Focus On The Family Warns Of The Dangers Of "Emo-Porn"

Focus on the Family is warning that women today are being seduced by "emo-porn," which is not actually pornographic at all but simply soap operas and romance novels which create unrealistic images of attentive and loving husbands: 

Loneliness strikes at the heart of both husbands and wives, but tends to plunge deeper into the emotional expanse of women. This is one reason why wives are seduced by “emo-porn,” virtual infidelity that is more emotionally satisfying before it physically pleases. But like salt water, it creates a worsening thirst. With emo-porn, fantasy men perform stunningly between the sheets of conversation, emotional understanding, and emotional dexterity. Most mortal men cannot deliver such behavior, the way men do in soap operas and romance novels. Just as wives rightly complain when compared to the artificially created women of Internet porn, men should complain when compared to the artificial men of daytime television. Interesting, isn’t it, how they have such exciting jobs—no Joe The Plumbers. In the real world where real men burn through a lot of emotional battery life to make a real living, being expected to behave like men who don’t exist is more than wrong. It’s cruel.

Emo-porn creates caricatures in the minds and hearts of wives. Most men just aren’t and cannot be that attentive, especially in marriage where responsibilities to provide weigh heavy upon them. Husbands are quietly deemed unresponsive and uncaring when compared to emotionally dexterous hunks of daytime lore, chat rooms, celebrity rags, and romance novels. Thus a secretive and snowballing form of marital discontent is born and nurtured.

Gaffney: Establish a "House Anti-American Activities Committee"

Earlier this month, Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy accused New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie of “misprision of treason” for appointing lawyer Sohail Mohammed, who is Muslim, to the state’s Superior Court. While speaking with Rick Joyner of MorningStar Ministries and The Oak Initiative yesterday, Gaffney said that more people need to be investigated for misprision of treason - the failure to report treasonous activity to a federal official - a federal offense punishable by up to seven years in prison.

After lauding the House Un-American Activities Committee, which was notorious for using ‘red scare’ tactics in government and the entertainment industry in the 1950’s, Gaffney called for the establishment of a “House Anti-American Activities Committee” that would investigate people involved in treasonous activities or their concealment.

Joyner, who Gaffney called one of his “personal heroes,” is also an anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist who previously argued that educators are replacing the Founding Fathers with Muslims in history textbooks and that Christianity and Islam are on the verge of merging into a religion called Chrislam.

Watch:

Joyner: Yet we have people who are part of an organization whose mission statement is to destroy America and we’re putting them in top level government positions, I mean this is at best, it is shocking incompetence on the part of those who have taken a vow to defend us from these very ones. So we want to be bold about that, you know some people when they see this they’re starting to call it, this treason on an unbelievable level, it could be treason, it could be incompetence, both could be deadly.

Gaffney: There is evidence of at best incompetence and at worst, you could argue, it’s treasonous. There’s something else that I would like to introduce as a concept I didn’t frankly know of it myself until fairly recently, also a felony offense in the U.S. code, it’s called misprision of treason. And that is a crime in which an individual, doesn’t have to be a government official but it would apply there but also to private citizens, who knows or has reason to know that seditious activity is under way and does nothing about it. I think we need to include that in the possibilities here because what our friend and co-author Andy McCarthy has called willful blindness may actually be a criminal offense under our statutes and people need to be held accountable.

I’ve called in a column I wrote a couple of weeks ago in the Washington Times for a new congressional oversight committee. Back in the Cold War as we talked about in our first program we wrestled with another totalitarian ideology that was determined to destroy us back when the McCarren Act was enacted, we had what was then called the House Un-American Activities Committee to explore what was going on, who was doing it, who was helping them do it, what the implications would be if it weren’t stopped. I think at the very least a new House Anti-American Activities Committee.

Joyner: Muslims Are Capturing The Seven Mountains!

A few weeks ago we noted that Rick Joyner and Frank Gaffney had teamed up to fight Islam in America and said that we could probably expect to hear a lot from them as they moved forward on this joint effort.

This week, the two have produced a special series for Joyner's "Prophetic Perspective on Current Events" program seeking to highlight the dangers of Islam and "creeping Sharia" and "civilization jihad" and all the other right-wing buzzwords.

On yesterday's program, Joyner again falsely stated that the word "Bolshevik" means "minority" - it doesn't, it actually means "majority" - in order to demonstrate how a small group of ideologues can take over a country and to warn that the Muslim Brotherhood has been secretly gaining control over, of all things, the Seven Mountains:

Right Wing Round-Up

Right Wing Leftovers

  • WND sure does love promoting anti-gay books.
  • Phyllis Schlafly sure does get worked up over the oddest things.
  • Judicial Watch has filed a FOIA lawsuit on behalf of the Family Research Council "for records related to the DOJ's decision not to defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act."
  • Poor Frank Turek.  He keeps losing jobs because of his anti-gay activism.
  • Finally, Gary Cass says that ten years after the 9/11 attacks "this murderous ideology has infiltrated all the way to the White House."

Fischer Wants Fines For Anyone Who Has Unprotected Gay Sex

Whenever Bryan Fischer is too cowardly to defend his views, he plays this game where he finds some facade behind which he can hide and pretend that he is simply agreeing with their recommendations.

He does it when he tries to defend his call to ban the construction of mosques in the US by saying  that we ought to just follow "whatever the NAACP thinks ought to be done to halt the spread of the KKK and white supremacists" and that he'll "be happy to adopt as our policy against the spread of Islam."

He does the same thing when he says that homosexuality ought to be a crime and then cites the FDA to argue that whatever punishment we hand out to those who abuse drugs ought to be the same policy we use for dealing with gays.

Earlier this week Fischer openly called for the criminalization of homosexuality and now he is pulling the same trick once again, seizing upon an effort to mandate that all performers in pornographic films use condoms and using that to demand that it apply to all gays (and even "unmarried straights"):

Now if condoms are going to be required in filming gay sex scenes, then there must be some penalty for failing to do so. I was unable to find out exactly what the proposed penalty is, but I’m assuming it’s in the nature of a fine.

What I’m suggesting is that we enact ordinances in city after city and laws in state after state that mandate that same exact penalty - whatever penalty gay activists think is appropriate - for unprotected homosexual sex. Hey, if it’s good enough for porn stars, it should be good enough for the average gay man on the street.

And if someone wants to extend that same penalty to unmarried straights who have sex, who am I to complain?

Fischer dedicated a portion of his radio program today to playing this little game but I am not going to bother posting it (you can watch it here, if you want) and will instead just highlight this final statement he makes where he calls for a fine for anyone who engages in unprotected gay sex.

Because, despite the inane little game of pretend that Fischer likes to play so he can hide behind these facades instead of actually defending his bigotry, this clip pretty well sums up his views:

O'Donnell Credits David Barton For Inspiring Her "Political Longing"

Christine O'Donnell was the guest on "Wallbuilders Live" today where she spent most of the program complaining about how mean everyone was.  But before getting to that, she revealed that it was a presentation that David Barton delivered to her church that inspired her to get involved in politics:

O'Donnell: Thank you for having me, Rick. And I just want to know what an influence Wallbuilders have played in my own life. In the early nineties, when I first returned to the church, returned to the Lord, David Barton came to speak at the church I was attending and ti was just such an inspirational message and it really helped me know that this political longing, these leanings, that I was beginning to experience were in the right direction. So ...

Rick Green: I love it.

O'Donnell: You guys are doing amazing work and I thank you for that.

Barton has also been a huge inspiration to Michele Bachmann as well.

Religious Right Makes Michael Bloomberg Enemy Number One For His "Insult To God"

In planning a ceremony to mark the tenth anniversary of the September 11th attacks, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has kept a policy observed in previous years and declined to invite religious leaders to speak at the events, which a spokesman says is to make sure “the focus remains on the families.” Of course, the Religious Right is now apoplectic and using their outrage at Bloomberg as their latest fundraising tool.

The Traditional Values Coalition emailed members today pleading for donations to stop Bloomberg’s attempts “to exterminate expressions of faith” and set up a fundraising page warning that “Islamists Continue Conquest of New York City…Islamists are spiking the football at Ground Zero! All while Mayor Bloomberg bans faith from New York's 9/11 ceremonies?!”

The American Center for Law and Justice, the right-wing legal outlet founded by Pat Robertson and led by Jay Sekulow, launched a petition demanding Bloomberg change his “damaging policy now” and include clergymen and prayer in the event. Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association said it was a “travesty that Mayor Bloomberg is so confused and clueless about America’s history, and so confused and clueless about the threat Islam poses to the West,” arguing that prayer should be included in the ceremonies but restricted to only Christian and Jewish clergy.

The Family Research Council has its own petition and prayer alert to oppose Bloomberg’s “shocking assault on religious liberty,” calling on members to pray to “Help the Mayor see that he has made a mistake and reverse his decision. Stir the families who will attend the 9/11 memorial service to insist that You, Lord, be honored there”:

The beginning of America's precipitous moral decline can be traced, statistically, to 1962, when atheist Madeleine Murray O'Hare's [sic] legal assault resulted in prayer being removed from public schools. Since then, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld prayer in public ceremonies. Bloomberg's behavior is not a matter of legal philosophy, dullness or insensitivity; it is a deliberate defiance and insult to people of faith across America.

More important to Bible believers, it is an insult to God upon whom our nation depends for our safety. Amid unprecedented natural disasters, economic calamity, homeland threats, wars abroad, troubles in our families and schools, etc., we must not insult God.

The FRC referenced the 1962 Supreme Court case Engel v. Vitale and the 1963 Abington v. Schempp, in which Madalyn Murray O’Hair, an atheist, and Edward Schempp, a Unitarian Universalist, sued against laws in their states that required their children to partake in religious exercises like Bible study and reading the Lord’s Prayer. The Court found such policies a violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.

Many in the Religious Right see the cases as the critical juncture where America turned its back on God. Pat Robertson writes in The New Millennium:

On June 25, 1962, the Supreme Court ruled in a case titled Engle v. Vitale [sic] that state-sponsored prayer could not be said in public school rooms. On June 17, 1963, the court ruled in the case of Abington v. Schempp that the Holy Bible could not be read to students in classrooms.



Acting on behalf of all the citizens of the United States, our government has officially insulted Almighty God and has effectively taken away from all public school children any opportunity for even the slightest acknowledgment of God’s existence. By rejecting Him, we have made the Protector and Champion of the United States his enemy.

The events that followed are not coincidence. On November 22, 1963, less than six months after the Bible-reading decision, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. Within two years after that decision, America was massively embroiled in its second most painful war, which decimated our treasure, our servicemen, and our national resolve.

Robertson goes on to blame Watergate, the 1973 oil crisis, stagflation and the Iranian revolution on the rulings.

David Barton got his start in Religious Right politics by authoring the booklet, What Happened in Education?, where he argues that the removal of school prayer caused SAT scores to plummet. Barton claimed that the two cases represented “the first occasion in national recorded history that the public inclusion of God in academic endeavors had been officially prohibited,” as the only event “corresponding to the time of the beginning of the downturn in scores was the banning of God and of religious principles from schools.” He concludes by urging schools to reintroduce explicitly Christian teachings if they want to reverse the trend.

It’s interesting that the FRC brought up the school prayer cases: both the case of school prayer and clergy participating in the September 11th anniversary ceremonies show the Religious Right trying to gin up panic over a supposed but not actual infringement on religious freedom, and then warning of divine punishment when they don’t get their way.

Garlow Announces First Annual "Ruben Diaz Courage Award"

Jim Garlow has recently become a leading figure in promoting the Alliance Defense Fund's "Pulpit Initiative" which encourages pastors to challenge the IRS by speaking on political issues during their sermons and endorsing candidates.

On the ADF's "Speak Up" blog, a post appeared the other day announcing that Garlow would be hosting a "webinar" today to promote the effort that would feature New York state Senator Ruben Diaz, one of the most consistently vociferous anti-gay leaders operating today.

The post has since been removed, but we retained a copy of it in which Diaz was hailed as perhaps "the most courageous pastor in America":

Who is the most courageous pastor in America? There are likely many candidates for this title, but I would nominate Pastor Ruben Diaz of New York City. After you hear what he stands for and what he has endured, you might want to nominate him, too.

