[Vision2020] oBAMA'S COMING WAR

[Sue Hovey]

That's right, folks.  If you can't win by being truthful, get hysterical.  I didn't read all of it, but somewhere in all this twaddle did he claim young boys and possibly girls would be forced into homosexual acts before they got kindergarten nap time?  


Sue H. 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: J Ford 
  To: vision2020 at moscow.com 
  Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 3:44 PM
  Subject: [Vision2020] oBAMA'S COMING WAR


  Obama’s Coming War on Historic Christianity over

  Homosexual Practice and Abortion

  by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.

  Nov. 3, 2008

  If Obama is elected President this Tuesday he has made it a priority of his administration

  to pass legislation that will make war against Christians and persons of other religious

  convictions who believe that homosexual practice and abortion are immoral acts.

  Persecution will take many forms, as indicated by actions that have already taken place in

  parts of the United States, Canada, and Western Europe:

  • Compulsory indoctrination of our children in schools (kindergarten up), as also of

  ourselves in the workplace, that abortion and especially homosexual practice are

  moral and civil “rights” and that their opponents are bigots to be excluded from

  polite society. As regards their children in the public schools, there will be no

  parental notification or opt-out provisions. For examples go here, here, here, here,

  here, here.

  • Job discrimination, termination, and the imposition of fines on people who

  express contrary views toward homosexual practice within, and even outside, the

  workplace. For examples go here (pp. 10-17), here, here, here, here.

  • Forced subsidization of abortion and homosexual unions through taxes.

  • Forced offering of goods and services that directly advance and promote

  homosexual practice and abortion, irrespective of the degree to which the

  conscience of the provider may be violated. This includes, but is not limited to,

  adoption services and foster parenting, health care providers and counselors,

  justices of the peace, those who provide wedding services, the legal profession,

  print shops, and indeed all businesses with employees. For examples, go here,

  here, here, here, here, here (second half), here, here, here, here, here, here, here,

  here.

  • Severe restrictions in broadcasting and the print media against “homophobic”

  utterances as civil rights violations that would incur financial penalties and loss of

  license. Limitations would also extend to free speech in the marketplace. For

  examples go here, here, here, here, here, here, here.

  • Sanctions against Christian colleges and seminaries that allow “discrimination”

  against “gay, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders,” involving fines, loss of

  federal funds for student loans and research, loss of tax exemptions, and even loss

  of accreditation. In short, what happened to Bob Jones University over racial

  issues will happen to all Christian institutions that tolerate “homophobic” attitudes

  and practices on campus.

  2

  Persons who express the view that homosexual practice is immoral will be particular

  targets of persecution. They will be likened to virulent racists and their civil liberties will

  be attenuated accordingly. The appropriate comparison here is not to the limited

  toleration that currently exists for moderately different views on the role of women in the

  home and in the church. While Scripture contains many positive views about women, it

  treats homosexual practice as a gross violation of foundational sexual ethics. To combat

  such “hatred,” which allegedly puts homosexual persons at risk of violence, the state will

  practice a “zero” tolerance that is more akin to denying black persons their rights. The

  analogy is, of course, absurd because, unlike homosexual impulses, being black is not an

  impulse to do what Scripture expressly forbids or what nature shows to be structurally

  incongruous but rather is a 100% heritable, absolutely immutable, primarily nonbehavioral

  condition that is therefore inherently benign. However, logic here will be

  irrelevant to the enforcers of “sexual orientation” laws. Proponents of a homosexualist

  agenda have been making an analogy to racism for decades. Don’t be surprised when the

  analogy is codified into law.

  How can Christians, as well as other persons who share similar values, vote for a

  candidate who wants to persecute them for their views and to compel them, against their

  consciences and subject to civil penalties, to be indoctrinated and participate in the

  affirmation of immoral practices? In short, how can Christians vote for someone who will

  insure society’s regard for them as bigots? Many persons of faith who rightly recognize

  homosexual practice and abortion to be moral evils have justified support for Obama on

  the basis of one or more of the following assumptions:

  (1) Obama is not so hard-left in his views in the areas of homosexual practice and

  abortion.

  (2) Even if Obama were hard-left on these issues it would be politically impossible to

  pass hard-left legislation.

