Allen West - Heroism - Are Gay Basketball Players Greater Heroes than Decorated Soldiers?

Col. Allen West discusses NBA basketball player Jason Collins. Collins revealed publicly that he is gay, and received a telephone call from President Obama. Col. Allen West contrasts this with the heroism of soldiers like Sgt. Greg Robinson, who became the first amputee to complete Air Assault School. The training was so grueling that Robinson broke his prosthetic leg twice. Did Sgt. Robinson receive a call from President Obama? Did other decorated soldiers like Army Lieutenant Col. Matthew Dooley? Find out.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Michael Brown - Is it Time to Throw in the Towel?

Republican leaders have capitulated, pro-family pundits have caved, and gay activists have announced that their struggle for equality is just about over. Is it time for biblical conservatives to throw in the towel?

What a ridiculous thought. Why in the world would we do that?


I’m fully aware that:

· Newt Gingrich recently announced his belief that same-sex unions are “inevitable” and that Republicans must accept this if they want to win future elections.

· Pro-marriage leader David Blankenhorn has recanted his opposition to same-sex “marriage,” saying “the time has come for me to accept gay marriage and emphasize the good that it can do.”

· Recent polling indicates that “the public has gradually become more accepting of same-sex marriage . . . . More Americans favor it in 2013 than oppose, according to the Pew Research Center.”

· The 2012 elections marked the first time that any states voted to legalize same-sex “marriage” and President Obama, in his inaugural speech, declared that it is the task of this generation to legalize gay “marriage.”

· Last week, in a 400-175 vote, British “MPs approved the second reading of a bill legalizing [same-sex] marriage, indicating a significant majority of members support the measure” as it moves through the process of legal approval.

· A poll last week claimed that Americans, by “a margin of 55 percent to 33 percent” believe that the Boy Scouts “should drop its policy against openly gay members.”

Yes, I’m fully aware that gay activists have declared that the “National Movement Opposing Same-Sex Marriage Is Done,” and that, to quote pioneer gay journalist Mark Segal, what’s happening today is not a “watershed” but “a tidal wave.”

Long-time gay activist Cleve Jones has even stated that, “The opposition is just melting away. We have reached the hearts and minds of the American people,” and there is no turning back the clock. Yes, Jones said, “I am kind of beside myself. I have to pinch myself sometimes. I never thought I would live long enough to see this. Never. Ever.”

Things have gotten to the point that, on January 31st, Hank Plante wrote on SFGate.com that, “I received a provocative e-mail from a prominent gay journalist this week. It had two words: ‘It’s over.’”

Is the battle for “gay rights” really over? Should conservatives who differ with these “rights” throw in the towel? After all, there’s no use wasting our time and energy and resources fighting against the inevitable. In fact, the longer we fight a losing battle, the more we make ourselves look irrelevant.

Why not consolidate our losses and live to fight another day? Surely there are other battles that deserve our attention. Why not throw in the towel when it comes to opposing the full acceptance of homosexual practice?

Here are four answers to these fair and weighty questions.

1) For many years now, the unspoken mantra of gay activists (going back to the famous “zaps” of the early 1970’s) has been, “We will intimidate and we will manipulate until you capitulate.” Today, when gay activists announce that we conservative believers are on the wrong side of history, it is just another form of intimidation. Surely they are not telling us these things so as to help us! So, in case it isn’t clear, let me say it plainly: We will not be intimidated.

2) We do what is right because it is right, not because it is pragmatic or popular. To quote the Oregon Christian baker Aaron Klein, “I’d rather stand up for what I believe in and what I feel is right and get totally annihilated when it comes in the end than to bow down to this and say ‘go ahead.’ Because that sets the standard for the next one, the next one, and the next one.” In the famous words of Dr. Martin Luther King, “Cowardice asks the question, ‘Is it safe?’ Expediency asks the question, ‘Is it politic?’ But conscience asks the question, ‘Is it right?’ And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but because conscience tells one it is right.”

3) Polls and popularity trends do not determine what is morally right and wrong. One generation ago, sex out of wedlock was frowned upon. Today, it’s accepted as a normal part of life. Yet a recent US Census report indicates that “Being raised in a married family reduced a child’s probability of living in poverty by about 82 percent.” Popularity does not necessarily equate with morality, and only a fool makes moral choices based on the polls.

4) I’m not in the least bit surprised by the victories of the “gay revolution.” In fact, when I first became involved in this specific aspect of the “culture wars” less than 9 years ago, I saw back then that our side had already lost the battle and that gay activism had won the day. So, these recent developments don’t faze or surprise me in the least. From day one, my trust was in God, not people, and that’s where my trust remains. Attempts to redefine marriage and family and to normalize different sexual orientations may have their day, but that day will pass.

In the end, I can truly thank gay activists for helping us understand their world better – including the pain of bullying and the unique struggles they have endured – and for that, I am grateful. And I can admire their zeal and courage, even while differing with their goals.

But just as they didn’t throw in the towel when they were a tiny, vilified, minority, much less we will throw in the towel when their revolution seems to be winning the day. This too shall pass.

Dr. Michael Brown

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and is the author of 20 books. He has served as a professor at a number of seminaries and hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Michael Brown - The Gay Bullies Are Being Exposed

A well-liked, Christian man in England had his salary reduced by 40% after posting a comment on his Facebook page in which he stated that the government should not force churches to perform same-sex “marriage” ceremonies. And a Christian couple running a bed and breakfast in their family home in England was fined almost $6,000 for hurting the feelings of a gay couple by refusing to rent a room to them. The headline to Amanda Platell’s report on the first of these two cases said it all: “The real hate crime is persecuting a decent man for his beliefs.”

According to Platell, “Adrian Smith is a kind and gentle man. Friends say the happily married father is a pillar of the community, a practising Christian and a tireless worker for charity. Yet this week Mr Smith was in court, defending accusations that he is a bigot whose personal views are so offensive and outrageous that they are incompatible with his work as a housing officer. His crime? To have put a posting on his personal Facebook page which said he thought civil partnerships ceremonies in church were ‘an equality too far’.”

Smith’s comment, posted on his personal Facebook page, explained, “‘If the State wants to offer civil marriages to the same sex, then that is up to the State; but the State shouldn’t impose its rules on places of faith or conscience.’”

