- Feb 4, 2011
- Reaction score
Clemente said:Shut it down! A strong response! Kristallnacht!minasoliman said:I don't disagree, and in this particular example of him in Georgia, it is something that requires a strong response from us. But in the meantime, everything else you mentioned needs backing. You can't convict the person unless you are able to show the damage it is causing and what exactly he is doing.NicholasMyra said:Mina, I would contend that inner intent isn't that important at this stage. I mean if someone is causing a lot of damage, the first priority is to get it shut down, intention analysis can come after if at all.
Have you even watched the video? The whole video? He used the term "homofascist" a total of one time to describe legislative efforts on the part of the gay lobby to restrict religious freedom in California and in particular, Christian schools in California.
Although so far it hasn't passed, California Senate Bill 1146 would substantially interfere with the ability of faith-based colleges and universities to teach religion, hold chapel services, and maintain separate bathrooms based on sex. The provisions of the proposed bill represent a dramatic narrowing of religious freedom in California. http://www.opposesb1146.com
He is using the term "homofascist" to describe a well-organised LGBT lobby that is fighting to promulgate that agenda that would restrict freedom of religion. His speech to the World Congress on Families was very well received; this is the second time he has been invited to speak.
Now, I know there is a considerable contingent here at OC.net that is sympathetic to the homosexual lobby and would react at any public denunciation of their agenda. Orthodox priests like Father Trenham are always going to be their bête noire because he advocates a traditional Orthodox view of sex and marriage. However he says it, they are going to fulminate against him.
I don't agree with Father Trenham on everything and I am actually fine with legalised gay marriage. But I appreciate his perspective and he is right to use the term "homofascist" in this context to describe a well-organised lobby with a radical agenda that would circumscribe freedom.
And I would hope that more level-headed posters would actually consider the context of the comments before they start breaking glass.
Thank you very much for pointing out yet another attempted encroachment on not only on our religious freedom, but on educational freedom as well.
I posted an article sometime back about an Orthodox woman who was denied her graduate degree at the last moment because one lesbian who actively proselytized in the high school took offense when the grad student privately questioned her whether it was right to be promoting a clearly political sexual agenda in a school. The lesbian lobbied the university, gave the woman who had always had stellar grades and reviews a fail, and demanded she be removed from the program just prior to graduation. The grad student filed suit after investing a tremendous amount of money in her degree with a private "Christian" school who were all to happy to bend to the gay sex political agenda.
These types of these religious bigotry cases have been tried before the Supreme Court in US history and have not been upheld, but they also had a Supreme Court of a different type of mind:
The Gay Lobby is in company with the Ku Klux Klan with the Masons who made many assaults on Catholics, but actually took over the State government in the 1920s and attempted to enact laws that banned private schools outright. The nuns stood up to them and won:
I have no personal criticism or opinion of Fr. Josiah if that is the true topic of this thread.