Controversial filmmaker Molotov Mitchell (often featured on WorldNetDaily) recently released a video entitled “Uganda is right, Rick Warren is Wrong” concerning Uganda’s proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill which would criminalize homosexuality, allowing for the death penalty in certain situations.
The video certainly contains some food for thought and some important American and Ugandan historical information, but one section gave me particular pause. At the 35 second mark, Mitchell states:
According to the Bible, God created the death penalty, not man. And it was God who determined what crimes deserved it.
So unless there’s some passage in scripture that I have missed where Jesus said “I have come to abolish the law,” then Ugandans are right, and Rick Warren is wrong.
During this segment, he displays a reference to Leviticus 20:13 which states:
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Mitchell, then, is claiming that since Jesus did not come to “abolish the law,” then the Old Testament law that requires the death penalty for those caught engaging in homosexual acts should be enforced in obedience to God. Thus, “Uganda is right, and Rick Warren is wrong.”
It is true that Jesus did not come to abolish the Old Testament law, as Michael Brown has stated in response to the Anti-Missionary claim that “Jesus abolished the Law”:
“As Messiah, Yeshua was the ultimate Torah teacher, showing us how the entire Hebrew Bible reached fulfillment in him and also giving us deep spiritual insights into how the Torah could remain relevant for the Jewish people in generations to come, even when we would be scattered throughout the world, without a Temple, a sacrificial system, or a functioning (earthly) priesthood…”
– Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Volume 4
Does this mean, however, that all nations are bound to issue the laws of capital punishment given to Israel through Moses? If so, when governments refuse to carry out the judgments required in the Old Testament, are Christians required to perform them in their stead? (Gay activist sites have been concerned about this very thing, stating “This is what incitement to violence looks like” and “It’s this nation’s conservative movement, who must condemn this kind of behavior wholly and loudly before someone’s literal blood permanently stains their movement!”)
In the video, Mitchell seems to be quite at ease with this conclusion. But if we are required to put homosexuals to death for the OT laws they have broken, then are we not also required to put adulterers, Sabbath breakers, and rebellious teenagers to death? All of these are capital offenses according to the Old Testament. Does Mitchell really want to go in this direction? (Would Mitchell himself be alive under such a regime?)
As Frank Turek has pointed out, governments have three choices when it comes to legislating a behavior. They can prohibit it, permit it or promote it. Serving as salt and light in the places in which we reside as believers in Jesus, we stand firmly against governmental promotion of homosexuality, adultery, and other behaviors that are detrimental to society. Reasonable minds can disagree as to whether detrimental behaviors should be permitted or prohibited (take the use of alcohol and drugs for instance), and reasonable minds can also disagree with regard to which (if any) behaviors should require the death penalty (for example, first degree murder). The idea however that governments (and perhaps even individual Christians) are required to put homosexuals to death because God required it of ancient Israel, and, after all, Jesus did not come to “abolish the law,” is one that, if it is followed through consistently, would result in either a theocratic state consisting of very few people (imagine loading everyone that has worked on a Saturday into trucks and hauling them off to the electric chair) or a chaotic Christian killing spree (is this at all consistent with the model put forth in the New Testament of Jesus and the early Church?)
Such scenarios are, of course, completely ludicrous, and that is the point. It is true that Colonial America criminalized homosexuality, but they also criminalized adultery and sex outside of wedlock. How many conservatives would hold up to such requirements today? (Need I mention the number of conservative politicians that have failed in this area? Should they be put to death?) Gay activists often unfairly accuse believers in Jesus of “cherry-picking” Bible verses to suit their needs, using scripture as a “prop behind which to hide their bigotry.” I’m afraid statements like the ones made in this video regarding the application of Old Testament law must come from either a place of ignorance (perhaps he had not fully thought through his argument before making it) or as a direct fulfillment of these very accusations. One thing is clear, the scriptures are not to be used in some cavalier fashion, as if we were free to use these precious divine words to attack others and justify ourselves as we please. In the end, “in the same way [we] judge others, [we ourselves] will be judged, and with the measure [we] use, it will be measured to [us].” Let us therefore judge rightly… resisting the homosexual agenda with courage, and reaching out to the homosexual community with compassion.
We’ve launched the God Has a Better Way website in preparation for the event in Uptown Charlotte on July 25th. Backlash has already come in via Jeremy Hooper of Good As You. This is what he had to say this morning regarding the event on his blog:
Pride & Prejudice
On July 25th, Charlotte, NC, will hold its annual gay pride parade. So what are the good Christians who simply want religious freedom and nothing more (ha!) doing in protest of the event? Well, check this out:
JOIN US FOR A HISTORIC RALLY IN UPTOWN CHARLOTTE ON JULY 25TH!
GOD HAS A BETTER WAY!
What This rally is a Spirit-birthed response to Charlotte’s annual gay pride event. More than one thousand believers will be gathering to worship the Lord, intercede in prayer, and proclaim that “God Has a Better Way”! Nothing like this has ever been done in conjunction with a gay pride event in any city before, and those who join together on this day will be part of history in the making.
Everyone can be involved! If you love Jesus and are walking with Him, then you qualify. We need worshipers, intercessors, musicians, soul-winners, walkers, talkers, and believers of every age, color, and size to stand together as a prophetic witness to our society. Everything we do will be law-abiding, safe, and honoring to the Lord in spirit and in word. “God Has A Better Way”
Yes, that’s right: Because, apparently, gay is “anti-God” and every last pride parade attendee is in need of a “better way” to conduct their own affairs, a group of self-appointed moral authoritarians are taking time out of their day to do little more than pester LGBT attendees. If “live and let live” were a concept in need of a suitable antonym, then this event would be it.
But, of course: You have to “love Jesus” in order to be involved. You can’t just be in like with the son. You can’t be anti-gay yet agnostic. And you CERTAINLY can’t be involved in a faith that doesn’t accept Jesus as the messiah. Because in this myopic world of anti-gay evangelism, “everyone can be involved” can and will be followed by “if you love Jesus” without either irony or concern for the narrow purview that this blinder-wearing mindset places on the world and its people.
Oh, God. Please show your most vocal that there truly is a “better way.” Because honestly, dude — these nonstop attacks are making there way look nothing short of “bitter.”
“Wash the gay away”? What sort of loofah do you use for that?
Here are a few comments that have come in on the facebook event page since this post went up:
What an ugly event. You should all be ashamed. Just more people who use their interpretation of faith to mask what is nothing more than personal prejudice and fear of people who are different. Silly people. Being gay is a natural normal beautiful variation. Why else would they get excited about parts of the Bible which support their bigotry but blatantly ignore the parts which go against all human decency: slavery, genocide, executing people for trivial matters, etc. When it comes to the Bible, these people surely know how to use it as a weapon. Fred Phelps would be proud of them and surely welcome them in to his Westboro Baptist Church. This immoral, supremacist, deceitful event is not in any way about faith. It’s about arrogance, pride, scapegoating and supremacist ideology. Get used to keeping company with other marginalized religious extremists in America ranting about the coming race wars, oops, in your case it would be sexuality wars, right? (rolling my eyes)
What a wonderfully transparent display of hate and misinformation. Keep it up so everyone can see how very non-christ-like you all are.
Since when did ‘God’ become the opposite of ‘Gay’? I promise to “love [my] neighbor” instead of hate everyone that doesn’t prescribe to a narrow interpitation of the world; perhaps you could do the same.
If you have a moment and believe in this event, please go to the facebook event page we’ve set up and either mark as “Attending” if you know you can come, “Maybe Attending” if you think you might be able to make it, or write on the wall in support of what we’re doing. Our friends in the LGBT community think we’re filled with bigotry and hate. Let’s overcome their wrong assumptions and judgments with the love of God!
The New Hampshire House of Representatives voted down a same-sex marriage bill that had passed the Senate. The cause of the bill’s failure appears to be an amendment that would protect religious organizations from being required to perform same-sex marriages. According to Liberty Counsel:
Manchester, NH – By a vote of 188-186, the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted down a same-sex marriage bill because it contained a religious liberty protection clause. The state Senate had previously passed the bill along party lines by a vote of 14-10. Governor George Lynch, who is opposed to same-sex marriage, said he would veto the bill unless it contained a religious liberty protection amendment. The amendment was added to the House version of the bill, and that is where it met opposition by an openly homosexual member of the House, who lobbied against the bill because of the amendment.
The religious liberty protection amendment would affirm the right of clergy and others affiliated with religious organizations to refuse to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. However, an openly homosexual state Representative, Steve Vaillancourt from Manchester, led the opposition to the bill because he was opposed to the religious liberty amendment and said the House should not be “bullied” by the Governor. Vaillancourt supports the prior version of the bill that did not provide protections for clergy. The earlier bill passed both chambers, but the Governor said he would veto the prior bill because it lacked the religious liberty protection amendment. There are not enough votes to override a veto by the Governor.
Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: “The good news is that the same-sex marriage bill did not pass. The bad news is that some legislators want to force clergy to perform same-sex marriages. This bill failed to garner enough votes because it contained a clause designed to protect clergy and religious institutions from being forced to conduct same-sex marriages. This should be a wakeup call for people who cherish freedom. The same-sex marriage agenda being advanced is on a collision course with the values and freedoms shared by most Americans. This is clear evidence that the end game is to force clergy and religious institutions to not just accept, but to celebrate and participate in same-sex marriages.”
Gay activist Jeremy Hooper had this to say in response to Matt Staver’s comments:
The only thing that this is clear evidence of is the fact that WE. DON’T. WANT. THESE. UNNEEDED. RELIGIOUS. PROTECTIONS. BECAUSE. NO. GAY. ACTIVIST. — NO. GAY. ACTIVIST. — IS. SEEKING. FORCED. CHURCH. RECOGNITION. OF. OUR. CIVIL. MARRIAGES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It’s much the same way that religious people have never needed protections from the non-religious heterosexuals who have long utilized the civil marriage system. The church decisions, as always, are to be left to the individual sects, and the reform of church policy must come from within the same.
It has already been shown that the legalization of gay marriage will have an effect on religious organizations, thus the concerns that spurred the inclusion of these religious protections in the bill are not without warrant. Mr. Hooper said “the church decisions, as always, are to be left to the individual sects.” This is exactly what this clause is attempting to protect
Editor’s Note: The text below is slightly altered in wording and punctuation from the originally published version. Unless otherwise stated, we make no endorsements of the links, media, organizations, or people we report on.
In the ongoing cultural debate over gay marriage, those that oppose it will at times attempt to show that the arguments used in favor of same-sex marriage can just as easily be applied to polygamy, thus opening the door for its legalization if gay marriage is legalized. In response, the pro-gay-marriage crowd usually responds mockingly, with phrases like “we graduated from the second grade,” or “this is a straw man you’ve set up, polygamy has nothing to do with gay marriage.”
What happens, however, when a pro-gay writer on the biggest liberal blog on the net argues the same point as those opposed to gay marriage? On January 6th, Lee Stranahan published an article on The Huffington Post called Why Are Gay Marriage Advocates Not Defending Polyamory? He ends his article with the following:
But what’s a poly person to do if they want to enter into a committed relationship with the people they love? Polygamy – marriage to more than one person – is no more an option for conseting [sic] adults in the United States than gay marriage is in all states expect Massachusetts and Connecticut. If the rights of gay people are being trampled on, then it’s two states worse for poly people.
If you follow the same argument template as many gay marriage advocates, anyone who opposes polygamy is a bigot and a hater. Rick Warren has made it clear that he opposes poly relationship, too. And even comparing consensual poly relationship to Jeffs is equating polyamorists with PEDOPHILES!
If Melissa Etheridge has the right to marry Tammy Lynn Michaels – and I think she does – then [sic] Melissa and Tammy also have the same right to make it official with David Crosby, it they choose to do so. In fact, if they wanted to marry Crosby, Stills, Nash, Young, Linsday Lohan, Samantha Ronson, Mark Ronson AND Ani Difranco…it’s their choice and their right and it’d make quite a tour, too.
There’s no argument you can make against a poly marriage that wouldn’t work just as well as an argument against gay marriage.
Aside from reasons of consistency, advocates of gay marriage should also be vocally in favor of polygamy since it allows bisexuals to be actively practicing married bisexuals. Bisexuals are the B in GLBT but they really get short shrift in the marriage discussion.
I’m in favor of real marriage equality. Love the one you’re with. Love the two or more you’re with, if you can work that out. Marry them if you’re into that kind of thing. But until the gay marriage movement embraces polygamy…well, they are just acting like bigots and haters, aren’t they?
“There is no argument you can make against poly marriage that wouldn’t work just as well as an argument against gay marriage.” Exactly! And on the flip side, there is no argument you can make for gay marriage that wouldn’t work just as well as an argument for polygamy. Lee Stranahan sees this, perhaps others in his camp will soon see this as well.
The reaction from the gay community has been shock and confusion. Jeremy Hooper from Good As Youwrites: “We’ve seen many anti-gays make the ‘gay marriage = polygamous marriage’ argument. But when it comes from a professed supporter of same-sex marriage equality, it’s a little harder to swallow.” He then responds to Mr. Stranahan’s article with the arguments that “Bisexuals are not innately polyamorous. We thought this went without saying, but apparently not. Bisexuality just means an attraction to both genders, not a CONCURRENT RELATIONSHIP with both sexes!” and (before changing it) “the fact is that marriage has always been considered a commitment between two people.”
