Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Five examples that LGBTQ activism is a religion

Published

on

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.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading
Advertisement
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

Harvard students figured out why women are paid less than men

Published

on

Harvard students figured out why women are paid less than men

It genuinely disgusts me that, despite how much we’ve progressed as a society, especially in regards to our treatment of minorities and women, men still earn more than women do. It makes me ashamed of my country. How can we still refer to the United States as the “Land of Opportunity” when women are only paid $0.80 for every $1.00 that men are paid despite working just as hard in the same positions? Hell, even that depressing number doesn’t accurately express how large the gender pay gap is, according to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research.

In the report, titled Still a Man’s Labor Market: The Slowly Narrowing Gender Wage Gap, published in November 2018, the organization revealed that women earn a mere 49% of what men do. What’s worse is that it won’t be until 2059 that men and women have 100% equal pay, assuming the gap continues to narrow as slowly as it currently is. This is absolutely unacceptable, and it’s well past time Congress made it illegal for employers to pay women less than men for the same work.

At least, that’s what I would say if I was a leftist moron who still pays attention to the easily debunked “women earn less than men because of sexism” argument that’s been regurgitated countless times over the years.

The reality is that Congress made it illegal for employers to pay people differently based on their sex decades ago. It was called the “Equal Pay Act” and it was signed into law by President John F. Kennedy all the way back in June 1963. Ever since then, employers have been able to pay employees differently based on their merit, their seniority, their work output, or really whatever factors the employer desires… except sex.

A man and a woman in identical positions with identical output are legally required to be paid the same amount, and employers that fail to do so run the risk of some hefty legal ramifications. But if that’s the case, then why do the numbers presented by the IWPR show that there’s such a massive gender pay gap? Is the Equal Pay Act ineffective? Did the IWPR mess up its numbers? Is there some patriarchal plot to keep women from making money?

No, no, and no. The real answer is incredibly simple, and it’s one I’m sure most of us were able to figure out on our own the first time we heard the “women earn ($0.75, $0.79, $0.80) for every $1.00 that men earn” statistic that’s been getting thrown around for years. Basically, men are paid more than women on average because they seek out more lucrative jobs on average and work longer hours on average. If you take the combined earnings of all the women in the United States in a given year, divide that number by how many women worked at any point in that year, and then do the same for men, you’ll see that the earnings-per-working-woman are quite a bit lower than the earnings-per-working-man, so clearly there is a gender pay gap. However, despite what leftists like the people at the IWPR want you to believe, this gap has nothing to do with sexism.

This was demonstrated in a report, also published in November 2018, by two PhD Candidates in Economics at Harvard University. In the report, titled Why Do Women Earn Less Than Men? Evidence from Bus and Train Operators, the two students examined the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority in order to figure out why such a heavily unionized agency in such a notoriously progressive city (Boston) still paid its female employees $0.89 for every $1.00 it paid its male employees. The answer was, once again, incredibly simple. Women were less likely than men to work overtime hours while also being more likely to take unpaid time off. That’s it. That’s all there is to it.

Men tended to prefer making more money to having more free time, while women tended to prefer having more free time to making more money. While an argument could be made that more employers should account for the different preferences of men and women, something the report actually advises on how to do, there’s no basis for the argument that the gender pay gap is a result of sexism.

It should be noted that the Harvard report examined just one industry in one metropolitan area, which means the findings aren’t applicable everywhere, but the gist of them is. Yes, there is a gender pay gap. That’s an objective fact. However, it has nothing to do with sexism. The causes of the gap vary from industry to industry and place to place, but they almost always have to do with the inherent differences between men and women. I think there’s a conversation to be had about whether or not this is an issue, and if it is, whether it’s up to employers, society, or women themselves to solve it, but to even have that conversation requires us to abandon the idea that sexism is the cause. There are certainly some instances where it is the cause, but the vast majority of the time, it’s not.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

A guide to classical liberalism

Published

on

A guide to classical liberalism

The modern interpretation of the ideology known as “liberalism” is usually associated with the progressive left. Despite the roots of true liberalism – individualism, Natural Rights, and liberty itself – the modern understanding of liberalism has been skewed to make people think more of illiberal politicians like Bernie Sanders instead of Constitutional originalists like Antonin Scalia as liberals.

This 27-minute video does a fine job of breaking down the historical ideas that brought about classical liberalism and the men who brought them to light. It also accurately points out that equality of opportunity for individuals is necessary for a modern society, thus it was this mentality that brought about the end of slavery and the promotion of women’s rights.

From John Locke to James Madison, from the thinkers of Great Britain to the founding fathers of the United States, this video from The Academic Agent brings us through the history of classical liberalism.

For a brief introduction we posted a shorter video earlier:

What classical liberalism is, briefly

http://noqreport.com/2018/12/12/classical-liberalism-briefly/The progressive left and the Democratic Party have undergone many transformations over the last century. They’ve masterfully spun American understanding of language and labels to the point that history has been in a constant state of being rewritten to conform to their machinations. One of the most perverse examples of this is how they now claim the mantle of “liberalism.”

Sadly, those who embrace Natural Rights, limited government, and individualism have been forced to amend our label as liberals to become “classical liberals” for the sake of escaping confusion. Most Americans today would assume if we call ourselves “liberals” that we must be big fans of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Fine-tuning and incredible calibration points to creation over random chance

Published

on

Fine-tuning and incredible calibration points to creation over random chance

Homicide investigator J. Warner Wallace is familiar with looking for tampering. His job makes him look for things that don’t fit. At his core, he is forced to ask questions about the various situations he investigates in order to see where the evidence points.

When he’s not catching bad guys, he’s a Christian apologist. In this role, he utilizes the same skills he’s honed over the decades as an investigator to demonstrate why it makes much more sense to believe in creation than a randomly generated universe.

The author of Cold-Case Christianity started off as a skeptical atheist, but as he investigated deeper, he soon realized it was impossible for the secular worldview to be correct as it pertained to the origins of the universe and life on the planet.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report