Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Malthusian humanism and death education, Part II

Published

on

  “I fancied myself as some kind of god.”

 – George Soros

[This is the second part in a two-part piece. The first part, which discusses cultural-transformative “death education” in public schools can be read here. The second part focuses on programs, people, and influences behind the death education movement in higher education, and the societal ramifications of such.]

“Death education, also called education about death, dying, and bereavement, is based on the belief that death-denying, death-defying, and death-avoiding attitudes and practices in American culture can be transformed…” states an article in the Encyclopedia of Death (emphasis mine). “Death education is critical for preparing professionals to advance the field and accomplish its purposes.” For school-aged children, one of those purposes is to mold America’s children “to be less afraid of death.” Ahh! What about higher education? Are our young professionals-to-be spared? The answer is no.

 Further reading in the Encyclopedia of Death reveals one of the main conductors of the death-ed movement, specifically in higher education, and exposes the movement’s nefarious underbelly; a taboo-breaking, culture-changing, social-engineering experiment on American society in order to create Utopia. “One of the stated goals,” the article reads, “of the Project on Death in America of the Open Society Institute is to ‘understand and transform the culture and experience of dying and bereavement in America” (emphasis mine). The Open Society Institute (now called Open Society Foundations) is the brain-child of George Soros, an uber-wealthy megalomaniac with Malthusian tendencies and a god-complex. It was created to advance the development of a world-wide, “open” society. In other words, the foundation serves as the means through which Soros has been meddling in (transforming) America’s culture and policies since the 1970’s.

“Choices arise which would not even have been imagined in an earlier age. Euthanasia, genetic engineering, brainwashing become problems of practical importance. The most complex human functions, such as thinking, may be broken down into their elements and artificially reproduced.” 

 -George Soros, “Opening the Soviet System” (describing his ideal open society)

The Project on Death in America – a time-limited social engineering project designed to get the ball (of death) rolling  in America – focused on “palliative care,” which the pro-suicide lobby has now transformed from meaning pain management to meaning euthanasia. During PDIA’s public unveiling at Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center in New York (1994), Soros expressed his admiration for his mother’s choice to commit suicide, and he lamented America’s medical “culture so intent on curing disease and prolonging life…” Having identified a need for professionals willing to advocate for “end of life care,” the Project on Death in America (PDIA) funded numerous efforts through their “Faculty Scholars Program,” successfully integrating death-ed into the curriculum of numerous schools in the fields of “medical ethics, medical education, economics, geriatrics, psychiatry, critical care, neurology, paediatrics, paediatric oncology, general medicine and nursing,” in addition to the arts and humanities. These “faculty scholars” are now mentoring (indoctrinating) new generations of professionals. Transforming a culture into a “death-accepting” culture – a culture with broken morals where, for example, “withholding/withdrawing nutrition & hydration” can be seen as a perfectly acceptable form of murder – requires indoctrinating the masses.

Now, consider this for a moment… What this essentially means is that at least two generations of indoctrinaires (since the late 90’s) are now practicing professionals: they are our doctors and they are our nurses… all across our country.

In collaboration with various other foundations and grant-funding organizations, such as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), PDIA succeeded in lobbying for palliative care to be accepted as a subspecialty of medicine. In 2006, the Council of Graduate Medical Education and the American Board of Medical Specialties recognized this new specialty, and in 2008, accreditation of training programs and certification of physicians began. Soros’s PDIA “scholars were principal investigators for many of the RWJF-funded projects” (hospicepatients.org). A single glance at the array of transformative projects that the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has been funding is all that one needs in order to gain an understanding of the Malthusian future in store for American Society (check out this diagram).

 “In fact, they view traditional American society as ‘the enemy,’ something to be manipulated and defeated so that their goals can be achieved.”

  Ron Panzer, Hospice Patients Alliance

Soros has gone on to fund numerous other suicide lobbying groups, all having disarming names. “Compassion and Choices,” for example, has been especially active in the pro-death movement. Ever-aware of societal challenges, the 2008 Compassion and Choices annual report bragged about having “successfully changed more than 200 headlines from ‘Assisted-Suicide’ to ‘Aid in Dying’ or ‘Death with Dignity’” (Capital Research Center).

