From the beginning of America, churches have been the moral compass for the nation so they are the source for what little morality is still extant in the U.S. G. K. Chesterton declared that we don’t need a church “that is right when the world is right, but a church that is right when the world is wrong.” The world of Iowa is wrong and church leaders must not capitulate to evil to save their skin or give them a few more years of questionable existence.

The state of Iowa has said that church people can believe what they want but the state will be the arbiter of what they practice–even to regulating church restrooms! Principled Christians down through the centuries would have yelled, “To the arena, bring on the lions.” But most modern church leaders yawn and appoint a task force to look into the matter.

Iowa’s anti-discrimination law is based on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” and requires all entities engaged with the public to not discriminate. The state is seeking to give special treatment to homosexuals and trangenders. But then, sane people know that homosexuals are only heterosexuals who choose to do vile, even unspeakable things to each other. Transgenders are people who don’t like the way they were born so they pretend that they are the opposite sex. Such people, if sincere, are deeply disturbed and should not be sexually mutilated or have abnormal hormones pumped into their bodies but need to be taught or convinced that a person with a male organ is identified as a male whatever he may feel like.

Iowa officials state that any place that is “distinctly private by its nature…offers some services, facilities, or goods to the general public…will be treated as a public accommodation for those services.” Since churches are open to the public, the Iowa Civil Rights Commission has determined that they are subject to anti-discrimination laws. There is an exception for churches but not if their services are open to the public! If church members want to pray, preach, and sing without inviting the public then the law does not apply–but few churches do that. But if they have a Christian school, a day care, a softball league, food pantry, homeless ministry, etc., then compliance is required–or else. The state assumes the right to decide what is “a bona fide religious purpose.”

But that bird won’t fly. The Bible does command us in Mark 12:17 to “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” However, the church can never permit “Caesar” to determine what is his and what is God’s. If so, then the whole principle is nullified.

The practical repercussions to a church will be devastating, defeating, and destructive; but then, maybe that’s what the secular crowd wants. That means churches must permit men who refuse to admit that their genitals identify them as male and choose to think they are females must have access to the ladies restroom! Not even if pigs learn to fly! But it gets worse! It also applies to locker rooms and living facilities “without [anyone] being…questioned.”

That means a pastor or deacon must never inquire or question a person about his/her/its sexual identity and guide them to the “proper” restroom nor can a pastor expound Lev. 18 or Romans 1 or ridicule transgender insanity. That would be, according to the commission, “illegal harassment” which could include “repeated remarks of a demeaning nature…demeaning…stories…and intentional use of names and pronouns inconsistent with a person’s presented gender.” That means I could not follow my resolute decision to always refer to Bruce Jenner as Bruce and always use he instead of she. Because he is not a she. He has always been a male, is a male today, and will be a male in the future. Church leaders who don’t conform can spend a long time in the courtroom and/or pay heavy fines.

So the august state officials have decided that they will set the standard for what is modest, decent, safe, normal, acceptable, sane, and biblical! Any pastor who submits to such outrageous, odious, and overreaching demands will prove that he is a pathetic preacher unworthy of his calling and should quickly return his ordination credentials and choose a profession that doesn’t require much character.

Since I am a Baptist and we make much of separation of church (but not God) and state and much of the sovereignty of Christ over His church, I assume that Baptist pastors in Iowa are preparing to resist the state. Maybe they are prepared like Chinese dissidents who keep a small bag handy at all times in event of their arrest. Such pastors had better look at the big picture because they may spend years in jail for defying the state and federal authorities. If they have true convictions, there will be no compromise, no concessions but plenty of confrontation and conflict.

The Bible is full of courageous, consecrated, and committed men who took a stand for principle even risking their lives. The Disciples told the authorities in Acts 5:29, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” We still must do that whatever the price!

Hugh Grotius (1583-1645) of the Netherlands is the “father of modern international law.” He wrote in The Law of War and Peace, Book 1: “Among all good men one principle at any rate is established beyond controversy, that if the authorities issue any order that is contrary to the law of nature or to the commandments of God, the order should not be carried out. For when the Apostles said the obedience should be rendered to God rather than to men they appealed to an infallible rule of action.” That is as true today as it was 400 years ago.

John Knox agreed: “But thereof be assured that all is not lawful or just that is statute by civil laws, neither yet is everything sin before God which ungodly persons allege to be treason.”

