Yet More Christians Silenced in Europe…and America

Homosexual groups are celebrating in Europe this week as once more they have triumphed in a court of law over believing Christians. The European Court of Human Rights upheld decisions of British courts that had decided homosexual rights trump the rights of Christians whose faith teaches them homosexuality is wrong.

To be sure, the results of a handful of cases before the court were ever so slightly mixed. The single victory was limited. A woman is now allowed to wear her cross necklace to her job at British Airways, though another woman in a linked case lost her right to wear the same necklace to her hospital job.

The other cases, however, were substantial and far-reaching and make it plain that with impunity Christians will be hobbled in the outward expression of their faith and continue to be driven from their jobs.

The decisions were reached by the European Court of Human Rights, which is the court that oversees human rights issues in the 47 member states of the Council of Europe, which reviewed cases already decided in British courts.

The truly troubling cases involved two British subjects who objected to working within the regime of homosexual marriage in the UK. Lillian Ladele spent 16 years as a marriage registrar. By all account she had an exemplary record. When the British government mandated homosexual marriage, she asked to be exempt from registering such couples.

The second case dealt with Gary McFarlane who worked as a counselor for a large national counseling service. He was fired from his job for “gross misconduct” after a training course during which he told superiors that providing homosexual couples with “psycho-sexual therapy” would violate his “conscience” and his “deeply held religious beliefs.” He was fired simply for voicing his concerns.

In both cases the British courts held that marriage between one man and one woman were not core Christian beliefs and therefore not protected. The European Court upheld this dim view.

Homosexual groups are jubilant that freedom of religion has taken a beating by the court. The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association “welcomed this decision and especially the Court’s recognition that preventing sexual orientation discrimination is an important and legitimate purpose that justifies restrictions on freedom of religion.

Some conservative pundits have suggested that the debate over homosexual marriage—and all that comes with it—is over and that what we should focus our attention building certain fire walls that allow religious folk to practice their religion.

If someone in Europe cannot express his reservations about homosexual marriage without losing his job, and if another person’s religious objection to registering homosexuals for marriage cannot be accommodated, then it seems, at least in Europe, that the firewall has been breached.

These European decisions clearly demonstrate that the firewall will not hold if marriage itself crumbles. Europe largely allows for homosexual marriage. Has that slaked the thirst of the homosexuals? No, they want it all. They want Christians prostrate before them and before the law.

Here is a similar example from the US just a few days ago.

An Evangelical Pastor was disinvited from delivering the Invocation at the President’s Inauguration next week.  His crime was that once long ago he said the homosexual “movement is not a benevolent movement. It is a movement to seize by any means necessary the feeling and mood of the day, to the point where the homosexual lifestyle becomes accepted as a norm in our society and is given full standing as any other lifestyle as it relates to marriage.” Other than saying the movement is “not benevolent”, this remark could easily be the mission statement of the Human Rights Campaign. In this context, though, it was a firing offense.

Janice Crouse wrote an op-ed about this in the Washington Times. “The Obama administration has thrown down a gauntlet, declaring that anyone who espouses historic, biblical Christian teaching will be prohibited from participation in events in the public square,” wrote Crouse. “As Christians, we cannot back down from our religious freedoms, nor can we betray our faith by watering down scripturally based Gospel.”

Wayne Beeson of something called Truth Wins Out, a group that persecutes those who believe homosexual behavior can change, went on the attack. “No one is taking away her right to hold backward beliefs or speak out against what she regards as sin. However, Crouse and other evangelicals routinely confuse freedom with having free rein to insult and demonize others without suffering consequences.”

But then Beeson goes on to say, “Crouse can either find a new way to interpret her Bible or people will increasingly interpret her offensive views as unfit for polite company.”

There is little doubt that the Wayne Beeson’s of the world would love to silence Janice Crouse like they are silencing those in Europe. In Europe they are farther down that road than here. Over there they can now use courts to uphold unjust firings.

Over here they can only go after those who work in government or those who work for private companies that can be bullied into discriminating against those who hold nothing more and nothing less than the ancient teachings of Christianity.

This madness one day shall pass. Who knows when? Certainly no time soon. In those happier and saner days, people will marvel at how this ever happened. How did the tiniest of minorities—no more than 2% of the population—get in a position to silence the beliefs and punish the practices of hundreds of millions?

What we know is this. No matter how many Christians they persecute and prosecute, no matter how much society tolerates or even celebrates their sexual proclivities, no matter how many Gay-Straight Alliances are foisted upon our public schools, none of that will still in them the nagging feeling that what they do in bed is unnatural, and their attraction to their own sex is morally wrong. That nagging voice will never go entirely away.

Austin Ruse


Austin Ruse is president of C-FAM (Center for Family & Human Rights), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute. He is the author of Fake Science: Exposing the Left’s Skewed Statistics, Fuzzy Facts, and Dodgy Data published by Regnery. He is also the author of the new book Little Suffering Souls: Children Whose Short Lives Point Us to Christ published by Tan Books. The views expressed here are solely his own.

  • NormChouinard

    “In both cases the British courts held that marriage between one man and one woman were not core Christian beliefs and therefore not protected.” This is the most disturbing part for me. In spite of consistant and biblically based standings from the Church, plenty of “Catholics”, including leaders and educators, support this modern notion of sexuality and family.

  • elarga

    Thanks Austin — excellent analysis. I believe you are right that even homosexuals know, deep down, that they are denying reality. What on earth could account for this massive self-deception, which has taken in so many non-homosexuals as well? Probably the rise of relativism itself and the practical disappearance of a belief in objective standards of good and evil. Someday a recovery will occur, but it may require as a precondition a near-catastrophe, such as a demographic collapse or a moral breakdown beyond anything we’ve yet seen. The immediate question for Christians is, how are they going to respond to persecution for their beliefs? Very, very few, in my opinion, will dare to challenge the conventional thinking; experience has taught me that cowardice is the default position of the species. Example: almost every Catholic leader and cleric, no matter how “orthodox,” doesn’t dare to state the teaching that is published in the Catechism for all to read: that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered; instead, they take the evasive route of defending “traditional marriage” — a losing strategy, obviously.

    • Sheldon

      Elarga, I don’t know where all this talk of demographic collapse is coming from. While it’s true that some countries are experiencing a birth dearth, the world’s population as a whole has more than doubled since 1944, the year of my birth, and it is still climbing. So, unless you think that homosexuals are going to somehow “convert” everyone else to their orientation, I can’t imagine where you think the danger is coming from.

      As for denial and self-deception, I think your assessment is completely backwards. The Closet was a place of denial and self-deception, and LGBTs everywhere are now accepting the reality of their natures. This is a tremendously positive development in social history, and I do not see it as a “moral breakdown” in any sense of the term. Quite the opposite, in fact.

      You complain that Catholic clerics don’t dare teach that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered. I haven’t seen evidence of this myself, but if it is true, it may be because it is a losing strategy. Word got out that there was virtually no support for that view among health professionals. The World Health Organization has declared that homosexuality is NOT a disorder.

      Christians aren’t being “persecuted” for their beliefs about this. They are being asked to face reality and to stop using their religion as a warrant for discriminating against LGBTs.

      • Johnny Curedents

        Stop playing political games with us. Because the WHO declared this perversion not to be a disorder does not make that so any more than referendums in the US can make sodomite shack-ups ‘marriages’. The reality is that “gay marriage” is neither gay nor marriage. Everyone I know who is plagued with this serious personality disorder leads a miserable existence haunted by the predictable guilt mentioned in the last paragraph of the article.

      • It is not discrimination to notice that different things are different, that homosexual couplings are not the same as heterosexual marriage. And if the WHO cannot use basic human reason to understand that the rectum is not meant for sexual parts to go into, then something is wrong with the WHO. In my opinion, any reasonable person can see that sodomy is not the normal use of those body parts. The idea that one is a bigot for understanding that, is just insane. It is self-evident that men and women’s parts go together, and men’s don’t go with men’s and women’s don’t go with women’s. To try to force everyone in the world to say otherwise, is real persecution.

        • Sheldon

          Juana, gay marriage and straight marriage are indeed different, and so it is perfectly natural that we should discriminate “between” them. Discriminating “against” one of them is another matter. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that discrimination in the latter sense is impermissible except in religious settings (e.g., houses of worship).

          The WHO recognizes full well that the kind of intercourse you are referring to is practiced by both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Many from each group do not practice it. The WHO therefore does not equate it with homosexuality as you do.

          You are wrong that men’s body parts don’t go with other men’s body parts. They “go with them” all the time. And anyway, why are you so focused on sex and body parts, anyway? I come here to talk about the beauty of relationships, and all you can think of is sex.

          Here’s something British actor Stephen Fry said on this subject:

          “It is the strangest thing about the Catholic church. It is obsessed with sex. Absolutely obsessed. Now they will say we, with our permissive society and rude jokes are obsessed, no. We have a healthy attitude. We like it, it’s fun, it’s jolly because it’s a primary impulse. It can be dangerous and dark and difficult, it’s a bit like food in that respect, only even more exciting. The only people who are obsessed with food are anorexics and the morbidly obese. And that in erotic terms, is the Catholic church in a nutshell.”

          • schmenz

            That’s quite funny: homosexualist Stephen Fry telling us that the Catholic Church is obsessed with sex. Irony must not be one of his strong points.

            The only people I know who are obsessed with sex are the denizens of Hollywood and the deranged politicians and media types who are forever ramming it down our throats.

            As for those who enjoy buggery let them tell me how much fun it was after contracting hepatitus-B or God knows what else.

            If I may speak bluntly, and I hope charitably, those who die in their mortal sins (and, yes, sodomy is a mortal sin) will never see God and will never see Heaven. Their fate will be terrible. If by chance you are in this terrible state, I beg of you to leave it.

        • Katy

          It is true that heterosexual relationships are different than those between SS individuals. Heterosexuals complement each other and are designed to be the guardians of children.

          In order to redefine marriage, advocates of SSM want discussions about sexual ethics to end—along with “objective norms” like the Ten Commandments. To be replaced with what? Mind-molding and religious persecution by government.

        • Kurt

          that seems to be a weak argument — the idea that body parts have a sole
          natural function, and that to use them for another purpose is ‘not normal’ and ‘wrong’.

          Today I was carrying a bag in one hand so I had to
          pull a glove onto my other hand with my teeth. Was that unnatural?
          it’s obviously not the primary use for teeth, but it was useful.

          Indeed people do all sorts of things with their various body parts that aren’t strictly functional or ‘natural’ – we eat things for pleasure, we dye our hair, trim our nails. Acrobats walk on their hands. People use their ears to hang jewelry. the mouth is made for eating and talking, but how about if I use it to play the saxophone? Or join the circus and become a sword swallower? Are these acts ‘natural’? Do they preserve the intended use of the mouth? Hardly.

          In short, yes, obviously genitals were made for excreting and, in a certain combination, making babies. But does that alone prevent them for being used as we like?

          In short, it seems like the proscriptions against homosexuality are entirely social and religious, and they have nothing to do with preserving the ‘natural’ functions of our bodies. It’s a very poor argument. The
          Church has little to say about most of the many, many unnatural uses of our body. That’s clearly not the real issue.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour

    ” Europe largely allows for homosexual marriage.”

    Hardly. Eight of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe allow same-sex marriage.

    • Jeff

      Do not confuse this argument with facts, Michael P-S:-P

    • Austin Ruse

      Western Europe is almost unanimously in support of either legal marriage for homosexuals or civil partnerships. It’s true in some Eastern European countries, homosexual marriage/partnerships are not recognized, in western Europe, this ethos is dominant.

  • Phel Jones

    “Europe largely allows for homosexual marriage. Has that slaked the thirst of the homosexuals? No, they want it all. They want Christians prostrate before them and before the law.” Well put, and applicable to any enemy of Christianity.

    • Dremy

      Yes, Phel, it’s great inflammatory rhetoric. The author would have us believe that homosexuals are vampires and atheists. They COULDN’T be Christians. None of them! They are the spawn of Satan! (Not)

      • J G

        If they are Christians than they will follow the moral laws of Christianity, which prohibits sodomy, right?

        • Adam Baum

          Most of us can distinguish between a sewer pipe and a birth canal.

          • Ruth

            Good one! Never heard it put that way.

      • Adam Baum

        I see “Dough Remy” is now posting as “Dremy”. Bored with the old name, or is the change in pseudonyms a ritual cleansing of some sort?

        • Crisiseditor

          Mr. Remy was blacklisted for his excesses in volume and his abusive comments toward the Faith and its adherents. He has come back with a new email, IP address and identity. We shall see if he behaves himself.

      • Jeff

        You are absolutely right, Dremy! The rhetoric and photograph are so melodramatic that it is hard to take the article seriously. People need to speak out about the virtues of straight marriage rather than attacking people who mean no them no harm. Anti-SSM people (not all are Christians) are not being persecuted. Rather we are finally starting to refrain from persecuting our fellow human beings who happen to be gay.

        • Loud

          I dissagree. In Canada, Catholic schools are now being told by autorities that tjey must be pro gay or shut up. Legal dosent equal good, and we all have differing opinions on what is a sin, but in what in the world justifies preventing the freedom to teach official catholic teaching in privite catholic schools? Its as if toleration isnt enough anymore, we MUST approve. Why cant they tolerate us?

          • Kurt

            I too find it highly distasteful to use the photo of the goose stepping Nazis. The analogy is at best cheap and at worst serves to obscure the sort of true evil the Nazis represent. However disturbing Christians find various rulings that impact displays or acts of faith, none of the cases cited have anything of the gravity of Nazi atrocity. That is, we are not talking about full-scale invasions and warfare, Brownshirts, death camps, authoritarian regimes.

            Yes, yes, I understand, we live in an era when any exercise of disputed authority can be labelled Nazi (eg “Mom made me pick up my socks. She’s such a Nazi.”) But if this is a serious article, it seems to add an air of bomb-throwing overreach more appropriate for South Park or Anne Coulter than for a serious discussion.

            • Augustus

              If you read the editor’s explanation below, you would understand that the point was to make supporters of discrimination against Christians like yourself reflect more deeply on the tactics being used. Thoughtful observers are supposed to find the decision of the court distasteful. Gay activists look to punish dissenters with legal fines and restrictions. The picture is meant to illustrate in stark relief the actions of the Left. It turns the tables on those who imagine they are morally and intellectually superior to everyone else when the opposite is true. Since you are one of those the image is directed against, it is not surprising that you missed the point.

            • Loud

              Of couse not, no one is talking about full style invasions. Invasions happen over and over again in history, few people say today “oh gosh, your just like an angalo-saxon”, “stupid Hun” or “darn you, you Roman” (Unless they are anticatholic, but then they say “Romanist”) Its because Inasions arent all we remeber, but ideology and tactics, too. Even though Nazi Ideology was against gays, it used similar tactics to force aproval wherever they went. They would change the often religious greetings in countries, take down religios decorations and statues in schools, even religious ones, and replace them with flags and pictures of Nazi leaders. They did everything they could to shut down schools, monastaries and convents, and when that didnt work, they labled them as places of “unwork”. Teaching of the faith was replaced in schools with an extra gym class. Priests had to be silent on their abuses of humanity, or face the same fate as their jewish and homosexual breathren: concentration camps. Many did.
              You dont see faith being shoved out of both public AND private schools? You dont see religious aditude, greeting and talk being rabidy discouraged and blacklabled? You dont see Priest, who know more about the world than most, suddenly being dismissed frivolously on all sides as “stuffy religious who know nothing about real life, real work”?

              • supineny

                if the Church were to win its battle against this Nazi-like organization, who would it fight? Where’s the bunker? It’s nowhere. That’s one problem with this analogy. The church is not up against a monolithic organization. There is no central figure to the gay rights movement, no single organization.

                The problem for the church isn’t that there are storm troopers of the left, but that openly gay people have successfully moved into the mainstream of society, they’ve got jobs, they’re raising kids. The world is watching, and they see the sky is not falling.

                This is more like the church dealing with heliocentrism — the church is
                up against an idea, not an organization or a person. In this case, the
                idea finds willing support in the general population: the idea that gay
                people can be worthy members of society and therefore deserve equal

                • Loud

                  The analogy dosent fall apart. Never could. Even from WWII Third Riech all the way down to Roman Ceasars , we were never fighting the Gestopo, never the Centurians. They might have killed us, they might have tried to force us to be silent or bend, but they werent our enemies. We are fighting with principalities and powers. With demons and ideas. With WWII it was extreme German Nationalism, AntiSemitism, (real) anti-homosexualism, secularims, socialism and facism. In the same way, we arent entirely fihting officials that try to limit or in some cases stamp out Christian thought on popular sins, but the Thing that makes them want to do that, as well as the untrue Ideologies being spread. And so what if a person with homosexual inclinations gets a job? Dose well? Makes money? Has friends? God bless them, I say! Our goal isnt to prevnet the sucess of people who feel that way, but to discourage the ACT the inclination leads to, denounce the homosexual ACT as wrong and promot the true ideal of human sexuality. They can be worthy members of society, no one is suggesting otherwise. God bless them!

                  • supineny

                    then I’m not sure I follow failure-proof analogy– when you spoke of ‘tactics’: whose tactics did you mean?

                    • Loud

                      The analogy wasnt falling apart because the church NEVER fights people. It was fihting ideas back then, its fighting ideas now. As for whose tactics, i mean the tactics of the people who purpetuate the gay agenda: sometimes government officials, sometimes media personalities, sometimes, that claim to promote gay rights but really want gay preferance. If you meant individuals, i can give you dan savage and chris mathews for two. Dan being the worse. Perhaps someone else has a list on the top of their head. Hope that clears thing up.
                      Then there is the way that its talked about that is a problem. When you say that you think a homosexual lifestyle is sinful, the following question is rarely “why would it be sinful?” But typically “why do you hate gays?” And when we say it shouldnt be enshrined in law, they dont ask “why not?” They stick there fingers in their ears. Ive met some people who are thoughtful supporters of progay marriage legislation, but most ive met, talked to or read are…well rabid.

                    • supineny

                      Dan Savage and Chris Matthews are commentators. You’re comparing gadflies to holocausts. I’m not sure I see the comparison.

                      The idea that the Church ‘never’ fights people? I don’t suppose you’ve heard of the Inquisition? They burned people at the stake, they threw them in jail, they tortured people. It was run by the Church. They might have been fighting ‘ideas’, but in doing so, they killed people.

                    • Loud

                      What I said is that it is the IDEAS the fight is against, never against the people purpetuating them. i think you should do a little research about the inquisition, yes, there were abuses, but thats not the whole story. And you dont think this culture of death and entitlements has its holocausts? We call the death of six million Jews a holocaust, and rightly so. But what can we even begin to call the death of fifty-five million inoccent children that our culture so smilingly supports, along with all the other popular sins? I dont know, but they like to call it health care.

      • Ruth

        Dremy, I know some Gay “Christians” they go to church and talk the walk, but most certainly do not walk the talk. But they are “good” people, are kind to animals, cook good, have an exceptionally clean house and are nice to people. I also know gay Christians, that are married to the opposite sex and are sex swingers with other couples. And they call themselves Christian. If they truly believed Christ died for their sins and the Holy Spirit resided in them, then I am sure the Spirit would work on their conscience. Homosexuality is a sin like cheating on your wife is a sin, or premarital sex is a sin, or raping. These are sexual sins, they are frequently talked about in the Word of God , because sexual sin is sinning against oneself, as well as God.

        If the Church sanctions gay marriage equal to hetero, that doesn’t make it vampirish or atheistic, it makes it Antichrist, which IS indeed, the Spawn of Satan.

  • sayre

    Editor: I agree with Austin Ruse’ article but I would have preferred a different picture. Perhaps Soviet tanks rolling through Warsaw or Prague? Communism’s desire to eliminate religion derived from its principles. Fascism was not always at opposed to religion. I think our cause is hurt when we make comparisons to Hitler. It’s overused and has lost its effect.

    • Jeff

      I agree that the picture is inappropriate and shows an angry persecution complex rather than sincere concern. However, there is no “desire to eliminate religion” inherent in the court’s reasoning. Instead, the court is attempting to ensure the rights of homosexuals (as in Gary McFarlane’s case), and to keep hospital patients safe (as in upholding the decision forbidding a hospital worker to wear jewelry — the issue was not that she was wearing a cross but that she was wearing jewelry — it is disingenuous to use this as an example of religious bigotry).

      • Adam Baum

        The picture is absolutely appropriate. Germany was in the late 19th and early 20th century considered the pinnacle of modern governance. It was that pervasive, intrusive and efficient government that a failed artist and corporal grabbed by the reigns and perverted with a small but relentless group of votaries.

        Our government is now following the same types of behavior. Obama’s edict (of dubious legality) to mandate the medical community to report on patients is a misuse of their skills, an unwarranted intrusion into what should be a private relationship, and will sew the type of mistrust that made the Nazi regime function.

    • poetcomic1

      Nazism hated Christianity. Among the inner circle of the SS (the ‘true believers’) Jesus Christ was ‘the Jew God’ that the Jews used to make the German people into weaklings. This is exactly what one SS officer said as he stomped and beat a priest to death in Dachau for refusing to walk on a crucifix.

    • Crisiseditor

      I understand your point and I anticipated some objection to the use of this picture. However, I chose it because it made a strong statement. I wanted to hold up a mirror to those who seek to restrict the freedoms of Christians. We know how thick headed these activists are. Subtle argument doesn’t work. Since the Left perceives the Nazis as rightwingers (which they were not), it would make more of an impact ON THEM rather than use an image from the Soviet Union or one of its satellites. That, I’m afraid, would be taken as a compliment. Who could be more “progressive” than Joe Stalin? There is an obvious trend toward complete secularization in the West. We are not there yet, as Mr. Paterson-Seymour pointed out, but if we don’t oppose it with everything we have now, we will lose.

      • John200

        The comparison to Hitler’s army is right and proper. The jackboot is a perfectly evocative image of the contemporary lefty in all his glory. I consider this photo an inspired choice.

        “Tolerance” indeed.

        • kurt

          John200, you’re trolling.

      • Jeff

        If, as an editor, you really believe this, than it is no wonder your site is becoming such a joke! Mr. Ruse blatantly misrepresents situations in his article. The British Airways stewardess has ALREADY had an accommodation made to allow her to wear her crucifix. The original idea was that cabin staff should all dress uniformly in terms of jewelry. There was never any intent to restrict the freedom of Christians. And the hospital worker was asked not to wear her crucifix for health reasons. Other options were suggested to her. This false information was then used to create a straw man suggesting Christians are being persecuted. It’s not just illogical — it’s not true! It genuinely saddens me to see a supposedly Catholic site being both dishonest and unChristian!

        • Crisiseditor

          You are clearly predisposed to believe the employers who fired the defendants rather than take into account the claims of those defendants. I don’t know why you feel so passionately in favor of these discriminatory policies and decisions that resulted in the termination of these employees unless you support the gay agenda and the silencing of Christians. So, the woman who worked for British Airways has reached an “accommodation”? This was AFTER she won her case. She won her case because BA was obviously discriminating because it had allowed, as a matter of policy, non-Christians to wear religious garments and symbols. You are dishonest when you imply that BA did this out of the goodness of its heart. In the case of Lilian Ladele and Gary McFarlane, they were terminated because they did not favor the gay agenda which you appear to favor. Ladele did not want to perform same-sex civil partnerships and asked to be transferred to a different department. Or at the very least, not be forced to perform gay marriages. She was fired because she did not conform with the council’s “equality and diversity” policy. McFarlane was asked if he would be willing to provide sex therapy to homosexual couples. When he said he would prefer not to, if he had a choice, he was fired. McFarlane was persecuted because he did not approve of the gay lifestyle. Why a gay couple would seek therapy from a straight man boggles the mind. The only explanation is that it was discrimination against Christians. In the case of Chaplin, the nurse had been wearing her cross necklace throughout her decades-long career without any problems. Now it is determined that this discrete piece of jewelry will pose a health risk to patients? The gay lobby which you seem to support favors discrimination against those who disapprove of its agenda. It will persecute anyone who defies its will. This has been documented on this site and elsewhere. You are either a lier or a fool. We are not so easily deceived. If you think this site is a joke because it does not accept your lies, go spread them somewhere else.

    • I believe it’s the attitude of brazen, “Nazi-high-horse” arrogance–and cocky, mean-spirited (ruthless) impudence–with outright, murderous contempt, threats and activities…for and againstr anyone or anything in ways of “opposition” to the purely despot, tyrannical and dictatorial ways of insane Nazism. Yes…all of that. I personally believe that Barrack Obama is riding just such an insane, “high-horse-attitude” here in America. Absolutely.

    • J G

      Nazi…communist…same thing. Either red on the outside and brown on the inside or brown on the outside and red on the inside.

      • Adam Baum

        The typical representation of the political spectrum as a uni-dimensional, a line with communists on the farthest left and Nazis on the farthest right is wrong on multiple counts, but no more so then when it ignores the reality that the “Nazi” came from a contraction of the words “National Socialist”, with “socialism” being the most important and common attribute between communists and Nazi’s.

  • I don’t understand how the European Court of Human Rights gets to rule on what is and what is not a “core value” of a religion. How is that possibly their competence? What sort of bizarre laws have they enacted in Europe that allow this court, and not the leaders of religions, to rule about such things? Also, I am not clear about the nurse mentioned in the story above. Did the hospital say that no necklaces at all were allowed anymore? If so, if I worked as a nurse at that hospital I would have the symbol of my religion embroidered on all my shirts or smocks or whatever the uniform, and then we’d find out whether it was the necklace or the symbol they objected to.

    • Johannes

      It didn’t rule on what was a core value – in fact, it condemned the UK court for doing so. That is why the BA case fell and the hostess won. It wasn’t the issue.

