Connect with us

COMMENTARY

In Insane Diatribe Franklin Graham Calls Equality Act ‘Catastrophic’ and Warns if Passed US ‘May Never Recover’

Published

on

Franklin Graham is waging war against the Equality Act, legislation that would merely extend the already-existing Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include LGBT people in areas such as housing, credit, education, and public accommodations.

Graham went on an insane diatribe in the July/August edition of his Decision Magazine, calling the fight against equality “A Battle for the Soul of the Nation.”

According to Graham, were the Equality Act, which passed the House in May and is languishing in the Senate, ever to become law, it would be, he warns, “a nightmare from which this nation may never recover.”

Think about that.

He is literally warning his constituency that merely treating LGBTQ people with the same respect that white Christian heterosexual men are granted as a birthright would be a “nightmare,” and have “catastrophic consequences.”

This legislation will have catastrophic consequences for competitive sports, along with churches and faith-based nonprofits who would lose all protections to hire people who adhere to their Biblical statements of faith. Christians will be persecuted for their sincerely held beliefs as never before. The clear teachings of the Bible on the sins of homosexuality and abortion will no doubt be considered “hate speech.” It will be a nightmare from which this nation may never recover.

That is, of course, all false.

Graham, of course, knows that the Equality Act has no chance of even coming to the floor of the U.S. Senate for a vote, as long as Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is in charge. And he knows President Donald Trump will never, ever sign it should it by some miracle reach his desk.

So what’s Graham’s real agenda? Why the feverish fear-mongering?

He shows his hand, saying: “If the Senate majority changes or if enough Republican senators change their position, it would be up to the president to veto the bill. And if that office were to change hands in 2020, I have little doubt this would become the law of the land.”

As with many things Graham does, he is using his tax-exempt 501(c)(3) non-profit status to campaign-while-not-campaigning for the President and the Republican Party.

Graham frames his argument by pointing to the very genuine support given to LGBTQ Americans and the very American actions exhibited by the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates.

Calling it “immoral behavior clearly condemned by Scripture,” Graham complained that “New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand served drinks at a gay bar; Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke sported a rainbow sweatband; and gay South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg talked openly about his coming out,” during Pride month.

Scandalous!

Imagine, a straight woman serving drinks at (horrors!) a gay bar, a straight man showing support for LGBTQ people, and a gay man talking – “openly” – about his journey of self discovery.

These acts, Graham writes, reveal “the deepening depravity that now vexes our country.”

Graham sees these actions, along with the House passage of the Equality Act and the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell marriage decision, as a sign “that same moral and spiritual framework, which has held our nation together for 243 years, is now unraveling so quickly that I fear for the future of our children and grandchildren.”

How sad that a 67-year old man of faith has so little faith in the American people he claims to serve, and in our Founding Fathers he claims to revere.

RELATED STORIES:

RIGHT WING GROUP HEAD FALSELY FEARMONGERS THE LGBT EQUALITY ACT WILL MAKE CHRISTIANITY ‘AGAINST THE LAW’

PAT ROBERTSON: LGBT EQUALITY ACT WILL CAUSE GOD TO ‘VOMIT OUT’ AMERICA

FRANKLIN GRAHAM SAYS ‘I’M NOT CONDEMNING ANYONE’ AFTER BEING BLASTED FOR TELLING PETE BUTTIGIEG TO ‘REPENT’ BEING GAY

 

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.

COMMENTARY

‘I’m Not a Bigot, I Love People’: Mayor Says New LGBTQ-Inclusive Education Law ‘Is Going to Hurt People’

Published

on

Why is this bigoted anti-LGBTQ mayor still allowed to teach in public schools?

Barnegat,  New Jersey’s Republican mayor is once again attacking a new state law that requires schools to include in their curriculums the contributions made by LGBTQ people. Alfonso Cirulli gained condemnation nationwide after delivering a lengthy, bigoted rant in August during a township committee meeting. And now he’s back for another round.

Mayor Cirulli, who worked for years as a teacher and an administrator, is still allowed in schools, and is still teaching, according to a just-published article by NJ.com.

“I’m not a bigot, I love people,” Cirulli said in his recent interview.

That claim is false, given he called the LGBTQ community “an affront to almighty God” during that highly-publicized summer meeting.

“Sexual preference is a mindset,” Cirulli also claimed. “Don’t confuse this with racial or ethnic discrimination. There is no comparison.”

In his latest interview Cirulli falsely claims teaching students about the contributions made by members of the LGBTQ community “is going to hurt people,” and “is going to cause more problems than they say it’s going to help.”

“I’m worried about kids,” Cirulli claimed. “You’re taking young kids and you start telling them, ‘If you want to be a girl, you can be a girl, if you want to be a guy, you can be a guy.’ And you’re giving them an identity crisis.”

That’s just plain false.

