-Why should a rabbi (or a pastor or priest, for that matter) be expected to issue a statement disavowing the actions of a Muslim? Leave that to the imams and the mullahs. Do we ask imams to disavow actions perceived as objectionable carried out by self-identifying Jews? The implication is that what members of other religions do somehow reflects on one’s own religion, which is illogical. Don’t lump me together with others I consider heretics and unbelievers. It is, however, a common secular ploy to put religious people on the defensive, and rabbis should know better than to fall for it. But if rabbis are already commenting and saying that it was religiously motivated, they should condemn Islam as a religion. (And if we are already condemning religiously motivated acts of violence committed by members of other religions, why are these same rabbis typically silent when Muslims commit stabbing attacks, shooting attacks, trampling attacks, and homicide bombings? Could it be… because they are afraid of being seen to be criticizing Muslims?)
The Insidious State-Mandated LGBT Push to Corrupt Children
Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver
The radical LGBT activists have set their sights specifically on schools.
They are advocating for bills like this infamous New York bill, which in the noble name of “civility, citizenship and character education,” mandates state-sponsored secular indoctrination programs. Public schools must design curricula that inculcate in children from kindergarten (!!) the normalization and even desirability of same-sex sexual activity and their perverse “family” model:
Instruction in civility, citizenship and character education.
The regents shall ensure that the course of instruction in grades kindergarten through twelve includes a component on civility, citizenship and character education. Such component shall instruct students on the principles of honesty, tolerance, personal responsibility, respect for others, observance of laws and rules, courtesy, dignity and other traits which will enhance the quality of their experiences in, and contributions to, the community. The regents shall determine how to incorporate such component in existing curricula and the commissioner shall promulgate any regulations needed to carry out such determination of the regents. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, “TOLERANCE,” “RESPECT FOR OTHERS” AND “DIGNITY” SHALL INCLUDE AWARENESS AND SENSITIVITY TO DISCRIMINATION OR HARASSMENT AND CIVILITY IN THE RELATIONS OF PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT RACES, WEIGHTS, NATIONAL ORIGINS, ETHNIC GROUPS, RELIGIONS, RELIGIOUS PRACTICES, MENTAL OR PHYSICAL ABILITIES, SEXUAL ORIENTATIONS, GENDERS, AND SEXES.
In recent years, with little public debate, many other laws like this are increasingly being passed in state legislatures all over the United States. While purporting to promote benign measures to prevent name-calling, in practice these laws promote a sinister secularist agenda. They give a free hand to LGBT activists to influence children with their radical, hedonistic, antireligious, and anti-family message.
As described in this chilling video, “What ‘gay marriage’ did to Massachusetts”, state-mandated pro-LGBT propaganda literature includes children’s books that deliberately present as normal same-sex “parents” and same-sex kissing. (See also “Lesbian teacher: How I convince kids to accept gay ‘marriage’, starting at 4 years old.”)
Not long after, sex education classes (which already contained much obscene material at increasingly younger ages) were “updated” to teach children all about the graphic details of same-sex sexual activity in order to encourage children and teenagers to “try it out” as a normal part of sexual maturation. (See “Starting In Kindergarten Children Will Be Taught Heterosexual, Homosexual, Bisexual, And Transgender Lifestyles”.)
Moreover, administrations are not obligated to notify parents of these changes, nor are parents able to opt their children out (see on the Canadian front: “Quebec begins mandatory sex ed teaching 5-year-olds about masturbation, genitalia, and homosexuality”).
Some parents who objected were fired from their jobs or even thrown in jail and ordered to be “re-educated” with “diversity training.”
Moreover, with their every victory, they are emboldened to demand even more outrageous changes to the culture via the public school system. They know that the more extreme and hypersexualised the indoctrination, the more they alienate the children from traditional faith-based values of chastity, nuclear family, permanence, and exclusivity and twist society through its most vulnerable members to degenerate into their pagan, hedonistic model of promiscuity and broken, perverse family structures.
Let’s fight back.
One of the many wrongs committed by secularist leftist ideology is the deceptive distortion of language to sow confusion and promote their radical agenda. One very current example of this is evident in the usage of the words “gay” and “homosexual”.
In almost every discussion on the topic, one finds oneself forced to define these words in order to prevent misunderstanding.
To whom do these terms refer:
- to one afflicted with same-sex attraction who chooses not to act on his desires, or
- to one who chooses to engage regularly in homosexual sexual acts—a practicing homosexual?
Although the radicals appreciate very well the logical distinction between a desire and an act, they seek to cover it up in order to insidiously promote their hedonistic neo-pagan ideology—that one with aberrant desires has no choice but to act on them. Sexual desires must be satisfied. Celibacy is simply impossible, so all people with same-sex attraction are sexually active. And if they’re not currently active, then they should be and they will be. (This terminology also ignores the fact that a very large percentage of those who identify as homosexual also feel attraction to the opposite sex.) Desires and actions are inextricable and identical.
This equation is fallacious, for the two are logically and practically distinct:
Although it may indeed be very difficult (and this writer has nothing but sympathy for one who faces such a struggle), a person with homosexual tendencies is fully capable of being celibate; moreover, in many cases (but apparently not all), he or she is also able to engage in sexual activity with a member of the opposite sex. Conversely, even an individual with no homosexual tendencies is technically able to engage in homosexual sex.
(It is striking that when it comes to the other way around—developing homosexual desires in heterosexuals—homosexuals are quite eager to encourage heterosexuals to “try it and see,” especially in the “sex-education” and “tolerance” curricula that they are campaigning be adopted in public schools to underage children. Likewise, many radical feminist thinkers advocated that all women choose to become lesbians in order to rebel against the “patriarchy.”)
Whether these choices come easily or with great difficulty is beside the point; they are possible in theory, and in most cases in practice.
This egregious abuse of language also leads to the ubiquitous accusation of hatred leveled against bible believers. Any criticism of same-sex sexual activity, whether based on natural law, health risks, or theological grounds, results in one being branded a hateful bigot “homophobe.” Why? Because homosexuals were “born that way.”
But this is an absurd straw man argument that misrepresents what believers are actually saying. First, whether they are indeed “born that way” is still unknown. However, even if it were proven true that homosexuals were born with the innate latent desire for homosexual sex, they were certainly not born performing the act of homosexual sex. Believers condemn the act, not the desire itself, or the person afflicted with the desire.
Homosexual desires, inasmuch as they come involuntarily, are not forbidden or condemned. Rather, the act of homosexual sex is forbidden—regardless whether homosexual desires are innate or learned, and regardless whether one commits the act out of a desire to satisfy a same-sex attraction or one does so without such a desire.
Thus, condemning a specific behavior that certain people engage in out of their own free will in no way implies animus to those people for harboring those desires. Rather, it stems from a theological, intellectual, and ethical condemnation of those sexual behaviors.
In summary, G-d granted us free choice. This means that we are not compelled to act on our sexual desires. We are free to suppress them when their expression would be harmful and sinful, as is the case with a desire for homosexual behavior (along with a range of other forbidden sexual behaviors).