Posts

LAWSUIT: ‘Neither the Courts nor Government Can Determine What Is a Sin’

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, yesterday, filed a friend of the court brief in the case of Zubik v. Burwell, in support of seven non-profit organizations including the Little Sisters of the Poor who claim they cannot comply with the Department of Health and Human Services’ mandate (“HHS Mandate”) because even the so called “accommodations” make them actively complicit in the sin of abortion.  TMLC’s brief asserts that the Court is not the arbiter of sacred Scripture and, therefore, cannot determine whether or not an act constitutes a sin; it can only determine whether the government’s penalties for refusal to complete the sinful act are a substantial burden on religious liberty.

Thomas More Law Center Files Brief in Supreme Court Declaring Neither Court Nor Government Can Determine What Is a Sin

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of TMLC, portrays this case as a potential turning point in American legal history, stating, “The HHS Mandate is a monumental attack on religious liberty.  If this appeal is lost, the government becomes the head of every religious denomination in the country by its assumed authority to determine what is in fact a sin.”

The HHS Mandate requires religious non-profit organizations to participate in a government scheme to provide free contraceptives, including abortion causing drugs and devices (abortifacients), to their employees or face monumental fines that would result in closing the doors of most non-profit organizations that object to the HHS Mandate.

However, the HHS Mandate allows non-profit organizations like the Little Sisters to receive a so-called accommodation from directly providing free contraceptives and abortifacients to their employees.  The accommodation  requires the non-profit organizations to either (1) fill out a form as notice of their objection to contraceptives and abortifacients and provide that form to their insurers, which includes language instructing the insurers to provide free contraceptives and abortifacients to the women in the non-profits’ health plans, or (2) write and send a detailed letter to HHS with all of the information necessary to notify the non-profits’ insurers of their newfound obligation to provide free contraceptives and abortifacients to the women in the non-profits’ health plans.

These notification requirements trigger the non-profits’ insurers to provide free contraceptives and abortifacients to the women in the non-profits’ health plans. This notification requirement makes the non profits complicit in the provision of a service that they find sinful, thereby causing them to sin themselves.

TMLC’s brief argues, supported by a long line of Supreme Court precedent, that neither the government nor the Supreme Court can determine whether an act does or does not violate a person’s religious beliefs.  Rather, the Supreme Court must accept the non-profits’ assertions that the notification requirement is indeed against their religion.  To accept otherwise is to supplant the Church and the Bible with the government, allowing the Supreme Court and the government to interpret tenants of faith.  This slippery slope would subject all religious exercise to the whim of the government’s approval.

 Excerpts from TMLC’s Amicus brief:

  • “This Court has already determined that the fines for noncompliance with the HHS Mandate impose a substantial burden on employers. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751, 2776 (2014). The ultimate question, therefore, is whether compliance is actually against the Petitioners’ religion. This is something that is for Petitioners to determine, not the Court.”
  • “The Court is not the arbiter of sacred scripture and cannot determine whether the notification form and letter are attenuated enough from the provision of contraceptives that they do not substantially burden Petitioners’ religion. Delving into this inquiry requires the Court to interpret Petitioners’ religious beliefs on the morality of the different levels of complicity with sin. Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indian Employment Security Div., 450 U.S. 707, 718 (1981).  Therefore, the Court can only determine whether Petitioners are being compelled to do something that violates their faith—here, filling out the notification form or writing a notification letter to HHS, both of which trigger the dissemination of contraceptives and abortifacients to their employees in connection with their employee health plans.”
  • “While women have a right to obtain contraceptives, see Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 485-486 (1965), this does not mean they have a right to free contraceptives and abortifacients. Moreover, this right certainly does not mean that a person has the right to obtain contraceptives and abortifacients—either directly or indirectly—from their employer at the expense of pillaging the employer’s religious liberty.”

Click here to read TMLC’s entire 19-page brief  

TMLC, representing thirty-six plaintiffs including six religious non-profit organizations, has filed twelve lawsuits challenging the illegal aims of the HHS Mandate.

The New Reich

Startling headlines like this one—“Court Exonerates Mom in Newborn’s Death, Rules 6-Day-Old Baby Not a ‘Person’”—always give me a jolt.

The mother in this case, Jennifer Jorgensen, “was speeding, intoxicated, and not wearing a seatbelt when she crashed her car while she was eight months pregnant. Jorgensen’s blood alcohol level was .06 and the anti-anxiety medication Clonazepam was in her system.”

The doctors delivered her baby by caesarian section, and for six days the child clung to life, but then died. The mother was initially found guilty of manslaughter, but on appeal a five-member majority of the court of appeals overturned the conviction, arguing that “the law criminalizing such conduct is located in the statute on intentional self-abortion, where the offense is ‘no greater than a misdemeanor.’”

In other words, a chill wind has once again blown against personhood among the most vulnerable in our midst. Now this newborn child, like her countless numbers of preborn brothers and sisters, has fallen victim to judicial fiat and an official denial of her undeniable humanity.

Reading a decision like this reminds me of countless manipulations Planned Parenthood has used in courts across the land to free itself from the encumbrances of moral sanity and ethical actions. Just this past week, an Alabama judge ruled that even though the state had decided to defund Planned Parenthood, the state had to restore the funding. Why? Because just like the pronouncements made by the Obama administration, “defunding Planned Parenthood for reasons not related to the quality of care provided would violate federal law.”

Since when does killing a preborn child equate with quality health care, you might ask? Well, the answer is clear.

What was once deemed wrong is now right; what was once considered a criminal act against innocent persons is now considered business as usual.

This is the state of things in our nation today. Sadly, pro-life America is all too familiar with it. Let us count the ways.

  • Planned Parenthood’s slaughter of over six million human beings. The resulting destruction of families in every community.
  • The butchering of human beings for experimentation and profit-making off the sale of their body parts.
  • The heartless laughter of “professionals” responsible for heinous crimes against humanity and getting filthy rich off their heinous labor.
  • A relentless propaganda campaign lying about the virtues of death and tyranny against helpless victims.
  • An equally guilty news media driving to protect death and those responsible at any cost.
  • A public that is sleepy and numb and indifferent to sin, slaughter, and suffering.
  • Politicians gorged on blood money and willing to protect and promote evil for the good of the dictatorship.
  • Christian shepherds silent, invisible.

This is not 1939 Nazi Germany. This is 2015 America. The New Reich is Planned Parenthood.

The decline in morality in America today, starting with ignorance toward the humanity of the preborn child from which flows the evils of Planned Parenthood and its allies, can only lead one to conclude that, without God and His laws, demonic influences will continue to grow among us.

To prove my point, please read the responses from two well-known American exorcists on the topic of whether or not there is something diabolical about abortion.

Fr. Gary Thomas articulated, “Abortion is a doorway to the demonic because it involves the destruction of an innocent human being. . . . This decline in morality is growing rapidly and provides the opportunity for Satan to have a foothold in a family’s life. I do not believe that most people who are believers in ‘choice’ realize this. That is part of the seduction of Satan who will disguise his presence in these choices.”

Fr. Vince Lampert stated, “Anything that attacks human life has to be viewed as evil, for the human person is created in the image and likeness of God.”

And there you have it. The NEW REICH has unleashed the demons of death and destruction among us.

God alone will help us drive them out! Pray for the nation and for the strength to persevere. The babies are counting on us.

The Three Prime Evils

There are three big strikes that call down the hammer of God’s judgement on a nation.

Look Who’s Defining Sin… Say What?

My first thoughts were, “Say what?” Yeah. And you’ll be saying “Say what” too after reading this statement from the president of the National Education Association (NEA), Lily Eskelsen Garcia.

First, for those unfamiliar with the NEA, it is the nation’s largest labor union – not just the largest teacher’s union, mind you. But the largest labor union in the country. Period.  It has more than three million members.

Its mission is “to advocate for education professionals” blah, blah, blah. In other words, they are an organization of teachers who unite to demand more money, benefits, better work environments and whatever else they can get their hands on.

They also advocate for just about any left-wing liberal cause that enrages conservatives, even if it has nothing to do with teaching.

One of those left-wing causes is homosexuality. No surprise here for anyone familiar with the NEA. In their own words, the union states it has a “goal of changing public opinion on homosexuality, starting with the youngest generation.”

Clearly, they’re going after your kids, whether you like it or not. At least they’re upfront, honest and forthright about their mission. I’m sure that makes you feel better.

Even so, as brazen as this statement is (telling parents, “To hell with you, it’s all about what WE want your children to believe”) this isn’t …

… and I repeat, this isn’t the “Say what?” experience I’m talking about.

The “Say what” experience happened during NEA’s 2015 Annual Meeting on July 3 in Orlando, Fla.

That’s when the union president, Lily Eskelsen Garcia, took to the stage and said this after applauding the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing homosexual marriage:

“My son, Jeremy, called me and said, ‘Ma! Mike and I are no longer living in sin!’ My son and Mike are legally married in the great state of Utah.”

Can you join me in a “Say what” moment?

Does the Supreme Court now decide what is “sin”? Is this the new message to youngsters from the country’s largest teacher’s union … nay, the country’s largest labor union – that the Supreme Court will determine what is sin?

Before laughing off this crazy, overly exuberant rant of the country’s most powerful labor union president, consider the deeper message Lily Eskelsen Garcia is pushing.

Government will now decide what is sin and what is not sin. Not the Bible. Not God.

The word “sin” is decidedly a Judeo-Christian word. There’s no mention of “sin” in the Quran. There’s no such thing as “sin” in Buddhism. And there is no “sin” against God in Hinduism.

So, in reality, the NEA is only concerned about “sins” as defined by the New and Old Testaments. The government will now define those sins.

It’s mighty painful for the NEA – and others on the liberal left – to explain away biblical sins, with homosexuality being a big pain in the butt (no pun intended) as one of those difficult “sins” to dismiss. There are just too many Scriptures condemning homosexuality to brush them aside, reinterpret or reject.

So why not let the government – Big Brother – decide what is sin and what is not?

This is a big advantage for the NEA and their liberal lackeys, whether they are in government, business, media or law enforcement.

Homosexuality is not a sin according to the left. But refusing to serve a cake at a gay wedding is a sin, and punishable with a $135,000 fine, as experienced by the Christian owners of Sweet Cakes By Melissa.

Gay marriage is not a sin. But opposing gay marriage is a sin and a punishable offense, as experienced by the CEO of Mozilla, Brendan Eich, who was fired because of his opposition.

The liberal left would love for the government to be in the business of defining sin, as if they aren’t already.

Being anti-gun is not a sin. But being pro-gun can get you arrested, as experienced by a teen-ager in West Virginia who was arrested after wearing an NRA T-shirt to his middle school.

Abortion is not a sin. But protesting abortion can land you in jail, as happened to nine college students in Birmingham, Ala., this year who were arrested for distributing pro-life literature on a public sidewalk at Parker High School.

Radical Islam is not a sin. But exposing it can get you demoted, suspended or fired, as happened to Lt. Col Matthey Dooley who was fired as an instructor at West Point for teaching a course on “Islamic Radicalism.”

Being anti-religious is not a sin.  But say “Bless you” after a fellow classmate sneezes may get you suspended from school, as happened to Kendra Turner at Dyer County High School in Tenesssee.

Opposing the goals of the liberal left is not just about being politically incorrect. It’s about sin. Because clearly these are not criminal acts. This is why they need to redefine these acts as “sins” that can carry severe consequences – jail, fines, loss of jobs, mandatory sensitivity training classes, suspensions and demotions. 

The NEA teacher’s union doesn’t want children to think “Bible” when they hear the word “sin.”  They want them to think government. And if the government does not consider something a sin, then it’s not.

But if it does consider your moral rantings or activities a “sin,” then …

… you better dig deep into your pockets, dust off your résumé and perhaps dress for orange.

I’ve got some disturbing news for the homosexuals who are celebrating their victory and newfound freedom from “sin” – handed to them by the Supreme Court:

The Court may have legalized marriage … but they are still NOT married. They will have to appeal to an authority higher than the Supreme Court for that dispensation.

Did I just hear a “Say what?”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Poll: 59% Believe Businesses Should Be Able to Decline Gay Weddings

After Supreme Court Gay Marriage Ruling, How We Can Protect Freedom for Everyone

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Lily Eskelsen Garcia.

Obamaism vs The Good Guys

Obamaism is the opposition to everything American and the good guys are standing against it.

Liberals DO NOT believe in Freedom For All

This past week end, I spent a lot of time outside working on my landscaping.  The long, hard winter of 2014/2015 looks to be over.  And I would just like to say thank you to Global Warming advocates who are still at a loss as to why this planets climate has not lived up to the desert like conditions promised.

I guess global warming equals record cold temperatures and record snow fall.  Well if that is what global warming is, then I will jump on board because I love living in New England and I sure don’t want another Alaska type winter to befall us.  Note the sarcasm.  But I digress.

While working in my yard this past week end, I got to see some of what makes America great.  The freedom of people to be who they want to be.  I saw people walking in shorts and tank tops. Mind you, although it is warm, to me it is far from tank top weather.

I saw folks riding their motorcycles, big ones and small ones.  Some had flags on the back.

Some were the noisy type.  Some were the fast type.  And some were the big, touring grandparent type. I saw folks taking their convertibles out for a week end joy ride probably for the first time this year.  I saw and heard the younger set with all their windows down and music blaring.  Yes, we can hear you a half mile away and you are going to kill your ears by playing music that loud. But at least in most communities, those young people have the freedom to play their music in their car as loud as they want.

And there it is.  The freedom.  I saw people enjoying their freedom.  Nobody telling them they could not walk in a tank top yet.  Nobody passing a law preventing motorcycles from being ridden at this time of year.  No overreaching ordinances telling young people that in order to be legal others cannot hear your music outside of your car at all.

Now this part of the article is for all of my Liberal friends and haters out there.  This is where I point out how hypocritical you are.  Lets take gay rights for example.  Now this is America.  As some would say, ‘Murica.  And this is the land of the free.  Which, you on the left say, means that gays have the right to live as they please.  They have a right to live in peace.  They have a right to love who they please.  They have the right to have a life just like a straight person.  To which many other Americans would agree. But then you turn the tables on everyone else.  You want laws dictating how others act and react around you.  You wish to stifle or take away the freedom and rights of others just to fit your own selfish desires.  You say you want to be free, but you want big government to dictate how we all live and interact with each other.

It would be like telling the person on the fast motorcycle that he is not allowed to go 65 mph on the highway while allowing cars to do that speed.  In other words, you are not asking for freedom.  You are asking for special privileges.  Privileges in which the rest of the population is not able to avail themselves of.  You are asking to separate the people in to classes and groups. Some classes and some groups get more freedom than others.

That kind of thought is straight out of the pages of the novel Animal Farm.  In this novel there is a passage that says, “some animals are more equal than others” which means some animals are not equal at all.

This is the same thought process used to own and keep slaves.  Blacks were not thought of as being equal to whites.  Now gays want to say that straights are not equal to gays.  And thus a straight person has no right to admonish gays in any way.  However, when you ask the question of gays should they be forced to make a T-Shirt for a Muslim that says “gays are infidels and must die” the fast and quick answer is no way.

Well if you have the right to tell a straight person they must make you a t-shirt that says “being gay is fab” then the Muslim has the right to tell the gay person to make him a t-shirt of his choosing. But in order to get around this, gays would say that what the Muslim wants is hate speech.  So you want to create a law that stops hate speech.  Even though, in this country, the Muslim is free to say what he pleases just like you and I.  But you wish to live your life of freedom by taking the rights of others away simply because you don’t like it.

