Tag Archives: Fascism

Does Google’s anti-conservative bias affect its products and services?

Google's new motto
Google’s new motto

Recently, there were two news stories making their bias even more obvious. A leaked video showed Google executives lamenting Hillary Clinton’s, and a leaked briefing revealed how Google favors European-style censorship over free speech. In addition, one of their senior managers tweeted vicious vulgarities against the Republican party.

Let’s start with the leaked video, which was reported by the Epoch Times.

Excerpt:

A confidential video recorded at Google has been leaked to the press, exposing top leadership openly bemoaning Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss and discussing how President Donald Trump’s election “conflicts with many” of the company’s values.

The full recording, originally marked as “Internal Only,” that was leaked to Breitbart by an anonymous source depicts the company’s first all-hands weekly meeting after the 2016 presidential election. The unabashed remarks from top leaders reflect a sunken and depressed mood—some are on the edge of tears over the election results—while at the same time express a desire to fight Trump’s policies and reshape public opinion.

Co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, vice presidents Kent Walker and Eileen Naughton, CFO Ruth Porat, and CEO Sundar Pichai all spoke at length during the hourlong meeting.

Throughout the meeting, executives switched back and forth between emotional and combative discourse, as they discussed potential plans for using the company’s powerful resources.

“I certainly find this election deeply offensive and I know many of you do too,” Google co-founder Sergey Brin said. “It conflicts with many of our [company’s] values.”

Meanwhile, CFO Ruth Porat said they have an obligation to “fight for what’s right and to never stop fighting for what’s right.”

“Our values are strong,” she said. “We will fight to protect them and we will use the great strength and resources and reach we have to continue to advance really important values.”

At one point, Porat appeared to hold back tears when recalling the moment she realized Hillary Clinton could lose.

Here’s a clip of the highlights:

Alone, the video would be damning, but it just the latest in a sequence of news stories showing Google’s anti-American bias.

Here’s a story from last week, reported by Breitbart:

An internal company briefing produced by Google and leaked exclusively to Breitbart News argues that due to a variety of factors, including the election of President Trump, the “American tradition” of free speech on the internet is no longer viable.

[…]But the 85-page briefing, titled “The Good Censor,” admits that Google and other tech platforms now “control the majority of online conversations” and have undertaken a “shift towards censorship” in response to unwelcome political events around the world.

Examples cited in the document include the 2016 election and the rise of Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) in Germany.

Does Google have a plan to influence elections by incorporating biased, inaccurate information in their products and services? Consider this article from the Daily Caller, which reports on internal e-mails from their marketing department:

A newly revealed tranche of emails between Google executives reportedly details how the company supported rides for Hispanic voters in the 2016 election, which one executive characterized as being an effort to boost turnout for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

According to an email chain between Google executives obtained by Fox News’ Tucker Carlson and Breitbart News, Google’s Multicultural Marketing development head Eliana Murillo sent out an email the day after the 2016 election detailing that Google had “supported partners like Voto Latino to pay for rides to the polls in key states,” which she characterized as a “silent donation.”

“We even helped them create ad campaigns to promote the rides (with support from HOLA folks who rallied and volunteered their time to help),” Murillo said. “We supported Voto Latino to help them land an interview with Sen. Meza of Arizona (key state for us) to talk about the election and how to use Google search to find information about how to vote. They were a strong partner, among many in this effort.”

“Ultimately, after all was said and done, the Latino community did come out to vote, and completely surprised us,” Murillo wrote in the email. “We never anticipated that 29% of Latinos would vote for Trump. No one did. We saw headlines like this about early voter turn out and thought that this was finally the year that the ‘sleeping giant’ had awoken.”

Murillo noted that 71 percent of Latinos voted for Clinton and that “that wasn’t enough.” She said that despite efforts to remain “objective,” that Trump’s win was “devastating for our Democratic Latino community.”

Google spent their own money in order to boost the turnout of a group that they thought would help Democrats get elected.

