I fear that this will prove to be premature given the looming election season, but has anyone else been taken aback by the number of big, honking lies told by local anti-gay activists so far this year?
In just the past four months, we have seen:
Patrick Henry College
April: The administration of PHC distributed a falsified version of Equality Loudoun’s commenting policy, in order to make the specious claim that we don’t welcome disagreement and debate on this blog. The occasion was the Soulforce Equality Ride visit to campus, and the objective was to justify PHC’s own unwillingness to engage in honest dialogue. The misrepresentation appeared in a flyer prepared for the media by the “Office of Communications, Patrick Henry College.”
When students and alumni (who had been reading and commenting on our blog) confronted their administration, the president implied that we had altered our policy after they produced the flyer. According to the Tuesday, April 24, 2007 minutes of the Student Senate, President Graham Walker told them
I don’t rem[em]ber that, and hope I have a copy of their posting policy on the day we quoted it. I’ll look into it.
The students, although they “do not agree with Equality Loudoun’s beliefs or political activities,” do care about truthfulness. They looked into it themselves, and produced proof that this later claim is also false. After pointing out that this kind of misrepresentation is a violation of the school’s honor code and that a student would be punished severely for the same behavior, this group of dissident students asks:
Why hasn’t the College explained the truth of the situation to us – whether this was a mistake or a deliberate misquotation – nor, identified those responsible for drafting and approving this flier for an appropriate discipline, nor extended an apology to Equality Loudoun, the citizens of this community, and the students of this school?
There has been no response yet that we know of.
Patricia Phillips
May: In order to smear her primary opponent, state Senate candidate Patricia Phillips falsely attributed to Equality Loudoun a statement made by a local editor two years ago, and misrepresented her own role in the School Board’s adoption of a policy restricting the content of student plays.
Her demand then was the censorship of student voices that acknowledge the existence of GLBT people, and she had this to say of the resulting policy in June of 2005:
“I was very pleased with how it turned out,” said Patricia Phillips of Sterling. Phillips said the policy addressed her main concern, which was for “the normalization of homosexuality to be prevented.”
On the other hand, this is what the Phillips campaign published widely in May of this year, under the heading “Equality Loudoun article in praise of Andrews”:
Fact: As Chairman of the School Board, John [Andrews] crafting (sic) a school policy on school activities that ignored community standards, limited parental control and was praised by Equality Loudoun. Check the facts out for yourself at:
http://archive.equalityloudoun.org/2005/06/22/good-and-ugly
That page links to a Loudoun Times-Mirror editorial, part of our archived material on the play policy. After being confronted by reporters, Phillips started backpedaling, and finally claimed that because the LTM editorial was posted on our website, but not on our “Know the Foe” page, this proves that Equality Loudoun “endorses” its content. Point for creativity, but still wrong.
For instance, this anti-equality letter was posted on our website in exactly the same manner – as a point of information. One would find it difficult, I think, to argue that our posting of this letter indicates our endorsement of it. The Phillips campaign has yet to correct these factual errors or to apologize.
Church of the Valley
June: A new quasi-church/political organization published a full page ad that blatantly lied about the pending Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (Matthew Shepard Act), claiming that if it becomes law
[I]n the near future, pastors will be subject to huge fines and prison terms if they say anything negative about homosexuality. THE PROPOSED LAW WOULD MAKE IT A CRIME TO PREACH FROM THE PULPIT FROM ROMANS, CHAPTER 1 OR CORINTHIANS, CHAPTER 6.
In fact, the bill is only an extension of existing law, pertains only to acts of physical violence, and contains this passage:
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.
The pastor responsible for the ad has been challenged by reporters, editors and members of the public, but no retraction, or even qualification, has been forthcoming.
Barbara Curtis
July: A local blogger who works for Focus on the Family lied about this organization and then refused to publish comments that would correct the record.
She claims to administer her blog this way because she isn’t here to give us a “soapbox,” but it appears to be more that she wants to be able to make things up without any consequences. When I wrote to her in a personal email exchange and asked that she honor my request to correct the record, she got really abusive, really fast.
The sad thing that these incidents all have in common is that the players all aggressively identify themselves as Christians who are speaking from and advocating for a Christian world view. How is it that they justify to themselves the commission of this major sin, seemingly without a trace of shame?
It really does seem to me that they all think there is an unspoken exception in the Ten Commandments: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor (unless thy neighbor is gay).
Consider this exchange in our comments, starting here. We are discussing the “Ex-gay movement.”
