CHRISTMAS BLOG- SHARE THE BLESSING

The most practical Christmas gift I can give to you is a pervasive truth from the Scriptures.  A pervasive truth is one that jumps out at us from many books of the Bible and is repeated frequently.  I call this particular truth, "Share the Blessings".

Here is the truth I'm talking about:  When we are the recipients of a blessing, we are not to bottle it, horde it, or store it.  Rather, we are to share the blessing!  A perfect example is in 2 Corinthians 1:3,4. 

"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, Who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from God."

In other words, if we are blessed, pass it on.  Jesus makes it clear in the Lord's Prayer that, if we are forgiven, we are to be forgiving.  When the Holy Spirit blesses us with a spiritual gift, we are not to bottle it for our own enjoyment, but we are to use it to share with others.  When we have been encouraged, encourage others.  They need it.

I encourage you to Share the Blessings this Advent season and rejoice as the blessings spread through your family, friends, and neighbors.

May God bless you greatly this Christmas season and into the New Year!


_______________________________________________________________________

Let's change subjects completely....

HUDNA

Just as I was preparing to write to you about the ceasefire between Israel and the Palestinians, someone gave me an article from news commentator Charles Krauthammer which covered the topic.  He does a good job explaining what is really going on at this time.  It is called "HUDNA".  I hope you have seen his article.  I want to expand on his explanation from my experience inside Islam which I referred to in an earlier blog.

The main line media would have us believe that the new leader in Egypt is cooperating with the U. S. to help bring about a ceasefire between Israel and the Palestinians.  He is actually being praised for his role in the process.  Nothing could be more naive.  He is a leader in the Muslim Brotherhood.  He has no interest in real peace with Israel.  He is simply engaged in the ancient Islamic strategy of HUDNA.  It goes back to Mohammed.  Mohammed used Hudna a few times in his life.  It has been a strategic weapon in Islamic conquests ever since.  It has been used so many times that it has its own name.  Here is how it works:

When muslims are engaged in a conflict and things are not going well, they call for a ceasefire.  They negotiate the conditions for the ceasefire which can be anything because they have no intention of keeping them for long.  Then they re-arm, repair the weapons, adjust strategy, and replenish the troops until they believe they have the upper hand.  Then they resume the attack.  That is what the Palestinians are doing right now.  They will resume the rocket attacks on Israel as soon as they see they have the upper hand.  The new Egyptian leader is simply a tool to implement Hudna. I hope our State Dept. realizes that before they nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize.

REACTING TO THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Everyone I've talked to this week has a reaction to Tuesday's election.  The election was a great way to express one's opinion about the way the nation is run.  About half of the voters thought President Obama earned 4 more years to try to bring about the "change" he talked about in 2008.  The other half wanted a change in leadership.  They preferred a successful, experienced businessman who understands the economy and has run various large organizations.

The responses after Tuesday were predictable.  President's supporters were joyful.  The supporters of Gov. Romney were crushed.  They felt he was the last hope to keep us from rushing over the "cliff" into disaster which so many advisors are predicting.  Many are now making plans to protect themselves and their families from the coming disaster. 

Here are some thoughts for those who are believers:
1. An old hymn says something like this, "This is not our home, we are just passing through".  I Peter 2:11 says, "Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires."  Throughout Peter's letter believers are referred to as "strangers".  Hebrews 11:13 has the same idea. Our real citizenship is not here, but in heaven. (Philippians 3:20).  This world should seem strange to believers because we are strangers here.  So, we should not be surprised at decisions that people make that seem unreasonable.  I remember the day not long ago when the Federal Government reversed the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.  At the same time, the ban on beastiality was also lifted.  I never felt more like a "stranger" in my life. Peter's words were never more real.
2. Involving oneself in political efforts to which we are committed is admirable.  But, to bring others into the new citizenship of heaven is to be our primary activity.  As much as we love to involve ourselves in the things of this world, we need to heed Paul's advice, "As we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who by the power that enables Him to bring everything under His control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like His glorious body".  Our earthly citizenship is only temporary.  Our heavenly citizenship is eternal.

WHY DO MUSLIMS OBJECT SO VIOLENTLY TO INSULTS TO MOHAMMAD ?

For six years my position had me sit in on the Friday Muslim Jummah prayer meetings for Muslim males.  I hardly missed a meeting in those years.  Therefore, I listened to the Quran verses read, the explanations and discussions, and read the publications and promotional materials.  9/11 happened during my time inside Islam and I was able to hear what Muslim men had to say about the event among themselves... which was very revealing when compared to what was said in public.  I also came to understand why Muslims react to various situations in ways that puzzle the public.

In recent weeks we saw millions of Muslims rioting in cities around the world.  Buildings were burned, people attacked, cities were shut down, and chaos ruled.  And it was all blamed on a video trailer about Mohammad.  Non-Muslims around the world kept asking, "Why all the fuss?" I'll try to shed light on the question from my experience.