Who could object to such a moderate, fair-minded comment? One of Smith’s co-workers did object, alleging that his post demonstrated that he was “blatantly homophobic” (!). As a result, “His salary was reduced by 40 per cent by the Trafford Housing Trust, which claimed he was guilty of ‘gross misconduct’ because people might mistake his views as trust policy.” Yes, this actually happened days ago in jolly old England.

Platell, who is no rightwing conservative, exclaimed, “What utter nonsense. And what a terrifying insight into the dystopian world we now live in — a world where a man can be penalised for a thought crime, even when that thought is shared by a huge proportion of the population.” And even when the thought is eminently reasonable.

Then there is the case of a devout Christian couple, Susanne and Mike Wilkinson, owners of a bed and breakfast, who refused to rent a room to a gay couple in 2010, just as they had previously refused to rent a room to an unmarried heterosexual couple. They were taken to court by the gay couple and, just last week, found guilty of hurting the feelings of the gay couple, resulting in a fine of nearly $6,000.

After the verdict, Susanne Wilkinson said, “We believe a person should be free to act upon their sincere beliefs about marriage under their own roof without living in fear of the law.” She noted that, “Equality laws have gone too far when they start to intrude into a family home. People’s beliefs about marriage are coming under increasing attack and I am concerned about people’s freedom to speak and act upon these beliefs.”

“I am a Christian,” she said, “not just on a Sunday in church, but in every area of my life - as Jesus expects from his followers. That’s all I was trying to do and I think it’s quite wrong to punish me for that especially after enduring over two years of vile abuse and threats.”

“We find this a strange justice,” she commented, “in a society that aspires to be increasingly tolerant.”

The Wilkinson’s actually received hundreds of threatening emails (sometimes hundreds in an hour), with one message arriving “hand-delivered and handwritten in capitals,” saying, “I am coming to burn your house down.” So much for tolerance.

Back here in the States, Dr. Angela McCaskill, a deaf black woman serving as the Chief Diversity Officer of Gallaudet University in Washington, DC, was placed on administrative leave after signing a petition calling for a vote on same-sex “marriage” in Maryland. (See my article, “The Diversity Police Strike Again.” Note that it was two lesbian professors who reported McCaskgill to the school administration.) But instead of backing down, Dr. McCaskill held a press conference in which she said: “I’m dismayed that Gallaudet University is still a university of intolerance, a university that manages by intimidation, a university that allows bullying among faculty, staff and students.” Well said, Dr. McCaskill!

Barely 25 years ago, two gay strategists stated that it was essential to “Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.” They explained that, “In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector.”

To be sure, there have been more than enough gay men and women who have been victims of hatred and violence, and they deserve society’s protection as much as any other citizens. But today, more and more gays are becoming the victimizers while it is civil-minded, decent straights who are becoming the victims.

The gay bullies are being exposed, and their very own strategy is working against them. It’s time for society to stand up for the victims of gay bullying.

Dr. Michael Brown

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and is the author of 20 books. He has served as a professor at a number of seminaries and hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Doug Giles - Rowdy Cluckers: The Chick-fil-A Rebellion

Well, the anti-Chick-fil-A thing sort of backfired, now didn’t it? Yep, the rabid gay crowd thought they were going to shut CFA down, but instead their fascist demands that Chick-fil-A’s Presidente Dan Cathy repent of his free speech actually catapulted the fast food chain into record profits. Cha-ching!

I have one word for that homo faux pas of trying to stifle a private company’s free speech, it’s: Ahahaha. Boy, you guys really read the pulse of the American people … Not.

Now, I will give the onerous gay activists this: Aside from the huge boom in ammo sales since Obama was elected, their boycott of Chick-fil-A actually spurred the first definitive economic stimulus of the Obama era. Muchas gracias.

Look, I knew this anti-free speech/chicken sandwich protest was going to go south when frickin’ Rahm Emanuel and Edwin Mah Lee got out in front of it. They represent America about as much as I represent PETA. I kept waiting for Mugatu from Zoolander to pop out and join them by slaughtering live chickens in a Foghorn Leghorn outfit while dancing to “Do You Really Want to Hurt Me” in front of some Chippendale boys. But, alas! It didn’t happen. Who can I sue?

If there’s one thing I know about Americans it’s that they love Chick-fil-A and free speech. I guess that would be two things. And Americans peacefully showing up in the hundreds of thousands last Wednesday to Chick-fil-A restaurants from sea to shining sea showed anyone with a lick of sense that Americans are not quite ready to bow and kiss the ring of a special interest group that wants to mitigate other people’s rights to freedom of expression just because they don’t kowtow to theirs.

Which brings me to this query: What’s up with this BS that we’ve got to agree with someone’s view of gay sex before we can buy or sell chicken sandwiches? When did that edict get passed? We’re damn close to making Seinfeld’s Soup Nazi look like the most rosy, easygoing consommé ladler around.

And finally, how come the gay activists got their national dander up over Chick-fil-A’s exec not being down with Brad and Chad getting engaged, yet I haven’t heard them say diddly squat about their intentions to stage a national “Kiss In” at any American mosque or give the hundreds of black pastors who vehemently oppose gay marriage the same crap they’ve been giving Chick-fil-A. What’s the matter? You’re not scared to take them on, are you? You’re not chicken, are you?

I think this past August 1st is a foretaste of what’s coming this November 6th. It’s all about freedom for all, baby, and you dudes don’t get it. But Americans do. And they showed up in droves and waited in hot lines for hours to demonstrate they will not be bullied.

Check out my latest video: “An Immoral, Lazy and Stupid Church Helps America's Enemies.”

Doug Giles

Doug Giles’ new book “If You're Going Through Hell, Keep Going!" is now available. Ann Coulter says "Doug Giles is a substantive and funny tour de force for traditional values.” Doug’s talk show and video blog can be seen and heard at www.ClashRadio.com.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Michelle Fields - Playing "Chick-Fil-A" Chicken with Gay Marriage

We hear from both sides on the Chick-Fil-A controversy in this high spirited debate between Daily Caller Reporter, Michelle Fields, and Host of 'The Six Pack' on Siriusxm radio, Dave Rubin.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Homosexual Activists and Liberal Progressives Call for Boycott of Chick-Fil-A

“We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit, We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. … We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”
Dan Cathy CEO Chick-Fil-A

Homosexual Activists and Liberal Progressive Democrats demanded a 'Boycott' of Chick-Fil-A Restaurants and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino agreed. Here are some pictures of the results of their call to Boycott:

Alexandria VA

Allentown PA

Beaumont TX

Fayetteville NC

Fort Meyers FL

West Palm Beach FL

Washington DC

Typical Across America

Typical Across America

Typical Across America

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Matt Barber - Tick-Off a Liberal - Take a Boy Scout to Chick-fil-A

Forget about Bert and Ernie. I always thought Kermit the Frog was a little “light in the flippers,” if you know what I mean. Miss Piggy? Probably just cover (wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more). And how about that perennial bachelor, Fozzie Bear? Wocka Wocka, indeed.

Or not.

I don’t know.

Still, a recent move by The Jim Henson Company makes you wonder. In a distinctly knee-jerk, anti-family development, the Muppet mogul has severed promotional ties with Chick-fil-A – the booming fast-food chain and American Cinderella story. The multi-billion dollar company has stirred the ire of left-wing extremists in recent days.

Their crime? Failure to obey the nauseating, mind-numbing dictates of political correctness.

Dan Cathy – a devout Christian and CEO of the biblically based eatery – recently made a few innocuous public comments in support of legitimate marriage – sentiments the vast majority of morals-minded Americans happen to agree with. (I sent an email to Chick-fil-A corporate suggesting that, in reprisal, they add frog legs and ham hock to the menu. No reply thus far.)

“We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit,” said Cathy. “We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. … We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”

Or, at least we used to live in that country. No more. Not if we let the godless left have its way.

Cathy’s statement was all it took. The “progressive” establishment had a mouth-frothing, water-meets-Wicked-Witch-of-the-West meltdown. They’ve charged the battlefield with that characteristic slash-and-burn, seek-and-destroy style and grace we’ve come to expect.

“Boycott Chick-fil-A!” shrieked the ever-tolerant, oh-so-enlightened sexual-anarchist troglodytes. “Bigots! Haters! Homophobes!” (You know; same pointless pap, different day.)

Demanding a public apology from Cathy, Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno pledged to prohibit Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in Chicago’s Logan Square because – well – because he’s a communist.

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino told the Boston Herald that he, too, would block Chick-fil-A from the “Cradle of Liberty.” (Want some crackers with that rich irony chowda, Tommy?)

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel followed suit.

Now, I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but let me just say to these, um, gentlemen: Look here, you law-breaking, totalitarian, anti-American dolts. We have a thing in this country called the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We will not sit idly by while you use this sacred document as potty paper for puppy.

You may have sworn-off chicken, but keep it up, tough guys, and freedom-loving America will force feed you a Sears Tower-sized helping of crow.

Mat Staver, founder and chairman of the Liberty Counsel civil-rights firm weighed in: “To deny business permits or zoning approvals to Chick-fil-A because the president of the privately owned family business expressed his biblical view of natural marriage is outrageous,” he said. “Any city trying to ban Chick-fil-A will not win this battle.”

“These government officials ought to be ashamed. For a public official to threaten denial of a right to do business because the president of a private company supports natural marriage is the height of stupidity and intolerance.

“Unfortunately, their response is typical of intolerant homosexual activists,” he continued. “They will go to any lengths to silence the majority of Americans who believe that children do best when raised in a natural family with one mom and one dad.”

Who would’ve thought that a major flashpoint for our culture war would involve waffle fries – evidently laced with some illicit, highly addictive chemical agent – and equally mouth-watering chicken-and-pickle sandwiches?

No problem. Certain truth can whip dogmatic “progressive” propaganda anywhere, anytime.

That’s the thing about liberalism – about political correctness. It exists in the realm of fantasy. It’s a barrier to truth. “Progressivism” comprises a farcical assortment of pseudo-utopian ideals that reflect how postmodern leftists want things to be, rather than how things actually are.

They float the propagandist idiom “marriage equality” – choosing all the while to ignore objective “marriage reality.”

So-called “same-sex marriage”? A counterfeit. It’s like taking a rotten apple, spray-painting it orange, and then calling it an orange. “Gay marriage” is no more real marriage then a rotten apple is an orange.

It’s unavoidable. Marriage is, by definition, the joining of two complementary opposites – two “others.” Consider Christmas lights. When you string them together you necessarily “marry” the male end with the female end. It defies logic and physics to try and force a male-male or female-female connection. There can be no real connection. Sure, you can employ some artificial mechanism – say, superglue or duct tape – to create a mock connection, but the lights don’t work, and the duct tape eventually gives out. Not to mention that it’s aesthetically off-putting.

“Gay marriage” is mock marriage. It’s fantasy – a dead end. Even a child knows this intuitively and, in their heart-of-hearts, lefties and “gay” activists know it, too. That’s why they respond so violently when people snicker at it or, as in the case of Dan Cathy, even respectfully acknowledge that it’s not grounded in reality.

The wonderful thing about liberals is that they almost universally overplay their hand. They respond to “inconvenient truths” with hysterical, reactionary overreach. There’s been a magnificent backlash from their attacks on Chick-fil-A. They’ve picked a fight they cannot win.

Gov. Mike Huckabee, never afraid to speak his mind, has waded into the fracas. He’s organized a “buy-cott” – a “Chick-fil-A Appreciate Day” for Aug. 1, 2012.

On that day, marriage-reality supporters – anyone who loves freedom and family values, really – are encouraged to patronize Chick-fil-A. I’ll be taking my family.

A list of venerable luminaries, including the Rev. Billy Graham, have joined the event. Millions are expected to participate.

In the wake of the Penn State scandal surrounding Jerry Sandusky’s homosexual assault on dozens of young boys, the Boy Scouts of America moved to protect children by re-affirming its prohibition against scoutmasters who live a homosexual lifestyle. Although they didn’t expressly indicate that Penn State influenced their decision, there can be little doubt it did.

As with the Chick-fil-A debacle, libs lost their collective noodle. Apparently the only thing they hate more than Chick-fil-A is a “morally straight” 12-year-old who strives for integrity and merit.

So here’s my proposal: Don’t let a bunch of uber-obnoxious, loud-mouthed liberal pansies intimidate you. They’re nothing but a wet paper tiger. On Wednesday, Aug. 1, have your kids wear their Boy Scout uniforms to Chick-fil-A. Scoutmasters, bring ‘em all.

