Al Mohler, the President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, told the Christian Science Monitor in March that Baptists have lied about homosexuality and practiced a “form of homophobia.”

Responding to questions about the CSM article, Mohler affirmed his belief that same-sex sexual behavior is sin, but then told the Associated Baptist Press:

“But we as evangelicals have a very sad history in dealing with this issue,” he continued. “We have told not the truth, but we have told about half the truth. We’ve told the biblical truth, and that’s important, but we haven’t applied it in the biblical way.”

“We have said to people that homosexuality is just a choice,” Mohler said. “It’s clear that it’s more than a choice. That doesn’t mean it’s any less sinful, but it does mean it’s not something people can just turn on and turn off. We are not a gospel people unless we understand that only the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ gives a homosexual person any hope of release from homosexuality.”

Rev. Mohler and I spoke together in 2008 at a meeting of Christian psychiatrists at the 2008 APA convention. He was saying the same things in that address and has consistently attempted to incorporate current research into his thinking about sexual orientation. Clearly, this stance has not changed his exegesis of Scripture, but he is calling evangelicals to stop at least some lying about gays.

On cue, however, is Bryan Fischer to quickly criticize Mohler for telling the truth. Fischer wrote:

On the whole, this was not a great week for the Southern Baptist Convention, as one of its leaders appeared to pander to the homosexual lobby and the convention itself pandered to lawbreakers, all in the space of two dizzying days.

Rev. Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, urged attendees at the SBC’s annual convention to “repent” of what he called “a form of homophobia,” without saying exactly what kind of homophobia he was talking about.

Evidently, according to Rev. Mohler, if you don’t believe gays are born that way, you’re either a homophobe or right next to it. He told the delegates at the SBC that homosexuality is “more than a choice,” and that it apparently borders on something sinful to believe otherwise.

He did not elaborate on exactly what he meant by “more than a choice,” but what else could it mean but that he’s urging SBC’ers to accept the bogus claim that homosexuality is innate and that people can be homosexual from birth. Perhaps that’s not what he meant to say; if it wasn’t, then it’s important for him to clarify exactly what he did mean.

Mohler is pretty clear it seems to me. He is aware that research is not on the side of people who claim that being attracted to the same sex is a choice or some kind of easily reversible situation.

What a strange situation we have in the evangelical fold. One of our leading theologians speaks out on a issue of significance, and the culture warrior Bryan Fischer attacks him as he might an ideological opponent. Instead of considering the message, he attacks the messenger. I have experienced this myself and believe that the only orthodoxy that matters to the evangelical culture war complex (e.g., AFA, AFTAH, FRC, CWA, Liberty Counsel) is, “thou shalt demonize the gays.” All else is measured by this metric.

Many reading this blog will no doubt believe that Mohler does not go far enough and still promotes a harmful rhetoric. Others will understand that he is speaking to his constituents in language they understand which may help them come to a more honest, graceful place. I think Rev. Mohler can move a little further but, for now, I am glad Mohler is calling out the evangelical culture war complex and hope he continues to do so.

The President is releasing his long form birth certificate today.

Trump and Franklin Graham may have pushed the right/wrong buttons.

So will this calm the storm? Open forum – what will the new objections be? What will birthers say about this development? And what new and startling findings will we see?

Been pretty serious around here for a spell, let’s have some fun with this.

And here it is…

I wonder if this thread will finally die? (2800 comments and counting)

Tomorrow, April 15, marks the day in 1947 when Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in major league baseball. The executive who signed him with the express purpose of combating racism was Branch Rickey, President of the Brooklyn Dodgers. Today, CNN reports that Branch Rickey’s faith was a strong motivation for his decision to sign Robinson. Roll the tape:

I watched the CNN segment this morning and reporter Ed Henry said that he told President Obama about the segment of Robinson and Rickey. Obama commented that the Rickey-Robinson breakthrough had impact on every part of American society, including his election as the first African-American President.

I share a hometown with Branch Rickey — Portsmouth, Ohio – and was always reminded of his legacy because I played my high school baseball in Branch Rickey Park (pictured below).