It's really quite simple.  It comes down to the excellent exemplar principle contained in Surah 33:21 of the Quran.  Muslims are taught that it is an act of faithfulness and righteousness to honor the Prophet Mohammad by following his example.  It is seen as a way to please Allah and gain his favor.  So, the question becomes, "How did Mohammad react to criticism, insults, or rejection?"

The answer is found in the sacred writings of Islam such as the Quran and Hadith.  As the prophet was beginning to share his revelations received from the angel Gabriel while he was in the caves of Mount Hira, he discovered that the people of his hometown of Mecca were not very impressed.  Most of the town was turned off by his revelations.  The rejection was so intense that only the influence of his prominent uncle and wife saved his life.  When they passed away, he had to flee the city for Medina where he found a better reception.  But, the positive reception was due mainly to his political skills at mending strife between various factions in the town.  He put together a following of fighters that attacked and looted caravans out of Mecca. He built a financial, political, and military base with his new source of revenue.  His revelations met with mixed responses. 

He wanted to reach out to the Jewish population in Medina.  But, when they compared his revelations to their sacred writings, they rejected what they viewed as his flawed teachings.  Their rejection including mockery.  He became furious.  At one time he was positive about the Jews as is revealed in early verses in the Quran.  But, when the Jews rejected his teachings and mocked him, things turned ugly.  In 627 A.D., when he saw an opportunity to blame the Jews for siding with Mecca, he lined up 800 Jewish men beside a large ditch and beheaded each one.  It took all day and most of the night.  But, he finally killed them all.  Many wonder why Muslims are so anti-Jewish.  It's because of the excellent exemplar principle.  The hatred the Prophet developed over time is copied by his followers.

Mohammad reacted to the rejections of most of the city of Mecca by leading his forces against the city.  He led various raids, but a victory in 624 A.D. at Badr gave him confidence to continue until he entered Mecca victoriously and began to exact revenge.  Poets who had written lyrics that he saw as insults were targets.  It made no difference if they were male or female.  They were executed.  It became a capital offense to compose lyrics against the prophet when he took Mecca.  Hadith 9:50 records Mohammad as saying, "No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (unbeliever or infidel)".  Why do Muslims treat unbelievers, those who have left Islam for other faiths, and those who insult Mohammad with so much hostility?   It's the excellent exemplar principle.

March 26, 2009, the Muslims on the Human Rights Council of the U.N. proposed a law to forbid criticism of religion.  The only religion specifically mentioned was Islam.  The obvious reason was to forbid anyone in the world from insulting the Prophet.  So much for free speech.  At the latest meeting of the U.N., the same subject came up again.  It will continually come up until the world capitulates.  Think through the consequences of such a rule.  Never again could there be a reasonable discussion of any religion. 

I hope this explanation helps you to understand the situation we are in presently.

Tired of political campaigns and ads?

 If you are tired of typical political campaigns and unending ads and phone calls, I offer you some relief.  Dr. Barbara  Bellar is a former nun, an Army major, a lawyer, a college professor and a physician.  Now Dr. Bellar wants to be a state senator from Illlinois' 18th district.

She was warming up the crowd for a campaign appearance by Mitt Romney with the following sentence about Obamacare:

"So let me get this straight.  This is a long sentence.  We are going to be gifted by a health care plan that we are forced to purchase, and fined if we don't, which reportedly covers 10 million more people without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman doesn't understand it, passed by Congress, that didn't read it, but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a president who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, for which we will be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese and financed by a country that is broke. So what the blank could go wrong?"

What do Dr. Bellar's comments have to do with a blog on freedom of speech?  Not a great deal.  I just thought you may enjoy a comical break from all those political ads we have bombarding us every day.  I am glad we still have the freedom to share such thoughts.  That freedom is disappearing rapidly.  So, enjoy it while we can.

Blessings on you

Uprisings in Egypt and Libya and around the Middle East

This week we observed 9/11 and remembered the attacks on New York and Washington.  In other parts of the world, it was a time to celebrate the attacks and continue them by destroying American embassys and killing Americans working in those buildings.  As I watched the news coverage, I saw several people questioned as to whether or not these attacks were an "act of war".  My reaction was, "How absurd. War has already been declared".

On February 23, 1998, five Islamic caliphates signed a fatwa declaring war against the United States.  Representing five Islamic factions, these men united to call the Muslim world to common cause against the perceived enemy of Islam.

The statement was signed by Sheikh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin; Ayman al-Zawahiri, leader of the Jihad Group in Egypt; Abu-Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, a leader of the Islamic group; Sheikh Mir Hamzah, secretary of the Jamiatul-Ulema-e-Pakistan; and Fazlul Rahman, leader of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh.  These five caliphates have been held in high esteem by hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide.

