Search the Community

Schools can win £30,000 grants if they hire and promote gay and transgender teachers thanks to 'profoundly misguided' schemeThe Leadership Equality and Diversity Fund provides help for minorities Schools can apply on basis on age, disability, gender reassignment or raceThe £900,000 fund opened this year, following a pilot scheme in 2014/15But schools have also used the fund to promote and train male staff Critics say the scheme promotes staff on basis of diversity, not skillOne MP has called for the 'absolutely nonsense' grant to be abolished http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3347994/Schools-win-30-000-grants-hire-promote-gay-transgender-teachers-thanks-profoundly-misguided-scheme.html

http://allamericanblogger.com/682/the-shadow-sexual-revolution-the-push-to-legalize-pedophilia/ There is no law against being a pedophile. You can legally have a sexual interest in children. It is the action of that interest that is illegal. But that is going to change. The Origins of the Pro-Pedophilia Movement The modern pro-pedophilia movement has its roots in the controversial work of Alfred Kinsey. Kinsey’s 1953 book Sexual Behavior in the Human Male has been a major resource for this movement. Kinsey collected data from pedophiles, including ex-Nazi commandant Dr. Fritz von Balluseck, who offered his victims a choice: rape or the gas chamber. With Dr. Balluseck’s “research,” and the information from other pedophiles, Kinsey charted the length and frequency of infants’ and children’s orgasms. He stated the children and infants reacted with “violent convulsions of the whole body; heavy breathing, groaning, sobbing, or more violent cries, sometimes with an abundance of tears (especially among the younger children).” That was how he measured their orgasms. According to Janice Shaw Crouse, Five of these infants and children were subjects for months or years, and it is reported that much of the “testing” occurred when they were either strapped or held down. There is no evidence that the institute followed up to see whether they were adversely affected as a result of this sexual abuse/experimentation. We do know that today many of the adult “subjects” refuse to discuss Kinsey’s research; some 50 years later, they don’t even want to talk about the horrific experience Kinsey concluded that children as young as two months old “derive definite sexual pleasure” from sexual stimulation and that children needed sex with each other, and with adults. From 1948 to 1972, pedophilia and homosexuality were both considered paraphilias by the American Psychiatric Association (APA.) A paraphilia is a term used to “describe a family of persistent, intense fantasies, aberrant urges, or behaviors involving sexual arousal to nonhuman objects, pain or humiliation experienced by oneself or one’s partner, children or other nonconsenting individuals or unsuitable partners.” In 1973, the APA removed homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the homosexual agenda exploded on the mainstream. Neatly tucked away inside that agenda was the sub-agenda to legalize pedophilia. The “1972 Gay Rights Platform in the United States” called for the “Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.” This platform was endorsed by liberal Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern, who sent a supportive telegram. There were other homosexual organizations, such as the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Rights Coalition and the Gay Alliance Towards Equality, that also opposed the age of consent laws. Their support of the cause would disappear in 1977. There were several events in 1977 which shined a spotlight on pedophilia. A Toronto newspaper for homosexuals, The Body Politic, printed a story titled “Men Loving Boys Loving Men.” That publication resulted in a raid of their offices. Also, weeks apart, Judianne Densen-Gerber, director of New York’s Odyssey House, a drug-addiction treatment facility and Anita Bryant of Save Our Children started separate campaigns attacking gays as child molesters and being involved in child pornography. And police in Revere, MA, raided a house where it was discovered that boys were given beer and marijuana by the men in the house, who encouraged them to lounge around with their shirts off. Eventually, the boys were encouraged to have sex with each other, and with the men in the house. The raid lead to 24 indictments and massive media coverage. One member of the media took exception to the raid. A now-defunct homosexual newspaper in the area, the Boston-based Fag Rag thought the raids were motivated by politics and decided to fight back. They formed the Boston-Boise committee, named because of a similar incident that happened in Boise in the 1950s. Their campaign was successful and the prosecuting District Attorney was not re-elected. The new DA said that no man should fear prison for having sex with a teenager. All charges were dropped. The Boston-Boise group would then spawn the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). It would quickly become a pariah. The Rise and Fall of NAMBLA In 1979, the conference that organized the first gay march on Washington included “Full rights for gay youth, including revision of the age of consent laws” as one of its five demands. A contingent of lesbians at the National Coordinating Committee squashed that demand and substituted one that read: “Protect Lesbian and Gay Youth from any laws which are used to discriminate against, oppress, and/or harass them in their homes, schools, job and social environments.” It appears these women did not want to be associated with the pro-pedophilia movement. In 1980, another lesbian group called the Lesbian Caucus – Lesbian & Gay Pride March Committee urged women to separate themselves from the New York City Gay Pride March. They felt it was dominated by NAMBLA and NAMBLA supporters. A year later the Cornell University gay organization Gay PAC (Gay People At Cornell) rescinded an invitation to David Thorstad, founder of NAMBLA. He was to be the keynote speaker at the annual May Gay Festival. From then on, gay rights groups would take every opportunity they had to block NAMBLA from participating in gay pride parades. This motivated a leading gay rights figure, Harry Hay, to wear a sign saying “NAMBLA Walks With Me” in the 1986 gay pride march in Los Angeles. Because of the attacks they had received, labeling them as child molesters and of recruiting teenagers to a life of homosexuality, gay rights groups distanced themselves from NAMBLA and ended the radical inclusive attitude of the early years of the movement. Support for NAMBLA disappeared. However, one homosexual rights group still allowed NAMBLA as a member, and it would cost them a powerful position. In 1993 the United Nations conferred consultive status to the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA). The ILGA included NAMBLA in its membership. As early as 1993, the ILGA wanted all its members to treat all sexual minorities with respect. It wrote, “The recognition of pedophiles as a distinct ‘sexual minority’ is a key demand of advocates of adult-child sex. By making claims as a ‘minority,’ pederasts can essentially follow in the footsteps of homosexual activists and demand legal and societal changes to guarantee their rights.’ The UN appointment did not go over well in the United States. Senator Jesse Helms drafted legislation withholding $119 million in UN contributions until then President Bill Clinton could certify that “no UN agency grants official status, accreditation, or recognition to any organization which promotes, condones or seeks the legalization of pedophilia, that is, the sexual abuse of children.” No senator opposed the bill and Clinton signed it into law in April 1994. Even though the ILGA adopted a resolution that stated “young people have the right to sexual and social self determination,” they still voted to remove NAMBLA from the organization. The ILGA claimed the move was because it was decided that NAMBLA’s “predominant aim is to support or promote pedophilia.” How they missed that position before is unknown and unbelievable. The UN reversed its decision to grant the ILGA consultive status, and has refused to grant it to them since. NAMBLA continued to take a beating in the 1990s. In 1994, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) said it “Deplores the North American Man Boy Love Association’s goals.” Also in ’94, the Board of Directors of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force stated that: NGLTF condemns the organizational goals of NAMBLA.” NAMBLA was involved in a number of civil and criminal cases through the 1990s and early 2000s, the most controversial being Curley v. NAMBLA. In 2000, the parents of Jeffrey Curley, Robert and Barbara Curley, sued NAMBLA over the death of their son. Salvatore Sicari and Charlie Jaynes took Jeffery to the Boston Public Library where the two men accessed the NAMBLA website. Jaynes later tried to sexually assault Jeffery, who fought back. For his efforts, he was gagged with a gasoline soaked rag and later killed. Jaynes then sexually assaulted the boy’s dead body. According to the lawsuit: Jaynes and Sicari “stalked Jeffrey Curley… and tortured, murdered and mutilated [his] body on or about October 1, 1997. Upon information and belief immediately prior to said acts Charles Jaynes accessed NAMBLA’s website at the Boston Public Library.” According to police, Jaynes had eight issues of a NAMBLA publication in his home at the time of his arrest. The lawsuit further alleges that “NAMBLA serves as a conduit for an underground network of pedophiles in the United States who use their NAMBLA association and contacts therein and the Internet to obtain child pornography and promote pedophile activity.” The ACLU defended NAMBLA in this case, winning a dismissal “based on the specific legal issue that NAMBLA is organized as an association, not a corporation.” A wrongful death suit remains against some individual NAMBLA members and the NAMBLA Steering Committee members. The ACLU is assisting the defendants in this case as well. The media exposure of NAMBLA’s goals and activities has been enough to do the association in. Today, I am unaware of any gay rights group that supports or condones NAMBLA or its goals. NAMBLA is today considered non-existent, composed only of a few members who maintain the website and publish a newsletter. The movement to normalize and legalize pedophilia, however, continues. Third Party Advocates In 1977, Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote “Sex Bias in the U.S. Code” for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. In it, Ginsberg advocated lowering the age of consent from 16 to 12. She writes: “Eliminate the phrase “carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of 16 years” and substitute a federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense. … A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person. … [and] the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.” She was an attorney for the ACLU at the time and later appointed to the Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton. She remains on the Supreme Court today. In 1981 a study was done at the University of Utrecht, Netherlands by the co-director of the research program of the Department of Gay and Lesbian Studies. For the study, Dr. Theo Sandfort interviewed 25 boys ages 10-16 currently involved in sexual relationships with adult men. He interviewed them in the men’s homes and concluded that “For virtually all the boys…the sexual contact was experienced positively…” In 1982, the American Civil Liberties Union took a case to the Supreme Court to legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography. In New York v. Ferber, the ACLU fought to make the sale and distribution of child porn was safe under the First Amendment. They made the same case later to the U.S. Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography: As legislative counsel for the ACLU in 1985, Barry Lynn told the U.S. Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography (of which Focus on the Family President Dr. James C. Dobson was a member) that child pornography was protected by the First Amendment. While production of child porn could be prevented by law, he argued, its distribution could not be. A few years later (1988), Lynn told the Senate Judiciary Committee that even requiring porn producers to maintain records of their performers’ ages was impermissible. “If there is no federal record-keeping requirement for the people portrayed in Road and Track or Star Wars,†he said, “there can be no such requirement for Hustler or Debbie Does Dallas.†The Journal on Homosexuality published “Male Intergenerational Intimacy: Historical, Socio-Psychological and Legal Perspective” in 1990. In its forward, Gunter Schimdt, Professor of Sex Research at the University of Hamburg in Germany details: “successful pedophile relationships which help and encourage the child, even though the child often agrees to sex while really seeking comfort and affection. These are often emotionally deprived, deeply lonely, socially isolated children who seek, as it were, a refuge in an adult’s love and for whom, because of their misery, see it as a stroke of luck to have found such an ‘enormously nurturant relationship’.” Schimdt also wrote about how the legal prohibition of pedophilia was uncivilized: It looks as though children who are not emotionally deprived are, so to speak, “immune” to the advances of an adult seeking sexual contact. Each individual case must be looked upon on its own merits and, for this reason the threat to make all pedophile acts punishable by law can barely be labeled civilized; on the contrary, it is unjust, for it implies the discrimination and persecution of a minority and should be abolished. Richard Gardner, M.D., published “True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse.” In it, he asserted that America’s attitude toward sexual encounters with children were out of step with the rest of the world. He claimed the Bible was responsible for the American view of pedophilia and said, “…of all the ancient peoples it may very well be that the Jews were the only ones who were punitive towards pedophiles.” In a July 1998 issue of the American Psychological Association’s Psychological Bulletin featured an article by authors Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch and Robert Bauserman titled: “A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples.” In the article, the authors goal was “…to address the question: In the population of persons with a history of CSA [child sexual abuse], does this experience cause intense psychological harm on a widespread basis for both genders?” They concluded that “the negative effects (of child sexual abuse) were neither pervasive nor typically intense and that men reacted much less negatively than women.” It caused a firestorm of criticism in the mainstream. Dr. Laura Schlessinger attacked the article in March of 1999 as a mainstream effort to normalize pedophilia. In typical swift fashion, a year after the article was published it was unanimously condemned in the Congress. The article was accused of sample bias, due to “excluding victims so traumatized that they did not go on to attend college.” The authors were also accused of bias. In the 1990 article from the Journal of Homosexuality mentioned above, co-author Robert Bauserman asserted that the ideology that labels all boys as “victims” and all adult pedophiles as “perpetrators” was wrong. He also complained that objective research was impossible because of the social climate that condemns man-boy sexual relationships. Bruce Rind asserted that the terms “victims, survivors, offenders, and perpetrators were scientifically invalid.” In their report, they actually use themselves as a reference to support these assertions. Stephanie J. Dallum authored an argument denouncing the study titled: “Science or Propaganda? An examination of Rind, Tromovitch & Bauserman (1998).” She concluded: After a careful examination of the evidence, it is concluded that Rind et al. can best be described as an advocacy article that inappropriately uses science in an attempt to legitimize its findings. In 1999, Harris Mirkin wrote an article in the Journal of Homosexuality titled “The Patterns of Sexual Politics: Feminism, Homosexuality and Pedophilia.” His position is that pedophilia is a “culture and class specific creation” and it can and should be made legal. He compares the fight for legalization of pedophilia to the civil rights effort of the Black community. Mirkin writes that if the legalization of pedophilia is to succeed, the discussion has to move past moral issues to the rights of children to enjoy sex. This shift would push the focus from “never allowed” to “when is this allowed.” This, he supposes, would be the gateway to legalization. An article simply titled “Pedophilia” was featured in the Journal of American Medical Association in 2002. Peter J. Fagen, Ph.D., et al., made the assertion that pedophilia is just another sexual orientation: During psychosexual development, no one decides whether to be attracted to women, men, girls or boys. Rather, individuals discover the types of persons they are sexually attracted to, i.e., their sexual orientation. Dr. Fred Berlin of the John Hopkins Department of Psychiatry supports that position. In an article that appeared in Behavioral Health Management, Douglas Edwards cites Berlin, stating that Berlin rejects the idea that pedophilia is a conscious choice, but rather a life-long sexual orientation. Judith Levine published Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex in 2002. The book featured a forward by former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders. Levine writes, “Pedophiles are not generally violent, if there is such a thing as pedophiles at all. More important, sexual contact with a child does not a pedophile make.” Jan LaRue, chief council for Concerned Women of America and Mary Eberstadt, research fellow at the Hoover Institute, pointed out that Levine’s assertions were based solely on pro-pedophilia sources, like the NAMBLA Bulletin. The Los Angeles Times gave Levine an award for her book. There are other instances where pedophilia is minimized, tolerated and ignored. The State of California passed a bill dubbed the Pedophilia Protection Act, removing the requirements of mandatory reporters. This was in reaction to the discovery of Planned Parenthood treating children as young as six for sexually transmitted diseases, yet not reporting it. It seems in California, the protection of Planned Parenthood takes precedent over the protection of children from abuse. Hyper-atheist Richard Dawkins asserted that if a Catholic priest were to sexually abuse a child, the abuse would do less damage than if the priest taught him the Bible. In a short essay for The Dubliner, Dawkins wrote: Regarding the accusations of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, deplorable and disgusting as those abuses are, they are not so harmful to the children as the grievous mental harm in bringing up the child Catholic in the first place. Dawkins has allowed his hatred of religion to blind him to the damage of pedophilia. This does little to hurt religion, but plenty for the effort to legalize pedophilia. Hungary was considering allowing children as young as 14 to be in porn, since they had already lowered the age of consent to that age. There was an outrage from the conservative members of Hungary’s government. As of today, the change hasn’t happened. The current movement to legalize and normalize pedophilia may seem unrealistic to some. I have yet to have someone agree with me when I claim that it will be legal in the next 25-30 years. But there are many, as I have detailed here, who see pedophiles as an oppressed minority. They see the road to freedom as being the same road homosexuals marched down. The first step would be the removal of pedophilia as a mental illness, a move the APA has already considered. Then, using the research of Kinsey and others mentioned above, the move would be made to abolish the age of consent. With the seeming support of science, this could be possible and it would effectively legalize pedophilia. With the legal burden lifted, the effort would then shift to normalization and acceptance. This is done by pedophiles casting themselves as a minority, a victim of a culture that rejects them. March after march makes the sight of a fifty year old man giving a six year old boy a deep tongue kiss nothing more than a sign of America’s tolerance, regardless of who gets hurt. There are some things we should not tolerate. The legalization and normalization of pedophilia is one of those things.

