J. Matt Barber
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Whether you like him or not -- Bayou Brat James Carville, notable Democratic Party strategist and Bill Clinton advisor, was appropriately credited for his pivotal role in helping to put the former adulterer-in-chief in the oval office back in 1992. Carville boiled down the theme of the Clinton candidacy to four simple words: "It's the economy, stupid." By focusing like a laser beam on the hot button issue of the day (the economy) Carville helped Clinton to co-opt that issue and to make it his own.
The economy is always a major area of concern for most americans from a fiscal standpoint; however, on the field of battle in today's culture war, one of the most significant and contentious issues, particularly to people of faith, is the rapid destruction of traditional family values, liberty of conscience, and freedom of speech at the hands of leftist and secularists who condone, promote, and/or participate in dangerous, unhealthy, and traditionally shameful sexual behaviors.
Take it from someone who knows, for those who value the sanctity of marriage, and respect the Biblical model of human sexuality (one-man/one-woman within in the bounds of holy matrimony) it's not a very safe time to publicly express those values and beliefs.
Unfortunately, the situation only promises to get worse as systematic religious discrimination, ironically wielded under the guise of a morally relative and all encompassing notion of "tolerance," continues to fix its strangle-hold on detractors of both the homosexual lifestyle, and so-called "gay-marriage."
It's becoming more and more commonplace. People of faith, and anyone else who dares to speak out against sexual immorality, or to defend the time honored definitions of marriage and family, are no longer just ostracized, but are frequently silenced through fear and intimidation, fired from their jobs, and in some cases, have even been jailed, beaten, or killed.
The latest example of such religious discrimination in today's values depleted and amoral pop culture, involves Robert J. Smith who, by all accounts, was a well-respected and highly productive member of the Washington, D.C. Metro Board.
Maryland Governor Robert Elrich (R) recently caved in to pressure by radical "gay" activists and fired Smith for engaging in public "hate-speech." What did Smith say? In an interview on a local cable television program, while discussing so-called "homosexual-marriage," Smith replied to a speaker who asserted that homosexuals did not want the government interfering in their sex life. Smith countered by summing up his own Roman-Catholic beliefs on the subject: "That's fine, that's fine," said Smith, " but that doesn't mean that government should proffer a special place of entitlement within the laws of the United States for persons of sexual deviancy."
Whoa stop the presses! Call in the "hate" police! You mean Smith had the gall to refer to homosexual behavior as deviant? We should all demand he be shackled and dragged off to a "progressive" re-education camp and flogged with a rolled up copy of "The advocate" until he involuntarily blurts out "Bible, bad -- homo, good."
Let's consider Smith's words for a moment, and the "hateful" and "intolerant" meaning behind those words. Deviancy is defined as: "differing from a norm or from the accepted standard of society." Have we actually reached the point where sodomy is considered "the norm," and "the accepted standard of society?" Well, according to Governor Elrich and his homosexual activist cohorts, not only have we reached that point anyone who says otherwise is to be severely and summarily punished.
You want to talk about intolerance? What about tolerance for differing religious viewpoints? You want to talk about hate? The only hate we see here is the hateful, anti-Catholic actions of Elrich and his "gay" activist allies.
It's of little consolation that Elrich's actions in firing Smith are both clearly unconstitutional and grossly un-american. In today's culture of liberal judicial activism, if Smith challenges his firing, the courts may very well let this act of blatant religious discrimination stand ñ but I hope I'm wrong.
It's a travesty to be sure, but kudos to Smith for taking such a courageous and principled stand, and for verbalizing his beliefs, and the beliefs of millions of other americans, in such a pointed and unequivocal fashion.
If there's any thing positive to be gained from Smith's ordeal, it's this: In his public comments about homosexual marriage, Smith not only hit the nail on the head, he stumbled onto the much larger issue
Homosexuality is not a neutral status or state of being as typified by ones membership in a suspect, minority class (such as being black or female). It's about sexual deviancy. It's about choosing to define one's identity based upon with whom, and how one elects to achieve sexual gratification -- IT'S THE BEHaVIOR, STUPID!
Many pro-family organizations, conservative politicians, and clergymen seem to have surrendered to have given up on addressing the negative moral, physical, and emotional implications of homosexual behavior, and have instead chosen to hunker down and play defense to simply try to "defend traditional marriage." "We've lost on the behavior issue, so let's circle the wagons in defense of marriage," is the attitude that seems to prevail. But just because a large portion of society has chosen to disregard the negative aspects of the homosexual lifestyle, doesn't mean that those negative lifestyle aspects shouldn't continue to be challenged.
In the tradition of James Carville, perhaps it's time that proponents of traditional marriage and sexual morality narrow the focus a bit. Perhaps it's time to address; once again, the often mind boggling moral and health related pitfalls associated with the homosexual lifestyle.
It's nothing personal. It's not an attack on any individual person because of who that person is; but rather, it's simply an honest and legitimate debate as to whether we should all be forced to accept and honor what that person chooses to do whether we should have to view that behavior as good, moral, and praiseworthy despite thousands of years of Judeo/Christian tradition, and good-ole common sense that decidedly says it is not.
Come on, let's call a spade, a spade ñ let's call dangerous behavior, dangerous behavior ñ let's call sin, sin. as they say, the best defense is a good offense, and it's time to go on the offense no matter how offensive it might be to those who don't want to hear it.
It's unfortunate that there hasn't been more of an effort to debunk the "hate" and "intolerance" rhetoric and hyperbole bandied about by the left as they seek to quell all criticism of homosexual behavior. It's time for blacks and other genuine minorities to take back the language of true civil rights, which has been hijacked by radical homosexual activist in an effort to further the fraudulent concept that any and all sexual behavior must be fully accepted without question, or those who refuse to accept that behavior have somehow committed a "hate-crime" against those who choose to engage in that behavior.
It's time to focus once again on behavior as we seek to protect the sanctity of marriage, and put to rest this ridiculous, oxymoronic, and androgynous counterfeit referred to as "same-sex" marriage.
People of faith should begin to beat the drum ñ to make it clear that to speak out against homosexual behavior is neither to "hate," nor to be "intolerant" of the people who engage in that behavior. In fact, the Judeo/Christian model is to love those persons, but to "hate" the sinful behavior in which they engage. It demands that we are "intolerant" of expressly sinful behavior. again, it's nothing personal. It's the Biblical model, and the Bible is an equal opportunity "discriminator." The same goes for persons who engage in other sexual sin such as pedophilia, adultery, polygamy, or fornication.
I wonder why don't we see roving bands of angry, militant fornicators and adulterers marching in the streets demanding that we stop "hating" them, and "tolerate" their sexual behaviors without question? I guess it's probably just a matter of time. Why have we yet to hear about "pedophile pride," "polygamy pride," or "adulterer pride" in our public schools and corporate "diversity training?" I guess it's just a matter of time. Finally, why have there been no pride parades for people who define their identity based upon a sexual penchant for Pigmies in pink bunny suits with jumper cables and a trapeze? I guess it's just a matter of time.
It's an uphill battle. The left has done a masterful job of selling the lie of packaging the propaganda, neatly gift wrapped with colorful words like "hate," "intolerance," "discrimination," and "close-mindedness." To the average person who formulates opinions based on crafty thirty-second sound bites, it's an easy lie to buy. Who wants to "hate?" I don't. Who wants to be "intolerant?" I don't. Who wants to be "closed-minded?" I don't.
Maybe it's time to push back a little, and to stop allowing the left to paint those who speak out against the homosexual lifestyle as "hateful and intolerant bigots," with their broad rainbow brush of "enlightenment," as Governor Elrich did to Robert Smith.
The irony is palpable. In his "post-firing" public statement, Governor Elrich, displaying a patent intolerance for Smith's mainstream religious beliefs, actually had the audacity to say that Smith's comments were "highly inappropriate, insensitive and unacceptable. They are in direct conflict to my administration's commitment to...tolerance."
It's equally ironic that while defending homosexual behavior, proponents of that behavior, like Governor Elrich, will often shake their angry little fingers at people of faith and repeat Christ's words when He said: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." But curiously, they always seem to conveniently overlook the words Christ spoke in nearly the same breath to the prospective target of that first stone -- that being "Now go and sin no more."
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement