Connect with us

Turns Out The Pastor In That Viral Video You Thought Was Preaching In Support Of LGBT People Wasn’t

Published

on

A Georgia pastor’s explosive rant that went viral on YouTube says he was taken out of context. He doesn’t support equality, he just hates hypocrisy. But there may be hope for him yet.

In less than a week, thanks to blogger Joe Jervis, a five-minute video was watched more than 400,000 times because its message of equality by a Black Southern preacher resonated with so many people.

“In the African-American church you are guilty of condemning the Supreme Court system and preaching against something. But if you look at half of our choirs and a great number of our artists that we call abominations, we call demons, we demonize and dehumanize the same people that we use. We don’t say nothing about the gay choir director because he’s good for business,” Pastor E. Dewey Smith says in the video.

“As long as the choir sound good, I ain’t saying nothing about his sexuality. We have done what the slave master did to us. Dehumanize us, degrade us, demonize us, but then use them for our advantage,” he also preached.

It turns out, the preacher says he’s not an LGBT ally, isn’t supportive of same-sex marriage, and isn’t really into equality. He even admits he doesn’t know how to talk to gay people.

The video, he insists, was taken out of context. His real message, he says, was about hypocrisy, and how to minister to those whom you don’t like or are different.

In an extremely long but worthwhile Facebook post, Pastor Smith, who is the head pastor at The House of Hope in Decateur, writes that his “message was not presented in an effort to ‘affirm the rights’ of the LGBT community. My sermonic intentions and ministerial assignment is not to be the ‘pro gay pastor’. My agenda is Jesus’ message and exaltation.”

But Smith acknowledges in the video he “confidently affirmed the humanity of and contributions that have been made to the black church by many from the gay community. I stand wholeheartedly behind that because it is the truth.”

“Millions of people within the LGBT community and other sects have reached out to me over the past few days. While this has been different, unexpected and uncomfortable for me, it has shown me how so many within the gay community only want to be respected, positively acknowledged and have their humanity affirmed. It is sad to hear the stories of alienation that many same-gender loving people have emailed or sent via social media. Millions have stated, ‘thank you for sharing that we both are on the same level in God’s eyes and have access to Jesus….thanks for letting me know that I Jesus still loves me……thank you for not making me feel inferior’. While these messages have opened my eyes tremendously, please know that I was not trying to become a focal point or ‘champion’ for a ’cause.'”

But anyone who takes the time to read Pastor Smith’s Facebook post, and not the PR statement sent to media outlets, can see he has genuine questions about how the church, pastors, and Christianity treats LGBT people. And he’s clearly uncomfortable with what he’s seeing.

What does the “anti-homosexuality church” say to parents who have gay children? Does our theology cause a wedge between “straight” parents and same-gender loving children? Is it “godly” for a parent to ever turn their backs on their gay children?” Can we be like Philip and share Christ with those who are hurting and wounded? Are the members of our congregations prepared to do what Philip did? 

What is the response of the church to persons who are “comfortable in their lifestyle”, do not see it as sin and accept homosexuality as their normal and God-given reality? Can they participate in ministry? Will it still be “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”? As many churches will not perform same-sex marriages, will they dedicate or christen the babies who are being raised in same-gender loving homes? Can same-gender loving people attend our churches? While some congregations are “welcoming and affirming” of gays, will others be at least “welcoming”? Will some churches excommunicate persons who admit that they’re same-gender loving? Corporations, schools and the public square have all become more open to the LGBT community; have our churches prepared congregants to live in a civil manner with all people? Is proper treatment of our “gay neighbors” a part of our ecclesial efforts to promote decency, civility and citizenship? Is Dr. King’s concept of the “Beloved Community” relevant in this context? 

I have always believed and taught that marriage is between a man and a woman. Even as society changes and my theology evolves around ministering to and being intentional about loving all people, my personal theology is still based on male and female relationships only. While this may disappoint many who have encouraged me over the past few days, please allow a mutuality of “tolerance”. However, I do think it is important for us to distinguish between personal theology and public policy. The Supreme Court ruling is an issue of policy. Post-modernity has made me more aware of the pluralistic democracy that governs America. The U.S. is not a theocracy and has been established to supposedly provide certain freedoms and rights to all of its citizens. Every American citizen is granted both the freedom of and freedom from religion. As cynical as that may sound for some, it is the essence of our Nation’s founding. It is very likely over the next 100 years, that many Atheists will be in policy-making roles in America. In the last Presidential election, the majority of evangelical Christians voted for a Mormon as President of the United States. Imagine the changes in society over the next century. I have grave concerns about whose theology could be used to form public policy in the year 2115, should The Lord delay His return. The present policy of this land allows me to worship where I desire to worship and to live with my wife and children. The policy of this land has recently given same-gender loving persons the right to have marriage ceremonies, should they choose and the right for me as a Minister to not perform that ceremony.