The fatwa is four pages long, but it can be summarized by this conclusion: "On that basis, and in compliance with Allah's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:  The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies-civilians and military-is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it....This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, 'and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together, and fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah' ".

Since the fatwa was issued, there has been a continual series of attacks on America and Americans lasting to the present.  The fatwa is still active and yet I see no indication that American officials or the population in general know about it.  Thousands of American civilians and military have been murdered and mutilated since the fatwa was issued and we are still asking, "Are these attacks an act of war?"

The current attacks are supposedly prompted by a little known film showing the Prophet Muhammad in a negative light.  I haven't seen the film.  I don't know anyone who has, but news sources claim Muhammad is depicted as a womanizer and pedophile.  According to Islamic history, Muhammad's first wife, Khadija, died and Muhammad then married somewhere between 15 and 25 other women.  Does that make him a "womanizer"?  I'll let you decide.  His close friend, Abu-Bakr, gave his seven year old daughter, Aisha, to Muhammad to be one of his wives.  Islamic history says Muhammad consummated the marriage when she was nine.  Does that make him a pedophile?  I'll let you decide. 

But the film is not the real issue.  Authorities now know these attacks were not primarily a spontaneous response to a film.  They were too well planned.  They are the work of organized armies carrying out the 1998 fatwa and we better understand the fact so we can respond properly.

Our purpose is to promote the free expression of faith, be it doctrine, mores, or practice.  This past month we have seen a classic confrontation over a mores issue.
The head of the fast food chain, Chick-fil-A's Mr. Cathy, expressed his beliefs on marriage in the media.  He holds that his faith stands for traditional marriage between a man and a woman.  We applaud such free expressions.  His company does not limit service or employment to those who agree with his views.  But, he did speak out on the issue.

There was the expected response from those who disagree.  We also applaud the expressions of their side of the issue.  They should have the right to express their side.  So far, so good.  But then the debate took a different turn when some mayors, including Rahm Emanuel of Chicago stated that Mr. Cathy's views were not Chicago views and set out to keep Chick-fil-A from doing business in the Chicago area. 

Having lived in Chicagoland for decades, I know there are a multitude of business owners who agree more with Mr. Cathy than they do with Mayor Emanuel.  We also find out that, at the time the mayor was criticizing Chick-fil-A, he was cuddled up with Louis Farrakhan, the head of the Nation of Islam.  Mr. Farrakhan has been a strong critic of gays and of Jews for as long as I can remember. Mr Emanuel is the first Jewish mayor of Chicago.  So, I find it strange that the mayor would stick it to Mr. Cathy whose company does not practice discrimination against gays in service or employment, but hangs with Mr. Farrakhan who is openly prejudice in word and practice.

What's up mayor?  You are confusing us.

Having just celebrated the 4th of July, I think it would be appropriate to share a struggle for freedom of faith right here in the USA.  Deacon Robert F. Gorman delivered the following comments at the Sts. Peter and Paul Roman Catholic Church in New Braunfels, TX just before July 4th.  It is entitled Homily on Religious Liberty.  Here is part of what he said:

"Today the Catholic Church remains the largest single provider of education, health, and charitable assistance in the world.  It is our right and our duty to seek social justice in charitable action.  This is who we are, and Christ himself commanded it.

But our Congress passed a Health Care law two years ago that threatens to deprive the Church of its ability to practice the corporal works of mercy and our current Administration has issued executive orders through the Department of Health and Human Services that intrude on the free exercise of religion.  They declared that churches must provide free coverage to their exployees for artificial contraception, sterilization, and abortifacient drugs.  After the loud protest by Catholic Bishops, the Administration announced an accommodation that exempted churches and houses of worship from such requirements.  But this still required that Catholic schools, hospitals, and social agencies employing or serving persons other than Catholics, which nearly all of them do, must violate the teaching of the Church by subsidizing morally offensive activity that advances the culture of death and violates the right to life. The Bishops rejected the accommodation as deceptive and unacceptable.

The government is attempting to redefine religious freedom as limited to worship inside churches.  It thus seeks to limit the free exercise and practice of religion in the public square.  We are witnessing before our very eyes a government that seeeks to usurp our rights, to limit religion merely to worship, and to place our charitable work under morally offensive regulation.  Our bishops across the nation have clearly stated that the church cannot and will not accept this unjust law, and they have asked us as Catholics to stand up for our religious rights.. Forty-three Catholic institutions have joined to sue the federal government for violation of religious rights under free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment."

I understand that Deacon Gorman is a faculty member of a state university in Texas.  We commend his efforts and the stance that so many people of faith are taking to oppose the government's attack on freedom of faith.

In 45 years of counseling, I've noticed that one topic keeps popping up. The topic is forgiveness.  When unforgiveness is harbored for any length of time, it festers and leads to all kinds of negative consequences.  I've seen it actually cause physical illness as well as emotional and spiritual pain.  If we are to enjoy good health, it is important to learn to deal with forgiveness in a healthy manner.

