Right Wing Leftovers - 2/26/14

  • A federal judge has declared Texas' ban on gay marriage unconstitutional.
  • Craig James, with the help of Liberty Institute, is suing Fox Sports for supposedly firing him for anti-gay statements that he made.
  • In a move that will surprise nobody, "Coach" Dave Daubenmire claims that he has been the victim of character assassination.
  • The National Organization for Marriage has endorsed the Coalition of African American Pastors call for the impeachment of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, which is not surprising since CAAP is basically a NOM front group.
  • A new "feature-length documentary revealing the truth about the cover-ups and the abuses of power at the Internal Revenue Service ... features interviews with Mike Huckabee, Glenn Beck, Ted Cruz, Michele Bachmann, David Barton, Grover Norquist, Louie Gohmert, John Linder, Carla Howell, Brian Brown and many more."
  • Finally, try not to laugh: Todd Starnes has receive the NRB Board of Directors Award, which "honors a Christian who demonstrates integrity, displays creativity, and makes a significant impact on society."

Georgia Governor Defends Confederate Flag License Plate: Part Of 'Cultural Heritage Of Our State'

Last week, Georgia approved a specialty license plate proposed by the Sons of Confederate Veterans, which features a confederate flag.

Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal, who had previously dodged questions about the plate, told Atlanta’s Channel 11 today that he wasn’t “concerned about” the plate and that “hopefully those who take offense at it will look at the fact that it is part of a cultural heritage of our state.”

When asked by 11Alive's Paul Crawley if he thought the plate should be changed and if it might hurt Georgia's image, Deal said, 'I don't think so, I mean it is one of many specialty plates that we have that are supportive of a variety of organizations and causes, so I don't think that it is something that we should be so concerned about. Hopefully those who take offense at it will look at the fact that it is a part of a cultural  heritage of our state.'

Sons of Confederate Veterans has a history of racism and has claimed “there is no difference between the invasion of France by Hitler and the invasion of the Southern states by Lincoln.”
 

Jeffress: 'Godless Immoral Infidels Who Hate God' Are Taking Over America

Southern Baptist pastor Robert Jeffress warned today that churches that don’t embrace right-wing politics are going to “surrender the control and the direction of this country to the godless, immoral infidels who hate God.”

He made the remarks at a National Religious Broadcasters convention press conference that also featured Family Research Council president Tony Perkins and pastor Rafael Cruz, the father of Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. During the press conference, Paul Stanley of the Christian Post asked Jeffress about pastor John MacArthur, a conservative megachurch pastor who at times has criticized the Religious Right.

Jeffress responded that MacArthur’s views would have silenced pastors protesting Nazism: “It’s that kind of thinking among German pastors that allowed for the Holocaust. I would ask anybody who would use that reasoning: ‘Then you would’ve stayed quiet while Adolf Hitler was slaughtering the Jewish people, six million of them?’”

Jeffress also predicted that soon all same-sex marriage bans will fall and as a result, the government will implement “hate speech” laws that would take away the free speech rights of gay rights opponents and put people in jail.

Vander Plaats: Gay Rights Advocates 'Throw Stones' Because of Satan

Anti-gay activist Bob Vander Plaats said today that gay rights activists are “always going to throw stones” because Satan “wants to discourage” conservative Christians.

The Family Leader head made the comments in an interview with American Family Radio at the National Religious Broadcasters convention today.

“The opposition is always going to throw stones, and that’s they’re way of discouraging,” he said. “I mean, Satan’s ways are not new under the sun, he wants to discourage, he wants to disappoint.”

Deace And Peroutka Compare Gay Marriage to Bank Robbery, Urge Kentuckians to Ignore Marriage Equality Ruling

Religious Right talk show host Steve Deace has been on a tear recently about Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s lack of response to a federal judge’s ruling striking down his state’s ban on marriage equality, and brought Michael Peroutka of the Institute on the Constitution on to his program today to discuss the issue further.

The two started off with talking about “freedom to discriminate” bill such as the one being considered in Arizona.

“Would Jesus bake a cake for homosexuals wanting to get quote-unquote ‘married’?” Deace asked. “I don’t know, would Jesus drive the getaway car for bank robbers in Christian love, just to be Christ-like, of course, to be relevant, to be hip?”

He continued: “Would Jesus find all the cool places for you to go download porn so you can pleasure yourself while your wife’s not awake? Would Jesus find all the cool lies for you to share with your girlfriend so she can mislead her husband about who she’s doing her time with and what she’s doing with that person? Would Jesus help you be your wingman and find a place to hide your wedding ring while you’re trolling for chicks at the bar when you’re away on a business trip?”

“The fact that there is even a debate shows that there is barely a heartbeat left in this culture,” he concluded. “This is a culture that’s circling the drain as we speak. And now we have an entire movement of people that thinks they get to undo all of Western civilization and rewrite the Constitution based on their definition of equality, which has never existed in human history until now.”

Peroutka agreed, saying “we’re in dangerous times” and blaming churches with 501(c)3 tax-exempt status for being “creatures of the state” and “intimidated out of actually preaching the whole counsel of God.”

Later in the program, discussing the Kentucky marriage decision, Peroutka said, “This whole debate is the reflection of our moral depravity, in that we’re even talking about whether such a perverse, sinful thing can be sanctioned and forced upon us, in this case, by the state. “

“This is such an outrageous situation, that we would be forced, that we would be coerced to declare that which is sinful and immoral – not only that we would declare it to be valid and right, but that we must participate in it,” he continued. “We’ve got to stick our nose in it and smell it and taste it, we’re going to be made to do that. But that’s the way evil is.”

At Deace’s urging, Peroutka went on to suggest that Sen. Paul move toward impeaching the judge who ruled for marriage equality in Kentucky, that he urge Kentuckians to simply ignore the ruling, and that he defund the federal court that made the decision.

Elected officials are our “protectors against those who would force these things on us tyrannically from above,” Peroutka said…which holds particular meaning since he just announced that he will be running for county council this year in his home of Anne Arundel County, Maryland.

 

Mississippi Anti-Gay 'Religious Freedom' Legislation Is Even 'Broader Than The Arizona Bill'

UPDATE: The Mississippi Business Journal reports: “The Mississippi House of Representatives Civil Subcommittee late Wednesday voted to strike provisions of a so-called ‘religious freedom’ bill.”

The Mississippi state legislature may soon approve its own anti-gay “right-to-discriminate” bill, which already passed the State Senate as part of legislation that adds “In God We Trust” to the state seal.

The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty criticized a similar bill in Georgia that the group warned would turn religion into “an automatic trump card.”

The Mississippi ACLU said the bill may even go farther than the legislation passed in Arizona: “We are worried that this bill is broader than the Arizona bill. The bill would allow the government finding of discrimination by defining ‘burden’ to include withholding government benefits.”

The ACLU reports:

Senate Bill 2681, the Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act, does not restore or expand religious freedom. It is simply a license to discriminate.

-In its current form, this law could allow people to argue that their religious beliefs exempt them from complying with laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, color, and national origin.

-This law would give private individuals and businesses a free pass to discriminate. This will allow businesses to deny basic services under the guise of religious freedom.

-This law would not protect against government funding of discrimination. By defining “burden” to include withholding of government benefits, religious organizations and individuals may use the statute to challenge exclusion from governmental programs. This could result in government funding of not only religious ends and activities, but also discrimination.

-This bill would do nothing more than allow the use of religion to discriminate and burden hardworking businesses with the threat of frivolous lawsuits.

Fischer: Opposition To Arizona's Legal Discrimination Law Is Jim Crow Discrimination Against Christians

On his radio program today, Bryan Fischer offered up another defense of the Arizona law that would allow businesses to legally discriminate against gay customers in the name of protecting "religious liberty," declaring that opposition to the law is itself an effort to institute Jim Crow laws that discriminate against Christians.

"Yeah, Jim Crow is back," Fischer said, "but it's because of the work of Big Gay and their allies, including the NFL."

Claiming that the NFL has threatened to move the Super Bowl from Arizona if Gov. Jan Brewer does not "bow the knee to the God of Gayness" and veto the legislation, Fischer asserted that the NFL is essentially trying to segregate Arizona from the rest of society.

"In other words, what the NFL is saying to Arizona [is that] if you don't bow the knee to the God of Gayness, you cannot sit at our lunch counter. Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is Jim Crow":

Arizona Tea Party Group Defends SB 1062: 'The First Amendment Protects Only The Practice Of The Christian Faith'

An Arizona-based Tea Party group is rallying around the state’s ‘right-to-discriminate’ legislation, SB 1062, by claiming that “the First Amendment protects only the practice of the Christian faith.”

The Williams Tea Party of Coconino County defended the anti-gay bill on its website, alleging that “the First Amendment protects only the practice of the Christian faith” and that the First Amendment “protects the right of those of the Christian faith to not serve those who are clearly abhorrent to that faith.”

The group also attacked a pastor who joined a protest against the bill, saying that the pastor must not have read the Bible.

The First Amendment protects only the practice of the Christian faith.

The Arizona Republic gathered the twenty, or so, protestors against S.B. 1062 close together for a photo to place on the front cover of their Thursday edition. The gathering together is an attempt to show that thousands of protestors came to their demonstration.

In the center of the photo they placed a guy who just happens to be able to afford the tab-collar clergy shirt with a sign about how religions should be against this legislation. I am not sure from which Internet “U” this person obtained his certification, but they certainly had no requirement to read the Bible.

The “columnists” at the Republic are in full swing typing out their indignation at the “discrimination.”

Of course, when you are dealing with a group of people who get their Constitutional training from the Salon and Russia Today web sites, it is difficult for them to understand that this legislation should never have been written. You see, there is already a law that protects the right of those of the Christian faith to not serve those who are clearly abhorrent to that faith.

It’s called the First Amendment.



The First Amendment was meant only to protect the Christian faith. When the founders spoke of religion, they meant the Christian religion. They did not have to keep saying the Christian religion because everyone knew that is what they were talking about.

Scott Lively Reacts to Uganda Bill Signing, Says It Won't Be Enforced Anyway

Scott Lively has been backtracking from his support for Uganda’s harsh new anti-gay law, telling the Associated Press that he would “rather the Ugandans had followed the Russian anti-propaganda model.” In a statement published on his website yesterday, Lively repeats his praise of Russia’s “gay propaganda ban” as a way to “avoid the moral degeneracy that has occurred in the U.S. and E.U. due to so-called ‘gay rights.’”

While Lively says the law’s punishments are too harsh, he applauds Uganda for “taking a strong stand against the homosexual abuse of children and the intentional spreading of AIDS through sodomy” and reassures detractors that he doesn’t think the law’s threat of life imprisonment for gays will actually be enforced.

While I respect the right of sovereign nations to legislate sexual morality according to their own cultural standards, I believe the Ugandan anti-homosexuality law takes the wrong approach in dealing with simple homosexuality (as opposed to pederasty and the other sub-categories of “aggravated homosexuality” in the bill).  As I said in my comments to the Ugandan Members of Parliament I addressed in March, 2009 before the AHB had been drafted, the focus of a government seeking to protect its people from the homosexual agenda should be on rehabilitation and prevention, not punishment.

I believe the Russian approach of banning homosexual propaganda to children as a preventive measure is a better model for other nations of the world looking avoid the moral degeneracy that has occurred in the U.S. and E.U. due to so-called “gay rights.”

That having been said, I commend Uganda for removing the death penalty in the final version of the law and for taking a strong stand against the homosexual abuse of children and the intentional spreading of AIDS through sodomy.  I urge the Ugandans to exercise mercy and compassion for homosexual strugglers in their enforcement of the new law and, on behalf of the pro-family movement in the U.S., stand ready to assist in any future effort to shift the emphasis of the law from punishment to rehabilitation and prevention.

As a final point I think it is important for people to recognize that the Ugandan law is typical of African criminal law across the continent. Poor countries with limited criminal justice systems tend to rely on the harshness of the letter of the law to be a deterrent to offenders. In practice, the sentencing is usually pretty lenient and I expect that will be the case under this new law as well.

No, The New IRS Rules Aren't Targeting Conservatives

Since the IRS proposed new regulations of political activity by 501(c)4 nonprofit groups, the Religious Right has been up in arms, claiming that President Obama wants to use the regulations to “silence the Christians,” “silence conservatives,” and “eliminate his enemies.”

The only problem with this claim is that the proposed regulations wouldn't actually target conservative groups – they would affect all 501(c)4 groups equally, including many progressive groups like People For the American Way. In fact, progressive groups have been split on the issue from the beginning, with some speaking out publicly against the proposed rules.

In a blog post today, the American Center For Law and Justice (ACLJ) freely admits this, announcing, “Thankfully, this time some groups on the Left are starting to see just how invasive and damaging to free speech (everyone’s free speech) this proposed rule would be.”

But in the very same blog post, ACLJ associate counsel Matthew Clark insists that “[t]he new rules are clearly an attempt to legitimize the targeting of conservative groups, giving color of law to the Obama Administration’s mission to silence conservative viewpoints in the social welfare arena.”

In fact, the ACLJ has a petition on its website claiming that the Obama administration wants to use the rules “to crack down on the free speech rights of conservatives.”

So which is it? Is the Obama administration using the proposed regulations to “silence conservative viewpoints” or would the rules affect “everyone’s free speech” equally?

This is beginning to sound a lot like the previous IRS “targeting scandal,” in which conservative groups claim they were politically targeted despite the fact that the program in question also affected plenty of progressive groups.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious