Prayer And Action

The Day of Silencing

Dr. Michael L. Brown – Guest Columnist – 4/12/2012 11:05:00 AM

On April 20, in thousands of schools across America, your hard-earned tax dollars will help underwrite the homosexual indoctrination of your kids. Yes, April 20 will mark the annual Day of Silence, described on its website as "a student-led national event that brings attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in schools." As for those who do not support a special school day devoted to gay indoctrination, they are the ones who can expect to be silenced.

Originally the brainchild of some college students in 1996, the Day of Silence has been aggressively promoted for the last 12 years by GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network. (Based on its activities, GLSEN would better be described as the Gay & Lesbian Sexual Education Network.) GLSEN calls on students to remain silent during non-instructional school times on the Day of Silence, thereby standing in solidarity with LGBT youth who are silenced through bullying and harassment.
But don’t some schools already have generic, anti-bullying programs in place along with special, daylong events to highlight the destructive effects of bullying, a subject that should concern all of us? Of course they do, but that’s not enough. GLSEN insists that a special focus must be put on LGBT kids, as if bullying a gay kid was worse than bullying a fat kid.
But there’s more that takes place on the Day of Silence: A pro-homosexuality message is often sent to the students, with teachers and administrators frequently promoting homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism over the course of the day. That’s why thousands of schools (and not just students) officially participate in the event, with the explicit backing of GLSEN. What about other messages being introduced during the day to balance the discussion? Perish the thought.
Just ask PFOX (Parents and Friends of ExGays and Gays), which announced its intention to hand out literature on the Day of Silence. According to PFOX president Greg Quinlan, "PFOX is calling on students to distribute flyers promoting acceptance of ex-gays. Former homosexuals and their supporters are ridiculed and forced to live in silence. Our nation’s schools deny students with unwanted same-sex attractions any support or fact-based information that feelings can and do change."
How was this announcement welcomed? According to one gay journalist, "the fact that they are attempting to sneak in their harmful message on the Day of Silence, a day which is supposed to show support for those who are forced into silence by outside pressures, shows just how deceptive their message truly is."
How dare they introduce their message on the Day of Silence! As expressed in 2004 by gay activist Kevin Jennings, founder of GLSEN and most recently President Obama’s Safe School Czar, "Ex-gay messages have no place in our nation’s public schools. A line has been drawn. There is no ‘other side’ when you’re talking about lesbian, gay and bisexual students." Ah yes, the voice of tolerance speaks once again.
What about the Day of Dialogue, sponsored by the evangelical Christian organization Focus on the Family, and scheduled this year for April 19, the day before the Day of Silence? This event encourages "student-initiated conversations about the fact that God cares about our lives, our relationships and our sexuality …. [Jesus'] example calls us to stand up for those being harmed or bullied while offering the light of what God’s word says."
Surely this event will be welcomed, right? Not a chance. As expressed by a professing Christian woman with a self-described "hair-trigger sensitivity for the protection of LGBT youth," the Day of Dialogue has something "very rotten" at its core. She writes (on LGBTQNATION.com): "Allowing Focus on the Family to export their historical and counter-productive sacred discrimination of the LGBT community to Christian youth is a mistake." To repeat the words of Kevin Jennings: "There is no ‘other side’ when you’re talking about lesbian, gay and bisexual students."
Last week an elementary school teacher from Florida called into my radio program, identifying himself as a black male but not wanting to give any specifics about the grade he taught at school. He was concerned that his job could be in jeopardy if he dared speak out against the Day of Silence. (Other elementary school teachers have told me privately that they dare not speak out against the overt homosexual activism they see on a regular basis in their schools — remember, we’re talking about elementary schools — for fear of losing their jobs.)
Although the Day of Silence had not yet been introduced to this gentleman’s school in Florida, the faculty members were discussing strategies for its future implementation, with explicit instructions to present this as a civil rights issue. (Needless to say, this black American also did not approve of equating gay activism with the civil rights movement.) And what should the teacher do if a student raised a religious or moral objection to homosexuality? The conversation, he was told, should immediately be turned back to gay civil rights, and no religious or moral objections should be entertained.
Yes, the Day of Silence has become the Day of Silencing — unless parents and educators and students determine to let their voices be heard. Now would be a good time to start.

