 Wendy Francis | July 28, 2016
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter ABC should keep rainbow politics out of Play School Parents should be able to trust their toddlers to the ABC’s Play School program without worrying if they are being exposed to controversial political and social agendas, according to the Australian Christian Lobby. Play School today featured two men raising two girls in its popular Through the Windows segment. “As a grandmother I find it disappointing that the ABC is seeking to include rainbow politics for toddlers when millions of their parents do not agree with redefining marriage in law,” Ms Francis said. “Millions of Australians also do not agree that two men should be allowed to deliberately deprive a child of its mother. This does not mean two men can not love a child, of course they can. The issue is whether or not it is right for the child to be deprived of its mother and whether this should be taught as ethical to toddlers. “The ABC should also not assume that producing children through harvested eggs and a rented or donated woman’s womb to meet the desires of two men is a public good. “Unsupervised watching of Play School was always considered safe by generations of parents. Now parents can’t be sure if their children are going to be exposed to contested social and political agendas. “As ACL warned in February this year, Play School is not the place for the ABC to run agendas. The Australian people will be deciding whether or not marriage (and with it parenting) is redefined in a national plebiscite after the federal election, should the Coalition win. “Many parents will be disappointed with this, particularly as this is a taxpayer-funded program that should refrain from pushing confusing adult messaging to our children. “Parent’s shouldn't be forced to have adult conversations about sexuality and bioethics with their kids at such a young age and it certainly should not be the government broadcaster raising the subject with them.” Ms Francis said the nature of the ABC as a taxpayer-funded broadcaster meant that it had an obligation to maintain its objectivity on political issues, particularly when matters crucial to the definition of marriage and family are subject to a national vote. “ABC Kids should be particularly sensitive to what it shows to young impressionable minds and refrain from introducing contested social concepts into their children’s programing,” Ms Francis said. “We encourage the Communications Minister, Mitch Fifield, to take these concerns to the ABC so that the integrity of the ABC can be maintained.” http://www.acl.org.au/abc_should_keep_rainbow_politics_out_of_play_school media Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Hilton Hotel chain taken over by homosexuals promoting gay sex - beware of staying at the Hilton. Protect children. Sign the petition.
SIGN PETITION HERE At its core, the whole "Battle for Marriage" is the old long-running battle between man and God. Homosexuals at heart are angry with God and they have allowed their growing hatred for God and God's people to ferment and bubble away to the current point where it is coming out in force and overflowing throughout Western countries. They are intent on socking it to God and Christians and as they increasingly are emboldened so increases their antagonism toward God, the Bible and Christians.
Christians however, while wanting to preserve traditional marriage for the sake of men, women, children and good society, understand that changing marriage law changes nothing. God will always be God. The truth of the Bible will always be truth. Jesus will always be the only solution. Marriage will always be marriage. Sexual immorality will always be sexual immorality. The juggernaut will not stop. Once they have marriage they will not stop. They will try to change the Bible (see the article from Michael Brown below), close down churches, close down Christian schools and charities, imprison or fine Christians. Why? Because it is a bigger battle than just marriage. From Michael Brown at Stream: "First, what Scripture says on homosexual practice is not negotiable, and no amount of new books or videos or personal stories will change that. As I explained in my book Can You Be Gay and Christian?, “no new textual, archeological, sociological, anthropological or philological discoveries have been made in the last fifty years that would cause us to read any of these biblical texts differently. Put another way, it is not that we have gained some new insights into what the biblical text means based on the study of the Hebrew and Greek texts. Instead, people’s interaction with the LGBT community has caused them to understand the biblical text differently.” Simply stated, if not for the sexual revolution, no one would be reexamining what the Scriptures state about God’s intention for His creation. No one would be wondering if two men or two women could “marry” or if a husband could also be a wife. No one would be doubting that the Lord made men for women and women for men and that any deviation from that pattern was contrary to His design and intent. As one New Testament scholar was candid enough to admit, it was clear to him that the Bible forbade homosexual practice, but when his own daughter came out as a lesbian, he changed his opinion on the subject. That’s why I’ve often stated that there is not a single argument that can be brought from God’s Word to defend homosexual practice, but there are powerful emotional arguments that can be brought. In that context, I’m often reminded of Jesus’ words that, “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Matt. 