thestream--2020-10-13--Is Donald Trump Anti-Gay or Pro-Gay?

Is Donald Trump Anti-Gay or Pro-Gay?

According to Acting Director of National Intelligence ( DNI ) Richard Grenell , himself gay , “ President Trump is the best President the gay and lesbian community has ever had ” ( this from October 10 ) .
According to Alphonso David , head of the Human Rights Campaign ( HRC ) Trump is “ the worst president on LGBTQ issues ever ” ( he said this November 2019 ) .
Who is right ?
Back in August of this year , Grenell claimed , “ President Trump is the most pro-gay president in American history .
I can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Washington Post , Glenn Kessler labeled the claim “ absurd , ” giving it Four Pinocchios in his fact-checker article .
I ask again : Who is right ?
Grenell made his recent comment in an exclusive interview with Breitbart , hardly a pro-gay website ( but a strongly pro-Trump site ) .
The article , citing his remarks , began with this : An October 10 tweet from gay Trump supporter Rob Smith , who was part of this group , summed things up with this : In support of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allegedly anti-LGBTQ actions taken by the Trump administration .
Already in June , 2018 , Buzzfeed compiled a list of , “ All The Anti-LGBT Stuff Trump Has Done As President.
” Buzzfeed stated that , “ When Donald Trump ran for president , he pledged he would be an LGBT ally , even carrying an ‘ LGBTs for Trump ’ rainbow pride flag at a rally in 2016 .
Shortly after he reached the Oval Office , the White House announced , ‘ President Trump continues to be respectful and supportive of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consisted of 13 fairly serious “ anti-LGBT ” actions .
Since 2018 , the list has grown .
In fact , a June 2020 headline in the New York Times announced : “ Trump Administration Erases Transgender Civil Rights Protections in Health Care.
” And in August 2020 , Bloomberg Law claimed that , “ Trump ’ s revoking of historic Obama-era protections for transgender populations is a new level of cruelty during the threat of Covid-19 , says Kay Van Wey , an attorney with Van Wey , Presby & Williams.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this out ?
Simply stated , when it comes to Trump and the LGBTQ community , it ’ s a mixed bag .
On a personal level , I don ’ t believe he has any issue working with gays and he would not hesitate to appoint a qualified gay person to a position in his administration .
I don ’ t even think he has any issue with “ married ” gay couples .
That ’ s why he has used Grenell in various capacities .
That ’ s why he invited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of PayPal , to speak at the 2016 RNC convention — as an openly gay man .
That ’ s why he said during the 2016 campaign that Bruce “ Caitlyn ” Jenner would be welcome to use the women ’ s bathroom at Trump Tower .
( Jenner then took him up on his offer . )
That ’ s why he said in 2019 that he was “ absolutely fine ” with Pete Buttigieg ’ s “ marriage.
” It ’ s also clear that he enthusiastically welcomes the support of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he proudly held up a “ LGBTs for Trump ” flag in 2016 , as noted above .
And we should remember that the so-called “ LGBTQ community ” is , in some ways , as diverse as the “ heterosexual community.
” And so Trump will find much in common with gay voters who identify as conservative .
As for his legislative , “ pro-LGBTQ ” actions , they are few and far between , the most obvious being his 2019 announcement that he was working to end the criminalization of homosexuality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in response to the hanging of a gay man in Iran ( who among us supports something horrific like that ? )
, and , on a certain level , it was more symbolic than anything .
As for his perceived “ anti-LGBTQ ” actions , those fall in line with : 1 ) his solidarity with Christian conservatives ; and 2 ) his commitment to stand for religious liberties .
With consistency , when there is a conflict between freedom of religion and LGBTQ rights , the Trump administration has sided with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comes to administrative actions perceived to be hostile , LGBTQ activists can easily compile their lists .
In that regard , he has lived up to both the expectations of Christian conservatives and the fears of LGBTQ activists .
Four Years Later to the Month How , then , do we evaluate Trump when it comes to LGBTQ issues and people ?
Responding to candidate Trump ’ s waving of the gay flag in October , 2016 , I wrote that I believed that Trump “ wants to be the champion of hurting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look at his gay friends , like Peter Thiel , his evangelical friends , like Mike Pence , and his black friends who hailed from poor neighborhoods , like Ben Carson , and say , ‘ I ’ m here to fight for you !
’ ” But I also wrote that “ if we are voting for Trump , we do so with our eyes wide open , not making him into a larger than life deliverer who will save the day and turn the tide .
To do so is to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and to set ourselves up for disappointment.
” ( In retrospect , does this now ring true ? )
And I called on followers of Jesus to love their LGBTQ neighbors as themselves , even while holding to our biblical convictions .
This , too , is part of our sacred mission .
Now , four years later to the month , we have come full circle , faced with the exact same scenario , including the minority claim that Trump is pro-gay and the majority claim that he is not .
My @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2016 when I wrote : I ask again : Does this ring true today ?
Dr. Michael Brown ( www.askdrbrown.org ) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program .
His latest book is Evangelicals at the Crossroads : Will We Pass the Trump Test ?
Connect with him on Facebook , Twitter or YouTube .

According to Acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Richard Grenell, himself gay, “President Trump is the best President the gay and lesbian community has ever had” (this from October 10). According to Alphonso David, head of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Trump is “the worst president on LGBTQ issues ever” (he said this November 2019). Who is right?
Back in August of this year, Grenell claimed, “President Trump is the most pro-gay president in American history. I can prove it.”
Responding to this in the Washington Post, Glenn Kessler labeled the claim “absurd,” giving it Four Pinocchios in his fact-checker article.
I ask again: Who is right?
Is Trump Pro-Gay or Anti-Gay?
Grenell made his recent comment in an exclusive interview with Breitbart, hardly a pro-gay website (but a strongly pro-Trump site). The article, citing his remarks, began with this:
President Donald Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, and second lady Karen Pence called leaders of OUTspoken, a group of LGBT conservatives who gathered in Nashville, Tennessee, on Friday, to thank them for their support. OUTspoken, a group of LGBT conservatives who “support freedom and diversity of thought,” tweeted a photo of members of the group receiving the special phone calls from the leaders.
An October 10 tweet from gay Trump supporter Rob Smith, who was part of this group, summed things up with this:
An honor to be there for this. I lost nearly ALL my gay friends when I “came out” as a Republican. But I gained a movement of sane, free-thinking gays that will save the #LGBT community from the radical left. And we have the BIGGEST ally in @realDonaldTrump.
An honor to be there for this. I lost nearly ALL my gay friends when I “came out” as a Republican. But I gained a movement of sane, free-thinking gays that will save the #LGBT community from the radical left. And we have the BIGGEST ally in @realDonaldTrump https://t.co/z7KTzlQIkN — Rob Smith 🇺🇸 (@robsmithonline) October 10, 2020
In stark contrast, Alphonso David stated June 11, 2020,
The RNC is hallucinating and advancing misleading and disingenuous rhetoric. Yes, Trump has taken many ‘unprecedented’ steps, but those steps have been to undermine and eliminate rights protecting LGBTQ people, not empower us. Appointing a small handful of gay people out of thousands of nominations and making a very few — and unfullfilled — pledges can hardly qualify as accomplishments. Don’t gaslight us. The Trump-Pence administration is the most virulently anti-LGBTQ administration in decades — the RNC cannot put lipstick on a pig.
In support of this claim, he listed more than 30 allegedly anti-LGBTQ actions taken by the Trump administration.
Already in June, 2018, Buzzfeed compiled a list of, “All The Anti-LGBT Stuff Trump Has Done As President.”
Buzzfeed stated that, “When Donald Trump ran for president, he pledged he would be an LGBT ally, even carrying an ‘LGBTs for Trump’ rainbow pride flag at a rally in 2016. Shortly after he reached the Oval Office, the White House announced, ‘President Trump continues to be respectful and supportive of LGBTQ rights.’”
The Buzzfeed list consisted of 13 fairly serious “anti-LGBT” actions. Since 2018, the list has grown.
In fact, a June 2020 headline in the New York Times announced: “Trump Administration Erases Transgender Civil Rights Protections in Health Care.”
And in August 2020, Bloomberg Law claimed that, “Trump’s revoking of historic Obama-era protections for transgender populations is a new level of cruelty during the threat of Covid-19, says Kay Van Wey, an attorney with Van Wey, Presby & Williams.”
How, then, do we sort this out?
Simply stated, when it comes to Trump and the LGBTQ community, it’s a mixed bag.
Trump’s Actions on LGBT Issues
On a personal level, I don’t believe he has any issue working with gays and he would not hesitate to appoint a qualified gay person to a position in his administration. I don’t even think he has any issue with “married” gay couples.
That’s why he has used Grenell in various capacities. That’s why he invited Peter Thiel, the openly gay co-founder of PayPal, to speak at the 2016 RNC convention — as an openly gay man. That’s why he said during the 2016 campaign that Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner would be welcome to use the women’s bathroom at Trump Tower. (Jenner then took him up on his offer.) That’s why he said in 2019 that he was “absolutely fine” with Pete Buttigieg’s “marriage.”
It’s also clear that he enthusiastically welcomes the support of LGBT voters, as seen clearly when he proudly held up a “LGBTs for Trump” flag in 2016, as noted above.
And we should remember that the so-called “LGBTQ community” is, in some ways, as diverse as the “heterosexual community.” And so Trump will find much in common with gay voters who identify as conservative.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
As for his legislative, “pro-LGBTQ” actions, they are few and far between, the most obvious being his 2019 announcement that he was working to end the criminalization of homosexuality worldwide.
Yet even this action was in response to the hanging of a gay man in Iran (who among us supports something horrific like that?), and, on a certain level, it was more symbolic than anything.
As for his perceived “anti-LGBTQ” actions, those fall in line with: 1) his solidarity with Christian conservatives; and 2) his commitment to stand for religious liberties.
With consistency, when there is a conflict between freedom of religion and LGBTQ rights, the Trump administration has sided with freedom of religion. And when it comes to administrative actions perceived to be hostile, LGBTQ activists can easily compile their lists. In that regard, he has lived up to both the expectations of Christian conservatives and the fears of LGBTQ activists.
Four Years Later to the Month
How, then, do we evaluate Trump when it comes to LGBTQ issues and people?
Responding to candidate Trump’s waving of the gay flag in October, 2016, I wrote that I believed that Trump “wants to be the champion of hurting Americans everywhere, and he can probably look at his gay friends, like Peter Thiel, his evangelical friends, like Mike Pence, and his black friends who hailed from poor neighborhoods, like Ben Carson, and say, ‘I’m here to fight for you!’”
But I also wrote that “if we are voting for Trump, we do so with our eyes wide open, not making him into a larger than life deliverer who will save the day and turn the tide. To do so is to give place to myth rather than reality and to set ourselves up for disappointment.” (In retrospect, does this now ring true?)
And I called on followers of Jesus to love their LGBTQ neighbors as themselves, even while holding to our biblical convictions. This, too, is part of our sacred mission.
Now, four years later to the month, we have come full circle, faced with the exact same scenario, including the minority claim that Trump is pro-gay and the majority claim that he is not.
My counsel today is exactly what it was in 2016 when I wrote:
I urge every Christian conservative who plans to vote for Donald Trump not to sell your soul to him as you vote, but rather to commit to pray for him, recognizing his many, serious flaws. And if he is elected, then pray all the more that he will be surrounded in the White House by men like Joseph and Daniel who will bring wise counsel to the Oval Office.
I ask again: Does this ring true today?
Dr. Michael Brown (www.askdrbrown.org) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program. His latest book is Evangelicals at the Crossroads: Will We Pass the Trump Test? Connect with him on Facebook, Twitter or YouTube.


thestream--2020-10-13--‘I Believe in the Power of Prayer’: Amy Coney Barrett Speaks on Day One of Her Confirmation Hearings

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett said Monday that she never lets the law “ define my identity or crowd out the rest of my life ” as she thanked supporters for their prayers throughout her nomination process .
Following several hours of remarks made by senators , Barrett delivered pre-written remarks Monday afternoon during the first day of her confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill .
“ There is a tendency in our profession to treat the practice of law as all-consuming , while losing sight of everything else , ” she said .
“ But that makes for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard as a lawyer and a professor ; I owed that to my clients , my students , and myself .
But I never let the law define my identity or crowd out the rest of my life.
” Her comments come amidst Democratic and media attacks on her Catholic faith , such as Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein telling Barrett at her 2017 confirmation hearings , “ The dogma lives loudly within you , and that ’ s of concern.
” Multiple news outlets , including Newsweek , also previously falsely linked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the word “ handmaid ” to the dystopian novel , The Handmaid ’ s Tale , before issuing corrections and retractions noting that there is no established link between People of Praise and novelist Margaret Atwood ’ s The Handmaid ’ s Tale .
Barrett said she believed courts have a “ vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law ” but said that they are not designed to “ solve every problem ” in public life .
“ The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people , ” she said .
“ The public should not expect courts to do so , and courts should not try.
” “ That is the approach I have strived to follow as a judge on the Seventh Circuit , ” she continued .
“ In every case , I have carefully considered the arguments presented by the parties , discussed the issues with my colleagues on the court , and done my utmost to reach the result required by the law , whatever my own preferences might be.
” The Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for their prayers and messages of support throughout her nomination process .
“ I believe in the power of prayer , and it has been uplifting to hear that so many people are praying for me , ” she said .
“ I look forward to answering the committee ’ s questions over the coming days .
And if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed , I pledge to faithfully and impartially discharge my duties to the American people as an associate justice of the Supreme Court.
” Content created by The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact licensing @ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett said Monday that she never lets the law “define my identity or crowd out the rest of my life” as she thanked supporters for their prayers throughout her nomination process.
Following several hours of remarks made by senators, Barrett delivered pre-written remarks Monday afternoon during the first day of her confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill.
“There is a tendency in our profession to treat the practice of law as all-consuming, while losing sight of everything else,” she said. “But that makes for a shallow and unfulfilling life. I worked hard as a lawyer and a professor; I owed that to my clients, my students, and myself. But I never let the law define my identity or crowd out the rest of my life.”
Her comments come amidst Democratic and media attacks on her Catholic faith, such as Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein telling Barrett at her 2017 confirmation hearings, “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.”
Multiple news outlets, including Newsweek, also previously falsely linked People of Praise’s use of the word “handmaid” to the dystopian novel, The Handmaid’s Tale, before issuing corrections and retractions noting that there is no established link between People of Praise and novelist Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Barrett said she believed courts have a “vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law” but said that they are not designed to “solve every problem” in public life.
“The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the people,” she said. “The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try.”
“That is the approach I have strived to follow as a judge on the Seventh Circuit,” she continued. “In every case, I have carefully considered the arguments presented by the parties, discussed the issues with my colleagues on the court, and done my utmost to reach the result required by the law, whatever my own preferences might be.”
The Supreme Court nominee also thanked her many supporters for their prayers and messages of support throughout her nomination process.
“I believe in the power of prayer, and it has been uplifting to hear that so many people are praying for me,” she said. “I look forward to answering the committee’s questions over the coming days. And if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I pledge to faithfully and impartially discharge my duties to the American people as an associate justice of the Supreme Court.”
WATCH:
Copyright 2020 The Daily Caller News Foundation
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


