IS PORN BECOMING A POTENTIALLY-HAZARDOUS PART OF MAINSTREAM COLLEGE CURRICULA IN AMERICA?

There’s a fascinating new report in WORLD Magazine about a phenomenon called “porn curriculum.” The term refers to explicit material that is making its way into America’s college and university classrooms. While the notion may seem too bizarre to be true, some experts claim that there is, indeed, an influx of pornography being integrated into secular professors’ curricula.

Earlier this year, TheBlaze did report about one anecdotal example — the allegation that Fresno State Public Health Professor Peggy Gish showed her students “Advanced Sexual Techniques, Volume One,” a video that touts sexually-explicit audio and video messaging. But according to WORLD, this isn’t an isolated incident.

The Christian magazine claims that, at New York University in New York City, New York, students have discussed pornographic comic books for a course called “Anthropology of the Unconscious.” At Bates College in Lewiston, Maine, too, students have delved into sexual topics for a class entitled, “Doing it, Getting it, Seeing it, Reading it.”

And not to outdo the other examples, but the WORLD report claims that a class at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut, once offered a course called “Pornography: Writings of Prostitutes.” If the name of the class still leaves you with doubts about what’s covered, consider that students were asked to create their own pornographic work for their final projects. While the class isn’t currently listed on the college’s web site, past media coverage will provide you with an overview of content.

While these courses may seem bizarre, the idea behind them is that they allegedly help prepare students for a world in which they will encounter graphic art, ideas and other related phenomena. By exposing pupils to these ideas early on, the notion is that they are then better prepared to contend with them in the real world.

Read More:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-porn-becoming-a-potentially-hazardous-part-of-mainstream-college-curricula-in-america/

http://americandecency.org/full_article.php?article_no=1605

Here Comes Incest, Just as Predicted

If all human beings should have the right to marry (or simply be with) the one they love, as proponents of same-sex marriage constantly tell us, then why shouldn’t adult, incestuous couples enjoy that same “right”? Hollywood director Nick Cassavetes is the latest to say, “Why not?”, and I for one am not in the least bit surprised.

Simply stated, with the public endorsement of same-sex relationships, the endorsement (or at least acceptance) of consensual, adult, incestuous relationships is the next step. Consider the following:

· Already in April, 2007, Time Magazine featured a major article entitled, “Should Incest Be Legal?” The article noted that critics of the Supreme Court’s Lawrence v. Texas ruling in 2003, which struck down Texas’ anti-sodomy law, argued that the ruling would lead to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage and polygamy. “It turns out,” Time noted, “that the critics were right,” adding that plaintiffs were now “using Lawrence to challenge laws against incest.” 

· In December 2010, when Columbia University professor David Epstein was charged with one count of incest because of his three-year, consensual affair with his adult daughter, his attorney Matthew Galuzzo <href=”#ixzz22uppq7qj”>remarked, “It’s ok for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home. How is this so different? We have to figure out why some behavior is tolerated and some is not.”

· In May 2010, Salon.com ran an article on “Gay Porn’s Most Shocking Taboo,” namely “Twincest.” As expressed by one of the twins, “My brother is my boyfriend, and I am his boyfriend.” One commenter wrote, “I have total moral and legal integrity here: no sexual act that results from the consent of both parties should be illegal or immoral. These boys apparently consented to do this: there is no possibility of deformed or retarded children: therefore it is not a crime or your business.” But of course. Not surprisingly, a colleague reported to me that on other gay websites, the same argument was frequently raised in support of the twins.

· Even more shocking news was reported in May, 2010. A 72 year-old woman and her long estranged grandson in England were going to have a child together through a surrogate mother. Said the grandson, Phil: “You can’t help who you fall for.” Said his grandmother, Pearl: “Phil’s going to be a great dad. I never in a million years thought at 72 I’d be ‘pregnant’ and in love with my grandson. I make no apologies and I believe God’s given me a second chance.”

· In February of this year, Emily Yoffe (aka Prudence) responded to a question in her column on Slate.com. Male, fraternal twins who had been living together as lovers for many years wondered if they should come out and tell their family. After discussing legal and family matters, she closed with this counsel: “When people ask when you’re each going to go out there and find a nice young man, tell them that while it may seem unorthodox, you both have realized that living together is what works for you. Say no brothers could be more devoted or compatible, and neither of you can imagine wanting to change what you have.” Gay activist Dan Savage seconded her advice.

· In several countries, incest laws are being challenged, most notably in a major case in Germany involving a brother and sister who did not meet until later in life, only to fall in love and have children. Their attorney used the precedent of same-sex marriage to argue on his clients’ behalf.

· Some scientists now speak of GSA, genetic sexual attraction, which “occurs between two adults who have been separated during the critical years of development and bonding and are reunited years later as adults.” When they are finally reunited, “they become captivated with one another, sharing similar physical features, likes and dislikes.” Perhaps they could say, “My genes made me do it!”

