Category: politics

The Holy Ghost told Peter Waldron that Michele Bachmann is the one for President

Peter Waldron is a faith based adviser to Michele Bachmann. Bachmann’s campaign credited Waldron for helping Bachmann win the Iowa straw poll in August. Waldron made some news of his own in August when The Atlantic   disclosed that Waldron had been arrested in Uganda on terrorism charges. Those charges were never proven and later dropped. I reported here shortly after that story broke that Waldron supported Bachmann because he considered her to anointed by God for office like King David in comparison to Rick Perry who was more like King Saul. Events since then have made him half right. Perry has fallen on his own sword several times, while Bachmann has imploded, falling to single digits in the polls.

Hoping for a King David like victory in the Iowa caucus against whatever Goliath might happen to be standing at the time, Waldron is still active, working for Bachmann in Iowa. Last Thursday, Waldron appeared on the Steve Deace radio show to explain his support for Bachmann. When Deace asked Waldron at 49:33, “Why Michele Bachmann?” Waldron replied:

Waldron: I’m compelled by Scripture. If I may tell you the story of Michele Bachmann, how I came

Deace: Can you do it in 60 seconds?

Waldron: I can do it in less than 60 seconds.

Deace: Go ahead.

Waldron: I was interviewed by several candidates. I came to Iowa to be interviewed by Hermann Cain. I met with him at the Holiday Inn in downtown Des Moines. He was scheduled to speak at a home schooling event over at the capital. I went over to hear him speak and this woman came out and she spoke and the Holy Ghost said to me as I was standing there, uh, this is the one. And I left Des Moines, returned to my offices in Tennessee, I prayed and God said volunteer. So literally I volunteered for Michele Bachmann and a funny thing happened on the way to Des Moines.

Deace: Peter Waldron is here and he is working for the Michele Bachmann campaign and he makes the case that if you are an uncommitted values voters, she is your candidate.

After a break, Waldron made the case that Bachmann was the only candidate to look at every sector of society (law, politics, arts, etc) through a “biblical worldview” and thus the only candidate that God would bless to heal the nation. Waldron invoked I Chronicles 7:14 (“if my people pray and turn from their wicked ways, then…I will heal their land”) and said Bachmann was the only candidate who would bring prayer to the White House. Waldron compared Bachmann’s religious views to William Jennings Bryan and that this election is the most important election since the Civil War. Bachmann, says Waldron, is a Proverbs 31 woman who lives out her faith. Without such a President, the country is headed for a catastrophic end.

Host Deace asked Waldron what Bachmann would do about the Supreme Court rulings with which she disagreed. Specifically, Deace asked what Bachmann would do if the Supreme Court strikes down the Defense of Marriage Act. Deace believes that any law that “does not square” with God’s law is no law at all. Although he said he wasn’t speaking for Bachmann, Waldron’s answer was to defund the judges and/or impeach them. He did promise this on behalf of Bachmann:

I make three promises for her in the last 20 seconds – First, she will protect the people, she will promote righteousness and she will punish wickedness, all defined by the Bible.

Politically, Waldron says that Bachmann is poised for a January surprise. He says that Bachmann has a strong and large organization on the ground working to get her people out for the caucus meetings. He predicts a victory in Iowa which will propel her to victories in South Carolina (another state Waldron has worked in for her) and Florida (where he claims to have worked from McCain in 2008).

Some may believe Bachmann has already had her day in the sun. However, many thought that about Newt Gingrich and he is now surging. I don’t think people should underestimate Bachmann in Iowa and what a strong showing there could do for her chances in SC and FL.

Additional note: Kyle Mantyla at Right Wing Watch posted last week that Peter Waldron’s co-author, George Grant, endorsed Michele Bachmann. Here is the video:

Grant once wrote this about the role of Christians in society:

Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ-to have dominion in the civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.

But it is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice.

It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.

It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.

It is dominion we are after.

World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power ofthe Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less.

If Jesus Christ is indeed Lord, as the Bible says, and if our commission is to bring the land into subjection to His Lordship, as the Bible says, then all our activities, all our witnessing, all our preaching, all our craftsmanship, all our stewardship, and all our political action will aim at nothing short of that sacred purpose.

Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land – of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ. It is to reinstitute the authority of God’s Word as supreme over all judgments, over all legislation, over all declarations, constitutions, and confederations.