…The problem with the agenda we are discussing, that of advocacy organizations like PFOX, Love Won Out, etc., is that it does not confine itself to advocacy on behalf of its purported constituents. One doesn’t need an agenda to support the right of individuals to choose to have sexual relationships with persons of the opposite sex, whether those individuals are “really” gay or not.
No, this agenda is focused on bullying, lying about, haranguing, punishing, coercing, demonizing, demeaning, and otherwise pressuring other people to also make that choice…
To which Jack replies,
Certainly such actions, if true, are deplorable. It is even more deplorable to lead others into sin [by which he means, I think, accepting or telling them that it’s ok to be GLBT].
This appears to me to be a clear articulation of belief in this exception. What do you think?
There you go trying to think again, David. No, by that I mean telling others that same-sex acts are not sins.
Jack,
I know you think there’s an important distinction between being gay and being sexually active, and that is the basis of your comment. We’ve had this conversation before, many times. “Accepting” someone as gay, but only if they are celibate, is not accepting them. Telling someone “it’s ok” if they’re gay, but only if they are celibate, is not telling them it’s ok.
There is really no functional difference between my paraphrase and yours. So the question is, do you think there is an exception to the commandment that forbids bearing false witness, if those one is lying about are doing what I am proud to do, in your words, “telling others that same-sex acts are not sins”?
Dave (not Weintraub):
Many indeed. But I call them sins — I do not try to justify them.
David:
We are taught to love the sinner and hate the sin. The sin and the sinner are separate.
You ask (paraphrased): “do you think there is an exception to the commandment that forbids bearing false witness, if those [about whom] one is lying… are doing what I am proud to do, in your words, ‘telling others that same-sex acts are not sins’?”
There is no exception to the commandment that forbids bearing false witness, and I have agreed with you on that point in prior posts. There is also no exception to the prohibitions on b3sti@lity, inc3$t, marrying a woman and her mother, and “a man [laying] with a man as one lies with a woman.” (Leviticus 20)
However, it is a greater sin to lead another into sin than it is to sin oneself.
Jack: Back to the Babylonian Exile, are we?
The side that isn’t lying is the side that witnesses the true love of God.
Excellent point, sir. And the side that isn’t lying has nothing to hide.
You have an excellent point, Doug, which is, I’m sure, one of the reasons that God forbids bearing false witness. Even if one thinks one is doing it for the “right reasons” (whatever they may be), the exposure of the falsehood undermines the good position.
David, your side is lying, too. Bishop Spong is also lying. Would you like me to dismantle his argument here, or would you rather put it up in its own post for me, so that I might take it dismantle it there?
Jack, please fire away.
I’d love to see how this is “lying,” as opposed to merely something you disagree with.
That is a lie. The COMMISSION of same-sex acts is the sin.
We have already had this discussion. 3% of any group is NOT normal.
It is like other minority positions within the human family: left-handedness, red hair.
Neither being left-handed nor having red hair leads one into sin.
Irrelevant.
Pure B.S. If we cannot believe the Bible when it tells us how God wants us to act, how can it be believed when it says that Jesus was born of a virgin, or that He rose from the dead? (Spong does not believe either of these, BTW.) If the Bible is wrong on so many counts, how can we believe it at all?
Ah, Spong is a prophet now?
Hardly overwhelming. In fact, there is no evidence that there is a genetic disposition to homosexuality, as evidenced by identical twins, one of which is homosexual. He is right that sexual orientation is not a moral choice, but it is an immoral choice to engage in homosexual activity.
So if you wake up one day a find yourself with a desire to have sex with your sister, well, you’re not morally culpable. If you wake up one day with a desire to have sex with a dog, well, you’re not morally culpable. If you wake up one day with a desire to have sex with a child, well, you’re not morally culpable. Right.
Those texts also prohibit marrying one’s sister, or one’s wife’s sister, or one’s aunt. They also prohibit having sex with animals. Are those prohibitions lifted, too? Adultery is prohibited there, too. Is adultery OK now?
Spong is confusing love and sex. Just look on the internet, and you will see the difference. There’s plenty of sex there without love. Then look at the military, where men give their lives for their country and their buddies. There’s plenty of love there without sex.
Slap a “phobic” label on it, and you decide the terms of the discussion. As I have said before, hating the sin of homosexual acts does not make one fear (“phobia” or “phobos”) homosexuals. (Hate, BTW, is “misos” in Greek.)
Spong doesn’t believe in a Christ’s bodily resurrection, either.