http://www.mofopolitics.com/2013/07/05/christian-arrested-in-uk-for-calling-homosexuality-a-sin/

http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=11517 Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals. Critics of the homosexual lifestyle have long claimed that once it became acceptable to identify homosexuality as simply an “alternative lifestyle” or sexual orientation, logically nothing would be off limits. “Gay” advocates have taken offense at such a position insisting this would never happen. However, psychiatrists are now beginning to advocate redefining pedophilia in the same way homosexuality was redefined several years ago. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. A group of psychiatrists with B4U-Act recently held a symposium proposing a new definition of pedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders of the APA. B4U-Act calls pedophiles “minor-attracted people.” The organization’s website states its purpose is to, “help mental health professionals learn more about attraction to minors and to consider the effects of stereotyping, stigma and fear.” In 1998 The APA issued a report claiming “that the ‘negative potential’ of adult sex with children was ‘overstated’ and that ‘the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from childhood sexual abuse experiences.” Pedophilia has already been granted protected status by the Federal Government. The Matthew Shephard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act lists “sexual orientation” as a protected class; however, it does not define the term. Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation;” however, the amendment was defeated by Democrats. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fl) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law. “This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.” The White House praised the bill saying, “At root, this isn’t just about our laws; this is about who we are as a people. This is about whether we value one another – whether we embrace our differences rather than allowing them to become a source of animus.” Earlier this year two psychologists in Canada declared that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality or heterosexuality. Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal, told members of Parliament, “Pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offense from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality.” He went on to say, “True pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation. He may, however, remain abstinent.” When asked if he should be comparing pedophiles to homosexuals, Van Gijseghem replied, “If, for instance, you were living in a society where heterosexuality is proscribed or prohibited and you were told that you had to get therapy to change your sexual orientation, you would probably say that that is slightly crazy. In other words, you would not accept that at all. I use this analogy to say that, yes indeed, pedophiles do not change their sexual orientation.” Dr. Quinsey, professor emeritus of psychology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, agreed with Van Gijseghem. Quinsey said pedophiles’ sexual interests prefer children and, “There is no evidence that this sort of preference can be changed through treatment or through anything else.” In July, 2010 Harvard health Publications said, “Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.” Linda Harvey, of Mission America, said the push for pedophiles to have equal rights will become more and more common as LGBT groups continue to assert themselves. “It’s all part of a plan to introduce sex to children at younger and younger ages; to convince them that normal friendship is actually a sexual attraction.” Milton Diamond, a University of Hawaii professor and director of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society, stated that child pornography could be beneficial to society because, “Potential sex offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex against children.” Diamond is a distinguished lecturer for the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco. The IASHS openly advocated for the repeal of the Revolutionary war ban on homosexuals serving in the military. The IASHS lists, on its website, a list of “basic sexual rights” that includes “the right to engage in sexual acts or activities of any kind whatsoever, providing they do not involve nonconsensual acts, violence, constraint, coercion or fraud.” Another right is to, “be free of persecution, condemnation, discrimination, or societal intervention in private sexual behavior” and “the freedom of any sexual thought, fantasy or desire.” The organization also says that no one should be “disadvantaged because of age.” Sex offender laws protecting children have been challenged in several states including California, Georgia and Iowa. Sex offenders claim the laws prohibiting them from living near schools or parks are unfair because it penalizes them for life.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/06/us/rabbi-takes-a-stand-for-gay-marriage-and-a-segment-of-the-congregation-rebels.html LOS ANGELES — Sinai Temple is a Conservative Jewish congregation perched on a hill in Westwood, famous for its wealth, its sizable population of Persians, many of whom fled Iran after the fall of the shah, and a well-known and outspoken rabbi who has at times pushed his congregation on ideologically adventurous paths. So it was that three weeks before the Supreme Court cleared the way for same-sex marriage in California, the rabbi, David Wolpe, announced in a letter to the synagogue that gay marriages would be performed in this 107-year-old congregation, as soon as the court ruling he anticipated was handed down. Celebrating same-sex marriages is hardly a new stand for Conservative Jewish congregations. But the decision in this distinctive synagogue has set off a storm of protests in recent days, particularly from Persian Jews, reflecting not only the unusual makeup of the congregation but also the generational and cultural divisions among some Jews over how to respond to changing civil views of homosexuality. “To officiate a union that is expressly not for the same godly purpose of procreation and to call such a relationship ‘sanctified’ is unacceptable to a sound mind,” M. Michael Naim, an architect, said in an open letter to other Iranian members of the congregation. “Homosexuality is explicitly condemned in Scripture and has been categorically and passionately rejected by all classical Jewish legal and ethical thinkers as a cardinal vice in the same category as incest, murder and idolatry.” This is not the first time that Rabbi Wolpe, 54, has attracted national attention for the views he has pressed on his congregation. In one noted sermon, he expressed doubt about one of the great stories of Jewish life, the exodus of Jews from Egypt into the wilderness. The synagogue is an anchor of the Los Angeles Jewish community, and Rabbi Wolpe himself is such an entrenched figure there that there seems little chance that its existence, or his tenure, is endangered. Still, the argument within the congregation offered a striking contrast to the images of gay couples across this state rushing to be married, reflected in smiling faces in newspapers and on evening television. Mr. Naim said he was leaving the congregation. Rabbi Wolpe