Even Albert Einstein said, “Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.” He also said, “Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” Many Iowa pastors are mentally preparing their justification for compromise and cowardice: “Well, Christians must always obey the law.” Or, “We must be examples to others.” Or, we can never agree on everything the government does.” Or, “I will obey the state until they tell me I can’t preach the Gospel.” (That one is so threadbare that it is embarrassing it is still being used.)

I suggest that Iowa pastors meet to inform their local “Caesars” that they will not obey their intrusive law. They should meet on a week day at the capitol building and form the word NO! with their bodies as they stand silently. No doubt, many laymen will also attend the rally and will help make the exclamation point. No singing, praying, or preaching is necessary but a silent thirty minutes saying, NO! After the rally, there will be no candy wrappers, cigarette butts, water bottles, or beer containers on the street. No one will curse and no one will threaten the cops. No one will break windows, turn over cars, or loot the local stores. No one will light a match to a cigarette or molotov cocktail.

To my pastor/friends in Iowa, it’s time to fish or cut bait. You have preached all your lives about standing for truth. You have often used John Bunyan as an example of courage. Now, it is time to prove that a God-called preacher has a compassionate heart, a working brain, a chest with some hair on it, and a spine in his back.

If, instead of a spine, there is a yellow streak, then it’s time to do the principled thing and leave the ministry.

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy of Muslim Invasion, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

As I write, many major universities are in an uproar because some white students want to organize a White Student Union (WSU) just as the Blacks have. Can some sane person tell me why that is somehow harmful to Blacks? If Eskimos want such a union they have that right. They can sit around their union and reflect on their life back home–the igloos, the frigid temperatures, the fishing, the seal hunts, etc.

At least 30 of these WSUs were born on Facebook in the last few days but have not been recognized by various colleges as bona fide organizations, and college officials are determined that they will not be accepted. In fact, some school officials have pressured Facebook to remove the WSU pages! Has anyone given thought to fairness and common sense? How about the First Amendment?

Schools like Mizzou, Penn State, University of California, Berkeley, etc., have declared that the WSUs do not reflect their values. Hold it. Do not reflect their values! Did Blacks finance, organize, and run those universities for a hundred years? When did those schools reject “white” values and acknowledge only minority values? Moreover, many of us are weary of those who try to make everything a racial issue.

There were reports this week that at least seven Australian universities have had students organize a WSU although school officials are calling it a hoax or reacting in horror as some American university officials are: How dare those white students demand equal treatment.

College officials (in Australia and the U.S.) have charged that WSUs are used “for harassment and intimidation,” but that charge cannot be supported. It is alleged that such unions promote “white supremacy” and “racial bigotry;” however, surely a university can handle such issues by rational debate, calculated disregard, or benign disdain. After all, it is a university–not a kindergarten.

Why not permit each person to be proud of his race without belittling, browbeating, and bullying other races and let everyone agree to be part of the human race?

Most of the nascent white unions declare, “We unapologetically provide a safe space for white students to air their true feelings about the future of our nation…at the same time, we do not wish to denigrate or harm any other group or ethnicity.” Sounds reasonable to me!

Since the pathetic university officials can’t deal with this issue, they resort to lying–the first refuge of the intellectually challenged. They accuse the WSUs of being for “whites only.” But then in a free society that would be no problem since freedom of association is part of our heritage; however, the accusation is not true. There is a big difference in wanting to have a place where Whites can reflect on their heritage (as is true of other unions) and excluding other races. That charge is beneath any college official.

Remember, universities are supposed to be places where discussion and debate are desired–but in our day no one must be offended! However, the Constitution does not protect us from being offended, but then it says nothing about abortion or same-sex “marriage” either!

I am a white American male and make no apologies. In fact, I’m as proud of my race as any Black or Asian. And I think it is decent, defensible, and desirable to declare that Whites should not be apologetic and intimidated by the racists whose only arrow in their quiver is to call others, racists.

It is not racism to suggest that the racial ratio of America is being changed, and while some think the change is good, I don’t. Why must white people apologize for being white? Is there an advantage for losing “whiteness”? There are far more nations populated predominantly by people of color. Why not have a mainly white nation here and there around the globe? Because we think being white is just as good as being black, brown, etc., is that prima facia evidence that we hate other people? What is the advantage in changing the national complexion?