10:37). The father of a “gay Christian” activist changed churches when his home congregation rejected his son’s views on homosexuality. When asked about these words of Jesus, he commented that there were other churches he could go to, but he had only one son. I could only wince when I heard his words, so loving in one way but so destructive in another. Second, if there was something to reconsider in our theology we would gladly do it. The truth be told, as impossible as the “gay Christian” arguments struck me, I went to the Lord about them, buying the books that defended this new way of reading Scripture, reading the stories (and listening to the stories) of professing gay Christians, allowing my heart to be torn and my mind to be challenged. At the end of the day, as a biblical scholar, a lover of Jesus, and a lover of people, it was impossible for me to accept their arguments. The Word is just too clear on this, and without some kind of emotional or social or other pressure to reconsider what Scripture states, no one would deny this. Third, those who argue that Christians agree to disagree on lots of things without denying each other’s faith fail to realize that they do not agree to disagree on behaviors that Scripture strongly condemns — unless they themselves are living in some kind of moral compromise. We’re not dealing here with a question of whether speaking in tongues is for today or whether Christians are required to tithe or whether Jesus is coming before the tribulation. We’re dealing with redefining the very meaning of marriage and claiming that a behavior that is plainly condemned in the Old and New Testaments — I’m talking about same-sex cohabitation — is now blessed by God. And while God alone is the judge of every professing Christian, be that person gay or straight, we cannot embrace as fellow brothers and sisters those who are affirming, practicing, and even celebrating homosexuality. We will put our arms around everyone who struggles with same-sex attraction, loving them and embracing them and encouraging them in their walk with the Lord, whether their walk entails transformation from homosexual to heterosexual or whether it entails celibacy. But we will not and cannot affirm and bless what the Lord Himself opposes. To do so is to do a disservice to those in the LGBT community." SOURCE Girls are banned at a girls’ school. Miranda Devine explains:
We have reached the absurd position where teachers at an all-girls school in northwest Sydney, Cheltenham Girls High, have been asked to stop referring to their students as “girls”, ladies” and “women” and instead use “gender-neutral” language. And to illustrate the maxim that so much that passes for idealism is a disguised hatred or a disguised love of power: But some students at the elite public school, with its large Asian population, feel marginalised and excluded if they do not embrace the ideology. Concerned parents have started a petition and complained to teachers as well as various politicians. They have said their daughters felt pressured to wear LGBTI ribbons which were being handed out at the front and back entrance of the school one morning. And they have claimed students not wearing the ribbons were being called intolerant and labelled homophobes. How can an anti-bullying program be imposed by bullying? Daily Telegraph Daily Mail UK The defenders of traditional marriage believe that the gay community already has full equality. Their main concern in defending traditional marriage is about children, as revealed in the following News.com.au article:
THE religious opposition to same-sex marriage has expressed its real concerns over same-sex marriage — and they want you to think of the children. Managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby told news.com.au that concerns over the fate of Australia’s future children is at the core of its opposition to allowing same-sex marriage pass through parliament. “The baby who is taken from the breast of her mother doesn’t have a voice in this debate, the child who doesn’t get to know their father doesn’t have a voice,” Mr Shelton explained to news.com.au. “There’s no inequality for gay people in Australia, there is none. “But this issue of marriage is important because the law is not just something that is a big stick to beat us all over the head, it actually has an educative effect. “Research clearly shows the quickest pathway to poverty for a child is for their biological mum and dad to break up, that's just a fact.” In a Facebook Live debate on news.com.au, Mr Shelton went head-to-head with Tiernan Brady, political director of the ‘yes campaign’ in Ireland, representing Australian Marriage Equality. Mr Shelton explained his concerns on same-sex marriage created “an inequality for a baby not to know the love of their mother or father” and claimed women who were “willing to hire their body” to surrogacy had become an “ethically dubious process”. “I can’t see how you can have marriage equality for two men without their ability to pay money to acquire a child from a woman whose willing to hire her body. “These are ethically dubious processes which have to flow as a consequence of redefining marriage. “We’ve done a lot of work in Australia about the rights of donor conceived children to be allowed to know who their fathers are. Anonymous sperm donation is something which many women who wish to have families require because they don’t want a third person in their family, but the biological reality is a kid needs a mum and a dad, gender actually does matter to a child, and the diversity of gender matters to a child.” ... “All of us have desires and things that we would like to have in life, but if those desires, those adult desires, trump the rights of a child then I think we have to ask ourselves are we really a civil society if we’re prepared to override the needs of a child for the rights of an adult.” Originally posted on News.com.au SaltShakers.org.au reports as follows:
They write, “About 1,000 new cases of HIV are reported in Australia each year, and those within the sector worry that young people, who did not witness the horrors of the AIDS epidemic during the 80s and 90s, have become complacent.” The truth is the TRUTH, no matter how unpalatable or politically incorrect it might seem to be. Yet we often see the truth covered up, as though no-one wants to talk about it. The official Australian data clearly shows the HIV infection rate, and the high risk groups. For years the homosexual media has run campaigns to educate homosexual men about the ‘dangers of unsafe sex’ and the high risk of HIV. In these reports this week, the media (and maybe the scientists as well) have shied away from mentioning the real factors in HIV transmission. However, if we mention it, we are considered hateful. But the TRUTH needs to be told. Sources: Article: AIDS epidemic no longer a public health issue in Australia, scientists say, ABC, Exclusive by Stephanie Dalzell, 10/7/2016. Article: AIDS epidemic 'over' in Australia, say peak bodies, SMH, 11/7/2016. Article: It's no longer an epidemic, but AIDS and HIV still kill in Australia, SMH, 11/7/2016. The election WAS the plebiscite. The people have spoken, yet again. Now it is time to just move on.11/7/2016
The July 2nd election was the second time the ALP have taken to the people of Australia their promise to impose homosexual "marriage" laws on them. It was also the second time that the ALP have failed to get the people's mandate to do this.
Year after year we see valuable parliamentary time, political energy and millions of taxpayer dollars absolutely wasted on this destructive and divisive issue. It is time to say "enough is enough!" Year after year we see continued media forcefulness insisting that the people of Australia accept the forceful imposition of this unusual sexual preference as now being on a par with and even more exalted than heterosexual unions. "Enough is enough!" We see school children increasingly bullied in school yards across our once young and free nation just for supporting traditional marriage, and for not wholeheartedly embracing, affirming and promoting homosexual sex acts or for not flying the rainbow flag. "Enough is enough!" This issue long ago stopped being about equality. There have already been over 80 pieces of legislation changed to ensure their is no inequality under the law. They already have equality. Changing marriage will not be the end of the issue. It is a political battle for our nation, for our children, for our institutions, not just for marriage. Millions of Australians have simply had enough of the left-wing rainbow ideological push to change our nation for the worse. It is time to tell them: "Enough is enough!" It is time to start to focus on things which will help our nation, unite our nation, prosper our nation, advance our nation, economically and socially. The ANZACS fought for a free nation. The rainbow movement want to make it illegal for Australians to be able to speak freely and to believe openly. Bill Shorten and the Greens want to make it illegal for Australians to be able to say that "marriage is between a man and a woman,' and that "homosexual sex acts should not be promoted to children, are not normal, not good for people physically nor mentally, not healthy, but are a risk to children, human health and society." Bill Shorten, Penny Wong, the Greens, Warren Entsch, Daniel Andrews, James Merlino and their comrades across Australia want anti-discrimination laws to discriminate against, fine and imprison Australians for holding to traditional understandings of human sexuality and communal good. But these truths are things which millions of Australians believe, and will continue to believe no matter what the law may suggest otherwise. These are things which millions of Australian's religion teaches and will continue to teach. Jews, Christians, Muslims.... Religion or no religion, these are things which millions of Australian's consciences attest to, and will continue to attest to. Bill & comrades want to remove our freedoms of speech, religion and conscience. These are the very things the ANZACS fought and died for. These are the very freedoms which make us free. Many countries around the world do not have these freedoms and they have and will continue to suffer greatly. Why should we allow Australia to join them? Speak and act now before it is too late. First They Came for the Florists
The Threat to Pastors' Religious Freedom in Iowa By: John Stonestreet Published: July 7, 2016 6:00 AM A so-called “clarification” on anti-discrimination laws in the heartland makes the state the arbiter of sermons and services. In 2007, Iowa enacted a law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The law applies to what are known as “public accommodations.” Now federal law typically considers “public accommodations” to be facilities like restaurants, hotels, movie theaters, retail establishments, and parks. But recently, the Iowa Civil Rights Commission added something atypical to that list: church services. In its “Provider’s Guide,” the Commission offered an answer to the question, “Does this law apply to churches?” with a resounding “Sometimes.” What follows is troubling: “Iowa law provides that these protections do not apply to