Freedom of Speech and the Sin of Homosexuality
Preamble
When I lived in Columbia City, Indiana, no one was writing a religious column for the weekly newspaper. When I found out that they would allow me to write a weekly column for free, it was regarded as a wonderful opportunity. After moving to Denton, Texas, we noted that they had no religious column, either, and I talked to the person in charge. She said they had had trouble in the past with writers missing the deadlines and violating space limitations, but if I could meet those obligations, they would give me a try. It worked out well for more than two years.
Eventually, I wrote about some moral issues, however, and did a series of articles concerning homosexuality. The editor let me know he did not appreciate the first and second articles, and he refused to publish the third. Well, it was his newspaper and the column was free; so no objection could be offered. Shortly thereafter (whether by happenstance or invitation is unknown) articles by other writers began to appear, and my column was only published every other week. Eventually, it became every third week and then four or five. It made writing a series of articles practically impossible. One of the other writers was so bizarre that he began to describe out of body experiences and watching things from above a group of people while he was still seated on the ground. Whoo-oooh.
Before long, the newspaper ceased publishing anyone epreresponsible. The newspaper ceased publishing anyone\'92s religious column for free, although one could pay for the space. I was reminded of that situation after reading what Tom Wacaster (who currently works with the Handley Church of Christ in Fort Worth, Texas) wrote recently (February 6, 2012). He occasionally sends out an on-line publication, called Tom\'92s Pen. The one on the afore-mentioned date was longer than we can include; below are some pertinent excerpts of that communication.
“The Silencing of the Voice of Opposition”
For slightly more than one year the Handley Church of Christ has placed an article in the Meadowbrook News advertising our services, location, and focusing on a wide variety of subject matter. Attempting to develop a lengthy discussion on any particular subject is futile in what limited space we were allotted. So, I would occasionally write two or more articles on one particular topic and run these in a series….
I had written and submitted four articles to the Meadowbrook News on the subject of homosexuality. After the first article ran, I received an email stating strong opposition to the article. I was called "hateful," "unreasonable," and opposed to people being able to pursue "happiness" as set forth in the Constitution. For some reason I do not think the framers of the Constitution had in mind the practice of homosexuality or some other form of deviant behavior as being the "pursuit of happiness."
Shortly before running the second article I received a second email from a different source. The respondent said that I should take another look at the Bible on the subject and if I studied with an open mind and a loving heart that I would come to realize, as that respondent had, that homosexuality was not only approved, but encouraged in God's word. My, my, what twisted reasoning. After the second article was run two weeks later, the emails and complaints become more frequent, and accusations of "hate," "trouble maker," and "homophobic" mentality were cast upon me. The third article was run two weeks later, and the president of the Business Association of Meadowbrook sent me a letter telling me that I was gendering hatred in the community, and that this would not be tolerated by the Meadowbrook community. Wow! Such kind and tolerant words for someone who is supposed to be unkind and intolerant!
The bombshell came in a registered letter dated January 30th, 2012, from the President of the Greater Meadowbrook News informing us that "The Greater Meadowbrook News has always prided itself on being a family-oriented, Eastside paper, promoting what is good about the people and this community.... Therefore, as of this date ... we are terminating your contract with Greater Meadowbrook News."
Our voice has been silenced because of the pressure that was evidently brought upon the Meadowbrook News by those who hate having their sin exposed. Like so many in today's politically correct society, Mr. Conlin (President of the Meadowbrook News) has no idea of how "family oriented" the truth is when it comes to the practice of homosexuality. By silencing the truth, the family is hurt, and society takes one step closer to complete destruction, as was the case of Sodom and Gomorrah. The tragedy is that the voice of truth on the matter of homosexuality and the sinfulness thereof has, for all practical purposes, been silenced.
Radio stations, television stations, and newspapers will not tolerate an open and honest examination of such immoral practices. Ten years ago, Barbara Walters made this amazing, but enlightening statement: "We have done a great many programs about gays and lesbians. We hope that we've opened some minds—and if they're not open, we just don't care anymore" (ABC News talking-head Barbara Walters, accepting a GLAAD [Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation] Media Award for a "20/20" feature touting gays as parents).
Most denominational preachers (and even some so-called preachers for the Lord's church) will no longer preach on the subject of homosexuality or abortion because it produces too much controversy. So, it is left up to you and me to proclaim the truth of the matter—to our friends, our neighbors, our children and anyone who will listen. There is too much at stake to remain silent on the matter. The voice may have been silenced by the enemies of truth, but that does not change the truth—and all of those who helped to bring about such silencing of the truth will give account to God on the Judgment day.
Amen! It is difficult to know whether Mr. Conlin bowed to pressure (advertisers threatening to do business elsewhere) or if he has friends in the “biz” who encouraged him to do what he did. But one thing that was not in evidence was any proof whatsoever that Tom had written anything unkind or untrue!
El Paso
The following item comes from the Alliance Defense Fund and was released last November 18th. It is incredible to read what has occurred in El Paso, but the mayor of the city seems to have the same arrogance that many courts and politicians today have, which is that the will of the people does not matter—nor does the consent of the governed.
Since 2010, the Texas border town has been managed by a mayor intent on cracking down on area churches and shutting them out of the political process. It all started two years ago when the city council passed a measure giving health benefits to homosexual partners—in plain violation of the state's marriage amendment. Area residents didn't agree with the ordinance so they put a referendum on the ballot to void it. "We saw this as a stepping stone to gay 'marriage,'" said one churchgoer. So did several others, and the repeal passed overwhelmingly.
