an information resource
for orthodox Anglicans

Blacklisted: Kevin Sorbo on Being Shunned by Hollywood for His Beliefs

April 6th, 2014 Jill Posted in Intolerance Comments Off

Havilah Steinman, The Foundry

Kevin Sorbo, star of the film “God’s Not Dead,” ranked fifth at the U.S. box office, says he knows he’s on a blacklist in liberal Hollywood for being independent-minded.
 
When Beliefnet’s John W. Kennedy interviewed Sorbo about his role as an atheist professor in ”God’s Not Dead,” the actor opened up about his faith, political views, and career decisions colored by Hollywood’s antipathy toward conservatives.
“They scream for tolerance,” Sorbo said. “They scream for freedom of speech, but it you disagree at all with what they’re saying then they can blacklist you. They have the power to do that.”
 
These remarks came after Kennedy asked the actor if he’s experienced a backlash in Hollywood for his views and Sorbo responded:
Oh, sure. I mean I’m an independent in Hollywood. I’ve voted Democratic in my life, I’ve voted Republican in my life. I’m one of the few people I think in Hollywood who actually comes out and says, ‘Hey, you know what, I vote for who I think is the best person, period.’ I’m not a party guy. There are people on both sides of the political fence that I don’t agree with. To me, I look to see who I honestly think is going to be the best person. So, that, in itself, is enough to get me blacklisted in Hollywood …”
Sam Sorbo, the actor’s wife, says she experienced a backlash over her political views on education.
 
Read here
 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

An Indian immigrant’s view: Leftist indoctrination in Europe

March 6th, 2014 Chris Sugden Posted in Intolerance, Politics, Religious Liberty Comments Off

By Vijeta Uniyal, via The Commentator

The Leftwing narrative is running unopposed on European campuses. The institutions of higher learning that once heralded the age of enlightenment are looking more and more like Leftwing, neo-totalitarian Seminaries, and I say that coming from India

While giving finishing touches to his Ph.D. dissertation the Dutch student Jerke de Vries had a seemingly harmless idea. A believing Christian that he was, he decided to thank God in his dissertation acknowledgement.

What seemed like a nice gesture to him, did not sit well with the members of the Dissertation Committee at the University of Wageningen (The Netherlands). They gave him a choice between God and the doctoral title.

He was ordered to blacken the sentence acknowledging God in several hundred printed copies of his dissertation, or face a certain rejection of his thesis.

Apparently in the committee’s view, it is one thing to acknowledge a favorite pub, a regular hang-out or even the local soccer team, like other b[u]tch mates, but by mentioning God the student had clearly crossed the norms of acceptability.

Finally, Jerke de Vries did bow down to the dictates of the committee, but kept his pride by physically removing the entire acknowledgment page from several hundred copies of his dissertation, instead of blackening out the ‘objectionable’ sentence, as the committee had instructed.

What happened last week in a Dutch University is not an isolated case of academic overreach by overzealous members of a committee. Universities throughout Europe and North America are increasingly turning into hostile places, not only for believing Christians, but for anyone holding convictions other than the ones approved by the leftwing establishment.

Read here

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Why Is the Southern Poverty Law Center Trying to Crush a Small Jewish Organization?

February 26th, 2014 Jill Posted in Healing, Homosexuality, Intolerance Comments Off

By Selwyn Duke, American Thinker

It almost seems as if certain purported civil-rights activists think homosexuals are like some organized-crime groups: you can join the gang, but the only way you can leave is feet first.
 
A case in point is a lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey against JONAH International — a Jewish organization that helps people overcome unwanted same-sex attractions (SSA) — and some of its associates by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). And what is the basis for the lawsuit? As co-founder of JONAH Arthur Goldberg explained to me:
 
[T]he lawsuit was filed under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act alleging the commission of a consumer fraud on the unproven theory that same-sex attraction is inborn and unchangeable. Therefore, the programs and counselors to which we refer people have allegedly committed a consumer fraud because those seeking such services allegedly cannot change. Their goal is to put us (and other small organizations like ours) out of business. 

Fraud? People with SSAs cannot change? JONAH's satisfied program participants say otherwise. And here are just a few of their testimonials:

Read here


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Gay now means rubbish. Get over it

November 19th, 2013 Jill Posted in Gay Activism, Intolerance Comments Off

By Brendan O'Neill, Telegraph

Young people, eh? They’re always changing the meaning of words. When I was a youngster, “sick” meant ill; now it means good. “Ill” also means good, or more accurately doubly good – something is “ill” if it’s really cool. “Mad” is now used to mean lots – if someone has “mad style” that means they have lots of style, not that they look like Su Pollard circa 1985. In some subcultures, the meaning of the word “bare” has completely changed, too – once it meant uncovered, or basic and simple; now it means “lots and lots of stuff”. So if you go to someone’s house and see that they have loads of candles, you’d say they have “bare candles”. Weird, I know.
 
And these warped words are spreading from behind the bike sheds (or wherever schoolchildren hang out these days) into the mainstream worlds of work and everyday life. My brother, who’s 24, is a successful trader at a very respectable bank, and yet, having grown up in a somewhat grimy part of north London, he frequently uses the words listed above. “Did you drink a lot last night?” I’ll ask him. “Bare amounts,” he’ll reply.
 
Then there’s the word “gay”. Young people have changed the meaning of this word, too. Somewhat controversially, gay now means rubbish, or pathetic, or lame (another word whose meaning has changed – I’m just about old enough to remember when “lame” was used to refer to someone who couldn’t walk, before my generation started using it to mean rubbish).
 
Yesterday, the gay-rights group Stonewall launched a campaign to preserve the use of the word gay to mean homosexual rather than naff. It has designed posters aimed at schoolkids that say: “Gay: Let’s get the meaning straight.” It is fighting a losing battle. When youth culture starts fiddling with particular words, little can be done about it. Imagine if the General Medical Council launched a campaign to get schoolchildren to use the word “sick” properly – it would be laughed out of every school in the land and probably find itself branded “whack” (an American word for “bad”, now being imported by British youth, who of course can’t say “bad” anymore because bad means good). It’s the same with Stonewall – its schools campaign is unlikely to have much traction with yoof for whom gay now only means lame.
 
Very dubiously, Stonewall says young people’s use of the word gay to mean rubbish is homophobic.
 
Read here
 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Double standards on tolerance promoted in European Parliament

September 21st, 2013 Jill Posted in Civil Liberty, Intolerance Comments Off

From European Dignity Watch

A proposed Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance was presented to members of the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee (LIBE) on the 17th of September. It called for direct surveillance of supposedly intolerant behavior of individual citizens and groups by Governmental bodies. Put forward by an NGO, the ideas contained in the policy proposal would not only create double standards on the issue of tolerance but would severely limit freedom of speech and expression. It is part of a broader trend of such ideas becoming official EU policy.

A prominent 45-minute slot was given to the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR), to present their policy proposal at a recent meeting of LIBE this week. The ECTR is an international NGO established in October 2008 by Aleksander Kwasniewski, formerPresident of Poland and Moshe Kantor, President of the European Jewish Congress. Unfortunately, their understanding of tolerance turns out to be a highly problematic mixture of vaguely defined terms (such as tolerance), double standards (regarding to whom this tolerance should apply), and a radical call for public control of citizens and private groups.

According to Section 4(f) of the document: “There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant (….) especially (…) as far as freedom of expression is concerned”. And in Section 1, it broadly defines “tolerance” as “respect for and acceptance of the expression, preservation and development of the distinct identity of a group”.

Read here

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Tolerance, Health, and Fascism

September 16th, 2013 Jill Posted in Intolerance, Political Correctness, Religious Liberty Comments Off

by Denis Prager, National Review Online

I cannot count the number of times I heard liberal professors and liberal writers quote the phrase: “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

The phrase is brilliant. There is actually no threat to America of fascism coming from the right. The essence of the American Right, after all, is less government; and fascism, by definition, demands ever larger government.

Therefore, if there is a real fascist threat to America, it comes from the left, whose appetite for state power is essentially unlimited. But because the Left has so long dominated American intellectual, academic, artistic, and media life, it has succeeded in implanting fear of the Right.

I have never written that there is a threat of fascism in America. I always considered the idea overwrought. But now I believe there really is such a threat — and it will come draped not in an American flag, but in the name of tolerance and health.

[...]  Take tolerance.

Last week, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that an event photographer’s refusal on religious grounds to shoot the commitment ceremony of a same-sex couple amounted to illegal discrimination.

The photographer had never objected to photographing gays. She did not, however, wish to be part of a ceremony that she religiously objected to. In America today, thanks to myriad laws and progressive justices, one can be threatened with jail time for refusing to participate in an event he or she has religious objections to.

This is what happened to a florist in Washington State who had always sold flowers to gay customers, but refused to be the florist for a gay wedding: sued and fined.

This is what happened to a baker in Oregon who had always sold his goods to gays, but refused to provide his products to a gay wedding: sued and fined.

This is what happened in Massachusetts, Illinois, and elsewhere to Catholic Charities, historically the largest adoption agency in America. Their placing children with married (man-woman) couples, rather than with same-sex couples, was deemed intolerant and a violation of the law. In those and other states, Catholic Charities has left adoption work.

In the name of tolerance — fighting sexual harassment — five- and six-year-old boys all over the country are brought to the police for innocently touching a girl.

In the name of tolerance — girls’ high school teams in California and elsewhere must now accept male players who feel female.

In the name of tolerance – businesses cannot fire a man who one day shows up on the sales floor dressed as a woman.

For the Left, tolerance does not mean tolerance. It means first, acceptance. And second, celebration. That is totalitarianism: You not only have to live with what you may differ with, dear citizen, you have to celebrate it or pay a steep price.

Read here

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

If you want to see intolerance in action, look no further than the humanists’ war on faith schools

September 3rd, 2013 Jill Posted in Education, Faith, Intolerance, Secularism Comments Off

By Brendan O'Neill, Telegraph

If you want to see what intolerance means, look no further than the current campaign against faith schools. Spearheaded by the British Humanist Association (BHA), and cheered on by liberal broadsheet newspapers and people who fancy themselves as right-on, the campaign depicts itself as a socially enlightened effort to prevent children from being split into religious camps. But in truth it is a deeply illiberal assault on the fundamental right of parents to socialise their children into the values and beliefs that they consider to be true and profound. The rights of parents over their children, and of religious communities more broadly, are being severely undermined by those who, with an Orwellian glint in their eye, would love nothing more than to rid Britain of the alleged blight of faith schools.
 
The intolerant anti-faith school lobby scored another hit at the end of last week, when the Catholic school the London Oratory was slammed by the Office of the Schools Adjudicator (OSA) for having an "unfair" admissions policy. Following a complaint from the BHA, which seems to spend an extraordinary amount of time inviting the state to reprimand schools that have any hint of a religious ethos, the London Oratory is now being forced to ditch its policy of prioritising children based on their parents' activities in local Catholic parishes. Kids whose parents were openly devout in their Catholicicism – for example by singing in the church choir or visiting the sick on behalf of the church – were looked upon more favourably by the Oratory than kids whose parents were a quieter kind of Catholic. No longer. Describing the policy as "discriminatory", the OSA has told the Oratory to stop prioritising children on the basis of their parents' faith-based activities.
 
Read here
 
 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Christians Need Not Apply

July 26th, 2013 Jill Posted in Discrimination, Intolerance, Religious Liberty Comments Off

By Joseph Backholm, Family Policy Institute of Washington

If you don’t actually remember it, you’re certainly aware of the Cold War the United States was involved in with the USSR for forty-four years. We were fighting, but everyone was being passive aggressive about it.

Something similar has been happening culturally in the war on religious freedom. For years the war has been undeclared and the damage to religious freedom has generally been classified as friendly fire. “I wasn’t shooting at you, I was trying to shoot hate and intolerance; so sorry about that.”

The victims have been numerous. Here in Washington State, a florist is fighting for her business in the face of two separate lawsuits that arose from her decision not to provide floral services for the wedding ceremony of long-time gay customers.

And around the country bakeries, doctors, counselors, court clerks, and wedding photographers have been victims of the war on intolerance; specifically because of their beliefs about sexuality and marriage.

All along the way, those tightening the noose around the neck of religious freedom have claimed to be allies all along.