religious institutions with respect to any religion-based qualifications when such qualifications are related to a bona fide religious purpose.” I say troubling because implied in that statement is that the state gets to determine what is and what is not a bona fide religious purpose. And what follows that goes from troubling to outrageous: “Where qualifications are not related to a bona fide religious purpose, churches are still subject to the law’s provisions: For example, a child care facility operated at a church or a church service open to the public.” Which, as the Alliance Defending Freedom rightly pointed out, “encompasses most events that churches hold.” If the Commission interpretation stands, then churches—at any service open to the public—would be prohibited from doing or saying anything that would “ ‘directly or indirectly’ make ‘persons of any particular . . . gender identity’ feel ‘unwelcome’ in conjunction with church services, events, and other religious activities.” Given the almost limitless capacity for people to take offense or feel “unwelcome,” this would effectively ban sermons or other religious instruction about traditional Christian sexual ethics. This is what the Supreme Court famously dubbed a “chilling effect” on the freedom of religion and of speech. ... it’s a sobering reminder of three things. First, this didn’t happen at the Supreme Court or in left-leaning Washington State: it happened in the heartland, in Iowa. Religious freedom is in a precarious condition. Second, it shows how wrong those who insisted, “‘Oh, they’ll never make pastors do this", or "They’ll never make churches do that” really were. The state of Iowa is pretending to arbitrate what counts as a bona fide religious purpose. Everything a church does should have a religious purpose, especially outreach. That’s why every church service is open to the public. Finally, it brings to mind Martin Niemöller’s famous line about failing to stand for others until there was no one left to stand up for him. Too many pastors failed to stand up for the freedoms of people in the pew because, well, they weren’t bakers or photographers or florists. And the pastors assumed they were safe. Clearly they aren’t. The unprecedented attempt to regulate religious speech in Iowa shows the lengths to which enemies of religious freedom are prepared to go, proving it was never about cakes or photos in the first place. http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/29538 Labor’s “same-sex marriage in 100 days” pledge falls flat - again!
Labor has now contested two federal elections promising to legislate same-sex marriage within 100 days, recording two of the lowest primary votes in its history. ACL Managing Director Lyle Shelton said it was time for Labor to move back to the sensible centre on social policy. “It’s time Labor rethought its support for issues like same-sex marriage and the gender-bending, so-called “Safe Schools” program,” Mr Shelton said. “The long-running debate about changing the definition of marriage is clearly not an issue for mainstream voters. They are focussed on other things while political elites and some in the media are fixated with same-sex marriage. “The record vote for minor parties and independents is further evidence of mainstream disillusionment with the major parties and the Greens which have been too focussed on fringe, politically correct agendas.” SOURCE The Sydney Morning Herald reported on the 1st July a survey revealed that ‘69% of people backed Malcolm Turnbull’s plan for a plebiscite on homosexual ‘marriage’…
Article: Federal election 2016: Australian voters overwhelmingly back Malcolm Turnbull's plebiscite policy, SMH, 1/7/2016. "Malcolm,
You assassinated a Liberal Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, who’d won an election by a huge margin. You promised to do even better than him. You then treated the Liberal base like dirt, smashing it with a huge super tax, refusing to speak to conservative journalists, repeatedly humiliating Abbott. You referred to the colonial settlement of Australia as an “invasion” and even held an end-of-Ramadan meal with known Muslim bigots. You called an early double dissolution election on the excuse of needing new laws to tackle rogue unions with a building and construction commission, but with the true aim of getting rid of crossbench oppositionists in the Senate. You went to the election with basically only one policy to sell - a pathetic 10-year promise to cut company tax. And now look. Almost everything turned to ruin. You have lost so many seats that you could even be forced into minority government, if pre-polling and Western Australia go against you. You have, if anything, lost ground in the Senate, which will block most of your plans. You will be unable to get the numbers to get your building and construction commission through in any joint sitting of parliament. You have asked for no mandate for real reform, and will have almost no power to undertake any. Your popularity, already plummeting, will fall further. There is no way you can seriously claim that this result is better than anything Abbott could have achieved. Abbott picked up seven seats at the 2010 election and another 15 in the 2013 election. You have lost between 10 and 15 seats and dumped key Liberal values in doing so. You have been a disaster. You betrayed Tony Abbott and then led the party to humiliation, stripped of both values and honour. Resign." Andrew Bolt  Where marriage has been redefined, pro-LGBT commissions have been at the forefront of the civil rights attacks against people who disagree with LGBT political correctness.