This is not an issue with Muslims.  I need to say it because some of you out there would point out Muslims should not have a right to say what they say.  To which I reply with a query.  Why?  Sure I find a lot of what they say offensive.  But does that give me the right to deny his free speech rights simply because I don’t agree or like his speech? Does this mean that gays should censor straights because they don’t like the fact that some straights don’t agree with homosexuality?  Does it mean that we force the motorcycle to go only 55 instead of 65 because they are not wrapped in a steal cage?

Who decides who gets special rights and who gets their rights denied?  The point is when you deny someone their rights, you are most likely starting down that slippery road process of denying your own rights.  And frankly that makes us all less free.  And less freedom has no place in ‘Murica.

The Bad Christian and the Good Secularist

“If not for my faith, I would be barely human.” That was the answer English writer Evelyn Waugh gave when asked, as all Christians will be at some point, how he could call himself a Christian given his behavior. Often rhetorical, the question is sometimes a ploy used to gain leverage and discredit the target by painting him as a hypocrite or to discredit the faith through guilt by association. Yet it can also be sincere, and it is then, especially, that it warrants a response.

The first thing to note about those who honestly ask the question is that they must think very highly of Christianity; if they didn’t, they’d merely assume you were acting wholly in accordance with your faith. This is the only thing that would explain — again, when the question is sincere — the higher standard to which they hold Christians. Others may exhibit the frailties and character flaws plaguing man, but they never hear “Such licentious behavior! How can you lay claim to hedonism?!” or, upon a loss of temper, “You call yourself a communist?!” Yet this raises a question: If Christianity provides this superior model for life, why don’t these secularists embrace it?

Don’t ask me why I’m a terrible Christian. Maybe I’m just a lost soul. Virtues are caught more than taught; actions speak louder than words.

Walk the walk and show me how it’s done.

Otherwise, you’re simply a Monday-night quarterback condemning the players when your only accomplishment is creating a buttock-shaped impression in upholstery.

Yet certain secularists may honestly find many Christians lacking. One reason for this is simple:

Christians are lacking.

The second reason, which I’ll address right now, has to do with something called mirroring.

When secularists take the measure of Christians and find them wanting, they generally don’t apply the yardstick of Christianity. They often, in fact, don’t even know what it is. If they did, they would recognize that their glass house is hardly an edifice from which to hurl holy stones; these secular critics, after all, are generally people of libertine morality and loose mouths, and their creed may not extend far beyond “If it feels good, do it.” What they are applying in their judgment are their values. Their statement “You’re not a good Christian” is, logically translated, “You’re not a good secularist.”

When considering this, note that secularists don’t trouble much over most of the Seven Deadly Sins; they usually can’t even name them (and lust and envy are in style). Rather, what earns their reprobation is some sub-category of wrath, which they may identify as “hate,” “intolerance” (incorrectly understood) or as merely a fit of pique or perturbation. And being that serene water of life is the image they have of the holy man, who they’d never thus describe but might rather call “enlightened”; just think of Kung Fu’s Kwai Chang Caine.

Yet this is a secular ideal forged on a good dose of Hollywood entertainment and eastern mysticism. Jesus wept, forgave, healed, resurrected and rendered parables of divine perspicacity. But He also called people hypocrites, “a den of vipers,” said to the apostle Peter “Get behind me, Satan!” and turned over the tables in the temple. It should be emphasized that He who Christianity tells us was, paradoxically, fully God and fully man was fully man. Jesus was not some eastern TV monk with a bare head and bare personality; He experienced a range of human emotions, each one in the right moment and measure.

As for those merely fully human, it is entirely common to mirror, to ascribe your own values and understanding of matters to others. This is why modern films may portray Jesus as if He were a flower child, just as, at the spectrum’s other end, movies about Adolf Hitler often portray him as a gruff, raving lunatic. Lost on these secular artists is that Hitler was known for personal charm, and Jesus could chastise. The Devil doesn’t appear with a pitchfork and horns and the holy don’t always sport visible halos; the demagogue tells you what you want to hear, the deific what you need to know. But it is a sad fact of man’s nature that people are more tolerant of clever lies than harshly spoken truths.

