Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Five examples that LGBTQ activism is a religion



Fifty years ago, gays had a genuine problem in American culture. Thirty-five years ago, the onset of AIDS did much to humanize a subculture that only existed in steamy bathhouses in New York and San Francisco. In the last twenty years, first with Bill Clinton’s DADT in the military moving on to Obergefell v. Hodges nearly two years ago, that struck down state laws against same-sex marriage, LGBT culture has achieved parity with the rest of America.

In fact, it’s no big deal these days if someone is gay. Ask any teenager or twenty-something and they’ll give you a verbal “so?” and body language indicating “meh.” It’s just not a huge social stigma anymore.

But the LGBT activist movement doesn’t want to end itself and declare a kind of victory that leads to purposelessness. They want to keep going and pushing against what they feel is derogatory, and they do it in a religious, pious fashion, pursuing doctrinal purity at the altar of their self-consuming sexual appetites.

So they have to find other stigmas to pursue, like bathroom rights for adult males in women’s locker rooms. Or even a celebrity saying something slightly off from the approved liturgy.

Here’s five recent examples of the LGBT religion in action, evangelizing, correcting, and recruiting converts.

#1: The Dodgers kiss cam

At a Dodgers game on June 9, they celebrated LBGT “Pride Night” at Dodger Stadium. On that night, the usual “Kiss Cam” activities were a tad more inclusive of the most salacious gay kisses they could find. And this was done, as many Christians saw it, to replace Christianity with a different religion.

Can you see what’s happening here? The Left is replacing Christianity with pagan concepts of “sexuality” that redefine the created norm. What was once widely regarded in the West as a “crime against nature” (Noah Webster’s definition of sodomy) is now celebrated as just another form of “love.” It began with that slippery term “sexual orientation,” but now that we’re in full LGBTQ “equality” mode, we will see more and more outward expressions of homosexuality, breaking down our natural, God-given inhibitions against this sin.

If there were an “adultery night” at the ballgame where married couples were encouraged to lock lips with partners to whom they were not married, this would be, in Christian eyes, just as sinful as “Pride Night,” but there’s no movement to promote adultery (although there is one for bigamy).

The public, forced celebration of LGBT physical affection at a sporting event is simply an in-your-face slap against what the activists consider a competing religion with morals diametrically opposed to their own. You don’t have to attend the Pride parade (unless you’re a firefighter on duty). But if you want to watch the Dodgers on June 9, you have to deal with these images on the jumbotron (and your kids get to see it too).

#2: The Facebook rainbow

Facebook’s gender-bending list of identities is totally optional, and honestly, not even relevant for most people. But their “pride” reaction button has caused some consternation that the company hasn’t gone far enough to protect people from revealing their birth gender (i.e. biological sex).

That’s one of the new commandments of the LGBT religious movement, that gender preference is immutable but gender itself is fluid, and therefore disclosure of birth gender is prejudicial.

Transgender activist Geena Buono, a founder of the Asbury Park chapter of New Jersey Transgender Day of Remembrance, said [Facebook’s] name policy can end up outing transgender people and can leave them exposed to harassment.

The “pride” rainbow on the mobile Facebook app’s “my story” is so easy to get to that I’ve seen small children inadvertently post videos using it. Christians can’t opt out of that.

“Many times, in LGBT, the T is sort of a stepchild,” said Buono. “Sometimes people aren’t really sensitive or aware of the things they’re doing or of some contradiction. That being said, I’m glad there is a pride reaction. Unfortunately, they have to get on the same page with their sensitivity training and understanding the needs of the trans community.”

Sensitivity only goes one way in matters of religion.

#3: Abercrombie’s tweet

Abercrombie & Fitch is no slouch at being LBGT inclusive. I think a large number of their sales associates are, in fact, gay or lesbian. But just being LGBT doesn’t mean you’re a proper activist showing sensitivity.

Abercrombie and Fitch tweeted an ill-conceived tweet stating that “the pride community is everybody, not just LGBTQ people.” Don’t worry, though — people spoke up in the brand’s mentions and the backlash was swift.