That’s changing. Now that they feel they have the upper hand, they no longer feel the need to be tolerant.

Read here

 

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

That way lies tyranny: A Canadian warning to America about redefining marriage

July 9th, 2013 Jill Posted in Gay Marriage, Intolerance Comments Off

by Campaign Life Coalition

It’s been said that history is a vast early warning system. If so, Christians in America should heed a somber warning from Canada based on our country’s documented experience after redefining marriage. The U.S. Supreme Court ruling that recently struck down the Defense of Marriage Act less than 2 weeks ago has paved the way for the redefinition of marriage in your country.

The direct consequence of homosexual 'marriage' in Canada has been the loss of free speech, parental rights, the persecution of Christians, and systemic discrimination in the workplace. Neither people of faith, nor Republican Party leaders should believe the lie that legalizing same-sex marriage “won’t affect the daily lives of heterosexuals”. It has in Canada. It will there too.

Campaign Life Coalition has documented in chronologic order, the progression of religious persecution over the past decade in a report titled “Anti-Christian Persecution & Oppression in Canada: The high cost of legalizing same-sex marriage”.

Download the CLC report here which offers a glimpse of America’s certain future should it fail to stop the gay ‘marriage’ juggernaut.

In 2003 Canada’s provincial courts began usurping the authority of democratically-elected representatives by legislating from the bench on gay “marriage”. Since that time, Christians who publicly disagreed with homosexuality became the targets of persecution and tyranny. Following the redefinition of marriage at the federal level in 2005, this discrimination against people of faith acquired a type of moral legitimacy and proceeds in unrelenting fashion.

Read here


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Ralph Reed: Was Obama a ‘bigot’ before endorsing same-sex marriage?

July 1st, 2013 Jill Posted in Gay Marriage, Intolerance, Marriage Comments Off

By Ashleigh Killough, CNN

Faith and Freedom Coalition chairman Ralph Reed sparred with MSNBC host Rachel Maddow on Sunday, saying opponents of same-sex marriage should not be viewed as intolerant.

His comments came after Maddow said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that those who oppose the right for gay and lesbian couples to legally wed think public policy should "demean gay people as a way of expressing disapproval of the fact that we exist."
 
"But you don't make any less of us exist," she added. "You're just arguing in favor of discrimination."

Saying he "can't let that go," Reed, an unapologetic social conservative, jumped in to disagree.

"This suggestion that because somebody wants to affirm the institution of marriage, that they're ipso facto intolerant – by that argument, Barack Obama was intolerant 14 months ago," he said.

Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage in May 2012, saying his views on the issue had "evolved." When he campaigned for president in 2008, Obama said he was not in favor of same-sex marriage and felt that civil unions were sufficient.

Reed also pointed to a host of other lawmakers who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which did not recognize same-sex marriages for federal purposes. The Supreme Court struck down a key part of that law last week, effectively granting same-sex married couples more than 1,000 marriage rights and benefits that heterosexual couples can receive.

But Reed said many of those who previously supported DOMA are now against it.

"By that argument, 342 members of the House, 85 members of the Senate – including, by the way, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Pat Leahy – who all voted for the law, and Bill Clinton, who signed it into law, were intolerant and motivated by an animus and a hatred for gays."

Read here


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Gay Marriage: Anger At David Jones’ Comments

February 15th, 2013 Jill Posted in Freedom Of Speech, Gay Marriage, Intolerance Comments Off

By Darren McCaffrey, Sky News Reporter

Welsh Secretary David Jones is attacked over claims same-sex partners cannot provide a suitable environment for raising children.

Welsh Secretary David Jones has provoked criticism after saying that same-sex partners could not provide a "warm and safe environment" to raise children.

The Conservative MP made the remarks when asked on ITV Wales' Face To Face programme about the Government's plans to introduce gay marriage, which he voted against.

He said: "I regard marriage as an institution that has developed over many centuries, essentially for the provision of a warm and safe environment for the upbringing of children, which is clearly something that two same-sex partners can't do."

The Prime Minister's spokesperson responded by saying David Cameron rejects Mr Jones' claims about children in same-sex families and that he is in favour of same-sex adoption.

