Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Liberals’ Quest to ‘Rehabilitate’ (brainwash) Christians

Chai Feldblum, President Obama’s EEOC commissioner – a lesbian activist who supports “plural marriage” – has called the clash between religious liberty and unfettered sexual license a “zero-sum game,” meaning that someone wins and someone loses.

Guess who loses in Feldblum’s book? She has “a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win” and candidly admits that liberals “want to revolutionize societal norms.” She believes that “gay sex is a moral good.”

She’s not alone.  Here’s the latest example of Feldblum’s words in action. The Oregonian reports: “A same-sex couple who requested a cake for their wedding in January but were refused service by a Gresham bakery have filed a complaint with the state, alleging Sweet Cakes by Melissa discriminated against them based on their sexual orientation.

“Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries’ civil rights division will investigate to determine if the business violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, which protects the rights of gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender people in employment, housing and public accommodations. …

“Rachel N. Cryer, 30, said she had gone to the Gresham bakery on Jan. 17 for a scheduled appointment to order a wedding cake. She met with the owner, Aaron Klein.

“Klein asked for the date of the wedding and names of the bride and groom, Cryer said.  “‘I told him, “There are two brides and our names are Rachel and Laurel,”‘ according to her complaint.

“Klein responded that his business does not provide its services for same-sex weddings, she said.

“‘Respondent cited a religious belief for its refusal to make cakes for same-sex couples planning to marry,’ the complaint says. …”

“‘We are committed to a fair and thorough investigation to determine whether there’s substantial evidence of unlawful discrimination,’ said Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian. …”

Mr. Avakian then revealed what he views as a “fair and thorough investigation”: “Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate,” he said.

Here’s the kicker. Read it closely:  “‘The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate,’ Avakian said. ‘For those who do violate the law, we want them to learn from that experience and have a good, successful business in Oregon.’”

George Orwell much?

Get the not-so-thinly-veiled threat? Christians have a right to own a “successful business” in Oregon, so long as they don’t, well, be Christian – so long as they shelve their faith and submit to our ever-”progressive” government’s anti-Christian demands. “The goal is never to shut down a business,” but either you abandon the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic and dutifully observe postmodern sexual relativism, or government will shut you down in a Sodom and Gomorrah minute.

Brad, Rachel, Laurel and the rest of you left-wing bullies need to get this straight (so to speak): The godless left has been trying to “rehabilitate” Christians for over 2,000 years. We haven’t caved yet. What makes you think we will now? Those of us who wish to remain obedient to God will not – indeed, cannot – accommodate you and play along with your sin-centric “gay marriage” delusion.

Ain’t gonna happen.  Ever.

Look, you have every right to dress up in two wedding gowns or two tuxedos, get pretend “married” and play house to your hearts’ content. You do not have the right, however, to force others to abandon their sincerely held religious beliefs, thousands of years of history and the immutable reality of human biology to engage your little fantasy. No amount of hand-wringing, gnashing of teeth, suing Christians or filing charges against those of us who live in marriage reality will make us recognize your silly so-called “marriage equality.”

Rather than trying to compel these Christians to participate in their counter-Christian mock marriage, all Ms. Rachel and Ms. Laurel had to do was take their business down the street. There are, no doubt, many bakers who share their worldly sexual morals (or lack thereof).

Imagine if a Christian came into a “gay”-owned bakery and demanded a cake with these words: “Homosexual behavior is shameful: Romans 1:27.” Think the left would be clamoring for charges against the baker if he refused? Me neither. In fact, I’d be the first to defend his right to “discriminate” against the Christian.

Or what if some anti-gun nut printing service refused to produce flyers for an NRA rally? Shouldn’t they have that right?

Or if some hippy bed and breakfast owner refused to host a conference challenging global warming alarmism. Shouldn’t he have the right to operate his business in accordance with his sincerely held beliefs?

Of course he should.  And so should Christians.

But … But … discrimination! “Homophobia”!  I know. Cry me a river.

Seriously, lefties, give it a rest. So-called “sexual orientation” laws are nothing like laws prohibiting racial, age, disability or gender discrimination. Those qualities are based on neutral, immutable characteristics. Even liberals admit that “sexual orientation” is based on “fluid” feelings and behaviors. It’s about what you do, not who you are. It’s about what you believe and who you choose to have sex with, not the color of your skin.

Ken Hutcherson, an influential black pastor from the Seattle area, put it well: “It has been said loudly and proudly that gay marriage is a civil rights issue. If that’s the case, then gays would be the new African-Americans. I’m here to tell you now, and hopefully for the last time, that the gay community is not the new African-American community.

“Don’t compare your sin to my skin!” he demands.

