THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA:
A BARRIER TO EVANGELISM

Alliance Defense Fund
15333 NORTH PIMA ROAD SUITE 165
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85260
Phone: (480) 444-0020
Fax: (480) 444-0025
asears@alliancedefensefund.org

Copyright 2003 Alliance Defense Fund
www.alliancedefensefund.org
 

The Homosexual Agenda: A Barrier To Evangelism

 

This document was last updated August 2003.

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

INTRODUCTION

 

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

 

That famous quote, from George Orwell's masterpiece, Animal Farm, sums up the objectives of the homosexual activist movement in regards to the religious civil liberties of all Americans. Please let us explain.

 

Religious freedom is the most basic and inalienable of all human rights, without which all other rights are insignificant.

 

A key component to religious freedom is the ability to not only express one's faith internally, but through outward expressions of faith as well. This is because humans think, act, and communicate in daily relationships with others. And perhaps the most outward expression of one's faith is the desire to share it with others.

 

This process of sharing one's faith with others also involves the need to illuminate sinful behavior and separation from God. As Christians, we know that there is only way that this can happen: through a relationship with Jesus Christ. And as Christians we are directed by Christ to share the Gospel: "I have been given all authority in heaven and earth. Therefore go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and then teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you; and be sure of this -- that I am with you always, even to the end of the world." -- Matthew 28:18-20.

 

Unfortunately, this most basic of all human rights is under attack daily in the United States and throughout the world. Each day, the door closes just a little bit more on the ability for Christians to share the Good News of Jesus Christ with their children, their families, and their friends. While there are many societal pressures trying to push this door closed, the most significant legal threat to religious freedom is the homosexual legal agenda.

 

The homosexual activist movement is driving an agenda that will severely limit the ability to live and practice the Gospel, whether it is in the boardroom, the classroom, halls of government, private organizations, and even in places of worship. In their relentless attempts to obtain special rights, that no other special interest group has, they are in the process of redefining the family, demanding not only "tolerance" (which really means intolerance of any viewpoint that does not accept or promote homosexual behavior) but "acceptance", and ultimately seeking to marginalize, censor, and punish those individuals who stand in the way of their multiple goals.

 

And who are the biggest obstacle in the paths of the homosexual activists. People of faith who are serious about their faith; particularly evangelicals, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox Jews.

 

1 George Orwell, Animal Farm, (White Plains, N.Y.: Longman Publishing Group, 1946).

 

At a recent homosexual youth conference, activists readily admitted "we know America was founded as a Christian nation, we are trying to get America away from that." 2

 

Homosexual behavior can either be seen as sinful or wrong by society, or it can be celebrated and affirmed. Who would have thought twenty-five years ago that elected officials in America would be jockeying for position to see who can be first in line at a parade celebrating homosexual behavior? 3 Or that prime-time television would feature so many homosexual characters that Michael Medved would remark, "A Martian gathering evidence about American society, simply by monitoring the television, would certainly assume that there were more gay people in America than there are evangelical Christians."4 Or that the Boy Scouts of America would be the target of economic and political attacks by homosexual activists, thus attacking traditional values while exalting deviant behavior? 5

 

Or that a homosexual "pastor" would tell the Church of Jesus Christ: "There has been a radical shift in the past 10 years. Attitudes towards gays and lesbians have changed in the workplace, schools, and other civic entities. For the church to continue to stall seems archaic and irrelevant." 6

 

And the celebration of homosexual behavior starts to have a trickle-down effect on American society as a whole. Alarming statistics are coming to the forefront which document the effect of this growing "tolerance" of homosexual behavior. A 1998 University of Iowa study showed how positive portrayals of homosexual behavior in the media have resulted in the increase of behavior among Americans. (Note: A recent poll found that 60% of Americans receive all of their information about homosexuality from the media).7 Using data from the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, the study showed that in 1988, 74.9 percent of respondents said that sex between two people of the same sex was always wrong. By 1998, that number had dropped to 54.6 percent. The number of women who said they had had a sexual encounter with another woman rose from 0.2 percent to 2.8 percent during the same time period, while the percentages for men having a sexual encounter with another man rose from 1.7 percent to 4.1 percent. 8 9

 

2 Fifth Annual Youth Conference for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning Young People, and Allies, “Breaking Walls, Building Bridges,” Columbia University School of Law, February 2-3, 2002.
3 Herbert Lowe and Nichola White, “Their Pride and Joy: Gays Celebrate Cause,” Newsday, June 26, 2000.
4 Kim Campbell, “Gays on Prime Time: From ‘Will and Grace’ to ‘ER’: Gay Themes and Characters Change the Television Landscape,” The Christian Science Monitor, April 6, 2001.
5 Michael Betsch, “Scouts Targeted by Homosexuals in Nationwide Protest,” CNSNews.com., August 23, 2001.
6 Don Lattin, “Changing Times: Protestant Church Doors Starting to Open for Gay Clergy,” San Francisco Chronicle, August 5, 2001.
7 Source: Wirthlin Worldwide, January 2002.
8 “Iowa Study Suggests Tolerance of Homosexuals is Growing,” Associated Press, March 23, 2001.
9 An example of how the promiscuity of those practicing homosexual behavior causes sexually transmitted diseases to spread rapidly amongst their population, the San Francisco Chronicle reported on October 26, 2001 that there is an increasing outbreak of syphilis among the homosexual population in the city. According to the article, the 93 men who have contracted syphilis reported having 1,225 sexual partners.