"The Prime Minister believes gay families can provide warm and safe environment for raising children," the spokesperson said.

The shadow Welsh secretary, Owen Smith, claimed the comments proved that "nasty party is alive and well under David Cameron".

He said: "David Jones' comments are profoundly offensive and he should apologise immediately."

Equality campaigning group Stonewall have also attacked the Welsh Secretary's comments as "offensive and inaccurate".

Read here

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

It isn’t those who oppose gay marriage who are the bigots – it is the liberals who demonise them

February 7th, 2013 Jill Posted in Gay Marriage, Intolerance Comments Off

Polly Toynbee - 'nest of bigots'By Stephen Glover, Mailonline

Then I heard a Tory MP whom I hadn’t heard of speak in the Commons debate on Tuesday. David Burrowes, a leading opponent of gay marriage, described how he had been called a Nazi and a bigot and subjected to death threats because of his views. His children had been told that their father is a bigot and a homophobe.
 
I thought of Polly Toynbee, and her ‘nest of bigots’. What nasty, intolerant language to use. The language of a bigot, in fact. I asked myself whether anyone I knew, or had heard, spoke about the supporters of gay marriage in such terms. I couldn’t think of any.

Then I took another look at the YouGov poll so freely cited by the BBC. It’s true that 56 per cent of respondents said that they were in favour of gay marriage, but there were 38 per cent against. That’s a substantial minority, and perhaps the figures would be different if the question were asked in a different way.

For example, a ComRes poll commissioned by a group called the Coalition for Marriage asked whether ‘marriage should continue to be defined as a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman’. This poll found 53 per cent in favour of this proposition and 36 per cent opposed.

I wonder how often this poll was mentioned by the BBC. I’ve heard no reference to it. To a large extent, the question frames the answer. YouGov put it one way, ComRes another.

My guess — no, it is closer to a conviction — is that only very few people are passionately in favour of gay marriage. Indeed, the YouGov survey found that only seven per cent of voters rate the issue as one of their most important concerns.

Moreover, the British are polite and tolerant people, unwilling to erect barriers against their fellow citizens. They are also terrified of being branded as ‘homophobic’, which has joined ‘racist’ and ‘Nazi’ in the lexicon of things that none of us wants to be.

Read here

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

There is a lot of illiberalism amongst so-called liberals and a lot of intolerance from those who once preached tolerance

February 7th, 2013 Jill Posted in Gay Marriage, Intolerance Comments Off

Tim MontgomerieBy Tim Montgomerie, Conservative Home

I was occupied with other things for most of Tuesday and missed the debates on the same-sex marriage legislation. It was, overall, a very high quality debate with both sides making important points. It contrasted with much of the preceding 'debate' in the media, on Twitter and in veiled threats to 'out' MPs who didn't vote the right way. David Burrowes MP used the debate to talk about some of the abuse he has faced. Some of it directed at his children. He worried that this intolerance of his own opposition to gay marriage was a sign of things to come: [...]
 
It is a great shame that the Coalition has not done enough to address the fear of religious people that they'll soon live in a country where more traditionalist views might be banished from the public square. There is a lot of illiberalism amongst so-called liberals and a lot of intolerance from those who once preached tolerance. While it's true that Maria Miller and other ministers have done much to address concerns about the narrow implications for religious liberty of the equal marriage bill there has not been a bolder, broader recognition that a whole series of equality laws and cultural changes are causing religious people and communities anxiety. There is, of course, no room for hateful attitudes but there must be room for the great faiths to enjoy freedom of conscience and association.
 
Read here
 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Adrian Smith Interview Special — The Christian Institute

January 4th, 2013 Jill Posted in Intolerance, Religious Liberty Comments Off

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Why the PC Brigade is making Britain less tolerant

November 30th, 2012 Jill Posted in Intolerance, Political Correctness Comments Off

by Alistair Thompson, The Commentator

The Rotherham Council/UKIP case is just another symptom of the intolerance and contempt displayed by the politically correct towards ordinary people

On Saturday we learnt that two foster carers from Rotherham had the three children they were looking after removed – their crime, membership of the UK Independence Party.

But as our political leaders scrambled to denounce this latest incident as a "one off" the sad truth is that it is anything but. Indeed these cases are occurring with an alarming regularity and show that Britain has become a less tolerant country. What is more, the fingerprints of Messers Cameron, Clegg, and Miliband are clearly visible.

Less than two years ago the PM branded UKIP members “fruitcakes, loonies, and closet racists”. The clear implication is that UKIP is no better than far-right groups like the British National Party (BNP), or English Defence League (EDL).

Is it any wonder that social workers, who have had years of state-backed equality training and indoctrination, think they can act with impunity against UKIP supporters, since, just like the PM, they see them as swivel-eyed head bangers, not fit to be parents?

But this is just the latest example of the establishment's increasing intolerance.

Just a fortnight ago former housing manager Adrian Smith, from Trafford, had to take his employers, the Trafford Housing Trust, to the High Court for breach of contract. Mr. Smith, who had been demoted and had his wages docked by 40 percent for posting a comment on his private Facebook about the government's plans – saying he thought gay marriage in churches was an "equality too far" – won his case. Despite winning, and being awarded ‘token’ damages, the Trust has made clear that they will not reinstate Mr. Smith to his former role.

Despite Mr. Smith’s legal victory, the Trafford Housing Trust feels that his demotion on the basis of what he describes as “his Christian faith and views” is and was justified.

Where was the political outcry over this case? Has the PM issued a statement on Mr. Smith’s case? No.

Read here


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

A summer of liberal intolerance

October 12th, 2012 Jill Posted in Intolerance Comments Off

By Edwin Meese, Heritage Foundation

As summer faded to fall, a Chicago alderman’s fury toward Chick-fil-A finally seemed to be cooling. But fall is fickle in the windy city, and Proco Joe Moreno once again is threatening to stall the chicken chain from opening in his ward.

Moreno, Mayor Rahm (“Chicago Values”) Emanuel and other big-city officials piled on Chick-fil-A after Dan Cathy, the company’s president and COO, publicly supported the biblical definition of marriage. As they were soon reminded, though, for a public official to deny a business license because of the businessman’s marriage views would amount to unlawful discrimination against his viewpoints.
 
Sadly, controversies such as the one that Moreno’s overblown comments helped create grow more frequent, and Chick-fil-A is only the most visible target. Advocates for “tolerance” increasingly push traditional ideas on marriage, family, life and faith out of public life.
 
In June, sociologist Mark Regnerus at the University of Texas-Austin, became the target of a blogosphere blaze of character assassination.
 
His offense? Regnerus constructed a nationally representative data set of 3,000 young adults and produced a study. It found that young people whose parents had same-sex relationships fared worse in key aspects of life compared to those from intact biological families. Never mind that his critical reviewers had judged the report an improvement over previous studies. Regnerus, like Chick-fil-A, was accused of being “anti-gay.”
 
Read here
 
 
 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Deaf Diversity Chief May Lose Her Job for Opposing Gay Marriage

October 11th, 2012 Jill Posted in Gay Activism, Intolerance Comments Off

By Maggie Gallagher, National Review Online

Gaullaudet University has put Dr. Angela McCaskill, its chief diversity officer, on paid leave because she signed a petition to put gay marriage before the voters (AM emphasis) of Maryland:
If your job is to promote diversity, signing a petition to get a referendum on overturning Maryland’s gay marriage law on the ballot is bound to be controversial. But that’s exactly what Dr. Angela McCaskill, Gallaudet University’s Chief Diversity Officer, did in July. Now the resulting furor, first reported at Planet Deafqueer, has resulted in McCaskill being put on paid administrative leave today.
 
“Dr. McCaskill has participated in a legislative initiative that some feel is inappropriate for an individual serving as Chief Diversity Officer,” Gallaudet University President T. Alan Hurwitz said in a statement. “However, other individuals feel differently.”
 
According to the statement, Hurwitz will use McCaskill’s leave to determine her future at Gallaudet. An interim Chief Diversity Officer is expected to be appointed.
 
McCaskill didn’t respond to a request for comment. According to her university biography, she was the first black deaf woman to receive a PhD from the school.
Nobody that I know of is losing his job for being for gay marriage. Is this more evidence of what gay marriage means — not diversity but a new public moral norm?
 
Read here
 
 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Homophobia: what does it really mean?

September 28th, 2012 Jill Posted in Culture, Homosexuality, Intolerance Comments Off

by Zac Alstin, MercatorNet

In discussing same-sex issues, let's scrap the labels and return to facts.

According to the United States Centre for Disease Control (CDC), as of 2009, men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for approximately 2 percent of the US population, but 56 percent of people living with HIV. This same demographic suffered 61 percent of all new HIV infections that year.

The CDC uses the concept of MSM because actions speak louder than words: actual behaviour is a better predictor of disease risk than self-identification. But even though actions speak louder than words, words are much easier to interpret. In fact, words are too easy to interpret, and in our contemporary verbal glut we are at risk of losing touch with the meaning embodied in real actions and real objects.

Here’s the problem: the CDC uses the term “MSM”, and we discover to our surprise that we don’t really know how to interpret such a concept. If only they’d said “gay men”, we could all slide neatly into our prejudices. MSM is a fact; “homosexuality” is an idea, an interpretation, an ideology, a historical movement, and a rallying point in the culture war. Does MSM equal homosexuality? Some would answer “yes”, others “no”, and thus we are back in the realm of interpretation.

If we are going to be intellectually honest, we should try to capture the truth beneath mere interpretation and prejudice. But escaping from an established framework is hard work. Some people frame the debate over same-sex marriage as an attack on traditional values by a gay lobby intent on normalising and gaining public affirmation for their lifestyle choices. Other people frame the debate as a homophobic bulldozer of religious conviction crushing the basic human rights of a long-victimised minority.

How can we reach the truth?

Read here


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Christian ousted from Green Party Group of Councillors

September 11th, 2012 Jill Posted in Civil Liberty, Gay Marriage, Intolerance, Religious Liberty Comments Off

From Christian Concern

Christina Summers, a member of Brighton and Hove City Council, has been dismissed from the Green Group over expressing her views on same-sex marriage in a free vote.
 
The Green Group of councillors announced its decision today (10 September) which was held off until the end of the Green Party conference to avoid negative publicity.
 
Several Green Councillors called for her dismissal when she voted against a motion in support of the Government’s plans to introduce same-sex marriage at a council meeting in July.
 
At the launch of the Party’s disciplinary Inquiry Panel, shortly after the vote, Councillor Summers explained that her decision was based on her Christian convictions, stating “I’m accountable to God above any political party”.
In response to the news of her expulsion, Councillor Summers said:
 
“I have been waiting for weeks for my colleagues to make a clear and public decision. “They have no idea how much I have been wanting to say to them and how many emails, blogs and tweets from the wider party membership I wanted to refute and respond to. But there is a time to speak and a time to be silent.
 
“In view of the Green Party's own special interpretation of equality, my expulsion from the Green Group of councillors should not, in the end, come as a surprise.
 
Read here
 
Read Cranmer here
 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Green Party councillor faces expulsion for opposing gay marriage

August 17th, 2012 Jill Posted in Gay Marriage, Intolerance Comments Off

From Conservative Home

Cllr Christina Summers, a Green Party councillor in Brighton and Hove is facing expulsion from the Green Party Group on the council. This is because, although she supports civil partnerships she is opposed to gay marriage. The issue was debated by the council on July 19th with a motion on "equal marriage" proposed by a couple of Labour councillors.
 
Green Party policy is to support gay marriage. However Cllr Summers (a Christian) disagrees. She said:
 
"When you touch marriage, you're touching family and you're hitting at the very heart of God and I have an enormous problem with that."
 
The motion was passed anyway. Cllr Jason Kitcat, the council leader, said: "I respect every member's right to freedom of expression in this chamber and we are all free to disagree." They then went on to debate the less exciting but more relevant subject of Council subsidy for bowling clubs.
 
That should all be fine. Yet now the Green Party are holding a kangaroo court to deliberate on drumming out Cllr Summers. The "panel of inquiry" is "expected to take several weeks" to decide after "establishing the facts." Several weeks to establish the facts? Click here on the webcam and move the cursor forwards to 4 hours 48 minutes for Cllr Summers' speech.
 
 
 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button