Tag Archives: Political Correctness

News

American Library Association silent as libraries ban books about ex-gays

4 Comments

Fox News reports that libraries are banning books about ex-gays. (H/T Andrew, 4Simpsons)

Excerpt:

Visit most public school libraries and you’ll find an array of books that address the subject of homosexuality. Many include sexually explicit content, and some even include graphic images.

But if you’re looking for a book that refers to the possibility that homosexuality can be “reversed,” a Chicago-based group says your best bet is the banned books list.

Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) says there’s an entire community of people across the world who say that their sexual orientation changed from gay to straight. But they’re not getting their message out, the group says, because libraries across the country refuse to carry literature that describes these experiences or any studies that support them.

So a book like “My Genes Made Me Do It!: A Scientific Look at Sexual Orientation” — which argues that sexuality is shaped by a variety of factors, not just biological — can’t get a spot on the school library shelf.

Neither can “You Don’t Have to Be Gay,” which describes author Jeff Konrad’s struggle to overcome his unwanted same-sex attractions.

The American Library Association refused to do anything about the book banning. This is actually predictable behavior for them – they are a left-wing advocacy group. Diversity of thought is not a real strong area for those on the secular left. They just don’t want to hear anyone who disagrees with them. And that’s exactly what you see on the university campus, with all the speech codes.

To learn more about reparative therapy for homosexuality, check out the web site of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.

Commentary

Obama’s latest radical leftist nominee would curtail religious liberty

2 Comments

Check out this post from Laura at Pursuing Holiness. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

Ms. Feldblum explains that she does feel empathy when the rights of religious people are subordinated to that of LGBT people*, but it must, and will, happen. She intends to make it happen.

[…]In example after example she advocates for the right of LGBT people to make religious people conduct business in a way that they feel violates their core principles. It’s a touchy issue. I was happy to build websites for gay clients when it was for restaurants, real estate, and other businesses that had nothing to do with sex – but when asked to submit a quote to build a gay dating site, I referred the caller to another developer who was glad to bid for the project. Shall the law side with Ms. Feldblum’s dignity or with my religious freedom?

[…]So to sum up, the cure for her deep, intangible hurt is not to go freely associate with other people, but to force others to do what she wants… this is how she will rule when appointed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

She’s done a lot of digging, and cites extensively from Chai Feldblum’s work, so I recommend clicking through and having a look. This is important, especially for those of us who live and breathe apologetics. If nominees like Jones, Jennings and Feldblum are appointed, it is very likely the ability to carry out an authentic Christian life in the public square will be be curtailed. Including apologetics.

This happens all the time in Canada, where people like Chai Feldblum are running the show:

My previous post on Obama’s nominee for safe-school czar is here, and another post about the FRC’s opposition to him. And the Obama administration is backing limitations on free speech at the United Nations. These are serious issues and if they are ignored, we will be facing the same situations you can see in Canada today.

Share

News

Obama administration backs restrictions on free speech at the United Nations

1 Comment

Story from the Weekly Standard. (H/T Confederate Yankee via ECM)

Excerpt:

The Obama administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression. The newly-minted American policy was rolled out at the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council, which ended in Geneva on Friday.

[…]In introducing the resolution on Thursday, October 1–adopted by consensus the following day–the ranking U.S. diplomat, Chargé d’Affaires Douglas Griffiths, crowed:

“The United States is very pleased to present this joint project with Egypt. This initiative is a manifestation of the Obama administration’s commitment to multilateral engagement throughout the United Nations and of our genuine desire to seek and build cooperation based upon mutual interest and mutual respect in pursuit of our shared common principles of tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

His Egyptian counterpart, Ambassador Hisham Badr, was equally pleased–for all the wrong reasons. He praised the development by telling the Council that “freedom of expression . . . has been sometimes misused,” insisting on limits consistent with the “true nature of this right” and demanding that the “the media must . . . conduct . . . itself in a professional and ethical manner.”

[…]Pakistan’s Ambassador Zamir Akram, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, made it clear that they understand the resolution and its protection against religious stereotyping as allowing free speech to be trumped by anything that defames or negatively stereotypes religion. The idea of protecting the human rights “of religions” instead of individuals is a favorite of those countries that do not protect free speech and which use religion–as defined by government–to curtail it.

Speaking as a Christian who values religious liberty, I would not use the power of the state to silence the free speech of people who “offend” me by disagreeing with me. That’s fine with me. In any case, these “human rights” laws are almost never used to defend the free speech of Christians. The fact that Egypt and Pakistan approve of Obama’s plan doesn’t fill me with confidence about who is likely to benefit.

Now might be a good time to review how restrictions on free speech worked out in Canada, where offended Muslims sue news publications and news magazines for citing the actual words of radical Imams or publishing the Mohammed cartoons.

Share