Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Study Says Only 1.4% of Population Homosexual

12 Comments

Source: The American Culture

A scientific study commissioned by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has found that only 1.4 percent of people are homosexual. I suppose that that must surprise you.

The first thing I thought of when I read  Michael Medved’s article about the study was how different the facts are from what the contemporary culture tells us. When watching television, after all, it seems as if 50 percent of the population is homosexual. It’s evident that a tiny minority of Americans have enormous power in Hollywood, the entertainment capital of the world.

Similarly, our cultural elites in media and education unanimously profess to believe that sexual orientation is not a choice but as innate as skin color; that has indeed become the dominant cultural message about this issue.

In light of such an onslaught, is it any wonder that so many young people are reported as struggling with their sexuality? I have an example.

My daughter grew up with a friend, a boy, who danced with her for the nine years she was involved in a local park district dance company. They even had a bit of a romantic involvement early in high school, and until he went away to college he was fully an opposite-sex kind of guy. He ended up attending an arts school of some kind, to attend their dance program. After a year of being surrounded by homosexual young men and an environment that forces the dominant, elite cultural understanding of homosexuality, he came to the conclusion that he was a homosexual.

When at first he “came out” to my daughter, he was confident and bold in his announcement. My daughter didn’t believe it, having known him all those years, and knowing the kind of environment he was in as a male dancer. She also knows young people such as her friend have no way to challenge the current homosexual zeitgeist absent engaged parents. So it was clear to her that when doubts arose about his sexual proclivities—resulting, obviously, at least in great part from the intense pressure from his peers to fit in—and the environment encouraged it, he took the plunge and embraced what he now believed to be  his true self.

But this confidence in his so-called orientation hasn’t lasted. In discussions with my daughter, who shares my Christian convictions about human sexuality, he has expressed doubts about whether he is doing the right thing. This rather tragic situation is illustrates one of the points in the Medved article, where he indicates  how dishonest those pushing the homosexual rights agenda are. For them, changing sexuality is a one-way street:

Gay pride advocates applaud the courage of those who “come out,” discovering their true nature as homosexual after many years of heterosexual experience. But enlightened opinion denies a similar possibility of change in the other direction, deriding anyone who claims straight orientation after even the briefest interlude of homosexual behavior and insisting they are phony and self-deluding. By this logic, heterosexual orientation among those with past gay relationships is always the product of repression and denial, but homosexual commitment after a straight background is invariably natural and healthy. In fact, numbers show huge majorities of those who “ever had same sex sexual contact” do not identify long-term as gay.

The numbers cited in the study indicate that there are only approximately 420,000 people in all of the United States who are actually committed homosexuals. Our cultural elites want us to believe that homosexuality is ubiquitous, yet the day-to-day experience of the average American belies this, despite what we see on TV. This study confirms what our eyes have seen.

As Medved points out, being a very small portion of the American public doesn’t mean that homosexuals should be discriminated against as they were decades past (and being against same-sex marriage doesn’t count as discrimination, despite what its proponents assert). What it does mean is that we all ought to be extremely wary of this and other secular leftist shibboleths such as global warming, socialism, etc. Many people with great access to the media are not well acquainted with the truth.

Eugene Ionesco and the Elder On Mount Athos

3 Comments

Source: Mystagogy

Eugène Ionesco (26 November 1909 – 28 March 1994) was a Romanian and French playwright and dramatist, and one of the foremost playwrights of the Theatre of the Absurd.

In an interview with French magazine Paris-Match, Eugene Ionesco mentions the following experience he had on Mount Athos:

I was born in an Orthodox family and I lived in Paris. At twenty-five years, I was a genuine young man of the secular culture of the then Paris. I got the idea to visit Mount Athos because of its position as – and indeed was – a place of asceticism in the Orthodox Church. And there I had another thought in mind: to confess. So I went and found a hieromonk, a spiritual father. What did I say to him? The usual sins of a secular young man who lives without knowing God. The hieromonk, after hearing me, said:

Do you believe in Christ my child?

Yes, yes, I believe Father. Besides, I am baptized Orthodox Christian.

Well, my child, do you believe and accept fully that Christ is God and Creator of the world and us?

I lost it, because this was the first time a person put forward this question to me, and which I had to answer honestly and take a position. Not just if I believe someone made the world, but that this God, the Creator of the world, has to do with me. And that I have a personal relationship with him! I replied:

Father, I believe, but help me understand this fact well.