Most every faith community recognizes the importance of being forgiven and being forgiving.  In the Psalms, King David often worships God for His forgiveness.  In the Lord's Prayer, Jesus forever linked being forgiven to being forgiving.  So, it appears that we need to understand forgiveness.

The key to understanding "forgive" is found in the word itself.  Actually, it is two words in both English and Spanish:  FOR and GIVE or PER and DON.  In old English, it is GIVE FORTH.  In other words, to forgive is to give something away...to sacrifice.  There is no forgiveness without sacrifice!  If you forgive my financial debt, you sacrifice your right to be paid back.  From the moment you forgive my debt, I'm treated as if I owe you nothing.

If I have wronged you and ask for your forgiveness, I'm asking you to sacrifice certain things such as:
-the right to get even or get revenge
-the right to harbor ill will or a grudge
-the right to bring the issue to the surface over and over

So, before we tell someone that we forgive them, we had better consider carefully the sacrifice we will be making.  Saying you forgive someone without sacrifice is just empty words and will bring no healing to your heart or life.  But, true sacrificial forgiveness will bring deliverance and healing.

Those asking for forgiveness need to understand the significance of their request.  They are asking for a sincere and significant sacrifice to be made.  If their request is granted, the only proper response is a grateful heart .

Last month I published an article explaining my exposure to the early days of the campaign by gay leaders to change the public perception of the homosexual lifestyle.  Much has happened since the article was written in April including the President "evolving" into a position favoring gay marriage,  North Carolina voting overwhelmingly to define "marriage" as between a man and a woman, and Mitt Romney endorsing traditional marriage.

However, there have been several other related items that attracted much less attention. First, the President contacted some of his spiritual advisers after his interview announcing his change of mind.  Some advisers said they could not concur with the President's conclusion and that the Scriptures are clear in prohibiting homosexual activity. 

Second, Judge Jeanine Pirro of Fox News was discussing a transgender performance by a teen on a show popular with youth.  When someone raised questions about the appropriateness of such a scene, the Judge's response indicated her belief that the performer's orientation was not a matter of choice, but just who they are.  (i.e. "born that way" argument). 

Finally, a print shop in Lexington, Ky, Hands On Originals, is being investigated by the Lexington Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission at the direction of the gay mayor, Jim Gray, because they refused to print T-shirts for a gay pride event due to the mores of their faith which prohibits homosexual activity.  The public school system and the University of Kentucky have put a hold on their orders from the printer.  The action of the mayor and the Commission is a violation of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18 and the first article of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 

The gay rights campaign is accelerating their demands for special rights and acceptance in light of the President's evolution.  They are on a roll and want to take advantage of the moment.  This is the perfect time to counter with the revelation of their 5 myths.  Those myths are 40+ years old and accepted by half of Americans.  As a reminder, here they are again (see the article called The Ruse I published in April)
Myth 1.  Over 10% of the population is involved in homosexual activity.  Only about 2% of the population is involved in homosexual activity. It isn't nearly as common as the campaign wants us to believe.
Myth 2.  Homosexual sex is as normal as heterosexual sex. It is not as natural by any scientific evaluation.  The Commander in Chief and the Military put homosexual activity and bestiality on the same level of what is natural.
Myth 3.  They are born that way.  The American Psychological Association says there is no conclusive scientific or medical evidence that the origins of homosexuality are hormonal or genetic.  In other words, the idea that people are born homosexual is political science.  So, there is no legitimate reason to treat homosexuality the same way as we treat race or ethnicity.  It is not a civil rights issue.  It is an acquired appetite.  Usually, the appetite is acquired under psychological, sociological, or physical duress.  And we don't want that duress applied to our children.
Myth 4.  Homosexuals can't change.  People have changed their sexual appetites as they have changed other appetites.
Myth 5.  Religious prohibitions are not relevant.  Those who have reservations about homosexual activity due to prohibitions of faith are not homophobes, bigots, and hate-mongers.  They do not think such prohibitions are irrelevant, but that the prohibitions are rational for historical, sociological, psychological, medical, and spiritual reasons. 

It is time the public knows they are being duped and the presuppositions underlying  the regulations and laws being passed by states and the federal government are based on mythological propaganda.  The gay leadership should understand that those of us who have seen through their tactics are weary of their worn out use of pejoratives to silence us.  It is a childish tactic that informed people dismiss.

THE RUSE

The purpose of Freedom of Faith is to encourage the free expression of faith issues.  That includes doctrines, world views, and also mores.  Lately, the free expression of mores has been challenged by media and government.  It seems that when a faith community inserts comments on social mores, the attacks explode in an effort to silence the voices of faith.  Nowhere is that more evident than when human sexuality is the issue.   So, I’m going to use this opportunity to address one issue that has been hotly debated for several decades in both the secular and religious worlds.