  (3) Even if a “sea change” of hard-left legislation on homosexual practice and

  abortion occurred, leading to the persecution of those who think differently, other

  issues justify a vote for Obama.

  Obama’s Will and Power to Bring about a Legal Sea Change on Homosexual

  Practice and Abortion

  Let’s take the second assumption first. If Obama is elected, the Democrats will almost

  certainly control both the House and Senate, and do so by comfortable margins. The 2008

  Democratic National Platform is strongly supportive of homosexual and abortion “rights”

  and “opposes any and all efforts to weaken or undermine” these rights (pp. 50-52). What

  will stop Obama from implementing his agenda? He only needs a simple majority in both

  houses of Congress. With a Democratic-controlled Congress and an opportunity for

  Obama to appoint up to five Supreme Court justices and numerous federal court

  appointments during his tenure as President, everything Obama wants in these two areas

  he will get. This will result in a “sea change” in morals in this country and a wave of

  intolerance for those who cannot accept this sea change.

  3

  Now as to the first assumption: “Obama is a moderate man in his views on homosexual

  practice and abortion.” Obama was ranked the most left-of-center Senator in 2007 by the

  non-partisan National Journal, assessing 99 votes made by Obama that year (his running

  mate Joe Biden, finished third, just edged out for second place). This hard-left standing is

  certainly secure as regards his stances on homosexual practice and abortion.

  As regards homosexual practice:

  • Obama wants to do everything that he can to foist “gay marriage” on all 50

  states. Obama wants the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act repealed, going so far as

  to call it “abhorrent” even though its main purpose is merely to prevent “gay

  marriage” adopted in one state from being foisted on all other states. In Obama's

  own words: “Unlike Senator [Hillary] Clinton, I support the complete repeal of

  the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)—a position I have held since before

  arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law,

  I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether.” Under Obama’s influence,

  the 2008 Democratic National Platform also calls for its full removal (p. 52).

  Obama also strongly opposes California’s Proposition 8, which merely limits the

  definition of marriage to a “marriage between a man and a woman,” and any other

  amendment to a state constitution that would prevent the courts from arbitrarily

  imposing “gay marriage” on the people. He says that he “respects” the California

  Supreme Court decision foisting “gay marriage” on the state and opposes any

  federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man

  and a woman. Obama strongly endorses granting every single marriage benefit to

  homosexual unions.

  • Federal “sexual orientation” legislations. Obama strongly supports every “sexual

  orientation” special-protections law imaginable, including “hate crimes”

  legislation (which will make every statement against homosexual practice an

  alleged “incitement to violence” that will hold the speaker legally liable),

  “employment non-discrimination” legislation (which turns out to be “employment

  discrimination” legislation against any who disapprove of a homosexualist agenda

  in the workplace), removing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military

  (meaning now that all military personnel must now embrace homosexual practice

  in their midst), and full adoption rights (making no distinction whatsoever

  between homosexual and heterosexual families, even though the former is

  constituted by immoral behavior and almost invariably ends in short-term

  dissolution). “Sexual orientation” laws constitute state endorsement of

  homosexual practice as a valid form of sexual union deserving special societal

  protection. Imagine a “sexual orientation” law broadened to include two other

  sexual orientations, polysexuality (inclination toward sexual relationships with

  more than one person concurrently) and pedosexuality (or pedophilia). Few would

  stand for it because such a law would be rightly recognized as establishing official

  state endorsement. Sexual orientation laws encompassing homosexuality,

  bisexuality, and transsexuality by definition make civil and cultural bigots of

  4

  everyone who espouses a male-female prerequisite to sexual relations, in the

  workplace, at school, in the media, and throughout the public sector.

  • Obama’s and Biden’s big lie: “We do not support gay marriage.” Obama and

  Biden have attempted to deceive the public by claiming that they are only for

  granting civil unions that contain all the civil benefits of marriage without the

  name “marriage.” It is impossible for any reasonable person acting reasonably to

  oppose every attempt at preventing courts or other states from imposing “gay

  marriage” on a state, to insist on the full equality of homosexual unions to

  marriage, and then to claim non-support for “gay marriage.” It is a big lie. In his

  book, The Audacity of Hope (Crown, 2006), Obama coyly stated that he wanted

  “to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage

  is misguided.” This “unwillingness” was, at any rate, based only on political

  expediency, not moral conviction, for he gave as his reason for not advocating for

  “gay marriage” only this: “In the absence of any meaningful consensus, the

  heightened focus on marriage [is] a distraction from other attainable measures to

  prevent discrimination against gays and lesbians” (p. 222). In short, if “gay

  marriage” were “attainable” without doing harm to his own political aspirations or

  to other homosexualist goals, he would come out in favor of “gay marriage.” As

  soon as he becomes President with a Democratic-controlled Congress he will

  “discover” his former “unwillingness to support gay marriage” to be “misguided.”

