Updated 04:40 pm.EST, Sat November 21, 2009

Opinion|Wed, Jul. 25 2007 05:27 PM EDT

The Gay Agenda Triumphant

By Chuck Colson|Christian Post Guest Columnist

It doesn’t pay to take your constitutional right to free speech seriously anymore—at least, not if you live in Oakland, California. There, a handful of African-American Christian women recently found out that their free speech rights had effectively been outlawed.

The women, who are Oakland government employees, had formed an organization called the Good News Employee Association. As their flyer put it, their group was “a forum for people of Faith to express their views on the contemporary issues of the day. With Respect for the Natural Family, Marriage, and Family Values.”

As columnist George Will relates, the women posted their flyer after other employee groups, including those advocating gay rights, had advertised their activities on the city’s email system and bulletin board. When Good News asked for equal opportunity, they were told to forget it. City officials destroyed their flyer. They accused the women of Good News of being “determined to promote harassment based on sexual orientation. If the women posted any more flyers, or sent their message via email, the city warned, they would be disciplined and perhaps terminated.

In effect, as Will notes, Oakland “has proscribed any speech that even one person might say questioned the gay rights agenda and therefore created what that person felt was a “hostile environment.” While homosexual rights groups used the city’s email system to advertise “Happy Coming Out Day,” the terms “natural family” and “marriage” and “family values” are considered intolerably inflammatory, he adds.

This is why so-called “hate crimes” laws, like the one being considered by the U.S. Congress, are so dangerous. They can be used as a weapon to censor peaceful political speech that someone doesn’t like. The goal of homosexual groups is not to stop violence, or truly hateful speech; it’s to silence anyone who says that homosexual behavior is a biological disorder or a moral wrong. Mere disagreement is redefined as hate.

The Good News group has gone to court over Oakland’s attack on their First Amendment rights, and the super-liberal Ninth Circuit Court, not surprisingly, has ruled against them. The group now hopes the Supreme Court will intervene.

You and I need to be aware of attempts to encroach on our right to speak out against moral evils. We must also understand that this is ultimately a spiritual battle.

The Bible and natural law teachings tell us that God’s law is written upon our hearts and are known to all. As Christian philosopher J. Budziszewski writes in his book The Revenge of Conscience, those who rationalize their sins find it to be so much work that they require other people to support them in it. Society itself must be transformed so that it no longer stands in awful judgment.

This is why gay activist groups want to change the law to suppress any speech that identifies homosexual behavior as either a biological disorder or a moral wrong.

You and I must pray for those who are caught up in homosexuality; their lives are tragic. But we must also remember that, as the Apostle Paul puts it, we must witness to the truth, no matter what human lawmakers say or do, because we owe our ultimate allegiance to the eternal lawgiver: God.

_________________________________________________

From BreakPoint®, July 25, 2007, Copyright 2007, Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with the permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries. “BreakPoint®” and “Prison Fellowship Ministries®” are registered trademarks of Prison Fellowship

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
  • Sun Jul 29, 2007 6:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    this seems to imply that unless i sign a membership role of a group/church or org.ect,my free speech rights wouldnt be protected,due to the fact that even though the opinions expressed by myself may be be biblical,if i am not a member i woudnt enjoy the same protections

  • Sun Jul 29, 2007 8:34 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I decided to give an example of actual legal code of what an exemption should look like, of which the hate crime law lacks entirely. This legal code is for exempting certain religious organizations in the area of employment, so it is not entirely comparable to the hate crime law, but it gives the general idea.

    4.04.040 Section 6 and 6d of the Sioux City Human Rights code
    When listing exemptions to discrimination policies
    "6. This section shall not apply to:..."

    "d. Any bona fide religious institution or its educational facility, association, corporation, or society with respect to any qualifications for employment based on religion when such qualifications are related to a bona fide religious purpose. A religious qualification for instructional personnel or an administrative officer, serving in a supervisory capacity of a bona fide religious educational facility or religious institution, shall be presumed to be a bona fide occupational qualification"

    Now thats a decent example of what an Exemption should look like. It would not be difficult to add similiar statements in the Hate Crime Laws, yet from what I'm reading, all amendments of a similiar nature have been rejected by the majority Democrats.

    Notice to all conservatives: Do not fall for the "the goal of this law is not to prohibit religious expresion" statement. Make them specify in detail where and why it is exempt within the code. Otherwise you could be un-wittingly subjecting yourself to "interpretation" of what is a religious expression, or "appropriate" religious expression.

  • Sun Jul 29, 2007 8:20 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ::begin quote::
    ‘SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

    Nothing in this Act , or the amendments made by this Act , shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.
    ::end quote::

    See this is where I have a problem, the article says it's intent is not to avoid free speech. But yet no actual protections are outlined in the law. I am a member of the local Human Rights Commission in my city, I have read my cities codes on non-discrimination policies in housing and employment and codes of other cities within the state and a few in other states.

    In all these codes, they specifically have exeptions for religious institutions on certain matters. This is crucial, and I will not support any legislation that is unwilling to provide specific exemptions. I know that we would not and could not get away with any simple kind of "pledge" or "statement" that our INTENT was not to override religious freedom. This is LAW we must outline in the law specific exemptions for them to be accurately carried out.

  • Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    DannyPoo, why don't you read the actual legislation:

    ‘SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

    Nothing in this Act , or the amendments made by this Act , shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.

    Passed the House of Representatives May 3, 2007. ‘

    The First Amendment to the Constitution:

    ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’

    There are already limits to free speech (such as yelling fire in a movie theater) this act does nothing to change that. As far as the scope of the act, it applies only to physical harm or attempting to physically harm an individual based on ‘actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.’ There is absolutely nothing in the act regarding ‘crime incitement’. To exclude ‘religious organizations and people from this law, in the area of speech’, makes no sense as they are already included under section 8.

    Go to the Library of Congress at http://thomas.loc.gov/ and search for H. R. 1592 if you are actually interested.

  • Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:59 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    mburkel: whoops, put mburke as your name incorrectly. no disrespect intended. Also you mentioned

    ::begin quote::
    To further ensure that there is no ambiguity on this point, an amendment offered by Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., was adopted that explicitly states that conduct protected under the First Amendment free expression and free exercise clauses are not subject to prosecution.
    ::end quote::

    What I am looking for is an amendment that specifically excludes religious orginizations and People from this law, in the area of speech. I have not seen that.

  • Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:40 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    mburke, you are wrong

    I want to give a quote from something that happened during an attempt to add amendments (protecting religious groups etc, that were all struck down) in a judiciary committee (April 25th 2007).

    Congressman Gohmert asked, "If a minister was giving a sermon, a Bible study or any kind of written or spoken message saying that homosexuality was a serious sin and a person in the congregation went out and committed a crime against a homosexual would the minister be charged with the crime of incitement?"

    Gohmert was attempting to clarify and emphasize that the legislation would have an effect on the constitutional right to religious freedom and thus the Pence amendment was needed to protect religious speech.

    The Democrats continued to explain why they could not accept the amendment. Lundgren continuously shot down their answer. He said, "What is your answer? Would there be incitement charges against the pastor?"

    And finally Democrat Congressman Artur Davis from Alabama spoke up and said, "Yes."

  • Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:35 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    DannyPoo, you are wrong:

    The LLEHCPA / Matthew Shepard Act protects the First Amendment rights of the accused by prohibiting the introduction of evidence of association or expression to prove that a crime has been committed, unless it specifically relates to the offense. The legislation does not punish, nor prohibit in any way, name-calling, verbal abuse or expressions of hatred toward any group, even if such statements amount to hate speech. It covers only violent criminal actions. During consideration of the bill, the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee explicitly noted that nothing in this legislation would prohibit the lawful expression of one's deeply held religious beliefs. To further ensure that there is no ambiguity on this point, an amendment offered by Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., was adopted that explicitly states that conduct protected under the First Amendment free expression and free exercise clauses are not subject to prosecution.

    http://www.matthewshepard.org

  • Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:48 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    ::begin quote:: of mburkel

    It is an outright lie to claim that the Matthew Shepard Act will limit free speech. It actually has a provision (unnecessary by any legal interpretation) that states it will NOT impinge on ‘religious’ freedom of speech.