said that 10 families had told him so far that they intended to either leave the synagogue or withdraw their children from its school, to protest a policy they denounced as a violation of Jewish teachings and the traditions they had brought here when they fled the Iranian revolution of 1979. Rabbi Wolpe said that based on letters he had received, and comments voiced to him as he walked the aisles of the sprawling, sunny sanctuary on Wilshire Boulevard during Saturday morning service, close to half of the congregation of 2,000 families, which is about half Persian, was unhappy with the new policy. “The Persian community is pretty heavily weighted against the idea of same-sex marriage,” Rabbi Wolpe said. “And there are some non-Persians who also oppose it, and have made their convictions clear to me.” “I’ve been wanting to do this for a long time,” Rabbi Wolpe said. “I was doing it on my internal timetable in the synagogue, which was to try to bring people along slowly because I knew this would be very difficult for many people. I think it’s the most controversial thing I’ve ever done or will do.” The decision by Rabbi Wolpe, who has been at this synagogue for 15 years and is one of the country’s best known rabbis, was very much in accordance with other Conservative congregations. Conservative Judaism is perched between the more liberal Reform and Reconstructionist movements, which have long accepted gay clergy members, and the Orthodox, which rejects it. Some Conservative congregations have gay rabbis and cantors. But the announcement and its aftermath served as a reminder of one of the things that distinguish Sinai Temple and nearby Beverly Hills: a heavy and at times insular presence of Persians, as many call themselves, and many of them are fiercely protective of their past and religious beliefs. At Saturday services last week, the roll call of deceased members read off during the memorial conclusion of the service, in preparation for the chanting of the mourners’ Kaddish, was rich with Persian names, a notable addition to the usual roster of names like Abramowitz and Schwartz. And the girl who read from the Torah to observe her bat mitzvah was the daughter of Persian immigrants. The resistance Rabbi Wolpe is finding among Persian Jews is, like much of the country, generational. Rabbi Ed Feinstein of Valley Beth Shalom in Encino, which also has a significant Persian population, said that he has long performed same-sex ceremonies, without any pushback. “In my experience, it’s all about generations,” Rabbi Feinstein said in an e-mail. “First-generation Persian Jews, immigrants who were raised in the Moslem culture of Iran, have very strong prejudices against gays and lesbians, along with other strong feelings about matters such as women’s roles in families and society, families’ control over the lives of kids, roles of husbands and wives, etc. Second-generation American Persian Jews, raised in the U.S. and generally college educated, have very different opinions.” And the decision has backing among some Persian members of Sinai. “There are some people who are not yet ready to accept nontraditional views,” said Dora Kadisha, a member of the congregation. “But we cannot look the other way knowing that within our community we do have gays and lesbians. We have to embrace them not only in the families but in our congregations.” Her father, Parviz Nazarian, one of the best-known members of the Persian community in Los Angeles, also said he supported the new policy. “Many people are following Rabbi Wolpe,” he said. “They are with him.” Rabbi Wolpe said that while he looked forward to conducting same-sex marriages, he would continue to refuse to perform interfaith weddings, again reflecting the policy of the Conservative movement. In laying the groundwork for the new policy over the past months, Rabbi Wolpe led a series of classes and workshops. “This is an important and fraught topic — people have very passionate feelings about it,” he said, opening the final one of the meetings. Moments later, the rabbi was challenged by a young Persian man asking why the synagogue should not simply refer to gay marriage as “a sodomy contract.” The rabbi’s letter to the congregation argued that Jewish law not only permitted such unions, but also should embrace them. “Our clergy believe that this decision is in the best tradition of the Conservative movement which views the Torah as a living document that allows room for new understandings and approaches,” it said. “As we have modernized the role of women and many other practices, the demand on the part of our brothers and sisters who are gay to be able to live in a sanctified relationship is a call to our conscience and our responsibility as Jews.” Laurie L. Levenson, a law professor and a member of the congregation, said that she believed most of the congregation supported Rabbi Wolpe. “It is a big congregation with people from many backgrounds,” she said. “Marriage equality is a new concept for some of the Persian families. There is an educational process that needs to take place. Thankfully, Rabbi Wolpe has so much credibility that he can pull this off.”

SEATTLE, WA, July 4, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A street preacher was repeatedly punched in the head and kicked by two men at Seattle’s Pridefest this past Sunday – and the entire confrontation was caught on camera. In disturbing video footage uploaded on Youtube and reported by Seattle’s KOMO news, two Christian street preachers can be seen standing on a grassy area. One of the preachers holds a sign that says “Jesus saves and heals,” and “Repent or else,” while the other holds a Bible. At the beginning of the video a large man approaches the two preachers angrily, while another woman repeatedly shoves the man carrying the Bible and demands that the two men leave. The situation continues to heat up, until at one point a number of people attempt to snatch the sign away from the sign-wielding preacher. When one man succeeds, a melee ensues in which the angry man seen at the beginning of the video runs at and punches the preacher in the head several times while another kicks him repeatedly. Others attempted to break up the fight. Police arrested 36-year-old Jason Queree, who is suspected of being the main attacker. Queree reportedly has a long history of arrests and convictions for a wide variety of criminal behavior. A second suspect was also arrested. WARNING: The video is full of profanity and shows disturbing violence. Viewer discretion advised. The extreme violence commences at 2:35 into the video. Will not put the video on this site -- but it is on the link at the bottom of the page if you choose to watch it. The incident is reminiscent of an episode that took place at last year's Toronto Pride Parade, also caught on video, where a street preacher was surrounded by a mob of angry pride marchers. However, in that case the police took the side of the pride participants, telling the street preacher, "You're promoting hate." The police ultimately compelled David Lynn and his team from Christ’s Forgiveness Ministries to leave the area and stop preaching. The Seattle attack is another example in an increasing string of violence by homosexual activists. Last August, it was only thanks to the heroic actions of a security guard at the Family Research Council that a gay activist intent on killing employees at the organization was stopped in his deadly assault. This past January a group of Brazilian Catholics who gathered to march through the streets of Curitiba in the state of Parana to protest abortion and homosexual ideology were harassed, spat upon, and physically assaulted by a mob. In April the head of the Catholic Church in Belgium, Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard, remained calmly seated with eyes closed in prayer as four topless lesbian activists attacked him with shouts and curses and doused him with water. Last April, a group calling itself “Angry Queers” claimed responsibility for throwing baseball-sized rocks through nine church windows in Portland’s Mars Hill Church, known for its traditional marriage stance. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/seattle-gay-pride-marchers-viciously-beat-christian-street-preacher-video