Of course, if the story ended here, the voice of the people would have been heard, but the mayor could not tolerate what was legally done. Now we come to phase two.
Mayor John Cook, angry that the city voted him down, decided to ignore the will of the people and force another vote in the city council. It squeaked through on one ballot—his own. The town was outraged. "We resented highly the fact that the mayor and four City Council people thought they knew better than what the people had voted for," said Ignacio Padilla. If this mayor refused to listen to his constituents, then they determined to elect someone who would. Local churches started circulating a petition that would schedule a recall vote on Mayor Cook and two other council members. Pastor Tom Brown headed up the movement with El Pasoans for Traditional Family Values, and together, they collected enough signatures to hold a special election. "When we got the ordinance on the ballot, it was a moral issue," said Robert Strong. "The second time around, it morphed into an issue of democracy. Citizens' votes were being disregarded, denied. We got about twice as many signatures on the recall petition."
In effect, this is what several courts have done; they have struck down the vote of the people, who went through the legal process to do what they believe is Biblically right. The problem with liberals is that they really don’t care about the law. They want to impose their moral view on others. They have no respect for the Bible or what it teaches; they are secularists to the core, and they are invariably pro-homosexual and pro-abortion. Some will pull any shenanigans they can to have their way. Instead of conceding to the voters (who elected him), Mayor Cook decided to take vengeance against anyone who would dare question him!
Cook sued, arguing Pastor Brown's involvement was a violation of Texas election law, which bars nonprofits—including churches—to intervene in the political process. Still, County Judge Javier Alvarez refused to stop the election, because he believed it would "thwart the will of the people." So Cook sued again. That's when the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) stepped in, and the drama really escalated. Desperate for revenge, the mayor brought personal charges against Pastor Brown, racking up a quarter million dollars in legal fees. But what he did next stunned people across America: he and the district attorney launched a grand jury investigation of every citizen involved in the petition drive. If he's successful, anyone who engaged in El Paso's political process would be prosecuted and indicted.
According to Attorney Joel Oster, ADF has "more than 250 signed affidavits from local citizens who are terrified that they may go to jail for their legitimate political and free speech efforts." "This is America," Oster said, "and the mayor can't be allowed to put his opponents in jail just because he doesn't like the fact that they participated in a valid effort that he doesn't favor."
In the meantime, citizens have packed into city council meetings, and one by one, taken the stand to protest. During Rachel Quintana's testimony, Mayor Cook interrupted the woman and threatened to have her removed. "Thank you. Your time is over. And if you can't remove yourself from the podium, I'll have you removed. You can take your freedom of speech outside."
Well, sure, who needs freedom of speech? Apparently, the mayor of El Paso wants to run the city like a third-world dictator would! It is incredible how far some of these humanists will go. Those who think that the plea to accept homosexuality as legitimate is about tolerance need to think again. Those who think that homosexual marriage is an equal rights issue need to reconsider. These people and their supporters are among the most intolerant people there are. They cancel contracts for religious columns, and thumb their noses at the voters, even threatening them with jail. In fact, they do not want anyone to practice religion outside the walls of the church building.
Vanderbilt
Robert Shibley has written an article titled, “The Fallout from Christian Legal Society.” The CLS has the requirement that its members hold to traditional Christian teachings, but the Supreme Court of the United States, in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez ruled that they had to admit members who did not meet this criteria; they could even lead the organization. No longer did they have to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, and they could be living in fornication or a homosexual relationship.
The following conversation is from an exchange that is on video. Excerpts are between Richard C. McCarty, Vanderbilt’s vice chancellor for academic affairs and provost, and Vanderbilt law student and CLS member, Palmer Williams.
Williams: I am a little confused by the fact that under your policy, I can gather with a group of my friends, or a group of like-minded people, I can state my beliefs, but as soon as I go as far as writing down what we believe in, and then try to live by those beliefs as a community on campus, then I’m not allowed to do that.
McCarty: What I’m going to challenge you to do, [is] to be open to a member that doesn’t share your faith beliefs who could be a wonderful member of CLS, maybe even a leader. But we’re not saying you have to vote for that person. We’re simply saying that person, who maybe does not profess allegiance to Jesus Christ as his or her Lord and Savior, should be allowed to run for office in CLS. …maybe it’s a person who is amazing at social outreach. It would still be consistent with your goals of serving the underserved with legal advice and legal services, but maybe isn’t Christian but they endorse what you’re trying to do. Give that person a chance….
Now let me give you another example, and this would affect all of you. I’m Catholic. What if my faith beliefs guided all of the decisions I make from day to day?
[At this point, the crowd applauds the idea that people should live according to their faith.]
No they shouldn’t! No they shouldn’t! No they shouldn’t! No they shouldn’t! [crowd disagrees.]
Well, I know you do, but I’m telling you that as a Catholic I am very comfortable using my best judgment as a person to make decisions. As a Catholic, if I held that life begins at conception, I’d have a very big problem with our hospital. Right? Would I not? … I would, but I don’t…. We don’t want to have personal religious views intrude on good decision making on this campus. They can guide your personal conduct, but I’m not going to let my faith life intrude. I’ll do the best I can at making good decisions, but I’m not going to impose my beliefs on others, not going to do it.
How interesting! One is allowed to have religious beliefs—but not to live by them! One wonders how long it will be before Christians in America will not even be allowed to THINK freely, let alone speak up or write about it. Already newspapers will not publish what the Bible says against homosexuality, a psychotic mayor refuses to allow his constituents to vote that homosexual marriage is wrong, and students at Vanderbilt cannot call themselves a Christian group unless they invite atheists to join! What’s next?