"Free to Live and Love as We See Fit?"

(Albertmohler.com) by Albert Mohler

As Sen. John McCain recently remarked, "elections have consequences." President Barack Obama signed the "Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act" into law on Thursday, fulfilling a campaign promise and handing the gay rights community one of its most sought-after achievements.

The bill, named for two men killed in vicious attacks, extends the definition of federal hates crimes to include attacks "based on a person's race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or mental or physical disability."

Referring to Matthew Shepherd and James Byrd, the President said:

It's hard for any of us to imagine the mind-set of someone who would kidnap a young man and beat him to within an inch of his life, tie him to a fence, and leave him for dead. It's hard for any of us to imagine the twisted mentality of those who'd offer a neighbor a ride home, attack him, chain him to the back of a truck, and drag him for miles until he finally died.

Those words are eloquent in exposing the deep evil that resides in far too many human hearts. If anything, the President spoke too cautiously. It is not only "hard" for any morally sane person to imagine the mentality behind these attacks, it is and must be impossible. Such crimes of violence against any human being should and must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But defining these crimes as "hate crimes" shifts the legal issue from the criminally violent act itself to the thoughts and intentions of the criminal. This is a dangerous and unnecessary step, for the very idea of a hate crime requires the government to play the role of psychiatrist and also requires a list of those who deserve special protections. How can government stop the extension of that list? If criminalizing hate is legally justifiable, should not every citizen be granted these same protections?

Even more ominously, the logic of hate crime laws inevitably leads to the idea of laws against what is defined as "hate speech." It is not fair to suggest that this specific legislation includes a hate speech provision. It is fair, however, to sound the alarm that very important rights involving the freedom to speak openly against homosexuality, for example, are now at far greater risk.

There was no surprise in the fact that President Obama signed the bill. The shock came, not in the fact that he signed it, but in what the President said in his comments. "This is the culmination of a struggle that has lasted more than a decade. Time and again, we faced opposition," said the President. "Time and again, the measure was defeated or delayed. Time and again we've been reminded of the difficulty of building a nation in which we're all free to live and love as we see fit."

Does President Obama actually mean what he said here? Does he really call for a society "in which we're all free to live and love as we see fit?" The hate crimes bill he signed into law covers gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation. The courts will have to sort out all that is covered in those categories.

But the "free to live and love as we see fit" language was set in a context larger than the hate crimes bill. President Obama is an intellectually serious man. He knows that words matter. When he speaks of all citizens being "free to live and love as we see fit" he opens the door far beyond the categories of heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual. Does he mean to include polygamists in this vision? The "polyamorous?" Incest? The catalogue of sexual interests claimed by some as "loves" goes far beyond these.

We are living in an age increasingly marked by what Sigmund Freud called "polymorphous perversity." I do not believe that President Obama meant to include any and all sexual interests and lifestyles under his blanket category of living and loving "as we see fit." But words really do matter, and this President now bears responsibility for signing a dangerous bill into law and then for compounding that act by using language that was self-congratulatory, dishonest, and dangerous.

In another sense, the President's language was revealing. The logic that leads to the celebration of gay, lesbian, and bisexual relationships cannot stop with those sexual categories. In an age that elevates "consent" as the only meaningful moral and legal issue, any effort to refuse similar recognition to any consensual sexual relationship, lifestyle, or practice is doomed to eventual failure. It is all just a matter of time.

Yes, Sen. McCain, elections have consequences. But words have consequences, too, President Obama. Do you really want to live with the consequences of your words spoken on Thursday?

"Simply Unprecedented" - President Obama and the Gay Rights Movement

(Albertmohler.com) by Albert Mohler

"This was a historic night when we felt the full embrace and commitment of the President of the United States. It's simply unprecedented." Those words were spoken by Joe Salmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, just after President Barack Obama spoke to the group's 13th annual national dinner.

The Human Rights Campaign is one of the leading organizations promoting what it describes as "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights." The group's annual dinner, held Saturday night, featured well-known politicians and entertainers popular in the LGBT community, as well as an appearance by the President of the United States. President Obama's speech was a matter of controversy long before he arrived. Though pledging soon after his election to be what he called a "fierce advocate" for gay rights, the President has frustrated the gay rights community with what they see as inaction and hesitation in dealing with their agenda.