VATICAN CITY, July 2, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In an interview with LifeSiteNews.com, Papal Theologian Rev. Wojciech Giertych, spoke of the need to treat persons with homosexual inclination with dignity, adding that dignity means telling them the truth. What truth? “Homosexuality is against human nature.” And what is needed is to “pastorally help such people to return to an emotional and moral integrity.” Appointed in 2005 by Pope Benedict XVI, it is Fr. Giertych’s job - Theologian of the Papal Household - to review the texts given to the Pope for his speeches for theological accuracy. LifeSiteNews was granted access into the papal palace wherein Fr. Giertych has his apartment for the interview. Asked about the problem of homosexuality, gay ‘marriage’ and their incursion on relgious freedom, Fr. Giertych noted “this is not an issue which is reacting against the Church’s teaching – this is a fundamental anthropological change.” It is, he said, “a distortion of humanity which is being proposed as an ideology, which is being supported, financed, promoted by those who are powerful in the world in many, many, countries simultaneously.” “The Church,” he added, “is the only institution in the world which has the courage to stand up to this ideology.” He continued, noting that the increasing role of the state in society has resulted in a substantial lowering of ethical standards: “Now, what we are observing in many countries world-wide, certainly in the 20 th and the 21 st century, there is an enormous extension of the responsibility of States. Now, the more the State is encroaching on the economy, on family life, on education – the State is saying that only the State has the monopoly to decide about these things. The more the State is omnipotent, the more the ethical standards are lowered, because it’s impossible to promote high ethical standards by the State." The 61-year-old of Polish background said, “I’ve seen the Communist ideology, which seemed to be so powerful, and it’s gone! Ideologies come and go, and they have the idea of changing humanity, of changing human nature. Human nature cannot be changed; it can be distorted. But the elevation of perversion to the level of a fundamental value that has to be nurtured and nourished and promoted – this is absolutely sick.” “The Church, standing up to this ideology which we are seeing now in the Western world, the Church is saying something very normal and humane, which corresponds to the understanding of humanity, which humanity has had for millennia, long before Christ, long before the appearance of Christianity,” he said. “So it’s not a question of the Church fighting the ideology, it’s a question of the distortion of humanity, and the Church standing up in defence of human dignity.” Speaking of practicing homosexuals Fr. Giertych said, “of course they have to be treated with dignity, everybody has to be treated with dignity, even sinners have to be treated with dignity, but the best way of treating people with dignity is to tell them the truth.” “And if we escape from the truth we’re not treating them with dignity,” he added. The papal theologian drew an analogy to smoking saying that helping people stop smoking is not denying their dignity. He said: "Homosexuality is against human nature. Now, there are many things that people do that are unnatural – smoking cigarettes is also unnatural. You can live with the addiction to tobacco, you can die of it, but there are people who are addicted to tobacco, yet they live and we meet with them and we deal with them and we don’t deny their dignity. So certainly people with the homosexual difficulty have to be respected … And so the important thing is how to pastorally help such people to return to an emotional and moral integrity." Fr. Geirtych noted that for many there is a lessened culpability for falling into a homosexual lifestyle due to hardships endured. Homosexual activity is also tied to the contraceptive culture, Geirtych explained: "...we began talking about contraception, and homosexuality is tied with it because since contraception destroys the quality of relationships amongst the spouses, and it generates sexual license outside marriage, and it reduces sexuality to an easy source of pleasure with no responsibility, that pleasure without responsibility is never satisfying, and it generates like a drug. It generates a hunger for even more pleasure, which is even more not truly satisfying, not giving ultimate happiness, and so there is a search for more perverted types of sexual pleasure, which can never fulfill the human person." The Pope’s theologian also explained the distinction between the words “homosexual” and “gay” and the danger to someone who identifies themselves as being “gay”. "…in the American language you have a distinction between the word ‘homosexual’ and ‘gay’. A homosexual is a person who has, to some extent, this homosexual condition. Somebody may have this difficulty, and his friends, his neighbors will not know about this. He’s dealing with this in cooperation with the grace of God and may come out of this difficulty and come back to normal human relationships. Sometimes adolescents, at the moment when their sexual sensibility is appearing, if they have been distorted by others they go through a phase of difficulty in this field. But as they mature they will grow out of it. Whereas a ‘gay’ is somebody who says, ‘I am like this, I will be like this, I want to be treated like this, and I want special privileges because I am like this.’ Now if somebody is not only homosexual, but a gay, declaring, ‘This is how I am, and I want this to be respected legally, socially and so on’ – such a person will never come out of the difficulty." He also spoke of the danger of identifying with the homosexual condition as if it was the “supreme expression of the identity of the individual” which would deprive the individual of healing and happiness. The papal theologian concluded noting the Christ is both the model for a healthy humanity and the source of healing for distortions of humanity. “Christ shows us a humanity which is supremely transformed from within by the divinity, “ he said. “Now, we have access to the grace of God through our faith, through the sacraments, and, by living out the grace of God, that grace of God heals whatever distortions we may have, whatever difficulties we may have, on the condition that we initiate, we commence the pilgrimage, we start the journey of living out our lives with the grace of God.”

ROME, July 5, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In his first encyclical letter, released this morning, Pope Francis has reiterated that marriage is a union of one man and one woman for the procreation and nurturing of children. This lifelong pledge is possible only in the light of a greater plan for marriage, he said: “Promising love for ever is possible when we perceive a plan bigger than our own ideas and undertakings, a plan which sustains us and enables us to surrender our future entirely to the one we love.” Titled Lumen Fidei (The Light of Faith), the encyclical is known to have been authored mainly by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, who was still working on it at the time of his abdication and it strongly reflects the theological style of Francis’ predecessor. In his introduction, Pope Francis wrote that he merely “added a few contributions of my own.” Section 52, on Faith and the Family, calls the family the “first setting in which faith enlightens the human city.” “I think first and foremost of the stable union of man and woman in marriage," he said. "This union is born of their love, as a sign and presence of God’s own love, and of the acknowledgment and acceptance of the goodness of sexual differentiation, whereby spouses can become one flesh (cf. Gen 2:24) and are enabled to give birth to a new life, a manifestation of the Creator’s goodness, wisdom and loving plan. “Grounded in this love, a man and a woman can promise each other mutual love in a gesture which engages their entire lives and mirrors many features of faith. Faith also helps us to grasp in all its depth and richness the begetting of children, as a sign of the love of the Creator who entrusts us with the mystery of a new person.” Anthony Ozimic, communications manager for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children told LifeSiteNews.com today, “The Pope is linking being pro-life with having a correct understanding of the true nature of marriage. His words will be of great assistance to pro-life organisations who are fighting homosexual ‘marriage’. We know that the homosexual attack on marriage is an attack on the family, which is the best protector of children, both born and unborn.” Ozimic said that although the section of the encyclical on the subject was short, only a few paragraphs, it is a “significant” aid in the struggle against the global efforts by the homosexualist lobby to dismantle legal definitions of marriage. “The message from Pope Francis in his first encyclical is that the life-bearing potential of heterosexuality is the prerequisite of marriage,” Ozimic said. The letter has made clear that “the type of love required for marriage” is not that promoted by the modern media or the sexual revolution, “of sexual desire and personal satisfaction, but a complementarity between the sexes leading to total mutual self-giving and thus openness to the responsibility of parenthood”. Paragraph 53 says, “In the family, faith accompanies every age of life, beginning with childhood: children learn to trust in the love of their parents. “This is why it is so important that within their families parents encourage shared expressions of faith which can help children gradually to mature in their own faith.” http://www.lifesitenews.com/marriage-one-man-and-one-woman-for-nurturing-children-pope-francis-first-en.html

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/28/conservatives-brace-for-themarriage-revolution/ Conservative Christians say their churches have been unprepared for cultural shifts on same-sex marriage. June 28th, 2013 06:19 PM ET Conservatives brace for `marriage revolution' By Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor (CNN) – With its ivy-covered entrance and Teddy Bear bouquets, Arlene’s Flowers seems an unlikely spot to trigger a culture-war skirmish. Until recently, the Richland, Washington, shop was better known for its artistic arrangements than its stance on same-sex marriage. But in March, Barronelle Stutzman, the shop’s 68-year-old proprietress, refused to provide wedding flowers for a longtime customer who was marrying his partner. Washington state legalized same-sex marriage in December. An ardent evangelical, Stutzman said she agonized over the decision but couldn’t support a wedding that her faith forbids. “I was not discriminating at all,” she said. “I never told him he couldn’t get married. I gave him recommendations for other flower shops.” Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson disagreed, and filed a consumer protection lawsuit against Arlene’s Flowers. The ACLU also sued on behalf of the customer, Robert Ingersoll, who has said Stutzman’s refusal “really hurt, because it was someone I knew.” Among conservative Christians, Stutzman has become a byword - part cautionary tale and part cause celebre. Websites call her a freedom fighter. Tributes fill Arlene’s Facebook page. Donations to her legal defense fund pour in from as far away as Texas and Arkansas. “For some reason, her case has made a lot of people of faith worry,” said Stutzman’s lawyer, Dale Schowengerdt of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group. Those anxieties have only increased, conservative Christians say, since the Supreme Court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act and opened the door to gay marriage in California. Taking a line from Justice Antonin Scalia's sharp dissent, Southern Baptist scholar Albert Mohler said it’s only a matter of time "before the other shoe drops" – and the high court legalizes same-sex marriage from coast to coast. “Christians will have to think hard — and fast — about these issues and our proper response,” Mohler wrote on Wednesday. “We will have to learn an entire new set of missional skills as we seek to remain faithful to Christ in this fast-changing culture.” His fellow Southern Baptist Russell Moore put the matter more succinctly. “Same-sex marriage is coming to your community.” `The debate is over' Well before the Supreme Court’s rulings, many conservative Christians said they saw the writing - or the poll numbers - on the wall. Survey after survey shows increasing support for same-sex marriage, especially among young Americans. That includes many religious believers. Most Catholics and mainline Protestants, not to mention many Jews, support same-sex relationships, according to surveys. The bells of Washington National Cathedral pealed in celebration on Thursday. Even among those who oppose gay marriage, many think it’s a losing battle. Seventy percent of white evangelicals believe that legal recognition for gay nuptials is inevitable, according to a June poll by the Pew Research Center, though just 22 percent favor it. “The gay marriage debate is over,” said Jonathan Merritt, an evangelical writer on faith and culture. “Statistically, all the numbers move in one direction.” Young Christians have grown up in a far more diverse culture than their forebears, Merritt noted, and many have befriended gays and lesbians. Pew found that more than 90 percent of Americans overall personally know someone who is gay or lesbian, a 30 percent increase since 1993. “It’s far easier to wage war against an agenda than it is to battle a friend,” Merritt said. At the same time, many conservative young Christians say they’re weary of the culture wars, and of seeing their communities labeled “judgmental.” When Christian researchers at the Barna Group asked Americans aged 16-29 what words best describe Christianity, the top response was “anti-homosexual.” That was true of more than 90 percent of non-Christians and 80 percent of churchgoers, according to Barna. Tired of being told the country is slouching toward Gomorrah, many young Christians have simply tuned out the angry prophets of earlier generations, evangelical leaders say. “The shrill angry voices of retrenchment are no longer getting a broad hearing either in the culture at large or in the evangelical community,” Merritt said. But the battle over same-sex marriage is far from over, said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage. “I don’t believe most Christians are going to give up the fight,” said Brown, who is Catholic. He said his movement includes many young evangelical and Orthodox Christians. “And they are more energized than ever.” Love thy gay neighbors Energized or not, conservative Christians must prepare for the moral dilemmas posed by the country’s growing acceptance of same-sex marriage, said Moore, the new president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. “Is Your Church Ready for the Marriage Revolution?” Moore asked, while promoting a special session on homosexuality at the Southern Baptist Convention’s annual meeting in Houston in June. Many evangelical pastors have seen homosexuality as a distant culture-war battle that’s fought far from the doors of the churches, Moore said. Now, it’s as close as their front pews. “I think it’s not so much that churches haven’t wanted to talk about it,” he said, “but they haven’t recognized how much the culture has changed around them.” The first step, said Moore, is learning to defend traditional marriage without demonizing gays and lesbians. Walking through Washington’s Union Station last Thursday, Moore said he saw several lesbian couples kissing in celebration of the Supreme Court rulings. “If we can’t empathize with what’s going on in their hearts and minds, we’re not going to be able to love and respect them.” Then come a host of secondary questions: How should conservative pastors minister to same-sex couples? Should Christians attend same-sex weddings? Should florists like Barronelle Stutzman's agree to work with gay couples? `Don't give in' In the 17 years she’s owned Arlene’s Flowers, Stutzman said, she’s worked with a number of gay colleagues. “It really didn’t matter if they were gay, or blue or green, if they were creative and could do the job,” she said. Stutzman suspects that some of her eight children privately don’t agree with her on homosexuality, even as they publicly support her decision. Online, Stutzman has been called a bigot, and worse. She said she’s lost at least two weddings because of her refusal to provide services for the same-sex marriage. Conservative activists say her case is the first of what will surely be many more, as gay marriage spreads across the country. As she gets ready to face a judge, the silver-haired florist offered some advice for fellow evangelicals. “Don’t give in. If you have to go down for Christ, what better person to go down for?” Wow ... we really are Sodom.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/30/lady-gaga-amends-national-anthem-land-free-and-hom/ Lady Gaga sang the national anthem at Pier 26 to kick off New York City’s gay pride celebration Friday night, changing some of its words to fit the occasion, The Blaze first reported. Holding a rainbow flag, the performer sang, “O say does that star-spangled flag of pride yet wave,” then substituted “land of the free, and the home for the gay.” On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a federal provision that denied benefits to legally married same-sex couples and, in a separate case, cleared the way for California to resume offering marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Lady Gaga posted a photo of herself in a wedding gown to her Twitter account Wednesday. “We stand tall today.#DomaStruckDown So many fought for so long. Be proud, the prejudice are now the minority,” the singer tweeted.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/26/IRS-could-revoke-non-profit-for-religious-institutions Based on Wednesday’s Supreme Court ruling, in which the Court majority determined that the Defense of Marriage Act’s federal definition of marriage had to incorporate state-based same-sex marriages, Internal Revenue Service regulations could be modified to remove non-profit status for churches across the country. The DOMA decision makes clear that marriage is a state-to-state issue, meaning that religious institutions that receive non-profit status on the federal level but do not perform or accept same-sex marriages in states where it is legal could have non-profit status revoked. Furthermore, should the IRS move to revoke federal non-profit status for churches, synagogues and mosques that do not perform same-sex marriage more generally, the Court could easily justify that decision on the basis of “eradicating discrimination” in religious education. In 1983, the Supreme Court ruled in Bob Jones University v. United States that it was within the scope of the First Amendment’s protections for religion for the IRS to revoke the tax exempt status for the university based on its policy prohibiting interracial dating. The Court determined that the “Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education … which substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on [the university’s] exercise of their religious beliefs.” The Supreme Court is clearly leaning toward a similar move here. The Court stated in Romer v. Evans (1996) that states could not take measures to prevent future distinction of gays and lesbians as a protected class under state law; in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) the Court ruled that same-sex sexual activity was Constitutionally protected; in the DOMA case on Wednesday, the Court ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional not merely on federalism grounds, but because it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. On the state level, a movement is already under way to revoke non-profit status for religious organizations that do not abide by the same-sex marriage. In Massachusetts in 2006, Boston Catholic Charities withdrew from adoption services thanks to the state mandate on same-sex adoptions, rather than fight the issue in court. In California, a bill is already making its way through the legislature to bar non-profit status for any religious youth group that discriminates on the basis of “gender identity, race, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or religious affiliation.”

BRUSSELS, April 23, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In an astonshing display of gentleness in the face of a vile attack, the head of the Catholic Church in Belgium, Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard, remained calmly seated with eyes closed in prayer Tuesday as four topless women attacked him with shouts and curses and doused him with water. It’s not the first time the bishop has been attacked for standing up for the Church’s teachings on homosexuality and expressing his concern for those who live the homosexual lifestyle. The incident took place at the ULB University in Brussels where the archbishop was participating in a debate on blasphemy laws. The four women, representing the pro-abortion and homosexual group FEMEN, took to the stage where they disrobed to reveal black-painted slogans on their bare chests Continue Reading: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archbishop-prays-while-topless-gay-activists-shout-curses-and-douse-him-wit