Pastor Smith also says the video has “caused several ‘saints’ to ‘hate’ and even ‘wish death’ upon” him.

Smith supports separation of church and state, and unlike so many anti-gay preachers, is willing to at least ask questions. That means there’s hope.

Here’s the video, if you’ve not seen it yet:

 

Image via Twitter
Hat tip: Joe Jervis

 

 

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

OPINION

‘I Hope You Find Happiness’: Moskowitz Trolls Comer Over Impeachment Fail

Published

11 hours ago

on

April 24, 2024

By

U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) is mocking House Oversight Committee Chairman Jim Comer over a CNN report revealing the embattled Kentucky Republican who has been alleging without proof President Joe Biden is the head of a vast multi-million dollar criminal bribery and influence-peddling conspiracy, has given up trying to impeach the leader of the free world.

CNN on Wednesday had reported, “after 15 months of coming up short in proving some of his biggest claims against the president, Comer recently approached one of his Republican colleagues and made a blunt admission: He was ready to be ‘done with’ the impeachment inquiry into Biden.” The news network described Chairman Comer as “frustrated” and his investigation as “at a dead end.”

One GOP lawmaker told CNN, “Comer is hoping Jesus comes so he can get out.”

“He is fed up,” the Republican added.

Despite the Chairman’s alleged remarks, “a House Oversight Committee spokesperson maintains that ‘the impeachment inquiry is ongoing and impeachment is 100% still on the table.'”

RELATED: ‘Used by the Russians’: Moskowitz Mocks Comer’s Biden Impeachment Failure

Last week, Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD) got into a shouting match with Chairman Comer, with the Maryland Democrat saying, “You have not identified a single crime – what is the crime that you want to impeach Joe Biden for and keep this nonsense going?” and Comer replying, “You’re about to find out.”

Before those heated remarks, Congressman Raskin chided Comer, humorously threatening to invite Rep. Moskowitz to return to the hearing.

Congressman Moskowitz appears to be the only member of the House Oversight Committee who has ever made a motion to call for a vote on impeaching President Biden, which he did last month, although he did it to ridicule Chairman Comer.

It appears the Moskowitz-Comer “bromance” may be over.

Wednesday afternoon Congressman Moskowitz, whose sarcasm is becoming well-known, used it to ridicule Chairman Comer.

“I was hoping our breakup would never become public,” he declared. “We had such a great thing while it lasted James. I will miss the time we spent together. I will miss our conversations. I will miss the pet names you gave me. I only wish you the best and hope you find happiness.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Continue Reading

OPINION

‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Published

13 hours ago

on

April 24, 2024

By

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case centered on the question, can the federal government require states with strict abortion bans to allow physicians to perform abortions in emergency situations, specifically when the woman’s health, but not her life, is in danger?

The 1986 federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), signed into law by Republican President Ronald Reagan, says it can. The State of Idaho on Wednesday argued it cannot.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, The Washington Post’s Kim Bellware reported, “made a clear delineation between Idaho law and what EMTALA provides.”

“In Idaho, doctors have to shut their eyes to everything except death,” Prelogar said, according to Bellware. “Whereas under EMTALA, you’re supposed to be thinking about things like, ‘Is she about to lose her fertility? Is her uterus going to become incredibly scarred because of the bleeding? Is she about to undergo the possibility of kidney failure?’ ”

READ MORE: Gag Order Breach? Trump Targeted Cohen in Taped Interview Hours Before Contempt Hearing

Attorney Imani Gandy, an award-winning journalist and Editor-at-Large for Rewire News Group, highlighted an issue central to the case.

“The issue of medical judgment vs. good faith judgment is a huge one because different states have different standards of judgment,” she writes. “If a doctor exercises their judgment, another doctor expert witness at trial could question that. That’s a BIG problem here. That’s why doctors are afraid to provide abortions. They may have an overzealous prosecutor come behind them and disagree.”

Right-wing Justice Samuel Alito appeared to draw the most fire from legal experts, as his questioning suggested “fetal personhood” should be the law, which it is not.