 

Amy Butler, a professor at the University of Iowa, elaborated: “Declining social, legal, and economic sanctions against same-gender sexual behavior in recent years and more positive images of gay men and women in the media may have made it easier for people to recognize their same-gender interest and act upon it.”10

 

Unlike other legal issues in the national dispute over religious liberty, there is no middle ground when it comes to homosexual behavior. It touches all areas: marriage, family, freedom of association, freedom of conscience, and ultimately religious freedom. As our society continues to move towards the affirmation and celebration of homosexual behavior, all of these areas are under severe attack.

 

And it's about the future of faith and morality in America.

 

No one is more aware of this conflict between traditional religious faith and homosexual behavior than the leadership of those advocating legal and social approval of homosexual behavior. The Associated Press reported the following after a 1999 meeting between then-President Clinton and homosexual elected officials:

 

"[the] officials also said that they want to see job discrimination based on sexual orientation to be made illegal and crimes based on sexual orientation to be categorized as hate crimes. They also expressed hope for seeing a balance struck between protections for religious liberty and civil rights." 11 (emphasis added)

 

The leader of the Human Rights Campaign, America's largest organization that advocates homosexual behavior said: “Diversity of religious beliefs should be respected as long as they don't influence public policy that should treat all people fairly.” 12

 

In the following pages, we will discuss how this “balance” ultimately leads to the trampling of religious freedom, especially the ability to share one’s faith with others.

 

In this clash of worldviews, radical activists believe one needs to be silenced for the other to win, that the “rights” of one group will trump the rights of another.

 

The words that George Orwell penned in 1945 will be true. It is our hope that you will see how the homosexual agenda is constructing a barrier to evangelism in America that will effectively result in the ce nsoring of the Good News of Jesus Christ. And that you will then prayerfully respond to this crisis as the Lord leads and enables, that you will not stay silent.

 

See Christopher Heredia, “Big Spike in Cases of Syphillis in S.F: Gay, Bisexual Men Affected Most,” San Francisco Chronicle, October 26, 2001.
10 Ibid.
11 “Clinton Meets with Gay, Lesbian Leaders,” Associated Press, July 28, 1999.
12 Joyce Howard Price, “State Erred in Firing Worker Opposing Gay Foster Parents,” The Washington Times, 22 July 2001.

 

SECTION ONE:
The Homosexual Legal Agenda and Religious Freedom

 

Before we can start to discuss how the homosexual legal agenda threatens religious freedom, we need to explain the elements that we believe make up both our personal and community religious freedoms. They include:

 

Our Personal Religious Freedoms:

 

How the Homosexual Agenda Threatens Personal Religious Rights

"If we do our jobs right, we will raise a whole generation of children who will reject the claims of the religious right." 14 -- James Anderson, Director of Communications for the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Educational Network (GLSEN).

 

"Children have to be taught hate. We want to teach them a different way. Don’t you think that you almost have to have an organized effort to do it? There would almost have to be some kind of club or organization at the school…because if you think about it, your parents are pretty well-separated." 15 -- Former president Bill Clinton at George Washington University.

 

The fundamental right to hold or not to hold a particular faith or to join a corresponding faith community includes the right of a parent to pass along his or her faith and values to their children.

 

Yet, millions of Christians each year drop their children off at their local public school and are totally unaware of the indoctrination their children are about to receive, urging them to reject their parents' beliefs and embrace acceptance of homosexual behavior.

 

Homosexual activists know that the best time to reach children is at the earliest ages. In fact, Christian researcher George Barna has found that the chance for an individual to accept Christ greatly diminishes after the age of 14. 16 This is one of the reasons why homosexual activists, the ACLU, and their allies try so hard to deny Christians their equal access rights to school property. If they are successful in limiting children’s exposure to the Gospel while feeding them a steady diet of homosexual indoctrination during these impressionable years, they are well on their way to victory.

 

At their private conferences, away from public scrutiny, homosexual activists readily acknowledge what they are trying to do. The quote mentioned above from James

 

13 This statement and section of ADF’s position borrows extensive articulation from various theological sources, including papers submitted to the Madrid Conference in 1980. We believe that these are well grounded in the history of God’s people, the teaching of Scripture, and natural law.
14 Justin Torres, “Conference ‘A New Moment’ in Homosexual Activism,” CNSNews.com., October 4, 1999.
15 Paul Bedard, “Clinton Urges School Diversity Training; Can’t Trust Parents to Teach Tolerance of Gays, Minorities, He Says,” The Washington Times, November 11, 1997, p. A1.
16 “Teens and Adults Have Little Chance of Accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior,” Barna Research Group, November 15, 1999.

 

Anderson lays out their strategy: to convince children to reject their parents' teaching towards homosexual behavior. The Washington Times reported that at the conference mentioned above at which then President Clinton spoke: "Much of the conference heard testimony that parents aren't doing their job teaching children to be tolerant and unbiased." 17 Thus not only a barrier to evangelism has been constructed, but children are "evangelized" into the acceptance of homosexual behavior and told to reject their parents' religious objections as "bigotry."

 

In addition, homosexual activists are not looking short term, but long term . Consider this statement from Deanna Duby of the National Education Association: “The fear of the religious right is that the schools of today will be the governments of tomorrow. And you know, they're right.”18

How is this indoctrination played out in the classroom? Quoting Debra Saunders in The Weekly Standard, let’s take a look at the San Francisco Unified School District:

 

"The San Francisco Unified School District has a lesson plan for teaching kindergartners and first-graders about homosexuality. It is called ‘My Family’ and is disseminated through the district’s Support Services for Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Youth Department…The lesson provides definitions that are politically correct -- and downright confusing to adults, never mind kids. Homosexuals are ‘people of the same-sex who have feelings for one another in a romantic way.’ A family is ‘a unit of two or more persons, related either by birth or by choice, who may or may not live together, who try to meet each other’s needs and share common goals and interests.’ The lesson inc udes class exercises designed to reinforce the notion that all families should be validated…presumably families with no dads, three dads, or a 14-year-old mom…This year, the Buena Vista School went way beyond ‘My Family.’ As it had in past years, the school invited gay parents into the classroom to talk to elementary students. In a first-grade class, a gay man read to the children the district-approved book, Gloria Goes to Gay Pride. But this year, students also worked on a rainbow banner for a gay pride parade, and they did so during class time. As a school missive explained, kindergartners ‘designed’ the red stripe, first-graders the ‘yellow’ and so on up to fifth grade…That Buena Vista’s proselytizing, forced on kids who aren’t old enough to think critically, might be the liberal equivalent of public school prayer doesn’t compute with them."19

 

GLSEN, working with lesbian activists and filmmakers Helen Cohen and Diana Chasnoff, has also imported into school districts a video entitled “It's Elementary” for schoolchildren to watch. This video openly promotes homosexual behavior and not only ridicules Christianity, but accuses Christians of persecuting homosexuals. Featured in the video is a fifth-grader who has been thoroughly indoctrinated stating:

 

17 Bedard, op.cit.
18 Torres, op.cit.
19 Debra Saunders, “Gay-Ed for Tots,” The Weekly Standard, August 19, 1996, p. 21.

 

"Some Christians believe that if you’re gay you go to hell, so they want to torture them and stuff." 20 If fifth-graders have been taught to believe this, then the comment by Deanna Duby that “the schools of today are the governments of tomorrow” is especially chilling for Christians.

 

If this example is not chilling enough, consider this one from “It’s Elementary.” A fourth-grade girl is asked to read to her classmates an essay about her lesbian parents. When she gets to the section about people who have biblical objections to homosexual behavior, she says that they “think stupidly.” 21 The then obviously homosexual teacher mentions that the essay won an award. Could you imagine calling an individual or a group of people “stupid” when you were in school and what the consequences would have been? However, this is the religious bigotry that is being instilled into impressionable children by radical homosexual activists.

 

In addition to this video, GLSEN has also conducted a workshop entitled, “Creating a Safe and Inclusive Environment in Public Schools,” in which the “rationale of integrating GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender) issues in the early elementary years will be presented.”22

 

At a recent gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender youth conference, targeting students between 12-17 years of age, partially funded by the New York City Department of Health, the following "workshops" were held (Warning: some of these titles are graphic):

 

Many other workshops dealt with organizing "Gay-Straight Alliances" in public schools, combating "homophobia", and punishing those who disagree with homosexual behavior.

 

And if parents choose to "opt-out" their children from the promotion of homosexual behavior, they face the scorn of homosexual activists and their allies. As one first-grade teacher put it: "If parents are allowed to have their children opt out of gay and lesbian units, what will happen when we teach about Dutch culture or African-American history? It scares me." 24

 

The result of this indoctrination is, as the homosexuals hoped, a whole generation growing up to reject any argument, including religious teachings, against homosexual behavior. A Zogby poll of U.S. high school seniors found that nearly two-thirds surveyed said homosexual marriages should be legal, 68 percent said gay couples should be allowed to adopt children, and 88 percent favored hate-crimes legislation.25

 

Taking this to its logical conclusion, the “acceptance” of homosexual behavior in elementary schools leads to the practice of such behavior in the high school years. As early as 1993, Newsweek reported on the success that homosexual activists had obtained in recruiting teenagers into homosexual behavior. In “Tune In, Come Out,” writer David Gelman wrote: “At high schools around the country, multiculturalism has begun to embrace multisexualism…more students seem to be coming out, and they’re coming out early…Some high schoolers are coming out homosexual, some bisexual…Teens’ eagerness to experiment has made bisexuality almost ‘cool’ in some schools. ‘Where I sit, it’s definitely become more chic,’ says George Hohagen, 20, a Midwestern market researcher not long out of high school himself. ‘It’s trendy to even ask the question, ‘Do you think I am.’” 26

 

20 Robert Knight, “A Gay-Ed Video for Schoolkids,” The Weekly Standard, April 7, 1997, p. 16.
21 “It’s Elementary,” Directed by Diana Chasnoff, Women’s Educational Media, San Francisco, CA, 1997.
22 Rob Dreher, “Banned in Boston: Better Not Complain About the Gay Agenda for Massachusetts Schools, The Weekly Standard, July 3-10, 2000.
23 5 th Annual Youth Conference for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Young People and their Allies, op.cit.
24 Knight, op.cit.
25 Christopher Michaud, “Survey: Students Hold Mostly Pro-Gay Views,” Reuters, August 27, 2001.
26 David Gelman, “Tune In, Come Out,” Newsweek, November 8, 1993, p. 70.

 

Denying the right to religious assistance...

 

Another personal freedom threatened by the homosexual agenda is “the freedom for an individual to receive religious assistance wherever they are, especially in the military, public health institutions, and in prisons.” This is a right that ADF has had to defend in numerous court battles. Here are some examples:

In Hennepin County, Minnesota, after an enactment of a homosexual “anti-bias” policy, an official wrote the following letter to the volunteer chaplains for the county jail. It said in part:

 

“A disturbing matter has come to my attention from several residents and staff of the women’s facility. Without going into detai , as I understand it, l an incident occurred in which volunteers told residents that homosexuality is a sin. While I will be talking personally to the Coordinator and volunteers involved, I want to make it clear to all of you that Hennepin County’s overall policy and practice with reference to issues of diversity…In two words, that policy is: Respect diversity. Whether d fferences are based on religion, national origin, race, i sexual orientation, disability…Hennepin County is committed to providing an environment which is respectful of differences and free of comments or actions which may be offensive. It is crucial that all volunteers, as well as paid staff, understand this requirement…I need to make it clear that in performing [volunteer service] you are required to abide by the County’s diversity policy…Those who, for reasons of conscience or otherwise, who don’t agree to this will be requested not to be involved in the volunteer program.” 27

 

Basically, the county forbade chaplains from telling inmates what the Bible teaches about sexual morality. This meant that a chaplain couldn’t tell an inmate whether his or her sexual behavior was a sin that Christ could forgive. If an inmate asked a chaplain, “Do you believe homosexual behavior is a sin?” the chaplain could not answer. He or she would be compelled to say, “I’m sorry, government policy prevents me from answering that question.”

And another barrier to evangelism had been constructed.

 

Freedom of Conscience and Association...

 

Another freedom that is under constant attack from homosexual activists is “the freedom from any form of coercion that violates one’s personal religious beliefs, receive an education, or forces one to join groups or associations that violate those beliefs.”27 In fact, it is this right that is most frequently under attack by homosexual activists.

 

In early 2000, the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship chapter at Tufts University in Massachusetts was banished from campus. Their offense? They refused to allow a practicing lesbian have a leadership position with the group. She appealed to the student Senate, which took away the chapter’s access to campus facilities and funding because they “violated” the school’s anti-discrimination clause, even though the group made it very clear that they believed that homosexual behavior violated their core biblical beliefs.

 

The chapter was first banished, and then after a backlash, put on probation, and finally was allowed to include adherence to biblical teachings as a qualification for leadership.28 Nevertheless, the leaders of the chapter were subjected to campus “tolerance” education, as described by Gregory Fung of the Intervarsity chapter:

“We did what they asked us to do. We went to their tolerance classes. You think the institutions that teach tolerance won’t turn around and bite you. But they do. We thought the people who taught all the classes would be tolerant. No way. They were determined to cure us of our intolerance.” 29

 

However, what happened at Tufts University is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the rights of Christians on college campuses. Steve Hayner, former president of Intervarsity, said:

 

“We have had more challenges to our basic right to exist on campus settings during the past two years than in the previous fifty-five combined. It’s not just us – this is hitting Catholics and Muslims and others. What we are seeing is a growing challenge to religious freedom period.” 30

Radical homosexual activists and their allies are attempting to force religious businesses, organizations, and churches to include or hire those involved in homosexual behavior, despite religious objections to such behavior. In addition, they want to force believers to receive so-called pro-homosexual “sensitivity” training that violates their faith.

 

In another Minnesota case, three members of the Department of Corrections were forced to attend a mandatory “diversity training” workshop entitled, “Gays and Lesbians in the Workplace.” When one of the employees e-mailed the warden and expressed his faith-based belief that homosexual behavior was a sin, and therefore attendance should not be mandatory, the warden fired back a memo to all staff demanding participation. The three employees in the case (all Christians) attended the session, as mandated, and quietly read their Bibles. (It should be noted that other employees were reading magazines, newspapers, sleeping, or talking with other employees during the “training” session.)

 

27 Letter from Marilyn Schoonover, Specialist/Volunteer Department to Chaplaincy Coordinators and Volunteer Members,” April 7, 1995.

28 Terry Mattingly, “Campus Christian Groups Find Themselves Under Attack,” Knoxville News-Sentinel, January 6, 2001, p. B2.
29 Ibid.
30 Ibid.

 

A month and a half after the session, the three Christian employees were singled out and given written reprimands for “inappropriate and unprofessional conduct” displayed during the training session. The reprimands specifically noted that their reading of [their Bibles] was “disrespectful and not acceptable.” The three believers were the only attendees to receive reprimands, and two of them were taken out of consideration for any future promotions.