thestream--2020-10-14--Critical Theory’s War on Critical Thinking

A Virginia school district has decided that critical questions about Critical Theory “ will not be tolerated.
” Free speech is great and all , they say , but it is “ outweighed ” by the importance of dealing with social injustice and systemic racism .
In other words , if taxpayers don ’ t like spending thousands of their dollars on foolish and destructive indoctrination for their kids , that is just too bad .
They are , by default , in the wrong .
What is “ Critical Theory ” Anyway ?
Its roots actually go back to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ European intellectuals .
Specifically it originated among neo-Marxists , mostly German ones .
Marx divided the world into classes .
Class warfare is what drives history .
“ The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles , ” he wrote in The Communist Manifesto .
It ’ s the haves and the have nots , oppressors and the oppressed .
Marx called for “ the ruthless criticism of all that exists.
” Because the privileged class holds the power , they design and control all of the systems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ join together ( “ Workers of the world , unite !
” ) for change .
Marxist critique is seen as the way to unmask the systems that justify oppression .
It precedes and inaugurates activism that leads to the dismantling of those systems .
Later Marxist scholars , like those of the famed , “ Frankfurt School , ” applied this idea to all areas of culture and society .
This is why some people call Critical Theory “ cultural Marxism.
” Their ideas lived on in particular academic circles .
Writers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
From him they got the idea that everything is about power .
Every norm , every shared truth about history or science , every moral precept — all of it is “ constructed ” as an exercise of power .
Then along came “ Intersectionality , ” where identity markers became the primary focus .
Mix that into Critical Theory and you end up with new academic disciplines like “ Critical Race Theory ” and “ Queer Theory , ” among others .
They teach people that identity markers fall along a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you are a white male heterosexual Christian , you are on the extreme “ oppressor ” end of the spectrum .
But if instead you are a black , gay , female who practices Wicca , you are on the extreme “ oppressed ” end of the spectrum .
You see how that works ?
And again , all of the “ systems ” are presumed to favor those on the oppressor side , and must therefore be “ dismantled.
” This is how we accomplish social justice , in their view .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Critical Theory ( CT ) .
Its moral claims are without a foundation , since it is grounded either in atheism ( a la historic Marxism ) or religious and moral confusion .
They have no ultimate basis for human dignity , rights or equality .
CT also gets human nature wrong .
A person ’ s value is not in his or her shallow and superficial features .
Reducing people to traits like skin color and sexual organs shrinks human worth and distorts our view of all humanity .
These criticisms could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most want to emphasize here is the way CT tries to escape all critical evaluation by vilifying it .
In other words , they make reason itself another “ system ” that must be dismantled .
The spokespeople for CT are fond of saying that we need to “ have a conversation ” about this or that .
This means , more or less , that their claims are to be taken uncritically .
Critique only works one direction — the old Marxist direction .
They critique the systems ; but nobody is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ celebrated “ professor of creative writing and inclusion ” explained why she always turns down invitations to debate her views : For those not fluent in “ wokese , ” the assertion of this word salad is that civil debate itself is part of the evil system .
This would no doubt baffle every great thinker from Aristotle to Descartes .
But it is perfectly in keeping with a recent Smithsonian exhibit on “ Whiteness.
” Taken straight from the writings of popular critical theorists , it showed all of the things imposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ included : objectivity , reason , hard work , fair play , the nuclear family , respect for authority , monotheism , having goals , future planning , optimism , property ownership , written tradition , politeness , proper English , conflict resolution and many more .
How can a sane society foster and further an irrational cult like this one ?
Reason can not be rejected , even if we try really hard to do it .
It is too basic .
It is a voice everyone hears .
The CT promoters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constantly in every other area of life and discussion .
To attempt to escape reason would require a self-lobotomy or heavily drug-induced state of mind .
So why would they suggest it ?
Clearly it is because they want to remain impervious to criticism .
Reason is their enemy because their system of doctrines is altogether unreasonable .
In a fair debate on a level playing field , Critical Theory would be rather handily obliterated .
Thus writers , speakers , politicians , and yes , entire school systems , avoid hard questions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no dissent .
Agree or you ’ re evil .
Clint Roberts has spent many years teaching courses in philosophy , ethics and religion for various universities , including the University of Oklahoma and Southern Nazarene University .
When not doing that , he can be found sermonizing , playing stringed instruments or roasting some chiles and/or coffee beans .
He also participates in a podcast that explores the most fascinating theological questions .

A Virginia school district has decided that critical questions about Critical Theory “will not be tolerated.” Free speech is great and all, they say, but it is “outweighed” by the importance of dealing with social injustice and systemic racism. In other words, if taxpayers don’t like spending thousands of their dollars on foolish and destructive indoctrination for their kids, that is just too bad. They are, by default, in the wrong.
What is “Critical Theory” Anyway?
Its roots actually go back to some of those dastardly dead, white European intellectuals. Specifically it originated among neo-Marxists, mostly German ones. Marx divided the world into classes. Class warfare is what drives history. “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles,” he wrote in The Communist Manifesto. It’s the haves and the have nots, oppressors and the oppressed.
Marx called for “the ruthless criticism of all that exists.” Because the privileged class holds the power, they design and control all of the systems. The oppressed are morally obligated to join together (“Workers of the world, unite!”) for change. Marxist critique is seen as the way to unmask the systems that justify oppression. It precedes and inaugurates activism that leads to the dismantling of those systems.
How can a sane society foster and further
an irrational cult like this one?
Later Marxist scholars, like those of the famed, “Frankfurt School,” applied this idea to all areas of culture and society. This is why some people call Critical Theory “cultural Marxism.” Their ideas lived on in particular academic circles. Writers borrowed from postmodern thinkers like Michel Foucault. From him they got the idea that everything is about power. Every norm, every shared truth about history or science, every moral precept — all of it is “constructed” as an exercise of power.
Then along came “Intersectionality,” where identity markers became the primary focus. Mix that into Critical Theory and you end up with new academic disciplines like “Critical Race Theory” and “Queer Theory,” among others. They teach people that identity markers fall along a hierarchy. If, for example, you are a white male heterosexual Christian, you are on the extreme “oppressor” end of the spectrum. But if instead you are a black, gay, female who practices Wicca, you are on the extreme “oppressed” end of the spectrum. You see how that works?
And again, all of the “systems” are presumed to favor those on the oppressor side, and must therefore be “dismantled.” This is how we accomplish social justice, in their view.
Critical Theory Dismantles the Tools of Critical Thinking
There is much to criticize about in Critical Theory (CT). Its moral claims are without a foundation, since it is grounded either in atheism (a la historic Marxism) or religious and moral confusion. They have no ultimate basis for human dignity, rights or equality.
CT also gets human nature wrong. A person’s value is not in his or her shallow and superficial features. Reducing people to traits like skin color and sexual organs shrinks human worth and distorts our view of all humanity.
In a fair debate on a level playing field, Critical Theory would be rather handily obliterated.
These criticisms could go on, but the thing I most want to emphasize here is the way CT tries to escape all critical evaluation by vilifying it. In other words, they make reason itself another “system” that must be dismantled.
The spokespeople for CT are fond of saying that we need to “have a conversation” about this or that. This means, more or less, that their claims are to be taken uncritically. Critique only works one direction — the old Marxist direction. They critique the systems; but nobody is allowed to critique their views.
One celebrated “professor of creative writing and inclusion” explained why she always turns down invitations to debate her views:
Because debate is an imperialist capitalist white supremacist cis heteropatriarchal technique that transforms a potential exchange of knowledge into a tool of exclusion & oppression.
For those not fluent in “wokese,” the assertion of this word salad is that civil debate itself is part of the evil system.
This would no doubt baffle every great thinker from Aristotle to Descartes. But it is perfectly in keeping with a recent Smithsonian exhibit on “Whiteness.” Taken straight from the writings of popular critical theorists, it showed all of the things imposed by dominant white values. Those things included: objectivity, reason, hard work, fair play, the nuclear family, respect for authority, monotheism, having goals, future planning, optimism, property ownership, written tradition, politeness, proper English, conflict resolution and many more.
Intellectual Suicide
How can a sane society foster and further an irrational cult like this one? Reason cannot be rejected, even if we try really hard to do it. It is too basic. It is a voice everyone hears. The CT promoters who say it is oppressive use it constantly in every other area of life and discussion. To attempt to escape reason would require a self-lobotomy or heavily drug-induced state of mind.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
So why would they suggest it? Clearly it is because they want to remain impervious to criticism. Reason is their enemy because their system of doctrines is altogether unreasonable. In a fair debate on a level playing field, Critical Theory would be rather handily obliterated. Thus writers, speakers, politicians, and yes, entire school systems, avoid hard questions by simple intolerance. No criticism, no dissent. Agree or you’re evil.
Clint Roberts has spent many years teaching courses in philosophy, ethics and religion for various universities, including the University of Oklahoma and Southern Nazarene University. When not doing that, he can be found sermonizing, playing stringed instruments or roasting some chiles and/or coffee beans. He also participates in a podcast that explores the most fascinating theological questions.