Christ gave us those prejudices. We are prejudiced against sin. He has told us, in both the New Testament and the Old, that homosexual acts are sinful.
On this one point, Spong and I agree.
“And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”(Joshua 24:15)
“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matthew 5:18)
Remove Leviticus 18 and 20 from the Law, and you are not a Christian. You may call yourself a Christian, but Christ will not. “But he will reply, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!'” (Luke 13:27)
“And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” (luke 16:31)
I already knew that you disagree vehemently with Spong. Your disagreement doesn’t make what he says a lie. You draw different conclusions from scripture. This is not the first time in history that this has happened; it’ll be ok.
Since what Spong says disagrees with scripture, it is a lie.
Many people have come to the conclusion that scripture disagrees with itself at times. I know that you disagree with this view, but that doesn’t make it a lie.
What I have shown here are not differences of opinion or viewpoint; they are deliberate, documented misrepresentations of fact. Those are two entirely different things and you cannot equate them.
When people use whatever power they have to lie about and punish a community, that’s a moral issue that goes far beyond any specific theology, anyway. I asked the question the way I did because these individuals all implicitly justify their actions by their identity as Christians. By no means is this issue restricted to the question of how one interprets Christian scripture. It’s a moral issue, period.
Perhaps they think that deliberate misrepresentations of fact (lies) are allowable (not sinful) in certain circumstances. I disagree with that assertion, BTW.
Similarly, you think that homosexual acts are allowable (not sinful) in certain circumstances. I disagree with that assertion, too.
Neither assertion has any basis in scripture.
Dave (not Weintraub):
Non-Christians always bring up the same arguments, because they have not read the Bible. In Mark 7, Jesus declared all foods clean. God repeated this in a vision to Peter in Acts 11. (Between Mark7 and Acts 11, we get 7-11, where all food is unclean.)
I am not doing the cherry-picking. This is not MY interpretation of the Bible, but the interpretation that has been the same for thousands of years. It is the homosexuals and their supporters, such as Spong, who are cherry-picking to support their agenda.
As for “strict separation of church and state,” I think you are mistaking the “church” for religion.
“Love the sinner and not the sin” is learned by Jesus’ example. It is what He did.
And Dave, you are not doing God’s work by teaching that sin is not sin. Leave it behind.
Dave (not Weintraub):
You need to learn the difference between doing and being. One IS Black, or a woman, or left-handed, or red-headed, or a nymphomaniac, or homosexual. There is nothing in that BEING that is a sin. However, just as the nymphomaniac’s having indiscriminate sex is a sin, so is having homosexual sex.
If you want to have gay sex in privacy, go right ahead. However, when you start trying to tell others, especially children, that there is nothing wrong with homosexual acts, then I will oppose you.
Gee, politicians are liars. Who’d a thunk it, huh? At least they’re not trying to tell us that it’s OK to lie.
Tolerance? When did Jesus tolerate sin?
In 50 years, we will probably be dead. And at the end of the world, those who refused to listen to the Word, and those who listened and refused to obey, “[shall be cast] into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” (Matt 13:42)
You are a fool to risk your eternal soul for pleasures of the flesh. That is, literally, one Hell of a bet to make.
Opponents of equality always bring up the same arguments – the favorite seems to be this “love the sinner, hate the sin” or “being versus doing” canard.
We always end up having the same conversation, so let’s just get to it. Sex and intimacy are basic human needs. The demand that gay people be celibate, or alternatively, marry someone of the opposite sex, is a demand that we be truncated human beings – or, even worse, draw another person into a truncated human relationship.
I always wonder what loving parent would want to see their straight child married to a gay spouse.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot. There’s also always the assumption that anyone who stands up for our community must be gay, and risking their eternal soul for pleasures of the flesh.
Dave and David:
Those who teach others to sin ARE risking their souls, even more than are those who keep their sins to themselves. Lord knows I do have my sins, but I acknowledge them, repent, and ask forgiveness. I do not say, “No, that’s not a sin no matter what the Bible says; the Bible is wrong.”
(As for the pork, read my above post again. God made all foods clean, as we see in both Mark 7 and Acts 11.)
You have also embellished the tale of the Samaritan from Luke 10. No reason was given for either the priest’s or the Levite’s passing by the injured man. They made no appeal to the Law for their inaction.
I always wonder what loving parent would want their child, straight or gay, wallowing in sin.