At the beginning of the 1970’s, I was serving as a counselor at a state university in Illinois.  My clients were primarily faculty, but I spent considerable time with students.  I also traveled to many Midwestern universities one week per month working with groups of faculty and students.  The counselors on our campus had a close relationship and met regularly to share information and encourage one another.  We represented various faith groups and organizations on campus, and yet there was a strong bond of dedication to making campus life a healthy educational experience for all during a period  described as chaotic.

At that time we were called together for a workshop led by a group from Chicago.  Such meetings were not unusual, so it was well attended.  We learned that the group consisted of leaders of the gay movement who wanted to express their take on attitudes toward them.  The topics of the workshop consisted of:

-          Perceptions they wanted to change about  gay people

-          The strategy to bring about such change

-          How to deal with opposition

-          How we could be involved in their strategy

-          Why religious prohibitions of the gay lifestyle were not valid

Here are some details they presented about each of the topics:

PERCEPTIONS TO BE CHANGED

First, they wanted the public to think that the practice of homosexuality was much more common than the public thought.  They put out the statistic that 10%+ of Americans were practicing homosexuals.  They were promoting the idea that homosexual activity was very common.  That led to…

Second, homosexual acts are just as normal as heterosexual acts.  One’s “orientation” was no more normal than another’s, just different.   That led to…

Third, the origins of homosexuality are genetic or hormonal.  In other words, gay people are born that way.  Therefore, homosexuality becomes a civil rights issue just like race or ethnicity.  That led to…

Fourth, homosexuals can never change their sensual appetites.  They are what they are for life.  No amount of counseling or treatment can make any difference.  (This issue obviously had our attention as counselors).  That led to…

Fifth, the historic religious prohibitions against homosexual behavior were really prohibitions against a lack of hospitality, not homosexual activity.  They brought in a priest from Chicago who had recently written a book presenting such a view. 

STRATEGY TO BRING ABOUT THESE CHANGES IN PUBLIC PERCEPTION

Their campaign was going to start on the campuses of America.  That is why they came to our university.  They would promote their agenda to the faculty, who would in turn teach it to the students who would take it with them when they graduated.  Because those grads would be the leaders of the next generation, the new perceptions would be transferred rapidly.  They also would work diligently to put sympathetic people in key faculty and administrative positions.  The idea was to gradually percolate down  to high school and then grade school.

The next target was to be the media and entertainment.  They knew the ever increasing influence of media and entertainment on youth.

Next would be a tough campaign to change the medical community’s perception.  They knew this would be more about political science than medical science.  One of their toughest battles would be to change the idea of what is “normal”.  The other would be to deal with the view of most experts about the origin of homosexual tendencies.  This would be critical to their success.

Of course, they needed to target government, politics, and the military.  Using the “civil rights” tactic, they were going to promote sensitivity training to weed out the strongholds of opposition.  At the same time, they targeted the business world with the same strategy.

One area they knew was going to be a problem was the various faith communities.  Their strategy was to convince the clergy that the prohibitions against homosexuality in the holy writings were not really about homosexuality and they wanted the clergy and church leaders to convince the laity. 

DEALING WITH OPPOSITION

Persistence was the key.  They were going to keep hammering home their perceptions until enough people bought into them to make them common.  Those who opposed them would be minimized by derision, pejoratives, and political pressure.  This was strange to us because these were the days of free speech where opposition was handled by the exchange of ideas.

HOW WE WERE TO BE INVOLVED

They knew many of us had roots in various faith communities.  They were recruiting us to inject their message into those communities using, among other things, the book written by the priest who was with them.  We were to be their representatives to convince people of faith that the various holy writings didn’t really prohibit homosexuality. 

Knowing we were counseling many faculty and students, they wanted us to get behind the changes in perception they were promoting and pass them along to those we were working with each day.

WHY THE RELIGIOUS PROHIBITIONS AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY ARE NOT VALID

The main point made by the priest was that God was not upset at Sodom and Gomorrah for the homosexuality displayed, but because the people didn’t treat the visitors well.  Then he went on to dispute the way the word for homosexuality has been translated and interpreted.  His point is that God was offended by the lack of hospitality of the people, not their sexual activity.

FOLLOWUP TO THE WORKSHOP

Our group of counselors met and discussed the workshop afterwards.  It led to many discussions between us for months to come.  As I recall, the main conclusion was that we did not believe the public would be gullible enough to accept the ideas presented in their campaign.  What the gay leadership did not understand was that most of us at the workshop had as much training in the holy writings as the priest did.  We knew his contentions were unreasonable and could not be proven.  So, we also dismissed the rest of the presentation as having little chance of success.

Obviously, we were mistaken.  The gay leadership has pulled off one of the most successful campaigns in history.  They have been almost completely successful in changing the American perception of homosexuality.  The education system has become a willing ally.  Media and entertainment are submerged in their mindset.  Medical literature has danced to their music until recently.  (I’ll discuss that later).  Their sensitivity classes are taught in the world of government, military, politics, and business.  Opposition is not tolerated. 

The only significant defeats have come from faith communities.  The “inhospitality” argument has only been partially successful.  Some mainline churches have bought in, but most orthodox bodies have not.  So, some time ago, the strategy was changed.  The revised approach has been to isolate the opposition by claiming that it’s not important what the holy writings say.  We’ve moved beyond those outdated prohibitions since we are so much more enlightened.  That strategy has been far more effective.

WHERE ARE WE NOW?

The gay leadership has successfully convinced a significant numbers of Americans that:

-          10%+ of our population is gay and therefore being gay is common

-          Homosexuality is just as normal and natural as heterosexuality

-          The origins of homosexuality are hormonal and/or genetic (we are born that way).  Therefore, it is a civil rights issue

-          One’s propensity cannot be changed

-          Prohibitions by any faith community  are not relevant

WHAT IS THE TRUTH?

One of the results of the gay leadership workshop was that I decided to check their facts.  Fortunately, I had access to the entire library of a large state university to do my research.  I have continued to engage in the quest for truth about the perceptions we as a society have absorbed until the present. I have been motivated by the fact that I have encountered those involved in the gay lifestyle throughout my career.  In order to be helpful, I needed to know the truth.  Here are the results of my research:

THE REAL NUMBERS

The 10%+ figure came from Kinsey’s survey published years before.   Upon investigation, we find the whole study was badly skewed.  The study included 1500 sex offenders, 600 male and female prostitutes, prisoners, and residents of homosexual enclaves.  He also was upfront about his bias.

The University of Chicago National Opinion Research Center has studied the numbers for 30 years.  Their results have held fairly steady from the 1980’s to 2010.  They say that 2% are gay, lesbian, or bisexual.

The 2010 Census Demographic  Profile says 2.5% of the population is homosexual or bisexual.

The Alan Guttmacher 1991 study said 1.1% of men were exclusively gay.  2.3% admitted to having a same sex experience.

My research included many more studies, but the bottom line is that only about 1/5 of the number of people the gay campaign claims to be involved in the homosexual lifestyle is actually involved.  I’ll leave it to you to decide if 2% is “common”.

NORMAL

The claim is that homosexual activity is as “normal” as heterosexual activity.  The Psychological textbooks of the 1960’s and 1970’s were very clear.  It was considered “abnormal behavior”.  That has changed.  But, a course in Anatomy 101 would cast serious doubt on how normal it is.  The same course would put it close to bestiality as far as “normal” is concerned.  That is supported by the recent military rejection of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy which also rejected prohibitions against bestiality putting the two activities on the same plane.

ORIGINS OF HOMOSEXUALITY

The gay campaign wants us to believe the origins of homosexuality are hormonal or genetic.  I found that the textbooks of the 1960’s and 1970’s were inclined to consider the origins to be due to an acquired appetite.  Usually, the appetite was acquired under psychological, sociological, or physical duress.   What caught my attention was the great lengths the authors went to present case studies to support their conclusions.  It also caught my attention because my own counseling experience for many decades has verified those case studies and the conclusion that homosexuality is an acquired appetite.

But, the efforts of the gay campaign have been very influential.  In 1998, the American Psychological Association published a brochure entitled, “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality”.  The brochure contained the following statement, “There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.”

Then, in recent years, the same organization revised the brochure to read, “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation.  Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.  Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles…”

In other words, there is no scientific or medical evidence that people are “born that way”.  That position is supported by the experience of a medical student who reported that during his years in med school, his class asked several professors about the origins of homosexuality.  The consistent answer was that there is no medical or scientific evidence that it is hormonal or genetic.

This issue is huge when you consider that all the laws and regulations being passed by government are based on the myth that people who engage in homosexual acts are “born that way”.  It is consistently treated as a civil rights issue like race or ethnicity when in fact it is not.  It is a ruse foisted on society by a carefully calculated propaganda campaign.  “Ruse” is not my term.  Some gay leaders have called on their cohorts to abandon the “born that way” ruse because they no longer need it for success.  They use the term “ruse” to describe the argument.  But, as we have recently seen when an entertainment personality spoke out about her choice to engage in lesbian activities, the gay leaders go berserk at the suggestion that one has any choice in who they are or what they do.  Such talk about “choice” is common inside the shock jock radio and TV world, but this lady’s comments reached the mainline media and that is not allowed.  So, the iron boot came down hard on her and she had to step back on her comments.

NO CHANGE

Of course, if there is no choice, then there can be no change.  The propaganda machine insists that, since they are “born gay”, there can be no changing the fact.  The problem is that there are thousands of people who were once involved in the homosexual lifestyle who are now actively heterosexual and willing to testify to the fact.  The gay leaders insist that they are all lying.  Their adamant denial is understandable.  If the public knew about the overwhelming evidence of change, it would destroy their civil rights strategy and the public would realize they have been duped and the sensitivity courses they have had to attend and the laws that have been passed are based on false presuppositions.

RELIGIOUS PROHIBITIONS

I’ve already discussed how the religious prohibitions against homosexuality are being challenged.  This part of the gay campaign has been the least successful.  So, they have changed tactics and declared such prohibitions as irrelevant and anyone who brings up religious issues is immediately branded a “homophobe”, “hatemonger”, and “bigot”.  This was evident recently as Bernie Goldberg blasted anyone who had a problem with a national retail chain choosing a lesbian as their spokesperson as “a racial bigot”.  The new tactics obviously are working.  Even Bill O’Reilly of Fox News has spouted the 10%+ stat in the last 6 months even though I’m sure he knows that the stat was debunked 40 years ago.

No one seems to want to investigate the obvious because they fear the smear.  But, I will go ahead and bring up the point.  Why is it that the holy writings of the ancient world religions are, as far as I have read, almost unanimous in their strong prohibition of homosexual activity?  Ancient civilizations must have seen the practical need for such prohibitions.  When the major world religions are united on an issue, there is a practical reason.  For example, all the major world religions have some form of the Golden Rule.  They are not identical, but they all have it in one form or another.  Why?  Because it is critical to survival.  The same is true of prohibitions.  They saw the need because of what they witnessed in the human race from the earliest of days.  Homosexual activity has been around since history began.  They had plenty of evidence upon which to build a stand.  The resulting stand was to prohibit it. 

CONCLUSIONS

The campaign of the gay leaders has been very successful.  This minute group of people has…

-          Redefined the basic human unit of civilization.  A small group of people in just a few years has been very successful in redefining marriage.  The definition has stood since the beginning of history.  Now the human race is being told that they have been wrong all this time and the definition needs to be altered.

-          Outlawed the opposing voices.  More and more countries are banning any negative statements about homosexuality.  After reading about rulings in Canada and Europe, we can see the future in the USA.  Even historical, medical, scientific, or moral statements of facts will soon not be tolerated.  The alumni of the Free Speech Movement are being told to be quiet or else…  Even the majority of the Pro Family commentators have decided not to continue the battle because they fear the smear.  Many are now parroting the propaganda they once criticized.  The iron boot wants to make it political suicide to be Pro Family.

-          Opened the door for the procession into society of a world of formerly taboo practices.  One conclusion of our group of counselors was that, if the homosexual campaign were to be successful, it would be like a tractor-trailer.  Homosexuality would be the tractor to burst through the gates of acceptance and it would bring with it pedophilia, bestiality, S & M, sex slavery, bigamy, etc.  We were correct.  For example, you have only to watch the world news to see the age of consent plummet .  It will continue to do so until there are no laws against pedophilia.  Eliminating age of consent has been vital to the gay campaign since its inception. 

Before the iron boot kicks in my door, I need to reveal my history.  I have worked with,  aided, counseled, and helped those involved in homosexual activities my whole career.  I have walked with them through the most traumatic days of their lives for more than 40 years and continue to do so today.  No one has ever accused me of treating them in a prejudicial manner. 

My purpose for this article is to open the door to some interesting history that not many people have had the opportunity to witness and explain how we arrived at this point where a very small portion of the population has so much influence over what we see, read, think, say, and learn.  The amazing fact is that is has been based on a ruse of 5 myths.

Here is some more history about the 1966 UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 18 which I quoted in the February 2012 blog:
The General Assembly in 1981 adopted the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on religion or belief.  It remains the most important codification of the principle of freedom of relgion and belief.  The articles remained almost unchanged from 1966 to 1981.  Several states had reservations.  Romania, Poland, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, and the U.S.S.R. objected because it didn't take sufficient account of atheistic beliefs.  The Organization of Islamic Conference objected to any provision that was contrary to Shari'a law.  So, the roadblocks to Article 18 have and still are due to the objection of atheistic and Muslim states. 

Here are some contemporary examples.  As reported in the Mar. 10 World magazine by Jamie Dean, more than 2 years after Iranian authorities imprisoned Christian pastor Youcef Nadarkhani on charges of apostasy, the pastor's attorney delivered sobering news on Feb. 21: an Iranian court may have upheld a death sentence against the 34 year old husband and father of two sons.  Authorities arrested Nadarkhani in 2009, charging him with apostasy, or renouncing Islam.  Nadarkhani refuted the charges, saying that he had never embraced Islam.  Many believe the government may hang him before he has a chance for appeal.  The court agrees that he never practiced Islam as an adult, but was still guilty because he was born into a Muslim home.

If the Christian pastor is executed, it would be a gross violation of Article 18.