To me, Branch Rickey’s role in this story is sweet irony. Race relations were tense in my hometown. For most of my life there, African-Americans were segregated into neighborhoods surrounding a large public housing project. There was strong prejudice and discrimination there, even among Christians. And yet, Branch Rickey left the small town to make history in the big city in a way that changed attitudes about race forever.

Watch the clip or read the entire transcript here but I will close with this paragraph:

When a well-known journalist of the era told the Dodgers general manager that he thought “all hell would break loose” the next day with Robinson due to take the field for the first time as a Brooklyn Dodger, Rickey disagreed. “My grandfather immediately responded to him, ‘I believe tomorrow all heaven will rejoice,’” the younger Rickey said.

The American Family Association has become scary. There I said it.

At one point, I presented facts to the AFA correcting a report from their information source, OneNewsNow, about the American Psychological Association’s task force report on sexual orientation but their reporter hung up on me. I was allowed to rebut some criticism aimed my way which they published as hearsay, but the damage was done. But these are minor problems compared to where Bryan Fischer has taken the group.

I have discussed Fischer’s views before (biblical law, gay nazis) and I suspect will again. Here is one that is really troubling from a group that claims to uphold religious freedom. From Fischer’s blog post, No More Mosques, Period:

Permits should not be granted to build even one more mosque in the United States of America, let alone the monstrosity planned for Ground Zero. This is for one simple reason: each Islamic mosque is dedicated to the overthrow of the American government.

You have to read the rest to grasp the concept. Fischer, fronting an ostensibly Christian group, calls for the coercive power of the state to limit the freedom of expression of Islam. When Islamic nations call for restrictions on Christianity, we rightly criticize them. Well, what about this?

Of course, any group, Islamic, Christian, atheist, gay or straight, who plots rebellion against the government should be investigated and stopped. If there is evidence that a mosque is really a front for terror then make the case and take action. However, in the most obvious of ironies, Fischer wants the government to violate the Constitution with his plan to restrict Islam. Freedoms of religion, association and speech are freedoms we want to protect, right?

Amy Ritter at Hot Air tossed a nurf ball at Fischer and the AFA. She is worried about Fischer declaring his idea in the name of conservatism. I am more concerned about what is coming out of the AFA being considered Christian.

Update: Quickly, I note that another AFA writer criticized Fischer’s stance the next day. That’s nice. However, it still is deeply troubling that someone in leadership at AFA has a platform to call for the undermining of the Constitution in the name of conservatism and Christianity.

Note: Been away for a spell, might be back at it more next week.

Remember the E-Trade commercial that featured the girl baby asking the boy baby why he didn’t call her last night? And then we find out that the boy baby was dividing his time between the first girl baby and “that milk-a-holic, Lindsay?” In case you forgot, here it is. But near the end, don’t blink and see if you think “Lindsay Lohan” when the literal babe jumps out and asks the age old question, “milk-a what?”

Never occured to me but it did to Lindsay Lohan. She is suing E-Trade for unlawfully using her “likeness, name, characterization, and personality.” Her likeness?

You mean, like, say what?

Read through to page 4 and you will see a familiar name…

Must have been a heady moment to be with Donald Trump and keep her Miss California crown. Carrie Prejean reminded people that she and the President hold the same position on same-sex marriage…(well probably not exactly the same if you consider his approach to Prop 8).

And a nice trifecta today: keep the crown, hang out with Trump and featured guest again on the Focus on the Family radio show. All in all a better day than some of the last few.

On the heels of defending revealing photos as part of the job of a model, Carrie Prejean has had second thoughts about a recent photo published in Blisss Magazine (spelled Bl!sss on the mag website). Miss Prejean’s pic is a “Super Taste” centerfold of the month and is the lead photo on her Otto Models page. (warning: not workplace friendly)

The recent controversy surrounding Miss Prejean’s modeling work has focused on pictures of her taken when she was 17. She has expressed regret publicly about those photos.

Her publicist, Melany Ethridge, confirmed a comment she gave to celebrity Web site TMZ in which she said Prejean was just 17 when she posed for the photos, hoping they would land her a job model for the Victoria’s Secret lingerie line.

“In her naivete, an agent convinced her to pose for this photo to submit to a lingerie company, claiming they could make her the next Victoria’s Secret model,” Ethridge told TMZ. “She has since learned what a lie that was, and what a mistake it was to have the photo taken.”

However, she defended lingerie modeling as recently as Tuesday when she issued a statement saying:

I am a Christian, and I am a model. Models pose for pictures, including lingerie and swimwear photos.

More recently, she posed for the centerfold of Bl!sss, an action sports oriented magazine which features young women in various states of undress. She touts the Blisss modeling assignment on the Miss California website as part of her resume. However, through her publicist, I have learned that Prejean regrets the Blisss Magazine photo. Her publicist, Melany Ethridge, said that Miss Prejean has had second thoughts. Late yesterday, Ms. Ethridge told me that

…she would not do the Blisss mag photo shoot, if asked now.

Melany did not address my question about whether Miss Prejean would take such jobs in the future. However, this new statement may signal a broader evaluation of her work.

UPDATE: Earlier today, Melany Ethridge contacted me to say that the original statement above about the Bl!sss magazine photo was her belief about what Ms. Prejean would do. However, this afternoon, she now has confirmed with Prejean that “given who she is today,” she would not take the job.

UPDATE 2: Monday appears to be decision-day for Miss California.

This just in from Uganda Pulse:

Members of civil society organizations (CSOs) have today petitioned Parliament, calling for a select committee to investigate the impact of homosexuality in Uganda and to pass stern laws to punish people involved in acts of homosexuality.

The petition, signed by over 50,000 Ugandans, was presented to the Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Rebecca Kadaga, by the Executive Director of Family Life Network, Stephen Langa.

Langa, who was accompanied by Pastor Martin Ssempa, Deputy Mufti, Sheikh Abdul Musisi and other civil society members, notes that homosexuals have continued to roam the country freely promoting the vice yet homosexuality is illegal according to the Constitution and the Penal; Code Act.

He says that the homosexuals have penetrated into schools and distributed reading tools that promote the vice, citing United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) which was recently put in the spotlight for distributing a book that promotes homosexuality without approval from the Ministry of Education.

Langa revealed that the CSOs have submitted a protest letter to UNICEF expressing disappointment in their actions and have called upon them to apologize to Ugandans and also retrieve the books that were distributed to schools in about 30 districts.

Deputy Speaker, Rebecca Kadaga, commended the organizations for their solidarity against homosexuality, adding that Parliament will look into current legislation to ensure that they are strengthened to penalize acts of homosexuality.

Kadaga promised to push for the amendment of Article 31 of the Constitution which prohibits homosexual marriages. Langa had earlier noted that the article prohibits gay marriages but not the actions.

I wonder what would have happened if the three Americans who went to Uganda in March would have called for decriminalization of homosexuality? I wonder what might have happened if those three Americans said we will not speak at your conference unless we are allowed to advocate for freedom of conscience? I wonder what would happen if American Christian groups made direct contact with the Ugandan church to urge calm and rational policy? If the laws are toughened, I wonder what will happen to religious people who speak in favor in decriminalization there? Will their speech be free?

Maybe nothing would/will change but I just wonder.

Not anyone I have written about before…

The rhetoric is getting so outrageous that I didn’t think any more societal ills could be blamed on gays but I was wrong. But Robert Peters of Morality in Media (Can the irony get any thicker?), put out a news release just now with this headline:

“Connecting the Dots: The Link Between Gay Marriage and Mass Murders”

His news hook is the horrific shootings in Binghamton, NY where 14 people were killed, including the perpetrator of the crime. In the release, he says mass murderers and gay marriage stem from the same source – a post-Christian society. He says near the end of the release that he isn’t blaming the murders on gays:

It most certainly is not my intention to blame the epidemic of mass murders on the gay rights movement! It is my intention to point out that the success of the sexual revolution is inversely proportional to the decline in morality; and it is the decline of morality (and the faith that so often under girds it) that is the underlying cause of our modern day epidemic of mass murders.

So why bring gays into it?

Most mass killings, as in this case, relate to mental illness, notably that involving thought disorders. His thesis is tired and in this release without a shred of substantiation. And then to use that awful situation in New York to bash gays takes it to a new level of immorality in media.

UPDATE: David Corn at Mother Jones weighs in…