Study: U.S. has 4M ‘gay’ adults; 1.7% of populace

Lisa Leff – Associated Press Writer – 4/7/2011 9:35:00 AM

SAN FRANCISCO – A California demographer has released a best guess of how many homosexual adults are in the U.S.

Gary Gates puts the figure at 4 million adults, representing 1.7 percent of the 18-and-over population. That’s much lower than the 3 to 5 percent that has been the conventional wisdom in the last two decades, based on other isolated studies. It’s also a fraction of the figure put out by Alfred Kinsey, who said in the 1940s that 10 percent of the men he surveyed were "predominantly homosexual."

Gates has advised the Census Bureau. He’s a demographer-in-residence at the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at the University of California, Los Angeles.

He derived his results [PDF] from five studies that asked subjects about their sexual orientations.

Worth Fighting For

The Update remains on Summer break and will return next week, but I wanted to respond to inquires and concerns that have been expressed about the news that former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman has now chosen to identify himself as homosexual.

First, I am saddened by this announcement. I’m saddened because I know Ken and care about him as a person. Homosexuality not only has negative implications for society, it also has profound, well-documented negative physical and mental health consequences for those who engage in homosexual conduct as well.

This unfortunate confirmation helps explain the scandalous failure of many in the Republican establishment to vigorously uphold the values and policy positions expressed in the party’s platform in 2004 and 2008, particularly the need to protect the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman nationwide. While grassroots activists succeeded in passing marriage amendments in dozens of states across the country, they received little support and even outright resistance from Party officials at the national level, which contributed to the GOP’s electoral failures in 2006 and 2008. Now we know one of the major reasons why.

With this announcement about his homosexuality, Ken also announced that he would join those who have mounted the assault on marriage through the activist courts. Not only does this run counter to the historical principles of the Republican Party, it stands in direct opposition to the Party’s platform which is clear on the importance of marriage and family. The Party’s unequivocal stand on life, marriage, and family is why many social conservatives have made the GOP their political home.

It is important for the conservative movement that the Republican Party remains committed to its longtime stance on core social issues. The Party and the movement will suffer if the GOP adopts a foolish strategy of seeking votes by pandering to the two-percent of the population who are homosexual or bisexual–and thereby alienating the majority of conservative voters.

** When the news about Mehlman hit the wires this morning, FRC’s two Kens–Blackwell and Klukowski–tackled the tough road ahead for the Republican Party in a brand new column. "If Republicans flinch on marriage," they write," America could have eight years of President Obama." You can check out their op-ed, "Disaster Looms If GOP Changes Course On Gay Marriage," on Fox News now.

Dissenters Will Be Punished!

Homosexual activists are no longer content to try to end "discrimination" against homosexuals–they are now trying to impose discrimination on anyone who dissents from their views. The most recent evidence comes from Georgia, where Augusta State University counseling student Jennifer Keeton has had to file a federal lawsuit, with the help of our friends at Alliance Defense Fund, to defend her rights. When Jen expressed her Christian view that homosexual conduct is morally wrong in class and in private conversation with other students, the faculty responded by insisting that she participate in a "remediation plan"–essentially, a year-long program of intensive pro-homosexual indoctrination that would only be considered successful if she abandoned her moral values.

Unfortunately, this is not the first such story of political correctness in the counseling profession reaching totalitarian levels. ADF is representing a student who was already kicked out of a similar program at Eastern Michigan University, and another woman who was fired as a counselor for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, her story appears on our video "ENDA: The End of Religious Freedom in America?." This radical agenda–not just to officially affirm homosexuality, but to forcefully crush any dissent–is exactly what Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan has endorsed. When will they learn that we have no intention of forfeiting our constitutional right to free speech and freedom of religion?

Defense Authorization Bill: Question of the Day

If the "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy is revoked, what would the medical implications be? Dr. Robert Labutta (U.S. Army, Colonel, Ret.) addresses those concerns in today’s video clip.

Q: "What are the health implications if the law is changed to allow open homosexuality in the military?"

