Pastor Disinvited from Giving Inaugural Prayer

If President Obama and the White House desire to be known for tolerance, they’re discrediting themselves by acquiescing  to the radical agenda of militant homosexuals. Be assured that there are homosexuals who agree with this and who do everything possible to disassociate from the radical fringe group. 

Joe Carter over at TheGospelCoalition exposed the ugly act of intolerance toward Pastor Giglio.

The Story: Louie Giglio, pastor of Passion City Church in Atlanta and founder of the Passion Conferences, an organization that brings college students together in prayer and worship, was selected by President Obama to deliver the benediction at his inaugural this month. He was disinvited, though, after it was discovered he had delivered a sermon about homosexuality in the mid-1990s.

Al Mohler also exposed the extremism when he wrote:

“….anyone who has ever believed that homosexuality is morally problematic in any way must now offer public repentance and evidence of having “evolved” on the question. This is the language that President Obama used of his own “evolving” position on same-sex marriage. This is what is now openly demanded of Christians today. If you want to avoid being thrown off the program, you had better learn to evolve fast, and repent in public (see: The Giglio Imbroglio — The Public Inauguration of a New Moral McCarthyism).

I just wrote about the same concern in my column for our local Sunday News (without knowing about this act of intolerance). I wrote the following: 

“The notion that Christians are only or mainly interested in opposing abortion or gay marriage is a propaganda myth I’ll expose in another column. The reason I’ve been vocal in opposing the agenda to force gay marriage on the country is not because I desire to tell other consenting adults how to order their private lives. They have the freedom to live in open homosexual relations and I’ve never suggested that this freedom should be changed. My emphasis has consistently been on the intolerant methods being used to force others to affirm a lifestyle that opposes their moral convictions. And I am suggesting that the desire of liberals to be known for tolerance has been hurt by their alignment with a radical homosexual agenda.

The hateful name-calling and condescending slurs aimed at anyone who opposes gay marriage is a violation of the kind of civil and rational debate we need. This kind of divisive social manipulation should be rejected no matter the issue.

Have you noticed that even if you respectfully oppose gay marriage, you’re accused of having irrational phobias? You’re labeled a hate-monger and a bigot. You’re actually accused of discrimination as if you were opposing race or gender. I am genuinely confused as to why liberals support this kind of schoolyard bullying? Why have liberals acquiesced to a militant agenda that has given them a bad name?

It’s ironic that the intolerance and bigotry once wrongly aimed at people who chose a gay lifestyle is now shown to anyone who dares to oppose homosexual behavior.

I don’t view homosexuality as the only or primary social issue of our times. But I firmly oppose the judicial coercion and social manipulation used to promote gay marriage. I think we should all be able to agree that these methods will hurt us. I have absolutely no hate for or fear of homosexuals. Projecting hate or fear on someone for opposing the morality of homosexual behavior is the problem. Let’s at least agree on this.”

Steve Cornell

For a variety of perspectives, 8 Top Blog Posts 

About Wisdomforlife

Just another worker in God's field.
This entry was posted in 44th President, Barack Obama, Church and State, Culture, Discrimination, Equal Rights, Gay, Gay Marriage?, Gender, Government, Homosexual lifestyle, Homosexuality, Same-sex, Sexual orientation, Sexual Preference, Sunday News Lancaster PA, Tolerance, Wisdom. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Pastor Disinvited from Giving Inaugural Prayer

  1. Keith says:

    > You’re actually accused of discrimination as if you were opposing race or gender.

    Because that’s what you’re doing: there’s little doubt at this point that homosexuality has a significant, if not primary, genetic component. You are, in almost certain fact, opposing something that is a condition of birth. Exactly like race or gender.

    • There is no conclusive scientific evidence to support the theory of genetic origins behind homosexual orientation. A much better case can be made for regarding sexuality of any kind as a matter of choice. In fact, when resolving any ethical or legal questions about expressions of sexuality, individual choice must be a primary consideration. A society that chooses to condemn some forms of sexual conduct as illegal must treat sexuality in general in a context of human choosing — not as a predetermined condition.

