Fascistically "Promoting homosexuality to students": Intentionally offending Christians (Catholics, Orthodox,...), Muslims, Orthodox Jews, and others...

This happened in Hartford Public High School, Connecticut, to unsuspecting boys and girls literally forced to attend (When I was a boy, I would not have and no power on Earth could have made me):

The Courant describes what happened when the actors [homosexuals] kissed. "There were screams and loud voices. . . . Dozens of students, mostly male . . . hurried out of their rows and walked out. A few jumped over seats to leave."

Johnson reports a slew of phone calls from angry parents following the performance. He wasn't bothered, though.

via WORLDmag.com | Promoting homosexuality to students.

In high school sex ed, they show videos. I don't know it, but I wouldn't be a bit surprised if some homosexual sex-ed teacher has already shown homosexual XXX-rated porn to high school boys and girls.

What I'm sure doesn't happen is a frank discussion about the higher incidences of cancer due to anal sex or the other problems such as hemorrhoids for one.

The fact is, penises do not belong in anuses. That stupid school principal doesn't care.

I can't tell you how glad I am that I don't have young sons or grandsons being taught homosexual lies in public schools.

Homosexuality is definitely a choice. No one has to do it. No one should do it, ever. It's a filthy, disgusting habit done for selfish, lustful reasons and often the result of sexual, physical, mental abuse and literal brain damage. It is also always harmful to one degree or another and in multiple ways.

Also, Jesus condemned it. It wasn't lawful. It wasn't marriage. He said so. The Church did not allow it anywhere. There was no council held on the subject. It's all a total new lie that the Churches allowed it or Jesus allowed it or allows those who do it and don't repent to enter into his Heaven.

Lastly, forcing religious and other students to attend homosexuality-promoting assemblies, etc., is a direct violation of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution against infringing upon the students' rights to exercise their given religion, which definitely includes NOT being forced to sit through homosexual indoctrination that runs exactly contrary to the various students' religious morals and practices. This goes way beyond students being taught what is called the scientific method and various theories on the origin and age of the cosmos and humanity, etc.

I'm surprised parents haven't forced this issue up to the Supreme Court as a Freedom of Religion issue. It should also not be viewed in a vacuum.

There are all sorts of extremely pro-homosexuality/biased anti-bullying laws and policies being put through where the sensitivities of homosexuals are being protected to an insane level while the religious can have their religious feelings repeatedly trampled upon. Where's the equal protection under the law? Where's the Free Exercise clause being upheld against inferred-at-best homosexual rights.

Frankly, I don't buy that so-called right. I don't see having homosex as a right at all, not when it's a choice, and it is, always. You can't choose your race or gender (the one you're born with) or age.

Freedom of religion was one of the main reasons people started moving to this continent from Europe. You can't "prove" matters of faith right or wrong to the satisfaction of everyone in this fallen generation, but you can prove homosex is harmful and can and should preach that it should not only not be celebrated, it shouldn't be promoted or condoned or even tolerated. I don't tolerate it. I don't coerce homosexuals, but I don't tolerate it. I would never allow it under my roof. I don't care if it would be my son doing it or not. He does that under my roof and I tell him to stop and he keeps doing it, he's in big trouble for choosing to be a heathen. That's just the way of it, and I don't care what anyone else thinks about it. I only care that they are misguided and that I wish they weren't.

Would I starve my son or anyone else who is a chosen sinner? No, but as Jesus said, it's not right to feed the children's food to the dogs. That son wouldn't get the real food, he'd be rejecting it and damning himself through no fault of mine.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.