Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
TOP NEWS   LeftArrow - Townhall.com   RightArrow - Townhall.com  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Monday, June 18, 2007
Why Do Gays Hate Religious Freedom?
By Harry R. Jackson, Jr.
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Are you struggling to keep up with rising gas prices?


I was excited last Friday when I got the word that I was featured in an extensive article in USA Today. The voice on the other end of the phone also informed me that a sizable picture of me would also appear. Needless to say it only took but a few minutes for me to get a copy of the paper in my hand. As I read the article, I was further flattered by the fact that the writer included the story of my father being threatened by a Florida State Trooper in a 1950s hate crime.

The joy that my message is getting huge traction in the mainstream media faded as I read the second paragraph. “Jackson's argument is a lie, and it should not be told in the name of the Gospel.” This riveting line stopped me in my tracks. Spoken by a major gay advocacy group’s leader, these words were meant to vilify me and the thousands of Christian ministers around the country that believe exactly like I do. I was saddened but not surprised. I could not help asking myself the question, “Have we reverted to senseless name calling, instead of debating the facts?”

Growing up in the ghetto, I am familiar with the politics of intimidation. I learned early in my youth that it was when I was most afraid that I could sometimes bluff toughness and “sell a few wolf tickets.” My loud voice and an intimidating looks got me out of more than one close call. On one occasion, a friend of mine yelled at a guy who had pinned him to the ground and was beating him unmercifully, “I dare you to let me up!” Much to his surprise he was turned loose from a choke hold by his larger, ferocious foe. My friend wisely ran for cover upon his release.

Like my childhood friend, gay activists around the country are getting nervous that they are about to experience an embarrassing political setback. Instead of amending the hate crimes legislation that protects churches in a substantive way, they are simply crying out in a louder, more threatening manner. Gay advocates are not looking for fairness; they are looking for an upper hand.

The Senate refers to S-1105 as the Matthew Shepard Law. Matthew Shepard was a gay student who was tragically murdered in Wyoming nearly a decade ago. This legislative moniker identifies the bill as being pro-gay vs. pro-everyone’s civil rights. Fortunately for Matthew Shepard’s family, justice was served in that case. The murderers were found promptly and dealt with swiftly.

In contrast, the families of many blacks murdered in the civil rights movement era are still waiting for justice. Last Friday, the following words appeared in the USA Today along with the article on hate crimes: “Justice for two black teens came 43 years late Thursday when a jury convicted reputed Klansman James Ford Seale for taking part in their abductions and killings.”

Both gays and blacks should get justice in America, but we cannot allow either group to receive special privileges at the expense of another group of Americans. If the loopholes in this legislation are not closed, Christians and Bible-teaching churches could become victims of a strange brand of reverse discrimination. These actions are tantamount to the gay community saying, ”Freedom for me, but bondage for you.” This attitude is just not consistent with America’s ideals.

Despite the fact that legal experts like the Alliance Defense Fund and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberties confirm the legal legitimacy of my concerns, gay activists quoted in the US Today article called my concerns "completely bogus.” Their hope is to paint all outspoken leaders of faith as narrow minded Neanderthals and bigots who are out of touch with the will of the nation. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Major Christian ministries around the nation have begun to lift their voices to join in a chorus of concern about the potential muzzling of our pulpits. Radio and television ministries are trumpeting warnings to the faithful. Many have produced special programs to inform the average Christian citizen about the impending dangers to their freedoms. As a result, there is a ground swell of popular opposition to the Senate’s proposed Hate Crimes Bill emerging from grass roots America.

In conclusion, let me remind you that we must do our part to protect the liberties of all Americans – not just the ones that scream the loudest. E-mail or call your Senator’s office and state your position against the Hate Crimes Bill. Then e-mail or call the White House and thank President Bush for promising to veto this spurious legislation.

Keep Hope Alive!

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Bishop Harry Jackson is chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition and senior pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, MD, and co-authored, Personal Faith, Public Policy [FrontLine; March 2008] with Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.

Be the first to read Harry Jackson's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Subject: J'comprend
Ne pas translation necessaire, J'ai nos Dieu a la ma coeur, a ce tu, ca le pas.
Bon chance.

du / Honesty...is such a lonely word ;-)



Hi du,


du writes: “Open and honest? - Open and honest is the LAST thing you want.”


That is incorrect, unless your definition of ‘open and honest’ means capitulation to your viewpoint.