 The deceptive, euphemistic language, however, isn’t restricted to titles of pro-death organizations. The entire language of our discussions of such subjects has been steered by empty pleasantries of truth-concealing, linguistic propaganda.  Words and phrases such as death with dignity, employed in the stead of truthful words – suicide, euthanasia, or even murder – are nothing more than lies “dressed in the language of euthanasia advocates,” as Michael Brendan Dougherty from National Review puts it (as in the case of 10 month old Charlie Gard). “The tongue is a small thing, but what enormous damage it can do. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark,” (James 3:5).

 “Gray hair is a crown of glory; it is gained in a righteous life.”

– Proverbs 16:31

What exactly does euthanasia have to do with an open society? In 1984, the then Colorado Gov. said, in reference to the elderly, “You’ve got a duty to die and get out of the way… Let the other society, our kids, build a reasonable life.” Quite simply put, in the kind of open society that the many utopian central-planners envision, a right to die becomes a duty to die (more specifically, a duty to die cheaply). As the very wise Dr. Miguel A. Faria, Jr. explained in Slouching Towards a Duty to Die, “death is the ultimate and most efficient form of rationing.” “Article after article, in the medical literature have subtly and not-so-subtly extolled the virtues of utilitarian (collectivist) ethics in its various incarnations, e.g.. population-based medicine, shared ethics, futility of care, distributive ethics, and the like,” he continued. “All of these proposals seek to submerge the heretofore supremacy of the individual-based ethics of Hippocrates for a collectivist (authoritarian) ethic in which the physician is no longer beholden to his individual patients, but to the greater, collectivist good of society,” just as the physicians in Nazi Germany became active participants in the “science of killing” (Ktenology) for the good of society, for the health of the German nation, Dr. Faria explains. This is precisely the direction that George Soros and other utopian central-planners are steering us; toward repetition of the Nuremburg war crimes, but on a global scale.

 Think this is just hyperbole? Let’s examine a few examples:

  1. The Netherlands [Jane Doe (info kept private)]: This year, a Dutch court cleared a doctor of wrongdoing in the case of an elderly woman living in a nursing home who “fought desperately in an attempt not to be killed.” Facing resistance from the victim, the doctor drugged her coffee. Still, when the doctor attempted to administer the lethal injection, the victim resisted. The doctor then solicited the help of family members in holding the victim down. You can’t make this stuff up! The Netherlands is a good example of the slippery slope from euthanasia to legalized state-sanctioned murder. For example, in 1990, 4,941 people were euthanized without their consent!
  2. United Kingdom [Charlie Guard, Age 10 months]: A terminally ill infant was, essentially, sentenced to death by the Europe’s Human Rights Court. Charlie’s parents sought to transfer Charlie to a hospital here in America for an experimental treatment that has helped some patients with Charlie’s type of condition, though not as severe. Instead, the court ordered Charlie’s life support (ventilator) be disconnected. The utilitarian outlook that has taken over in Britain, with its National Health Services, is evident in a piece published by The Independent in which the author briefly acknowledges the secular, Utilitarian argument for terminating life-sustaining care, stating “Other very sick children with a better chance of life, it might have been argued, had a greater claim to a finite and expensive resource.” Charlie’s parents, through private citizen donations, have raised all of the necessary funds in order to pay for Charlie’s transfer and experimental treatment, without needing public funds. Nevertheless, the courts have declared that Charlie must die.
  3. United Kingdom [Patrick Pullicino]: Dr. Pullicino has cited a lack of clear guidelines for placing patients on the “Liverpool Care Pathway” (LCP) – the creepy name for a program for terminally ill patients – as leading to the premature placement of thousands of elderly people onto the LCP… in what amounts to a death sentence. Pulllicino cited pressure on the number of beds as one reason for the thousands of premature LCP placements. Sadly, the elderly aren’t the only victims of NHS rationing.
  4.  Reno, Nevada [Brian Callister]: Callously taking the lead from Britain’s NHS, several American insurance companies have stopped paying for some life-saving, curative procedures. While they won’t pay for you to be cured, they will pay for you to kill yourself, as Dr. Brian Callister was shocked to find out. He had attempted to transfer two of his patients to other states to undergo life-saving medical procedure. However, since those states (California & Oregon) allow doctor-assisted suicide, the insurance companies decided death was easier on the companies’ pocket books. Let this serve as a reminder that there is a very big difference between health insurance and health care.
  5. Oregon [Nora Harris]: Nora was diagnosed in 2009, with early onset Alzheimer’s at age 56. Mentally incompetent, but fully conscious, Nora needed to be spoon-fed. While Mrs. Harris has filed paperwork indicating she did not wish to receive a feeding tube, but she did not ask to be starved and deprived water while still capable of eating and drinking. A failed lawsuit by her husband Bill – which attempted to force Nora’s care facility to deprive her of food and water – prompted the creation of a legislative bill that just recently passed in Oregon’s Senate. The bill essentially removes the legal safeguard’s that prohibit medical representatives from ending the life of mentally-incompetent, non-dying, conscious adults.
  6. California [Stephanie Packer, Age 33]: Diagnosed with scleroderma, a chronic autoimmune disease that causes scar tissue to form in her lungs, at the age of 29, the married mother has already outlived the 3 years her doctor expected her to. Stephanie is, unfortunately, finding little to no support for her hard fight to stay alive and with four children (aged 7-13). “In June [2016], her home state of California enacted a law permitting doctor-assisted suicide. And something terrible happened. Premature passing away with medical help is now widely seen as preferable to painful, prolonged living, Packer says. But she’ll fight to live with every last labored gasp drawn from her oxygen tube before ultimately accepting a natural end.”

 “I have to concentrate on what goes on in America. The fight for an open society now has to be fought there.” 

– George Soros, 2003

To turn our eyes away, to ignore crimes against our nation’s morality would be a travesty. James Madison said, “Conscience is the most sacred of all property.” What is happening to American society is nothing less than theft – the theft of our conscience through so-called death education. Thieves come only to steal, and to kill, and to destroy (John 10:10). To steal the God-given, blood-earned conscience of America is to steal freedom’s last safe place in this world. With the efforts of those who seek to continue the acidic erosion of America’s conscience steadily increasing, we must be vigilant to guard our hearts. Hold your conscience close, guarding it from those who seek to destroy our culture. Talk with your children about what they are learning in school. And, most importantly, never allow yourself to forget the value of each and every human life. America, and her cultural conscience must never be stolen. Guard her and keep her safe. As Samuel Adams said…

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” (Samuel Adams, Speech on August 1, 1776).

 


Resources for further of this topic are listed below.

Stealth Euthenasia: Health Care Tyranny in America, Hospice Patients Alliance: http://www.hospicepatients.org/this-thing-called-hospice.html

Hospice Patients Alliance: http://www.hospicepatients.org/index.html

Panel clears Dutch doctor who asked family to hold patient down as she carried out euthanasia procedure, The Telegraph: https://www.google.com/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/28/panel-clears-dutch-doctor-asked-family-hold-patient-carried/amp/

Right to Die Can Become Duty to Die, the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/4736927/Right-to-die-can-become-a-duty-to-die.html

Doctor: Insurance Wouldn’t Pay for Patients’ Treatments, but Offered Assisted Suicide, Daily Signal: http://dailysignal.com/2017/06/28/doctor-says-health-insurance-wouldnt-pay-for-patients-treatments-but-offered-assisted-suicide-instead/

Encyclopedia of Death: http://www.deathreference.com/Da-Em/Death-Education.html#ixzz4j3p6FPUU 

NHS rationing ‘is denying patients care’ as cash crisis deepens, The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/dec/08/nhs-rationing-denying-patients-care-cash-crisis-survery-doctors

Oregon Senate votes to allow dementia patients to be starved to death, Lifesitenews.com: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.lifesitenews.com/mobile/news/oregon-senate-passes-bill-allowing-dementia-mentally-ill-patients-to-be-sta

Top doctor’s chilling claim: The NHS kills off 130,000 elderly patients every year, Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161869/Top-doctors-chilling-claim-The-NHS-kills-130-000-elderly-patients-year.html

The Instincts of Charlie Gard’s Parents Should Echo in the Courts, the Independent:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/voices/charlie-gard-life-support-concerns-should-be-listened-to-a7812911.html%3Famp

The Vatican’s Statement on the Charlie Gard Case Is a Disgrace, National Review: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449159/vatican-charlie-gard-statement-catholic-church-family-life-euthanasia

Terminally ill mom denied treatment coverage — but gets suicide drug approved, New York Post: http://nypost.com/2016/10/24/terminally-ill-mom-denied-treatment-coverage-but-gets-suicide-drugs-approved/

Thousands in Netherlands Die Without Consent Since Euthanasia OK, LifeNews.com: http://www.lifenews.com/2012/07/04/thousands-in-netherlands-die-without-consent-since-euthanasia-ok/

Gov. Lamm Asserts Elderly, If Very Ill, Have ‘Duty To Die’, New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/29/us/gov-lamm-asserts-elderly-if-very-ill-have-duty-to-die.html

Slouching Towards a Duty to Die: http://www.drmiguelfaria.com/medicalsentinel/slouching-towards-duty-die

The Duty to Die Cheaply: http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-duty-to-die-cheaply/article/441526

Anne McTavish Neatherlands’ Euthenasia Stats are Appauling: http://theprovince.com/opinion/anne-mctavish-netherlands-euthanasia-stats-are-appalling

Oregon Bill Would Allow Starvation of Alzheimer’s Patients, Could Set Up Death Panels https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/02/08/oregon-bill-would-allow-starvation-of-alzheimers-patients-could-set-up-death-panels/\

George Soros, Godfather of the Left Gives $550 Million to Liberal Causes: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/12/14/george-soros-godfather-left-gives-550-million-to-liberal-causes.html

Op-Ed: Selling suicide with George Soros’ money: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op-ed-selling-suicide-with-george-soros-money/article/2526283

Against a duty to die, AMA Journal of Ethics: http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2014/05/oped1-1405.html

The Project on Death In America: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1282198/

Is there a duty to die?: http://web.utk.edu/~jhardwig/dutydie.htm

Approaching Death: https://www.nap.edu/read/5801/chapter/1#xiii

AUTHOR Bennett^ Roger V,
TITLE Death and the Curriculum,
PDB DATE Apr 74
NOTE 18p,; Paper presented at the American Educational
Eesearch Association Meeting (Chicago^ April 15-19 1974)

https://archive.org/stream/ERIC_ED093782/ERIC_ED093782_djvu.txt

Paige Rogers is a Christian artist and author, and a former professional practitioner in the field of Early Childhood Development. She is the creator of ThePaintingPastor.org, a blog offering Christian reflection, exhortation and discernment alongside various artistic techniques visually documented through Paige's unique artistic endeavors. A lover of learning, Paige is an avid enthusiast of history, civics, political geography and human nature, physical geography and the sciences. She is an incurably inquisitive and chronically creative “egghead.” Paige is a strong supporter of America's service members and veterans.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Culture and Religion

Is Mike Pence too political for church?

Published

on

There have been a lot of talk lately about Mike Pence speaking at the SBC. Many complained claiming it was divisive and political. Jonathan Leeman wrote an article for The Gospel Coalition criticizing the very idea of Mike Pence speaking. I will address this article in greater detail on the points that I agree and disagree with. But first, let me answer the very question I posed: Pence isn’t too political to address a congregation, but his speech was.

In short, Mike Pence’s address offered zero substantive theological content. It was merely about his privilege as serving as Vice President. While acknowledging this privilege merited a short section in the beginning, it needed no more continuation. Instead, Mike Pence droned on and on about his experiences and the administration’s accomplishments.