But more importantly, you have the privilege of hearing him in a special nationwide webinar for pastors (from either your phone or your computer) this Wednesday, August 31 at 9 AM Pacific, 10 AM Mountain, 11 AM Central, 12 Noon Eastern.

Ruben serves as pastor of, the Christian Community Neighborhood Church in New York City, in the Bronx. But there is more. He is a New York State Senator. But there is even more. Prior to being a Senator, he served on the New York City Council, winning the election 79% to 22%, the only ordained minister serving on the council.

But there is yet even more. In liberal New York City, he is 100% pro-life, one of very few – if not the only – Democrat State Senator to hold to the biblical position.

And – as you would expect – yes, there is even more. Pastor Diaz has fought hard for traditional, natural marriage, the only Democrat to stand for one man-one woman marriage in bitterly fought legislative battles year after year.

But Pastor Diaz stood – like a rock. And he has paid dearly.

Bottom line: (1) he may well be the most courageous pastor in America, and (2) you can hear him in a pastors webinar interview the Wednesday, August 31.

Today, we listened in to the webinar where Jim Garlow positively gushed over Diaz and announced that he would be the first recipient of the first annual "Ruben Diaz Courage Award" from the Newt Gingrich-founded Renewing American Leadership organization:

Garlow: You know that I am so impressed with your story and there's all kind of details that we can't go into right now. But I'm so impressed with how you have stood that an organization that I'm chairman of in Washington DC called Renewing American Leadership - as soon as we can, I hope in the next few week - I'm going to be with you in New York City and I want to present to you what I think is the first annual Ruben Diaz Courage Award that will go to elected officials each year who are willing to withstand the tide of public pressure to stand for moral and biblical issues. But you are modeling something that is such a huge encouragement to us ...

Diaz: I'm honored and humbled to hear you say that. I'm praying and waiting for that day so that I can meet you and hug you and praise the Lord together.

Garlow: I think anyone listening sees why Ruben Diaz has an award named after him. I'm going to be presenting the first annual to him, the Ruben Diaz Courage Award. Senator Diaz, we bless you, we love you, it's a joy to know you this way and I'll look forward to meeting you in person.

Following Fischer's Views To Their Scriptural Conclusion

It is no secret that Bryan Fischer wants to see our nation governed by the Bible, going so far as to demand that whales, bears and other wild animals be put to death in accordance with scriptural mandates.  So it was no surprise to see that he has written a new post defending the use of the death penalty as entirely biblical

The King James version, “Thou shalt not kill,” has led some to erroneously believe that God was prohibiting killing of every kind, but he most certainly was not. The Sixth Commandment is specifically a command against cold-blooded murder. Killing in self-defense, war, and as punishment for murder are not only permitted but prescribed in the Scripture.

In fact, on the next page on the book of Exodus, in chapter 21, there are six specific crimes for which capital punishment is the prescribed penalty. As an aside, it’s worth noting that the death penalty was mandated for participation in the slave trade: “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death” (Exodus 21:16).

In other words, if the United States had simply followed the standards found in Scripture, slaves never would have appeared on our shores, slavery never would have been an issue, and the Civil War would never have been fought. Then, as always, the Scriptures show us the way forward not just personally but politically as well.

It is a little hard to understand how Fischer can claim that if the US had just followed Scripture, slavery would have been illegal since just a few passages later in Exodus 21: 20-21 it is made pretty clear that it was not slavery that warranted the death penalty, but theft:

When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

So if you beat a slave to death, you are to be punished but if the slave recovers, there will be no punishment ... yet somehow Fischer thinks that this should have been our guide to "show us the way forward not just personally but politically as well."

For what it is worth, the Exodus 21 passage Fischer cites also mandates death for anyone who strikes or curses his mother or father, so maybe he thinks we ought to enact that into law as well.

And we already know that Fischer wants to see homosexuality criminalized, so given that he wants Scripture to show us the way forward politically, one has to wonder whether he thinks Leviticus 20's "Punishments for Sexual Immorality" ought to be enacted into law as well:

10 If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

...

13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

I'd encourage others to ask Fischer that question but we all know that trying to get Fischer to actually defend or explain his views is just an exercise in futility.

Syndicate content