake up, Christians, the persecution is getting real.

Meanwhile as corporations and individuals cave to prideful, despotic homosexuals, cross-sex pretenders, and other assorted “queers,” money going to pernicious pagan ministries like the Human Rights Campaign; the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network; and GLAAD flows like water in the Ganges River.

Take ACTION: If you would like to express your views on Chick-fil-A’s decision, you can contact them at (866) 232-2040 or leave your feedback on website comment section HERE.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Chick-fil-A-Betrays-Principles-and-Faithful-Customers.mp3

IFI depends on the support of concerned-citizens like you. Donate now

-and, please-

A non-binding resolution which would force the armed forces to disobey the directive of Commander-in-Chief President Donald Trump and compromise national security has passed in the U.S. House of Representatives. The deeply-flawed resolution (H.Res. 124) is replete with “LGBT” ideology and is a continuation of the radical social agenda of the previous administration.

The resolution passed on a vote of 238-185, with the entire Democrat caucus supporting it and virtually all Republicans opposing it. The Illinois Congressional delegation voted along partisan lines.

The resolution’s sponsor, U.S. Rep. Joe Kennedy (D-MA), claimed that current policy amounts to “targeted discrimination,” and said the House vote assures transgender people “that they cannot be banned from military service because of who they are.”

Sarah Kate Ellis, president and CEO of the “LGBT” advocacy organization GLAAD expressed satisfaction with the resolution and demanded that the administration get on board: “It’s a welcoming reassurance that the elected leaders in the U.S. House support the more than 13,000 brave transgender service members who proudly dedicate their lives to our nation. It’s time for President Trump to drop his proposed ban and stand with transgender patriots putting their lives on the line to keep us all safe.”

The roots of the administration’s opposition to those who choose to identify as homosexual or “trans” serving in the military go back to 2017 when a panel of experts commissioned by former Secretary of Defense James Mattis assessed the effects of accepting persons suffering from a psychological condition called gender dysphoria into the military. The panel’s results indicated that “trans”-identifying individuals have complex medical issues as well as high rates of suicide.

Moreover, treatments that are approved by “progressive” “experts” failed to lead to a more positive outcome. In their testimony before Congress, all four service chiefs claimed they had not seen moral or unit readiness problems with “trans”-identifying troops currently serving but also acknowledged that commanders were forced to spend an inordinate amount of time dealing with the medical and “transition issues” of “trans”-identifying soldiers.

A year later President Trump endorsed the findings of the panel and proposed a nuanced policy regarding “trans”-identifying persons in the military, the details of which are expected to be released on April 12. In short, the new policy bars people from enlisting who have pursued chemical and surgical interventions in their quest to pass as the opposite sex.  In a move that will likely be a focal point for opponents, it requires active duty military personnel to serve as their immutable biological sex, except for those who had already begun medical interventions under the previous administration rules.

Concurrently, the Department of Defense released a study which noted five key points that address combat lethality, military readiness, and troop morale. The study included detailed graphs which outline the principles behind the Trump/Mattis policy.

Meanwhile the new policy regarding “trans”-identification continues to wind its way through the court system.  The District of Columbia Court issued a preliminary injunction against the Trump/Mattis “trans” policy, which was overturned by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. One of the members of the three-judge panel, Judge Stephen F. Williams wrote this regarding a related case, Jane Doe 2 v. Trump:

[Transgender plaintiffs’] claims are fundamentally flawed in almost every respect. They give short shrift to the findings of a panel of military experts commissioned by the secretary of defense. They never grapple with the fact that the presidential tweet, on which they place so much weight, post-dates–rather than ante-dates–the decision of the secretary to reevaluate the previous administration’s policies.

There is a good chance that the Trump/Mattis “trans” policy will prevail when the case comes before the U.S. Supreme Court. Already the Court has narrowly ruled 5-4 that the transgender policy can continue to be implemented as ongoing litigation proceeds. Citizens should encourage their representatives to oppose H. Res. 124, which rejects the sound Trump/Mattis “trans” policy in favor of imposing the radical, science-denying “trans” ideology on the United States military, the detrimental consequences of which are incalculable.

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois! 

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

This cannot be good for free speech and the open exchange of ideas. Not for Christians and conservatives anyway.

Twitter announced on Wednesday that it has assembled a new “Twitter Trust & Safety Council” to “ensure that people feel safe expressing themselves on Twitter.”

Who’s for safety?

Yay safety!

Still, we need only look to the so-called “safe space” craze on America’s college campuses to gain a glimpse into what Twitter undoubtedly means here. Understand that, for the left, the word “safe” has nothing to do with, well, safety, and everything to do with censorship.

Let’s define the terms:

Safe Space: noun, 1. progressive circle of self-entitled, everyone-gets-a-trophy basement-dwellers sheltered from critical thinking, differing opinions, reality and oxygen.

With its new initiative, Twitter says it seeks to “strike the right balance between fighting abuse and speaking truth to power.”

What, exactly, constitutes “abuse,” “truth” and “power” remains to be seen, but, based on Twitter’s long history of blacklisting and “unverifying” conservatives from its rolls, I think we all know who gets shafted on this.

“To ensure people can continue to express themselves freely and safely on Twitter, we must provide more tools and policies,” the company claims. “Twitter does not tolerate behavior intended to harass, intimidate, or use fear to silence another user’s voice.”

Color me über-skeptical, but as Daniel Payne observes over at The Federalist, “Twitter already allows its users to either mute or block anyone who is being bothersome or threatening. There is no practical necessity for a ‘council’ to make people feel ‘safe’ on Twitter. Blocking is an effective tool for anyone who needs it. You can always report to the Twitter staff the rare troll who just won’t give up.

“The seemingly superfluous formation of a ‘Trust and Safety Council,’ then, suggests a kind of procedural overhaul of Twitter’s internal speech policy,” concludes Payne.

I agree.

