Thursday, July 30, 2015

US Gov Advocating "LGBT-Affirming Places of Worship"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
The First Amendment to the Constitution says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

While the progressive left on the Supreme Court have, in recent years, placed the Establishment and the Free Exercise of Religion Clauses in mutual tension, it was clearly never intended by those who wrote the Constitution and the Amendment.

While the Obama administration is not "establishing" a certain sect or form of religious belief---it is strongly advocating and incentivizing for it in the government Refugee Program. And elsewhere.

And in doing so is establishing places of worship that adhere to a certain doctrine of belief.

Could the Boy Scouts now also be used to advance a certain religious belief?

The Obama administration has introduced homosexual rights policies across federal agencies, including at the Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement.

Their government web site links to a guide that rates placement providers and communities on LGBT-friendly services, including having "culturally competent mental health providers" and "LGBT-affirming places of worship."

The 8-page guide published by the homosexual refugee advocacy organization Heartland Alliance International is titled "Rainbow Welcome Initiative"

Penny Star notes that "it is designed like a score card that allows agencies and service providers to use a point system to rate refugee programs and communities on acceptance of the LGBT lifestyle."

She notes that in section 3, titled, "Welcoming Environment," each item is worth 2 points and points are earned for offices that promote homosexuality (page 4). And the section states, "Tolerance of diversity, including sexual orientation and gender identity, is a cultural value in the United States."

The guide concludes by saying if an "affiliate" scores between 0-59 points "affiliated does not meet minimum guidelines. Action plan should be developed before accepting LGBT cases."

If affirming homosexual behavior and gender confusion is "a cultural value in the United States," is it much of a step to believe that those not in compliance with the government's endorsed guidelines will not only be non-compliant with the guidelines, but with America's "cultural values," and if an organization is non-compliant with national values, they are also non-compliant with non-discrimination laws.

This includes places of worship in the government's refugee program.

This is a backdoor attempt on the part of the Obama administration to force their religious views on people who do not hold those views regarding homosexual behavior.

And to marginalize those places of worship that "do" hold biblical beliefs on marriage, family and homosexual behavior.

To become a "compliant church," it is necessary to adjust church doctrines to affirm homosexual behavior and dispense with clear biblical teaching on the subject.

Newsweek and other news organizations are reporting that the Boy Scouts have formalized what their leadership had recommended last week: They have dropped the ban on homosexual leadership in local troops.

Newsweek focuses on the deep concerns of the Mormon Church, defining their response as "Deeply Troubled."

The LDS has a century long relationship with the Scouts, and has the most involvement of any church group in the country, although many churches have also worked closely with the BSA.

To find yet another "compromise" in their downward spiral, the BSA has declared churches that sponsor Boy Scout groups whose beliefs differ from the new BSA policy, are exempted.

In that federal law has now been re-written to support the president's homosexual agenda, how many days will pass before the first lawsuit is filed by a homosexual man who has been denied leadership by a local LDS Church?

Or any number of other churches?

The public knows where the government will stand on the matter, and we have a pretty clear view of where at least 5 activists on the Supreme Court stand.

While this would not legally be "establishing a religion," it certainly, in effect, is promoting a specific moral and spiritual doctrine---with possible penalty for not being in compliance.

George Washington would like a moment with us.

In his "first official act," he called on the Almighty Being who rules over the universe to "bless the new government," recognizing fundamental biblical teaching as the basis of this new government.

In his Farewell Address he said, "Of all the dispositions and habits of which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars..."

These "great pillars" are under attack.

The subversion is not necessarily to eliminate the Scriptural biblical teaching Washington spoke of---but to revise it.

To conform Scripture so that it affirms a destructive behavior, condemned in biblical teaching, and approves a culture that is in moral free fall.

All in the name of love. And tolerance.

Be Discerning. Be Vigilant. Be Bold. Be Prayerful.


  1. Wow, Gary, are you discovering the benefits of separating church and state? Government 'endorsing' religion looks a whole lot different to you when it's one you don't believe in, now doesn't it.

    1. What benefit? Clearly this degrades America and it's government. Amazing this corruption. And why do they do it? Do they just want to change something, as if having the ability to change something is something of value, whether or not it's changed for the better or worse, as if better or worse doesn't matter? I don't get it. Why? Is it for a following of corrupt people, is that what they hope to strengthen their party? I just don't get it. Why?

      It's been said that one just can't get into people's minds who do wrong things.

      I guess these things just don't make sense.

      We've been given a good constitution, and for times such as these. I wish these people would stick to it. I wish they would get back to it. These kind need to be replaced by others.

    2. I don't think any constitutionally minded Christian would be for the government endorsing any particular religion, by tax credits, entitlements, or other means such as we read of here, even if it was in favor of our own denomination. It's just not what we want, even though we are for Christians in government who are not ashamed or afraid to give their testimony, encouragement, or admonitions concerning spiritual matters.

      I suppose there may be many who neither understand Christians or are much aware of the foundations which support our constitution.

  2. I guess they wanted to re-make the Boy Scouts. It seems they want to re-make everything in America....and from there, who knows? It's as if they want their name on everything, intruding into everything that isn't theirs....reminds me of gangs.

    These gangster statesmen have to be replaced.


Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.