On the Bookshelf Update

I've added Standing On Guard For Thee by Michael Wagner to my 'On the Bookshelf' list (right). I hope to post a review when I've finished it.

HRCs Are Just Trees in a Forest

The HRCs are a legitimate threat to the quality of the public discourse and the freedom of citizens with politically incorrect opinions. They have done significant damage to such citizens and deserve the intense scrutiny they are receiving. But HRCs are just trees in the forest of the war to censor of such opinions. There are victims for whom the HRCs cannot take credit.

One such victim is Chris Kempling. A summary of his incredible story is here, from a column in the National Post.

I find it disconcerting that my professional body wishes to sanction me for my political involvement, for conduct in a completely different profession servicing my own faith community and for opinions published in other provinces or countries. This action has potentially alarming consequences, not only for Canadian teachers, but for all regulated professions (social workers, psychologists, nurses, etc.), for whom such cases end up establishing legal precedents.

Also note, per our previous post, that Kempling can easily demonstrate that he is not 'homophobic', by virtue of the rational, well-researched defense of his position, and his befriending of several homosexuals. But in the world of politically correct censorship, the truth is no defense.

Disproving Phobia

Yesterday I commented on the Ontario HRC's ridiculous argument against 'Islamophobia'. Al Siebring at NoApologies also picked up on it as well, and takes issue with the insinuation that he is irrational. In his argument, he focuses on another made-up word: 'homophobia'. (Incidentally, this is well-accepted in the wonderful world of leftist liberalism as another form of racism.) Translated literally, 'homophobia' must mean 'irrational fear of same', in which case the 'irrational' part is certainly self-evident. However, it's supposed to mean 'irrational fear of homosexuality or homosexuals' and it's meant to paint anyone with serious questions or reservations about homosexuality as irrational. Proving that your reservations are rational, however easy, is beside the point. He who defines the terms, wins; if you have to prove that you are rational, you are already starting on the defensive.

But the other part of that definition is the word fear. Not many 'homophobes' are legitimately afraid of homosexuals. Siebring states:

I happen to hold to a traditional view of sexuality, and I equally know that there’s not a single shred of “phobia” in my heart on this. I have known homosexuals. I have worked with them. I have befriended them; had them over to my house. Like my other friends, I have disagreed with them at times about various issues, and I’ve told them so. But I’ve never been scared of them.

The best argument against being labeled 'homophobic' is not semantic, but practical. Befriending homosexuals and inviting them into one's house is strong evidence against homophobia just as being a racecar driver is strong evidence against amaxophobia (fear of riding in a car). Christians should feel uncomfortable with the homosexual lifestyle - it is contrary to the created order - and should not hide it or apologize for it. But this needs to be balanced with the same friendship, love, and compassion that Christ gave to sinners of all kinds.