Some things never change.  Other things do.

Today’s liberals seek to “rehabilitate” Christians to their way of thinking under penalty of law. Liberals of old just threw us to the lions.  I guess that’s what they mean by “progress.”


Islamic TV channel fined £85,000 by British watchdog for broadcasting hate preacher's saying it was 'acceptable to murder anyone who disrespected Mohammed'

An Islamic TV channel has been fined £85,000 after it broadcast a hate preacher to instructing muslims to kill those who insult Prophet Mohammed live on live television.

Broadcasting watchdog Ofcom reprimanded Al Ehya Digital Televison, which runs the Islamic channel Noor TV for allowing its presenter to tell viewers it was their duty to murder non-Muslims  during a phone in show.

The channel broadcasts both in the UK and internationally mostly in Urdu but also English and Punjabi and is aimed at young British Muslims.

The offending show was broadcast on May 3 last year and featured the presenter Allama Muhammad Farooq Nizami taking phone-in from audience members around the world.

Mr Nizami answered questions about a wide range of issues and personal conduct relating to Islam and Islamic teachings.

But following a question from a Pakistani caller asking what the 'punishment' should be for those who disrespect the Prophet, his answer was that they 'should be eliminated.'

Speaking directly into the camera Mr Nazimi said: 'One has to choose one’s own method.

'Our way is the peaceful way but when someone crosses the limits, faith-based emotions are instigated...The mission of our life is to protect the sanctity of our beloved Lord.

'May Allah accept us wherever there is a need [to kill a blasphemer]. We are ready and should be ready at all times [to kill a blasphemer]'

The regulator judged that these comments were 'likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or to lead to disorder.'

It also said it was concerned that young people watching the show could become 'radicalised' or take 'violent and criminal action as a result of watching videos of Muslims with extreme views.'

It considered the remarks to be so inflammatory they could have inspired a repeat of the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gough, who was killed after Islamic clerics condemned his film which criticised the treatment of Muslim women.

In its ruling, Ofcom criticised Birmingham based-Al Ehya for not taking the comments seriously enough after concerns were initially raised by the broadcast watchdog.

Noor TV has however remained defiant and has not broadcast an apology for the comments, instead opting to broadcast a 'clarification' six months later.

Ofcom said: 'The Licensee [Al Ehya] has not at any point broadcast any form of apology for, or condemnation of Mr Nizami’s remarks, and neither on air nor in correspondence with Ofcom has the Licensee expressed its unequivocal regret that these comments were broadcast.

'The Licensee regretted only in its submissions that the presenter’s comments "may have been misinterpreted" and that he expressed his own political views during the programme.

'Taking all these factors into account, Ofcom was concerned that the Licensee has still not recognised the gravity of the statements made by Mr Nizami.'

But despite this the regulator decided only to give Al Ehya a third of the full £250,000 fine which it could have enforced because it said it wished to protect the station's right to 'freedom of expression.'

In it's judgement it added: 'If any financial penalty was to be so high that its effect would be to close a service down, then it might be a disproportionate interference with the Licensee’s and the audience’s right to freedom of expression in particular and exceed the purposes of imposing a penalty.

'Ofcom therefore carefully took this point into account and carefully weighed it in reaching its decision on the proportionality of the financial penalty.'

The fine announced today, comes three years after Al Ehya was fined £75,000 for appealing for viewers to donate money in return for 'prayers or the receipt of a “special gift” of earth from the tomb of Prophet Mohammed.'

Al Ehya Digital Television were not available for comment on the matter.

Last December Radio Asian Fever, in Leeds, was fined £4,000 for breaching broadcasting rules in programmes involving a presenter called ‘Sister Ruby Ramadan’.

She told listeners homosexuals should be beaten and tortured, adding: ‘Torture them; punish them; beat them and give them mental torture.’

Takbeer TV, based in Nottingham, has been found in breach of the code twice in 18 months for programmes which denigrated a minority Muslim sect.


White Non-Asians?

For all those who think affirmative action always hurts white people, think again.

When auditors from the Department of Labor analyzed the hiring practices at VF Jeanswear’s Winston-Salem, North Carolina plant in 2006, they unearthed a problem.

The bean counters who for federal contracts parse exactly how many people of which gender and ethnic group can be working in any given company based on community demographics found evidence of mass discrimination — against white people.

In what most people would call a great example of a company reaching out to vulnerable members of a community who need work, VF had hired dozens of Montagnard refugees from Vietnam, people persecuted for their Christian beliefs in their home country, in its plant. The company even went so far as to translate employment forms into Vietnamese and hire interpreters to help community members apply for positions. To the government, however, this was a crime because as the Department of Labor noted in its 2011 case against VF, about 45 percent of its employees in the job group analyzed at the plant in question in 2005 were Asian compared to about 2 percent of the community qualified for the jobs.