Indeed, to the fragile liberal mind, any disagreement with its rigid, and decidedly one-sided, brand of “tolerance” and “diversity” constitutes “behavior intended to harass” or “intimidate.” To those who cannot win an argument on the merits, the path of least resistance is to silence all dissent.

Yet, if there was any question as to whether Twitter will be adopting the above-referenced definition of “safe space” in its effort to make tweeters “feel safe,” that question is immediately resolved by virtue of whom it has deputized. While there are a handful of legitimate, left-of-center anti-bullying organizations on the “council,” the list is likewise comprised up a rag-tag gaggle of fringe “progressive” groups like Feminist Frequency and GLAAD (formerly the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation).

Conspicuously absent is even one conservative or Christian organization.

So, what will GLAAD and the rest of the “Tweet Police” be doing? It’s hard to say for sure since Twitter won’t, but, considering what GLAAD already does, we can venture a fair guess.

GLAAD is an extremist homosexual censorship group that, for its defamatory antics, was certified last year by the well-respected American Family Association as an “openly bigoted anti-Christian organization.” GLAAD’s primary purpose is to strong-arm the entertainment industry and news media into presenting unrealistically favorable portrayals of the homosexual and gender-confused lifestyles, while at once censoring positive portrayals of natural marriage and the natural family, and silencing those who hold biblical values relative to marriage and human sexuality.

One of GLAAD’s most troubling censorship efforts was its Orwellian “Commentator Accountability Project.” This was a desperate effort to “suppress the biblical worldview from media.” Various homosexual activists were conscripted to contact, badger and otherwise intimidate media outlets, such as CNN, Fox News, the New York Times, et al., into blacklisting leading Christian cultural analysts (yours truly included) from providing commentary and political analysis over the airwaves and in print.

While the smear campaign ultimately failed, it did betray, for all the world to see, GLAAD’s overt designs on anti-conservative, anti-Christian censorship. And now it has its grubby little rainbow-hued fingerprints all over one of the world’s largest and most popular social networking sites.

Enjoy your Twitter free speech while you can, conservative Christians. Your tweets are birds on a wire, and GLAAD’s got the pellet gun.

For some time now I’ve been saying that gay activists will overplay their hand and that the bullying will backfire. I’ve also said that we can outlast the gay revolution and ultimately, by God’s grace, turn the moral tide in America.

Of course, to speak like that is to invite all kinds of scorn and ridicule, not to mention the ugliest death wishes you could imagine. How dare we not roll over and die!

But events from the last 10 days remind us that, even though the cultural battles promise to be long and difficult, many Americans are ready to push back.

To begin with, the significance of the election results from last Tuesday can hardly be overstated.

In Kentucky, while the liberal media mocked Kim Davis the people of her state stood with her, electing Matt Bevin as governor in a crushing and unexpected victory over Attorney General Jack Conway.

And make no mistake about it: This was a direct statement about religious freedoms and redefining marriage.

After all, it was Conway who rose to national fame last year when he refused to defend the state’s ban on same-sex ‘marriage,’ despite his oath of office, explaining to Time magazine that, “Once I reached the conclusion that the law was discriminatory, I could no longer defend it.”

I guess the people of Kentucky didn’t get the memo that the ship has sailed and the culture wars are over.

Then, in Houston, lesbian activist mayor Annise Parker suffered a stinging defeat when her “anti-discrimination” bill, which focused on LGBT “rights,” was crushed by the voters.

In the aftermath of the massive defeat – 62 to 38 percent – Parker was reduced to insulting those who voted against the bill, calling them “transphobes” and more.

So, the people of Houston, America’s fourth largest city, are a bunch of transphobes.

Or, perhaps the triumph of LGBT activism is not so inevitable and there are real issues that having nothing to do with “homophobia” and “transphobia”? And perhaps there’s something to the fact that some strongly conservative Republican presidential candidates are polling better than Hillary Clinton?

Perhaps this really is time for pushback?

And what should we make of the fact that the NFL has decided to bring the Super Bowl to Houston in 2017 despite the defeat of Parker’s bill, even though proponents of the bill had warned that Houston would lose the Super Bowl if the bill was defeated? Perhaps even the NFL, well-known for preaching LGBT “inclusion,” sees the bigger picture?

In the aftermath of the Houston defeat, there were also small signs of a breach between gay activism and transgender activism, as indicated by a petition launched on Change.org by “a group of gay/bisexual men and women who have come to the conclusion that the transgender community needs to be disassociated from the larger LGB community; in essence, we ask that organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD, Lambda Legal and media outlets such as The Advocate, Out, Huff Post Gay Voices, etc., stop representing the transgender community as we feel their ideology is not only completely different from that promoted by the LGB community (LGB is about sexual orientation, trans is about gender identity), but is ultimately regressive and actually hostile to the goals of women and gay men.”

The petition was named “Drop the T,” and it’s a reminder of the fact that transgender activists have often felt left out by mainstream gay activism, as reflected in headlines like “Why The Transgender Community Hates HRC” (2007) and “Even After All These Years, HRC Still Doesn’t Get It” (2013).

This too is noteworthy, reminding us that there are cracks in the foundations of LGBT unity that could become wider in the coming years.

There’s one more story from Houston which is of interest, providing yet another example of LGBT overreach, this time in a case involving two Christians who were fired from the daycare center at which they worked when they refused to call a little girl a boy.

The girl in question, just 6-years-old, is being raised by two gay male parents, and we can only wonder if that has something to do with the child’s gender confusion.

As explained to Breitbart Texas by one of the fired workers, Madeline Kirksey, “the problem was not so much with the transgender issue as it was with telling young children that the little girl was a boy when she was not, and with calling her ‘John’ (not the name given) when that was not her name.”

Kirskey also noted that, “sometimes the little girl refers to herself as a little boy, and sometimes she tells the other children to not call her a boy or to refer to her by her masculine name.”

This child is clearly confused and needs professional help.

Instead, rather than getting help for the child, two Christians have lost their jobs, and I cite this example to say again that Americans will only put up with madness like this for so long, just as the selection of Bruce Jenner as Glamour’s woman of the year drew sharp criticism from a wide spectrum of women, including one well-known feminist.

The pushback continues, and the more that LGBT activists overplay their hand, the quicker the tide will turn against them. It’s only a matter of time.

And so, while as followers of Jesus we should seek to be peacemakers in our communities, loving our neighbors (including our LGBT neighbors) as ourselves, we should also stand tall against aggressive LGBT activism.

This too is part of our calling to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Matthew 5:13-16).

This article was originally posted at TownHall.com

I’m pleased to see that the Southern Poverty Law Center has come to its senses and apologized to Dr. Ben Carson, removing him from their “extremist” list. But they need to apologize to me too, since I’m still on their list, along with a number of other Christian leaders whom they have branded anti-gay extremists.

To be sure, I have considered it a badge of honor to be on the SPLC’s list, actually writing an article in 2012 thanking them for placing me in their elite category of “30 New Activists Heading Up the Radical Right.”

And, needless to say, I am not a famed children’s neuro-surgeon and potential presidential candidate. In other words, I am not Dr. Ben Carson.

But if the SPLC is truly wanting to do the right thing and this is not simply an embarrassing moment of their own extremism coming to light, then this would be a good time to start apologizing some more.

Several years ago, I received a letter from Mark Potok, spokesman and director of the SPLC, offering to enlighten me in the error of my ways if I, along with others receiving the letter, had been duped by various pro-family organizations.

I immediately reached out to Mr. Potok and the SPLC, but never received a reply.

Subsequently, I wrote a strong open letter to him, once again without receiving a reply.

Perhaps honest dialogue and interaction is not what the SPLC is looking for? Perhaps their radical agenda is based on labeling and defaming their ideological opponents?

The problem, of course, is that the SPLC did lots of wonderful work in the past, exposing hate groups that are worthy of the hate name, such as White Supremacists and Black Supremacists and Neo-Nazis.

Now, tragically, they have added conservative Christian organizations and individuals to their “hate” lists, and many people continue to take their listings seriously.

One man even tried to carry out an act of mass murder at the headquarters of a Christian organization placed on the SPLC’s “hate group” list, finding their location by way of SPLC’s “hate map.”

What makes this all the more disturbing is the specious nature of the evidence they offer in branding conservative Christians “extremists” and labelling their organizations “hate groups.”

I’ll use myself as a case in point.

On their page devoted to me, they write that, “Michael Brown is not typical of most who push the idea that a cabal of liberal media elites have orchestrated a so-called ‘homosexual agenda’ to indoctrinate children into a lifestyle that makes a mockery of Christian values.”

Yet I’m still labelled an “extremist” and listed as one of the “30 New Activists Heading Up the Radical Right.” (Also on this list were men like David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, and Malik Zulu Shabbaz, former leader of the New Black Panthers.)

They also write, “Unlike many other voices on the religious right, Brown generally has avoided the kind of slashing rhetoric that often devolves into rank defamation. His work is heavily footnoted and avoids the blanket pronouncements that have gotten others in trouble. But he still can sound conspiratorial.”

I guess you can be careful and nuanced in your wording as well as painstakingly thorough in documenting every statement, yet you can still make it onto their “extremist” list if your viewpoints smack of conservative moral values.

It seems, then, that it is one’s beliefs and values, not the accuracy of one’s claims, that make one an “extremist.”

What, then, is the evidence they cite out of more than 1,000 pages I have written addressing the issue of homosexuality, more than 20 other books on other subjects, and multiplied thousands of hours of radio broadcasts, sermons, and lectures devoted to a wide range of biblical, theological, and social topics?

First, they cite my statement that gay activists deny there is a gay agenda. (I kid you not.)

But this, of course, is a commonly known fact and even forms part of the written semantic strategy of gay activists. In other words, don’t use the term “homosexual agenda” but say, “gay and lesbian civil rights.” (For those who actually deny there’s such a thing as a gay agenda, please tell it to the pantheon of gay activist organizations, such as the HRC, NGLTF, Lamda Legal, GLSEN, GLAAD, and many others. All these organizations have clearly articulated goals and they have helped bring about numerous social changes in recent years, pointing to the success of their agenda.)

Second, the SPLC cites my statement that, “[I]t is not good that homosexual behavior is presented as just another alternative to heterosexual behavior, that bisexuality is celebrated, that transgenderism [sic] is normalized, that sex-change surgery is presented as the thing to do, that ex-gays are ridiculed and their very existence denied.”

Yes, this is part of their evidence that I am a dangerous, radical right, extremist.

Third, they state that, “Brown has also been known to make spurious claims linking homosexuality and pedophilia.”

Actually, in my book A Queer Thing Happened to America, which they cite and quote in their article, I wrote this: MICHAEL BROWN IS NOT EQUATING HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICE WITH PEDOPHILIA. MICHAEL BROWN IS NOT CALLING ALL HOMOSEXUALS PEDOPHILES. (Bold caps in the original.)

How could they possibly miss this?

What I have compared is the arguments used by pederast activists and gay activists (such as, I was born this way; I can’t change; this is about love; this is found in all cultures; etc.). I have not compared the acts.

As for the article they reference regarding Jerry Sandusky, I stated there that “the great majority of homosexual men also deplore Sandusky’s alleged acts,” explaining, though, that almost no one wanted to talk about the fact that the acts were homosexual in nature. (Having sex with teenage boys and young men is not the same as raping a baby.)

The SPLC claims that pedophiles who prey on boys are not homosexual predators, but that flies in the face of the history of homosexual “man-boy love,” not to mention ignoring the legal and scientific documents that speak of “homosexual pedophiles” and “heterosexual pedophiles.”

As for the rest of the SPLC’s evidence – well, there is none, aside from taking issue with my call to, “Speak now or forever hold your peace,” by which I mean that we need to speak up now since gay activists and their allies increasingly want to silence people like me. (They do this, for example, by labelling us haters and extremists!)

All that being said, I’m truly honored to be on the hit lists of groups like the SPLC, the HRC, and GLAAD, and I do wear these listings as a badge of honor (see Matthew 5:10-12).

But if the SPLC is truly wanting to make amends for their dangerous and misleading listings, I will gladly accept their apologies and encourage them to apologize to others as well.

If not, I’d love to debate the relevant issues publicly, be it on my radio show or in a neutral, moderated setting, discussing facts rather than allegations. With the vast resources of the SPLC, they should have no problem finding an adequate opponent to take me on.

So, Mr. Potok and other SPLC leaders, what do you say? Will it be an apology or a civil debate?

This article was originally posted at the Townhall.com website.

The political Left, usually fanatical defenders of tolerance, diversity, freedom of expression, and choice in all things sexual, is in high dudgeon about a one-hour TLC television special titled My Husband’s Not Gay scheduled to air Sunday night (1/11/2015).

The show profiles four Mormon men who admit they are attracted to men but have chosen to pursue relationships with women. Three of the men are married, at least one of whom is raising children in a normal family structure. There is no reason to doubt these men’s claims that they love their wives, because even men who feel erotically attracted to men are capable of loving women.

In an almost comical display of irony, homosexual activists—those fanatical of tolerance, diversity, choice, anti-censorship, and “narrative” variety—are calling for the cancellation of the program before it even airs.

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) claims the show “sends the wrong message.” Near as I can tell, the men in this series are saying that they choose not to place their same-sex attraction at the center of their identity. They’re saying that there are other values and beliefs that shape how they construct identity and determine their actions. They’re saying that they personally believe that homoerotic activity is wrong and that they seek to affirm only those feelings that are consonant with their religious beliefs. Are representatives from GLAAD claiming that such beliefs are objectively wrong?

According to the Associated Press, GLAAD views the show as “a sad reminder of so-called gay conversion therapy.”

How do the claims of men who admit to being sexually attracted to men remind GLAAD of “conversion therapy”?  I guess both “conversion therapy” and the decisions of these men reflect a rejection of the Left’s assumptions about the moral status of homoerotic activity, but that’s about it. Perhaps these men’s decisions are sad reminders to GLAAD that not everyone has acquiesced to the imperious ideological commands of GLAAD, the Human Rights Campaign, and the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.

Like GLAAD, “bi-sexual” Eliel Cruz writing for Rolling Stone magazine is consumed by a fear that impels them toward oppression and suppression. They fear that if Americans hear the stories of men who freely choose not to affirm as good their unchosen, unwanted same-sex attraction, Americans may reject the Left’s perverse mischaracterization of all counseling efforts that may help men and women reconcile their faith and sexual predilections in ways that the Left doesn’t like.

Here’s what Cruz offers as evidence that this one-hour special is “dangerous”:

These men use the same verbiage and framework that’s been taught by decades by those in the so-called “ex-gay” movement. Using words like “same-sex attracted” in lieu of saying one is gay is ex-gay training 101. The show will most likely avoid using the term “reparative therapy” as it’s become known for being deeply harmful. But whether it’s explicitly said or not, that’s what this show is about.

So, using the term “same-sex attracted”—as opposed to “gay”—is common within the “ex-gay” movement, and some within the “ex-gay” movement practice “reparative therapy,” and some forms of “reparative therapy” have been found harmful by some within the highly politicized mental health community, therefore, this one-hour special is dangerous. Wow. Where is George Orwell when we need him.

In the dystopian novel 1984, George Orwell named the practice which homosexual and “trans” activists now fervently embrace: Newspeak. Here is how Orwell explained Newspeak:

Newspeak was the official language of Oceania, and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of IngSoc, or English Socialism….

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all…a heretical thought…should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever….

[T]he special function of certain Newspeak words… was not so much to express meanings as to destroy them….

[W]ords which had once borne a heretical meaning were sometimes retained for the sake of convenience, but only with the undesirable meanings purged out of them.

Leftists hate the term “same-sex attracted” because it focuses (rightly) on feelings and does not carry the extra, Newspeakian connotations of “gay.” “Gay” is a rhetorical invention of the Left created to communicate that same-sex attraction is inherently good, that it’s absolutely immutable in all cases, and that fulfillment can come only if such attraction is affirmed. In other words, “gay” embodies a Leftist view of “identity.”

It’s not just the term “same-sex attracted” that our aberrancy advocates seek to obliterate. They also seek to strip pronouns of any connection to objective biological sex because objective biological sex is foreign to the new sexuality orthodoxy.

Here is risible reason #2 that Cruz offers as evidence that TLC’s one-hour special is dangerous: “TLC is giving a fringe narrative a platform.” Since when do sexual subversives object to fringe narratives? Haven’t Leftists extolled all things fringy for decades? Let’s not forget that until very recently homoeroticism, same-sex faux-“marriage,” and “transgenderism” were uber-fringy phenomena.

Cruz also objects to “Perpetuating the idea that changing one’s sexuality is possible through prayer.” First, Christians certainly believe that an omnipotent God is fully capable of changing sexual feelings and that prayer is powerful. This is not to say, however, that all people who experience same-sex attraction will see their feelings eradicated. Most Christians will experience sinful inclinations until the next life.

But, more directly relevant to the show, there’s no evidence from the trailer that the four men profiled in the TLC program are suggesting that their same-sex attraction has changed or will change. They simply don’t want to act upon it or affirm it as central to their identity.

GLAAD president and CEO, Kate Ellis, stated that “No one can change who [sic] they love, and more importantly, no one should have to.” Ellis seems to be making the breathtakingly presumptuous claim that the men in the TLC show do not love their wives and more broadly that those who experience same-sex attraction are incapable of loving people of the opposite sex.

Ellis asserts that “no one should have to” change whom they love. Why would Ellis make such a claim in response to a show in which men explain that they have freely chosen to marry women—whom they love? From all the reports, there is no indication that these men have been compelled to change whom they love. They have freely chosen the sex of the persons with whom they will be emotionally, spiritually, and erotically partnered.

The men profiled in this show evidently reject homosexual activists’ definition of “identity.” Homosexual activists believe that powerful, seemingly intractable feelings that emerge early in life must be affirmed as central to one’s identity.  Well, probably not all feelings, just homoerotic feelings and the desire to be the opposite sex must be affirmed.

For many people, however, “identity” consists in, among other things, only those feelings they affirm as good and properly ordered.  Identity for them is not merely the aggregate of feelings they experience. Therefore, those people will reject as central to their identity feelings that they believe are disordered and which if acted upon will result in illicit conduct. While the Left believes that unchosen homoerotic attraction is good, properly ordered, and must be affirmed as central to identity in order to live a happy fulfilled life, their beliefs are not objective facts, and no one has an obligation to accept them as true.

While the Left claims to value tolerance, they are intolerant of any and all public expressions of views regarding volitional homoerotic activity or relationships with which they disagree.

While claiming to value diversity, they want to censor the kinds of stories the public hears.

While claiming to value choice, they loathe and condemn the choices the men on this TLC show make.

In increasingly Orwellian efforts to purge the cultural landscape of the expression of ideas that undermine their dogma, censorious homosexual activists violate the very ideas they exploit: choice, diversity, tolerance, and freedom of expression. TLC should not cancel My Husband’s Not Gay in response to the demands of censors and ideologues. These stories offer rarely seen glimpses into the lives of people who construe homoerotic attraction, marriage, family, identity, and fulfillment differently than do homosexual activists. Their lives are part of the variegations in this diverse American life. And there may be someone out there who sees in these lives hope for a future different from the bleakly deterministic picture offered by the likes of GLAAD and Rolling Stone.

The Truth Project

First Annual IFI Worldview Conference
featuring Dr. Del Tackett
April 10-11, 2015

CLICK HERE for Details

You knew it would happen sooner or later. An outspoken, wildly popular, conservative Christian who doesn’t give a hoot—or in this case, a quack—about political correctness would air his views about homosexuality, and overnight, Hollywood hell would break loose.

To catch you up on the latest events, earlier this week, the text of Phil Robertson’s interview with GQ Magazine was released online, containing controversial comments about homosexual practice, among other things. (For those who have been living under a rock, Phil Robertson is the patriarch of the Duck Dynasty clan, and he is a self-proclaimed “Bible thumper.”)

Shortly after the interview was released, and quite predictably, GLAAD issued a statement condemning Robertson’s remarks as “some of the vilest and most extreme statements uttered against LGBT people in a mainstream publication” and said “his quote was littered with outdated stereotypes and blatant misinformation.” (Reminder: GLAAD officially stands for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, but I have long suggested that a more appropriate name would be the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Disagreement.)

GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz says, “Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe. He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans—and Americans—who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors, who now need to re-examine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.” (Note to GLAAD: The majority of Louisianans do not support same-sex marriage.)

This was followed by a clarification and apology of sorts by Robertson: 

I myself am a product of the ’60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock and roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior. My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together.

However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and, like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.

The Human Rights Campaign, the world’s largest gay activist organization, also condemned Robertson’s remarks and called for A&E, the cable network that airs Duck Dynasty, to take action: “The A&E network should take immediate action to condemn Phil Robertson’s remarks and make clear they don’t support his views.”

Later the same day, A&E issued its own statement:

We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty. His personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely.

In support of Robertson, the Faith Driven Consumer Facebook page started an “I Stand With Phil” campaign, while another Facebook page, “Boycott A&E Until Phil Robertson Is Put Back on Duck Dynasty,” had more than 100,000 “likes” in a matter of hours. Talk about a clash of two cultures!

What did Robertson actually say that was so controversial?

First he remarked, “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

Was he accusing all (or most) gays of engaging in bestiality or of sleeping with multiple women? It appears not, although I can easily see why his critics would think otherwise, and in that context, he was right to clarify his comments.

What he was saying, though, was that gay sex should be seen as part of the “anything goes” mentality of the sexual revolution of the ’60s, and in that regard he was right. In fact, while gay activists emphasize homosexual identity, placing the gay rights movement in the context of the civil rights movement of the ’60s, Robertson and other conservative Christians emphasize homosexual behavior, placing gay activism in the context of the sexual revolution of the same era.

Robertson next quoted from 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, a famous passage in Paul’s letters in which he clearly states that practicing homosexuals, along with practicing heterosexual sinners of various stripes, will not inherit God’s kingdom. (For the record, despite frequent objections to the contrary, the Greek text is quite clear in terms of its overall sense.)

Was A&E genuinely unaware that Phil Robertson held to these views? I seriously doubt it. My guess is that they were just glad (not GLAAD) that he hadn’t aired them publicly.

Finally, Robertson suggested (speaking first for himself) that the female sexual organ was “more desirable” than a man’s rectum and that a woman had “more to offer” a man.

And for these comments he was promptly suspended.

The fact is, though, no matter how much two men may love each other, it remains indisputably clear that men were biologically designed to be with women, and vice versa. In that regard, no matter how crude Robertson’s comments may have been, they were correct.

As for his quotation from 1 Corinthians 6, did anyone really think that Robertson would say, “You know, now that I’ve become a TV celebrity, I’m going to revise my views on God’s intent for human sexuality and marriage”?

Personally, I don’t believe for a moment that Robertson will bow down to A&E and compromise his convictions, although I could see him offering a further clarification of his statements, explaining, for example, that he was not accusing homosexuals of practicing bestiality any more than heterosexuals engage in such perversion.

And I don’t see how A&E can back down from its position regardless of how popular the show is. The gay lobby is far too powerful. (I imagine that Alec Baldwin has an opinion on this as well, although, to be clear, I am not comparing Robertson to Baldwin.)