There’s still time to reverse America’s spiral down the moral toilet bowl of history. On Aug. 1, even if you don’t eat fast food, buy Chick-fil-A anyway. Then give it to some homeless guy and claim it as a tax deduction.

That’ll really make ‘em squirm.

Matt Barber

Matt Barber served as Policy Director for Cultural Issues with Concerned Women for America before joining Liberty University School of Law in 2008. In addition to his Juris Doctorate degree, Dean Barber holds a Master of Arts in Public Policy from Regent University and a Bachelor of Science in Organizational Management from Colorado Christian University.

Matt Barber is a published freelance writer, many newspapers and online publications run his columns, including the Washington Examiner, Washington Times, Insight magazine, WorldNetDaily.com, TownHall.com and many others.

Matt Barber was a law enforcement officer for three years and a corporate fraud investigator for five years.

Matt Barber served twelve years in the Army National Guard, and was an undefeated professional boxer, retiring in 2004. Several times prior to turning pro, he was a state and regional Golden Gloves champion, competing in the 1992 Western Olympic Trials and winning a Gold Medal in the 1993 Police and Fire World Games.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Wild Bill for America - Chick-Fil-A Blues

Wild Bill stands with Chick Fil A as liberal bigots attack the Christian faith.

Visit the Wild Bill for America Blog

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Dennis Prager - Sean Hannity - Chick-Fil-A Ban in Chicagoland

Company president Dan Cathy told a Baptist website the Atlanta-based restaurant chain is "guilty as charged" in its support of traditional marriage.

"We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit," Cathy said in article published Monday by the Baptist Press. "We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Jeannie DeAngelis - Moral Relativism and the Plight of a Pedophile

Originally posted at American Thinker

---

Larry Brinkin, 22-year retiree from the San Francisco Human Rights Commission and veteran gay rights advocate from San Francisco, has been arrested for felony possession of child pornography. Following his arrest, Mr. Brinkin was released on bail after spending the night among friends in a San Francisco jail.

According to a search warrant served by San Francisco police, after seizing two laptops, a desktop computer, videos, a floppy disk, and flash drives from Brinkin's home, his computers were found to have "pornographic images that show children as young as 1 and 2 or 3 years old being sodomized and performing oral sex on adult men."

Allegedly, the human rights/gay rights advocate also had messages linked to his AOL account that included attachments that depict "exploitive sex acts" as well as links to a discussion group that approves of "sexual exploitation of young boys and girls."

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Brinkin was best known for "championing equal rights for gays and lesbians. He helped craft San Francisco's groundbreaking Equal Benefits Ordinance, which became a national model for workplace equality."

When Brinkin retired, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors was so grateful for the work he had done on behalf of human rights for gays that they approved a "resolution declaring the week of Feb. 1, 2010, 'Larry Brinkin Week' in San Francisco." According to the board, and despite his alleged penchant for pedophilia, after retirement, Larry's "dedication to advance the civil rights of all people ... never stopped."

Former supervisor Bevan Duffy, who authored the board's resolution for "Larry Brinkin Week," said he was shocked to learn of San Francisco gay icon's arrest. Duffy said, "I have admired and respected his work for the LGBT community. I respect and am confident that there will be due process."

Due process will ultimately determine whether or not the human rights advocate considered the sexual mistreatment of tots a right worth pursuing. In the meantime, regardless of the outcome, it's clear that both Larry Brinkin and the tiniest victims of his alleged crime have all been damaged by a liberal lie called moral relativism.

The children in the photographs notwithstanding, based on what was found on his computer, Brinkin is just as much the result of a philosophy which preaches that there is no set standard for right or wrong and that human decency is a passé concept that hinges on personal conscience, not social mores or outdated religious criteria.

Brinkin thrived for almost a quarter of a century in a setting that promotes the false premise that moral behavior is subject to individual judgment. He was well-respected in a community that makes heroes of people whose primary goal is to undermine traditional values such as marriage, portray as out-of-date the belief that heterosexuality is normal, and endorse all manner of perverse behavior by putting it all under the umbrella of "human rights."

So in Mr. Brinkin's case, after making a name for himself advocating for the right to individual sexual expression, it could be that he had convinced himself that pedophilia also meets the necessary criteria. The North American Man Boy Love Association marched in San Francisco Gay Pride Parades early in Brinkin's career.

Before retiring from the equitable workplace he had helped create and retreating to his e-mail account and his NAMBLA-like discussion group, Larry Brinkin lived and gained fame in a world where the lines that define decency are oftentimes ambiguous. Brinkin attained star status in a city where people pride themselves on being their own moral judge and jury, where individuals are the subjective arbiters of their own behavior and the sole captains of carnal vessels that are encouraged to set sail in any direction they desire.

Then Brinkin, at 66 years old -- old enough to be someone's grandpa -- is caught with child pornography on his computer and participating in an online chat that approves of sexually molesting innocent children. The question arises: who, then, in a secular culture determines the ethical norms? After Brinkin spent 22 years working to eradicate a line of moral demarcation, does someone or some system with different measures now get to draw a new line in the sand?

Moreover, don't the tenets of the "what's right for me might not be right for you"-and-vice-versa school of thought teach that no one has the authority to impose personal standards of morality on anyone else? Should that principle change just because it has been revealed that the person responsible for advancing the civil rights of San Francisco's LGBT community may also turn out to be a degenerate who approves of having oral sex with toddlers?

If moral relativism is a valid argument, then Brinkin is innocent regardless of what he's done. And any man or woman with small children should accept the fact that if, in his mind, Mr. Brinkin believes it's acceptable to sexually abuse a child, and the child being abused should happen to belong to a fellow moral relativist, then that morally relativistic parent is duty-bound to pardon Larry's amoral behavior.

However, if Larry Brinkin is found guilty, then so too are all the moral equivocators who have promoted a debauched philosophy whose lack of boundaries has led to the corruption of society and, more tragically, been part and parcel of the irreparable harm that has befallen the helpless and most innocent among us. As for a dupe like Larry Brinkin, if proven guilty of pedophilia, it's because he's just another deluded predator who believed the lie that all morality is relative. Then he acted upon that conviction and, by doing so, became another one of its victims

Jeannie DeAngelis

Jeannie DeAngelis writes almost exclusively for American Thinker and has been published on the conservative website Pajamas Media, as well as hosting a blog. See Jeannie's Blog

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Michael Brown - Why Gay Is Not the New Black

Repeating what has been a rallying cry of gay activism for years, the cover of the December 16, 2008 issue of The Advocate announced, “Gay is the New Black: The Last Great Civil Rights Struggle.” Last week, on May 19th, headlines across the nation announced, “NAACP endorses gay marriage as ‘civil right.’” So, is gay the new black?