The company also hired a larger percentage of Latinos than it should have based on demographic information. It hired about the same percentage of blacks given their representation in the community, but where it really failed was in not hiring enough white people. Whites made up about 8 percent of the job group analyzed but comprised 62 percent of the population qualified for that type of position. Perhaps recognizing the folly of suing a plant for not hiring enough white people, the Department of Labor created a new name for white victims, “non-Asian.” If you have not heard of this ethnic group before, you are not alone. The federal government doesn’t recognize a “non-Asian” racial category.

Seeking to compensate victims of the refugees’ sinister plan to have VF hire more of their friends and family, the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) sued the company in 2011 in a case that is still ongoing.

At the heart of the lawsuit is the company’s employee referral program, which the Montagnards frequently used to recommend family and friends of the same ethnic background for open positions. The company did not control who submitted referrals, but the fact that the referrals were so lopsided toward one ethnic group was a problem for the government as the outcome of the process inevitably led to a disproportionate number of Montagnards receiving and accepting job offers based on the population as a whole.

Administrative law judge Kenneth Krantz earlier this month found that “The ‘non-Asian’ category upon which the Plaintiff has proceeded is neither a race nor an ethnic group, either by regulatory definition or as used in common parlance” and found in favor of VF — seven years after the plant whose hiring practices are under scrutiny in the lawsuit closed. The OFCCP is appealing the decision.

Jimmy Powell, an attorney for Womble Carlyle in Greensboro, North Carolina, representing VF, called the lawsuit “the worst example of bureaucratic bullying that I’ve ever encountered.”

He’s right.  The government couldn’t use existing categories of race to sue VF so it made up a new aggrieved ethnic group — “non-Asian.” Worse, it is suing a company for helping a group of vulnerable members of the community that taxpayers were at the same time paying to help relocate, educate, and train for jobs.
If this were an isolated incident it would be a terrible example of government overreach. But it is not. It’s how the OFCCP operates. Read through its press releases for more examples of how the government uses the hiring audit process to bludgeon companies to settle cases for millions based solely on statistics and not actual discrimination.

They will make you think the OFCCP exists solely to inflict cruel and unusual legal punishment on companies large enough to have federal contracts. Add it to the list of departments that should be defunded immediately.


British judge orders Muslim woman to remove burkha during court appearance then bans her from entering plea after she refuses

A judge told a Muslim woman she must remove her burkha in court before she can enter a plea after she refused to reveal her face.

Judge Peter Murphy said the principle of open justice overrode the 21-year-old woman's religious beliefs, and warned there was a risk a different person could go into the dock pretending to be her.

The woman, from Hackney, east London, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, appeared before Blackfriars Crown Court today charged with intimidating a witness.

She said she cannot remove the veil in front of men because of her religious beliefs.

Judge Murphy told her: ‘It is necessary for this court to be satisfied that they can recognise the defendant.

‘While I obviously respect the right to dress in any way she wishes, certainly while outside the court, the interests of justice are paramount.  ‘I can’t, as a circuit judge, accept a plea from a person whose identity I am unable to ascertain.’

He added: ‘It would be easy for someone on a later occasion to appear and claim to be the defendant.  ‘The court would have no way to check on that.’

Her barrister, Claire Burtwistle, told the court the woman was not prepared to lower her veil at all while men were in the room.

‘In front of women, it is not an issue’, she said. ‘It is simply men that she will not allow to see her face.’

Ms Burtwistle suggested herself, a female police officer or a female prison guard could identify the defendant and confirm to the court that it is the same person as in the police arrest photos.

Prosecutor Sarah Counsell added that the police officer in charge of the case was content that he recognised the defendant while she was in the burkha.

But Judge Murphy rejected the suggestions, saying: ‘It seems to me to be quite fundamental that the court is sure who it is the court is dealing with.

‘Furthermore, this court, as long as I am sitting, has the highest respect for any religious tradition a person has.

‘In my courtroom also, this sometimes conflicts with the interests of a paramount need for the administration of justice. In my courtroom, that’s going to come first.’

The judge added: ‘There is the principle of open justice and it can’t be subject to the religion of the defendant whether the principle is observed or not.

‘I am not saying this because of the particular form of dress by this defendant, I apply that to any form of dress that had the same issues.’

Judge Murphy adjourned the case for legal argument over whether the defendant should have to remove her veil.  It will be heard again on September 12, when the defendant is expected to enter a not guilty plea and go to trial.

The defendant is alleged to have intimidated a witness, in Finsbury Park, north London, in June.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.



No comments: