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.

Serial entrepreneur. Faith, family, federal republic. One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

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

Video Double play: Busting the gun grabber’s musket myth.

Published

on

By

Gun confiscation bingo

Two videos that eviscerate the Liberty Grabbers ‘One shot’ musket myth.

It is a bedrock principle (if they have any) of the Liberty grabber Left that back during the ratification of the US Constitution the only weapons in existence were flintlock musket that took 5 minute to reload. Thus there wasn’t any school violence because it would have taken too long for the perpetrator to kill anyone.

As it typical of the lore of the national socialist Left, this is a lie of the first order. A previous video celebrated the “Assault Weapon” tricentennial, which was bit of the tongue in cheek variety since there were other repeating “Military Style” weapons in existence before this time period. These will be detailed in future articles. Meanwhile we present two videos that also bust the ‘Musket Myth’, one a short presentation from the Royal Armouries on the Jover and Belton “Flintlock breech-loading superimposed military musket”

Royal Armouries
Published on Aug 30, 2017
Curator of Firearms, Jonathan Ferguson, gives us a peek at the Flintlock breech-loading superimposed military musket, by Jover and Belton (1786)

This is a very relevant piece since the inventor Joseph Belton corresponded with the Continental Congress in 1777:

May it Please your Honours,
I would just informe this Honourable Assembly, that I have discover’d an improvement, in the use of Small Armes, wherein a common small arm, may be maid to discharge eight balls one after another, in eight, five or three seconds of time, & each one to do execution five & twenty, or thirty yards, and after so discharg’d, to be loaded and fire’d with cartridge as usual.

“It was demonstrated before noted scientists and military officers (including well known scientist David Rittenhouse and General Horatio Gates)”

This destroys the mythology that the founders had no knowledge of this type of repeating firearm technology that existed already.

The second is a humours dissertation on the subject from video raconteur Steven Crowder https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/

from a few years ago that also eviscerates this bit of Leftist mythology.

Published on Feb 10, 2015
People have been telling us for years that the 2nd amendment was written in a time of Muskets, and that it doesn’t apply to the evolved weapons of today. Is it true?

So why is this important?

Two primary reasons. One that these factual examples demonstrate that the founding fathers knew of these technological advances. Therefore, they destroy any Leftist pretences that the 2nd amendment be confined to muskets. Second that, school violence is something other than an issue of guns.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Gay Americans speak out in support of Christian Baker, against the gay lobby

Published

on

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.

-Patrick Henry

As the saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Now, however, after years of radical LGBT activist domination over the nation’s dialogue surrounding civil rights, liberty-loving gay Americans are pushing back.

All wheels have begun to squeak.

Masterpiece Cakeshop V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled (7-2) in favor of Jack Phillips, a devout Christian and confectionary artist. In 2012, after declining to lend his artistry skills toward the custom adornment of a cake intended for the celebration of a same-sex wedding, Phillips was sued for discrimination and was later found guilty by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

Although the Commission had deemed Phillips’s art – confectionary art is a subset of sugar art – as expression under the First Amendment, his religious views were publicly attacked by commissioners. It was this blatant governmental bias which persuaded the Supreme Court to reverse all previous rulings against Mr. Phillips.

Despite of the Supreme Court ruling’s narrow scope, by mid-day on Monday, freedom-loving gay Americans had begun to speak out in support of Jack Phillips’s Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech, and celebrate the Supreme Court ruling in Mr. Phillips’s favor.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must… undergo the fatigue of supporting it.

-Thomas Paine

Pushing Back: Live on the Radio

Speaking with Rush Limbaugh on Monday, a Seattle woman who identified herself, saying, “I’m gay, I’m Hispanic, I’m female, I’m middle-aged, and I’m conservative,” stated:

I wanted to comment on the cake thing, on the Supreme Court judgment ruling on the cake matter. I wanted to say that I am so pleased to hear that, because I just don’t understand how people in this country can keep fighting against having their negative rights, against having what makes this country great, and against that which are the people that came to this country and come to this country, come here for. I just don’t get it… we are the country on this planet that stands for everyone to come and have liberty.

…[P]eople want to have freedom. But what they don’t understand is that freedom never needs to be defended. It’s liberty that needs to be defended. God gives us our freedom. God gives us the right to be free. We have to defend our liberty.

Another Limbaugh caller who identified himself as a wedded gay man, expressed disdain for the radical LGBT activists, describing them as “militant,” asserting:

…[I]t does not make our situation any easier when these militants are on the news because they do not represent me.

His {the husband’s] family didn’t show up at our wedding because they believe a marriage is between one man and one woman. And I don’t want to brand them a bigot or a homophobe for the rest of their lives when I could have an opportunity to have a relationship with them. I’d rather understand where they’re coming from and try to build off of what we have in common than brand them over a decision like a cake and then not have a relationship with the man I love’s family.

The caller continued his frank criticism, stating:

I think these militants make it worse, not better, and they don’t have me — in mind when they’re out there doing it… I just think they’re really loud and obnoxious, and so they get on the news.