Indeed, the Obama administration has been under sustained pressure from the gay rights community -- a crucial sector of its political support -- and the HRC dinner was seen as an opportunity for the President to reassert his identification with gay supporters. Mr. Obama was the second sitting president to appear at an HRC dinner. President Bill Clinton appeared before the group in 1997.

Addressing the group, President Obama spoke of the obstacles in the way of the agenda hoped for by gay activists. The President told the group that they faced a continuing fight, adding: "I'm here with you in that fight."

In the course of his address the President took credit for a federal hate crimes bill that was passed last week by a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives. He also pledged to push for an employee non-discrimination bill and fully-inclusive hate crimes legislation.

But the greatest attention was directed at the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that bars openly-homosexual individuals from serving in the U.S. Armed Forces. "I will end don't ask don't tell," the President pledged. "That's my commitment to you." Nevertheless, the President did not stipulate any timetable for this action -- a fact noted by his audience.

The President's perceived lack of action -- and his refusal to hold his administration to a timetable for action -- meant that many in the crowd were disappointed. Though his speech was repeatedly interrupted by eager applause, a good many activists complained that his speech was politically expedient. At TIME.com, John Cloud summarized the President's message with these words: "I'm with you. But I can't do much for you."

Nevertheless, in contrast to that reading of the President's comments, others understood Mr. Obama to make a sweeping series of promises. In addition to pledging a repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, the President also pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

The President said:

And that is why -- that's why I support ensuring that committed gay couples have the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple in this country. I believe strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away and passing laws that extend equal rights to gay couples. I've required all agencies in the federal government to extend as many federal benefits as possible to LGBT families as the current law allows. And I've called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and to pass the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996, stipulates a federal definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman and protects any state from being forced to recognize a same-sex marriage legal in another state. The law was passed by huge majorities in both houses of Congress and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The opposition of the homosexual community to the law has multiplied since the advent of legalized same-sex marriage in a handful of states.

In a significant portion of his address, President Obama spoke of the fact that gay and lesbian concerns "raise a great deal of emotion in this country." He did not counsel the homosexual community to be patient, but he did ask for understanding. He spoke of advances made over the last three decades, but then reflected that "there's still laws to change and there's still hearts to open." Furthermore, "There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors, even loved ones -- good and decent people -- who hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; who would deny you the rights most Americans take for granted. And that's painful and it's heartbreaking."

The President's promises were sweeping. Nevertheless, the most remarkable section of his address included a truly unprecedented promise. The President told the group that his expectation is that when they look back over the years of his administration, they would "see a time in which we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians."

Then he spoke these words:

You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.

Those words represent a moral revolution that goes far beyond what any other President has ever promised or articulated. In the span of a single sentence, President Obama put his administration publicly on the line to press, not only for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, but for the recognition that same-sex relationships are "just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman."

It is virtually impossible to imagine a promise more breathtaking in its revolutionary character than this -- to normalize same-sex relationships to the extent that they are recognized as being as admirable as heterosexual marriage.

The attendees at the Human Rights Campaign's annual dinner heard the President of the United States make that breathtaking pledge. Was the rest of America listening?

Morality, Hollywood Style

(AlbertMohler.com) written by Albert Mohler

Moral hypocrisy is an ugly thing, regardless of its source. Hypocrisy is a moral trap of constant threat -- the price of holding any moral standards at all. To hold to the truth of moral judgment and then to allow for the transgression of that moral judgment is hypocrisy in its essence. The only total escape from the threat of hypocrisy is to forfeit any claim to moral standards at all.

Hypocrisy is found in ample supply among both conservatives and liberals. The conservative variant seems most evident when political or religious leaders are found guilty of transgressing the very principles they preach. The hypocrisy spreads in both extent and significance when those who claim to be conservatives attempting to conserve moral wisdom, excuse those who flaunt their personal disregard for that wisdom.

The liberal variant seems most evident when, for example, moral relativists all of a sudden discover moral scruples. It turns out that even postmodern relativists and the children of the 1960s do believe in moral principles after all. Yet, the cultural left has always found sexual morality most difficult to define or defend.

