Some parents, who charged that the Tippecanoe School for Arts and Humanities was promoting homosexuality, protested and kept their children at home that day.
What happens to children who do not conform to the rigid fixity of the androgynous mold? "Oh honey," I can just hear a teacher at a gender-neutral school saying to a girl, "you don't want to play with that doll. You only think you want to because you have been conditioned by the pressures of society. Here, play with this dump truck instead."
There remains one natural, final barrier to reaching the gender-free utopia: pregnancy. For all the gender-neutral stereotyping, the fact of pregnancy constantly reminds us of the one thing that the new social architects would like us to forget: that men and women are inescapably different, that men and women have different lived experiences.
The gender-neutralizers are not unaware of the problem that pregnancy poses.
"Christian morality comes from the mix of Bible, Christian tradition and our reasoned experience. Sometimes Christians have had to rethink the priorities of the Gospel in the light of experience.
"For example, before Wilberforce, Christians saw slavery as Biblical and part of the God-given ordering of creation.
"Similarly in South Africa the Dutch Reformed Church supported Apartheid because it was biblical and part of the God-given order of creation. No one now supports either slavery or Apartheid. The biblical texts have not changed. Our interpretation has."
Jesus never advocated the type of human-on-human coercive (involuntary, forced) slavery or ethnic or racial segregation referred to by Nicholas Holtam. Jesus's teachings always stood squarely against such things. How could anyone say that a Christian could enslave someone coercively that way while following the teachings of Jesus? Is such enslavement following the Second Great Commandment that Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, as taught and exemplified by Jesus Christ? It is not and never has been. That was known then. It is not some new understanding that came as a result of Wilberforce.
On the other hand, Jesus never condoned homosex but rather clearly defined marriage as exclusively between male and female.
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (Matthew 19:5)
Early true converts to Christianity always freed their slaves. They did not take up homosexuality at the same time or advocate for a loosening of the prohibition against homosex. There is zero history of the original, real Church ever allowing homosexuality within. The early Church convened over issues that dealt directly with changes from the Mosaic Law, such as over the issue of Gentile circumcision. Nowhere is the subject of allowing homosexuality to be likewise found. The idea would not have even been considered. Nicholas Holtam's reasoning is plainly confused. He is mixed up and leading others astray.
All Nicholas Holtam has managed to do is look at those who went astray while they still claimed (falsely) that they were Christians. He is doing that to use his error to lead people further astray. He's twisting to further twist. He is an apostate and should be required to recant or be defrocked and excommunicated for the cause of gross heresy.
"...if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." (MatthewÂ 18:17)
It has been the watering down of the teachings of Jesus that has led to the reduction in Church membership by those who want the real thing. The homosexuals love it because to a person and among other things, they lack sufficient desire to be healed. Read on.
As for cross-dressing, it's not entirely the clothes. The difference between pants and a kilt is not the difference between heterosexual male and homosexual male or masculine male and effeminate male. But even if there are boys born less naturally sexually outgoing toward females or less rough and tumble, does that mean that homosexuality and/or effeminacy should be "experiences" required by schools for heterosexual and/or masculine types to supposedly better educate them? There is harm in it. It is the slippery slope.
For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. (Matthew 13:15)
Consider that pollution brought forth by "get rich first and worry about the environment later" capitalists is causing much of what is called "gender bending." See:Â "gender-bending" pollution pollutants.
When has careless pollution resulted in positive developments for humanity over the long run? If much careless gender-bending pollution is resulting in the feminization of the males of the human species, shouldn't you wonder whether the feminization of the males of the human species is a good thing? This is not a natural development unless one defines everything human beings do as natural. That wouldn't fit with the context though, would it. It would be a rationalizing stretch.
So, if the environmental pollution is not a good development, which it is not, then why is deliberately introducing the feminization of the males of the human species into the schools by way of Cross-Dressing Days a good thing? It is not a natural thing. It is a contrived thing brought forth by dramatists, fakes, unreal people, people dead of the Holy Spirit, the tares, the children of the wicked (the Satanic spirit).
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)