FRC, AFA Say ... . Should Be a Crime (All about celebrities)

[ Home ][ Home ] [ First Article ][ Previous Article ] [ Next Article ] [ Newest Article ]

FRC, AFA Say ... . Should Be a Crime

Posted on: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 08:17:37 +0100

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/februaryweb-only/15-
51.0.html

Outlawing ...s in the USA?

Yesterday's National Prayer Breakfast received scrutiny as
critics attempted to link its sponsors to Uganda's anti-
homo.uality legislation. While the sponsoring group and other
American Christians have condemned the Uganda bill, some
conservatives voiced support for the criminalization of
homo.uality in the United States.

At the prayer breakfast, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
highlighted Uganda as she emphasized U.S. support for human
rights. President Obama was more specific, citing opposition to
Uganda's proposed law as an example of possible common ground in
our current contentious politics.

"We may disagree about ... marriage, but surely we can agree
that it is unconscionable to target ...s and ...s for who
they are—whether it's here in the United States or, as Hillary
mentioned, more extremely in odious laws that are being proposed
most recently in Uganda," said Obama.

His statement at the breakfast comes on the heels of his call
during the State of the Union address to repeal the ban on ...s
and ...s serving in the military, a call that reignited
rhetorical fireworks over .uality in American society. If the
President hoped that everyone would oppose bills that
criminalize homo.uality, he was to be disappointed.

On Tuesday, MSNBC's Chris Matthews interviewed Peter Sprigg of
the Family Research Council about the U.S. military's "Don't Ask
Don't Tell" policy (DADT). Sprigg, FRC's senior fellow for
policy studies, said he would support banning all ...s or
...s from serving in the military. At the end of the
discussion, Matthews asked Sprigg his view of homo.uality in
civilian life:

MATTHEWS: Do you think we should outlaw ... behavior?
SPRIGG: Well, I think it's certainly defensible.
MATTHEWS: I'm just asking you, should we outlaw ... behavior?
SPRIGG: I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v.
Texas, which overturned the sodomy laws in this country, was
wrongly decided. I think there would be a place for criminal
sanctions against homo.ual behavior.
MATTHEWS: So we should outlaw ... behavior.
SPRIGG: Yes.
(In its 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision, the Supreme Court ruled
that Texas's anti-sodomy law was unconstitutional and that "the
state cannot demean [homo.uals'] existence or control their
destiny by making their private .ual conduct a crime.")

Bryan Fischer of the American Familyociation agreed with
Sprigg. Citing policies and findings of the Federal Drug
Administration and the Centers for Disease Control, Fischer
concluded that homo.ual behavior should be criminalized
because it "represents an enormous threat to public health."

"It's a simple matter of common sense, sound public policy, and
a concern for public health. … Whatever we think we should do to
curtail injection drug use are the same sorts of things we
should pursue to curtail homo.ual conduct," said Fischer,
AFA's director of issue analysis.

Fischer further justified his view by claiming that 1 Timothy
1:8-11 says "those 'who practice homo.uality' should come
under the purview of the law just as much as those who take
people captive in order to sell them into slavery."

On Sojourners's God's Politics blog, Brian McLaren responded
directly to Sprigg's comments. "Even if you agree with the
Family Research Council on the issue of homo.uality, and even
if you're worried about slippery slopes when it comes to human
.uality, I think you'll agree: there's another slippery slope
that's equally easy to slide down, and that's the slide into the
kind of Pharisaical religiosity that attempts to make people
behave 'morally' through the threat of exclusion, intimidation,
and legislation," he said.

Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition emphasized
the "slippery slope" in her argument against repealing the
current military DADT policy. Lafferty noted that the bill under
consideration bans discrimination based on .ual orientation
but not gender identification, which is included in the civilian
Employee Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA).

"For the time being, the cross-dressers, drag queens,
trans.uals, and she-males must remain in the shadows while
their ..., ..., and bi.ual allies work to capture the
military," said Lafferty. "Once the 1993 bill is overturned,
they'll return to a liberal Congress with a vengeance to demand
that transgenders [sic] persons be given the 'right' to openly
serve. Sen. Levin, Rep. Murphy, and their other compliant allies
will be only to happy to bend over to serve them."

Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's
Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, opposed repealing DADT in
the military because it "would engender .ual tension and
thereby negatively impact troop morale, unit cohesion, and
order."

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, called
on readers to sign an FRC action petition "urging members not to
turn the military into a battleground for social engineering."
As part of his argument against the repeal of DADT, Perkins said
that incidents of same-.ault and . in the military
"would only worsen once ...s and ...s are empowered to
flaunt their .uality."

Dan Nejfelt of Faith in Public Life described Perkins' comments
as an example of the "very little accurate information" found
among reactions by conservatives. Indeed, Nejfelt felt the need
to explain that Perkins was actually serious about his claim
that repealing DADT would result in more .ualault.

Nejfelt compared comments by Perkins and other conservatives
with a statement written by several former military chaplains
who support the repeal of DADT.

"The difference between these two different faith voices could
hardly be more stark. One group reflects on their own
experiences serving military personnel's spiritual needs; the
other demonizes the LGBT community, even as they risk their
lives to protect this country," said Nejfelt. "For their sake,
and for our sake as a nation that claims to uphold equality and
dignity, it's a good thing military leadership think more like
the chaplains than the likes of Tony Perkins."

Aliens Among Us

The Nationalociation of Evangelicals has renewed another
fight, this time over immigration reform. Last fall, the NAE
issued a statement supporting comprehensive immigration reform
that would include more humane border controls and a path to
citizenship for illegal immigrants.

Writing on The Washington Post's On Faith site, NAE director of
governmental affairs Galen Carey said, "Evangelicals support
immigration reform because we treat the biblical injunctions to
welcome the stranger not merely as good advice but as divine
instruction for our good." Carey said that immigrants are part
of churches and communities. "We grieve when families remain
separated for decades, when workers are treated unfairly, and
when our neighbors lack the basic protection of the law," he
said.

According to Allison Johnson, campaign coordinator for
Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CCIR), more
than 130 people from all across the country joined a "A Day of
Witness and Action on Immigration Reform" events in Phoenix,
Arizona. The event was sponsored by the Christian Community
Developmentociation, Sojourners, and the National
Association of Evangelicals. Similar events were also held in
Denver, Santa Ana (Calif.), Chicago, Memphis, and Miami.

"Some in Washington would have us believe that immigration
reform is politically untenable and economically illogical.
However, God is on the move among Christians who care about the
immigrants in their midst," wrote Johnson on Sojourners's God's
Politics blog.

Abstinence Education Study

A study of . education conducted by researchers at the
University of Waterloo and the University of Pennsylvania was
hailed by advocates of abstinence education. Published in the
Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, the study finds
that among students in sixth and seventh grade who were in a
high risk group for .ually transmitted disease, those who
received abstinence-centered education initiated . less often
and had fewer partners than students receiving no . education.

"Abstinence-centered education is effective with this generation
because it provides direction, character education and a guide
for healthy living. It gives hope for a brighter future to those
regretting their .ual involvement," said Chad Hills of Focus
on the Family Action. Hills called on President Obama to fund
abstinence education, which was zeroed out of the latest budget.

Tony Perkins of the FRC said, "In light of this research, the
administration should reconsider its strategy of slashing
abstinence funding in favor .-ed curriculum that does little
more than encourage high-risk behavior."

However, the abstinence education curriculum used in the study
did not meet federal criteria for abstinence-only programs. The
program told the middle school students to avoid . until later
in life when they could handle the consequences, and it did not
portray . as negative or immoral. The study also found that
comprehensive programs that included both instructions on
condoms and abstinence education were also effective in changing
high risk .ual behavior. Finally, the study compared different
education programs against the results of a control group of
students who received no . education; it did not compare the
relative success of comprehensive, safer ., and abstinence-
focused programs.

Kristin Williams of Faith in Public Life noted that when
advocates present the study as supporting "abstinence-only"
education, "the facts get jumbled."

"Seems to me this new research confirms what we already
knew—equip kids with information, help them develop the skills
to make responsible choices, and encourage them to delay .ual
activity, and everybody wins," Williams said.

Tiller Verdict

Last Friday, Scott Roeder was convicted of first-degree murder
for the slaying of abortion provider George Tiller.

After the verdict, the National Right to Life Committee
reiterated its stance that Roeder's actions "are antithetical to
the work of the pro-life movement to protect the lives of unborn
children and their mothers." The NRLC used the statement to
remind people of the impact of abortion. "NRLC strongly opposes
any use of violence as a means of stopping the violence that has
killed more than 52 million unborn children since 1973."

Bryan Fischer of the AFA said the verdict was just. "From a
biblical point of view, this was certainly a correct verdict for
one simple reason: Scott Roeder had no moral authority to do
what he did," said Fischer.

Americans United for Life, Focus on the Family Action, and the
Family Research Council each condemned the murder last May.
Neither group released a statement or commented on Roeder's
conviction.

[ Home ][ Home ] [ First Article ][ Previous Article ] [ Next Article ] [ Newest Article ]