Europeans came to America (divided by language and culture) but they gradually became English Americans who happened to be white. Yes, predominately light skinned. But with varied genes. However, no doubt the complexion of America will continue to get darker because of individual choices that people make.
All Blacks are not comfortable with every black culture. There is a vast difference in Blacks from Haiti and Blacks from Barbados. There is a huge difference in Bahamian Blacks and American Blacks. When we have been with black friends in Barbados, the Bahamas, or America, their blackness is irrelevant. We are simply friends. It seems that the issue is not color but culture.

Blacks, Indians, Central Americans, Asians, etc., should be proud of their race, after all God made us all. So would you mind if I believe that Whites should feel the same about being white? Would the racists out there forgive me for pointing out that British, French, and Spanish Christians (along with some scoundrels) came to this continent and discovered a land of forests, swamps, and tribes of warring Indians? Our ancestors drained the swamps; built log cabins, churches, hospitals and schools; planted crops; dug copper, coal, gold, and silver from the ground; built railroads; attempted to civilize the warring Indians and made friends of the friendly Indians; and established a land of freedom and incredible opportunity like nowhere on earth. My critics will point out the mistakes and excesses which I am willing to admit; but I will add the many failures of the Indians and others–which only prove mankind’s fallen nature.

Moreover, I remind everyone that for thousands of years nothing had been done to develop the land, forests, rivers, and mining opportunities. Indians lived as they had for more than a thousand years, sitting around their campfires while their children and elderly died unnecessary and often premature deaths. When Europeans arrived, everything changed, mostly for the good.

Additionally, why now make America into another Spanish-speaking country? Aren’t there enough Hispanic countries as it is? Moreover, those who emigrate here should learn to speak English! That is the least they can do. Teddy Roosevelt suggested that any immigrant who did not learn English within five years of his arrival should be shipped back home! I agree.

Justin J. Moritz, a white, retired police officer with no criminal record, was refused a patent for “White Pride” by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office because it “is considered offensive and therefore scandalous.” There is no justification for the USPTO to reject a patent for “White Pride” after approving Black Pride, African Pride, Asian Pride, Chippewa Pride, Gay Pride, Indian Pride, and many other “prides.” Can anyone defend such offensive policies and obvious discrimination? Only a fascist would defend such a practice and only a fool would try.

I have defended minority people all my life. I have demanded that people be treated like people. If all people are treated with respect, kindness, thoughtfulness, and graciousness, then everyone benefits. I do not endorse or support the NAACP because they are racist in seeking the benefit of “colored” people. Why not seek the advancement of people? Do civil rights leaders need to be reminded that the “Jim Crow” days are long gone? If we seek the advancement of everyone, that will cover Blacks, Hispanics, Whites, Indians, etc.

All my adult life I have detested unfairness, discrimination, narrow mindedness, political correctness, and cowardice. I am ashamed to say that national and state politicians, and those in academia and the media, plus many evangelical Christians are guilty of all the above.

If college officials had any sense and had convictions about fairness, decency, balance, equality, freedom, and what is obviously legal, they would welcome the White Student Unions and even help each one procure a faculty sponsor.

However, that won’t happen until pigs learn to fly in formation over the administration building and shrimp learn to whistle the school song in harmony.

But then I’m not surprised since cowardly college officials are as easy to find as a bowling ball in a bathtub.

(Boys’ new book, The God Haters was published by Barbwire Books; to get your copy of The God Haters click here . An eBook edition is also available.)

Let me be very clear: no informed, honest Christian can ever, under any circumstances, accept, approve, or applaud “gay” marriage or any other abnormal behavior. Never, even if there is a loss of income, home, job, or threat of prison! The non-thinkers and bigots will accuse me of bigotry followed by their usual diatribe but that is not an answer. The Homosexual Lobby’s policy is if we don’t approve them then they accuse and attack our lack of tolerance! Hypocrites!

It has nothing to do with hate, envy, fear, or twisted thinking, but a dedication to truth. Sodomy is evil, wrong, wicked, sinful, corrupt, perverse, bad, immoral, depraved, decadent, dissolute, debauched, and disgusting. And whether I’m writing in love or hate doesn’t change the facts.