    • Lee

      Gail Deibler Finke, it was the necklace not the symbol. This piece is pretending this is anti-Christian victimization, but it was really a safety law. The hospital was very sensitive to the nurse and offered her other accommodations.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour

    The overwhelming majority of European countries do not allow same-sex marriage.

    Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden allow same-sex marriage

    Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and United Kingdom do not.

    • Wilson

      Their ‘days’ are numbered.

  • Brian

    Liberals are staunchly anti-Nazi. For that matter, liberals aren’t fond of the Soviet regime either.

    • Austin Ruse

      This is true for classical liberals, of which I am one, but it is not true for modern liberals, who have pronounced authoritarian tendencies. Look at how they shout down speakers at college campuses….

      • Jeff

        This comment shows extreme bias, Mr. Ruse. Rowdy protestors show up to events on both the left and the right. Axelrod was shouted down by astroturf protestors at an event in Boston. It happens all the time. If it happens more often on college campuses, it’s simply because more students tend to be liberal than conservative — not because of any ingrained difference in behavior between left and right. Of course modern liberals are anti-Nazi and anti-communist! Both are alien to the modern democrat systems that protect individual rights and promote social justice, while forging a mixture of socialism and capitalism that works better than either one alone.

        • Proteios1

          With respect, I have been on colleges campuses for roughly 25 years. From student grad student, post doc and to senior faculty. I have seen a change from free speech to approved speech. Being in the middle of it I would say the speech not approved tends to be traditional, predominantly, Christian. And it isn’t simply protests, it is the quick, sure and sever reactions oftentimes ending in termination of the employee. This isn’t academic freedom or freedom of speech. It more reflects dictatorships of any variety be they nazi, soviet, pol pot, modern Islam or Mao.

          I would rather walk through a college campus in drag or holding another mans hand than holding and reciting a rosary. If you disagree. Try it. If nothing else it will make for an interesting experiment. But I dare not speak openly about my faith. I fear retribution from students, colleagues and administrators alike.

        • Austin Ruse

          Yes, I have a bias. Axelrod could go to Liberty University and not get shouted down. Shouting down or muzzling opponents is part and parcel of the modern left.

          • Lee

            I very much doubt that Axelrod would be invited to speak at Liberty University. Obama was heckled by conservative students at Notre Dame. If you really believe it is only liberals that heckle, you only have to look at the GOP convention in Tampa, Florida, last year, where their own representative from Puerto Rico, Zoraida Fonnalledas, was heckled. Tea Partiers have booed at Obamacare rallies. A very ugly group of Orange County tea partiers booed, heckled, and screamed “Go back home!” as families with children walked into a CAIR fundraising dinner given for charity. You can hear the hate here: Then there are the death cult conservatives who cheer at the idea of the uninsured dying (in response to Ron Paul at GOP primary debates on 11/12/11) and at the death penalty. Yes, you are right — you definitely have a bias. That is why you cannot be objective.

            • Evolved, proved, conditioned, (known, grown and natural) personal and social “morals”….must be espoused, protected, defended, promoted, promulgated and made known everywhere throughout all of humanity. I believe in the profound depth of meaning and understanding of “sin by omission.” Nobody (no one) can merely sit by and “do nothing” against the outrageous onslaught and siege against Christianity–against Catholicism.

              Please stop your front-flaunt of “objectivity” in these such matters. Jesus has told us (quite succinctly) that we are either with him, or against him. You seem uncertain and “on the fence,” here.

              ‘Sorry for the sting. But I’m rather agitated by “homosexual-ism” thinking. It’s intellectual insanity.

        • Adam Baum

          Its not even close. The left is far less tolerant and often acts with the tacit cooperation of the faculty and administration. Speaking of comments that show an extreme bias, I note the use of the term “astroturf”.

          “Of course modern liberals are anti-Nazi and anti-communist!”
          That’s laughable.

      • Adam Baum

        If the modern left (that goes by the misappropriated name “liberal”) have no antipathy towards the Soviet Regime. The internet is full of clothing and other memorabilia, such as the hammer and sickle insignia and CCCP emblazoned clothing. It may not be as popular as Che Guevara items, but for something that died so recently and gave us Chernobyl and the Gulags, its too common.

    • J G

      I knew many liberals who loved the old USSR. They mourned its demise, gulags and all.

  • Jeff

    Why is there a picture of high-stepping Nazis on this piece when the Nazis went after homosexuals? Gays have been persecuted for centuries. Now that they’re asking for equal rights, the claim is that they are “persecuting Christians”??? Give me a break! British workers are allowed to wear crosses to work. The issue with the hospital worker is that she was not allowed to wear jewelry on the job as it violated the hospital’s rules pertaining to the health and safety of clients. This was a health standard and had nothing to do with religious liberty. Let’s get our facts straight. Gary McFarlane knew — before he accepted his job — that he would be expected to counsel gay couples. One cannot refuse a service to a person based on their race, sex, or disability, so why would one be able to do so on the basis of sexual orientation?

    • elarga

      Jeff, have you heard that the Nazis almost executed and confined to concentration camps thousands of Catholic priests and clerics in other Christian communities in the lands they occupied? Look it up.

      • elarga

        sorry, “also” not “almost”

        • Jeff

          Elarga, a lot of Catholic priests are both practicing homosexuals and support same-sex marriages (even those who are not themselves gay). The attempt to link Naziism with efforts to rid the workplace of open bigotry is a form of propaganda worthy of Goebbels and makes a mockery of the real terror of the Nazi regime.

          • J G

            That is false. In fact many Nazi’s were gay. Gay activists learned a lot from Goebbels.

            • Ray Olson

              Dear J G–Ever hear of the Night of the Long Knives? Ever hear of Paragraph 175? No? Then I beseech thee in the bowels of Christ to look them up and learn.

              • J G

                Oh, I have learned. Homosexual activists intend to teach us all that we MUST accept sodomy, or else. I choose not to cooperate.

            • Kris

              Of course — a great deal of them were gay. However, they hid their homosexuality by persecuting openly gay people. The Nazis murdered openly homosexual people while some of them were practicing homosexuality inside the closet. That is why the photo of Nazis fits so well. It’s about repressed homosexuals decrying rights for those who are openly homosexual. These people don’t hate gays — they hate themselves.

              • J G

                I would agree that gays do hate themselves, open or not. That is why they demand that everyone accept their sins, so that they can convince themselves that it is okay.

          • If any Catholic priest is a homosexual, he is probably a practicing homosexual. Homosexual activities are sinfully abnormal, aberrant and evil. Stop defending these such priestly misfits. They need help–not justification.