Homosexuals are identified by the U.S. government as a cohort at high risk for sexually transmitted diseases like HIV/AIDS. At the National HIV Prevention Conference in August 2009, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that AIDS is 50 times more common in men who have sex with men (homosexuals and bisexuals) than in other populations. HIV is already a threat to military readiness–although HIV-positive recruits are excluded from the military, those who become HIV-positive while serving cannot be discharged, but they also cannot be deployed overseas. However, this is far from the only health risk to homosexuals. One of the nation’s leading AIDS researchers, Ronald Stall, has declared, "It may be a fallacy to say that HIV is the dominant, most dangerous and most damaging epidemic among gay men in the United States today. There are at least four other epidemics occurring among gay men that are intertwining and making each other worse. This is called a syndemic." The "four other epidemics" are "substance abuse, partner violence, depression and childhood sexual abuse."

Pruning "Marriage" Rights in the Garden State

New Jersey is enjoying something of a conservative Renaissance. Gov. Chris Christie’s (R) strong defense of fiscal and social conservatism is being augmented by the work of New Jersey’s Supreme Court, which has now stated it will not review litigation that threatens to make homosexual "marriage" legal. The decision in the Garden State’s highest court was 3-3, in itself a tie, but for a motion to proceed four affirmative votes are required.

As noted by the Philadelphia Enquirer, Chief Justice Stuart Rabner and two colleagues stated that the case "cannot be decided without the development of an appropriate trial-like record," and denied the plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice. This means, in essence, that proponents of "gay marriage" will have to begin in a lower court before their case reaches the state’s highest bench.

This follows legislative action earlier this year in which the New Jersey State Senate voted down a bill to legalize homosexual "marriage." Gov. Christie has said he would support an amendment to the New Jersey Constitution, as 30 states have already done, prohibiting same-sex "marriage." Although New Jersey recognizes "civil unions," it is clear that the state’s governor, elected representatives, and leading judges are not willing to be bullied by the activist homosexual lobby into circumventing the processes by which the ridiculous notion of homosexual "marriage" can even be considered. For that, they deserve the gratitude of those of us who believe not just in marriage as it was designed by God but who also respect the rule of law.

Where Was the Church in Houston on Election Day?
by Gary DeMar

I’ve known Dr. Steven Hotze for 25 years. He was one of the first Christians to take the principles outlined in my God and Government series and train men in a biblical understanding of government. He didn’t just talk about these principles; he applied them in the realm of politics in the city of Houston and the state of Texas. When ministers stood up and preached the Bible to all of life, there were a number of political victories that resulted in social transformation . . . Continue Reading

Become a Facebook fan of American Vision

The Impact of Christianity on the World
by Gary DeMar

Henry Morris explains in his book The Biblical Basis for Modern Science that the Bible’s approach to worldview issues is comprehensive and includes science, technology, the humanities, commerce, law, civil government, and education, in short, every facet of human culture:

[L]ong before [the Great Commission] another great commission was given to all men, whether saved or unsaved, . . . Continue Reading

Logical Fallacies of Global Warming
by Joel McDurmon

One of the “Fallacies of Cause” I address in my book Biblical Logic is one that confuses simultaneity for causation. In other words, just because two things occur at or near the same time, someone may fallaciously assume that one caused the other. We call this Cum Hoc Propter Hoc, which is Latin for “With this, because of this.” The same exposure of folly as the After This Fallacy applies here to the With This Fallacy: a myriad of possible causes exist—many we . . . Continue Reading

• Get Featured Articles delivered to your inbox 5 days a week via email

Subscribe Via RSS

View article…

Homosexual Activists Go GaGa for Obama

On Saturday night, billing himself as the opening act for singer Lady GaGa, President Obama mustered all of his rhetorical skills to deliver a rousing speech to the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, America ‘s largest pro-homosexual organization. It was an effort to pander to (and to some extent placate) one of the most radical parts of his liberal base — people who, despite Obama’s endorsement of 99% of their far-left agenda, are impatient with the pace of social and political change.

The speech was interrupted often by applause, but punctuated mostly by ironies — beginning with his praise for "progress sought by those with little influence or power" while speaking at a $250-a-plate black-tie dinner attended by federal office-holders and the Hollywood glitterati. He complained that "some may wish to define you solely by your sexual orientation or gender identity" — yet it is "GLBT" activists themselves who do that. We consider them human beings, who like all human beings must be held accountable for the consequences of their chosen behaviors.