Australian Labor Party is now promising to create the Australian version of these #RainbowCourts http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/labor-pledges-gay-and-lesbian-rights-watchdog-if-it-wins-office-20160521-gp0h2t.html Source There were three speakers at a recent rally defending the rights of school children not to be made sexual objects by the homosexual normalization coalition at such a young age. Their speeches follow:
1- Senate Candidate Vickie Janson, outlined the ideology of the Safe Schools Coalition and explained some of what is taught... Vickie noted that children are taught that there are various options for sexual activity, and highlighted the medical consequences of anal sex. Vickie also highlighted the fact that research shows a major factor in LGBTI suicide is ‘relationship problems’. FULL SPEECH: Vickie Janson - Rally against Safe Schools Coaliton - speech - March 16, 2016 2- Concerned Parent Frith Mohring spoke about her concerns as a parent and the impact of the materials and the curriculum content about sexual and gender diversity on children. Of particular concern is the fact that teachers are encouraged to include ‘sexual and gender diversity’ in ALL subjects, whenever they get a chance! 3- Jenny Stokes, of Salt Shakers, spoke about the formation of the Safe Schools Coalition, and the ideological foundations of the organisation and the research they quote. She gave details of the resources published by the Safe Schools Coalition. Jenny then gave a brief overview of the material taught to students in the Year 7 ‘All Of Us’ curriculum, about sexual and gender diversity, and the way students are encouraged to become ‘activists’ for the LGBTI cause. (Photo on right) FULL SPEECH: Rally against Safe Schools Coalition - Speech by Jenny Stokes - March 16, 2016 Read more ... The TRUTH about gender… ‘Gender Ideology Harms Children’The American College of Pediatricians has released an EXCELLENT POSITION STATEMENT about the HARM being done to children by those who proclaim that ‘gender is how you feel’ and who suggest to them that a boy can ‘become’ a girl or a girl can ‘become’ a boy, especially by taking puberty blockers or hormones and having sex re-assignment surgery.
Point 5 states, "5. According to the DSM-V, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty." Point 7 highlights the real facts about the high suicide risk in transgender adults who take hormones and have ‘re-assignment surgery’. It continues... “What compassionate and reasonable person would condemn young children to this fate knowing that after puberty as many as 88% of girls and 98% of boys will eventually accept reality and achieve a state of mental and physical health?” THE STATEMENT in FULL Bill Shorten announces ALP to use $6m more of your money to teach anal sex to your children.1/7/2016
Bill Shorten will use another $6m of taxpayer funds to further embed and promote anal sex and other unnatural and unhealthy sex acts to Australian school children. Men who have sex with men cannot give blood due to the high risk of disease contaminated blood from gay men, yet the ALP and the Greens want to mass indoctrinate the nations children to believe that the acts are suddenly good and healthy.
ALP’s $6m for Safe Schools 28th June 2016 "Bill Shorten says Labor will chip in another $6m in funding to the controversial Safe Schools Coalition." The Australian |
There is “a time to be silent, and a time to speak”. (Ecclesiastes 3:7). Now is the time to speak, so please speak up and defend children, truth and freedom.
“What the world needs most is a voice that courageously speaks the truth, not when the world is right, but a voice that speaks the truth when the world is wrong.” Fulton Sheen 
he
|
RSS Feed