            Homosexual-ism (with all its variant idiocies and activities) is “sinful” (as with sick and evil aspects of human reasoning and behavior). Homosexual bishops, priests, nuns and such wayward laypeople should be (summarily) removed from any such priestly or Church duties and operation (I feel). . Homosexual-ism is a neurotic and psychotic disorder. It should never be considered differently. It’s absolutely, humanly “unnatural.”

            P.S. The attitude and mentally degranged aspects of “Nazism” (its ruthless, “bully-like,” overruling, out-of-control and murderous attitude) verily is present in all aspects of human behavior, even today. You seem to foolishly gloat over your “assuming” comments”–which seem superficially factual and actual, as they apply to this article and to several of the posted comments. That’s not healthful (I feel). It’s certainly agitating. Is that your intention–to agitate people?

          • Adam Baum

            A collar does not defuse orginal sin.

            However, If there is a Priest who supports state imposed homosexual “marriage” is a fraud. He should report this to his Bishop, seek removal from ministry, so as not to make a living from an institution that is immutably dedicated to lifelong heterosexual, monogamous marriage.

            So Jeff, if you know such a Priest (hah hah) have him post here, perhaps we can encourage him to seek an occupation that won’t cause him to be a public fraud.

      • Right. My inquires and studies lead me to believe that the “steam-roller-high-horse-insanity” of Nazism…could, would and actually “did” exercise any and all forms of ruthless brutality (primarily) because those within it’s realm, actually “believed” they were legally and rightly authorized to do it and “get away with it.” The “homosexual-ism” movement throughout the world seems bent in the same irrational ways of crazed power as Nazism. Barrack Obama is a madman in comparable ways. That’s what I think.

    • “Give you a break?” I feel you are confused.

  • Agnosticon

    “In both cases the British courts held that marriage between one man and one woman were not core Christian beliefs and therefore not protected.”

    That’s because Protestant ‘Christianity’ is actually relativism and so Protestantism will be used to undermine Catholic Christianity because we’ll all be (conveniently) lumped in with them. There is abosolutely NOTHING central to Protestantism and that’s a godsend to secularists.

  • Johannes

    Having read the case judgement, there are some serious flaws in the analysis here. For example,

    “In both cases the British courts held that marriage between one man and one woman were not core Christian beliefs and therefore not protected. The European Court upheld this dim view.”

    This is not the case. The issue at stake was the rights of employers, not the rights of homosexuals. This will be aggravated when SSM is legalised of course, but the issue was not about homosexuals primarily, if at all. It is about the ‘rights’ of employers and businesses to provide whatever services they want – and if that includes advising homosexuals, then that is a ‘legitimate aim’ apparently. But it’s clear that the issue is a) employers’ rights, backed up by b) the widespread acceptance of homosexuality. It is NOT about homosexuals’ rights.

    I recommend that everyone read the dissenting opinion found at the end of the judgement – it is very interesting. As for commenting on the issue, I think that we should all read the case before commenting on it. Here it is (along with the dissenting opinion at the end):

  • There are two solutions: first, use democracy (as long as its vestiges still exist) to vote out of office these politicians who support homosexuality and same-sex “marriage”; second, as Christians, become “strangers in a strange land”, “in this world but not of it”. This corrupt world is rapidly decomposing, high time to leave it to its perdition.

    • Dremy

      Jambe, your two solutions are incompatible. If you are going to leave this world to its perdition, as you say, then you’d have no interest in voting.

  • Ray Olson

    Dear Mr. Ruse–I’ve checked Johannes’ reference to the European court rulings on the two British cases you mention, and he certainly seems to be correct. Your reaction, please.

    Also, the Truth Wins Out fellow is Wayne Besen, not Wayne Beeson. The latter is an online marketing consultant who may not want to be associated with Truth Wins Out.

  • Dave

    One thing: their attraction is not morally wrong, insofar as it is simply attraction. An attraction is morally neutral.

    • J G

      Attractions can be disordered. If someone is attracted to rape that is not a good thing. It is disordered and can lead to sin.

  • Pingback: Yet more Christians silenced in Europe, and in America... - Christian Forums()

  • It’s happening.
    Because of homosexual and anti-Christian “Judicial Bias”
    (irrational idiocy in U.S. Court systems) with court cases (gone amuck), it is plain,
    clear and obvious, that “Christians” are being belittled, badgered, up-rooted
    and purged…from jobs, the U.S. Military, consumer and commercial equal
    opportunities, and many other such social benefits of United States
    citizenship. How about that? It’s happening.

  • DRemy

    Mr. Ruse, you write that the British government has “mandated homosexual marriage.” This is not accurate. The British government is currently considering legalization of same-sex marriage. In 2005, same-sex partnerships were made legal there.

    I’ve read about the hospital nurse who lost her right to wear a crucifix on a chain around her neck in the hospital. The hospital’s rule prohibited necklaces because patients could grab them and hurt themselves.

    The British Airways hostess was allowed to wear a crucifix discreetly but not ostentatiously. BA has a legitimate interest in protecting its branding, and I think the Court’s decision was entirely fair.

    In the two other cases, the court ruled that an individual’s religious beliefs do not trump the rights of an LGBT person and may not be used to discriminate against them.

    Lillian Ladele, the civil registrar in London, was dismissed from her job because she refused to officiate at same-sex partnership ceremonies after these were made legal in 2005. She claimed she was discriminated against. The European Court of Human Rights says she was discriminating against LGBT persons.

    Gary McFarlane was a counselor providing psycho-sexual therapy to couples. He refused to work with same-sex couples and was dismissed. He claimed he was discriminated against. Again, the ECHR ruled that he had discriminated against LGBT persons.

    The Court ruled that religious freedom is no ground for exemption from the law. The principle of equality and equal treatment cannot be circumvented with a simple reference to religion.

    Freedom of religion is never absolute. Sikh boys in the U.S. are not permitted to carry swords to their schools, though their religion requires them to do so. In France, Muslim girls may not wear veils in the public schools.

    I’m afraid your rhetoric is a little over the top. You make homosexuals out to be like vampires (“Has that slaked the thirst of the homosexuals?” you write.) and you imply that they are atheists (“They want Christians prostrate before them.”)

    Actually, most homosexuals are neither vampires nor atheists, and many of them are devout Christians of the Catholic persuasion. So you needn’t frame these Court decisions as a victory of homosexuals over Christians. That is just not the case. The decisions are simply a victory of LGBTs over discrimination.

    • J G

      Homosexuals view Christians as vampires and now can legally discriminate against them. It is the victory of the lions over the Christians.

      • Ray Olson

        Dear J G–Poppycock! Bilge! Rot! Blather! Idiocy! Stupid, intemperate ranting! Have you no shame? At long last, have you no shame? It’s statements like yours that are fast reducing the factual, let alone the moral, credibility of traditional Catholics to zero and below.