Here’s Tucker Carlson reporting on the leaked e-mail:

Just last week, a manager at Google tweeted out hate speech against the Republican party:

In a Twitter rant over the weekend, Google design lead Dave Hogue claimed Republicans will “descend into the flames” of hell, and described members of the GOP as “treasonous” and “evil” following the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

“You are finished, @GOP. You polished the final nail for your own coffins. F***. YOU. ALL. TO. HELL,” posted Hogue. “I hope the last images burned into your slimy, evil, treasonous retinas are millions of women laughing and clapping and celebrating as your souls descend into the flames.”

Note that the F-word was not censored, because this person has no self-control, or respect for people who disagree with his own biased viewpoints. Google likes him, though – they made him a manager. He apparently has the emotional stability to rise high at Google.

I think the case is pretty clear about Google’s bias. It might be time for the federal government to step in and make sure that they aren’t influencing elections with biased, inaccurate information delivered by their products and services.

Previously, I blogged about how Google allies with a leftist group linked to convicted domestic terrorist Floyd Corkins, and how Google seeks to discredit conservative sources in their search engine, and how Google fired a senior engineer for disagreeing with radical feminism, and how Google censored pro-life videos, and how Google censored conservative videos from Prager University, and how Google started a worldwide campaign to push for same-sex marriage.

Can feminism be defended with reason and evidence? Jordan Peterson vs Cathy Newman

Can radical feminism be defended rationally and evidentially?
Can radical feminism be defended rationally and evidentially?

There was a short discussion recently on UK Channel 4 between Canadian university professor named Jordan Peterson, and a radical feminist with an undergraduate degree in English named Cathy Newman. While you watch, imagine that she is teaching some non-STEM course that you’ve enrolled in. Would you dare to disagree with her?

First, the video, which has over 11 million views:

And here is an article from the UK Spectator: (paywalled)

Whatever else anybody might think of him, Professor Peterson is a man of remarkable learning and experience, and does not appear to have arrived at any of his views by the now common means of ‘I reckon’. Yet Newman, who approaches the interview with the trademark sourness she employs for everyone she expects to disagree with, treats this is just another chance to burnish her own social justice credentials and expose her guest as a bigot. Big mistake.

Storming straight in with the differences between the sexes, in the opening minutes it is clear that Professor Peterson is willing to back up all his views with references, data and calm analysis. 

By 11 minutes in she is saying ‘I think I take issue with (that)’, before demonstrating that she can’t. Soon she is reduced to dropping the bombshell observation that ‘all women are different’. By 16.45 there is a palpable win, as Peterson points out that Newman has exactly the disagreeable and aggressive qualities that allow certain types of people to succeed. By 19.30 she is having to throw out things to him that he hasn’t even said, such as ‘You’re saying women aren’t intelligent enough to run top companies’. A minute later and she is reduced to countering empirical evidence with anecdote. Peterson presents the data about men in general and Newman responds with the ‘I know plenty of men who aren’t (like that)’ card. Shortly after that (at 22.25) Newman is reduced to spluttering and then silence. She tries to pull herself together. But she can think of nothing to say.

To be honest, Cathy Newman is nothing like the women I’m friends with. All of my closest friends are Christian women. All of them are anti-feminist to some degree, with the most successful one professionally (Dina) being the wisest and most anti-feminist of all. When I think of my panel of wise Christian women advisors – each with one or more STEM degrees – I don’t recognize Cathy Newman in them. But Cathy Newman does remind me of the radical feminists I encountered when I was doing my BS and MS degrees in computer science at the university.

In my experience, radical feminists debate using six tactics:

  1. Deny facts or evidence because men were involved in researching them or discovering them
  2. Countering empirical data with anecdotes and personal experiences
  3. Taking arguments and evidence as if they are personal attacks
  4. Becoming hysterical and crying
  5. Claiming that disagreement with feminism will produce violence against women and women committing suicide, etc.
  6. Trying to get you expelled, fired or silenced – often by making false accusations or faking hate crimes against themselves

It’s important for everyone to understand the views of others in order to know how defensible our own views are. In order to get the best scholarly case for radical feminism, I like to read feminist academics like Christina Hoff Sommers, Camille Paglia, Jennifer Roback Morse, etc. who evaluate and critique radical feminist scholarship. That’s how I encounter the ideas of those I disagree with (as well as listening to and watching debates).

Here’s a short Factual Feminist video:

I understand the claims that are made by radical feminists, but I am also aware of what the evidence says. I don’t try to stop feminists from making claims, I just study how to refute their claims.

But what about the radical feminists? Do they do a good job of understanding those who disagree with them? Let’s take a look at an example which I think is representative of feminist tolerance and open-mindedness.

The Toronto Sun reports on a sociology professor who gave her students an assignment – an assignment with some very peculiar constraints.

Excerpt:

A Ryerson University student who wanted to write a paper on the “myth” of the male-female wage gap was told by her prof that not only was she wrong, she should only rely on feminist journals for her assignment instead of business sources which “blame women,” her sister says.

Josephine Mathias, 21, a fourth-year political science student at University of Toronto, took to YouTube Wednesday to criticize the assignment given her twin Jane for a sociology class.

[…]After Jane sent an email describing her intention to write about the wag gap, her instructor replied that her premise was wrong, Josephine said.

Here’s what the professor said:

“Perhaps you want to write your paper on the glass ceiling. You need to look at feminist sources on this issue…Do NOT use business sources. They blame women. The reality is patriarchy,” says the instructor’s email, posted online.

In a copy of the assignment provided to the Toronto Sun by Josephine, the instructor also notes that Ontario and Canada government websites and Statistics Canada will not be considered scholarly sources.

“Government websites state government policy that is devoid of analysis, and usually reproduces mainstream stereotypes, assumptions and misconceptions,” the assignment says.

What is interesting is that the professor makes about $167,000 a year – higher than the average professor’s salary. And she’s not teaching computer science or petroleum engineering. I find it interesting that another Canadian university reprimanded a grad student for showing a debate clip that offered both sides of the transgenderism debate. Leftist tolerance. Leftist open-mindedness.

Once you’ve paid your tuition, and the leftist has the grading pen, you lose every argument. Either you get an F, or you get expelled. If you’re in the workplace, you get fired. False charges are often made. Hate crimes are faked. Anything to play the victim, rather than address the arguments and evidence. This is how people on the left “debate”.

As I wrote previously, the more women embrace radical feminism, the more toxic they become to men. Not just in the classroom or the workplace, but in relationships. Who wants to marry someone whose only response to reason is fury? Men might be OK with temporary arrangements with abusive women. At least while those women have youth and beauty. But men don’t marry abusive women. At least, not if they have any wisdom.

(Image source: Independent Man)

Twitter says that death threats against Dana Loesch’s children are permissible

I’ve said for some time that the mainstream media and the big tech companies discriminate against Christians and conservatives because they agree with secularists and progressives. Although the mainstream media and big tech companies want to present themselves as open-minded and fair, the truth is far different.

Take a look at this death threat by a young progressive fascist:

Milan Legius threatens to murder the children of Dana Loesch
Milan Legius threatens to murder the children of Dana Loesch

I used to listen to Dana Loesch’s podcast all the time. The “Florida Man” segments are the funniest. She’s very mainstream, and a solid Christian and conservative.

And here is how Twitter responded to Dana Loesch’s husband when he complained about the death threat:

And here is how Twitter responded to the death threat
And here is how Twitter responded to the death threat

They reviewed it carefully. Threatening to murder Dana’s children isn’t in violation of Twitter Rules.

The Blaze reports:

Over the weekend, National Rifle Association spokeswoman Dana Loesch received a flurry of despicable death threats on Twitter.

[…]One Twitter user wrote: “The only way these people learn is if it affects them directly. So if Dana Loesch has to have her children murdered before she’ll understand, I guess that’s what needs to happen.”

Loesch notified Twitter support who then issued this response: “Hello, Thank you for your recent report. We have reviewed your report carefully and found that there was no violation of the Twitter Rules against abusive behavior. (https://twitter.com/rules).”

That’s how the secular left works.

On the one hand, they claim to be for free speech and open debate. One the other hand, we have a secular left attorney general searching the houses of pro-lifers. We have conservative professors being fired for disagreeing with liberal professors. We have Christian businesses being dragged into court, and threatened with losing everything they own. We have a Bernie Sanders supporter shooting at Republicans at a softball game. We have a gay activist who tried to shoot up the Family Research Council building convicted of domestic terrorism. We have Barack Obama using the IRS as a weapon to persecute conservative groups ahead of his re-election bid in 2012, and using the HHS to force Christian companies like Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor to cover abortifacients. In Wisconsin, the FBI and police conducted pre-dawn raids of the homes of top aides to Scott Walker, at the request of a Democrat district attorney. ARMED FBI and police. This is just a small sample, I could go on for hours.

All we have to do to understand how far the secular left goes to force their values and worldview on others is look at what has happened in history when the secular left has seized power. We know how this ends, because it’s happened before, in different times and in different places. You can even see it today in places like North Korea, an officially atheist country, where the state owns the means of production.

How do we know if Facebook, Google, Twitter, Apple, Youtube, etc. agree with the progressive  who tweeted the death threat against Dana Loesch’s children? Well, at the time of writing (Monday night), his account was still functioning. Make of that what you will.

Facebook joins Twitter, Google and YouTube in deliberately purging conservative voices

Facebook, Google, Youtube, Twitter purging conservative speech (Source: The Stream)
Facebook, Google, Youtube, Twitter purging conservatives (Source: The Stream)

The November mid-term elections are almost here, and progressives are doing what they can to win. Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Google and YouTube are composed entirely of secular leftists. These companies apparently only hire hardcore radical leftists, (remember James Damore?). Do these big corporations act any differently from the big government fascists in Venezuela and North Korea?

Consider this article from the Daily Caller:

Facebook is censoring PragerU videos for violating its speech codes that prohibit so-called “hate speech” and shadow banning its posts, PragerU wrote on Twitter Friday.

“We’re being heavily censored on @Facebook. Our last 9 posts are reaching 0 of our 3 million followers. At least two videos were deleted last night for ‘hate speech’ including our recent video with @ConservativeMillen,” PragerU tweeted.

The official PragerU Facebook page is still up on Facebook at the time of publication. Its Facebook page reposts the same videos consistently and others can still be found on the page.

However, it appears that one specific PragerU social media administrator — the one who posted the videos that Facebook considered violated its “hate speech” policies — is unable to post on behalf of PragerU, resulting only other PragerU administrators being able to see the post. No one else can see the posts.

Here are some details on the specific videos that were deleted:

One of the deleted videos, titled, “Where Are the Moderate Muslims?” was most likely posted on Facebook on Thursday.

The presenter, Hussein Aboubakr, states that when he was growing up, his teacher and his Imam were happy when they heard about the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on 9/11.

[…]Another video, titled “Make Men Masculine Again,” was posted Aug. 6 and has also been deleted. The video, presented by conservative YouTube personality Allie Stuckey, presents an argument that making men feminine is both wrong and dangerous.

The Daily Signal reports that Google is making an app to censor content critical of the Marxist government of China.

Excerpt:

Code-named “Dragonfly,” Google’s highly exclusive project was started in spring 2017, and only a few hundred employees are privy to it. The purpose of Dragonfly is to produce a Google app that will adhere to China’s Orwellian censorship laws.

The app, which could later be expanded to a computer search engine, would actively censor information deemed subversive by the state. The engine would block queries relating to democracy, human rights, religion, and events or history the state wishes to suppress.

Google has no problem with censoring voices that are critical of far-left extremism. That’s their view, so they protect it from criticism.

This article on the Federalist clearly shows that Google and YouTube are deliberately censoring conservative content. (H/T Eric)

Let’s start with Google ads:

Within days, Google blocked my ad and informed my team that we had violated their policies. I called Google. The problem, they explained, was that the video had hate speech.

It was a Fox Business Network video with Trish Regan interviewing me about the Russian collusion investigation. The Google employee could not find the exact offending words, but referred me to various other supervisors up the ladder.

It took much of the day… with successive employees reciting Google policies that they admitted explained nothing. We concluded I should re-submit the ad and whoever was offended at Google would be forced to surface.

Once again my ad was blocked, and this time my Google account was suspended… Once again I called Google and spent a day trying to figure out what was wrong… Was I too nice to President Trump? Should I have been more critical?

[…]The next day, Nurse Ratched at Google finally emerged. I was never given her name, but conversations with her employees indicated her sex. It was nothing that I or Regan had said in the video, her team explained. Huh?

No, no, the problem, I was told, was in the “crawler of words along the bottom of the video.” It was a quote of Trump declaring that the Robert Mueller investigation was a “witch hunt.” This was apparently hate speech.

A lot of his YouTube content was also censored:

A viral YouTube interview with me and Fox Anchor Neil Cavuto about why Hillary Clinton lost the election was penalized. The video had more than 861,000 views and was earning an average of 15,000 views a day when it suddenly went dark. On February 17, after the new censorship took hold, this video dropped to 50 views a day. That is where it has stayed ever since.

Likewise, a viral YouTube interview with me and “Fox and Friends” co-host Brian Kilmeade about the election, a video that had 961,000 views and was clicking off 20,000 views a day, suddenly dropped to 30. It all happened in one day. And it has stayed there ever since.

Remember, inside these big tech companies, it’s often extreme left-wing hate groups like the SPLC making the decisions:

In January, 2018 my channel was hit by shadow-banning. Sometime that month, Google allegedly hired thousands of outside actors supplied by the infamous Southern Poverty Law Center. This was the organization that attacked Ben Carson, the only African American in Donald Trump’s cabinet. They were apparently the new arbiters of decency.

In my own case, earlier in the week I sent a photo of the 6779 Twitter followers for this blog to Dina. An hour later, I had lost 52 followers, down to 6727! Other people reported the same thing – lost followers and shadow-banning. It only seems to happen to conservatives, though.

Should people in sinful lifestyles bully churches into celebrating them?

Anti-marriage gay activists vandalize church
Anti-marriage gay activists vandalize church

This story was the topic of the most recent episode of the Reasonable Faith podcast. Basically, a conservative, apologetics-friendly church had a homosexual person who wanted to be openly gay and still be accepted as a member. After he was told by the church that he could attend the church, but not be a member, he decided to write the mainstream media to shame the church.

Here is the link to Reasonable Faith‘s podcast – and they have a transcript.

I want to first focus on the letter written by the gay man:

Dear Watermark Community Church,

Today I celebrate a very interesting anniversary with you. It was exactly one year ago when you told me that I was no longer worthy to serve, be in a community group, and be a member of your church.

I spent years in your church battling against my homosexuality. I believed with all my heart that God would change me; I prayed for change almost daily. But when I wasn’t able to change, you turned your back on me.

You say our “sin” is not unique, but you treat us in a unique manner; this is unacceptable behavior. We are actual people that have actual feelings.

Here we are a year later and you are still doing to others what you did to me. You are tarnishing the name of God to Christians and non-Christians alike; you should be ashamed of yourselves! Do not forget, Jesus was a angry with people just like you who said certain groups of people were not worthy to be followers of Him.

Thank you for removing yourself from my life! I am who God made me to be. I cannot change my sexual orientation and nor would I want to. I now have internal peace and happiness unlike ever before.

Jason Thomas

As Reasonable Faith notes, this is what he said and this is what the far-left Dallas Morning News reported. It sounds like the church was very mean to him, but is that what really happened?

Here is what the church actually wrote to him:

Dear Jason,

This is a difficult letter to write, as I am sure that it will be a difficult one to hear and receive. We genuinely care for you, love you, and want nothing more for you than to live an abundant life that is found in Jesus Christ alone.

However, in our attempt to shepherd you, we have recognised a destructive pattern that prohibits us in caring for you and playing the role you desire for us to have in your life (1 Peter 5:1-4; Acts 20:28). Specifically, your desire to actively participate in a same-sex relationship with another man, and your unwillingness to heed biblical counsel from your church to turn from that relationship, has made it exceedingly difficult to shepherd you during this time.