If you really believe, then all corrects itself.

This incident caused the shift of Ionesco’s life, who up to deep old age and being famous, lived as a pious and deeply faithful Orthodox Christian.

Interviews with Ionesco

Russian Orthodox Church: The Growing Manifestations of Christianophobia in the World

Leave a comment

Americans need to examine if their involvement with NATO in the Middle East is contributing to the persecution of Christians there. Liberal and neo-conservative foreign policy is identical. Both operate under the assumption that when secular dictators are removed, democracy will emerge in its place. We have not seen that happening. Instead we see Christians persecuted and displaced.

This document was adopted by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church at its meeting on May 30, 2011 (Proceeding No. 51)

With profound concern the Russian Orthodox Church has taken reports coming from various countries in the world about recurring manifestations of Christianophobia. Christians have been subjected to persecution, becoming victims of intolerance and various forms of discrimination. The recent tragic events in Egypt’s Giza on May 7 and 8, when during mass disorders Christian churches were set on fire and parishioners of the Coptic Church were killed, are only one chain in the link of such developments. Our brothers and sisters are killed, driven away from their homes, separated from their relatives and friends, deprived of the right to confess their religious beliefs and to bring up their children according to their faith. Regrettably, the manifestations of Christianophobia cannot be treated as occasional incidents: they have become a settled tendency in some parts of the world.

Discrimination against Christians varies in expression from country to country. In some cases Christians are attacked in hooligan actions, which as a rule are manifestations of extremism on religious grounds. In some countries where Christians are a minority their freedom of faith is considerably restricted with regard to the right to celebrate, to own property and to establish and run theological schools. There are cases where Christians are rendered extremely severe court judgments and given even death sentences according to laws on blasphemy (as disagreement with the beliefs of other religions is described in such cases). But even in those countries where Christianophobia is manifested only in seeing Christians as ‘second-rate citizens’, our brothers in faith remain in distress. All this leads to the mass emigration of Christians from countries in which they have lived for centuries, as we see it in today’s Iraq and some other countries of the Middle East.

At the same time there are manifestations of Christianophobia also in countries where a majority of citizens confess Christianity. The domination of rigid and sometimes even aggressive secularism leads to the forcing Christians out of public life, while public statements and actions motivated by Christian faith, especially its moral assessment of events taking place in a society, rouse a negative reaction.

By drawing the public attention to the growing manifestations of Christianophobia, discrimination and persecution against Christians of various confessions, we do have as our aim to interfere in the internal affairs of state and do not call the world community to do it. Christianity teaches its followers to obey law and to respect lawful governments, according to St. Paul who said, Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities (Rom. 13:1). At the same time, governments, too, as responsible before their citizens, are obliged to respect people’s dignity and rights and, accordingly, to ensure the free confession of religious faith and security of religious communities.

Nor do we see other religions as sources of Christianophobia. The Russian Orthodox Church has always opposed any discrimination against individuals and peoples on the grounds of their religious affiliation and resolutely condemned any manifestations of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. Russia, just as other countries under the canonical jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, has accumulated a rich experience of peaceful coexistence between religions, as well as mutual respect and interreligious solidarity. We are ready to share this experience with all those who wish to build a just society.

Christianophobia is manifested in the first place in situations where religious differences are used in political struggle mostly by extremist forces who pursue their own purposes incompatible with the welfare of the whole society. Such manifestations ought to be unequivocally condemned by all the healthy social forces including public and religious leaders. Discrimination on religious grounds can be overcome only through a broad dialogue involving governments, international organizations, religious communities and the civil society.

We call the world community, religious leaders and all the responsible public forces to develop a comprehensive and effective mechanism for protecting Christians and Christian communities who are subjected to persecution or restrictions in their religious life and work.

The Russian Orthodox Church stands for a more intensive dialogue between religious leaders and the international community for working out foundations for peaceful coexistence between believers belonging to different traditions.

We express solidarity with our brothers and sisters – Christians who are subjected to discrimination, persecution and violence, empathizing with their suffering and deprivations wherever they may be on their earthly journey.

We pray and call the faithful of the Church to augment their prayers for suffering and persecuted brothers and sisters. We pray that they may be strengthened in their faith and spiritual courage.

Soros Money to Fund NCC Lobbying Efforts

2 Comments

Source: Institute for Religion and Democracy

The National Council of Churches will be using grant money from atheist billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Institute to power its political agenda on Capitol Hill.

Even while sinking financially, the National Council of Churches – a group with the ostensible mandate to engender unity between disparate Christian denominations – continued its leftward track last week as its governing board met in New York City to discuss its advocacy initiatives for the coming fiscal year.  The NCC has been forced to pare down its staff roster and budget for years in order to account for declining revenues from member denominations and foundations, and has had a history of making up these deficits by soliciting grants from politically charged, liberal institutions (to download IRD’s exposé of the NCC’s financing, click here).

Several left-leaning resolutions, including those aiming to promote relaxed immigration policies, were passed and other positions, such as its largely pacifist stance on the use of American military force and opposition to federal austerity measures, were affirmed. The grant from Soros’ Institute would be used specifically for its advocacy efforts to restructure the U.S. criminal justice system through the National Criminal Justice Commission Act (S. 306).

Pacifism Endorsed

Michael Kinnamon, General Secretary of the NCC, reiterated the Council’s opposition to U.S. conducted anti-terrorist operations.

Kinnamon lauded the World Council of Churches’ Decade to Overcome Violence (DOV), an initiative that was by and large very critical of U.S. military intervention in most of its forms over the past decade, particularly its anti-terrorist activities. Several representatives from the NCC were present for the WCC’s International Ecumenical Peace Convocation which began in Jamaica last week. The convocation aims to be a capstone to the WCC’s campaign to “eliminate global violence” – an initiative that has heavy-handedly scrutinized the U.S.’s military role in the world while largely skirting that of terrorist organizations and oppressive dictatorships.

“I hope that this convocation will remind us that peace is the message of all of our communions, not just the Friends, Brethren, and Mennonites,” said Kinnamon.

“There are various dimensions to our agenda that play in this” convocation, Kinnamon continued, citing causes the NCC has promoted such as the complete disarmament of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, scaling up of gun controls in the U.S., and the push to end U.S. operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The NCC will be presenting its study paper released last year, Christian Understanding of War in an Age of Terror(ism), which treats the Christian historical teaching of just war with skepticism and “seeks to make selective conscientious objection a priority for education and advocacy during the next five years.”

Attached to the paper is a study guide written by several NCC-affiliated members from Church of the Brethren, Mennonite and Quaker traditions.

“US military spending is more than 40% of the world’s total – equal to the next sixteen countries combined,” reads the study paper. “What future do we see for the cozy relationship between American Christians and the American imperial project?” The paper goes on to criticize the War on Terror as a “conflict with no clear beginning, without demarcated boundaries, against multiple (often invisible) adversaries… In this war, we soon encounter the limits of violence.”

Kinnamon noted that this was not the first time the Council has advocated conscientious objection. “I was told this of course would be a real stretch,” he said, “only to learn that the governing board of the National Council first endorsed selective conscientious objection in 1967, in the middle of the War in Vietnam.”

“We have struggled with this issue over the years, let’s struggle with it again,” Kinnamon said.

Specific resolutions spelling out the NCC’s “conscientious objector” stance on military service will be set before the Council during its September governing board meeting that will reflect conversations held at the Jamaican convocation, said Kinnamon. “We are likely to hear repeated assertions out of the anniversary of 9/11 of our need for security. What can we say about it?” he said.

Although historically critical the U.S. War on Terror, the NCC did release a statement following bin Laden’s death, calling it a “significant moment” in history but insisting the church should not “celebrate the loss of life under any circumstances.” While noting that “ultimate justice for this man’s soul – or any soul – is in the hands of God,” the statement did not explicitly address the state’s historical role in administering God’s justice.

The Council similarly never released a statement condemning or supporting Obama’s decision to involve the U.S. in the conflict in Libya.

Links to George Soros

The Justice and Advocacy Commission (JAC), the NCC’s lobby office in Washington, was busily at work on the Hill this year.  According to the JAC’s report, the Commission pushed heavily for ratification of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), wrote letters to the president condemning Israeli settlements in Palestine, and helped pass a resolution calling for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.

The NCC’s Faith and Action Criminal Justice Working Group was awarded a grant from leftist billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Institute to advocate on behalf of a bill that would seek to restructure the current U.S. criminal justice system. The money would specifically be used to cover all expenses, including air travel, for faith activists to promote the legislation on Capitol Hill on June 15th and 16th this year. 

The working group also advocated for tighter control laws to cut down on domestic gun violence. 