      Further, what should be said to those who on principle left a homosexual lifestyle? If these individuals have chosen to see their former way of life as wrong and immoral (as many have), how should they articulate their choice? Should society treat their decision with respect? Are they free to oppose homosexual behavior?

      If discrimination laws are extended to one’s desire for gay sex, will civil rights status be open to other sexual lifestyles? Discrimination that violates civil rights (regarding race and gender) injures people for what they are by nature not for the sex they desire or some other behavior they choose.

      • Keith says:

        > There is no conclusive scientific evidence to support the theory of genetic origins behind homosexual orientation. A much better case can be made for regarding sexuality of any kind as a matter of choice.

        This is not true, it’s not supported by any reputable research body.

        The single most predictive factor on whether a man is homosexual is how many older brothers they have; (This effect has also been seen in men not raised with their biological brothers.)

        Nobody is arguing human sexuality is entirely genetic — but is there a genetic component? Yes, and it’s as close to a “fact” as these things get.

        Seriously, Steve, if it’s a choice, what’s your explanation for the fact that if a man has older brothers, he’s more likely to “choose” to be gay?

      • Keith says:

        > A society that chooses to condemn some forms of sexual conduct as illegal must treat sexuality in general in a context of human choosing — not as a predetermined condition.

        I sincerely don’t understand the point you’re trying to make.

        Imagine you have a genetic disorder that leads to schizophrenia. When we lock you up as a danger to others, are we somehow handicapped by the fact it’s a predetermined condition?

        A society choosing to condemn some forms of sexual conduct as illegal has no obligation at all to consider whether or not it was a choice or a predetermined condition — choice vs. non-choice is simply irrelevant to the discussion of whether the action damages society in ways that require the action to be illegal.

  2. Keith says:

    > It’s ironic that the intolerance and bigotry once wrongly aimed at people who chose a gay lifestyle is now shown to anyone who dares to oppose homosexual behavior.

    The phrase “once wrongly” is badly chosen.

    In December, the LA Times quoted the FBI that crimes based on the victim’s sexual orientation increased in 2011, and that nearly 21% of hate crimes were motivated by sexual orientation bias.

    It is not reasonable to equate being called a “bigot” with people beating and killing other people for their sexual choices (which is happening today, not in some dimly recalled far distant past).

    • First, I need more evidence than the LA Times. Secondly, the hate crimes legislation has suffered significant manipulation by radical homosexual militants. A much better case could be made for hate of Christians as with the disinvited pastor.

      • Keith says:

        What we consider a “hate crime” in this country has changed drastically from when we were young, admittedly. For better and worse, I think — we’re far more aware of racism and bigotry, but we also over-react some times.

        That said… are you really saying Christians are persecuted in this country in ways comparable to how homosexuals are persecuted in this country?

      • Keith says:

        > A much better case could be made for hate of Christians as with the disinvited pastor.

        I just realized what bothered me about this statement.

        You term the dis-invitation of this pastor as “hate of Christians”, but it never even occurs to you to question why a Christian pastor was invited at all.

        In this purely secular ceremony, Christianity is given a special place above all other religions. Nobody even asks why we aren’t performing Hindu, Islam, Jewish, Buddhist, Sikh, Jain, Wiccan or Pastafarian rituals: as always, Christianity is accorded a place above every other religion (or lack of religion) in this society.

        I would say a minimum requirement for this religious representative to a secular event is to not ever have actually stated publicly that a significant percentage of American citizens “are worthy of death” for their sexual orientation. And when that minimum requirement wasn’t met, Christians see it as an act of hatred.

        Christians are so utterly privileged that you don’t even see how privileged you are.

    • Aaron Sullivan says:

      How long until NAMBLA calls prosecution of pedophiles “discrimination”, “bigotry” and “intolerance”? It’s just their “sexual orientation” right?

      You have zero evidence that proves “sexual orientation” of any kind. it is ridiculous that anyone even has to point to the obviousness that male genitalia is purposed for female genitalia for procreation.

      Homosexually along with pedophile is a perversion of what is natural.

      • Keith says:

        Ah, the dreaded slippery slope. Soon there will be dogs and cats, living in sin!

        If procreation is the only purpose of sex, perhaps it should be illegal for older or sterile people to marry.