thestream--2020-10-14--The Biden-Harris Orwellian Redefining of ‘Court Packing’

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are redefining the words “ court packing ” in a manner worthy of George Orwell ’ s 1984 , ironically previewing how a packed ( i.e.
, expanded ) Supreme Court would redefine the Constitution ’ s words , abolishing our democratic republic as it has existed for over 200 years .
Perhaps the most revolutionary aspect of our Constitution is that it is a written document .
America ’ s Constitution is the first and oldest written constitution in the world .
Like any document , it consists of words on paper , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those words .
Every American has vital interests in those words , including me .
I serve on the board of a religious-liberty law firm , concerned that the First Amendment words “ free speech , ” and “ establishment ” and “ free exercise ” of religion must have a clear and fixed meanings .
I serve on the NRA board , so I am concerned about the Second Amendment ’ s “ right to keep and bear arms.
” I serve on the board of the Club for Growth , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Constitution ’ s Tax Clause , Spending Clause , and Commerce Clause .
As a black man , I care about the Fourteenth Amendment ’ s guarantees of “ due process ” and the “ equal protection of the laws.
” These fundamental rights survive only when those words have unchangeable meanings .
“ A judge must apply the law as written , not as the judge wishes it were , ” Amy Coney Barrett said today , speaking of Justice Scalia .
“ Sometimes that meant reaching results he did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in one of his best known opinions , that is what it means to say we have a government of laws , not of men.
” This is why court packing would destroy our form of government .
As Justice Antonin Scalia famously explained , it is our Constitution ’ s structural protections of separation of powers and checks and balances that actually holds tyranny at bay to protect the people .
The greatest check the Supreme Court has over Congress and a president is an independent judiciary with the power to strike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meaning of the Constitution ’ s words .
“ Court packing ” refers to a president and Congress controlled by the same party to pass a law increasing the number of Supreme Court seats , then packing those seats with justices that will rubber-stamp whatever the government does .
They redefine the Constitution ’ s words to give a pass to whatever the ruling party wants .
The Single Greatest Issue in This Election That would destroy a check that is essential to our very form of government , which is why it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters in this election .
Biden and Harris must not be allowed to continue refusing to answer whether they will pack the Supreme Court should they gain power — a refusal that implies they will do precisely that .
Instead , they redefine “ court packing.
” In Orwell ’ s frightening book , the all-powerful government brainwashed the people with the slogans : War is Peace , Freedom is Slavery , Ignorance is Strength .
Words had no meaning .
The Harris-Biden ticket ( their term , not mine ) is instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Constitution specifies that Supreme Court justices are appointed through two-party agreement , with the president choosing whom to nominate and the Senate choosing whether to advise and consent ( which we call “ confirmation ” ) .
All 29 times when there have been election-year Supreme Court vacancies , presidents have offered nominees to fill them .
Twenty-two of our 45 presidents have done so .
When held by the same party , the Senate almost always confirms .
When held by the opposition party , the Senate almost never confirms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Yet Biden and Harris are redefining “ court packing ” to refer to that ordinary process , inverting the meaning of a term that threatens our constitutional system of government .
Americans must reject Biden and Harris ’ s bid to eradicate the Constitution ’ s separation of powers and checks and balances , condemning America to the dystopian one-party rule Orwell warned could be in our future .
Ken Blackwell , is a Distinguish Fellow with The American Constitutional Rights Union .
He is an advisor to the Family Research Council @ @ @ @ @

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are redefining the words “court packing” in a manner worthy of George Orwell’s 1984, ironically previewing how a packed (i.e., expanded) Supreme Court would redefine the Constitution’s words, abolishing our democratic republic as it has existed for over 200 years.
Perhaps the most revolutionary aspect of our Constitution is that it is a written document. America’s Constitution is the first and oldest written constitution in the world. Like any document, it consists of words on paper, so its meaning rests entirely on the meaning of those words.
Vital Interest in the Constitution
Every American has vital interests in those words, including me. I serve on the board of a religious-liberty law firm, concerned that the First Amendment words “free speech,” and “establishment” and “free exercise” of religion must have a clear and fixed meanings. I serve on the NRA board, so I am concerned about the Second Amendment’s “right to keep and bear arms.” I serve on the board of the Club for Growth, and so focus on the words in the Constitution’s Tax Clause, Spending Clause, and Commerce Clause. As a black man, I care about the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantees of “due process” and the “equal protection of the laws.”
These fundamental rights survive only when those words have unchangeable meanings.
Court Packing Would Destroy Our Government
“A judge must apply the law as written, not as the judge wishes it were,” Amy Coney Barrett said today, speaking of Justice Scalia. “Sometimes that meant reaching results he did not like. But as he put it in one of his best known opinions, that is what it means to say we have a government of laws, not of men.”
This is why court packing would destroy our form of government. As Justice Antonin Scalia famously explained, it is our Constitution’s structural protections of separation of powers and checks and balances that actually holds tyranny at bay to protect the people. The greatest check the Supreme Court has over Congress and a president is an independent judiciary with the power to strike down government actions that violate the fixed meaning of the Constitution’s words.
“Court packing” refers to a president and Congress controlled by the same party to pass a law increasing the number of Supreme Court seats, then packing those seats with justices that will rubber-stamp whatever the government does. They redefine the Constitution’s words to give a pass to whatever the ruling party wants.
The Single Greatest Issue in This Election
That would destroy a check that is essential to our very form of government, which is why it is the single greatest issue facing the voters in this election. Biden and Harris must not be allowed to continue refusing to answer whether they will pack the Supreme Court should they gain power — a refusal that implies they will do precisely that.
Instead, they redefine “court packing.” In Orwell’s frightening book, the all-powerful government brainwashed the people with the slogans: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength. Words had no meaning.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
The Harris-Biden ticket (their term, not mine) is instead redefining “court packing.” Article II of the Constitution specifies that Supreme Court justices are appointed through two-party agreement, with the president choosing whom to nominate and the Senate choosing whether to advise and consent (which we call “confirmation”).
All 29 times when there have been election-year Supreme Court vacancies, presidents have offered nominees to fill them. Twenty-two of our 45 presidents have done so. When held by the same party, the Senate almost always confirms. When held by the opposition party, the Senate almost never confirms. This is the normal constitutional order.
Yet Biden and Harris are redefining “court packing” to refer to that ordinary process, inverting the meaning of a term that threatens our constitutional system of government.
Americans must reject Biden and Harris’s bid to eradicate the Constitution’s separation of powers and checks and balances, condemning America to the dystopian one-party rule Orwell warned could be in our future.
Ken Blackwell, is a Distinguish Fellow with The American Constitutional Rights Union. He is an advisor to the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C.


thestream--2020-10-14--So-Called ‘Virginia Values Act’ Undermines Religious Freedom

On July 1 , the state of Virginia enacted the “ Virginia Values Act , ” which bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity .
A companion law requires employers to include coverage for sex reassignment and “ gender affirming ” surgeries in their health plans .
According to the Alliance Defending Freedom , who has filed a pre-enforcement challenge , the Virginia Values Act requires “ churches , religious schools , and Christian ministries to hire employees who do not share their stated beliefs on marriage , sexuality , and gender identity.
” Though the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ owned , supported , controlled , or managed ” by denominations or churches , that exemption is severely limited .
First , it ’ s limited to instances in which the curriculum “ is directed toward the propagation of a particular religion.
” In other words , a Catholic school could insist its religion teachers agree with Catholic doctrines but , as written , likely not its math and science teachers .
Second , the exemption applies only to religious groups that do not restrict their membership on account of sexual orientation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a church that operates a school could require its teachers to be members of the church , but membership in that church can not require adherence to historic Christian teaching on sexuality and marriage .
The Virginia Values Act runs afoul of current law in all kinds of ways .
For starters , it ignores what the Supreme Court confirmed this past term about the “ ministerial exemption , ” which bars the application of anti-discrimination law in cases involving churches and their ministers .
In Our Lady of Guadalupe School , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ruled that churches and other “ religious organizations have the freedom to set their own internal policies and codes of conduct about life , marriage , and sexuality.
” Just a month after that ruling issued , the Virginia General Assembly and Governor Northam decided to ignore this freedom and the Supreme Court ’ s decision .
If the exemptions to the Virginia Values Act barely protects religious institutions , individual Christians in Virginia receive none at all .
Which means that the Virginia Values Act violates Virginia ’ s own RFRA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ substantial burden ” on a person ’ s free exercise of religion is only legally acceptable if it meets two criteria .
First , there must be “ a compelling governmental interest , ” Second , it must be “ the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
” In short , the Virginia Values Act , according to the Alliance Defending Freedom , violates the U.S. Constitution , the Virginia state constitution , and existing state laws .
Other than that , it ’ s great !
So far , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effect , the state has not taken action against any religious organizations or individuals .
But , the Alliance Defending Freedom isn ’ t waiting for that to happen .
On behalf of two churches , three schools , and a pregnancy care network , ADF has filed suit in state court .
In addition , a federal suit was filed on behalf of a wedding photographer who is worried he will be forced to violate his beliefs or face the loss of his business .
The faith of many Americans inspires them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neighbors and also requires them to abide by its teachings … Our clients offer spiritual guidance , education , pregnancy support , and athletic opportunities to their communities because of the religious beliefs that motivate them .
But Virginia ’ s new law forces these ministries to abandon or adjust their convictions or pay crippling fines .
Such government hostility toward people of faith has no place in a free society .
Time and time again , the Alliance Defending Freedom and other legal organizations are forced to go to court to defend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individuals .
Even more often , they are clarifying the rights of Christians in private appeals , clearly-worded letters , and open threats of litigation .
I wish we weren ’ t here as a nation , but we are .
As a Virginia-born native , I mourn the open hostility toward the unborn and to people of faith that now regularly pours out of the governor ’ s mansion .
Virginians must demand better from their elected officials .
John Stonestreet serves as President of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ speaker on areas of faith and culture , theology , worldview , education and apologetics .
Roberto Rivera is a senior fellow and columnist for the Charles Colson Center and Breakpoint .

On July 1, the state of Virginia enacted the “Virginia Values Act,” which bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. A companion law requires employers to include coverage for sex reassignment and “gender affirming” surgeries in their health plans. According to the Alliance Defending Freedom, who has filed a pre-enforcement challenge, the Virginia Values Act requires “churches, religious schools, and Christian ministries to hire employees who do not share their stated beliefs on marriage, sexuality, and gender identity.”
Limited Exemptions
Though the Act provides an exemption for religious schools “owned, supported, controlled, or managed” by denominations or churches, that exemption is severely limited. First, it’s limited to instances in which the curriculum “is directed toward the propagation of a particular religion.” In other words, a Catholic school could insist its religion teachers agree with Catholic doctrines but, as written, likely not its math and science teachers.
Second, the exemption applies only to religious groups that do not restrict their membership on account of sexual orientation or gender identity. In other words, a church that operates a school could require its teachers to be members of the church, but membership in that church cannot require adherence to historic Christian teaching on sexuality and marriage.
Running Afoul of Current Law
The Virginia Values Act runs afoul of current law in all kinds of ways. For starters, it ignores what the Supreme Court confirmed this past term about the “ministerial exemption,” which bars the application of anti-discrimination law in cases involving churches and their ministers. In Our Lady of Guadalupe School, the Court, under the U.S. Constitution, ruled that churches and other “religious organizations have the freedom to set their own internal policies and codes of conduct about life, marriage, and sexuality.” Just a month after that ruling issued, the Virginia General Assembly and Governor Northam decided to ignore this freedom and the Supreme Court’s decision.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
If the exemptions to the Virginia Values Act barely protects religious institutions, individual Christians in Virginia receive none at all. Which means that the Virginia Values Act violates Virginia’s own RFRA law, which clarifies that a “substantial burden” on a person’s free exercise of religion is only legally acceptable if it meets two criteria. First, there must be “a compelling governmental interest,” Second, it must be “the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
In short, the Virginia Values Act, according to the Alliance Defending Freedom, violates the U.S. Constitution, the Virginia state constitution, and existing state laws. Other than that, it’s great!
Defending Freedom in the Courts
So far, since the Virginia Values Act went into effect, the state has not taken action against any religious organizations or individuals. But, the Alliance Defending Freedom isn’t waiting for that to happen. On behalf of two churches, three schools, and a pregnancy care network, ADF has filed suit in state court. In addition, a federal suit was filed on behalf of a wedding photographer who is worried he will be forced to violate his beliefs or face the loss of his business.
According to ADF Senior Counsel Denise Harle,
The faith of many Americans inspires them to act for the good of their neighbors and also requires them to abide by its teachings … Our clients offer spiritual guidance, education, pregnancy support, and athletic opportunities to their communities because of the religious beliefs that motivate them. But Virginia’s new law forces these ministries to abandon or adjust their convictions or pay crippling fines. Such government hostility toward people of faith has no place in a free society.
Time and time again, the Alliance Defending Freedom and other legal organizations are forced to go to court to defend the crystal-clear rights of religious organizations and individuals. Even more often, they are clarifying the rights of Christians in private appeals, clearly-worded letters, and open threats of litigation. I wish we weren’t here as a nation, but we are. As a Virginia-born native, I mourn the open hostility toward the unborn and to people of faith that now regularly pours out of the governor’s mansion.
Virginians must demand better from their elected officials.
John Stonestreet serves as President of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. He’s a sought-after author and speaker on areas of faith and culture, theology, worldview, education and apologetics. Roberto Rivera is a senior fellow and columnist for the Charles Colson Center and Breakpoint.
Originally published at Breakpoint.org. Reprinted with permission.


thestream--2020-10-15--#ElectionUpdate: Biden Busted as Trump Busts a Move

Only 20 days to go until America decides its fate , and decides between “ duck and dodge ” Biden or “ dance and deliver ” Trump .
Today ’ s campaign news has been dominated by the bombshell revelation that Joe Biden met with a Burisma executive in a meeting arranged by Hunter Biden , despite Biden ’ s constant denial he ’ s had any contact with his son involving his overseas business .
To put it another way , Biden ’ s been lying his dentures off..
The Fat Damn Liar Was Right In fact , do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden exploded on a voter in Iowa , calling him “ fat ” and a “ damn liar ” ?
White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany remembers .
The voter was asking about this very issue : Hunter scoring big bucks from Burisma .
Biden lit into the guy .
As we reported earlier , The New York Post published the damning emails .
And immediately , Facebook and Twitter went into hyper-drive to stop the story from spreading .
It is a gross display of election interference .
Sen. Josh Hawley @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether the social media action “ constitutes a violation of campaign finance or other election laws.
” It is harrowing preview of what ’ s to come in a Biden-Harris administration .
My Democratic friends , do you want an America where legitimate news is censored ?
Where there is a blockade around the marketplace of ideas with orders to kill all news that threatens the powerful and ideas that threaten the party line ?
You may think you are voting against Donald Trump .
Striking a blow against Orange Man Bad .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ blow to your own throat .
You are purchasing your own gag .
Joe Goes to His Basement , Trump Goes to the YMCA While his big tech pals put a lid on the damning story , Joe Biden put a lid on his campaign activities at 9:41 a.m. this morning .
Just 20 days out from an election , and the man running for the most stressful job in the world , packs it in before 10 .
Perhaps , with scandal breaking out around him , he didn ’ t want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump is dancing to the music .
The President busted out his dance moves again Tuesday night .
Trump has taken to shaking his groove thing at his rallies to the Village People hit , “ YMCA.
” ( What were you expecting after his COVID fight ?
“ Night Fever ” ? )
Thursday night was supposed to be the second Presidential Debate .
But when the Trump campaign balked at the Commission on Presidential Debates ’ unilateral ( and unnecessary ) decision to make it a virtual debate , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knew the reason wasn ’ t that Biden was concerned with COVID .
He immediately signed up to do an in-person town hall on ABC .
Guess who ’ s now going head-to-head with Biden , at least on the TV dial ?
President Trump .
He ’ s going to be doing a town hall with NBC tomorrow night .
Given how NBC fixed its Biden town hall with Biden supporters and ABC fixed its Trump town hall with Trump haters , we can guess what the dueling town halls will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ABC , a slugfest on Trump on NBC .
Still , some folks are upset the network put Trump up against Biden .
I mean , why on earth would anyone want to put the Republican nominee up against the Democratic nominee ?
That ’ s just crazy !
CNN reports that there are even staffers within NBC News and MSNBC who are “ perturbed by the decision , with some likening it to collusion between the Trump campaign and the network.
” Former NBC Today host Katie Couric griped that “ having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Yeah , letting voters decide who they ’ d rather listen to , or have the choice to flip back and forth , is sooooo undemocratic .
“ Voters should be able to watch both and I don ’ t think many will.
” Apparently she ’ s never heard of either a TV remote or a DVR .
Couric also believes , “ This will be good for Trump because people like to watch his unpredictability.
” Well , yeah .
But maybe they ’ ll watch Trump because watching Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is painful .
But look , it may be good for Biden .
Given the odds he will have some horrible gaffe or depressing mental lapse or angry outburst , he could be lucky Trump draws away viewers .
Still , tomorrow night pits Basement Biden vs Dancing Don in prime time .
We ’ ll have to see which one has the “ Hot Stuff.
” Al Perrotta is the Managing Editor of The Stream and co-author , with @ JZmirak , of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration .
You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And if you aren ’ t already , please follow The Stream at @ Streamdotorg .

Only 20 days to go until America decides its fate, and decides between “duck and dodge” Biden or “dance and deliver” Trump.
Today’s campaign news has been dominated by the bombshell revelation that Joe Biden met with a Burisma executive in a meeting arranged by Hunter Biden, despite Biden’s constant denial he’s had any contact with his son involving his overseas business.
To put it another way, Biden’s been lying his dentures off.
The Fat Damn Liar Was Right
In fact, do you remember early in the primaries when Joe Biden exploded on a voter in Iowa, calling him “fat” and a “damn liar”? White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany remembers. The voter was asking about this very issue: Hunter scoring big bucks from Burisma. Biden lit into the guy.
Remember when @JoeBiden had a bizarre outburst, where he called a voter “fat” & a “damn liar”❓ Now we know why Joe reacted so harshly to a question about Hunter & his lucrative Ukraine gig: Joe had actually met w/ the Ukrainian executive despite denials! pic.twitter.com/jwQPaqq09r — Kayleigh McEnany (@kayleighmcenany) October 14, 2020
As we reported earlier, The New York Post published the damning emails. And immediately, Facebook and Twitter went into hyper-drive to stop the story from spreading. It is a gross display of election interference.
Sen. Josh Hawley is already asking the Federal Election Commission whether the social media action “constitutes a violation of campaign finance or other election laws.”
It is harrowing preview of what’s to come in a Biden-Harris administration.
My Democratic friends, do you want an America where legitimate news is censored? Where there is a blockade around the marketplace of ideas with orders to kill all news that threatens the powerful and ideas that threaten the party line?
You may think you are voting against Donald Trump. Striking a blow against Orange Man Bad. But a vote for Biden is a blow to your own throat. You are purchasing your own gag.
Joe Goes to His Basement, Trump Goes to the YMCA
While his big tech pals put a lid on the damning story, Joe Biden put a lid on his campaign activities at 9:41 a.m. this morning. Just 20 days out from an election, and the man running for the most stressful job in the world, packs it in before 10.
Perhaps, with scandal breaking out around him, he didn’t want to face the music.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump is dancing to the music.
The President busted out his dance moves again Tuesday night.
Trump has taken to shaking his groove thing at his rallies to the Village People hit, “YMCA.” (What were you expecting after his COVID fight? “Night Fever”?)
Dueling Town Halls
Thursday night was supposed to be the second Presidential Debate. But when the Trump campaign balked at the Commission on Presidential Debates’ unilateral (and unnecessary) decision to make it a virtual debate, the commission canceled the debate.
We quickly knew the reason wasn’t that Biden was concerned with COVID. He immediately signed up to do an in-person town hall on ABC.
Guess who’s now going head-to-head with Biden, at least on the TV dial? President Trump. He’s going to be doing a town hall with NBC tomorrow night.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Given how NBC fixed its Biden town hall with Biden supporters and ABC fixed its Trump town hall with Trump haters, we can guess what the dueling town halls will be: A lovefest for Biden over on ABC, a slugfest on Trump on NBC.
Still, some folks are upset the network put Trump up against Biden. I mean, why on earth would anyone want to put the Republican nominee up against the Democratic nominee? That’s just crazy!
Good for Democracy
CNN reports that there are even staffers within NBC News and MSNBC who are “perturbed by the decision, with some likening it to collusion between the Trump campaign and the network.”
Former NBC Today host Katie Couric griped that “having dueling town halls is bad for democracy.” Yeah, letting voters decide who they’d rather listen to, or have the choice to flip back and forth, is sooooo undemocratic.
“Voters should be able to watch both and I don’t think many will.” Apparently she’s never heard of either a TV remote or a DVR.
Couric also believes, “This will be good for Trump because people like to watch his unpredictability.” Well, yeah. But maybe they’ll watch Trump because watching Joe Biden, even when answering friendly questions, is painful.
But look, it may be good for Biden. Given the odds he will have some horrible gaffe or depressing mental lapse or angry outburst, he could be lucky Trump draws away viewers.
Still, tomorrow night pits Basement Biden vs Dancing Don in prime time. We’ll have to see which one has the “Hot Stuff.”
Al Perrotta is the Managing Editor of The Stream and co-author, with @JZmirak, of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration. You can follow him at @StreamingAl. And if you aren’t already, please follow The Stream at @Streamdotorg.


thestream--2020-10-14--Webster Labels ‘Sexual Preference’ ‘Offensive’ Following Amy Comey Barrett’s Usage. But is Our Sexua

Webster Labels ‘Sexual Preference’ ‘Offensive’ Following Amy Comey Barrett’s Usage. But is Our Sexuality Really Immutable?

During her interaction with California Senator Diane Feinstein on Tuesday , Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett used the forbidden term “ sexual preference ” with reference to LGBT sexuality .
Not only did this cause an instant internet firestorm , but it apparently led to an instant adjustment in a major online dictionary .
The term is now officially “ offensive ” when used in the sense of “ orientation.
” To give the background , Feinstein asked Barrett if she would “ vote to roll back hard-fought freedoms and protections for the LGBT community.
” Barrett replied , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do want to be clear that I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not ever discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.
” That was a crystal-clear answer .
She would not discriminate against the LGBT community based on sexual preference .
That was the legal question at hand .
But that was not got the attention of other senators , including Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono .
She argued that “ sexual preference ” is a term “ used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” she said .
“ Sexual orientation is a key part of a person ’ s identity.
” Barrett replied , “ I certainly didn ’ t mean and would never mean to use a term that would cause any offense in the LGBTQ community.
” But the cat was out of the bag .
Barrett had tipped her hand .
This woman is a religious fanatic and a bigot and a homophobe .
She is obviously not fit for the Supreme Court .
Away with her !
Hirono also noted that when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ marriage in 2015 , the majority opinion claimed that “ [ homo ] sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable.
” ( See here for Justice Kennedy ’ s actual statement . )
Interestingly , even the Washington Post pointed out that , “ Plenty of figures on the left — including Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , whom Barrett is hoping to replace on the high court — have also used the phrase , which was considered acceptable as recently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ But , ” the Post added , “ in a heated , highly polarized confirmation process that has brought questions of religion and gender into the forefront , LGBT advocates and Supreme Court watchers said her word choice may have been more telling than it seemed.
” Was Barrett unaware that saying “ sexual preference ” would cause offense ?
Was it an innocent slip of the tongue ?
Was she sending a not-so-subtle message to other Christian conservatives ?
Or did she simply share her own viewpoint without thinking through the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can answer that question .
What we ’ ll address here is twofold .
First , is there any truth to the term ?
Second , what can we learn from the reaction to Barrett using the term ?
In particular , to a major dictionary quickly changing its definition of the word ?
Is There Any Truth to the Idea of Sexual Preference ?
First , as for the “ offensive ” nature of the term “ sexual preference , ” that is readily understood .
After all , would we who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ preference ” ?
Or would we say , “ This is who I am and who I have always been ” ?
And how would we feel if society expected us to change our heterosexual desires into homosexual desires ?
That ’ s why “ sexual preference ” is deemed to be an offensive and even dangerous concept .
After the early premier of the In His Image movie Tuesday night in Oklahoma City , I spoke with an ex-gay man who told me his own story .
He explained how he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ age of 6 .
This was certainly not his preference or choice , and he spent many years trying to “ unchoose ” his sexual and romantic attractions .
At the same time , this man now identifies as ex-gay .
Jesus has touched his life , and he no longer lives the way he used to live .
And he does not agree with the Obergefell opinion that “ [ homo ] sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable.
” He , along with countless others , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that homosexuality is not a “ normal ” expression of human sexuality .
And he , along with countless others , would also tell us that homosexual desires and attractions are hardly immutable .
How does the open-minded , tolerant , LGBT community respond to the heartfelt , often heart wrenching testimonies of ex-gays ?
It denies their existence or labels them outright liars .
In the words of one gay blogger , “ How many people do they have to [ expletive ] up to get a handful who claim that conversion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LGBT use of the term “ conversion therapy , ” see here . )
What we can say is this : 1 ) the vast majority of those who identify as LGBTQ truly believe that this is who they are and that change is impossible .
2 ) Their sexual desires and romantic attractions are , in fact , deeply rooted in their lives .
3 ) But it is entirely their choice ( or preference ) to identify as LGBTQ and to act on their perceived sexual orientation .
As for what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of change , this link from the National Task Force for Therapy Equality , compiled especially for legislators , will prove helpful .
Rewriting Dictionaries on the Fly… Will We Challenge the Prevailing Narrative ?
Second , when it comes to dictionaries being “ woke , ” I drew attention last month to Dictionary.com ’ s “ biggest update ever , ” noting that “ those who control the language control the culture.
” As I wrote , “ The revisions are intended to ‘ help eliminate heterosexual bias in language , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gay activist ( or , gay activist driven ) organizations GLAAD and the APA .
No wonder LGBTQ websites like Out.com are celebrating the changes.
” Now , it appears that the prestigious Webster dictionary realized that it was not sufficiently woke , making clear that to speak of “ sexual preference ” with reference to “ orientation ” was “ offensive.
” As Steve Krakauer tweeted on Tuesday , “ As recently as last month , Webster ’ s Dictionary included a definition of ‘ preference ’ as ‘ orientation ’ or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it and added the word ‘ offensive.
’ Insane – I just checked through Wayback Machine and it ’ s real.
” He added , “ I mean this is all just complete insanity .
Here ’ s Leon Panetta , Obama ’ s Defense Sec , writing in 2018 for CNN about how ‘ Trump is not who we are ’ since ‘ we are all created equal under God , regardless of our race , creed , religion , color , sexual preference.
’ ” Jeremy Boering ’ s observation was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in today when ‘ sexual preference ’ became an offensive term and the left started rewriting dictionaries and disappearing the term from their own histories ?
Yeah , nothing Stalinesque about any of that… ” But what else can we expect from a society that now allows you to change your birth certificate based on your personal perception of your gender ?
Rewriting dictionaries on the fly is minor in comparison .
The discouraging news is that this will continue to happen unless we challenge the prevailing narrative .
Will we ?
Dr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program .
His latest book is Evangelicals at the Crossroads : Will We Pass the Trump Test ?
Connect with him on Facebook , Twitter or YouTube .

During her interaction with California Senator Diane Feinstein on Tuesday, Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett used the forbidden term “sexual preference” with reference to LGBT sexuality. Not only did this cause an instant internet firestorm, but it apparently led to an instant adjustment in a major online dictionary. The term is now officially “offensive” when used in the sense of “orientation.”
To give the background, Feinstein asked Barrett if she would “vote to roll back hard-fought freedoms and protections for the LGBT community.”
Barrett replied, “I have no agenda. I do want to be clear that I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not ever discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.”
That was a crystal-clear answer. She would not discriminate against the LGBT community based on sexual preference. That was the legal question at hand.
“Sexual Preference” Versus “Sexual Orientation”
But that was not what got the attention of other senators, including Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono. She argued that “sexual preference” is a term “used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice. It is not,” she said. “Sexual orientation is a key part of a person’s identity.”
Barrett replied, “I certainly didn’t mean and would never mean to use a term that would cause any offense in the LGBTQ community.”
But the cat was out of the bag. Barrett had tipped her hand. This woman is a religious fanatic and a bigot and a homophobe. She is obviously not fit for the Supreme Court. Away with her!
Hirono also noted that when the Supreme Court narrowly decided to redefine marriage in 2015, the majority opinion claimed that “[homo]sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable.” (See here for Justice Kennedy’s actual statement.)
He, along with countless others, would also tell us that homosexual desires and attractions are hardly immutable.
Interestingly, even the Washington Post pointed out that, “Plenty of figures on the left — including Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whom Barrett is hoping to replace on the high court — have also used the phrase, which was considered acceptable as recently as a decade or two ago.
“But,” the Post added, “in a heated, highly polarized confirmation process that has brought questions of religion and gender into the forefront, LGBT advocates and Supreme Court watchers said her word choice may have been more telling than it seemed.”
Was Barrett unaware that saying “sexual preference” would cause offense? Was it an innocent slip of the tongue? Was she sending a not-so-subtle message to other Christian conservatives? Or did she simply share her own viewpoint without thinking through the consequences?
Right now, only she can answer that question.
What we’ll address here is twofold. First, is there any truth to the term? Second, what can we learn from the reaction to Barrett using the term? In particular, to a major dictionary quickly changing its definition of the word?
Is There Any Truth to the Idea of Sexual Preference?
First, as for the “offensive” nature of the term “sexual preference,” that is readily understood. After all, would we who are heterosexuals describe our heterosexuality as a “preference”? Or would we say, “This is who I am and who I have always been”? And how would we feel if society expected us to change our heterosexual desires into homosexual desires?
That’s why “sexual preference” is deemed to be an offensive and even dangerous concept.
After the early premiere of the In His Image movie Tuesday night in Oklahoma City, I spoke with an ex-gay man who told me his own story. He explained how he realized he was same-sex attracted at the age of 6. This was certainly not his preference or choice, and he spent many years trying to “unchoose” his sexual and romantic attractions.
At the same time, this man now identifies as ex-gay. Jesus has touched his life, and he no longer lives the way he used to live. And he does not agree with the Obergefell opinion that “[homo]sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable.”
He, along with countless others, would argue that biology itself tells us that homosexuality is not a “normal” expression of human sexuality. And he, along with countless others, would also tell us that homosexual desires and attractions are hardly immutable.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
How does the open-minded, tolerant, LGBT community respond to the heartfelt, often heart wrenching testimonies of ex-gays? It denies their existence or labels them outright liars. In the words of one gay blogger, “How many people do they have to [expletive] up to get a handful who claim that conversion therapy works?” (For the LGBT use of the term “conversion therapy,” see here.)
What we can say is this: 1) the vast majority of those who identify as LGBTQ truly believe that this is who they are and that change is impossible. 2) Their sexual desires and romantic attractions are, in fact, deeply rooted in their lives. 3) But it is entirely their choice (or preference) to identify as LGBTQ and to act on their perceived sexual orientation.
As for what science has to say about the possibility of change, this link from the National Task Force for Therapy Equality, compiled especially for legislators, will prove helpful.
Rewriting Dictionaries on the Fly… Will We Challenge the Prevailing Narrative?
Second, when it comes to dictionaries being “woke,” I drew attention last month to Dictionary.com’s “biggest update ever,” noting that “those who control the language control the culture.”
As I wrote, “The revisions are intended to ‘help eliminate heterosexual bias in language, and they were “informed” by the gay activist (or, gay activist driven) organizations GLAAD and the APA. No wonder LGBTQ websites like Out.com are celebrating the changes.”
Now, it appears that the prestigious Webster dictionary realized that it was not sufficiently woke, making clear that to speak of “sexual preference” with reference to “orientation” was “offensive.”
As Steve Krakauer tweeted on Tuesday, “As recently as last month, Webster’s Dictionary included a definition of ‘preference’ as ‘orientation’ or ‘sexual preference.’ TODAY they changed it and added the word ‘offensive.’ Insane – I just checked through Wayback Machine and it’s real.”
He added, “I mean this is all just complete insanity. Here’s Leon Panetta, Obama’s Defense Sec, writing in 2018 for CNN about how ‘Trump is not who we are’ since ‘we are all created equal under God, regardless of our race, creed, religion, color, sexual preference.’”
Jeremy Boering’s observation was right on: “Remember way back in today when ‘sexual preference’ became an offensive term and the left started rewriting dictionaries and disappearing the term from their own histories? Yeah, nothing Stalinesque about any of that…”
But what else can we expect from a society that now allows you to change your birth certificate based on your personal perception of your gender? Rewriting dictionaries on the fly is minor in comparison.
The discouraging news is that this will continue to happen unless we challenge the prevailing narrative. Will we?
Dr. Michael Brown (www.askdrbrown.org) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program. His latest book is Evangelicals at the Crossroads: Will We Pass the Trump Test? Connect with him on Facebook, Twitter or YouTube.