“Justice Alito is trying to import fetal personhood into federal statutory law by suggesting federal law might well prohibit hospitals from providing abortions as emergency stabilizing care,” observed Constitutional law professor Anthony Michael Kreis.

Paraphrasing Justice Alito, Kreis writes: “Alito: How can the federal government restrict what Idaho criminalizes simply because hospitals in Idaho have accepted federal funds?”

Appearing to answer that question, Georgia State University College of Law professor of law and Constitutional scholar Eric Segall wrote: “Our Constitution unequivocally allows the federal gov’t to offer the states money with conditions attached no matter how invasive b/c states can always say no. The conservative justices’ hostility to the spending power is based only on politics and values not text or history.”

Professor Segall also served up some of the strongest criticism of the right-wing justice.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

He wrote that Justice Alito “is basically making it clear he doesn’t care if pregnant women live or die as long as the fetus lives.”

Earlier Wednesday morning Segall had issued a warning: “Trigger alert: In about 20 minutes several of the conservative justices are going to show very clearly that that they care much more about fetuses than women suffering major pregnancy complications which is their way of owning the libs which is grotesque.”

Later, predicting “Alito is going to dissent,” Segall wrote: “Alito is dripping arrogance and condescension…in a case involving life, death, and medical emergencies. He has no bottom.”

Taking a broader view of the case, NYU professor of law Melissa Murray issued a strong warning: “The EMTALA case, Moyle v. US, hasn’t received as much attention as the mifepristone case, but it is huge. Not only implicates access to emergency medical procedures (like abortion in cases of miscarriage), but the broader question of federal law supremacy.”

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

 

 

Continue Reading

News

Gag Order Breach? Trump Targeted Cohen in Taped Interview Hours Before Contempt Hearing

Published

16 hours ago

on

April 24, 2024

By

Hours before his attorneys would mount a defense on Tuesday claiming he had not violated his gag order Donald Trump might have done just that in a 12-minute taped interview that morning, which did not air until later that day. It will be up to Judge Juan Merchan to make that decision, if prosecutors add it to their contempt request.

Prosecutors in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office told Judge Juan Merchan that the ex-president violated the gag order ten times, via posts on his Truth Social platform, and are asking he be held in contempt. While the judge has yet to rule, he did not appear moved by their arguments. At one point, Judge Merchan told Trump’s lead lawyer Todd Blanche he was “losing all credibility” with the court.

And while Judge Merchan directed defense attorneys to provide a detailed timeline surrounding Trump’s Truth Social posts to prove he had not violated the gag order, Trump in an interview with a local television station appeared to have done so.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

The gag order bars Trump from “commenting or causing others to comment on potential witnesses in the case, prospective jurors, court staff, lawyers in the district attorney’s office and the relatives of any counsel or court staffer, as CBS News reported.

“The threat is very real,” Judge Merchan wrote when he expanded the gag order. “Admonitions are not enough, nor is reliance on self-restraint. The average observer, must now, after hearing Defendant’s recent attacks, draw the conclusion that if they become involved in these proceedings, even tangentially, they should worry not only for themselves, but for their loved ones as well. Such concerns will undoubtedly interfere with the fair administration of justice and constitutes a direct attack on the Rule of Law itself.”

Tuesday morning, Trump told ABC Philadelphia’s Action News reporter Walter Perez, “Michael Cohen is a convicted liar. He’s got no credibility whatsoever.”

He repeated that Cohen is a “convicted liar,” and insisted he “was a lawyer for many people, not just me.”

READ MORE: ‘Old and Tired and Mad’: Trump’s Demeanor in Court Detailed by Rachel Maddow

Since Cohen is a witness in Trump’s New York criminal case, Judge Merchan might decide Trump’s remarks during that interview violated the gag order, if prosecutors bring the video to his attention.

Enter attorney George Conway, who has been attending Trump’s New York trial.

Conway reposted a clip of the video, tagged Manhattan District Attorney Bragg, writing: “cc: @ManhattanDA, for your proposed order to show cause why the defendant in 𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘷. 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 should not spend some quiet time in lockup.”

Trump has been criminally indicted in four separate cases and is facing a total of 88 felony charges, including 34 in this New York criminal trial for alleged falsification of business records to hide payments of “hush money” to an adult film actress and one other woman, in an alleged effort to suppress their stories and protect his 2016 presidential campaign, which experts say is election interference.

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.