The next example is from the USA.  Mindy Belz reports:  15 months after the Middle East revolutions began, where are the Arab Spring heroes?  Egyptian intellectual
Essam Abdallah has the reason.  the U.S. Islamist lobbies with an ear at the White House have ensured that there aren't any democracy heroes emerging.  He states that months into the Arab Spring, the Egyptian freedom fighters realized that the Western powers, and the Obama Administration have put their support behind the new authoritarians (Muslim Brotherhood etc.)  The lobbyists for CAIR, Islamic Society of North America and other such groups now form the greatest Islamic radical lobby ever to penetrate the White House, Congress, State Dept., and military.  Attorney General Eric Holder has removed 1000 presentations on Islam from FBI training due to the use of such terms as "Jihad".  The President has consistently sided with Islamic extremists in such places as Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, and Syria.  U.S. policy has turned a blind eye to the widespread attempt to exterminate non Muslim people groups during the Arab Spring.  Not one of the changes in government in the middle east has resulted in more freedom of faith.  The only advance is for the iron boot of Shari'a law as promoted by the U.S. administration.

February 2012

More history of the move to insure freedom of faith

In 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18 was introduced.  It stated, " Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.  This right shall include freedom to have a religion or whatever belief of his ( her) choice." 

In 1966 the UN passed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights expanding the prior statement.  It included the following:
1.  Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.  This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his (her) choice, and freedom either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his (her) religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
2.  No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his (her) freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his (her) choice.
3.  Freedom to manifest one's religion or belief may be subject only to such limitations as are prescibed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
4.  The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

Here are some examples of the struggle for freedom of faith:

USA-Tim Dalrymple of World magazine (2/11/12) writes:
"2012 began with a bang for defenders of religious liberties.  The Supreme Court issued on Jan. 11 a surprisingly robust defense of the right of churches to hire and fire ministers without government interference.  Even in cases where an employee's responsibilities are only marginally ministerial, the court affirmed a "ministerial exemption" from federal, state, and local employment anti-discimination laws.  The First Amendment implies, the court held, that religious communities should be free to choose who will represent their beliefs and carry forth their mission."

China-Chinese officials broke a 20-month silence about the fate of prominent dissident and Christian attorney Gao Zhisheng:  Authorities said the human-rights activist was alive and imprisoned in a remote area of western China.  It was bittersweet news.  Gao's family feared he was dead, but now they face a new heartbreak:  Authorities say the activist will spend another 3 years in jail for violating his probation.  Police first arrested Gao in 2006 for "subversion of state power" after the attorney publicly exposed abuses of Christians and other religious minorities.  He remained under house arrest until 2009, when police detained him without explanation.  Gao resurfaced in March 2010 but disappeared a month later.  His family hadn't heard from him since.

Commentary
This past year has seen several nations in the middle east go through enormous change as governments toppled and crowds persisted in demanding change.  Each situation is unique.  Syria is now locked in such a struggle.  Other nations wonder how to respond.  But, one issue that is not receiving much attention is freedom of faith.  We are getting hints that much of the change is causing harm to minority faith communities.  The media insists that these changes are repressed people clammering for their rightful freedoms.  But, in the end, it appears that repression of thought and the free exercise of faith are actually being reduced.  We need to probe those providing reports as to the results on the free expression of faith.

Purpose:  The purpose of the Freedom of Faith blog is to promote the free expression of faith issues worldwide and to eliminate as many barriers to such freedom as possible.

Basis:  The United Nations recognized the importance of freedom of religion or belief in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.  This right shall include freeom to have a religion or whatever belief of his/her choice."

Plan:
1. Subsequent issues will reveal the progress that has been made and is being made to insure that faith freedoms become a reality. 
2.  We will focus on different examples in each issue of people whose freedoms have been denied and examples of progress.
3.  We will suggest how readers can take positive action to promote freedom of faith.

History:  I am a product of the Free Speech era.  I went through college and worked on campus during the sixties and seventies when students and staff were free to express and investigate whatever philosophical, political, and faith issues that came to mind.  It was common to encounter several speakers on various corners just going to class.  Debates were encouraged as were information tables.  The student unions were centers for various organizations to pass out literature, meet, and promote their various ideas.  Every group published their own literature and passed it out while students would pass by.  It was common to encounter the SDS, YSA, Black Panthers, John Birch Society, Campus Crusade, Baptist Student Union, etc. just on the way to lunch.  The faculty prided itself in allowing open expression of various views.  If a student disagreed with a position taken by a professor, the student could request the opportunity to present an opposing position or have someone else speak in their behalf.  Numerous times I was asked to make such a presentation for a student who wanted their position represented.

In such an atmosphere of openness, we were free to investigate all kinds of faiths, political positions, and social mores.  That is just what I did.  I went to hundreds of meetings, read tons of literature, and spoke to the representatives of all kinds of groups and finally laid the foundations for the rest of my life based on my evaluation of the information I received.  It has been an exciting adventure and I hope that the door remains open for all people to have such freedom of investigation.

That is why I'm excited about lauching Freedom of Faith.