There are prominent black leaders who say yes, including Congressman John Lewis, who was active in the early Civil Rights movement. There are other prominent black leaders who say no, like Timothy F. Johnson, founder and president of the Frederick Douglass Foundation.

For a number of reasons, I concur with Johnson and others who say that gay is not the new black.

1. There is no true comparison between skin color and behavior. Although gays and lesbians emphasize identity rather than behavior, homosexuality is ultimately defined by romantic attraction and sexual behavior. How can this be equated with the color of someone’s skin?

Skin color has no intrinsic moral quality, and there is no moral difference between being black or white (or yellow or red). In contrast, romantic attractions and sexual behaviors often have moral (or immoral) qualities, and there is no constitutional “right” to fulfill one’s sexual and romantic desires.

Also, skin color cannot be hidden, whereas a person’s sexual orientation is, generally speaking, not outwardly recognizable (unless it is willfully displayed). Put another way, blacks do not have to “come out,” since their identity is self-evident, whereas gays and lesbians have to come out (or act out) for their identity to be clearly known.

2. The very real hardships endured by many gays and lesbians cannot fairly be compared with the monstrous suffering endured by African Americans. Conservative gay journalist Charles Winecoff wrote, “Newsflash: blacks in America didn’t start out as hip-hop fashion designers; they were slaves. There’s a big difference between being able to enjoy a civil union with the same sex partner of your choice – and not being able to drink out of a water fountain, eat at a lunch counter, or use a rest room because you don’t have the right skin color.”

Today, we have openly gay members of Congress, openly gay celebrities, openly gay CEO’s, openly gay financial gurus, openly gay sports stars, openly gay Hollywood moguls, and openly gay college professors, bestselling authors, scientists, and on and on. In the days of segregation in America, there were few, if any, blacks in such prominent positions, not to mention the fact that in many cities in America, even the lynching of blacks was accepted. Where in America are gays and lesbians being lynched today with societal approval? And what is the LGBT equivalent to the American slave trade?

3. Skin color is innate and immutable; sexual orientation is not. Contrary to popular opinion, there is no reputable scientific evidence that people are born gay or lesbian. Even the unabashedly pro-gay American Psychiatric Association stated that, “to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.” As expressed bluntly by lesbian author Camille Paglia, “No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous.”

John D’Emilio, a gay activist and a professor of history and of gender and women’s studies at the University of Illinois, wrote, “What’s most amazing to me about the ‘born gay’ phenomenon is that the scientific evidence for it is thin as a reed, yet it doesn’t matter. It’s an idea with such social utility that one doesn’t need much evidence in order to make it attractive and credible.”

Also contrary to popular opinion, there are former homosexuals; there are no former blacks (despite the best efforts of the late Michael Jackson). This also underscores the fact that skin color cannot be compared to behavior, since even someone who remains same-sex attracted can modify his or her sexual behavior. A black person cannot modify his or her blackness.

Stated another way, genetics determine skin color, not behavior. Otherwise, if genetics unalterably predetermined behavior, then someone with a so-called violent gene could tell the judge, “My genes made me do it!” (For more on this important subject, see the chapter “Is Gay the New Black” in my book A Queer Thing Happened to America.)

4. Removing the unjust laws against miscegenation (interracial marriage) did not require a fundamental redefinition of marriage and family; legalizing same-sex “marriage” does. Marriage between a black person and a white person always included the two essential elements of marriage, namely a man and a woman (as opposed to just two people), and as a general rule, interracial marriage could naturally produce children and then provide those children with a mother and father. In contrast, same-sex “marriage” cannot produce children naturally and can never provide children with both a mother and father. (Another newsflash: Two dads or two moms do not equal a mom and a dad.)

Removing the laws of miscegenation simply required the removal of anti-black bigotry (since a white man could marry a Native American woman but not a black woman), whereas legalizing same-sex “marriage” requires the redefinition of marriage (opening the door to polyamorists, polygamists, and advocates of incestuous “marriages,” who are already mounting their legal and social arguments) and the normalizing of homosexuality (beginning with elementary school education), among other things.

That’s why many black Americans are rightly upset with the hijacking of the Civil Rights movement by gay activists.

Dr. Michael Brown

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and is the author of 20 books. He has served as a professor at a number of seminaries and hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Star Parker - Blacks and Same Sex Marriage

Perhaps history will show that the first black president’s biggest contribution to black America was forcing this community to come to terms with its own identity and priorities.

By formalizing his support of same sex marriage, President Obama has pushed blacks to decide what is most important to them. The Biblical message they hear in church every Sunday, or the big government liberalism that they regularly vote for on Tuesday of Election Day.

I’ve often talked about what I call the “Sunday-Tuesday Gap’ in black America.

The black church has always played a central role in black American life. Blacks attend church with greater frequency than any ethnic group in the nation. In church, they hear from pastors who preach the Bible in a most literal fashion.

According to a 2010 Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life survey, 34 percent of the general public sees the Bible as the literal word of God. However, 57 percent of blacks and 61 percent of black Protestants say the Bible should be read as God’s literal word.

This helps explain why in responding to surveys on so-called “social issues,” – abortion, marriage, family, infidelity, homosexuality – blacks poll like white conservatives.

However, when blacks go to vote on Tuesday, they certainly don’t vote like white conservatives. They vote like white liberals.

On Sunday, blacks hear preachers talk about traditional values, about family, about personal responsibility, about the sanctity of life. On Tuesday they go to the polls and vote for candidates that support abortion, moral relativism, and government dependence.

According to a 2010 Gallup survey, 55 percent of blacks said they attend church frequently (“at least once a week” or “almost every week”). However among Democrats, the party blacks overwhelmingly support, 39 percent say they attend church frequently. And among liberals, who are overwhelmingly Democrats, 27 percent attend church frequently.

The black vote wasn’t always so predictable. Eisenhower got 39 percent of the black vote in 1956 and Nixon received 32 percent in 1960.

Now, ninety percent of blacks can be depended on to pull the lever for Democrats.

These are the blacks of Tuesday. But now that President Obama has made his support for same sex marriage clear, what impact will this have on the blacks of Sunday?

In 2008 in California, the blacks of Tuesday voted for Barack Obama. But in the same election, the blacks of Sunday switched over and voted for Proposition 8 which directed that marriage be formally defined in the California state constitution as traditional marriage of man and woman.

After President Obama spoke out for same sex marriage, those commonly identified as black America’s political leadership – Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Julian Bond, Joseph Lowery – immediately took public positions supporting the President’s stand.

But these leaders, who represent the political behavior of Tuesday blacks, are out of sync with grass roots sentiment, which reflects the sentiments of Sunday blacks. According to Pew, 47 percent of Americans support legalization of same sex marriage, but only 39 percent of blacks and 33 percent of black Protestants do.

If there is a consensus on anything today, it’s that most Americans feel the country is on the wrong track. Where we part company is on the diagnosis of what is wrong.

There are big questions we must decide that will determine the kind of country our kids and grandkids will be living in.

There is no place where the dilemma is clearer than among black Americans.

Will America move more in the direction of the values of the blacks of Sunday or those of the blacks of Tuesday?

It’s time for black Americans to set and clarify their priorities and act in concert with them. The choices made today will impact not just their own future, but the future of our whole nation.

Star Parker

Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can do About It.

Star Parker is an author and president of CURE, Center for Urban Renewal and Education. Contact her at www.urbancure.org

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Michael Brown - Why Do the Backwoods Bigots Get to Vote?

In my last article, I explained how embarrassed the liberal elites were in the aftermath of North Carolina’s decisive passage of the marriage amendment. In their view, it was a triumph for backwoods bigotry. But there was a deeper sentiment lurking beneath the headlines and the sound bites: It’s hardly fair that these bigots get to vote! Just think of how wonderful America would be if only the enlightened ones could make the decisions.

A headline last week on the militant, gay activist site Truth Wins Out read, “North Carolina chooses bigotry over prosperity.” The article went on to say, “Those who live in the intelligent parts of North Carolina voted overwhelmingly against Amendment One, but unfortunately, there just aren’t enough intelligent parts of North Carolina.”

So, those living “in the intelligent parts” of the state, meaning primarily the counties and cities with major university populations, recognized how idiotic it is want to safeguard natural, organic marriage. Unfortunately, most North Carolinians were too dense to understand that a man has the civil right to marry another man. Presumably, the intelligent ones – the university students and their friends, not to mention the professors – have learned what really matters from authoritative sources like “Will and Grace,” a show justly touted for changing American opinion by no less a cultural pundit than our vice president, Joe Biden.

A commenter on another website, self-identified as a white gay woman exclaimed, “As I sit in the back of the bus and can only WISH the president would stop letting these backwoods S.O.B’S push me to the back of the bus as if me and my family do not contribute to this country!”

Backwoods S.O.B.’s indeed. Unintelligent bigots and boars. How do they (we?) even have the right to vote? It’s not fair to the enlightened ones (apparently akin to the “brights,” as some atheists self-defeatingly describe themselves). Presumably none of the intelligent ones live in Mississippi either.

Last week, on my Line of Fire broadcast, I received a call from a young lady named Sophie, a student at the University of North Carolina, living in Durham. She too was terribly embarrassed by the voting actions of her fellow North Carolinians, but she was quite proud of her county and city, since they had voted against Amendment One.

This was part of our conversation:

Sophie: And I don't think that is any coincidence that the counties that are heavily populated, developed and have universities all voted against the amendment.

Brown: So the smart ones, in other words.

Sophie: I'm not saying the smart ones

Brown: The educated ones?

Sophie: I'm just saying the people who were educated about the amendment and understood the consequences of voting for the amendment, because this is way more than marriage because if it was just about marriage then we wouldn't have an amendment at all because it’s already illegal in North Carolina.

Brown: No, Sophie the reason for the Amendment, is so no activist judge can … redefine marriage and when people go for civil unions that's just a step towards it. It was 100% to do with marriage...

A little later in the conversation, we got down to brass tacks:

Sophie: Well, this just shows the downfall of direct democracy. I mean sometimes I think that some things really should be left to the people who understand the consequences of the law and I think a lot of political . . . Almost every person who is high up in the North Carolina government has voiced their, their thoughts against this amendment, including the former democrat and republican mayor of Charlotte.

Brown: So Sophie, I think we . . . we just need the smart people, the educated people who think like you, to take control and to weed out these bigoted backwoods, Bible preachers like me, and America will be a better place. Why don't you just say it? Why don't you just say it?

Sophie: You’re putting words in my mouth. You’re putting words in my mouth.

Brown: Well those are the words you just. . . . OK then say it.

Sophie: I think if people understood the consequences of the amendment, that they would not have voted for it.

There you have it. The people who live in the “intelligent parts” of North Carolina, “the counties that are heavily populated, developed and have universities, all voted against the amendment.” Yes, “Almost every person who is high up in the North Carolina government” opposed the marriage amendment, leaving only the backwards, uneducated, bigoted blue-collar workers to vote for it, and sadly, they constituted a substantial majority. And “this just shows the downfall of direct democracy.”

So I have a proposal. Let’s be fair to America and honor the elites, and let’s get out of the way of the inevitable social progress that is coming our way, like marriage ceremonies pronouncing lesbian couples “bride and broom” (this really happened). And let’s leave it to the cultural “brights” to rule the day.

Surely, no group of highly educated, intelligent and enlightened progressive, social elites has ever hurt their country. Surely we have learned by now that “some animals are more equal than others.”

Dr. Michael Brown

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and is the author of 20 books. He has served as a professor at a number of seminaries and hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Michael Brown - Dan Savage Savages the Bible, Christianity and the Pope (Part 2)

If the Bible is “a radically pro-slavery document” (Dan Savage), how is it that Christians who successfully fought for the abolition of slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries based their opposition to slavery on that very same Bible? The answer is simple: The Bible is actually not “a radically pro-slavery document.”

According to Savage (following atheist Sam Harris), “the Bible got the easiest moral question that humanity has ever faced wrong. Slavery! What’re the odds that the Bible got something as complicated as human sexuality wrong? 100% percent.”