Let us first consider his statement concerning bisexuality and polyamorous behavior. This was Mr. Hooper’s response to ADF’s Glen Lavy asserting that bisexuality and polygamy are related:
No Glen? You really don’t see any difference between a bisexual who wants two partners and a same-sex couple who wants one? Oh, well here, we graduated from the second grade — let us help you:
BISEXUALITY, LIKE HOMOSEXUALITY OR HETEROSEXUALITY, IS AN ORIENTATION, NOT A CHOSEN PATTERN OF COMMITMENT!!! Just like a man who is attracted to two different women must pledge a legal commitment to only the ONE of them who he intends to marry, a bisexual person must also enter into a union with only ONE PERSON! Bisexuality doesn’t mean a person is attracted to multiple partners — it just means that their capacity for finding their true love is not limited to only one specific gender!!!! It’s BIsexuality, not SIMULTANEOU-sexuality!! Stop pretending like you do not know this!!!!!
Alrighty, we feel better now. But you know what would REALLY ****(sexual reference edited out by VOR’s editor)***? If these self-professed good Christians would stop lying through their ever-loving teeth!
Glen Lavy and Lee Stranahan asserted the same belief, and yet Good As You treated Mr. Lavy with ridicule and contempt, accusing him of knowingly lying, while giving Mr. Stranahan nothing more than a humble correction. Without addressing the accuracy of their specific statements, what possible reason could there be for treating them so differently other than anti-Christian bigotry? Good As Youdeclares that they “strive to provide a safe, progressive, and positive forum in which we work to eliminate discrimination and intolerance.” I ask Mr. Hooper to publically apologize for the glaring discrimination and intolerance shown by him towards Mr. Lavy and the Alliance Defense Fund.
Finally, let us look at his statement on historical marriage. Thankfully, Mr. Hooper eventually changed his laughably inaccurate statement “the fact is that marriage has always been considered a commitment between two people” to the toned down and slightly less absurd “marriage has largely been considered a commitment between two people.” However, one has to wonder how such a statement could ever have been published in the first place. The reason is that many in the LGBT community really believe it to be true. How? Could it be that many Americans have had their understanding of what marriage is supposed to look like shaped more by Hollywood than historical fact? To many, marriage is exclusively a matter of falling in love, thus they have neither considered the historical foundations of marriage, nor the long-range impact gay marriage will have on society. The historical facts about marriage in reality (as opposed to made up ones) are as follows:
The majority of cultures throughout history have defined marriage as the formal union of one man and one woman.
A minority of cultures throughout history have defined marriage as the formal union of a man and one or more women.
An infinitesimally small number of cultures throughout history have given some kind of recognition to same-sex unions, but even then, these relationships were primarily pederastic relationships, and even in those cases, these relationships were often abandoned when the older party involved got married to a person of the opposite sex. So, even in these rare instances of recognized or formalized same-sex unions, the union of two people of the same sex was not considered to be on an equal plane to marriage.
The truth is plain, I pray that those at Good As You, and gay activists everywhere, are willing to see it.
The Chattanooga Times article quoted a representative from the APA below:
Still, Dr. Anderson of the American Psychological Association contends conversion therapy is rooted in subtle criticism.
People who decide to turn to such therapies “are often people who are involved in social groups that have a high level of negativity toward homosexuality,” Dr. Anderson said. “They are seeking such therapies not necessarily because they’re going to benefit from them, but because they are trying desperately to fit into communities they seek to fit in.”
Dr. Anderson provides quite an interesting assessment of faith communities from an outsider’s perspective. Do you think he’s right? Leave a comment below and share your opinion.
Editor’s Note: Unless otherwise stated, we make no endorsements of the links, media, organizations, or people we report on.
The Alliance Defense Fund just released a video detailing some of what has happened in the last year with regard to marriage and religious freedom. They also call for people to donate to their cause. The video is below [Link to Video]:
Pro-Gay blogs such as Good as You, a GLBT activist site, are chiming in:
But you know what we find funny about the video? That the foremost “victory” they tout is in the arena of marriage, especially in California, when if there is any group that actually LOST in terms of marriage equality in ’08, it was the Alliance Defense Fund. In California, the ADF’s Glen Lavy was in the Supreme Court making his case for keeping gays barred. The Supreme Court, however, rejected his side’s arguments. Also, among other marriage cases: The legal beagles also tried, unsuccessfully, to stop New York state from recognizing out-of-state unions. In fact, as far as their gay nup-barring court activities are concerned, it seems to have been a pretty crummy year for this “pro-marriage” outfit. It would seem to us that the anti-gay movement succeeded DESPITE the ADF’s inability to effectively win in court, not because of it.
Don’t believe the spin. While the ADF may not win every battle they take on, they are doing much good both in the courts of law and public opinion. For a list of important cases the ADF has taken on and won this year, click here.