 

In light of the above, which could be multiplied almost ad infinitum (and ad nauseam), Nick Cassavetes’ comments shouldn’t be so shocking: “I’m not saying this is an absolute but in a way, if you’re not having kids – who gives a d-mn? Love who you want. Isn’t that what we say? Gay marriage – love who you want? If it’s your brother or sister it’s super-weird, but if you look at it, you’re not hurting anybody except every single person who freaks out because you’re in love with one another.” Yes, isn’t that what “we say” these days?

Promoting his new movie “Yellow,” which features an adult incestuous relationship, he said, “We had heard a few stories where brothers and sisters were completely, absolutely in love with one another. You know what? This whole movie is about judgment, and lack of it, and doing what you want.” Exactly. Who are you to judge?

A gay man and his partner once asked me, “But how can you say our relationship is wrong? We’re not hurting anyone and there is no victim.” I asked them, “Would you approve of two adult gay brothers having a relationship?” They both replied, “But that is so wrong!” Yet when I pressed them further, they could not say why their relationship was fine but that of two consenting brothers was not.

So, what’s it going to be? Do we hold the line on marriage as the union of a man and woman only, or do we eventually open the door to incest too?

Michael Brown

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and has served as a professor at a number of seminaries. He hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire, and his latest book is The Real Kosher Jesus.

http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2012/09/11/here_comes_incest_just_as_predicted/page/full/

North Carolina College Considering Ban on Chick-fil-A By Michael Gryboski , Christian Post Reporter

A college in North Carolina is considering a ban on products from  Chick-fil-A in response to complaints over the chicken sandwich chain’s  connections to social conservative groups.

Davidson College‘s Union Board, a student organization that oversees events  at the campus, decided last week to consider halting the use of Chick-fil-A for  its popular “After Midnight” monthly program.

Bill Giduz, director of Media Relations at Davidson, provided The Christian  Post with a statement regarding the pending decision.

“In light of the controversy over Chick-fil-A, the board has decided to  gather student input on the matter and discuss it at one of their early-semester  weekly meetings after classes resume on August 27,” read the statement.

“The Union Board serves different menus at After Midnight throughout the  year, and Chick-fil-A is served once or twice annually … Until a final decision  is made, alternative options will be served at After Midnight and other Union  Board events.”

“The only process envisioned is that the students who are members of the  College Union Board are planning to discuss the issue,” said Giduz to CP.  “They’re the party responsible for the ‘After Midnight’ events and what’s served  on those occasions. They have not yet set a date for their deliberation.”

Davidson College is not the only academic institution mulling over a ban on  Chick-fil-A products because of the fast-food chain’s connections to  organizations like Focus on the Family and Family Research Council. New York University may also ban Chick-fil-A over the  ideological viewpoints of its leadership.

Philip Lentz, director of Public Affairs for NYU, told The Christian Post  that the university had in the past seriously considered removing Chick-fil-A  from their campus.

“In 2011, the Student Senators Council passed a resolution asking that  Chick-fil-A be removed from campus. However, this spring, the council withdrew  that resolution, saying a ban would have limited freedom of expression,” said  Lentz.

“These types of issues at NYU are typically considered by our University  Senate, which consists of representatives of the faculty, students,  administrators and deans … So the issue has not yet been presented to the  University Senate.”

Lentz explained that the effort to ban Chick-fil-A from NYU reappeared on the  agenda after the much publicized remarks of COO Dan Cathy regarding same-sex marriage.

“In the wake of the recent controversy over Mr. Cathy’s remarks, the NYU  administration has asked the University Senate to take up the issue of  Chick-fil-A’s status on campus when it reconvenes this fall,” said Lentz.

“As of right now, the Chick-fil-A on the NYU campus is closed for the summer  and is scheduled to reopen when students return for the fall semester.”

Cathy said last month that he supports the biblical definition of the family  unit. He also remarked that America was “inviting God’s judgment” for saying “we  know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.”

http://www.christianpost.com/news/north-carolina-college-considering-ban-on-chick-fil-a-79831/#l4rKjrVLrfbbKH6c.99

A California Senator’s Attack on Parental Rights

Two months ago, I wrote, “As of today, it is legal in California to give hormone blockers to an 11 year-old boy in order to delay the onset of puberty, but it could soon be illegal for a 17 year-old with unwanted same-sex attractions to receive professional counseling, even with parental consent.” Now, California Senator Ted Lieu, has removed any doubt as to why he introduced Senate Bill 1172: “The attack on parental rights is exactly the whole point of the bill because we don’t want to let parents harm their children.”

This is an absolute outrage, and every parent in California needs to contact their senators and urge them to vote against this ridiculous and wrong-headed bill.

Senator Lieu, who is married with children, said “he got the idea for the bill after seeing a television special last fall about adults who had gone through this kind of therapy as children. He said he was struck by their description of traumatic experiences, confusion, depression and suicidal thoughts.” And so Lieu has now appointed himself the guardian of the children of California, the arbiter of what is best for them, and the ward over the parents of his state.

If this is not an example of egregious government overreach, nothing is.

For those unfamiliar with SB 1172, it is an unprecedented bill that “would ban sexual orientation conversion therapy for California minors—even if they or their parents want it.” It would also make it very difficult for an adult with unwanted same-sex attractions to receive professional counseling, since the counselor would have to inform the client that the counseling does not work and that it could cause harm. How encouraging!

The bill has the enthusiastic support of gay activist organizations and gay politicians, and it is making its way through the Legislature with almost total Democratic backing. Thankfully, there are some politicians who are exposing the absurd nature of the bill. As reported by Kim Reyes in the Orange County Register, Assemblyman Donald Wagner explained that, “The default of this Legislature is to assume authority over parents by getting invested in issues of medicine, which is something it is not qualified to do, especially regarding matters of medical decisions made between parents and children.”

“The Legislature has no business telling parents how to raise their kids, Wagner said, nor is it appropriate for a bunch of legislators without medical training to judge the effectiveness of a particular therapy. ‘I’m not a doctor,’ the assemblyman said.”

Reyes also noted that “three experts consulted by the Orange County Register said they were not aware of the California State Legislature ever outlawing a specific kind of therapy.” (I can only imagine what kinds of professional therapies take place in California, all without legal interference.) And Marc Mason, administrative manager at the Board of Behavioral Sciences, which licenses counselors and therapists in California, stated that “Therapies themselves are not regulated. We regulate individuals or licensees, and we do not have the ability or statutory authority to ban a certain type of therapy.”

Even the leftleft-leaning, pro-gay-activist, American Psychological Association (APA) “‘does not approve or ban’ therapies,” according to Rhea Farberman, an APA spokeswoman. “The association has said that sexual re-orientation efforts are not effective, but hasn’t designated such therapy as an ethical violation.”

Lieu, however, states that, “The facts show that you cannot change someone’s sexual orientation, and when you try to do that, it harms them. The only (legitimate study showing) that highly-motivated homosexuals can change their orientation was conducted by Robert Spitzer (a renowned psychiatrist). He retracted his study this past year, noting that there was no scientific reasoning to back up his findings. So, there is no factual proof that this type of therapy works.”

This, of course, is nonsense. First, there are thousands of former homosexuals who testify to significant or even complete change in their sexual orientation, be it through religious conversion or professional therapy or both. In this age of so-called tolerance and inclusion, why are they ignored or mocked or ridiculed? Why should we believe the testimonies of gays who tried to change but couldn’t while refusing to believe the testimonies of gays who did change? Second, there are actually decades of professional studies documenting the possibility of change (for a detailed discussion, see my book A Queer Thing Happened to America). Third, Spitzer did not retract his study, nor did he discover that his findings were scientifically inaccurate after further research. He simply apologized for the study after suffering years of ugly and unrelenting attack from gay activists and their allies.

But all this is secondary to the larger matter at hand, namely the extraordinary attempt of the government of California to tell parents and their children that, regardless of their spiritual convictions, moral convictions, social convictions, or scientific convictions, minors with unwanted same-sex attractions cannot receive professional counseling to help them change, even with parental consent.

To repeat the words of Senator Lieu, “The attack on parental rights is exactly the whole point of the bill.” Parents of California, are you going to let this bill pass on your watch?

Michael Brown

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and has served as a professor at a number of seminaries. He hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire, and his latest book is The Real Kosher Jesus.

http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2012/08/02/a_california_senators_attack_on_parental_rights/page/full/

 

The Rise of the Intolerance Brigade

In recent days, the extreme intolerance, bigotry, and exclusivity of some gay activists and their straight allies has been on prominent display in their attacks against Chick-fil-A. What makes this all the more ironic, not to mention Orwellian, is that their campaign is being carried out in the name of tolerance, inclusion, and diversity. As expressed by jurist Marvin Frankel (in his book Faith and Freedom: Religious Liberty in America), “The powerless call out for tolerance. Achieving power, they may soon forget.”

Today, words like “diversity” and “inclusion,” which have been on the lips of gay activists for years, have taken on an ominous tone that would make Orwell proud.

Since March, students at New York University have been circulating a petition calling for Chick-fil-A to be removed from their campus for “human rights violations” (I kid you not). In classic doublespeak, the petition states that the fast food company doesn’t belong there because “NYU prides itself on being a diverse, open and inclusive campus community. . . . Unfortunately, maintaining a contract with an anti-gay vendor like Chick-fil-A undermines what makes this university so great.” So, Chick-fil-A should be banned because NYU “prides itself on being a diverse, open and inclusive campus community.”

In the same vein, Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, stated, “As the country moves toward inclusion, Chick-fil-A has staked out a decidedly stuck-in-the-past mentality.” He further stated, apparently with a straight face, that “fair-minded consumers” can now “make up their own minds whether they want to support an openly discriminatory company.” It appears, then, that Griffin’s version of an “inclusive” America means that it’s either the gay way or the highway.

But it gets worse. In the now infamous words of Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, “Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population.”

It appears, however, that you can have a mayor in the city of Boston who discriminates against a population (namely, the scores of millions of Americans who do not want to redefine marriage) and against a business (namely Chick-fil-A, an exemplary company that has broken no laws, including laws of discrimination).

Mayor Menino continued (and with Orwellian eloquence at that), “We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion,” a stunning example of unintended irony if ever there was one.

In a similar example of unconscious doublespeak, New York City council speaker Christine Quinn, herself in a same-sex “marriage,” explained why she too wanted Chick-fil-A kicked off the NYU campus: “We are a city that believes our diversity is our greatest strength and we will fight anything and anyone that runs counter to that.”

That’s right, Chick-fil-A. We are so diverse that we will run you out of our city. And we are so open and inclusive that we have no room for a business like yours.

Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno also attributed his attack on Chick-fil-A to “diversity,” explaining to ABCNews.com that his district is “a very diverse ward–economically, racially, and diverse in sexual orientation” – but not so diverse that it can welcome a Christian-based company. (The comments of the magnanimous mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emmanuel, require little commentary: “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values. They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents.” Perhaps he should have added, “No disrespect intended to my fellow neighbors and residents who oppose same-sex ‘marriage,’ and certainly, no disrespect intended to Minister Farrakhan, whose business is always welcome in our city.”)

Not to be left out in this remarkable display of tolerance, equality, and diversity, the Philadelphia City Council was considering “a resolution condemning Chick-fil-A for what one city leader called ‘anti-American’ attitudes that promote ‘hatred, bigotry and discrimination.’ City Councilman Jim Kenney sent a letter to Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy telling him to ‘take a hike and take your intolerance with you.’” (I am not making this up.)

Does Councilman Kenney not realize that he should be directing his statement to the face looking at him in the mirror? (To repeat: “take a hike and take your intolerance with you.”) Does the Philadelphia City Council not recognize that 31 states have so far voted to uphold marriage as the union of one man and woman? Are all these states, most recently North Carolina, with an overwhelming vote of 61-39%, “anti-American”? And isn’t it the Philadelphia City Council resolution that is actually an example of “hatred, bigotry and discrimination”? Yes, Chick-fil-A, we will discriminate against you because we oppose discrimination.

Already in 1994, Camille Paglia wrote in her book Vamps and Tramps, “One reason I so dislike recent gay activism is that my self-identification as a lesbian preceded Stonewall: I was the only openly gay person at the Yale Graduate School (1968-72), a candor that was professionally costly. That anyone with my aggressive and scandalous history could be called ‘homophobic,’ as has repeatedly been done, shows just how insanely Stalinist gay activism has become.” And Orwellian too.

So be on guard: The intolerance brigade is coming for you.

Michael Brown

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and has served as a professor at a number of seminaries. He hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire, and his latest book is The Real Kosher Jesus.

http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2012/07/31/the_rise_of_the_intolerance_brigade/page/full/

Facebook, Are You Telling Me This is Not Offensive?

My recent interaction with Facebook confirmed what many have already observed: You can mock Jesus and the Christian faith on Facebook in the crudest and ugliest terms without penalty (as you’ll see in a moment, I do mean “crudest and ugliest”), but if you dare post something that is considered offensive to LGBT members, you could very well be punished.

To recap briefly, earlier this month , on two consecutive days, Facebook deleted the page for my book A Queer Thing Happened to America for alleged violation of community standards. The first time it was removed, Facebook told me that it was deleted accidentally; when it happened again (the very next day, with a stern warning sent to my colleague who had created the page), I emailed documentation to Facebook, showing them where at least one gay Facebook group had targeted my page.

 

Several hours later, with sincere apologies from my contact at Facebook, the page was restored and I was assured that the complaints of a few people should not be able to take a page down. For this I am grateful, but my serious concerns about censorship and double standards remain.

 

After all, in March, Facebook was the first social media company to be honored by GLAAD (most accurately described as the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Disagreement), largely because of Facebook’s Network of Support (NOS), through which “Facebook partners with GLAAD; MTV; the Human Rights Campaign (HRC); the Trevor Project; the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN); and Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG).”

 

Can anyone tell me with a straight face that Facebook’s partnership with some of the biggest gay activist organizations in the world (and MTV) does not indicate a strong gay bias and, as a corollary, a strong, anti-conservative Christian bias? Can anyone believe they are impartial?

 

Facebook states that it “does not tolerate hate speech,” explaining, “While we encourage the discussion of ideas, institutions, events, and practices, it is a serious violation of our terms to single out individuals based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or disease.”

 

Of course, my page (and book) contained no hate speech and no individuals were targeted. And I stand with Facebook in condemning hate speech against any group or individual. Yet the fact remains that my book page was removed twice for alleged violations of community standards after gay groups launched complaints, and since then, other colleagues have told me of similar experiences they have had. (Again, the common denominator is that their pages or posts were targeted by gay groups on Facebook; otherwise, there is no way Facebook would know the material existed, since Facebook is not monitoring every page and comment.)

 

As bad as this is, Facebook’s response to other pages that are truly offensive has been absolutely deplorable.

 

Gene C sent me this message:

 

Unbelievable!!! A friend of mine, who knows I’m a committed Christian and post my beliefs and teachings constantly on Facebook, messaged me with this title of a Facebook page: 

“Can you believe Facebook allows this? 

‘F— Your F— ing God, You Ignorant Blinded Dumb F—’” (please excuse the language. I’m so sorry.) 

So I reported it to Facebook and got this reply: 

“Thanks for your recent report of a potential violation on Facebook. After reviewing your report, we were not able to confirm that the specific page you reported violates Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities.” 

WHAT?!?!! I know what happened to your page recently but WOW! Just WOW!!! I have no words to express my disgust. 

The actual page features a revised version of Da Vinci’s Last Supper in which a Satan-like creature stands in the center of the disciples and on the table, in front of him, lays the severed and gory head, shoulders, and chest of Jesus. And Facebook has the audacity to write back, “After reviewing your report, we were not able to confirm that the specific page you reported violates Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities.” As Gene so eloquently said, “WHAT?!?!!”

 

The page, with 3,538 likes, carries a stern warning too: “If you can’t figure out what this page is about from the title, then get the f— off! Trolls will be dealt with swiftly and without mercy!”

 

Another friend sent me a link to the Facebook page “Pro-Lifers Are Hypocrites,” telling me that he wrote to Facebook about its offensive content but didn’t have high hopes that it would be removed. (He was correct.) When I clicked on the page, which did not sound that bad, I was totally shocked: A grotesque, large image depicts two men kissing with open mouths, one who is supposed to be Jesus and the other who is supposed to be Satan. Yet this depravity does not violate Facebook’s community standards (“WHAT?!?!!”) while a page opposing homosexual activism allegedly does.

 

Join me in calling on Facebook to step higher and clean up its act by clicking “Recommend” on this article and sharing it with your Facebook friends. It’s time to take action.

Michael Brown

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and has served as a professor at a number of seminaries. He hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire, and his latest book is The Real Kosher Jesus.

http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2012/06/28/facebook_are_you_telling_me_this_is_not_offensive/page/full/

Mitt Romney Is Not the Answer

If the elections were held today, I would vote for Mitt Romney rather than sit out the elections or cast a protest vote for a third party candidate. But I would do so with extremely limited hopes, and my very act of voting in November would be a reminder to me that I cannot expect the radical changes America needs to come from the White House.

The fact is that I am a follower of Jesus more than I am a conservative (my strongly conservative moral values are the direct result of my faith), and although I have voted for the Republican presidential candidate for many years now, I am not a registered Republican nor do I identify as a Republican (as in “us” vs. “them”). And while I recognize the great importance of the political process, I am convinced that the frenzied state we get into every four years is the result of us placing too much blame on the person we’re voting against and too much expectation in the person we’re voting for.

Has Barack Obama done extremely serious damage to our nation? Without a doubt he has, and my vote in November will be a vote against President Obama more than a vote for Governor Romney (although I would be thrilled to have my serious misgivings about Romney proven wrong, just as I would have been thrilled to have my much more serious misgivings about Obama proven wrong since 2008).

But we must remember that Obama is not the reason more Americans were killed so far this year in Chicago than in Afghanistan, nor is he the reason that we are drowning in a self-made pool of narcissism, materialism, and greed, nor is he the reason that our educational system continues to limp and falter, nor is he the reason that we read of more gruesome, violent crimes by the day, nor is he the reason that “there are now more Americans in jail than there were in Stalin’s Gulag Archipelago,” nor is he the reason that there is an ongoing exodus of young people from our churches, just to mention a few serious concerns out of hundreds that could be listed.

To repeat: I agree that the Obama presidency has been nearly catastrophic, and at this point, I believe a vote to unseat the president is the best course of action, even though I have raised concerns about the “anyone but Obama” mentality. But the emergence of Romney as the Republican candidate has reminded me that many of us put far too much stress on the presidential elections and not enough stress on our personal responsibilities as citizens and leaders.

And so, even if Obama has been a “great destroyer” (to borrow the title of David Limbaugh’s important book), he is not the principle cause of America’s greatest problems nor will Mitt Romney be the principle solution to our greatest problems. Surely that is a truth we must take to heart both before and after the November elections.

Obviously, as a conservative commentator and a talk radio host, I have followed the presidential primaries with great interest, just as I have observed President Obama with great concern. And I do understand the critical nature of the 2012 elections. But when the best we can look forward to is the swearing in of President Romney, we really need to take this opportunity to step back and reflect.

Just think about the amount of time and passion and energy and money we put into electing our president (or defeating his opponent) and then ask yourself what would happen if we put that same amount of time and passion and energy and money into bringing positive change to America through our own spheres of influence. And what if the hundreds of millions of dollars that are spent on vicious political ads were spent instead on ad campaigns that sought to impart vision and direction to our young people? (I admit that I’m dreaming with this last suggestion, but at least you get my drift.)

Certainly, the rise of Romney as the Republican candidate has already led to indifference among many conservative voters, but that is not a positive in itself. Instead, it will be positive if: 1) we don’t get caught up in the typical election year fever; 2) if we do vote for Romney, we do so remembering that he is not the answer; 3) we realize instead that the answer to America’s greatest problems is looking at us in the mirror if we align ourselves properly with God and with our neighbor.

Yes, Barack Hussein Obama has done great harm to our country, but he is not the primary cause of America’s current malaise, we are. And if we have messed things up, then by God’s grace, we can turn them around.

My lack of enthusiasm for Mitt Romney underscores this for me, and for that, I am thankful.

Michael Brown

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and has served as a professor at a number of seminaries. He hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire, and his latest book is The Real Kosher Jesus.

http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2012/06/22/mitt_romney_is_not_the_answer/page/full/

Why Do the Backwoods Bigots Get to Vote?

In my last article, I explained how embarrassed the liberal elites were in the aftermath of North Carolina’s decisive passage of the marriage amendment. In their view, it was a triumph for backwoods bigotry. But there was a deeper sentiment lurking beneath the headlines and the sound bites: It’s hardly fair that these bigots get to vote! Just think of how wonderful America would be if only the enlightened ones could make the decisions.

A headline last week on the militant, gay activist site Truth Wins Out read, “North Carolina chooses bigotry over prosperity.” The article went on to say, “Those who live in the intelligent parts of North Carolina voted overwhelmingly against Amendment One, but unfortunately, there just aren’t enough intelligent parts of North Carolina.”

So, those living “in the intelligent parts” of the state, meaning primarily the counties and cities with major university populations, recognized how idiotic it is want to safeguard natural, organic marriage. Unfortunately, most North Carolinians were too dense to understand that a man has the civil right to marry another man. Presumably, the intelligent ones – the university students and their friends, not to mention the professors – have learned what really matters from authoritative sources like “Will and Grace,” a show justly touted for changing American opinion by no less a cultural pundit than our vice president, Joe Biden.

A commenter on another website, self-identified as a white gay woman exclaimed, “As I sit in the back of the bus and can only WISH the president would stop letting these backwoods S.O.B’S push me to the back of the bus as if me and my family do not contribute to this country!”

Backwoods S.O.B.’s indeed. Unintelligent bigots and boars. How do they (we?) even have the right to vote? It’s not fair to the enlightened ones (apparently akin to the “brights,” as some atheists self-defeatingly describe themselves). Presumably none of the intelligent ones live in Mississippi either.

Last week, on my Line of Fire broadcast, I received a call from a young lady named Sophie, a student at the University of North Carolina, living in Durham. She too was terribly embarrassed by the voting actions of her fellow North Carolinians, but she was quite proud of her county and city, since they had voted against Amendment One.

This was part of our conversation:

Sophie: And I don’t think that is any coincidence that the counties that are heavily populated, developed and have universities all voted against the amendment. 

Brown: So the smart ones, in other words.

Sophie: I’m not saying the smart ones

Brown: The educated ones?

Sophie: I’m just saying the people who were educated about the amendment and understood the consequences of voting for the amendment, because this is way more than marriage because if it was just about marriage then we wouldn’t have an amendment at all because it’s already illegal in North Carolina.

Brown: No, Sophie the reason for the Amendment, is so no activist judge can … redefine marriage and when people go for civil unions that’s just a step towards it. It was 100% to do with marriage…

 

A little later in the conversation, we got down to brass tacks:

Sophie: Well, this just shows the downfall of direct democracy. I mean sometimes I think that some things really should be left to the people who understand the consequences of the law and I think a lot of political . . . Almost every person who is high up in the North Carolina government has voiced their, their thoughts against this amendment, including the former democrat and republican mayor of Charlotte. 

Brown: So Sophie, I think we . . . we just need the smart people, the educated people who think like you, to take control and to weed out these bigoted backwoods, Bible preachers like me, and America will be a better place. Why don’t you just say it? Why don’t you just say it?

Sophie: You’re putting words in my mouth. You’re putting words in my mouth.

Brown: Well those are the words you just. . . . OK then say it.

Sophie: I think if people understood the consequences of the amendment, that they would not have voted for it.

 

There you have it. The people who live in the “intelligent parts” of North Carolina, “the counties that are heavily populated, developed and have universities, all voted against the amendment.” Yes, “Almost every person who is high up in the North Carolina government” opposed the marriage amendment, leaving only the backwards, uneducated, bigoted blue-collar workers to vote for it, and sadly, they constituted a substantial majority. And “this just shows the downfall of direct democracy.”

So I have a proposal. Let’s be fair to America and honor the elites, and let’s get out of the way of the inevitable social progress that is coming our way, like marriage ceremonies pronouncing lesbian couples “bride and broom” (this really happened). And let’s leave it to the cultural “brights” to rule the day.

Surely, no group of highly educated, intelligent and enlightened progressive, social elites has ever hurt their country. Surely we have learned by now that “some animals are more equal than others.”

Michael Brown

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and has served as a professor at a number of seminaries. He hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire, and his latest book is The Real Kosher Jesus.

http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2012/05/15/why_do_the_backwoods_bigots_get_to_vote/page/full/

Spotlighting Christ

“Congrats, seniors, this will be a heck of a graduation.” That’s how a New York University press release breathlessly announced the commencement snaring of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Other schools swoon over presidents: Barack Obama will speak at Barnard College (Columbia University) and Bill Clinton at little Columbia College in South Carolina.

Many universities think that TV names make a heck of a graduation, so Tom Brokaw, Katie Couric, and Brian Williams are orating at prestigious schools, and CNN host/Time editor-at-large Fareed Zakaria is playing a Harvard and Duke doubleheader. Happily, some Christian colleges are counter-cultural: Biola students will hear artist (and WORLD’s 2005 Daniel of the Year) Makoto Fujimura, and Covenant College students will hear pastor Tullian Tchividjian (See WORLD, July 16, 2011).

Other Christian schools also show understanding that the primary purpose of their commencements is to glorify God who knit together each graduate, not to worship human idols. But commencement season has gotten me thinking about what the goal for all Christian speakers should be: Instead of plotting how to become more famous and sell more books, we should always aim to put the spotlight on Christ.

Spotlighting Christ means more than a lack of selfishness, because it also means not making our chief end the winning of support on a favorite issue. For example, let’s say you can show that same-sex marriage is not good for children and even for the partners themselves. That’s fine, but if you just use social science data to make your point, and leave out God because you don’t want to upset anyone in your audience, you are worshipping created things rather than the Creator.

Natural law reasoning by itself is also useful but not sufficient for Christians, because our primary goal is not to glorify reason but to glorify God who created reason. Educated by pulp fiction and TV shows, we tend to think that a mystery is something solvable through reason, but in Paul’s epistles (see Ephesians 3:3-6) only revelation can solve a mystery. That’s certainly true about the mystery of marriage: If we don’t recognize Christ’s preeminence in molding a husband and wife over decades, our prattling about joyful lifetime marriage sounds like a fairy tale.

Seven chapters toward the end of Exodus—one of those purportedly boring sections of Scripture—show well how revelation is the parent, reason the child. In the first six God tells the Israelites how to make and order the tabernacle, which will be the center of their worship in the wilderness. In the seventh, Exodus 31, God rests and says a team of craftsmen will “devise artistic designs,” cut stones, carve wood, and so on, “according to all I have commanded.” They are to use their reason in accord with God’s revelation.

Natural law trumps positive, man-made law, and sometimes a reasonable examiner of human nature and society can discern valid moral principles. But since so much is mystery, the Bible trumps everything else, and Christian speakers should recognize that by citing facts but also pointing to Christ, the maker of facts. The best way to do that is debatable, and in-your-face rants before secular audiences are wasted opportunities—but so are academic speeches that stick Christian commitment behind the back.

I’m not saying that God decreeth one particular style. I am saying that our goal is to show Christ’s preeminence in all things. Will that emphasis hurt your attempt to win support for your particular issue or organization? Maybe, but is your chief end to win a particular debate or to help people embrace Jesus? When Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon Ben Carson (WORLD, April 21) spoke at the presidential prayer breakfast in 1997 and at Columbine High School following the terrible shootings in 1999, organizers each time told him, “Don’t mention Jesus.” Both times he disobeyed: “If we are true Christians we have to be willing to stand up for what we believe.”

I’ve had that experience and come to that conclusion in lesser forums. It’s nothing new. In Acts, chapter 4, rulers told Peter and John to stop talking about Jesus, but they responded, “We cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.”

Commencement speakers who are Christians and are reading this: Please speak of Christ. It will be one heck of a graduation ceremony.

Marvin Olasky

Marvin Olasky is editor-in-chief of the national news magazine World. For additional commentary by Marvin Olasky, visit http://www.worldmag.com. Be the first to read Marvin Olasky’s column.  Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

http://townhall.com/columnists/marvinolasky/2012/05/01/spotlighting_christ/page/full/

Is Kirk Cameron an Accomplice to Murder?

It’s one thing to be called an intolerant bigot. It’s another thing to be called “an accomplice to murder,” but that’s the latest charge being raised by gay activists and their allies, and it needs to be exposed for what it is: an outrageous lie.

Last weekend, actor Kirk Cameron appeared on the Piers Morgan show to discuss his new movie Monumental, and somehow Morgan turned the interview to the subject of homosexuality (surprise!), asking him if he thought gay marriage was a sin and wanting to know what he would teach his children. Cameron stated that according to his beliefs, marriage “was defined by God a long time ago … one man, one woman for life, till death do us part.”

Morgan then asked him, “Do you think homosexuality is a sin?” to which Cameron replied, “I think it’s unnatural, that it’s detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.”

The backlash was immediate and intense (surprise again!), coming from gay activist organizations like GLAAD (which, I have pointed out, really stands for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Disagreement, not Defamation) and from celebrities like Roseanne Barr, who said: “Kirk or kurt or whatever Cameron is an accomplice to murder with his hate speech. So is rick warren. Their peers r killing gays in Uganda.”

Does she really believe this? Let’s deconstruct the rhetoric point by point.

First, the technicalities: It is not true that “peers” of Cameron and Pastor Rick Warren in Uganda are killing gays. The much discussed anti-homosexuality bill is still not law, and the killing of a gay man or woman in Uganda is a crime. And American Christian leaders like Rick Warren have been outspoken in their criticism of the bill as initially written. (For the record, when I was asked about the bill in 2009, I told a local gay correspondent that “I have very serious issues with the proposed law as currently constructed. I believe it has the potential to hurt far more people than it could possibly help, potentially inflicting great suffering on many.”)

Second, the larger realities: It is completely and utterly false to claim that Cameron’s words make him in any way “an accomplice to murder with his [alleged] hate speech.” Can anyone calmly, rationally, and logically make such a ridiculous accusation? Or is this asking too much, since over-the-top gay rhetoric like this is hardly the product of serious thought (or, conversely, is hardly meant to provoke serious thought)? And since when was it forbidden to express views like those held by Cameron?

A variation of this “accomplice to murder” charge (and one that is becoming more common by the day) is that any opposition to homosexual practice or any suggestion that marriage means the union of a man and a woman will result in gay teen suicides. Gay activist Mitchell Gold made this explicit claim while on my radio show in January, making clear that voting for the marriage amendment in North Carolina on May 8th would send a discouraging message to these gay kids, leading some to commit suicide.

Gold said: “For a 14-year-old kid trying to understand their sexuality, to have an amendment in the public discourse in this big public discussion to have people saying gays are sinners and an abomination, that they are not entitled, that it’s not God’s plan to have it this way. . . . This is why kids jump off bridges. This is why kids hang themselves.” (Actually, the bill simply states, “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.”)

How should we respond to these charges? First, we should point out that gay kids do not simply kill themselves because they are told that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. In the vast majority of cases, gay teens kill themselves (like other teens do) because of deeper emotional and psychological problems, so we must do whatever we can to help them deal with the deeper issues in their lives. Without a doubt, each of these deaths is a terrible tragedy, but these kids must not be used as pawns to advance a social agenda, nor they should be told that their suicides are somehow expected or unavoidable.

Second, we should ask gay activists if anti-obesity campaigns are causing obese kids to commit suicide. If so, wouldn’t this make Michelle Obama complicit in the suicides of kids who were bullied because of their obesity? (In no way do I minimize the horrific tragedy of a teen suicide, whatever its cause. I simply want to expose the folly of the “accomplice to murder/suicide” accusation.)

Third, since evangelical Christians like Cameron and I are being criticized for our faith-based convictions, we need to stand up even more strongly for what we believe, proclaiming without shame that we have a message that saves people from suicide, depression, hopelessness, substance abuse, and a host of other things. (That message is called “the gospel,” which means “good news.”)

Let the gay voices of intolerance make the ludicrous claims that we are accomplices to murder and suicide. The truth is that we are ambassadors of life.

Tags:                 Hollywood            ,                                    Gay Marriage            ,                                    Murder            ,                                    Christians            ,                                    Homosexuality

Michael Brown

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and is the author of 20 books. He has served as a professor at a number of seminaries and hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire.

http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2012/03/07/is_kirk_cameron_an_accomplice_to_murder/page/full/