Homosexual behavior has been forbidden since the beginning of time by every religion and every civilization. Even during the “Golden Age” of the Greeks, homosexuality was rather common among the ruling class and the philosophers. The common people had enough sense to know that such activity was contrary to nature and could destroy the human race.

It is not a matter of forbidding one person to love another because we should love everyone! I love people (even people I don’t like!) enough to tell them the truth about perversion and other matters. Love everyone but don’t sleep with everyone! To do otherwise is obviously abnormal, abominable, and awful.

The Homosexual Lobby has taken control of America with the collusion of the media moguls. Even “Christian” churches, colleges, and conventions have been snookered by the loony left. No one wants to appear unkind, unreasonable, or be unemployed; so, religious leaders have climbed on the bandwagon to perdition with a modern Bible version in their hands and a whining, spurious prayer on their lips.

Christian businesspeople have lost the right to practice their beliefs so that a bunch of homosexuals will not get their feelings hurt! It is not a crime to offend someone! Let me be very clear: do not discriminate is not one of the Ten Commandments. Even if it were, those beating the homosexual drum usually don’t obey the original Ten! But that crowd has far more faith in a commandment that does not exist than for the Ten that do exist and for which we all will be held accountable.

Think about it: a person risks his or her money to start a business, works day and night to get it going, and while risking everything is then asked to do something that endorses, encourages, and emboldens a lifestyle that is contrary to his or her sincerely held religious beliefs. He will sell to and service anyone but to certify or accredit sinful behavior he will not do. And may lose everything for acting according to his beliefs. No honest, informed person says that that was part of early America. Those who declare otherwise have perverted truth. We are castigated if we do not “love” homosexuals but they don’t have to love us whom they call “homophobes”!

Non-thinkers compare the civil rights demonstrators sitting at a lunch counter to “gays” being refused an endorsement of their lifestyle by a cake or photographs. It appears that constant media exposure is rotting the brains of people. I’m sure perversion does.

But forcing Christians to act contrary to their beliefs is not only a threat to religious belief. It is a matter of personal rights even apart from religion. In the “old days” an American could choose his own friends, belong to whatever organizations he desired, and disagree with (even ridicule) political, religious, or academic groups without fear. He might be considered a little odd but it was legal to be odd in the old days.

If that “odd” American started a business he could choose to serve anyone he wanted. If a barber especially liked to cut red hair that was somewhat odd but he could choose to cut only red hair–and soon go out of business. But that was his right as an American.

If a lawyer chose to represent only the Irish or Jews or Italians or Germans, that was his right. After all, this was America. He had a right to not like other people. It was not Christian, but it was an American’s right.

A businessperson could hire whomever he chose and pay whatever salary they agreed on with whatever benefits or no benefits. The owner could set the working hours and the employee could work those hours or not. It was America. The owner did not have to get permission from the city or state to start his business and did not have to give an account how the business was run. As long as he paid the applicable taxes.

In recent days we have seen the governors of Indiana and Arkansas show cowardice in face of the Homosexual Lobby. Governor Pence committed political suicide when he cowed to the screaming homosexuals who bullied, badgered, and browbeat him. If he can’t stand up to perverts, he sure can’t stand up to Putin.

The weak, wobbly, and wimpy politicians, including judges, have destroyed personal rights and religious rights. They have put our nation in a place where there is nothing but conflict, confusion, and chaos ahead.

Of course, a Christian baker or photographer or flower shop should not be forced to celebrate perversion. Nor should a Muslim baker be forced to bake a cake celebrating a homosexual wedding, or the ACLU or similar group be forced to publish an ad in their magazine titled, “Senator Joe McCarthy Was Right!” Or how about a Jewish baker being forced to bake a cake for a Nazi party? How about a homosexual baker being forced to bake a cake with “Same-sex Marriage is Perversion!” for Westboro Baptist Church? Or an atheist printer being forced to print a gospel tract titled “God’s Simple Plan of Salvation!”? Whatever happened to freedom?

Frankly, any businessperson should be permitted to refuse service for any reason unless his business was financed by a state or federal loan. Of course, I don’t believe any entity of government has any constitutional right to lend money. That’s why we have banks.

The city of Coeur d”Alene, Idaho informed the Hitching Post wedding chapel that they must perform same-sex “marriage;” however the preachers refused and sued the city. The city fathers backed down following the suit. Here is where Christians have failed: we have the same rights as others and we should have swamped the courts with aggressive lawsuits against those who slander, harass, and intimidate us.