 

With the help of an ADF-funded attorney, the plaintiffs filed a federal action stating that the department’s reprimand violated their rights to free speech, free exercise of religion, freedom of conscience, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The district court ruled in favor of the employees on their freedom of religious and freedom of conscience claims, but denied them.

 

Both sides appealed to the U.S. Appeals Court for the Eighth Circuit, which flipped the earlier decision on its head. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff’s free speech, equal protection, and Title VII rights, while denying their freedom of religion and conscience claims. The court included a disturbing note in its opinion, stating that “the only burden placed on the Appellants [the plaintiffs] was a requirement they attend a seventy-five minute training program on which they were exposed to widely-accepted views that they oppose on faith-based principles.”  

 

The good news is that the prison guards have now received a favorable ruling and been awarded over $70,000 in punitive damages.

One cannot discuss the threat of the homosexual agenda to this particular religious freedom right without discussing the cases of Hurley v. The Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Group of Boston (GLIB) and Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale.

 

In Hurley, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of the organizers of the Boston Veterans Parade to bar advocates of homosexual behavior who had sued to participate. This case had been lost repeatedly before it reached the highest court in the land. ADF became involved through the funding of the veteran’s attorney. In a 9-0 decision, the United States Supreme Court overruled the previous decisions in this case and said that the veterans had the right to bar the homosexual group from participating in the parade, affirming the freedom of association right for the veterans.

 

Hurley laid the groundwork for the decision in Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale in which the High Court affirmed the private association rights of the Boy Scouts to bar practicing homosexuals from being scoutmasters.

 

When many of us were growing up, the Boy Scouts of America were admired worldwide for teaching young men to be honest, trustworthy, good citizens, and perhaps most importantly, morally straight and reverent towards God. There can be no more vivid illustration of how far our country has fallen away from the principles instilled in young men by the Boy Scouts than the onslaught of attacks they have suffered at the hands of radical homosexual activists and their allies.

 

There is little need to document the campaign that has been carried by homosexual activists since the Dale decision to punish the Boy Scouts for exercising their constitutional rights. Media attacks have exceeded almost all acceptable limits, but perhaps the most egregious attack was written by columnist Mike Thomas in the September 4, 2000 edition of The Orlando Sentinel in regards to the relationship between the United Way and the Boy Scouts:

 

“If I were the United Way, and all the agencies that depend on it, I’d build a big pi e o wood with a po e stuck in the midd e o it. Then I’d tie the leaders of the Boy Scouts of America to the pole, using only the most secure half- hitches and square knots. Then I’d rub two sticks together and work on that campfire merit badge.” 31

 

Can you imagine the national coverage and outrage if someone from a pro-marriage/ family position or faith-based perspective made this comment about homosexual activists?

 

The Dale case, if decided differently, could have had chilling ramifications for the rights of private organizations, including religious organizations and possibly churches, to determine their own leaders and establish their own hiring practices. If the Scouts had lost the case, they would have been forced to violate their core beliefs and allow leaders who engage in homosexual behavior. Homosexual activists would have used this decision like a sledgehammer to knock down the doors of religious institutions to hire practicing homosexuals. By a one-vote margin (5-4), the Supreme Court overturned the New Jersey Supreme Court decision forcing the Boy Scouts to abide by anti-discrimination laws that included sexual orientation, and religious freedom was saved from an onslaught of attacks from homosexual activists.

 

But just because this case was won, we cannot breathe easily. There is another case winding its way through the courts which could have serious ramifications for private religious organizations.

 

Another sad example recently occurred in Santa Barbara County (California). The county board of supervisors voted 3-2 to condemn the Boy Scouts, finding them “incompatible” with the county’s “anti-discrimination policies” and “unsupportable by the County of Santa Barbara” The reason? The Boy Scouts believe that homosexual behavior is incompatible with the Scout Oath and those who practice such behavior should not be scoutmasters.

 

Who would have ever thought that honesty, good citizenship, and faith in God would be “unsupportable” by a county government?

31 Mike Thomas, “United Way Makes Giving Not Easy,” The Orlando Sentinel, September 4, 2000, p. D1.

 

The motion placed the Boy Scouts’ use of public facilities in serious jeopardy and residents of Santa Barbara formed the “Friends of the Boy Scouts.” With the assistance of NLA graduate and ADF volunteer attorney Lorraine Woodwark, they prepared an initiative for the local ballot to protect the Boy Scouts and other youth organizations from being denied access to county facilities. Two pro-homosexual groups, the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and the ACLU, openly admitted that the initiative was so well written that they had no legal arguments to use against it!

 

Knowing that their backs were against the wall, the county of Santa Barbara agreed that they would not discriminate against the Boy Scouts or any other youth group (including church groups) seeking to use its facilities. Because of this victory, the Friends of the Boy Scouts dropped the initiative effort.

 

Kentucky Baptist Homes (KBHC) is a religious organization that contracts with the state of Kentucky to provide a range of services for at-risk youth. They are the state’s largest private provider of child-care services and have a statewide network of shelters and care centers.

 

Alicia Pedreria worked as a therapist at KBHC. When she was hired for the position, she had agreed to the terms of employment that stated that KBHC had biblical objections to homosexual behavior. When Pedreria identified herself as an advocate of lesbian behavior, KBHC asked for her resignation since she was in violation of those terms. She refused and KBHC had no choice but to discharge her.

 

Pedreria, with the help of the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, then filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court that directly challenged the right of private religious organizations to determine their employment policies, citing that she had suffered “religious discrimination” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and that use of government funds by KBHC “violated” the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

 

The New York Times on April 1, 2001 referred to this case as “the most important gay rights case since Boy Scouts of America v. Dale.” 32 It is obvious that the ACLU and other radical groups know that this case could open up a Pandora’s Box of trouble for religious organizations. Why? Because a victory for Pedreria and the ACLU could conceivably force religious organizations that contract with the government to employ persons actually engaging in homosexual behavior.

 

On July 23, 2001, the U.S. District Court ruled that KBHC did not violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act when they terminated her employment. The court stated: “The civil rights statutes protect religious freedom, not personal lifestyle choices.”33 However, the judge did leave open the very important question of whether or not the acceptance of government funds by religious organizations violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This important issue will now proceed to trial. Bill Smithwick, the president of KBHC, says: “The final ruling on this issue will affect thousands of non- profits and faith-based organizations across the country.” 34

 

32 Eyal Press, “Faith-Based Furor,” New York Times Magazine, April 1, 2001, p. 62.
33 Mary Leonard, “Judge Sees No Bias in Firing of Lesbian,” The Boston Globe, July 25, 2001, p. A2.

 

This case also bears watching because of President Bush’s faith-based initiative program. On July 11, 2001 , The Washington Post attacked the Bush administration for exempting the Salvation Army from anti-discrimination laws (many of which include sexual orientation), if they accept funds from the President’s faith-based initiative. 35 A media and homosexual activist firestorm erupted leading the Bush administration to reverse its decision. Thus any Christian organization that chooses to participate may be forced to capitulate their beliefs of find themselves the targets of lawsuits from homosexual legal activist groups.

 

And another barrier to evangelism has been erected.

 

There are numerous other cases in which individual Christians and private religious organizations have either been forced to violate their beliefs regarding homosexual behavior or fight for their rights in court. Here are a few brief summaries of some of these cases:

34 Chris Poynter, “Baptist Homes’ Firing of Lesbian is Upheld,” Louisville Courier-Journal, July 25, 2001.
35 “Salvation Army Memo Cites Deal with Bush,” The Washington Post, July 11, 2001.
36 Seth Lewis, “Court Lets Homosexuals Sue for Access to Married Housing,” CNSNews.com., July 2,, 2001
37 Text of Complaint, Phillips v. Missouri.
38 “The Other Side of Tolerance: Victims of Homosexual Activism,” Family Research Council, 1997, p. 14.
39 Joyce Howard Price, “State Erred in Firing Worker Opposing Gay Foster Parents,” The Washington Times, July 22, 2001.
40 “Federal Judge Dismisses Suit vs. ‘Fairness’ Ordinance,” Associated Press, March 21, 2001.

 

How the Homosexual Agenda Threatens Community Religious Rights

 

The homosexual agenda poses a significant threat to the freedom of churches and Christian organizations have to pick their own leaders.

 

We have already cited the case of the Intervarsity chapter at Tufts University which was banished from campus because they refused to allow an open lesbian to hold a leadership position.

 

The right for churches and religious organizations to pick their own leaders was also at the heart of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (mentioned earlier). While the Boy Scouts of America are not a religious group, per se, they do have a code of morals that each Scout and Scout leader takes an oath to uphold in order to be a member. When the Boy Scouts were told by the New Jersey Supreme Court that they were a public accommodation, subject to the state’s anti-discrimination laws which included sexual orientation, and therefore would have to allow openly homosexual men to be scout leaders, it was a violation of the Scouts’ rights to determine their own leadership.

 

If this case had been lost at the Supreme Court level, the ramifications for churches and other religious organizations would have been widespread and damaging. Since almost all churches are open to the public, they could conceivably be called a public accommodation and be forced to accept leaders who violate their basic faith principles. The only alternative would be for churches to close their doors and refuse visitors, therefore making evangelism nearly impossible. In addition, a Christian organization like Focus on the Family, which receives thousands of visitors each year, or uses publicly financed football stadiums or convention centers for meetings, could also be ruled to be a public accommodation and be forced to hire those advocating and/or practicing homosexual behavior.

 

Another case that does not deal with the homosexual issue per se, but shows where those who want to impose their agenda on Christian groups is the case of Hsu v. Roslyn Union Free School District. In this case, local school officials attempted to deny a student Bible club access to the campus unless the club allowed individuals who did not believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior to be officers in the club! The Second Circuit Court of Appeals had to resolve the case – upholding the most basic concept that the group’s leaders must adhere to the faith of the group. Incredibly, the school refused to back down and unsuccessfully asked the U.S. Supreme Court twice to overturn this decision. You can see the possible linkage of this case to what occurred to the InterVarsity chapter at Tufts University who would not allow an open lesbian to be an officer.

 

Another potential danger sign on the horizon is the censorship of any religious speech that deals with the sinfulness of homosexual behavior. In Canada, religious broadcasters can no longer say anything negative about homosexual behavior, in fear of facing legal action from the Canadian Communications Commission. 41 In addition, one of the inherent dangers of “hate crime” laws is the possibility that any religious speech that casts homosexual behavior in a negative light could be deemed “hate speech” and churches would be vulnerable to possible prosecution. Therefore, the right of ministers and church leaders to communicate directly with their congregations could be greatly compromised. The result would not only be the silencing of the church, but also the inability for those trapped in homosexual behavior to hear about the redeeming love of Jesus Christ. Thus, another barrier to evangelism would be erected.

 

The autonomy of religious organizations in jeopardy...

 

The right for religious institutions to provide health care and education for religious training and theological studies, free of state interference, is also under attack.

In California, in particular, governments are attempting to force religious institutions to violate their religious beliefs or face penalties from loss of dollars, tax status, or closure.

 

Here are some examples of bills that have passed the California State Legislature and been signed by Governor Gray Davis:

 

A brief side note: In addition, despite a nearly 2-1 popular vote in 2000 reaffirming that marriage is for one man and one woman, Governor Gray Davis signed into law a bill that gave “domestic partners” almost a dozen of the legal rights that only married couples enjoyed. 42 In addition, there were no exemptions for churches and religious organizations.  

 

It is quite obvious that the intent of these bills is to force religious institutions to compromise their beliefs, or be subject to governmental action through fines and denial of access, if they do not violate their beliefs in regard to the homosexual agenda.

The KBHC and Yeshiva University cases could have dire effects on the abilities of churches and religious organizations to have their own institutions without state interference. The Yeshiva University case, in particular, could have a profound effect on the ability of religious organizations to maintain the integrity of their places of learning.

 

Silencing the church...

 

The homosexual agenda also threatens the “freedom to proclaim and communicate the teachings of their faith, orally, or in writing, inside and outside the four church walls, and to express views concerning their moral viewpoint on human activities and society as a whole.” This attack manifests itself in the discrediting of any religious speech that deals with homosexual behavior as either “hate-filled,” “extremist,” or “non-relevant.

 

42 Jim Wasserman, “California Governor Signs Gay Rights Bill,” Associated Press, October 15, 2001.

 

In fact, it is the specific objective of homosexual activists to silence any religious viewpoint that does not affirm homosexual behavior. At a 1999 GLSEN conference, Cathy Renna of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force said: “One of the most important things you [homosexual activists] can do is have tough conversations with journalists about when it is completely inappropriate to run to some radical group like the Family Research Council because of misguided notions of ‘balance.’ We are now in a position to be ab e to say ‘We have the h gh ground we have the facts, and we don’t have to go one-on-one with these people.’ We’ve come a long way -- we’re the mainstream now.”

 

Granted, not all religious programming will be removed from the airwaves, but there is a subtle way to limit access to biblical arguments on moral issues. That is, as Ms. Renna suggests, to never consider them worthy of broadcast to begin with.

 

Ms. Renna’s statements have been echoed by other homosexual activists. At a meeting of homosexual journalists, the following comments were made:

 

But the ultimate statement in regards to the silencing of people of faith comes from the book After the Ball by Marshal Kirk and Hunter Madsen: " [In regards to those] who feel compelled to adhere rigidly to an authoritarian belief structure (i.e. an orthodox religion), that condemns homosexuality…our primary objective regarding die-hard homohaters of this sort is to cow and silence them." 47 Kirk and Madsen also outlined the media “battle plan” for “desensitization, jamming and conversion, [and victory]” to the homosexual activist cause. They advise, “it makes no difference that the ads portraying homosexuals as icons of normality are lies, not to us...not to bigots.” 48 According to Kirk and Madsen, favored techniques include portraying “gays as victims not as aggressive challengers,” as “victims of circumstance” and “victims of prejudice.”49 by “mak[ing] gays look good” and “victimizers look bad.” 50 In conclusion, the authors state, “We know exactly what we want...and will do whatever must be done to secure it.” 51

 

43 Justin Torres, “Conference ‘A New Moment’ in Homosexual Activism,” CNSNews.com., October 4, 1999.
44 “Family Activist Addressing ‘Gay’ Journalist Confab,” WorldNetDaily,com., September 7, 2001.
45 Ibid.
46 Ibid.
47 Marshal Kirk and Hunter Madsen, After the Ball, (New York N.Y.: Plume/Doubleday, 1990), p. 176.

 

In public school classrooms, students are shamed daily if they mention a religious objection to homosexual behavior. For example, Jonathan Dutil, a high school student in Barre, Vermont, stated his disagreement with his high school biology teacher that homosexuality is “genetic.” The teacher, a self-professed bisexual, immediately ridiculed and humiliated him before the entire class. She said to him: “What’s the matter, John? Are you unsure of your own sexuality? Did you know that the people who scream the loudest turn out to be gay themselves?” The students laughed at John. A few weeks later, in the course of discussing genealogy, the teacher once again digressed into a discussion of homosexual sex. John again asked what that discussion had to do with the topic of genealogy. The teacher again questioned John’s sexuality and implied that he might be covering up the fact that he was a homosexual. John stood up and denied this and stated that he had a girlfriend. Someone in the class suggested that the girlfriend might be a “cover-up.” In the months following the incident, John’s grades dropped from a 3.70 grade point average to 2.10. Ultimately this example of what occurs frequently in our public schools was resolved via negotiation and compromise by the parties prior to litigation.

 

One of the most pernicious methods to silence religious speech are so-called “speech codes” or “anti-harassment” policies. These codes effectively censor and punish any speech against homosexual behavior.

The State College (Pennsylvania) Area School District instituted a “speech code” policy in order to stop students from expressing negative views toward homosexual behavior.

 

48 Ibid.,p. 154.
49 Ibid., p. 183-4.
50 Ibid., p.187-9.
51 Ibid., p. 381.

 

When David Saxe, a professor at Penn State University, heard about this speech code, he realized the possible ramifications for his two children who were students in the school district. Saxe felt that Christians have the right and duty to share their beliefs with other students, including beliefs concerning sexual behavior.

If his children shared the Gospel or called homosexual behavior “disordered”, they could have been subjected to a range of disciplinary actions, from a “warning” to an expulsion, under the district’s “anti-harassment” policy. Another barrier to evangelism.

 

With the help of an ADF ally, Saxe challenged the constitutionality of the “speech code.” The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in his favor, stating that such “speech codes” “[strike at the very] heart of moral and political discourse -- the lifeblood of constitutional self-government [and democratic education] and the core concern of the First Amendment.”52

 

This leads us to the question: How far can this go? A look across international borders at real life, real world examples may help illustrate:

52 “U.S. Courts of Appeals Strikes Down Public School’s Hate Speech Code,” AFA Press Release, February 15, 2001.
53 Joanne Laucius, “Bible Had Role in Exposing Gays to Hatred,” The Ottawa Citizen, June 20, 2001.

 

 

The Gospel is Hindered ...

 

Christians are called to “love thy neighbor.” For the Christian, loving thy neighbor includes introducing them to their faith and saving grace of Jesus Christ. And what is the greatest obstacle to faith and a life in Jesus Christ? A person’s sinful nature. If a person cannot see, or be told, or allowed to hear or to read that their sin is blocking them from a relationship with God and keeping them from inheriting eternal life, then they will never be able to understand why Christ had to die for us and be resurrected and emerge victorious over sin. Therefore, the gospel is hindered and the tragic result is that many will die without ever having the chance to hear and respond to it.

 

54 Debra Fieguth, “Justices Affirm Ban on Homosexual Conduct at Christian University,” Christianity Today, July 9, 2001.
55 Patrick Goodenough, “UK Christian Group Challenged by Homosexuals Keeps Charity Status,” August 23, 2001.
56 “Dutch Will Not Prosecute Pope for Anti-Gay Remarks,” Reuters, July 18, 2000.

 

Thus, the homosexual agenda ultimately threatens the freedom to carry out evangelistic, charitable, and social activities in order to fulfill the Biblical mandate to love your neighbor and share the Good News with all.

 

Let’s take another look at the case of Greater St. Paul Church of God v. Hennepin County, Minn., (the chaplains’ case cited earlier). If prison chaplains, whose role it is to share Christ's love with those who are desperately in need of it, are told that they cannot state that certain behavior is sinful and in need of repentance, then the chaplain cannot truly love his neighbor because he cannot introduce him to Jesus Christ and help him or her to escape the destructiveness of the homosexual lifestyle.

 

Here is another example. The National Education Association, in league with the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Federation of Teachers, and the American School Health Association, among others, released a booklet entitled Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth, which effectively calls for the censoring of free speech rights of teachers and counselors who hold to biblical teachings on homosexual behavior and for wholehearted encouragement of such behavior. Here is an excerpt:

 

“Sexual orientation is one component of a person’s identity, which is made up of many other components, such as culture, ethnicity, gender, or personality traits…Someone does not have to be exclusively homosexual or heterosexual, but can feel varying degrees of attraction for both genders…Many deeply religious people and a number of religious organizations are supportive and accepting of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people….A guidance counselor in a pub ic school may not attempt to l persuade a gay, lesbian, or bisexual of the religious belief of some that homosexuality is a sin, or otherwise seek to impose a negative religious view on being gay, lesbian, or bisexual on the student…School officials should also be deeply concerned about the validity and bias of materials or presentations that promote a change to a person’s sexual orientation as a ‘cure’ or suggest that being gay, lesbian, or bisexual is unhealthy.”57

 

Therefore, according to the National Education Association and their allies, Christians and other people of faith can not only not share their religious views about homosexual behavior but also cannot provide another side of the picture by talking to children about those who have been able to overcome homosexual behavior.

 

Instead, children learn that only “intolerant” religious do not embrace homosexual behavior, and that once you are entrapped in it, there is no escape. Thus, the gospel is silenced, parental values are undermined, and an impressionable child is doomed to a lifestyle that will ultimately lead to his or her self-destruction and eternal separation from God. 57

 

“Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators, and School Personnel,” endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics; American Counseling Association; American Association of School Administrators; American Federation of Teachers; American Psychological Association; American School Health Association; Interfaith Alliance Foundation; National Association of School Psychologists; National Association of Social Workers; and National Education Association, pp. 3, 8, 9.