See, the “pride community” isn’t just everyone, or even everyone who’s gay, lesbian or transgender. It’s everyone who keeps the proper doctrine, says the right words, and supports the activist cause. And that cause is not, in itself, inclusive.

The activist community is exclusive by nature, because it’s a religion making exclusive claims to truth, values, and morality.

#4: “Anything”

Hollywood actor and producer Mark Ruffalo, himself a leftist, earned the ire of the LGBT activist community by selecting an actor to play a transgender part, who himself is not transgender. I didn’t realize that’s a sin against humanity, but apparently, it is now.

Actor Matt Bomer plays Freda Von Rhenburg in Anything, a movie about a prostitute who forms a relationship with a straight man,” reports BBC Newsbeat. “It been criticised for its casting and showing trans people as sex workers.”

It seems to me that this movie could have been cast a few different ways. Either a woman could have played the transgender woman, or a man could have played the part, or a transgender woman could have played the part.  (Help me here, I always get confused: is a transgender woman a man who takes on the physical appearance of a woman, or a woman who takes on the physical appearance of a man?)

But the main point is the best actor for the part should play the part, n’est-ce pas? But not to Jen Richards, a transgender actress who auditioned for the part but didn’t get the role.

To her, it’s not about the performance, it’s about the authenticity (read: entitlement). But that’s not how it works.

Hollywood, despite its liberal preening, is a cold, hard place when money is on the line for a movie. So, Richards didn’t get the part because someone better at acting the role got it. Sorry for her, but the LGBT activist religion doesn’t get to choose who plays trans characters any more than Christians get to choose who plays Jesus Christ.

#5: McDonalds “Pride” fries

You know, if a restaurant uses the words “Merry Christmas” during the so-called “holidays,” they get pilloried by offended atheists, pagans, pastafarians, and secular humanists as being prejudiced and bigoted (funny, but most Jews are happy to deal with it and wish Christians a Merry Christmas). But McDonalds in San Francisco is aggressively and outwardly proselytizing LGBT for Gay Pride month.

“The rainbow fry boxes are a fun way to show our support of the LGBTQ community, using one of McDonald’s most iconic and recognizable items,” Cathy Martin of the restaurant corporation’s “Pride Network” stated in a press release.

Imagine if all the McDonalds in Augusta, Georgia (the most “churched” evangelical city in America, according to the Barna Group) issued “Jesus fries” with a cross on them and the corporate office called it a “fun way to show our support of the Christian community.” The world would figuratively (and for some, literally) end.

It’s also funny to note that the most “dechurched” city in America, according to the same study, is San Francisco. “Dechurched” was defined as individuals who were once active churchgoers, but have not attended in the last six months. I suppose they may have been recruited into the LGBT activist religion and out of Christianity, due to the unflagging efforts of the McDonalds pride evangelists.

When souls are at stake, its most important to get the word out, and keep proper doctrine. Like any religion, the LBGT community does a great job at this, and one day, to finally destroy its greatest foe: evangelical Christianity. Maybe then, having saved the world from being called sinful, they can finally rest.

Managing Editor of NOQ Report. Serial entrepreneur. Faith, family, federal republic. One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Continue Reading
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. not fooled!

    June 17, 2017 at 6:18 am

    Oh no! There will be NO REST in Hell.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

When have the Enemies of Liberty on the Left ever compromised on the 2nd amendment?




The history of freedom always has been one of it’s enemies slowly ratcheting it down with restraints in the name of equality or security.

Everyone knows the drill by now, a ‘Serious Crisis’ takes place, the Left immediately demands the surrender of more human rights forcing the innocent to pay for the sins of the guilty. Meanwhile, those who dare defend those rights are pilloried with almost every pejorative in the book.

The history of Liberty Control has always been one of unending incremental infringements on our rights. The enemies of Liberty on the Left always follow the same progression. They begin with spurious claims over the ‘easy access to guns’, getting whatever they can, after which they reset the sequence for the next go around.

The Left’s idea of ‘progress’ is always one direction, with demands that the pro-liberty side give up as yet more of their freedom. Each time around it’s the same story, with only ever worsening regularity. But why is this the case? When have the Liberty controllers on the left ever compromised on the common sense human right of self-defence, or any other liberties for that matter?

Liberty Control down through the ages.

The dirty little secret of Liberty control is that it has it’s roots in racism, epitomised in the infamous United States Supreme Court case DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, (1856):

It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

Please note that it specifically mentions “the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”, as the partial rationale for the decision.

Further on, the past century has saw an inexorable sequence of infringements with the examples ranging from the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 to the Brady act of 1993.

In some rare cases, the Republican party spearheaded some partial relief of earlier infringements, but these were always accompanied with other restrictions. The overall trend has always been ever intensifying restrictions on the rights that are supposed to be free from infringement.

The Left’s idea of ‘compromise.’

It should be obvious by now that the enemies of Liberty on the Left do not want anyone to have the basic human right of self-preservation. They have made that clear in many articles, editorials and videos on the subject of repealing the 2nd amendment or outright gun confiscation.  Consequently, it can be presumed that anything short of that immediate goal is a ‘compromise’ to them.
The win-win eventuality for them is that their ‘compromise’ positions sets up for their ultimate goal none the less. Asserting government control over everyone’s private property with ‘Intergalactic’ Background Checks followed on with the governmental permission requirements in gun registration that will eventually lead to gun confiscation. They would also like to control free-speech with the expedient of ‘Political correctness’ or entirely undefined ‘Hate speech’. But for now they merely want to get people used to these restrictions on Liberty.

The Takeaway

The Left’s increasing stridency towards Liberty has intensified as of late, which is quite odd given that they supposedly support the concept with the self-labeling as “Liberals”. The Left has become single-minded in their pursuit of gun confiscation(and it’s precursors), to the point of rejecting measures that would actually serve to protect the children. As is typical of the nation’s Left, they self-label their obsession with taking guns away from the innocent as being ‘reasonable’. Meanwhile, they vehemently oppose workable solutions to the problems they caused in the first place.

Their latest tactic is to exploit the victims of mass murder in a bid to shut down debate and impose their unworkable ‘solutions’ to the exclusion of anything else. Do they even sound ‘reasonable’ or ‘Liberal’ for that matter? They incessantly complain that the proponents of Liberty won’t surrender their principles and once again yield to their demands, but when will they ever compromise and defend liberty?



Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

An open letter to Sen. Lamar Alexander, US Senate on the nomination of Chai Feldblum



The Honorable Lamar Alexander

Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions committee

United States Senate

CC United States Senators

March 17, 2018


Dear Senator Alexander,

It has come to my attention that President Trump has re-nominated Chai Feldblum to her position as commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This news has brought me grave concern.

On behalf of the American people, it is up to you and the rest of the Senate to remedy this unfortunate situation.

As you are aware, the EEOC deals with cases of workplace discrimination; having the power to enforce federal laws, investigate discrimination complaints, regulate and pursue legal charges against private businesses, and influence public opinion. It is imperative that any federal agency entrusted with such powers be steered by the conscientious counsel of unbiased leadership.

A former college basketball coach once said, “Offense is not equal opportunity.” However, since her appointment by former President Obama in 2010, Ms. Feldblum has exploited her position at the EEOC to offensively further her own fanatical advocacy goals at the expense of religiously-oriented American citizens, the Bill of Rights be damned.

Religious liberty, inviolable and protected from governmental infringement by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, is richly ingrained in our country’s values, having been secured by the blood of our ancestors. In fact, religious liberty, often referred to by the Founders as freedom of conscience, was considered by early Americans to be so precious that, even in the midst of America’s fight for independence, conscience objections were considered sacrosanct.

Consider the words of America’s first President, George Washington, in a letter to Benedict Arnold during America’s Revolutionary War:

“While we are contending for our own liberty, we should be very cautious not to violate the conscience of others, ever considering that God alone is the judge of the hearts of men, and to Him only in this case are they answerable.”

For Chai Feldblum, however, religious freedom must be subjugated with the full force of the government’s ugly fist.

She is, in a word, tyrannical.

Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines tyranny as “a rigorous [strict] condition imposed by some outside agency or force,” as imposed by a tyrant.

A tyrant is defined as “one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power.”

Ms. Feldblum has made several deeply troubling statements that betray her tyrannical intentions, wholly at odds with America’s founding principles:

  • “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win… Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner (emphasis mine).”
  • “I believe granting liberty to gay people advances a compelling government interest, that such an interest cannot be adequately advanced if ‘pockets of resistance’ to a societal statement of equality are permitted to flourish, and hence that a law that permits no individual exceptions based on religious beliefs will be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal of liberty for gay people (emphasis mine).”

Ms. Feldblum’s seditious statements are in dramatic contrast to what Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1774, in Emblematic Representations:

“The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy (emphasis mine)”

In addition, Ms. Feldblum’s thesis on the proper role of government is unequivocally incompatible with the words spoken by President Thomas Jefferson during his first inaugural address, 1801:

“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.”

Chai Feldblum’s offensive advocacy through the EEOC is so extreme and outside of Constitutional bounds that, in 2012, the usually divided Supreme Court of the United States ruled unanimously against Feldblum’s EEOC attempt to void the “Ministerial Exemption,” which allows leeway for religious organizations to carry out routine, religiously-related matters of hiring and terminating employees.

While Ms. Feldblum claims to represent the LGBTQ+ community, she speaks only for a small, yet loud portion of the demographic; one comprised almost entirely of radical LGBTQ+ activists.

In truth, Ms. Feldblum’s fanatical, extremist, ideologically-driven agenda only serves to marginalize a significant portion of sexual minorities, in addition to women and countless Americans of religious orthodoxy.

Ignoring the conservative, sexual minorities who disapprove of the forced subjugation of religious Americans, Ms. Feldblum propagates stereotypes of the various people she claims to represent, and actively encourages neighbors to go to war with neighbors.

Feldblum insists on a “zero-sum” game, where religious Americans and members of the LGBTQ+ community are incapable of living peaceably side-by-side. As the architect of former President Obama’s Transgender executive order, Feldblum further victimizes traumatized women and children, insisting they must tolerate an unsafe existence, as grown men are ushered into their locker rooms and bathrooms in the name of “progress.” Feldblum insists on subjugating religious, yet same-sex attracted business owners in the private market, drastically hindering their pursuit of happiness through economic independence. Feldblum insists that all LGBTQ+ Americans think as she does.

Ms. Feldblum is a tyrant; wholly unworthy of another five years at the helm of the EEOC.

Speaking on the sacredness of religious liberty in America, Samuel Adams stated, August 1, 1776:

“Driven from every other corner of the earth freedom of thought and the right of private judgment in matters of conscience direct their course to this happy country as their last asylum.”

The responsibility, Senator Alexander, now rests with you and the Senate to protect religious liberty as vigorously and as confidently as our Founding Fathers.

If you fail to perform this duty, this great test of your legacy as one of the leaders of the free world, may the words of Samuel Adams haunt you for the remainder of your days:

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”


Most sincerely,


Paige Rogers, Tennessee

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Video: The Racist roots of Liberty control – Who doesn’t like certain people getting rights?




In honour of #NationalWalkoutDay let’s look at those who really don’t like certain people getting rights – specifically the common sense human right of self-preservation.

This is NationalWalkoutDay [Who would have thought that kids would want to skip school?] With one of the most important human rights in the spotlight, it would be a good idea to examine the reasons why this has been suppressed in the past. To begin, consider Hillary Clinton’s statement smearing most of the country:

So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward, and his whole campaign, Make America Great Again, was looking backwards. “You don’t like black people getting rights, you don’t like women getting jobs, you don’t want to see that Indian-American succeeding more than you are, whatever your problem is, I’m going to solve it.”

So who really is opposed to the certain people getting their common sense human rights? The following video from Colion Noir details that Liberty (gun) control has it’s roots in racism:

Gun Control’s Racist History

Interestingly enough, the same people who claim to care about ‘the children’ but whole heartily support Planned Parenthood are the same folks who want to deprive the people of their basic human rights. Who would have thought that was the case?


Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily






Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.