Home > American History, Crime, Current Events, Law, Special Interest Groups > And…second verse same as the first…

And…second verse same as the first…

August 5, 2012


In one of the latest (and most ridiculous) cases of the radical secularist left attempting to squash the free expression of religious values, a Florida church is being threatened with the loss of its lease because its pastor supports (gasp!) a Biblical view of homosexuality.

Outraged at the nerve of a Christian pastor who espouses Christian views, the Miami-Dade school district from which Impact Miami Church rents its space has threatened to evict the church for what the superintendent describes as “prejudice and intolerance” on the part of Pastor Jack Hakimian and his congregation. One might wonder what those in the school district thought would be taught in the church when they decided to accept about $1,500 a month to use the property, but they now reportedly see the church as not only contrary to the school district but “the basic principals of humanity.”

Hakimian, a Baptist preacher, is not backing down, though. The sermons in question, which present scripture-based positions calling homosexuality a sin, amount to the church being“penalized for teaching on Christian marriage and sexual ethics from the Bible.” Therefore, we ask any and all atheists, former Christians, anyone from any faith, who remotely finds what this pastor is espousing is not in accordance with the Bible, why then do you or anyone else have a problem with it?

Furthermore, the pastor turned the tables on his accuser, asking the superintendent to “retract his intolerant statements, apologize, and commit to never again bully or discriminate against those he disagrees with.”

A school district spokesperson upped the ante, calling the pastor’s message (and, in a broader sense, God’s message) “disturbing and appalling.” The only aspect of this case any American should find either disturbing or appalling is that a church sharing a mainstream Christian message could be ousted from its lease because of the secular worldview of its lessor.

The controversy attracted the attention of some high-profile Christian leaders, including Southern Baptist Convention President Frank Luter, who said the school district’s harassment is a “sign of the times.” I completely support Luter’s following statement, blasting the selective moral outrage that leads to “calling wrong right and … calling right wrong.”

Another ally in Hakimian’s stand for Christian values and free speech is Liberty Counsel, an advocacy group affiliated with Liberty University which sent a letter to the school district explaining that a push to evict the church from its lease simply because of a Sunday message constitutes a First Amendment violation.

Christians, especially those embracing the Bible’s teachings as the divine word of God, represent a segment of the population deemed worthy of ridicule by those practicing the religion of liberalism. How is this attitude fair? Though it rarely gets coverage on the mainstream news, Christians are not going to roll over and take the abuse. We will stand for our beliefs, no matter what verbal epithets fly our way, and pastors such as Hakimian deserve our utmost respect for standing up to these bullies.

Homosexuality, practiced by a very small minority of this nation’s citizens, is considered a sin by a huge segment of the population across ethnic and religious lines. When brought to a vote, the left’s best efforts at indoctrinating us to accept a perversion of marriage has continually failed.

Still, they beat the same drum of “inclusion” and “tolerance” ad infinitum. If Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day didn’t cause them to rethink their position, I’m not sure anything will.

  1. August 6, 2012 at 11:15 pm | #1

    Your response made a lot of sense which to me illustrates just how often people, in the errors of their haste, rush to want to show their intelligence ( or raw stupidity) when wanting to comment about what is commonly referred to as “rights-talk.”

    I thought double standard covered the query in a polite and understanding way. However, it wasn’t until today that the actual writing of your comment caused me some concern:

    “This is pretty simple. You are free to say whatever you want. You are not free from social reprisals such as having your views called “disturbing and appalling”. No illegal action has taken place here. It is curious that people such as yourself demand protection from the results of your free speech.” (Your actual comment.)

    Now then I’ll for the time being presuppose that your pronoun usage is a bit askew with reference to the word “you.” When using this work a person is actually saying “one;” therefore, “One is free to say whatever one wants. One is not free from social reprisals…” and I think that wraps up the pronoun usage; however, it therefore becomes curious [to you] that people such as myself demand protection from the results of my free speech (?).

    Something is out of context here! It could be an unusual way of using pronouns or it could be a direct attack against me for demanding protection from the result of my free speech which I wish to add that my free speech is not in question here whatsoever; consequently, either you have misread the article or you are asserting something that has no basis in fact. Furthermore, where does anything stipulate that I demand protection from my own free speech? Therein lies the problem. You are assuming that I would demand protection! Under normal circumstances I would just like every other person who believes in their right to speak freely. Under no circumstances have I ever uttered anything remotely construed as a “social reprisal,” although it is my right to do so as well if I wish.

    Heck I certainly agree with you, albeit the notion is clearly a double standard. However, given the creation of the Constitution those who think they know it are the worst offenders. Cheers!

Comments are closed.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 502 other followers