As we noted during our time together last Tuesday (9/29/15), and through the years, we have gently & repeatedly brought these patterns to your attention and, at times, you have heeded this counsel and repented. But now, this is no longer the case. So, in obedience to Matthew 18:15-18 and 1 Corinthians 5:11, we are left with no other option but to remove you from our body and treat you as we would anyone who is living out of fellowship with God…and we lovingly, but firmly, call you back to repentance. This means that you are no longer a member of our body at Watermark. We are praying that repentance comes quickly and that you do not continue choosing a path of destruction and one that leads you away from the authority and care of the church.

We recognise that these patterns are only symptoms of a heart that is either unwilling or unable to fully trust God in every area of your life, including your sexuality. We plead with you to run to the Lord and allow the Spirit of God to begin to transform your heart in a mighty way (Titus 3:3-7).

In order to help you through this time, we would like to make some tangible recommendations that we hope will serve as a catalyst for true repentance and heart-change in your life. They are:

1. Faithful attendance of Re:Generation targeting the above issue, while following counsel to not be in a dating relationship during that time.

2. Meet with a Watermark staff member who shares in the same struggle (same sex attraction) who has found freedom, healing, and victory through our Savior Jesus Christ (just let Brandon know when you’re ready to meet with him).

We affirm your many gifts, your heart of kindness, and we value the way God has uniquely formed you (Psalm 139:13-14). We all pray for your repentance and full restoration so that your gifts and passions can be fully unleashed for the Kingdom of God. We love you, Jason, and stand at the gate for you and eagerly await God’s restoration in your life (Luke 15:20).

In Christ,

The Elders of Watermark Community Church

Here is what one of my friends at Watermark who was aware of the situation told me:

I think it’s clear that Watermark was very kind and loving in their discipline and can’t be called hypocritical or homophobic, and they were not trying to change the man’s sexual orientation but rather simply asking him to abstain from sexual relationships. They give lots of chances before administering discipline and the process is the same each time they go through this with members. Some repent and some turn away.

As we have seen, publicizing those who disagree with homosexuality and gay marriage is a favorite tactic of the fascist left. Sometimes, it just involves smearing (e.g. – the Southern Povery Law Center).  Sometimes, it involves lawfare, (e.g. – the attorney general of Washington state). Sometimes, it involves leaking the names of pro-marriage donors (e.g. – the Human Rights Campaign). Sometimes, it involves vandalism, violence and even domestic terrorism (e.g. – Floyd Lee Corkins’ attack on the Family Research Council). When it comes to homosexuality and gay marriage, fascism is the normal response to dissent.

I just find it astonishing that gay activists and other radicals on the left think that they can try to bring in the mainstream media and the law to punish the church for holding to orthodox Christian moral values. But this is why we call sin “sin”. We don’t call chastity a sin, because chaste people don’t behave like fascists when they hear disagreement. We don’t call having lots of children a sin, because people who have lots of children don’t behave like fascists if anyone disagrees with them. There is something really wrong with these behaviors that the Bible forbids. You can see why the Bible condemns certain things as sins when you look at the fascist responses to disagreement with the sin.

Look at 1 Corinthians 6:1-10:

1 If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people?

Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?

Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!

Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church? 

I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 

But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers!

The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 

Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters.

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men

10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Consider 1 Corinthians 5:9-13:

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—

10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.

11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?

13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”

Everyone sins. Fine. Keep it to yourself. Don’t use the law to force Bible-believing Christians to celebrate your sins. The church’s job is to help you to be more like Christ. You’re in a community where everyone is supposed to be serious about growing as a Christian and part of that involves improving your character morally. Another part means getting along with other Christians instead of being disruptive.

Regarding complaints about not being able to act on your sexual orientation, I have no sympathy. I am attracted to women, and I am a virgin, because I am not married. I am not going to church to rebel against this requirement. My job is to structure my life in such a way that it is easier to obey it, whether that involves studying the issue in the research or drawing the line long before I have to make a decision in the heat of the moment. God must be #1 in a person’s life, setting goals and policies, and our job is to make and execute effective plans that deliver results for the Boss.

By the way, do not miss this other recent article on homosexuality from Reasonable Faith.