They went on TV, and they said what their case was. They said it was never about the cake; it was about making them do what they wanted them to do. 

And I would rather go get a cake from somewhere else and not be on the news and have a chance at understanding where other people are coming from than force my will on them any more than I want them to force their will on me. I know a lot of people don’t accept gay marriage. However, it’s a lifestyle choice I made. They choose not to bake me a cake. I’ll get one somewhere else.

My sexuality makes up so small of who I am as a person; it really shouldn’t matter.

Pushing Back: Speaking Out on Twitter

Other non-totalitarian, liberty-loving gay Americans chose to push back by making their voices heard via social media.

Pushing Back: The New Squeaky Wheels

The phenomenon of gay Americans, fellow freedom-fighters, pushing back against the radical LGBT lobby isn’t unique to the Masterpiece Cakeshop court case. Since 2013, Chad Felix Greene- a wedded gay man – has “been writing in favor of religious freedom for those asked to participate in gay weddings.”

After Monday’s Supreme Court ruling, Mr. Greene stated:

LGBT’s hysterical denunciations and hair-on-fire rhetoric has not changed. Fortunately the argument has. We must continue fighting the rhetoric.

This case is not over.

Back in December of 2017, a gay duo – T.J. and Matt – made headlines for their open support of Jack Phillips and all who wish to exercise religious liberty and freedom of speech.  In a video for the Alliance Defending Freedom, the pair, standing outside the front entrance of the Masterpiece Cakeshop, explained:

We’re here to buy stuff from him and support him, because we don’t think any artist should be forced to create for something that violates their beliefs.

On Monday, echoing the same sentiment, Mr. Greene explained to his followers on Twitter:

The LGBT movement needs to understand that tolerance goes both ways. They have been behaving as though they are entitled to special treatment from everyone under the guise of ‘equality.’

We have equality. But we don’t have the right to demand others violate their beliefs for us.

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.

-Benjamin Franklin

Reason to Hope

The trappings of authoritarian identify politics are being rejected and the walls are beginning to crumble. Liberty-loving Americans representing a plurality of circumstance and lifestyle, often hidden from the limelight of the media, are joining together in good will.

As a Christian and an artist, I count the mounting acts of ideological divergence – examples of bravery – from those in the gay community, as true blessings!

Alas! The Lord works in mysterious ways.

 

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Religious liberty lost and judicial tyranny won in Masterpiece Cakeshop decision

Published

on

Yesterday, in a narrow 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jack Phillips, a Christian baker who refused to bake a custom wedding cake for a homosexual couple based on the grounds that doing so would violate his religious liberty.

Wait a minute! 7-2? How is that a “narrow” decision?

While it’s true that Mr. Phillips was the victor in a lopsided vote total, the root issue concerning his case—freedom of religion—was left unanswered. The court’s decision wasn’t so much pro-First Amendment as it was anti-Colorado Civil Right Commission, which is why it’s being called a narrow decision.

Writing for the majority, Anthony Kennedy—the Justice responsible for Constitutionalizing same-sex marriage—confirmed this fact when he noted that the case created a “difficult situation” when it comes to how the LGBT agenda impacts religious liberty and how he believes that the issue “must await further elaboration” in the courts.

While people like Franklin Graham—a so-called evangelical who winks at Trump’s indiscretions because he was chosen by God’s hand”—proclaim that the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision was a “huge win for religious freedom” and serves as proof that God answers prayer, the reality is that religious liberty is no safer now than it was before this ruling.

In his analysis of the Supreme Court ruling, Daniel Horowitz, Sr. Editor at Conservative Review and an expert on judicial matters, points out how yesterday’s decision falls short of protecting religious liberty because the Court never addressed whether the state or federal government has the power to make laws forcing individuals to violate their consciences.

Meanwhile, the ACLU—who represented the plaintiffs in the case—was pleased with the Court’s decision, saying that it was “based on concerns unique to the [Masterpiece Cakeshop] case but that it reaffirmed its long-standing rule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in the marketplace, including against LGBT people.”

Translation? According to the ACLU, the Court affirmed the right for states to pass laws forcing businesses to serve anyone, anytime, anyplace for any reason; First Amendment be damned.

By the way, isn’t it a pretty good indication that this ruling failed to protect religious liberty when the lawyers representing the plaintiffs agreed with it?

In the end, this case is just another example of how we have become a post-constitutional America where judicial tyranny has replaced the checks and balances provided by three separate but equal branches of government. While Masterpiece Cakeshop won this case, the ruling could have just as easily gone the other way with a different set of judges hearing the same evidence.

Liberty isn’t supposed to be subject to the whims of special interests where political parties are pulling the strings, but that’s what we witnessed yesterday. Judicial tyranny will increase so long as so-called conservatives continue to rely on the Supreme Court to protect our Constitutional rights instead of fighting for the America created by our Founding Fathers.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and FacebookSubscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.