Recently a Christian asked thirteen major “gay” bakers to make a cake: “Gay Marriage is Wrong” and all refused and some even were insulting and threatening. He should sue every baker.

The issue is not sexual rights but the obsessive desire by the Homosexual Lobby to suppress Christians’ freedom of religion. Homosexuals will brook no disagreement and in this new America they have more rights than normal, decent people.

Homosexuals want acceptance of their beliefs but refuse Christians that same right. They want to have their cake and eat it too. That can’t be done, just as Christians cannot compromise and become an enabler of perversion.

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY  Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

Of course, such a law should be unnecessary since an American should have the right to serve anyone he or she pleases! Many restaurants display a sign, “No shoes, no shirt, no service.” That authority goes with ownership. However, in our permissive society, a firm can refuse service to one not wearing shoes and shirt but can’t refuse service to two men who display public affection for each other and in private, play in very unusual places!

Other firms used to declare, “We reserve the right to deny service to anyone.” That sign disappeared long ago along with basic common sense and freedom. True freedom demands that a person can refuse a customer even if the owner dislikes the way the customer combs his hair! Of course, that is stupid and he will soon go out of business, but that’s his right. Americans have a right to be stupid and to comb their hair anyway they choose! For now!

The Arizona House Republican Caucus released a statement after Governor Jan Brewer’s veto, saying it respected Brewer’s decision, “especially in light of the concerns brought up over the past week.” The “concerns” were the threats from the business community, professional football, etc., to boycott the state if she signed the bill. Those Republicans should be reminded that decisions should be motivated by character, not cash. But then, they are politicians.

Three republican senators who voted for the bill backed off because the new law would cause “much confusion.” Those weak, wobbly, and wavering wimps changed their position because the opposition (mainly the Homosexual Lobby) misrepresented the bill. The Homosexual Lobby got support from Mitt Romney and Arizona’s U.S. senators, John McCain and Jeff Flake–the Larry, Curly, and Moe of the Grand Old Progressives.

The bill, backed by Republicans in the state Legislature, was designed to give added protection from lawsuits to people who assert their religious beliefs in refusing service to homosexuals, or other controversial circumstances. It was not an anti-gay bill but a pro-religion and pro-business bill. But dishonest opponents of the bill called it “an open attack on gays that invited discrimination.” Well, the veto invites discrimination but against religious businesspersons! But that is acceptable, even admirable to all leftists and non-thinkers. Maybe Christians should be a little louder and more demanding, even threatening in promoting pro-family issues like the meek and lowly Savior who whipped the money changers out of the Temple.

With the passage of this bill, a business would have been immune to a discrimination lawsuit if a decision to deny service was motivated by “sincerely held” religious beliefs. This bill was thought necessary because of highly publicized discrimination suits by homosexuals against Christian businesspeople in various states.

Since the wobbly governor’s veto, any homosexual “couple” can walk into a bakery and demand a cake that “honors” their “wedding.” Now, Christian bakers would have no problem selling a birthday cake to homosexuals since birthdays are normal; however, a cake to celebrate same sex marriage is not normal. But there is an additional problem here: Arizona does not permit same sex marriage! Let me go through this slowly: a couple can demand that a Christian bake them a cake that honors illegal activity! Is something wrong here?

The bill’s critics waxed eloquent in their dishonest campaign saying that Blacks also could be refused service; however, that is disingenuous. Blacks don’t choose to be black. Homosexuals choose to do dangerous, diseased, deviate, and deadly things. All religions and all societies for thousands of years proscribed perversion as an attack upon society and upon God until society was plagued in recent years by seizers of insanity. Homosexuality was a sin that was not to be discussed in civilized company.

Now, Christians are “haters” if they refuse to celebrate perversion! Man alive, times are sure a changing.

This very emotional battle between right and wrong at least takes the discussion off border security and the border will be overwhelmed tonight by illegal aliens.

Since professional football (is that an oxymoron) and others threatened to boycott Arizona, I guess I will also. In fact, I would pull my grandchildren out of the state if I could!

(Next column: Would Christ Bake a Cake for a Homosexual “Wedding”?)

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

Copyright 2014, Don Boys, Ph.D.