In fact, I don’t see either of them about to blink, which means the culture wars are about to hit the fan, and this could get very ugly very quickly.

I suggest that those of us who agree fundamentally with Robertson make clear that: 1) We are unashamed of our belief in Jesus and in biblical morality; 2) we stand against the mistreatment of all people, including gays and lesbians; and 3) we will not support the radical redefinition of marriage, regardless of the cost involved, nor do we see cultural capitulation to gay activism as inevitable.

Now would be a perfect time to take a stand, but with grace, precision and wisdom.

This article was originally posted at the Charismannews.com blog.

One of the stars of the popular A & E show Duck Dynasty, Phil Robertson, has been indefinitely suspended from the program. His crime was making some politically incorrect statements about homosexuality in a condescension-dripping interview with GQ magazine that rendered the homosexual community apoplectic. Hell hath no fury like homosexual activists who encounter dissent.

Here are some of the offending comments, which he offered in response to GQ’s question, “What, in your mind, is sinful?”:

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” [The writer explained that that Robertson then paraphrased Corinthians]: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

…

“We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later.” 

Robertson may have answered in his own imitable voice, but much of what he said reflects the mind and will of God as revealed in the word of God.

And here’s how the contemporary founts of biblical exegesis, wisdom, truth, non-judgmentalism, non-condemnation, and tolerance, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), responded:

GLAAD: some of the vilest and most extreme statements uttered against LGBT people in a mainstream publication,…his quote was littered with outdated stereotypes and blatant misinformation….Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe….He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans—and Americans—who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. 

HRC: Phil Robertson’s remarks are not consistent with the values of our faith communities or the scientific findings of leading medical organizations….We know that being gay is not a choice someone makes, and that to suggest otherwise can be incredibly harmful. We also know that Americans of faith follow the Golden Rule—treating others with the respect and dignity you’d wish to be treated with. As a role model on a show that attracts millions of viewers, Phil Robertson has a responsibility to set a positive example for young America—not shame and ridicule them because of who they are.

A red-faced, stomping Rumplestiltskin’s got nothing on homosexual activists who unexpectedly hear truth when they expect obsequious silence.

Just a couple of brief responses to GLAAD’s and HRC’s statements:

1. What specifically were Robertson’s lies?
2. “True Christians” believe what Scripture—both Old and New Testaments—as well as most theologians in the history of the church teach.
3. Experiencing same-sex attraction is, like virtually all other sin inclinations, not chosen. How one responds to such inclinations, however, is a choice.
4. If homosexual acts are not moral, adults are not setting “a positive example” by affirming homosexuality as good.
5. We ought not “shame or ridicule” particular individuals, but all satire and joking involves making light of some aspect of the human condition, including our sins. Did the narrow-minded dogmatists at GLAAD and the HRC scold the television program Will and Grace, which made its bread and butter out of ridiculing and stereotyping homosexuals? Do they take umbrage at the satirical paper The Onion or at Saturday Night Live? What about the writing of Aristophanes, Juvenal, Chaucer, Jonathan Swift, George Orwell, H. L. Mencken, Dorothy Parker, Jack Paar, David Steinberg, Tom and Dick Smothers, P.J. O’Rourke, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, David Sedaris, Sarah Silverman, and Matt Stone and Trey Parker (South Park creators) who ridicule people mercilessly?

There are increasing numbers of Christians who believe our sole task as Christians is to love homosexuals—and by “love,” they mean, just be nice—and that we should never say anything to anger or offend them. These Christians fail to understand that this would certainly require that Christians refrain from ever saying publicly that homosexuality is an abomination in God’s eyes. But it’s not just Old Testament language that is too indelicate for the delicate sensibilities of “progressives” that must be silenced.

It’s any idea about homosexuality with which “progressives” disagree that must be silenced. We can’t say that same-sex attraction is disordered, or that homosexual acts are immoral, or that God did not create men and women to experience same-sex attraction, or that Jesus affirms marriage only as a union of one man and one woman, or that Paul teaches that homosexuals (among others) will not see the kingdom of Heaven. And we certainly can’t point out the indelicate truth that the primary sex act of homosexual men is a pathogenic nightmare that results in countless sexually transmitted infections (including shigellosis) and untold suffering.  

The Left is caterwauling about Phil Robertson’s “judging” and “condemning,” all the while, of course, judging and condemning Phil Robertson. Either out of their own ignorance or Macchiavellian political expedience, the Left fails to make the distinction—publicly, at least—between judging the eternal destination of individuals and “judging” which behaviors are right and which are wrong. Everyone judges in that sense. Everyone does it every day. Every time the Left becomes indignant about the beliefs or political actions of conservatives, they have judged. A society that refuses to make judgments about what constitutes moral conduct could not make laws and would not long exist. A society that refuses to “condemn” wrong actions as wrong will collapse in moral anarchy.

What “progressives” condemn is any condemnation directed at any behavior of which they approve. And this is what leads to the hypocrisy virtually everyone can see in their laughable claims to value “diversity,” “tolerance,” free speech, and the First Amendment (which protects the free exercise of religion and says nothing about the free exercise of homo sex).

Ah, but “progressives” cleverly contrive an out for themselves by saying there is no moral imperative to tolerate intolerance or any statements that “harm” others. But notice two things: First, that this statement itself reflects a moral “judgment.” And second, it presumes agreement with the Left’s definition of harm.

I thought the destruction of marriage would be the cultural event that awakened the slumbering Christian masses. Perhaps it will instead be a hoary, hairy, much beloved Louisianan duck call-maker who loves Jesus Christ and fears God more than man.

The halcyon days for Christians in America are over, my friends. Religious liberty is fast-diminishing—well, for orthodox Christians it is, not for fundamentalist Mormons who want multiple wives.

Prepare for persecution, and consider it joy to encounter trials for Christ who suffered the ultimate trial—the one that heaped scorn on him, cost him his life, and saved ours. 