There’s no video of Cirulli’s remarks this time, but during his unhinged August rant he said the “LGBTQ movement is out to crush anybody or any faith that doesn’t embrace their chosen lifestyle,” which is also false.

“For people of faith, make no mistake that this political movement is an affront to almighty God,” Cirulli said,  “with the intent of completely trying to completely eradicate God’s law and the foundation that this nation was built on.”

He also called the federal Equality Act “dangerous.”

NJ.com reports Cirulli is “a former assistant principal at Pinelands Regional High School who still teaches woodshop and other classes in the district.”

It’s unclear why, given his very public remarks that may have impacted the very students he teaches, he is still allowed to do so.

 

Continue Reading

COMMENTARY

DOJ Sticks Its Nose in Lawsuit Against Archdiocese That Fired Gay Teacher – And Urges Court to Rule Against Him

Published

on

Bill Barr’s Dept. of Justice is spreading its tentacles far and wide. While it has every legal right to do so, most might not expect the federal government to weigh in on a case filed in a state court, even a state superior court. And yet, it has.

The United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Indiana and the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division have filed a “Statement of Interest” telling the Indiana Superior Court it should rule against a teacher who is suing the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis for firing him because he is gay and married to a man.

“The Archdiocese determined that, consistent with its interpretation of Church teachings, a school within its diocesan boundaries cannot identify as Catholic and simultaneously employ a teacher in a public, same-sex marriage,” the DOJ’s statement reads. “Many may lament the Archdiocese’s determination. But the First Amendment forbids this Court from interfering with the Archdiocese’s right to expressive association, and from second-guessing the Archdiocese’s interpretation and application of Catholic law. For these reasons, this action must be dismissed.”

The question many should have is why this case? And why did the DOJ feel the need to weigh in at all?

It seems the DOJ may be laying groundwork.

Attorney Mark Joseph Stern, who writes at Slate, offered this disturbing analysis:

Duhaime’s Law Dictionary defines “expressive association” as a “group that engages in some form of public or private expression,” and pulls this quote from a legal case:

“The courts have long understood as implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends.”

The DOJ’s “Statement of Interest” uses the term “expressive association” twelve times.

Imagine where they might be going.

Forewarned is fair-warned.

 

Image: Shutterstock

Continue Reading

COMMENTARY

‘Absolute Fealty at All Times’: New Report Details the Degrading Demands Trump Places on His Aides

Published

on

In a report for the Washington Post on Thursday, reporters Ashley Parker and Philip Rucker outlined the grueling and “Kafkaesque” standards President Donald Trump places demands of his aides — standards that now-former National Security Adviser John Bolton failed to live up to.

“He tolerates a modicum of dissent, so long as it remains private; expects advisers to fall in line and defend his decisions; and demands absolute fealty at all times,” they wrote.

One anonymous source for the piece explained how his demanding nature is also, at times, excruciatingly paradoxical:

“There is no person that is part of the daily Trump decision-making process that can survive long term,” said a former senior administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to offer a candid assessment. “The president doesn’t like people to get good press. He doesn’t like people to get bad press. Yet he expects everyone to be relevant and important and supportive at all times. Even if a person could do all those things, the president would grow tired of anyone in his immediate orbit.”

Anthony Scaramucci described the role of Trump’s staff in particularly degrading terms. In his view, Trump wants “catatonic loyalty” and for his people to act as props. Others told the Post that Trump likes to stage disagreements between his aides and then “play emperor” and decide the winner.

Dozens of Trump aides and appointees have fallen from his grace and been ousted from the administration for failing to play the dutiful role to perfection: former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, former National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, former Chief of Staff John Kelly, and former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, to name just a few.

Notably, Bolton wasn’t going to be a prop in this game. When Bolton entered the White House, it was clear to most observers — though apparently not Trump — that he was committed to enacting his vision of foreign policy, one that contrasted sharply with the president’s preferences. It seems Trump appreciated and tolerated Bolton at times, but Bolton’s goal was to manipulate the president in the end. Once even Trump realized that Bolton wasn’t just a tough-guy war-monger stage prop, but an ideologue using the president for his own purposes, he had to go.

The piece interestingly doesn’t mention the roles of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, the president’s daughter and son-in-law, in the White House. They seem to defy the usual standards for Trump’s aides, and he clearly doesn’t view them as disposable, like a chief of staff or a national security adviser. Being family is different.

But the piece also doesn’t address some of the outlier aides in Trump’s orbit. Why have, for example, Kellyanne Conway and Stephen Miller stuck around so long? How did they avoid the fate of so many others — especially when they both have gotten their fair share of bad press?

Fundamentally, though, the account rings true for the vast majority of Trump’s people. For example, consider that, in the video that sparked the “Sharpiegate” story, Trump had the acting Secretary of Homeland Security Kevin McAleenan sitting off to the side, voiceless, acting like a prop and displaying the doctored weather map:

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2019 AlterNet Media.