        • J G

          I am simply applying what Remy was saying in reverse. I hear this kind of ranting from homosexuals. They instantly cry homophobia to any disagreement. In Canada they haul Christians before kangaroo courts and prosecute them. Silence=Death as they say.

    • Austin Ruse

      True, I should have said, “mandated civil partnerships, which are identical to the benefits of marriage.” As to teh right of homosexuals. They are no abridged if a single person wishes to opt out. They can still get registered. They can still get counseled. But the people who object are not forced into doing something which is against their religion. That is one of the points of my piece. Homosexuals cannot stand even a single objection. They seek to stamp out all objections.

    • Jeff

      DRemy writes, “Mr. Ruse, you write that the British government has “mandated homosexual marriage.” This is not accurate. ”
      This is a good point. “Mandating homosexual marriage” means ONLY homosexual marriage is allowed. “Mandating opposite sex marriage” means ONLY straight marriage is allowed. Straight marriage is currently mandated in many places, meaning that it is clearly homosexuals who are being persecuted. They are not obligated to adhere to the bigoted views of others. I don’t understand why the author is claiming to be “persecuted”.

  • J G

    Beeson is right. There will be consequences. They will persecute us and have already started. No one is more viiolent than a gay activist who is told what you said in your last paragraph. Someday those words could get you killed. They will do anything to silence that nagging voice.

  • Ray Olson

    Dear Crisis and its bloggers–While some of you seem amiable and willing to converse, too many others–those who hide behind initials, nicknames, and rubrics–quite obviously are not. I find myself thinking, “They may be Catholics , , , but are they Christians?” That saddens me more than I am willing to endure. I’ll retreat to blogs where people use their real names and talk about matters material and philosophical that submit themselves to being commonly observed and understood.

    • John200

      ” I find myself thinking, ‘They may be Catholics , , , but are they Christians?’ ” This level of understanding of Catholicism speaks for itself. You do not know much about the faith you so happily criticize, and finally declare yourself unwilling to deal with.

      Let that pass, as you have chosen to do. Best to you and yours.

  • MichaelP71

    Mr Ruse I enjoyed your piece but when I got to the end about homosexual attraction being morally wrong; is that true? It was my understanding that as a Catholic we believe the act is what is wrong. Once we act on what is in our heart that is where judgement begins. I may be attracted to a woman but since she is not my wife I cannot act or bring myself to a place where there is a “near occasion of sin”. Also if I cooperate with a fantasy of said woman in my mind then I am also culpable because as we understand ourselves as Christians we are spirit(mind)/body “entities”.

    • Austin Ruse

      The Church teaches the attraction is disordered.

  • Denise K Gallia

    Many people, including Christians do not realize that the very first
    covenant that God made with man was the covenant of marriage between one
    man and one woman. You will find that covenant in Genesis 2:18-25.

    Not only is marriage the first covenant that God made with man, but
    it is also used repeatedly to describe the relationship between Jesus
    and the Church. In Mark 2:18-22 Jesus was asked why his disciples were
    not fasting like the disciples of John and the Pharisees. In his
    response, Jesus compared himself to a bridegroom and his disciples as
    the wedding guests. In Isaiah 54: 5-7 we are told that our Maker is our
    husband and we are His wife. Revelation 19:6-9 describes the marriage
    supper of the Lamb of God in which Jesus is the bridegroom and the
    church is His bride.

    Obviously marriage is a sacred institution that God the Father and
    God the Son took very seriously. Like most things that God takes
    seriously, there are benefits for our obedience and penalties for our
    disobedience. A good and harmonious relationship between a husband and
    wife is often described as a blessing while at the same time a poor and
    troublesome relationship between them can be a curse:

    Read more:

  • MichaelP71

    Is there a place or website that tracks this kind of behavior by militant homosexual groups against Christians? The opponents will bring up Matthew Shepherd but I think we need to be armed with facts and truth as well. (Disclaimer: There is no excuse for violence, namecalling, etc…to any person that we disagree with. ALL people people should be treated with love: willing the best for the other.)

  • The photo is a perfect reminder that conservative Christians and the Nazis share similar views on gays. Nazis made gay groups illegal, kept lists on politically active gays, and sent gays to concentration camps. Officially, the Nazis did not approve of homosexuality.

    Where there are homophobes, there will also be self-hating, yet sexually active homosexuals in positions of power…further similarity between conservative Christians and the Nazis on all things gay.

    Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

    • Katy

      I think the intention of the photo and the article is to show the
      danger to religious liberties with same-sex marriage. SSM puts the legal
      stamp of approval on homosexuality and imposes it with force throughout
      the various social and political institutions of a society that would
      never accept it otherwise, e.g. teaching children to accept it or be
      shunned at schools.

      Catholics protesting the redefinition of
      marriage (or for that matter abortion) does not equate to concentration
      camps, ostracizing people, or the attempt to rid America of a category
      of people to fit its vision of the world. How did you get that idea?
      Many people believe that “absolute norms” like the Ten Commandments and
      children being attached to their biological mother and father are worth
      fighting for.

      Because Catholics don’t hold the same sexual
      ethics you have does not mean that they are “homophobes.” Are you
      phobic of Christians or other people of faith because they do not
      conform to your belief system?

      Gays in our country have the
      same rights and protections as any citizen, plus added protections under
      anti-hate crimes legislation in some places. Because two people are of
      one sex and by definition cannot be married is recognition of a physical
      reality, not a loss of personal freedom.

      Man and woman equal marriage because sono fatti l’uno all’altra.

  • hombre111

    You need to read John Courtney Murray to understand the difference between tolerance and freedom of religion in a pluralistic society.

    • John200

      Fr. Hombre,

      I am glad you are well. You might provide a few lines to summarize Fr. Murray’s point, or even give a specific title, rather than direct busy people to his entire oeuvre. He made many points and was a most productive writer. But focused on an article or book, you might get some takers.

      • hombre111

        Thanks. Pope Benedict’s argument about “relativism” and the bishops’ attack on the health care mandate are a return to the battle entered by John Courtney Murray in 1945. At that point, he agreed with them, but then as he did more study and research, he moved away from that position. His argument is especially important today. Does the Church advocate religious tolerance while waiting for the moment when she can assert her will because error has no rights? Or does the Church really believe in freedom of religion in a pluralistic society as she said in VatII, which means a whole different kind of intellectual enterprise? Murray was not satisfied by the arguments given by Vatican II, because he said they were not strong enough.
        Anyway, “Religious Liberty,” by Murray, edited by J. Leon Hooper S.J.. The long introduction is great. Westminster/Knox Press. Also/or John Courtney Murray– theologian in Conflict, Pelotte, Paulist Press.