The point? It seldom occurs to these secularists that God’s dictates may be far different from their values (mostly because they don’t believe in God). In fact, were they close to such understanding, they wouldn’t even call their values “values.” God does not have values — He prescribes virtues.

Yet where the secularists are right is in that Christians do not thoroughly follow that prescription. This is not, however, an indictment of either faith or followers. Secularists’ criticism of Christians always amounts to, in so many words, “You’re really a bunch of sinners!” This is rather comical considering that Christianity teaches we’re all a bunch of sinners, with its holy book telling us “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” Eastern mysticism may concern “finding the god in you”; Christianity is about accepting that you’re not God.

Delving deeper, Christians “may” not walk their walk as well as secularists walk theirs. But to condemn the Christian for this is much like saying that the man who never stumbles when playing the toddler’s game of putting geometrically shaped pegs in the appropriate holes is superior to the professional golfer who sometimes stumbles on the course. And to condemn Christianity for its adherents’ deficiencies would be like saying that ideal golf swing production is not an ideal because no one can ever and always live up to it.

What would indict Christianity?

If people could live up to it.

Then it could not be the Truth.

For how could someone ever conform to perfection?

So ironically, if you can truly live up to your faith, it’s not a faith worth living up to. Thus is the Christian a bit like the devoted golfer: He strives for the ideal of never making a mistake while knowing he can never achieve it.

In contrast, secularists are, in a sense, still playing with their pegs and holes of values. Although it certainly appears that they at least match Christians in failure to live up to what they profess, even if they didn’t, would it be anything about which to boast?

The issue is that their values pegs and holes really are theirs. That is to say, someone who believes in Absolute Truth (God’s will) will use it as his yardstick when seeking an answer to a moral question. But what if someone is an atheist (or simply a relativistic person of “faith”) and doesn’t believe in anything outside of and above man that determines right and wrong, doesn’t believe in Truth? He will then take Protagoras’ view that “man is the measure of all things,” and it then follows that there is no “morality” — only man’s preferences for behavior. This should inform as to what his yardstick for behavior will be.

“Reason” is not the answer because reason is not an answer; it is a method by which answers can be found. Thus, if there is no Moral Truth, there are no answers to be found in the arena of conduct and hence no reason for reason. So blind to Truth and having obviated the reason that could discern it, the average secularist has only one logical yardstick to use: emotion. “If it feels good, do it” — everything then boils down to occultist Aleister Crowley’s maxim “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”

Why is this relevant here? Because the average secularist will often have values that, being emotion-born, are simply a reflection of himself, of his likes and dislikes, passions and prejudices. So how, then, could consistency in application of preferences be a legitimate source of pride? How could you be out of conformity with yourself? A yardstick never fails at being three feet long.

In reality, secularists still do manage contradiction. But why shouldn’t they? In a relativistic universe, consistency is no better than hypocrisy, a lie no worse than Truth. And even when hearts are in the right place, being governed by feelings can’t yield consistency because emotion changes with the wind. Secularists would be their own measuring stick, one that can always judge them sinless because they are always the length they are — whatever that happens to be at the moment.

Of course, there are secularists who may, in absolute terms, be better people than a given Christian. But this just returns us to Evelyn Waugh’s sage admission. What are the person’s moral proclivities? We wouldn’t dismiss ideal golf instruction because an untalented, all-thumbs duffer who received it wasn’t as good as a natural who got the Devil’s guidance. And a wise person respects those who make the most of their relatively limited potential, moral or otherwise, more than one blessed with the most ethereal talents but who buries them in the ground. “To whom much is given, much will be expected.” Perhaps that “bad Christian” is just a far worse person with a far better faith. And if you can’t thank God, perhaps you should thank your lucky stars for it. It could be the reason why he just yelled at you and didn’t put you in a gulag, burn you in a pyre or chop your head off.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

Coach Dave Daubenmire: Nobody wants to talk about the sin part of the Bible

Coach Dave Daubenmire discusses his Christian faith and homosexuality in this interview with the ABC and FOX affiliates in Columbus, Ohio. Coach Dave–who recently was denied a football coaching job at Lakewood High School, his alma mater, after being targeted by a homosexual cyber-smear campaign–ably refutes the Big Lie that opposing same-sex sin constitutes “hate.” Here is the link to the Columbus FOX28 site with the interview; and click HERE to watch this on YouTube.