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send an email or fax to the executives at A&E Network, to let them know what you think of their intolerance, religious bigotry, and viewpoint discrimination.

Help us reach our goal of raising a total of $50,000 by the end of the month – Donate today! 

To make a credit card donation over the phone, call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.  

You can also send a gift by mail to:

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

An interview can get you into big trouble. Remember General Stanley McChrystal? He was the commander of all U.S. forces in Afghanistan until he gave an interview to Rolling Stone magazine in 2010 and criticized his Commander in Chief. Soon thereafter, he was sacked. This time the interview controversy surrounds Phil Robertson, founder of the Duck Commander company and star of A&E’s Duck Dynasty. Robertson gave an interview to GQ (formerly known as Gentlemen’s Quarterly), and now he has been put on “indefinite suspension” from the program.

Why? Because of controversy over his comments on homosexuality.

Phil Robertson is the plainspoken patriarch of the Duck Dynasty clan. In the GQ interview, published in the January 2014 issue of the magazine, Robertson makes clear that his Christian faith is central to his identity and his life. He speaks of his life before Christ and actively seeks to convert the interviewer, Drew Magary, to faith in Christ. He tells Magary of the need for repentance from sin. Magary then asks Robertson to define sin. He responded:

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

Christians will recognize that Robertson was offering a rather accurate paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: “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, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

To be fair, Robertson also offered some comments that were rather crude and graphically anatomical in making the same point. As Magary explained, “Out here in these woods, without any cameras around, Phil is free to say what he wants. Maybe a little too free. He’s got lots of thoughts on modern immorality, and there’s no stopping them from rushing out.”

Phil Robertson would have served the cause of Christ more faithfully if some of those comments had not rushed out. This is not because what he said was wrong; he was making the argument that homosexual acts are against nature. The Apostle Paul makes the very same argument in Romans 1:26. The problem is the graphic nature of Robertson’s language and the context of his statements.

The Apostle Paul made the same arguments, but worshipers in the congregations of Rome and Corinth did not have to put hands over the ears of their children when Paul’s letter was read to their church.

The entire Duck Dynasty enterprise is a giant publicity operation, and a very lucrative enterprise at that. Entertainment and marketing machines run on publicity, and the Robertsons have used that publicity to offer winsome witness to their Christian faith. But GQ magazine? Seriously?

Not all publicity is good publicity, and Christians had better think long and hard about the publicity we seek or allow by our cooperation.

Just ask Gen. McChrystal. In the aftermath of his embarrassing debacle, the obvious question was this: why would a gifted and tested military commander allow a reporter for Rolling Stone such access and then speak so carelessly? Rolling Stone is a magazine of the cultural left. It was insanity for Gen. McChrystal to speak so carelessly to a reporter who should have been expected to present whatever the general said in the most unfavorable light.

Similarly, Phil Robertson would have served himself and his mission far better by declining to cooperate with GQ for a major interview. GQ is a “lifestyle” magazine for men, a rather sophisticated and worldly platform for the kind of writing Drew Magary produced in this interview. GQ is not looking for Sunday School material. Given the publicity the interview has now attracted, the magazine must be thrilled. Phil Robertson is likely less thrilled.

Another interesting parallel emerges with the timing of this controversy. The current issue of TIME magazine features Pope Francis I as “Person of the Year.” Within days of TIME’s declaration, Phil Robertson had been suspended from Duck Dynasty. Robertson’s suspension was caused by his statements that homosexual acts are sinful. But Pope Francis is riding a wave of glowing publicity, even as he has stated in public his agreement with all that the Roman Catholic Church teaches, including its teachings on homosexual acts.

Francis has declared himself to be a “son of the church,” and his church teaches that all homosexual acts are inherently sinful and must be seen as “acts of grave depravity” that are “intrinsically disordered.”

But Pope Francis is on the cover of TIME magazine and Phil Robertson is on indefinite suspension. Such are the inconsistencies, confusions, and hypocrisies of our cultural moment.

Writing for TIME, television critic James Poniewozik argued that Robertson’s error was to speak so explicitly and openly, “to make the subtext text.” He wrote:

Now, you’ve got an issue with those of us who maybe just want to watch a family comedy about people outside a major city, but please without supporting somebody thumping gay people with their Bible. Or a problem with people with gay friends, or family, or, you know, actual gay A&E viewers.

By speaking so openly, Robertson crossed the line, Poniewozik explains.

A&E was running for cover. The network released a statement that attempted to put as much distance as possible between what the network described as Robertson’s personal beliefs and their own advocacy for gay rights:

We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty. His personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community.

So, even as most evangelical Christians will likely have concerns about theway Phil Robertson expressed himself in some of his comments and wherehe made the comments, the fact remains that it is the moral judgment he asserted, not the manner of his assertion, that caused such an uproar. A quick look at the protests from gay activist groups like GLAAD will confirm that judgment. They have protested the words Robertson drew from the Bible and labeled them as “far outside of the mainstream understanding of LGBT people.”

So the controversy over Duck Dynasty sends a clear signal to anyone who has anything to risk in public life: Say nothing about the sinfulness of homosexual acts or risk sure and certain destruction by the revolutionaries of the new morality. You have been warned.

In a statement released before his suspension, Phil Robertson told of his own sinful past and of his experience of salvation in Christ and said:

My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together. However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.

Those are fighting words, Phil. They are also the gospel truth.

This article was originally posted at the AlbertMohler.com blog.

The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) has been under relentless assault by homosexual activists for years, and it appears the pressure is wearing down its leadership. The BSA may be poised to reverse its long-standing national policy that prohibits homosexuality in the Boy Scouts.

A review of the mission statement of the BSA and the Boy Scout Oath and Law are helpful in evaluating just how profoundly wrong the decision to change its policy on homosexuality would be.

The BSA mission statement:

The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law.

The Boy Scout Oath:

On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

The Boy Scout Law:

A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.