  • What to expect in the first half-year of Obama’s administration on homosexual

  issues. Obama has made it a priority in the first months of office—taking a page

  from Bill Clinton’s playbook with regard to the military—to get passed in the

  Democratic-controlled Congress a series of “sexual orientation” laws that will

  make clear the state’s endorsement of homosexual unions, offer special legal

  protections to such unions, provide civil penalties against those who oppose the

  legitimizing of homosexual unions, and extend all the benefits of marriage to

  homosexual unions. At the same time he will get Congress to remove the federal

  Defense of Marriage Act, which is the only thing preventing the application of the

  “Full Faith and Credit Clause” of the Constitution to require that “gay marriage”

  adopted in one state be respected and accepted in all other states. Within two

  years all states would be required to accept “gay marriage,” which carries with it

  the ultimate governmental and cultural seal of approval. All newspapers will have

  to post “gay weddings.” Any time the subject of marriage is taught in schools or

  institutions of higher learning “gay marriage” will have to be embraced as the law

  of the land and as equal in all respects to male-female marriages. Churches that

  allow couples to use their buildings to get married will have their tax-exempt

  status put at risk for not allowing “gay marriages.” Those who believe in a malefemale

  prerequisite for marriage are immediately institutionalized civilly and

  cultural as bigots. American society is not likely ever, this side of heaven, to

  return to the view that homosexual unions are intrinsically immoral.

  As regards abortion (see further the online articles by Robert George and George

  Weigel):

  5

  • Obama would be the most extreme abortionist ever elected to high office. Obama

  as a state legislator was so extreme on this issue that he opposed the Born Alive

  Act—which would mandate medical aid to infants who an abortion—even when

  assurances were given that it would not impact abortion law. Even when all the

  major abortion groups supported it Obama continued to oppose it. And Obama

  and his campaign staff repeatedly lied about his actions here and attempted to

  cover it up.

  • According to Obama, “The first thing that I’d do as President is sign the Freedom

  of Choice Act.” This act, with one stroke of the President’s pen, would throw out

  every state and national pro-life law. It would establish abortion as a

  “fundamental right” for all nine months of pregnancy for any unspecified “health”

  reasons. It would strike down parental notification laws, non-use of taxpayer

  money to fund abortions, conscience clauses to protect health-care workers from

  having to participate in abortions, and the federal partial-birth abortion ban.

  • Obama wants to end any government funding of crisis pregnancy centers and has

  even opposed the Pregnant Women Support Act, which would provide assistance

  for women facing crisis pregnancies and insurance coverage for unborn children

  (a provision that even hard-left abortion advocate Senator Ted Kennedy

  supported).

  With a pro-abortion Democratic-controlled Congress, a rabid pro-abortion Democratic

  President who may have the opportunity to appoint up to five or six Supreme Court

  justices the damage that could be done on the abortion issue would be incalculable and

  might never get turned around.

  Why Obama’s Homosexualist and Abortion Agendas Should Be the Main Concerns

  for Christian Voters, Not Iraq and the Economy

  This leads to the third assumption made by many: No matter how bad things could get

  under an Obama administration as regards the persecution of those who do not support

  homosexual practice and abortion on demand, other issues justify a vote for Obama. Let’s

  consider briefly the two biggest issues other than homosexual practice and abortion.

  1. Iraq war. Regardless of whether one believes that the United States should have

  become involved in a war in Iraq in the first place, the question is: What is the best

  strategy now? Obama’s rigid commitment to pulling American troops completely out of

  Iraq within a relatively short window of time could risk something much worse: the

  development in Iraq of an Islamic terrorist state comparable to Iran. Do we really want a

  man like Obama with absolutely no military experience in charge of such matters? Even

  Obama has had to admit that the “surge” of American troop strength in Iraq this past year

  has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams—a surge that Obama strongly opposed and that

  McCain advocated at great political risk to himself. Moreover, Obama is hardly a “peace”

  candidate. He has expressed willingness to take military action in Pakistan and to step up

  the war in Afghanistan.

  6

  It seems to me that an evaluation of the Iraq war depends largely on whether the outcome

  is a Turkey-style democracy in Iraq or a fundamentalist Islamic state. Most political

  pundits in early 1780 or in the summer of 1864 argued that Washington and Lincoln,

  respectively, were disasters and that serious thought should be given to getting out of the

  war against Britain and the war against the southern secessionists. History has proven

  both groups of pundits wrong. I’m not saying that I know for certain what we should do

  as regards the Iraq war. I’m saying that nobody at the present time has a clear vision

  about the future. And whether we stay in Iraq as long as there is reasonable hope for

  achieving a Turkey-style democracy or get out before such reasonable hope fades, it is

  not likely that the United States is going to turn into a rogue militarist state or a pacifist

  nation. I think that the greatest military risks lie with Obama’s strategy because he

  appears willing to pull out of Iraq no matter what the outcome of a pullout, even if it

  leads to the victory of radical Islamic fundamentalists, which presents the further risk of

  encouraging terrorist activity around the globe. However, I don’t see any evidence that an

  Obama victory would result in a “sea change” on foreign policy for the better or that a

  McCain victory would result in a “sea change” on foreign policy for the worse. No matter

  who wins, the United States will still reserve the option to intervene militarily around the

  globe. People are not going to be persecuted or regarded as bigots as a result of their

  stance on the Iraq war or any other war.

  2. The economy and the poor. No one has a crystal ball on this one, neither campaign.

  I’m not a big “cut taxes” guy and in that sense am not a convinced Republican. I think

  that there are good arguments about how to handle the economy in both parties, and

  failings in both parties. For me this consideration is a wash. Republicans have a

  reputation for disregarding the poor, favoring big corporations, and making the rich

  richer. Democrats have a reputation for thinking that the government can fix everything,

  overspending and overtaxing, and creating bloated and wasteful bureaucracies. Obviously

  there has to be a balance between helping the poor and exerting fiscal restraint. If McCain

  gets elected, there will still be hundreds of millions of dollars spent on social programs. If

  Obama gets elected I would hope that we don’t turn into a socialist state, though Obama

  has talked about enforced redistribution of wealth and has hobnobbed with socialist

  radicals. Again I don’t see a “sea change” for the worse if McCain is elected or a “sea

  change” for the better if Obama is elected. I don’t see myself or other Christians being

  persecuted on the issue of the economy no matter who gets elected. There are obviously a

  lot of voters who think that they will be better off economically if a Democratic

  administration is in power. History, however, does not always bear this assumption out.

  The conservative Reagan administration, for example, was characterized by an economic

  boom that took us out of the Carter malaise.

  In conclusion, the only sea change for the worse that Christians are likely to experience is

  the sea change on homosexual practice and abortion that an Obama victory would bring.

  The country’s legal and moral stance on abortion and especially homosexual practice will

  deteriorate rapidly and likely remain in a deteriorated state for at least decades to come.

  Should the issues of homosexual practice and abortion, then, be paramount in this

  election? Or, to put it in a different way, can you vote for a candidate who will turn your

  7

  family into persecuted and marginalized outcasts of the state? Can you vote for a

  presidential candidate who thinks you are a bigot and will codify that belief into law? In

  so doing, would you be taking a page from the story of Jacob and Esau—selling one’s

  birthright in the hopes of some bread and lentil stew (Gen 25:29-34)? I do not here

  presume to tell anyone for whom they should vote. Nevertheless, these are difficult

  questions that every Christian should reflect on before casting a vote.

  See also my article, “Barack Obama’s Disturbing Misreading of the Sermon on the

  Mount as Support for Homosexual Sex” here.

  Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon is Associate Professor at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and

  the author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon

  Press, 2001). The views put forward in this essay are the author’s own and do not claim

  to represent the official views of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  When your life is on the go—take your life with you. Try Windows Mobile® today 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  =======================================================
   List services made available by First Step Internet, 
   serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
                 http://www.fsr.net                       
            mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
  =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20081103/7321461e/attachment-0001.html