    ::endquote::

    I have posted this list before, but I am posting it AGAIN to demonstrate that laws that add sexual orientation do indeed restrict free speech.

    As for whether this specific act (Matthew Shepard Act) will effect religious liberties, read down to the dialogue between Congressman Gohmert and Congressman Davis who were talking about that very issue in this Act.

    http://www.truthregardless.com/truth.htm

  • Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:54 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    It is an outright lie to claim that the Matthew Shepard Act will limit free speech. It actually has a provision (unnecessary by any legal interpretation) that states it will NOT impinge on ‘religious’ freedom of speech. Why so-called ‘moral’ leaders have a problem with trying to reduce physical violence against a sexual minority, is beyond me and not very ‘Christian’ in my view. ‘Those who rationalize their sins find it to be so much work that they require other people to support them in it.’ Well said.

  • Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:34 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    May the church, the true remnant body of Christ repent and seek the face of the Lord, to be His holy nation founded in the Holy Scriptures. America is turning into Sodom without excuse.

  • Thu Jul 26, 2007 7:44 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    ::begin quote:: of SteveMD2
    "The Bible and natural law teachings tell us that God’s law is written upon our hearts "

    Huh- that is not my bible! Couch it any way you want, ...
    ::end quote::

    Cough....seems like Steve takes more than a few things out of his bible....or at least he hasnt studied it very well

    Hebrews 10:11-18
    11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
    15 But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before,
    16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,”[c] 17 then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”[d] 18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.


    ::cough:: the bible says that under the new covenant the law is written on our hearts and minds ::cough::

  • imho »
    Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:58 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Art - amen. :)

    As to the article, what I see is the question: "Should it be legal for people to use terms like 'natural family', 'marriage' and 'family values'? Should people be able to promote what they find to be the best way to live?"

    I'm astounded that this is even an issue! Doesn't free speech mean that people can talk about things freely? Why is it okay for religiously conservative groups to be consistently offended by being forced to listen to pro-gay and pro-abortion groups promote their causes, but not okay for the latter groups to be offended when the former want to state their case or promote their cause. It's asinine. I'm speechless...

  • Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:16 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 2

    lugubrili i would ask of you,to argue with God,you ask of men what God has said,if you want mans opinion ask man, if you want Gods opinion-research the bible within the framework of the original hebrew and greek use a strongs concordance and write it down each words meaning string them together and you will see your answer weather you accept the answers,depends on your internal honesty and outward applacation of such truths,Then arrive at the point of reasking your question

  • artm »
    Thu Jul 26, 2007 12:33 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    lugubrili. Romans 1:28 says, " Even as they did not like to retain Gin their knowledge." Another translation says, " Even as they refused to have God in their knowledge"' This verse infers a choice.

    Please know that I am not saying all of this because I have any resentment against gays, I am concerned for your eternal soul. God loves you,But He is against homosexuality. Art

  • Thu Jul 26, 2007 12:08 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

    This is interesting. I read "Please report Abuse, Spam, Offensive, Illegal, Racist or Libellous Posts to support@christianpost.com." Isn't this "shutting down free speech" as well? Maybe unlimited free speech isn't as desirable as it seems!

    Could somebody please tell me where in the bible it states that homosexuality is a choice? Or where it states that celibate homosexuals are immoral simply because they are gay? I'm repeatedly presented with two verses in Leviticus about sex and one in Romans about immoral heterosexuals who developed lusts for one another. Neither of these tell me anything about myself. Frankly, my heart does not tell me that I'm wrong in feeling what I feel (the ones I feel in my heart, not in my reproductive organs). And I was completely unaware that I had an agenda.

  • Thu Jul 26, 2007 12:08 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 3

    I would challenge any gay rights advocate to search the Scriptures and discover for themselves what God has to say about homosexuality. Then we can dialogue--based on Scripture--not personal feelings.