To be candid, it’s easy to see where Savage and Harris are coming from. After all, in the Old Testament, the Law of Moses didn’t outlaw slavery, it legislated slavery. As for the New Testament, instead of renouncing slavery as an unjust and cruel institution, the authors taught slaves to obey their masters. So, the argument goes, if the Bible got the issue of slavery so terribly wrong, how can it be trusted on the complex issue of human sexuality? And if Christians today are willing to ignore what the Bible says about slavery, what gives them the right to quote the Bible when it comes to the prohibition of homosexual practice?

These are serious questions, and they deserve serious answers. (Dan, remember that I’m here to help!) In short, it was through a misuse of the Bible that Christians justified slavery (along with segregation and the oppression of women) whereas it is by a proper use of the Bible that Christians oppose homosexual practice, while affirming gays and lesbians as people created in God’s image who are objects of Jesus’ love.

Read rightly, the Bible is actually a book of liberation for slaves, a book of equality for the races, and a book of emancipation for women. It celebrates the liberation of the Israelite slaves from Egypt, teaches that in God’s sight, people from every race are equal, and has many glowing things to say about women (did you ever read Proverbs 31:10-31?). Women also played a prominent role in the ministry of Jesus and in the early Church. (There are whole books written on these subjects, but this 2008 lecture provides lots of useful information.) In contrast, there is not a single positive reference to homosexual practice in the Bible, while every reference to homosexuality in the Scriptures is decidedly negative.

Dan Savage stated that, “The shortest book in the New Testament [called Philemon] is a letter from Paul to a Christian slave owner about owning his Christian slave. And Paul doesn’t say Christians don’t own people. Paul talks about how Christians own people.” To the contrary, Philemon was one of the key biblical texts used by the abolitionists in their argument against slavery.

The letter tells the story of a man named Onesimus who had been Philemon’s slave before escaping and then meeting the apostle Paul, who was at that time a prisoner of Rome. Paul led Onesimus to faith in Christ and then wrote to Philemon urging him to receive Onesimus back, “no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother” (Philemon 16).

What a concept! This man was your slave, he ran away and has now become a Christian, so receive him back as your brother and no longer as a slave. Savage really got this one wrong.

As for the larger question of slavery and the New Testament, the Church in its infancy could hardly challenge the entire economic and social structure of Greece and Rome, so it worked within the system, setting in motion principles of liberation and equality, encouraging masters not to threaten their slaves but to provide them “with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven” (Colossians 4:1; Ephesians 6:9). And, to the shock of many readers, Paul taught that, in Jesus, there was neither slave nor free (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11; 1 Corinthians 12:13), while Jesus himself declared that he came to set the captives free (Luke 4:18). And then there’s that letter to Philemon.

That’s why Christians like William Wilberforce, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and William Lloyd Garrison were at the forefront of the abolition movement.

As for the Old Testament, slavery was ubiquitous in the ancient Near East, but the biblical system was much more humane. It was primarily a system of voluntary, indentured servitude lasting for six years unless the slave wanted to serve his master for life. Even then, both master and slave would rest on the Sabbath, if the slave was mistreated he would go free, and there was even a periodic declaration of amnesty when lifetimes slaves would be liberated.

It is only a gross misuse of the Bible that could possibly justify the American slave trade, marked by kidnapping, the murderous and merciless transatlantic middle passage, and then the selling of chained human beings like chattel – just for starts. Each of these acts is strictly forbidden by Old Testament ethics.

Added to all this was the overarching biblical principle of “love your neighbor as yourself,” and to follow this principle means to put an end to slavery. But it does not mean affirming something (homosexual practice) that the Bible explicitly forbids.

What about Old Testament laws that called for the stoning of women who had premarital sex? There’s one more article to come.

Dr. Michael Brown

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and is the author of 20 books. He has served as a professor at a number of seminaries and hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Matt Barber - Dan Savage: 'Tolerant' Bully

They used to arrest middle-aged perverts who get their jollies from talking dirty to children. Today, they get a television show, a nationally syndicated column, a lecture circuit and multiple visits to the Obama White House.

You know: “Forward.”

The irony is palpable. Dan Savage, sex columnist and founder of the LGBT anti-bullying “It Gets Better” campaign, has been outed. Not as a homosexual. He’s out and proud in that regard. In fact, Savage pushes his “anything goes” brand of sexual anarchy on kids worldwide. MTV has even given the sex-obsessed radical his own show, “Savage U” – a moral-relativist platform from which to corrupt the kiddos.

Creepy stuff.

No, Savage has finally managed to publicly discredit himself as the anti-Christian bigot and bully he’s always been. Never again will this guy be taken seriously as an anti-bullying crusader.

Savage lectures teens in high schools and colleges around the country on the benefits of “non-monogamy,” the occasional “three-way” tryst and any other disease-spreading sexual impulse that might cross their impressionable, hormone-charged young minds (and many they can’t yet imagine).

Well, recently, rather than just shocking his teenaged audience with vulgar, sophomoric psychobabble as usual, Savage apparently thought it’d be fun to bully the kids with whom he disagreed.

While addressing a crowd of hundreds of high schoolers at the National High School Journalism Convention, Savage launched into an unhinged anti-Christian diatribe. He advised the teens to “ignore the bulls–t in the Bible” about sexual morality. “We ignore bulls–t in the Bible about all sorts of things,” he barked.

He then walked through a list of the same tired left-wing talking points about the Bible – long ago discredited – covering shellfish, virginity, etc. “The Bible is a radically pro-slavery document,” he said (anti-Christian trash we’ve come to expect from the secular left).

But when a hundred or more kids got up and began to walk out on Savage’s anti-Christian rant, the 47-year-old tough guy turned his hostility toward them. “It’s funny to someone who is on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible how pansya–ed people react when you push back,” he mocked. Some of the young girls were seen leaving in tears.

“It took a real dark, hostile turn, certainly, as I saw it,” teacher Rick Tuttle told CNN. “It became very hostile toward Christianity, to the point that many students did walk out, including some of my students.

“They felt that they were attacked … a very pointed, direct attack on one particular group of students. It’s amazing that we go to an anti-bullying speech and one group of students is picked on in particular, with harsh, profane language.”

But the only thing surprising is that anyone is surprised. Dan Savage is known in Christian circles as “the gay Fred Phelps.” Phelps, of course, is the similarly cartoonish Westboro Baptist “preacher” who gained notoriety by protesting military funerals with his incestuous brood of pseudo-Christian haters. Savage is Phelps’ photo negative. Whereas Phelps’ hateful mantra is “God hates fags,” Savage’s central message is “I hate God and anyone who loves Him.”

