More Gaystapo Obaminations
As I and others have documented countless times now, Barack Hussein Obama is arguably the worst US President ever. He is certainly the most pro-Islam POTUS ever. He is certainly the most pro-abortion POTUS ever. He is certainly the most pro-homosexual POTUS ever. And he is certainly the most anti-Christian POTUS ever.
Those last two descriptions were again fully on display as Obama on Monday signed into law a “discrimination” order giving homosexuals even more special rights and power, while taking away the rights of ordinary Americans. This is yet another attack on freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, and part of an ongoing campaign to fully silence all those who seek to uphold biblical faith in the public arena.
Many commentators have already spoken about this frightening bit of legislation. Let me highlight the words of just two of them. First, some thoughts from Ryan Anderson:
Today’s executive order does not contain any religious liberty protections—though it does retain an older federal regulation that permits religious organizations that favor employment of co-religionists to continue such practices. But there is no protection for organizations that hire based on mission—not on affiliation—to continue to do so. This in effect excludes taxpayers who hold conscientious beliefs about sexuality that run counter to Obama’s from being eligible for federal contracts funded with their own tax dollars.
Today’s order disregards the consciences and liberties of people of goodwill who happen not to share the government’s opinions about issues of sexuality. All Americans should be free to contract with the government without penalty because of their reasonable beliefs about morally contentious issues.
Federal policy on government contracts should not seek to enforce monolithic liberal secularism. Today’s order undermines our nation’s commitment to reasonable pluralism and reasonable diversity. All citizens and the groups they form should be free to exist and participate in relevant government programs according to their reasonable beliefs. The federal government should not use the tax-code and government contracting to reshape civil society on controversial moral issues that have nothing to do with the federal contract at stake. All educational institutes, for example, that meet bona fide requirements about education (not sexuality) should be eligible for federal contracts if they fulfill the federal purpose of the program—education.
Today’s order disregards the consciences and liberties of people of goodwill who happen not to share the government’s opinions about issues of sexuality.
Previous guidelines for federal contractors prohibited discrimination on race, color, national origin, sex, and religious affiliation. These protections make sense, because race, color, national origin and sex are rarely—if ever—relevant to job performance, while religious affiliation is relevant for some religious organizations (and, as noted above, there were religious hiring exemptions). But sexual orientation and gender identity are not like race.
Indeed, sexual orientation and gender identity are unclear, ambiguous terms. They can refer to voluntary behaviors as well as thoughts and inclinations, and it is reasonable for employers to make distinctions based on actions. By contrast, “race” and “sex” clearly refer to traits, and in the overwhelming majority of cases, these traits (unlike voluntary behaviors) do not affect fitness for any job.
Today’s executive order bans decisions based on moral views common to the Abrahamic faith traditions and to great thinkers from Plato to Kant as unjust discrimination. Whether by religion, reason, or experience, many people of goodwill believe that our bodies are an essential part of who we are. On this view, maleness and femaleness are not arbitrary constructs but objective ways of being human to be valued and affirmed, not rejected or altered. Thus, our sexual embodiment as male and female goes to the heart of what marriage is: a union of sexually complementary spouses. Today’s order deems such judgments irrational and unlawful.
I invite you to read his entire commentary. My second set of remarks comes from Michael Brown. He says in part:
How can you attempt to force Christians, Jews, Muslims and others to violate fundamental aspects of their moral codes in order to appease a small but powerful special interest group, one that is not, in fact, suffering daily economic hardship by being fired from their jobs because of their sexual orientation or expression?
Have you forgotten entirely that our nation was founded on the concept of religious freedom?
It was unfortunate that you did not reflect on the recent Supreme Court decisions that made clear that you and your administration have consistently overstepped your bounds. Instead, once again, you bypassed the will of the people, as reflected in their elected officials, and simply made a decision affecting millions of Americans.
Worse still, you ignored the appeals of trusted religious leaders, some of whom campaigned for you in the past and others of whom have been among your trusted advisors, deciding instead to side with radical LGBT activism….
An organization like Prison Reform, which utilizes federal funds to help transform the lives of inmates, would suffer dramatic financial setbacks should they simply refuse to hire individuals who violate their time-proven, biblically based code of conduct.
Children supported by World Vision, with the help of federal funds, would be deprived of food and shelter unless World Vision leaders compromised their Christian convictions. (After much soul searching this year, they have made clear that they will not compromise).
Fine Christian universities, which provide important academic and ethical training for the next generation of leaders and which are also the recipients of federal funding, could suffer a massive blow unless they forsake the faith on which their institutions were built.
Mr. President, must you now even take the place of God and tell Christians what they can and cannot actively practice?
I concur with Peter Sprigg who wrote that, “This level of coercion is nothing less than viewpoint blackmail that bullies into silence every contractor and subcontractor who has moral objections to homosexual behavior. This order gives activists a license to challenge their employers and, expose those employers to threats of costly legal proceedings and the potential of jeopardizing future contracts.”
In truth, this is not a civil rights issue, as if gay were the new black. As Catholic leader Austin Ruse observed, “the LGBTs are the most powerful aggrieved minority the world has ever known,” while, in contrast, “Black Americans really were aggrieved: enslaved, not allowed to vote, discriminated against in housing, banking and much else, hunted down and lynched.”
Let me offer two further thoughts on this. As I have said elsewhere, it may be the time for Christian groups to pull out altogether from the government gravy train. As Western governments become increasingly secular and hostile to biblical faith, it will continue to make things untenable for faith-based groups.
Whether churches, denominations, parachurch groups, or aid groups, to the extent that they depend fully or in part on government funding, they will increasingly have to bow the knee to Baal. More and more of these laws will be passed, making it more and more difficult for such groups not to compromise, with freedom of religion and freedom of conscience trampled underfoot.
So perhaps the churches need to decide if they will fully trust God, and wean themselves from the government teat. Don’t get me wrong here: I think what churches and Christians do is of tremendous good to society at large, and government assistance for this great work is not amiss.
But as the State grows ever more antagonistic to biblical Christianity, all religious groups getting some government funding may have to ask themselves some hard questions as to how they do things in the future.
My second comment has to do with liberal religious groups which actually supported Obama on this one. It is not surprising, but still appalling, that liberal churches and organisations would sell their soul and side with those warring against the faith.
Incredibly over a hundred such groups, churches and leaders sent a letter to Obama saying there should be no religious exemptions whatsoever. But what else do we expect from theologically liberal groups? In fact, they are clearly apostates who have long ago denied their Lord as they embrace the sinful homosexual agenda.
Simply looking at the list of those who signed tells you everything you need to know. All the usual suspects can be found there. Here are just a few of the renegades and reprobates:
-Bishop Gene Robinson, The Episcopal Church
-Rev. Dr. Emilie M. Townes, E. Rhodes and Leona B. Carpenter Professor of Womanist Ethics and Society, Vanderbilt Divinity School
-Rev. Elder Dr. Nancy Wilson, Moderator, Metropolitan Community Churches
-Rev. Brian McLaren, The Cana Initiative
-Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, President, Interfaith Alliance
-Rev. Dr. Galen Guengerich, Senior Pastor, All Souls Unitarian Universalist Church, New York City
-Rev. Barry Lynn, Executive Director, Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Here we have every radical lefty, every theological liberal, and every reprobate and apostate religious movement in the US. Of course they support Obama. They have been supporting him and his radical secular left agenda for years now. So no surprises here.
They simply affirm the heap of biblical warnings about how so many will fall away, renounce their Lord, and side with the world over against true Christians.
Moreover, it is utterly amazing that just 1.67 per cent of the country’s population (according to new research from the Centers for Disease Controls and Prevention) and their theological apostate groupies can hold an entire nation to ransom.
Top 6 on BarbWire.com
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.