The other liberal variant that so often appears is the argument that artists or celebrities or academics are above the morality to which the rest of society is accountable. In the end, the children of the sexual revolution have gravitated toward a sexual morality that boils down to consent. In its essence, this sexual morality holds that anything consenting individuals do with each other sexually is beyond moral censure. And anything means anything. An ethic of consent is all that remains after the ethic of moral rules is discarded in the name of liberation.

That leaves the definition of consent as the issue of central concern. Who can and cannot give adequate consent to sex? Feminists have been quick to point out, quite rightly, that women are often forced into situations in which consent is an illusion. Thus, they have been steadfast defenders of laws and moral codes that protect women from situations in which consent is not genuine. They have insisted, rightly again, that the very young, the vulnerable, and those under threat of harm (such as an employee approached by an employer) cannot grant meaningful consent.

Of course, the most vulnerable are the youngest, and the most vulnerable of all are the youngest when exploited by adults. This moral wisdom -- the wisdom of any sane society -- has been affirmed by virtually all but the most scandalously outrageous figures driven into the moral wilderness.

Until now?

The response of so many Hollywood leading lights to the arrest of filmmaker Roman Polanski now suggests that, at least when it comes to one of their own, sex with children is within the pale. This deserves and demands a closer look.

The cultural left has responded to the arrest a week ago of Polanksi with outrage -- directed not at Polanski but at the arrest.

The facts are not in dispute. Roman Polanski pleaded guilty to having sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977. The girl had been invited to a "photo session" with the famous director but Polanski gave her alcohol and drugs and then twice had sex with her. Polanski entered a guilty plea based on an agreement that he would not be prosecuted for rape or sodomy (crimes for which he had been indicted). He fled the United States before his sentencing and has generally avoided any nation that has an extradition treaty with the United States. His arrest in Switzerland set off international protests.

The French cultural minister expressed outrage that the United States would demand Polanski's return. Within days, over 100 Hollywood luminaries had signed a petition demanding Polaski's release. Names on the petition included Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese, David Lynch, Tilda Swinton, and Harvey Weinstein.

Weinstein defended Hollywood's defense of Polanski, referring to his sex with a 13-yer-old girl as a "so-called crime" and telling The Los Angeles Times: "Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion . . . We were the people who did the fundraising telethon for the victims of 9/11. We were there for the victims of Katrina and any world catastrophe." In other words, our morality is superior to you unartistic types with your moral scruples about sex with children.

As Terry Teachout commented in The Wall Street Journal, "Mr. Weinstein is, of course, a moral idiot." Clearly. The larger question is why so many Hollywood types have jumped so eagerly to defend Polanski. Whoopi Goldberg said on "The View" that what Polanski did "was not rape, rape." Then what is rape, rape?

The Los Angeles Times reported:

Jonathan Kuntz, a visiting professor in UCLA's Cinema and Media Studies school, said the local reaction may be a version of the "there, but for the grace of God, go I." "I think that there are a lot of folks in Hollywood in the late '60s and '70s who may have done a lot of things they weren't really proud of, and may have been participating in very similar things," Kuntz said. "And it touches on a question that's been around for a long time: whether the celebrity is above the law.

Is the celebrity above the law? The case of Roman Polanski is tragic to the core. He went on to have an affair with a 15-year-old actress even after fleeing justice in the United States. He was always warmly embraced by Hollywood, receiving a standing ovation when he was announced as the winner of an Oscar for "The Pianist." He gave his acceptance speech by satellite broadcast. Hollywood was glad to oblige.

Give Katha Pollitt credit, the feminist left-winger supreme was quick to denounce both Polanski and his Hollywood enablers:

The widespread support for Polanski shows the liberal cultural elite at its preening, fatuous worst. They may make great movies, write great books, and design beautiful things, they may have lots of noble humanitarian ideas and care, in the abstract, about all the right principles: equality under the law, for example. But in this case, they're just the white culture-class counterpart of hip-hop fans who stood by R. Kelly and Chris Brown and of sports fans who automatically support their favorite athletes when they're accused of beating their wives and raping hotel workers.