I think there’s only one way you can sum up this administration: It’s been 500 days of action, 500 days of accomplishment. It’s been 500 days of promises made and promises kept. 

Pence’s address followed a pattern of praising Trump with loosely intertwined references to God and praising his hosts as guest speakers often do. The intertwined religious language while praising the accomplishments, not of God, but of the President is the briefest summation of Pence’s speech to the SBC that can be offered. The only biblical passage cited was Psalm 126 in reference to a story that served as praise to the Trump administration. God wasn’t working though Trump in Pence’s speech. Instead, Trump was working. At the end of his speech, Pence did offer a superficial message about praying for America with a quoting scripture.

Mike Pence had an opportunity to address the leaders of many churches. He blew it. But would all politicians do the same?

Politicians Should Be in the Pew, Not the Pulpit?

Jonathan Leeman’s article for The Gospel Coalition draws this conclusion. He has five reasons for not allowing politicians to address a church event.

  1. No reason to give attention to a politician’s words over a plumber’s or an accountant’s, at least not in our assemblies or associations.
  2. Having a political leader address our churches or associations of churches tempts us to misconstrue our mission.
  3. Undermines our evangelistic and prophetic witness.
  4. Hurts the unity of Christ’s body

Reason one is most certainly true. However, I believe we ought to separate the person from the profession. On the basis of spiritual maturity and calling should a politician or any notable guest address an assembly. This first reason is the one I believe to have the most merit in regards to the situation at hand. Inviting a politician to address a Congregation is wrong if the only reason is that they are a politician. However, if the politician is a member of the church, what is wrong with having a fellow member speak?

Reasons two and three are certainly tied together in there logic. I believe these reasons hold merit for Pence’s sacrelidgious speech but are not inherently true of all politicians who accept such similar offers. Reasons two and three open a multitude of separate issues both independent and dependent on the circumstances. Meaning, yes this could happen, but the degree in which we can mitigate the temptation are limited for Satan is the tempter. In the case of Pence, reason three was definitely true. Many would see that the SBC tied itself to Trump. But that is not the fault of the SBC per se. But that is Pence’s fault for giving a campaign rally speech instead of a message. If Pence gave a theologically sound speech there should be little temptation to misconstrue the mission. The third reason is inevitable. Since the beginning, Christians witness has been undermined by the lies of Satan. The original Christians were thought to be cannibal and even atheists. We can’t always prevent these lies, but it would be good not to validate them which Pence did.

Now hurting the unity of the body of Christ is a weak point. Leeman’s fourth point is basically saying that Pence is too polarizing, because Trump is… Trump, on a National level to address a church. Pence is polarizing, but he was polarizing before Trump. The polarizing premise is true but, assuming Pence is indeed a follower off Christ, this would be the result of living a Christian life. Here’s another polarizing figure: Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop. Would polarity disqualify him from speaking? If we are to apply national likability to our church speakers, we’re going to end up with a lot of TV personalities who don’t comprehend dyophysitism.

Like Jack Philips, Pence has taken a lot of flak for being a devout Christian. Isn’t this the kind of person who may have a good message to the assembly? Seemingly so. Again Pence under-delivered. To be fair, Leeman clearly states he doesn’t blanket outlaw politicians from speaking.

I can envision a few circumstances where there is some measure of mission overlap that could justify it. Maybe a group of Christian college presidents asks the secretary of education to address them. Or a Christian conference on work asks a Christian congressman to talk about working as a Christian on the Hill, so that attendees can apply the principles to their own settings.

But while it’s not an outlaw, such an unwritten policy places constraints on the church that are not inherently necessary. Leeman supposes some similar justification was used when The Gospel Coalition had Ben Sasse speak. In 2017, Ben Sasse addressed The Gospel Coalition and gave a theological speech. He was noted for sounding more like a pastor than a politician.

To me only two things matter:

  1. Theological substance
  2. Correct theological substance

On these two requirements I think the body of Christ would remain unified with a clear picture of its mission.

Continue Reading

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

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.