thestream--2020-10-14--Melania Trump: My Personal Experience With COVID-19

It was two weeks ago when I received the diagnosis that so many Americans across our country and the world had already received — I tested positive for COVID-19 .
To make matters worse , my husband , and our nation ’ s Commander-in-Chief , received the same news .
Naturally my mind went immediately to our son .
To our great relief he tested negative , but again , as so many parents have thought over the past several months , I couldn ’ t help but think “ what about tomorrow or the next day ?
” My @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again and it came up positive .
Luckily he is a strong teenager and exhibited no symptoms .
In one way I was glad the three of us went through this at the same time so we could take care of one another and spend time together .
He has since tested negative .
I was very fortunate as my diagnosis came with minimal symptoms , though they hit me all at once and it seemed to be a roller coaster of symptoms in the days after .
I experienced body aches , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extremely tired most of the time .
I chose to go a more natural route in terms of medicine , opting more for vitamins and healthy food .
We had wonderful caretakers around us and we will be forever grateful for the medical care and professional discretion we received from Dr. Conley and his team .
It was an unfamiliar feeling for me to be the patient instead of a person trying to encourage our nation to stay healthy and safe .
It was me being taken care of now , and getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do .
As the patient , and the person benefitting from so much medical support , I found myself even more grateful and in awe of caretakers and first responders everywhere .
To the medical staff and the residence staff who have been taking care of our family — thank you doesn ’ t say enough .
Recovering from an illness gives you a lot of time to reflect .
When my husband was taken to Walter Reed as a precaution , I spent much of my time reflecting on my family .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ thousands of people across our country who have been impacted by this illness that infects people with no discrimination .
We are in unprecedented times — and with the election fast approaching , it has been easy to get caught up in so much negative energy .
It also cheered me to think of all the people I have met across our country and the world — and the goodness and compassion that exists if you seek it out .
Our country has overcome many hardships and much adversity , and it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we will be able to tell future generations we overcame — and learned from in the process .
I encourage everyone to continue to live the healthiest life they can .
A balanced diet , fresh air , and vitamins really are vital to keep our bodies healthy .
For your complete well-being , compassion and humility are just as important in keeping our minds strong .
For me personally , the most impactful part of my recovery was the opportunity to reflect on many things — family , friendships , my work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are .
I am happy to report that I have tested negative and hope to resume my duties as soon as I can .
Along with this good news , I want people to know that I understand just how fortunate my family is to have received the kind of care that we did .
If you are sick , or if you have a loved one who is sick — I am thinking of you and will be thinking of you every day .
I pray for our country and I pray @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and any other illnesses or challenges .
Thank you to everyone who reached out and offered well wishes and prayers for our family .
You remain in ours as well .

It was two weeks ago when I received the diagnosis that so many Americans across our country and the world had already received — I tested positive for COVID-19. To make matters worse, my husband, and our nation’s Commander-in-Chief, received the same news.
Naturally my mind went immediately to our son. To our great relief he tested negative, but again, as so many parents have thought over the past several months, I couldn’t help but think “what about tomorrow or the next day?” My fear came true when he was tested again and it came up positive. Luckily he is a strong teenager and exhibited no symptoms. In one way I was glad the three of us went through this at the same time so we could take care of one another and spend time together. He has since tested negative.
‘Thank You’ Doesn’t Say Enough
I was very fortunate as my diagnosis came with minimal symptoms, though they hit me all at once and it seemed to be a roller coaster of symptoms in the days after. I experienced body aches, a cough and headaches, and felt extremely tired most of the time. I chose to go a more natural route in terms of medicine, opting more for vitamins and healthy food. We had wonderful caretakers around us and we will be forever grateful for the medical care and professional discretion we received from Dr. Conley and his team.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
It was an unfamiliar feeling for me to be the patient instead of a person trying to encourage our nation to stay healthy and safe. It was me being taken care of now, and getting first-hand experience with all that COVID-19 can do.
As the patient, and the person benefitting from so much medical support, I found myself even more grateful and in awe of caretakers and first responders everywhere. To the medical staff and the residence staff who have been taking care of our family — thank you doesn’t say enough.
An Opportunity to Reflect
Recovering from an illness gives you a lot of time to reflect. When my husband was taken to Walter Reed as a precaution, I spent much of my time reflecting on my family. I also thought about the hundreds of thousands of people across our country who have been impacted by this illness that infects people with no discrimination. We are in unprecedented times — and with the election fast approaching, it has been easy to get caught up in so much negative energy.
It also cheered me to think of all the people I have met across our country and the world — and the goodness and compassion that exists if you seek it out. Our country has overcome many hardships and much adversity, and it is my hope COVID-19 will be another obstacle we will be able to tell future generations we overcame — and learned from in the process.
I encourage everyone to continue to live the healthiest life they can. A balanced diet, fresh air, and vitamins really are vital to keep our bodies healthy. For your complete well-being, compassion and humility are just as important in keeping our minds strong. For me personally, the most impactful part of my recovery was the opportunity to reflect on many things — family, friendships, my work, and staying true to who you are.
Praying for Our Nation
I am happy to report that I have tested negative and hope to resume my duties as soon as I can. Along with this good news, I want people to know that I understand just how fortunate my family is to have received the kind of care that we did. If you are sick, or if you have a loved one who is sick — I am thinking of you and will be thinking of you every day. I pray for our country and I pray for everyone who is grappling with COVID-19 and any other illnesses or challenges.
Thank you to everyone who reached out and offered well wishes and prayers for our family. You remain in ours as well.
Originally appeared on WhiteHouse.gov.