I have been open, honest and straightforward with every one of my posts in this Thread, and I try to conduct myself in that way in every Thread here on TH that I participate in (I know, I know, it should be “every Thread here on TH in which I participate”, but that just sounds too formal ;-)

You have made a wide variety of points and comments, and unlike most people who pick and choose the things that are in their own best interest to respond to, I have tried to address all of you comments equally. It would have been much easier (and would have required much less effort) to have just picked a few “zingers” and then moved on.

My efforts here and elsewhere on TH are sincere, genuine and honest; I am sorry if you feel differently.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




du writes: “And the indicators are that you don't even know when neither gay nor straight people have the luxury of agreeing or disagreeing.”


You seem to be under the impression that people only have freedom of choice in certain situations, but not in others, and in the situations where freedom of choice does not exist, it is due to the de facto “oppression” of others.

I probably haven’t stated it very well, but based on the totality of your posts that I have read, that’s the general impression you’re giving. Your approach is consistently that of a victim, someone who is being prevented from something, somewhere, by someone. Always.

It’s a very “other” directed viewpoint, not in a good way (i.e., thinking about and being considerate of and caring for others), but in a very negative way (like everybody is 'out to get me').




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




du writes: “A gay teenager could be taking his LIFE in his hands for being honest.”


Without the benefit of context, some of your claims come across as rather hysterical (not hysterical “funny”, but hysterical “overly dramatic”). Sure, a gay teenager could be risking his life if he walks into a Biker Bar in a rough part of town and decides a little bit of Oprah couch-talk honesty is in order so he begins sharing his inner child with members of the Hell’s Angels motorcycle gang.

That would be stupid (and probably dangerous).


Without the benefit of context, your point doesn’t have much meaning. In the context of the scenario I outlined above, the gay teenager shouldn’t be in a Biker Bar, and he shouldn’t be talking to Hells Angels, and he shouldn’t be choosing such an environment to talk about his gayness, but that’s just real-world common sense, not something to call the ACLU hotline about.

The point is, NOBODY is free to say whatever he wants, wherever he wants, whenever he wants, without taking into consideration the potential consequences of his actions. That’s just as true for straight people as it is for homosexuals.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




du writes: “You took a single incident in CO and made it an indictment of gay people, an indicator of situations in ALL schools and a threat to what you want to teach your child.”


I have the somewhat dubious “pleasure” of hearing Bill O’Reilly’s TV show most nights, so I know that he reports about similar incidents on a frequent basis. The one in Colorado was just so over-the-top that stations other than FOX News carried it. The CO incident was not the ‘anomaly’ you seem to make it out to be.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




du writes: “Honesty about homosexuality and gay teenagers isn't your goal, you'd rather not know ANYTHING but what validates every stereotype you've learned.”


My comments regarding homosexual behavior are not specifically targeted at any particular age-group (i.e., teenagers), but honesty is most certainly my goal. I want to honestly explain why fornication is sinful, and that homosexual fornication is also sinful, and that forgiveness of sins is available and offered to EVERYONE if they will turn to the Lord and repent.

I don’t care too much about stereotypes, because it doesn’t matter very much to me what ‘society’ thinks. For purposes of this discussion, either a person is engaging in homosexual activity, or a person is not. If they are not, then my comments on the subject don’t apply. If they are, then my comments on the subject do apply.

Either way, it really has nothing to do with stereotypes.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




du writes: “Honesty here is met with condescension, sermons...”


Condescension is not generally a useful tactic when trying to communicate, so for the most part I try to avoid it (not counting occasional attempts at humor, which might be misinterpreted as condescension or arrogant sarcasm, I suppose, but that is not my intent).


As for sermons, people who are engaged in ongoing sinful behavior are exactly the ones who need to hear them:


“When Jesus heard [it], he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” (Mark 2:17, KJV)




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




du writes: “Who can stay patient who gets treated like that?”


I don’t know; are they adults, possessing control over their own faculties? Or are they juveniles with ADD? Again, your “other directed” viewpoint negates the responsibility of the gay person and excuses his or her behavior based on what someone ELSE has done (or might do).





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




du writes: “Civility is impossible if MY honesty and that of the few gay people is met with that kind of treatment.”


du, I have not been harsh toward you (or anyone else here), I have not been mean-spirited, I have not used (and would not use) profanity, I have not belittled or demeaned. I have only been direct and honest about what I believe and why, to the best of my ability.

In response to such an approach, surely civility is not impossible… and I think you and I have done quite well in that regard, considering our relative positions.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




du writes: “Open and honest...about what? With who.”


Open and honest about why homosexual activity is harmful, dangerous and most importantly, that it is sinful.

“With who”?

With anyo