A Blacklist of Honour

A Mark of Faithfulness

In the United States the LGBT (that's Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, and Trans-sexual) Campus Pride has published a black-list of Christian schools and colleges which are not dancing to its tune.

Shane Windmeyer, the head of Campus Pride, has an op-ed up on NBCNews.com in which he calls on corporations to blacklist graduates from these universities. Excerpt:

The business case for equality is clear. If companies take pride in “being inclusive and welcoming to all” and say that “discrimination is wrong,” these same corporations must consider their associations with these 102 anti-LGBTQ campuses. Discrimination under the guise of religion is still discrimination. It is the most oppressive and hurtful kind of bias and prejudice to LGBTQ people, who have been victimized by religion-based bigotry for many years.

The harmful association with anti-LGBTQ laws and policies is cause for alarm for any business looking toward the future. If a campus wishes to have an anti-LGBTQ policy sanctioned under the law with a Title IX exemption, that is their choice. Campus Pride published the Shame List so everyone will know about these campuses.

[Hat Tip: Rod Dreher at American Conservative.]

We think this provides a huge opportunity for faithful Christian schools and colleges.  Imagine the brand and recruiting power of being able to proclaim: "xx Christian College, faithful to God and Holy Writ in all things.  Blacklisted by Campus Pride."  If any Christian school ends up not being blacklisted by Campus Pride there are all sorts of questions conscientious Christians need to start asking about that particular institution.

You can imagine concerned school presidents writing to Shane Windmeyer demanding that they be put on the Campus Pride blacklist, whilst presenting all the evidence as to why they rightly ought to be blacklisted.

Matthew 5:11  Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.

Throwing Off the Shackles

The Last Stage of Idolatry

Idolatry is the act of worshipping or devoting oneself to the creation, not the Creator.  It is the most foolish act humans can do.  Historically it has taken two generic forms.  The first, and most common, is the worship of images or idols, made by man, but said to represent a force or being beyond man.  This is the kind we normally associate with the noun, idolatry.  But there have been ages when an even more depraved, crass idolatry has taken hold.  It is the devotion to the creator of the idol--that is, man himself.  In other words, this rarer version of idolatry more closely represents the heart of the matter.  Whilst all idolatry is an implicit worship of man, the latter, rarer kind makes the devotion to man overt and explicit. It is idolatry in its most consistent, realized form.

The first time this more depraved version of idolatry emerged in human history was at the Tower of Babel.  The huge tower was built in order for mankind to "make a name for ourselves." (Genesis 11:4)  God's judgement fell because the unified devotion to man and his "name" would mean that there would be no restraint nor restriction upon their capability to devise and execute evil.

"Normal" idolatry operates in a world of superstition and fear.

Douglas Wilson's Letter From Moscow

A Huge White Snarl Flapping Behind You

Posted on Wednesday, December 18, 2013  

By Douglas Wilson 

Blog and Mablog

This is not so much another “I told you so” but rather another “I tried to tell you so.”

The other day I related how, in my debate with Andrew Sullivan, I tried to show that after same-sex mirage had a foothold in our society, the next folks in line, using all the same arguments, would be the polygamists. And here we are, unlike other functions of modern government, way ahead of schedule.

But I also argued something else, even more “out there.” I said that, given the premises we are all being harangued into adopting, there would be no saying no to bi-sexual marriages. In that chain of letters LGBTQ, why are the B’s left out of this grand expansion of marriage rights? Must be the haters.

The response to this argument has usually been something like, “He clearly doesn’t know what a bisexual is. What a maroon.” Ah, but I do know, and I also know that if somebody wants marital expression for that sexual identity, this requires, at a minimum two other people, one of each sex. And because the extra spouses involved don’t have an obligation to have their third squeeze be the shared third somebody, the whole thing spirals into chaos. What begins as a menage a trois turns into a plain old menagerie.

And so the other day something happened in North Dakota, a little something that vindicates me entirely.