Savage’s primary claim to fame is that he formed the website “Santorum.com,” to create a “Google bomb” that would smear the good name of former senator and presidential candidate Rick Santorum. On the site he redefined the senator’s last name, Santorum, using language so vile and repulsive that I won’t repeat it. When Christian advocate and Americans for Truth founder Peter LaBarbera asked Savage to take down the website, Savage responded, “I’m asking Peter LaBarbera to go f–k himself.”

Savage also once bragged that he licked the doorknobs at former Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer’s campaign office in hopes of giving Mr. Bauer the flu.

Savage told the Daily Pennsylvanian in 2006 that Carl Romanelli, a U.S. senate candidate he didn’t like, “should be dragged behind a pickup truck until there’s nothing left but the rope.” In the same interview, he opined: “Mr. Romanelli should go f–k himself.” He also once said on HBO that he “wished all Republicans were f–king dead.”

Yep, this deviant troglodyte is the face of the left’s anti-bullying efforts. I’ve often said that those wonderfully “tolerant” liberals – the self-styled opponents of “hate” and “bigotry” – are the most intolerant, hateful bigots among us.

Thanks for proving my point, Dan.

Matt Barber

Matt Barber served as Policy Director for Cultural Issues with Concerned Women for America before joining Liberty University School of Law in 2008. In addition to his Juris Doctorate degree, Dean Barber holds a Master of Arts in Public Policy from Regent University and a Bachelor of Science in Organizational Management from Colorado Christian University.

Matt Barber is a published freelance writer, many newspapers and online publications run his columns, including the Washington Examiner, Washington Times, Insight magazine, WorldNetDaily.com, TownHall.com and many others.

Matt Barber was a law enforcement officer for three years and a corporate fraud investigator for five years.

Matt Barber served twelve years in the Army National Guard, and was an undefeated professional boxer, retiring in 2004. Several times prior to turning pro, he was a state and regional Golden Gloves champion, competing in the 1992 Western Olympic Trials and winning a Gold Medal in the 1993 Police and Fire World Games.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Michael Brown - Dan Savage Savages the Bible, Christianity and the Pope (Part I)

Should we be surprised when a gay activist famous for his bawdy sex column and known for his glorification of promiscuity attacks the Bible, ridicules Christian morality, and mocks the Pope in the lewdest of terms? Not at all.

Speaking to 3,000 high school students attending a journalism conference in mid-April, Dan Savage strayed from his appointed theme – anti-bullying – and launched into a tirade against the Bible, also castigating scores of Christian students who walked out during his presentation.

He said, “We can learn to ignore the ‘bull---’ in the Bible about gay people. The same way, the same way we have learned to ignore the ‘bull---’ in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about virginity, about masturbation. We ignore ‘bull---’ in the Bible about all sorts of things. The Bible is a radically pro-slavery document. Slave owners waved Bibles over their heads during the Civil War and justified it.” After the students walked out in protest, Savage said, “It's funny, as someone who’s on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible, how pansy-a--- some people react when you push back.”

Two weeks later, on April 29th, he issued a clear apology for using the term “pansy-a---” to describe the walkout of the students but emphatically denied that he was attacking Christianity: “I did not attack Christianity. I attacked hypocrisy. [His emphasis.] My remarks can only be read as an attack on all Christians if you believe that all Christians are hypocrites. Which I don't believe.”

So, an attack on the Bible as a “radically pro-slavery document” which was also very wrong on human sexuality is not an attack on Christianity?

The same day Savage issued his apology, he launched into a similar tirade, this time while speaking in the chapel (!) of Elmhurst College in Illinois (once again, deviating from his anti-bullying topic). He also had some choice words for the Pope: “What the Pope is saying is that the only thing that stands between my [expletive deleted] and Brad Pitt’s mouth is a piece of paper....What the Pope is saying is that once we're all gay-married we're going to go extinct in a generation because once we're all gay-married, we're gonna forget which hole [expletive deleted] babies.” And I imagine that this was not an attack on Catholicism?

Savage posted another column on May 1st, further justifying his interpretation of Scripture: “There are untrue things in the Bible—and the Koran and the Book of Mormon and every other ‘sacred’ text—and you don't have to take my word for it: just look at all the biblical ‘shoulds,’ ‘shall nots,’ and ‘abominations’ that religious conservatives already choose to ignore. They know that not everything in the Bible is true. All Christians read the Bible selectively. Some read it hypocritically—and the hypocrites react very angrily when anyone has the nerve to point that out.”

Perhaps there are actually principles of interpretation that help Christians (and Jews) understand and apply the Scriptures?

Let’s start here: Christians are quick to point to Leviticus 18:22 in their condemnation of homosexual practice: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” Gay activists and their straight allies are quick to ask: “But what about all the other abominations listed in Leviticus?”

Actually, within Leviticus, only homosexual practice is singled out as an abomination, but elsewhere, the people of Israel are told that they should not eat shellfish (see Leviticus 11, although the word abomination is not used there) while in Leviticus 19, the text says, “You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material” (Leviticus 19:19). Why don’t Christians pay attention to these other verses?

The answer is simple. Within the Torah (God’s Teaching and Law), there were many laws given to Israel to keep them separate from the nations (like Leviticus 19:19). That’s why the Torah said that certain foods, like shellfish, were unclean for the Israelites but not for all people (see Deuteronomy 14:7, 19). On the other hand, there were laws given to Israel that were universal in scope, like the command not to murder.

When it comes to homosexual practice, not only it is the only sinful action singled out in Leviticus as an abomination, but it is part of a list of universal moral prohibitions, including incest and other forbidden sexual acts. We know this because the chapter states that the Lord judged the pagan nations for these very acts, and if acts were wrong for idol-worshiping pagans, and they were wrong for the people of Israel (see Leviticus 18:24-30). And when we see that the prohibition against homosexual practice is reiterated in the New Testament, the case is settled for those who accept the Bible as God’s Word.

Dan, are you following? I’m not angry with you at all. I’m simply trying to help. We’ll tackle the issue of the Bible and slavery next.
Dr. Michael Brown

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and is the author of 20 books. He has served as a professor at a number of seminaries and hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.