No wonder Middle America hates them.

The moral gap between Hollywood and "Middle America" is vast, though for some reason many Americans blind themselves to this fact. The Hollywood embrace of Roman Polanski and their outrage at his arrest in Switzerland shines a floodlight on this gap.

Are art and artists above moral accountability? The Hollywood elite seem to believe so -- and even to be willing to lend their names to the defense of the morally indefensible. Is the celebrity above the law? Watch this case closely.

Why Do the Heathen Rage? - International Blasphemy Day

(Albertmohler.com) written by Albert Mohler

Ready for a day to honor blasphemy? According to press reports, September 30 is set as the observance of the first-ever International Blasphemy Day. This could be interesting.

The choice of September 30 looks back to that date in the year 2005, when the publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad's face sparked outcry and protests in the Muslim world and threats toward the West.

Now, as Religion News Service reports, the Center for Inquiry is planning a day of observances to mark the occasion. Ron Lindsay, a lawyer who serves as president of the Council for Inquiry International, said that the day was part of the group's effort to expose religious beliefs to investigation. In the words of the RNS report, the goal is "to expose all religious beliefs to the same level of inquiry, discussion and criticism to which other areas of intellectual interest are subjected."

Here is one feature of the day as planned by CFI:

You've never seen Jesus like this before: dripping red nail polish around the nails in his feet and hands, an irreverent riff on the crucifixion wounds. The provocative title of the painting: "Jesus Does His Nails." Blasphemous? Absolutely. Deliberately provocative? You bet.

Artist Dana Ellyn told RNS that she is an "agnostic atheist" whose purpose is to be provocative. "My point is not to offend, but I realize it can offend, because religion is such a polarizing topic," she said.

Among other things, CFI International also plans a "blasphemy contest," "in which participants are invited to submit phrases, poems, or statements that would be, or have been, considered blasphemous." Winners are to receive a t-shirt and mug.

Bet you can't wait to see those.

More seriously, participants are also to be encouraged to take up the "Blasphemy Challenge" in which individuals register their blasphemy in the face of Mark 3:29. In that verse, Jesus warns, "whoever blasphemes the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" [ESV]. Those who take up the "Blasphemy Challenge" record video submissions which must include the words, "I deny the Holy Spirit."

The Blasphemy Day events are certain to draw media attention, which is no doubt the whole point of the observance. That is how a group like CFI can gain publicity for itself and its cause.

How should Christians respond?

First, take no offense. Refuse to play into the game plan of those sponsoring International Blasphemy Day. The Lord Jesus Christ was and is despised and rejected of men. Our Lord bore the scorn heaped upon him by his enemies. Christianity is not an honor religion. Believers in the Lord Jesus Christ are not commanded to defend his honor, but to be willing to share in the scorn directed to him. Is the servant greater than his master?

Islam is an honor religion, and the major forces in the world today seeking to criminalize blasphemy are Islamic. The riots on the streets of many nations in protest of the Danish cartoons do represent what faithful Muslims believe their religion requires them to do. Not so for Christianity. We must be those who take to the streets with the Gospel -- not with a defense of our honor or the honor of our Lord. When Christians forget this, we lose our Gospel witness. The history of the church includes far too many instances of this loss. We dare not add another.

Second, mourn the blasphemy. The warning of Jesus is clear -- blasphemy has eternal consequences. The worst form of blasphemy is the refusal to hear and believe the Gospel. For that sin there can be no forgiveness. We must mourn the blasphemy, not because honor is at stake, but because souls are at stake with eternal consequences. God will ultimately and perfectly defend his honor. On that day, there will be no escape for unrepentant blasphemers.

Third, see this observance for what it really is -- an unintended testimony to the existence of God and the foolishness of those who deny Him. The sheer foolishness of a blasphemy contest with t-shirts and mugs betrays the lunacy of it all. They can do no better than this? One testimony to the power of God is the fact that his self-declared enemies come off as so childish and manic. The heathen rage and God sees the foolish grasshoppers.

International Blasphemy Day will come and go. Take note, ponder its meaning . . . and skip the t-shirt.