Seems clear enough to me. The folks who are getting on the Bachmann band wagon want dominion and Peter Waldron told Steve Deace that she is the only candidate who can deliver.

Despite Waldron and Bachmann’s assurances that dominionist evangelicals don’t have to settle for a compromise candidate, there might be some political angling left in the campaign. At one point, Grant’s endorsement was up on the Bachmann website but now it is gone.

 

Nigeria moves to criminalize same-sex unions

From July 14, 2011, Sharon Slater of Family Watch International, and recent speaker at the annual convention of the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), told delegates at a Nigerian law conference that same-sex marriage in the United States was a threat to religious and family freedoms.

On July 25, a bill was tabled in the Nigerian legislature to criminalize same-sex unions. The bill forbids any marriage contracts civil or religious between members of the same sex. It even removes the freedom to conduct such ceremonies in a church if such unions were permitted within the theology of that church. Here are the penalties:

According to an AP article out today, the bill has now gone through two readings and has had public hearings.

This bill is a watered down version of a prior bill which would have imposed more restrictions (see BTB for an earlier article on this bill). Thus, I am not suggesting that Slater concocted the bill or the effort. However, when she spoke to the Nigerian audience, she certainly did nothing to discourage the restriction of personal freedoms and added fuel to the fire already burning.

She and her organization have taken the position that they oppose laws which execute gays but she supports nations who want to make or maintain other laws which criminalize homosexuality.

In essence, this bill criminalizes any same-sex union. Here is the definition of same-sex marriage:

The clause “or for other purposes of same sexual relationship” is so broad that any coupling or any duration could be in view.

 

Uganda's President says gays should not be harassed

He said this in the context that he would not bow to British pressure. However, he seems to be saying live and let live.

The President of Uganda Yoweri Kaguta Museveni says he is not moved by the threats issued by the British Prime Minister James Cameroon regarding the reduction of foreign aid to countries that have laws punishing homosexuality.
Museveni, while meeting the Togolese President Faure Gnassingbe at State House Entebbe says Uganda shall not promote such acts of homosexuality under any circumstances.
Early this week, the U.K Government stated that it will deduct the aid to Uganda because of its intention to pass a law that will be against homosexuals’ rights.
Museveni however says his government shall not harass homosexuals because they have lived well in Uganda for ages even before colonization. He says they should practice their acts in private and not in the limelight.
Meanwhile, the Togolese President Faure Gnassingbe says Togo is a homosexual free state.
Gnassingbe has ended his 4 day state visit to Uganda by hailing Uganda for its economical development.

Yesterday, I spoke with a Parliamentary Spokesperson who told me that the Business committee had not met to decide the agenda for the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

A new test of orthodoxy

Yesterday, the information arm of the American Family Association, OneNewsNow published an article about my views on change of sexual orientation.  The information on the matter came from Peter LaBarbera who said

“But in the last few years, he’s basically become a pro-gay advocate who discredits the idea of change for most homosexuals,” LaBarbera explains. “He grants the idea that they can change, but he says change is very rare.
“So effectively, Warren Throckmorton has become a very useful advocate for the homosexual side because he can claim to be an evangelical and yet he’s undermining scriptural truth.”

As I understand this argument, I am wrong to claim to be an evangelical because I believe that categorical change in sexual attractions, especially for men, is rare. In addition such a belief is in itself “pro-homosexual advocacy.”
LaBarbera adds that

Christians know people can leave the lifestyle, and that through Christ, many thousands have. So he says Throckmorton’s message — that change is near impossible — is contrary to Christian thinking.