        If male-female genital intercourse is the only “natural” form of sex, it should be illegal to engage in heterosexual sodomy, oral sex or masturbation.

        Natural? What is “natural”? Eyeglasses aren’t natural. Planes aren’t natural. Nylon fabric isn’t natural. Transplanting hearts or artificial hearts: you guessed it, not natural. Cool Whip non-dairy topping… really, really, not natural.

        Aaron, here’s the deal: you DON’T get to take away other people’s rights because you don’t approve of what they do with their genitalia in the presence of other, consenting adults. You DO get to take away other people’s rights when they do things with their genitalia in the presence of non-consenting adults, or individuals not deemed to have the power of consent.

        Distinguishing between the two is usually pretty easy.

  3. Bradlee says:

    Keith,
    If I had to guess keith, I would probably say that you are either Gay or bisexual? And if I had to guess, I would assume that you have been criticized by family or friends for your lifestyle CHOICES, am I right? So your arguement for being that you can’t help being gay is only natural because you want to justify your lifestyle instead of seeing it as open rerbellion against Almighty God who created you to be heterosexual, to marry a female and not a male! If you would also see the research, there is so many more STDs and HIV/AIDS running rampant in the homosexual community compared to the heterosexual community. I also want to know, when do we stop people from doing what they feel like doing? Do we stop adults from raping or sodomizing children or is that telling adults that they have the right to do what they want with there genitalia? Where does the law stop?

    • Keith says:

      > If I had to guess keith, I would probably say that you are either Gay or bisexual?

      Actually, I’m straight, married and monogamous (and old enough I’m unlikely to change). I have gay friends, but no gay family members (to my knowledge).

      I personally derive no benefit from gay rights. I’m for gay rights because I won’t agree to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

      > I also want to know, when do we stop people from doing what they feel like doing? Do we stop adults from raping or sodomizing children or is that telling adults that they have the right to do what they want with there genitalia? Where does the law stop?

      There’s a quote (attributed to different sources) that goes something like this: “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.”

      As a society, I believe we have a right to protect children; we have a right to protect ourselves, we have a right to protect traditions and practices that lead to a well-form, civil society. In short, the law stops where it always has, in the boundary between one person’s right to do as they choose and other people’s right to not be harmed by those choices.

      This is why the “slippery slope” argument is so genuinely silly. We draw lines between legal and illegal behaviors all the time: I’m allowed to own guns but I’m not allowed to shoot other people. I’m allowed to drive a car, but I’m not allowed to do so while intoxicated.

      Bradlee, are you honestly worried we can’t write a law that would allow two committed, loving, same-sex people to marry, without also allowing child rape?

  4. Bradlee says:

    I am not worried at all but why should we have to have a law that says they can marry, or why do I have to accept there decision to be gay but if I disagree then I am called hateful? Why do we have to be tolerant of there views but the tolerance doesn’t swing the other way when it comes to my view point? Have you ever researched the reason why the Roman empire collasped? It was because of the homosexual lifestyle that was so prevailent at that time; a thought to ponder…

    • Keith says:

      > why should we have to have a law that says they can marry

      Because in our society there are civil rights associated with marriage. Allowing same-sex couples to marry gives them access to rights such as hospital visitation during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending.

      Do you believe gay people should have fewer rights than you?

      > or why do I have to accept there decision to be gay but if I disagree then I am called hateful? Why do we have to be tolerant of there views but the tolerance doesn’t swing the other way when it comes to my view point?

      Bradlee, disagree all you want, and I support you in that: disagreement is healthy and your views should be both respected and tolerated. But to prevent others from having the same civil rights as you have, without sufficient justification, would be both hateful and intolerant.

      > Have you ever researched the reason why the Roman empire collapsed? It was because of the homosexual lifestyle that was so prevalent at that time; a thought to ponder…

      Not so much. Sure, it’s been proposed as a theory, but I’ve never seen any reputable historian claim that. Interestingly enough, it’s a real theory that Christianity was one of the causes of Rome’s decline. Not because of Christianity being bad or good of course, but because the transition to Christianity was difficult for the empire.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s