If God was speaking to the Israelites, and laying down his law for them so they could distinguish themselves from the Egyptians (“”Speak to the Israelites and say to them:”, or “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them”), as what is at the beginning of Leviticus in any version, why should anyone care who is not an Israelite?
Jack, is asking for forgiveness a clean slate like those people who booze it up and sin on Friday and Saturday night, on Sunday ask for forgiveness, and just do the same thing over again, saying “Jesus died for my sins, I will be forgiven”?
… Am I to conclude by your statement then that you are repeating your sinful behavior?
“(As for the pork, read my above post again. God made all foods clean, as we see in both Mark 7 and Acts 11.)”
– very convenient – there must have been a food shortage
Jack’s reading of these passages is typical literalism. The conclusion that these passages are about “how Jesus declared all foods clean” is hard to reach even taking a literal view, frankly.
Mark 7 is about how the religious authorities have raised the “traditions of men” above God’s commandments. The Pharisees are harassing Jesus, as is their habit, about his disciples’ failure to observe picky little rules concerning ceremonial hand and utensil washing, etc., “according to the tradition of the elders.” Jesus retorts by saying “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!” He goes on to expose, for example, how these terribly pious men use legalistic language to justify the neglect of their own parents, and “nullify” the command to honor them. It’s a powerful indictment of religious hypocrisy and shallowness. I find the use of this passage to argue for exactly such a cramped and narrow application of “the law” particularly ironic.
Acts 10 and 11 (you have to start with the actual story in 10 that Peter then explains in 11) are about a vision Peter has, in which he is presented with all the “unclean” animals and told to “kill and eat.” He refuses – he has been taught all his life that eating unclean animals is an abomination – although the voice tells him “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”
It isn’t until Peter visits the home of a Roman soldier (a filthy Gentile!) that he understands. We are told “while Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision,” he is called upon to visit this “unclean” household. He goes against everything he has been taught about sharing a meal with these “uncircumcised men,” and accepts the invitation to go and share his testimony with them. When Peter returns to Jerusalem, he is criticized for violating the “tradition of men” that forbids associating with such unclean people, and that’s when he explains his vision. When the Gentiles shockingly responded to the message of God’s transcending love just like “clean” people do, Peter had to rethink what he had been taught about them. Again, this is a story about people, not food.
Russell, you do ask excellent questions!
At that time, the Israelites, and only the Israelites, were the People of God. For a foreigner to become one of the People of God, he had to be circumcised and follow the Law. Similarly, we must also accept God’s law to become one of His People.
That is an even better question. “Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.” (Matt 18:21-22) How much more, then, will Jesus forgive us? The key is repentance — being truly sorry and wanting not to sin. You and I cannot know whether that drunkard is truly repentant, but God does. On the other hand, we cannot know whether one who sins against us is truly repentant, so we must assume that he is — until seventy times seven times. (The trouble is, if you actually keep count, then you have not truly forgiven.)
Some sinful behaviors I have, through God’s help and grace, overcome. Others I have not. It is a daily struggle.
No idea.
Dave (not Weintraub):
(I am resonding to each of you individually, as there is too much to get to all in one post.)
Your point about Acts 10-11 is very good, and I had not considered it that way before. Nonetheless, you must admit that it is not I who has “cherry-picked” that one. The interpretation that in that passage God declared all foods clean has been around for hundreds of years, and was interpreted so by men who dedicated their lives to God.
Furthermore, we have Romans 14:
Note especially verse 14: “there is nothing unclean of itself….”
However, I will not eat pork in the presence of my Jewish friends, nor will I drink alcohol in the presence of those who struggle with alcoholism. (The one exception was my late uncle, who insisted on being the bartender at all our family parties. To him, it was part of his recovery. Go figure.)
Perhaps you are right that I should celebrate Rosh Hashanna and Yom Kippur. I suppose that falls into the “sins unknown” category. I do, however, actively try to keep the Sabbath. (I certainly do not go shopping on Sundays — for me, shopping is work!)
Yet even in the New Testament homosexual acts are declared sinful (1Cor. 6:9).
There is a difference between accepting one’s neighbor, even his behavior, and asserting that his behavior is righteous and rewarding it.
Too bad — it was nice to have a new voice here. If you do decide to return, or to post on another blog, I recommend you be less stingy with the carriage returns — it will make your comments easier to read.
Dang, got you guys confused again. Sorry. Well, I guess I’ve answered both of your comments.
Carriage returns? You must be old and wise.
Would you prefer CR/LF?
How about 0x13/0x10?