Here we have a test of orthodoxy – something that must be believed in order to be considered a Christian. In my tradition, faith in the redeeming mission of Christ is the test of faith. However, in the new orthodoxy of some in the Christian right, one must believe certain things about gays in order to be consider a Christian.
On the points raised by the ONN article, I observe that LaBarbera conflates behavior and inclination. He says I don’t think people can “leave the lifestyle” because I think categorical change of sexual attractions is rare and complex. While his description of behavior change is crude and stereotypical, I disagree with his assessment of me. I do believe that people change their behavior. They do so for a variety of reasons but in the context of this controversy, some do in order to seek conformity to their religious beliefs. That this happens is not in doubt by any researcher, pro-gay or not, that I know. The APA in their 2009 Task Force report acknowledged this and even noted that finding congruence can lead to certain positive outcomes.
However, gay and bisexual people who change their behavior infrequently lose their same-sex attractions, no matter how earnestly they pray. In my work as well as other studies, heterosexually married gay and lesbian people do not demonstrate change in attractions on average, even as they demonstrate devotion to their marriages. My critics can keep on criticizing but they have not been able to address the evidence which does not cut in their favor.
If I need to apologize for something, it is that I misled evangelicals for several years on the matter of sexual orientation. I did not intend to do so. When I made the documentary I Do Exist, I really believed the stories told. I know the people making the video did as well. I believed my clients; I believed people who told me they changed completely. In hindsight, I acknowledge that my work was complicated by the culture war. I now think the culture war is a significant stumbling block for the church.
From that time, there are a handful of people who continue to say they have changed in a comprehensive way. Many however, have acknowledged that their attractions have shifted within a range but have not really changed from one category to another. My view is that these stories are all interesting and that I desire to take people where they are and just work out a way that helps them live with integrity.
Who knows, maybe I will shift my views in different ways in the future. However, I hope it will be in response to evidence, not in order to fit into a man made definition of orthodoxy. In the mean time, I invite critics to simply deal with the evidence.

NARTH features leader of international efforts to keep homosexuality illegal

This coming weekend, Sharon Slater will speak at the annual conference of the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). Slater is the President of Family Watch International, an organization that lobbies the United Nations for pro-life and anti-gay causes. In January of 2011, Slater hosted a conference of over 30 United Nations delegates to promote her policy objectives. During the conference, the ex-gay message was prominent with a “the personal testimony of a patient who is successfully reorienting from homosexuality to heterosexuality” and a speech from an expert Slater refused to name.
Earlier this year, Slater claimed that she stopped using Martin Ssempa as a liaison in Africa after she learned about Ssempa’s support for the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Slater correctly understands that the bill requires the death penalty for HIV positive gays and she opposes that. However, she refused to condemn prison terms for gays in Uganda or any other country. In essence, her position is the same as Scott Lively’s view – oppose the death penalty but support the stance of African nations who maintain harsh prison terms for GLBT people. The Anti-Homosexuality Bill is once again before Uganda’s Parliament and may be considered on the floor within the next month.
Slater has traveled to Africa several times to speak against relaxing laws on homosexuality. At a Nigerian conference in 2009 – the same year the Anti-Homosexuality Bill was introduced – Slater praised Uganda for refusing to decriminalize homosexuality. Earlier this year, also in Nigeria, Slater commended Nigeria for resisting the UN’s call for decriminalization.
Like Lively, Slater uses NARTH materials as a foundation for her policy positions. On the FWI website, Slater twice refers readers to a 2009 paper by NARTH which reviews studies of sexual orientation change efforts. She uses their materials to support her view that GLB people are not entitled to human rights because sexual orientation is not a fixed trait.
In this context, it is striking that NARTH has refused to declare opposition to criminalization of homosexuality. In December, 2009, I asked NARTH’s leadership about the organization’s position on Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill. At that time, Scott Lively advocated that forced therapy for gays should be included in the bill. NARTH’s operations director, David Pruden, rejected the forced therapy as ineffective. However, NARTH past-president Dean Byrd declined to take a position on criminalization saying,

We are aware of the situation in Uganda but thank you for bringing this to our attention. I am sure that you are aware that as a scientific organization, NARTH does not take political positions; however, we are happy to provide a summary of what science can and cannot say about homosexuality for those who do.

In contrast, NARTH has taken a position on a few political issues. For instance, the organization opposes “gay advocacy in schools” and “same-sex marriage.” Since NARTH has taken a stance on some political issues, it is puzzling that the organization will not on criminalization of homosexuality. Such laws harm affirming and non-affirming GLB people alike.
In light of NARTH’s failure to oppose criminalization, it is troubling that the group invited Slater to speak at their conference.  Ms. Slater is not trained as a clinician, scientist or a researcher; she is an advocate of policies which restrict the basic liberties of GLB people around the world and would do the same in the US if possible. In absence of an official policy on decriminalization, it appears that NARTH’s invitation of Ms. Slater signals the posture of the organization on the matter.