Today’s Canada is not the Canada I left behind in 1968, when I came to the United States to attend college. Canada has pretty much gone socialist, and the UN loves it. It is rapidly morphing into the kind of Big Brother society envisioned by George Orwell in his book 1984. The latest example of this may be found in the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council’s attack on Dr. Laura Schlessinger for her “anti-gay” views.
Dr. Laura, whose show is aired on some Canadian radio stations, opposes homosexual behavior because Torah opposes it. She is an Orthodox Jew. She has allegedly referred to the sexual behavior of gays and lesbians as “abnormal,” “disordered,” “deviant,” “dysfunctional” and “an error.” Her statements are based on traditional Biblical and Orthodox Jewish teaching.
The Canadian watchdog organization is concerned that Dr. Laura’s comments will incite violence against gays. The CBSC stated that the cumulative effect of Dr. Laura’s views on gay and lesbian issues “from her powerfully influential platform behind a very popular microphone…may well fertilize the ground for other less well-balanced elements, by her cumulative position, to take such aggressive steps.” Let’s think about those words for a moment. Why is Dr. Laura’s microphone “popular”? Could it be because 20 million listeners agree with her? What has Dr. Laura ever said that would stimulate or support violence against gays? In Judaism, the second worst sin one can commit is homicide (it follows idolatry and precedes sexual immorality). Strong prohibitions against assault are peppered all through Torah.
And what is a “cumulative” position?
Those who speak out against homosexual behavior on Biblical grounds – be they Jews or Christians – do not support violence against homosexuals. To suggest that they do is to create a straw man argument. They are simply stating that the Bible contains commandments (mitzva’ot) that prohibit homosexual behavior for those who seek to obey God.
Dr. Laura’s comments about homosexuality, claimed the CBSC, violate Canada’s broadcast code. The Council, obviously speaking out of its collective sociological, anthropological, sexual, moral and theological expertise, declared, “The sexual practices of gays and lesbians are as much a part of their being as the color of one’s skin or gender, religion, age or ethnicity of an individual.”
Let’s analyze that nonsensical statement. It represents one of the most common but specious arguments of the Left. “The sexual practices of gays and lesbians” are behaviors, just as the expression of religion is a set of behaviors. The color of one’s skin, one’s gender, one’s age, and one’s ethnicity, are not behaviors. The way one expresses one’s sexuality is not an involuntary reflex action like breathing or heartbeat; it is a choice. To equate the color of one’s skin with one’s chosen sexual behavior is a non sequitur. Nor does it follow that religion is a “part of one’s being” in the same sense that gender is.
Those who support the Biblical view believe that it is homosexual behavior that is morally wrong. The central issue in morality is behavior, not genetic programming.
The CBSC accused Dr. Laura of using “brutal language” that “flies in the face of Canadian provisions relating to human rights.” The Big Brother watchdog organization noted that professional psychiatric and psychological associations felt that Dr. Laura’s views were “more than a quarter of a century out of date.”
Now let’s ask some hard questions. Should a broadcasting watchdog organization, or a professional behavioral scientist’s association, be viewed as having greater moral clout than Torah? Does the CBSC outweigh the Bible in its moral authority? Is God the only One who doesn’t have the right to define right and wrong?
The Council said that gay and lesbian sexual practices are as much a part of their being as is “religion” for others. Yet, the Council openly censures the expression of religious conviction, while insisting that gays and lesbians have free reign in expressing their ideas. Is this a double standard or what?
The CBSC’s addle-headed pontification is an attack on freedom of religious speech. It is saying, in effect, “It’s okay to be a Christian or a Jew, so long as you don’t publicly express a Biblical view on sexual morality.”
Republican Presidential Candidate Dr. Alan Keyes expressed it well when he said, “…[A] prohibition on moral judgments against various sexual behaviors is a violation of the freedom, even of the religious liberty, of those who view such behavior as wrong. If we don’t have a right to act according to our religious belief by forming judgments according to those beliefs about human conduct and behavior, then, exactly what does the free exercise of religion mean? Can the free exercise of religion really mean simply that I have the right to believe that God has ordained certain things to be right or wrong but that I can’t act accordingly? Surely free exercise means the freedom to act according to belief. And, yet, if we are not allowed to act according to belief when it comes to fundamental moral precepts, then what will be the moral implications of religion? None at all. But if we accept an understanding of religious liberty that doesn’t permit us to discriminate the wheat from the chaff in our own actions and those of others, haven’t we in fact permitted the government to dictate to us a uniform approach to religion? And, isn’t that dictation of uniformity in religion exactly what the First Amendment intended to forbid?”
The First Amendment to the US Constitution reads as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
In our times, in both Canada and the United States, it is becoming more and more difficult to freely exercise one’s religion, or to openly talk about, or advocate, its values and moral standards. As the Leftist counterculture of the sixties continues to insinuate itself into today’s establishments, the foul breath of tyranny is increasingly blowing through the corridors of government, education, and the media. If “we the people” don’t do something concrete to protect our freedoms and rights, we will soon lose them. If present trends continue, those of us who draw our moral standards from Scripture will shortly be painted into an impossible corner. At that point, it will be do, and perhaps die.
Sources: Reuters, The Federalist Brief (May 9, 2000), The Bill of Rights.