  • Billy Bean

    “In both cases the British courts held that marriage between one man and one woman were not core Christian beliefs and therefore not protected.” In one sense, the British courts were correct here. Until very recently, the aforementioned definition of marriage was not a distinctively Christian doctrine; it was a tenet of our common humanity.

  • Steve

    Take heart people of Faith. These times signal that our Lord’s arrival is near. Rejoice! We knew we had do to undergo a purification. The Tribulation is at hand. Remember what He said, “The gates of hell will NEVER prevail against his bride the Church”. He must cleanse what we have soiled. We know how the story ends. Pray and Endure. This is where we must hold fast. This evil will be permitted a short reign. Gods awesome justice will soon sweep them to a terrible oblivion.

  • rogue hop

    FYI – Crises Mag – do you know that lately every time I’ve logged onto your site the flash player ads on right low side display the power’slop’ ad depicting Benedict XVI presiding over two blokes getting married? might wanna do something about that – according to nz advertising ‘authorities’ no one’s gonna get sniffy about it, but I’m gay, and the satanic arrogance of the cooperates promulgating these ads pisses me off.

  • Pingback: Abuses In Marriages » Blog Archive » The New Moral McCarthyism()

  • Thea

    Although Croatia is still not a member of the EU, the new liberal government introduced a health education with four modules. This programme was made and introduced in schools in less than two months. There was no evaluation, no open and public debate, and they violated the constitution. The fourth module is about sexual education and it promotes LGBT values. The Church, parents and other religious groups strongly oppose to that kind of education.They want at least freedom to choose. However, the government does not want to listen, they even discriminate against Christians. Some politicians openly said that we are bigots, we don’t understand science, etc. For more than 4 months now, the Church is a target of various awful attacks.

  • Pingback: What Dreams May Come: Azazel and the Pursuit of Justice | Big Pulpit()

  • Pingback: The New Moral McCarthyism -()

  • Kevin

    “How did the tiniest of minorities—no more than 2% of the population—get
    in a position to silence the beliefs and punish the practices of
    hundreds of millions?”

    Because it’s not just them. They are being used by the secularist elites to delegitimize the concept of freedom of conscience, which is indispensable for a free society. They are cannon fodder. They would do well to look at history and see whether they have fared better in Christian societies or in societies where a functionally atheistic state is the supreme authority.

    • schmenz

      Indeed, Kevin. They are cannon-fodder. And when the despots no longer have use of them they will most likely be exterminated.

  • Pingback: “Abortion Ends Life? So What?” Here be Monsters. – UPDATED()

  • Prof_Override

    Nice picture of the bishops and archbishops.

    • Augustus

      Ah, so you finally come clean on your anti-Catholic prejudice. Why am I not surprised?

      • Prof_Override

        miss the point friend. He who flings the “N” word (or in this case
        picture) has lost the moral high ground and the argument before they even
        started. Sorry for being too cryptic. There are no Nazis on either side of this
        debate, I don’t see how putting a bunch of goose steppers at the lead of the
        article is anything but inflammatory, demagogic nonsense.

  • Psychology has largly studied homosexuality as has the church. Oral fixation and sodomy of the body is an abomination but not a grave sin, so while they should confess and seek help the sex acts are forgivable. Should the state decide that monogamy is a right of the sick to be recognized as a loving marriage then the catholic body should continue to extend the olive branch of peace and continue to fearfully call lost souls back to Christ. Pray for the sick, Jesus is Truth.

  • Cathal Loftus

    Homosexual-ISM is wrong. N.B.There are many good people of homosexual orientation leading chaste and holy lives, harming nobody, and, contributing to the common good.

    • So you argue that a good homosexual is one who does nothing homosexual.

  • Robert

    Christianity is condemned because people cannot accept the presence of the supernatural. But they can easily accept the homosexual agenda.

  • Robert

    it seems that there will be a period of mob rule taking over soon. There seem to be many angry individuals who oppose all forms of government. While the liberal government was largely antithetical to traditional conservatives it at least contained the vestiges of the old government which was controlled by them. With opposition to all government you can expect more social upheavals and more anarchy and mobocracy.

  • Pingback: FRC Blog » The Social Conservative Review: January 31, 2013()

  • (Re the Super Bowl Gay-la, how come anti-gay Culliver needs
    “re-education” but pro-gay Ayanbadejo – an in-your-face promoter for the
    gay 3 percent of the population – doesn’t? Saw the following on the

    America becoming a Nightmare-ica !

    stated in Luke 17 that just before His return to earth as Judge, two
    big “crazes” will happen worldwide at the same time: (1) insane violence
    (“days of Noah”), and (2) outrageous sexual perversion (“days of Lot” –
    see Gen. 19). Aren’t beheadings, cannibalism, and school shootings
    violent? And what’s more perverted than a mob trying to rape LITERAL
    angels (see Gen. 19 again)?! So, America, keep spitting on the God named
    in all 50 state constitutions. But you’d better duck when He spits
    back!! (PS – For a bigger enchilada, Google “when DIVERSITY becomes

  • gradyphilpott

    Regardless of which way the social winds blow, Christians should remain Christians and in doing so follow the actions of Christ who ministered to sinners. Same-sex marriage is an absurdity, but it has only become the order of the day because heterosexuals have diminished the meaning of marriage, as is reflected in the divorce rate.

    The homosexuals have only rushed in to fill the void left by heterosexuals who either are not bothering to marry or who leap from marriage to marriage, as if their vows are meaningless, which is the case, once they are broken.

    In the meantime, Christians must “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and render unto God the things that are God’s” by doing the job one has been given to accomplish, while themselves remaining faithful to one’s own faith.

    Is it worse to give a marriage license to a same-sex couple who may or may not honor whatever vows they may make than it is to give a marriage license to a couple whom we already know have only a 50% chance of honoring their vows?

    Ultimately, it is the calling of Christians to serve God and his children, however difficult that may be under some circumstances. This is not to suggest that Christians must perforce be willing support every social change, because there are lines we must not cross.

    However, in this particular case, the marriage institution in society is moribund and sadly, very few seem able to defend the social institution without resorting to a religious defense, which while important, is not the best reason to defend the institution.

    The best reason to defend the marriage institution is because it is the foundation of society and without it our civilization will fail, but that brings us back to the question of who is responsible for the current state of marriage.

    We must remove the beam from our own eyes before we can remove the mote in our neighbors’ eyes.

  • Pingback: “Homophobia” and “Islamophobia”: Totalitarian Threats Foreign and Domestic()