Click HERE for AFTAH’s background article on the Daubenmire non-hiring story and to get contact information for the Lakewood School Board that voted against him for the coaching job that the school had originally recruited him to fill. The FOX 28 write-up on the interview follows after the video (after the jump). To support Coach Dave, visit his Pass the Salt Ministries website.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/l-F29XJm29I[/youtube]

 

Columbus, Ohio FOX28 reports [Editor’s note: It is interesting that this report fails to mention the outside lobbying campaign against Daubenmire that ignited this controversy]

Controversial Former Football Coach Talks to ABC 6/FOX 28

Updated: Friday, February 14 2014, 08:45 PM EST

HEBRON, Ohio — (Maria Durant/Ken Hines) — A football coach known for his controversial conservative Christian views spoke out Friday about his hometown school board’s decision to deny him a coaching position on their high school football team.

Dave Dauenmire claims he was asked to apply for the job of head football coach at his alma mater, Lakewood High School. Daubenmire believes he was the right man to turn around the struggling team.

“I’m a builder of broken football programs,” Daubenmire said, “And there’s no program more broken than Hebron-Lakewood.”

The potential hiring of Daubenmire caused widespread concern among members of the Hebron community due to his outspoken criticism of homosexuality, a view which he has made public through YouTube videos.

“So when I look at the homosexual behavior, they say I hate them, I’m saying I hate what they’re doing,” Daubenmire said.

As for Daubenmire’s potential reaction to a homosexual player, he claimed he would “handle it the same way as if I had a drug addict on my team. I’d love him.”

Daubenmire says he does not plan to look for another coaching position, stating that it would take away from his ministry, Pass the Salt, which operates mostly online.

RELATED COLUMN: Questions You’re Asking About Cakes, Gays, and Religious Freedom

Billy Graham’s son Franklin: Homosexuality is ‘a sin,’ and ‘I want to warn people’

“In a Meet the Press interview Sunday, Franklin Graham, the son of famed preacher Billy Graham, refused to back down from his Biblical stance against homosexuality. “It’s sin,” he said, and added that he wanted to warn people about it because they will have to stand before God who will judge,” Life Site News reports.

The younger Graham was speaking in the NBC interview about his father’s legacy, as the elder Graham, 95, is ‘very weak’ and eating little. He described how he helped to arrange a final sermon for his father that aired in November. He felt it was God’s will that he help his father “finish well.”

In the context of about Pope Francis’ “who am I to judge” comment, Franklin Graham was asked if he would shift his position on “gays.”

“God would have to shift, and God doesn’t,” Graham replied. “God’s word is the same yesterday and today and a million years from now, that it’s sin.”

“To wink at sin, and to tell somebody that it’s okay, I know the consequences of what will happen one day when they have to stand before God,” Graham continued. “I want to warn people.”

But, he added, “I think the Pope is right when he says he is not the judge. He is not the judge. God is the judge.”

Graham’s stance is the same as that of the Catholic Church.  A Vatican document on the pastoral care of homosexual persons notes that, “There can be no doubt of the moral judgement made there against homosexual relations.” The document, written under John-Paul II and signed by Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict), notes that the Bible “in the course of describing the conditions necessary for belonging to the Chosen People, the author excludes from the People of God those who behave in a homosexual fashion.”

That 1986 Vatican document also encourages speaking out on the immorality of homosexual activity as the younger Graham has done.  “No authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral,” it says.

The document stresses, “we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church’s teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral.” It adds: “Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church’s position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve.”

For Graham, it’s also a matter of truth. “I’ve never really been one to try to be politically correct,” he said. “I just feel truth is truth, and sometimes I probably offend some people.”

Click “like” if you support TRADITIONAL marriage.

RELATED COLUMN: 5 Horrific Examples of Cultural Decay in America