How does the BSA promote fidelity to God if it permits men or women who affirm that which God views as detestable (i.e., homosexual acts) to serve as role models and leaders?

And how does the BSA promote fidelity to an oath when with a finger held to the political wind and a vote, its leadership decides that the Boy Scouts’ long-held convictions are dispensable?

There exist objective truths regarding sexual morality, truths which if violated mar the image of God imprinted on men and women. When men have sex with men or women have sex with women, they demonstrate a profound disrespect for God and for themselves, which, although less important, violates the Boy Scout Law which asserts that “a Scout is … reverent.”

No one is arguing that homosexual men and women are devoid of admirable values and traits that boys would be well-served to emulate. What many are arguing is that the affirmation of a homosexual identity is not one of them. Further, the affirmation of a homosexual identity is so profoundly immoral as to render them unsuitable for the role of shaping “morally straight” young men. No boy should be taught implicitly or explicitly that the affirmation of a homosexual identity or homosexual acts are moral acts.

BSA spokesperson Deron Smith issued this statement:

For more than 100 years, Scouting’s focus has been on working together to deliver the nation’s foremost youth program of character development and values-based leadership training….

Currently, the BSA is discussing potentially removing the national membership restriction regarding sexual orientation. This would mean there would no longer be any national policy regarding sexual orientation, and the chartered organizations that oversee and deliver Scouting would accept membership and select leaders consistent with each organization’s mission, principles, or religious beliefs. BSA members and parents would be able to choose a local unit that best meets the needs of their families.

This policy change would be a cowardly act because it would pass on to individual families the task of asking their local leaders what their policy is regarding homosexuality, which is far more difficult than having an established national policy. Maybe Deron Smith and other BSA leaders are able to deceive themselves into believing that such a policy change would constitute a “brave” and morally defensible act, but countless Americans know otherwise. This would be an act of cowardice driven by fear of perpetual slandering by homosexual activists and pressure from soulless corporations that do not have character formation as integral to their mission and yet self-righteously pretend they do.

In response to the announcement by Deron Smith, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) president, Herndon Graddick prematurely exulted, “The Boy Scouts of America have heard from scouts, corporations and millions of Americans that discriminating against gay scouts and scout leaders is wrong. Scouting is a valuable institution and this change will only strengthen its core principles of fairness and respect.”

In referring to “discrimination,” Graddick exploits the language of racial injustice. But making distinctions between moral and immoral sexual acts bears no similarity whatsoever to illegitimate discrimination of persons based on non-behavioral characteristics like race.

Graddick’s reference to “corporations” should remind Americans not to underestimate the influence of corporate pressure. Money is the driving force behind this possible policy reversal. Does anyone really believe that most parents who support Boy Scouts want homosexual men to contribute to the formation of their sons’ moral character?

Parents and other BSA supporters shouldn’t be duped into believing that this policy change, which would leave decisions regarding homosexuality to local organizations, will be left alone. Zach Wahls, Eagle Scout and founder of Scouts for Equality—who, interestingly, was raised by two lesbians—made clear that the relentless assault on the BSA’s commitment to sexual morality will continue unabated until every troop abandons moral convictions: “’We look forward to working with BSA Councils and chartering organizations across the country to end the exclusion of our gay brothers in Scouting, as well as the gay and lesbian leaders who serve the organizations so well.’” Regarding the possibility of only some clubs allowing homosexual members, Wahl correctly and ominously proclaimed, “‘Once you’ve started to introduce openly gay members, there’s no way to stop it.’”

Take ACTION:  Despite eager chomping-at-the bit accounts from homosexual activists, however, the deal is not yet done. Parents of current and future Boy Scouts and alumni supporters can make a difference. Click HERE to send an email or take a moment to call any of these numbers to express your opposition to any policy change: (972) 580-2400 (also 2401, 2405, 2239, 2443, 2280, 2199). 

 The Associated Press reported this week on a new study from a homosexual demands group trumpeting the “highest-ever number of gay and bisexual characters on scripted broadcast network” television.  They note that the number of homosexual characters on cable television is also growing.  In their 17^th annual “Where We Are on TV” report the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) found that overall homosexuals represent nearly 5 percent of TV characters, up from 2.9 percent in 2011.   ABC has the highest amount at 5.2 percent of their regular characters portrayed as homosexual.  CBS was saluted as having the largest increase from 0.7 percent in 2011 to 2.8 percent in 2012.
 
These may not sound like very significant or influential numbers, but remember that in the real world homosexuals make up only between 2 and 3 percent of the population.  So, television viewers are seeing homosexuality portrayed at a rate that is twice as high as it occurs in real life, and you can bet that none of homosexuality’s individual harms are ever revealed on TV. GLAAD makes sure that the portrayal of homosexuality on TV is always positive.  
 
Imagine the impact TV might have on society if real world demographic numbers were applied to characters.  When is the last time you saw even one positive portrayal of a Christian on a TV sitcom or drama?  A 2008 study found that 34 percent of Americans describe themselves not simply as Christian, but as “born-again” Christians.  If the rate for Christians was the same as homosexual portrayals, nearly 7 out of 10 TV characters would be positive displays of Christianity.   Imagine the impact that would have on viewers and our culture.
 
Ironically, GLAAD President Herndon Graddick said of their report “More and more Americans have come to accept their LGBT family members, friends, co-workers and peers, and as audiences tune into their favorite programs, they expect to see the same diversity of people they encounter in their daily lives.”   Apparently, this “same diversity of people” only applies to one’s bedroom behavioral choices.
 
As I mentioned, Christian characters are virtually non-existent on network TV. The number of Hispanic characters is actually on the decline from 2011, and massively underrepresented by 75 percent. African-Americans are also underrepresented on TV, compared to their actual population numbers. Those two genetic traits of skin color cannot be hidden on camera.  In that sense, one has to give groups like GLAAD their due, they have made sure what a small few choose to do in the bedroom is significantly over-glorified and over-represented as a character lifestyle on TV.