“Tackling that problem is going to be a priority for the National Council of Churches,” said NaKeisha Sylver, advocacy officer and staff member of the NCC’s Racial Justice Working Group. According to the JAC’s report before the board, the NCC has organized two national conference calls pushing for more stringent gun laws since adopting a gun control resolution last May.

“Circle of Protection” Promoted

Michael Livingston, former NCC president and current director of the NCC’s Poverty Initiative, heartily endorsed the religious left’s push to maintain government spending levels, naming the NCC as a cosigner of the “Circle of Protection” campaign driven by evangelical left pundit Jim Wallis and other religious activists in Washington. 

Livingston fretted about congressional measures to bring down the deficit, complaining that the discussion has been focusing on budgetary austerity measures “that will unleash across-the-board cuts on government’s affecting the most vulnerable among us.”

“What the religious advocacy commission in Washington DC is trying to do is to change the nature of that discussion, so that we’re not talking exclusively about what in the domestic and international arena can be cut,” said Livingston,” but rather ways of generating revenue so that, honestly, not one single dollar of cuts to these programs really needs to be made.”

John McCullough, CEO of Church World Service, likewise called the proposed cuts “entirely too much, too deep for a nation that commits less than one percent for humanitarian assistance and poverty-focused foreign aid.” 

Immigration Summit Planned

The Council passed a motion that would reconstitute its immigration task force, which will be charged with setting up a summit to gather advocates for relaxed U.S. immigration controls. The original group, created in 2008, was a joint task force of the NCC and Church World Service established to “disseminate theological and educational materials to congregations, support churches in serving immigrants, and [to] encourage churches to advocate with government for improved immigration policies,” which has usually translated into measures for general amnesty.

The task force counts immigration activist and United Methodist Bishop Minerva Carcaño among its members and has thus far operated without internal funding from the NCC.

A Russian Orthodox Priest Speaks Out Against Britain’s Culture of Death

12 Comments

Source: John Smeaton

Today I had the pleasure of renewing my acquaintance with Archpriest Andrew Phillips, who leads one of Britain’s 40 Russian Orthodox parishes in Colchester. Archpriest Andrew has kindly sent me some of his recent personal reflections on pro-life issues:

After 1945 we were to be provided by the Welfare State with care ‘from the cradle to the grave’. Instead, it rather looks as though, with legalised abortion on demand and creeping euthanasia, we are being provided with death from the cradle to the grave.

In the NHS today, where one of our daughters works as a nurse, patients who refuse to die are called ‘coffin dodgers’. Everything must be accounted for, everything has a price – the accountant’s mentality introduced into everything by Mrs Thatcher and ardently pursued by Mr Blair. Today, life and death decisions are overseen by NICE, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the ironically-named organisation which decides whether we can afford care for the sick or not. It was prophesied by C. S. Lewis, also in 1945, in his novel ‘That Hideous Strength’, which is about a devilish and anti-human organisation called N.I.C.E. – the ‘National Institute of Co-ordinated Experiments’. That organisation should definitely have been called NASTY.

Financial pressures decide our ‘best interests’ – life or death. DCS – Deep Continuous Sedation – with deprivation of food and fluids – is the fate of more and more terminally ill. DCS is in fact simply a disguised, politically correct term for euthanasia. Yet, the Gospel of Christ proclaims not ‘Euthanasia’ (‘Good Mortality’), but Athanasia – Immortality.

It is the same with abortion, the politically correct term for infanticide or child-murder. It is no good referring to a child as ‘an embryo’ or ‘a foetus’, it is still a child and its abortion is still murder. We are told that we must be ‘pro-choice’ (another disguised name), but what is this choice: to murder or not to murder? This is no more a choice than that made by the Nazis in their death camps. In reality, there is only one choice. It is not ‘pro-life’ or ‘pro-choice’, it is pro-life or anti-life.

The Western culture of death is the culture of suicide. Does the Western – and Westernised – world want to live or want to die? I know where I stand.


Fatal error: Uncaught Error: Call to undefined function nuthemes_content_nav() in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/themes/prose/index.php:21 Stack trace: #0 /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-includes/template-loader.php(106): include() #1 /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-blog-header.php(19): require_once('/home/aoiusa/pu...') #2 /home/aoiusa/public_html/index.php(17): require('/home/aoiusa/pu...') #3 {main} thrown in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/themes/prose/index.php on line 21