  • artm »
    Thu Jul 26, 2007 11:04 am Agree: 5   Disagree: 2

    tomsj and stevemd2. Your argument is not with chuck colson, or with any other man or woman who does not agree with homosexuality as a natural lifestyle. It is with God.

    Romans 1:26-27 Declares, " Even their woman did change the natural use into that which is against nature. Also the men,leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working that which is unseemly."

    Please understand that God loves you and is willing to forgive you of that sin,even as He has forgiven me and others of our sins.

    But make no mistake about it homosexuality is sin in the sight of God. Please don't ask christians to change the Word of God for you because they are not able to do so.

    In all honesty it is not colson,or any other man that you are against,it is God.And any group who satnds against Gods word stands against God. Don't worry about me, its God that you will have to be concerned about. Art

  • Thu Jul 26, 2007 10:57 am Agree: 5   Disagree: 2

    Apparently the previous 2 commenters are bent on using their ignorance and distorted views of both the Sacred scriptures and history to promote a form of immorality and sin which is not only a sin against God but against humanity itself. Every argument which tries to justify homosexuality from the Bible must so distort and twist the Bible and go through such excessive convolutions that it is hard to believe that it could possibly be taken seriously by anyone who has a half a mind to try and grasp what the Word of God (the absolute Truth) says.

    It can (and has been) equally acknowledged that the behavior of Christians during the crusades was incompatible with the teachings of Jesus. That has been sufficiently apologized for. What I am (still) waiting for is an apology by the homosexual community for their constant mischaractierization andemonization of Christians as well as their attempts to silence us by any means necessary (a frightening thought--will we soon have gay jihadists) because Christians are a goad to their conscience and a reminder that the sexual activities in which they engage are sinful and unnatural. We as Christians will conitue to love the sinner (whether they be adulterers, homosexuals, thieves, or those who stir up strife or any other sinner) but we will never accept the sin as being morally accpetable. And as for Chuck Colson, he long ago admitted the sinfulness of what he did and repented for it and has turned his life around--which is more than can be said for the homosexual community at large.

    My prayer is that all homosexuals will recognize their sin and refrain from engaging in it. Christ loves them but also calls for their repentance. As he said to the adulteress woman after assuring her that she was forgiven, "Go and sin no more."

  • Thu Jul 26, 2007 10:26 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 5

    Taking instruction on "moral evils" from Chuck Colson, reknown burglar, liar and hatchet man for disgraced president Richard Nixon seems somewhat unwise. He is, after all, himself "moral evil." I'm not convinced he'd recognize it if it bit him on the behind.

  • Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:11 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 5

    "The Bible and natural law teachings tell us that God’s law is written upon our hearts "

    Huh- that is not my bible! Couch it any way you want, all you do is promote religious hatred against a minority, and you know it. You are little different then those who took Islam to where it stands today, Remember that the pilots of 9/11 believed they were doing God's work in killing what they thought would be 50,000, and their last acts in the moment before they died were to kiss "their bible" and say Allahu Akbar (God is great).

    It is all over for you right wing bigots. Virtually every country in Western Europe except Italy (that will change in next year or two) and Greece have either gay marriage or federal nationwide civil unions. So do New Zealand, Republic of South Africa, Israel, Canada, Mexico city (equivalent to a state, Coahuila State in Mexico, and Buenos Aires. In Mass. they couldn't even get 25% of the legislature to put gay marriage up on the ballot. Columbia almost passed a civil union bill.

    I have left your right wing churches, and joined a liberal denomination where we are proud to perform gay marriage ceremonies.

    Religious objection to gay marriage just exposes the objectors to the truth - that their religion is based on lies and hatred. The history of Catholicism is a history of mass murder of Muslims during the crusades, as many as 50 million, no wonder they hate us, for societies have long memories. Then we had the inquisitions and witch trials. What has surprised me is that so much hate also is found in the non-cath Christian right. haven't you people learned anything?

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Also on CP
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Gifts
  • Health
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links