He celebrated an impending victory for the homosexual political agenda, the expected passage of a federal "hate crimes" measure this week, by paying tribute to the parents of Matthew Shepard, a homosexual college student who was brutally murdered in Wyoming. Yet the best evidence suggests this was not an "anti-gay" hate crime at all — and in any case, the murderers were vigorously punished even in the absence of a "hate crimes" law.

Media reports on the speech focused on the President’s pledge, "I will end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell." Obama declared, "We cannot afford to cut from our ranks people with the critical skills we need" — while failing to recognize that allowing homosexuality in the ranks is what would devastate recruiting and reenlistment rates. The roughly two percent of the population that is homosexual will never replace the ten percent of current military personnel who have said they would not re-enlist if homosexuals are allowed in the military.

President Obama continued his two-step on the issue of marriage, stopping short of endorsing same-sex civil "marriage," but calling homosexual partners "spouses" and declaring that "I support ensuring that committed gay couples have the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple." He said we should "recognize relationships between two men and two women as just as real and admirable" as heterosexual ones. Yet there are a lot of relationships — between parents and children, between siblings, between close friends and neighbors, between members of a high school football team — that are "real and admirable," but that are never referred to as "marriage."

Perhaps in a veiled allusion to his controversial "safe schools" czar Kevin Jennings, Obama said, "[I]f any of my nominees are attacked not for what they believe but for who they are, I will not waver in my support." Yet Jennings is being attacked precisely for what he believes and what he has said and done, not for "who he is." (Perhaps the statement actually paves the way for Jennings ‘ departure.)

One thing was clear from Obama’s speech — his goal (like that of homosexual activists) is not simply equal legal rights. It is, rather, to overturn millennia of moral teaching that has acknowledged the harms of homosexual conduct and the unique benefits of marriage between a man and a woman. He dismissed those values as "outworn arguments and old attitudes," while decrying the grassroots campaigns to defend marriage as "divisive and deceptive efforts to feed people’s lingering fears for political and ideological gain."

In other words, if you hold to traditional values, the ultimate goal is simple — to silence you. President Obama told HRC, "[D]o not doubt the direction we are heading and the destination we will reach." That’s a warning the American people should heed.

Change They Believe in — But Won’t Pay for

Kimberly Strassel may have figured out why Senator Max Baucus’s (D-Mont.) health care plan is so popular with his liberal colleagues. In a shocking column called "State of Personal Privilege ," the Wall Street Journal columnist uncovered the real story behind Baucus’s proposal. According to Strassel, the bottom line is that these Senators are "all for imposing ‘reform’ on the nation, so long as it doesn’t disadvantage their constituents."

Under the Finance Committee’s "compromise," the state’s Medicaid programs would be the main vehicle for covering the majority of uninsured Americans. But the biggest problem with this idea is the states, many of which are struggling to make their own budgets, would bear the brunt of the expansion with an extra $37 billion in costs. But here’s the kicker: not every state would share in the burden. At least 17 would get a special break on the tax threshold and four would be exempt from footing the bill all together! Can you guess what these areas have in common? Most have Senators on the Finance Committee or in leadership roles. Nevada, Oregon, and Michigan have somehow managed to cut a deal so that the federal government covers their portion of the new Medicaid expenses over the next five years. Not surprisingly, they’re represented by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Finance Committee Members Debbie Stabenow (Mich.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.). "I wonder how citizens in Wyoming, California, and Florida and other states will feel if they pay more in taxes so that [Harry Reid's state] can pay less…" said Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander (R), whose state wouldn’t enjoy these perks.

Of course, this isn’t the first time liberals have passed the buck on their own reform. The Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee made a point of excluding members of Congress from ObamaCare in its bill. This is especially interesting since President Obama made a point of telling voters, "If you don’t have health insurance, you’ll be able to get the same kind of health insurance that members of Congress give themselves." That is, until Congress decided that government-run health care isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

Family Research Council: 801 G Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001
P: 202/393-2100 or 800/225-4008 W: frc.org