Reeder on LGBTQ campus activists: ‘They don’t want to debate what a marriage actually is. They want to silence those they cannot answer.’


 

 

Listen to the podcast:

 

 

Read the transcript:

TOM LAMPRECHT: Harry, I’d like to take you to a Fox News story out of Georgetown University. A Catholic student group at that university could be stripped of its funding and its ability to meet on campus for its belief in traditional marriage. Love Saxa, a group that advocates marriage between a man and a woman, is under fire from the LGBTQ groups on campus, according to the student newspaper, The Hoya.

Love Saxa’s definition of marriage does not include same-sex couples, as they say they believe that marriage is a conjugal union on every level — emotional, spiritual, physical and mental — directed toward caring for biological children. “To us marriage is much more than commitment of love between two consenting adults.”

The student newspaper then targeted the group in an editorial titled “Defund Intolerance.”

DR. REEDER: What they promoted is marriage and basically affirmed the Roman Catholic view, which the historic Biblical doctrine for thousands of years as the Gospel of Jesus Christ extended from Jerusalem.

As it moved north, south, east and west, it encountered barbarian tribes with barbarian cultures, including barbarian definitions of marriage and family such as bigamy and polygamy. When Christianity came, lives were changed and the structure of marriage and family was changed.

What’s really interesting is, as it was changed, it was then ordered Biblically. We see the ordering of marriage of one man and one woman for one life.

Even, by the way, you see the same trajectory in the Bible, don’t you? That, when sin came into the world, it attacked marriage: there, you have just subsequent to the generation of Cain, and Abel, and Seth, you then have polygamy.

Sin attacks all of God’s creation ordinances and it attacks marriage, and that attacks family and then attacks all of those things that are affirmed by God as sacred and sanctified.

What’s interesting, today, is we have a culture that is descending back into paganism in our so-called “tolerant society,” which tolerates fabrication and mythology in that you call a same-sex relationship, marriage.

Well, by definition, it can’t be marriage. You can call it what you want to, but it’s not marriage, and that’s what this organization said. Marriage is one man, one woman, committed for one life in a conjugal, covenantal, heterosexual, monogamous relationship.

God made the man and the woman to be one. He made them different in order to unite them. Now, we’re equal before God, but we are different. Equality is not interchangeability. Marriage also allows for procreation so monogamous, covenantal, conjugal, heterosexual relationship of one man, one woman, for one life.

Well, that’s what this organization embraces. Guess what? It’s a Roman Catholic University. Guess what the Roman Catholic canons affirm? The historic, Biblical definition of marriage.

Therefore, you have a student organization that is designed to uphold a Roman Catholic tenant, which is a Biblical tenant common to all Biblical Christianity and, now, you have a student group that says you can’t believe that, on this campus, because it is intolerant.

Yes, it is intolerant. For instance, I would uphold the sanctity of life on a Roman Catholic university. I would be intolerant of abortion and I would bring the ideas to bear upon the insidious and undeniable chaos, destruction and violence of the abortion industry. Well, they have done the same thing concerning marriage.

Now, here’s what usually happens: when you can’t match the argument intellectually, what you then do is try to shame the opponent, marginalize the opponent and, if at all possible, silence them because you can’t uphold the debate with them and that’s what is being done here by those who embrace the LGBTQ agenda affirming the same-sex marriage mythology and fabrication.

There is no ability to actually, by definition of what a marriage is, to actually bring into reality a same-sex marriage — a same-sex marriage is not heterosexual, it is not monogamous, and it cannot be conjugal, and it is not established for procreation.

TOM LAMPRECHT: Harry, let me give you the statement released by the university and get your response to it. The university said, “As a Catholic and Jesuit institution, Georgetown listens deeply and discerningly to the plurality of voices that exist among our students, faculty and staff and is committed to the care of each member of our community.”

It went on to say, “As the students on the Student Activities Commission review the complaint formally submitted by individual students, we encourage all students to follow our community commitment to open dialogue and mutual respect.”

DR. REEDER: What you’re assuring is open dialogue to a group of people who don’t want open dialogue. They don’t want to debate what a marriage actually is. They want to silence those they cannot answer.

I am sure that it’s appropriate to say, “Well, we respect everybody here and their civil rights, etc., etc.,” and that certainly ought to be done, but this doesn’t require a lot of thought. This just very clearly states, “We’re Roman Catholic. We have certain tenets and certain things that we embrace. One of those things that we embrace is marriage. We expect our priests to teach it and we expect our communicants to embrace it.

Therefore, in an educational institution that we support through the Jesuit order, there is no reason for us to outlaw an organization that upholds one of our canon tenets and one of our statements of dogma concerning what marriage is.

On the contrary, we would see that as a success in our educational enterprise that we have students that embrace a Biblical view of marriage and have moved into the public square to contend for it and to defend it in the midst of this intellectual and moral chaos surrounding quote/unquote, ‘same-sex marriage,’ which is a legal, and biological and functional fabrication.

And it is a culturally destructive movement within society because it destroys the one basic unit of society, the family rooted in a marriage, so that children all have the opportunity to have a father and a mother because the marriage from which they came had a husband and a wife.”

TOM LAMPRECHT: Harry, what does this say about these larger institutions that sometimes can lose their moral bearings? This is a university that’s been around for a number of years and, certainly, it’s going to continue to embrace the Catholic dogma of traditional marriage and, yet, we find that, perhaps, they need some accountability, too.

DR. REEDER: Tom, I know you’ve heard the term “entropy.” That’s the second law of thermodynamics that, when things are left alone, they run down. Well, they not only run down, they run away spiritually.

A denomination, or a movement or a church can have wonderful agencies and wonderful ministries in place but, if they’re left alone and not properly guided, and not properly governed, and not properly held accountable, they can run off.

Now, the Roman Catholic Church, the bishops and their structure, are going to have to take a look at these questions: How does Georgetown University deal with this issue? Will they be consistent to the Georgetown University tenets? Your accountability is not to the students that are bringing this charge and that

The university’s accountability is not to the students that are bringing this charge and that are attempting to silence those who hold to what we believe. The accountability is to the church and they may say, ‘If you don’t uphold what we say we believe, then this university cannot be a part of the Roman Catholic Church.’

I applaud the students who are contending for a Biblical view of marriage and, of course, I am hoping that the university defends the students that are being consistent with the tenets of the university concerning marriage.

But here’s what I do know: we’ve got to get out there with the Gospel of saving grace in Christ because the problem here is that people are looking for salvation and meaning in life by embracing a cultural revolution that stands in opposition to the glory of God. And, in reality, that salvation that is sought in opposition to the glory of God only brings the demise of the individual and the culture.

Contend for the truth in the public square. God will use you not only for redeeming grace, but also common grace; redeeming grace that transforms sinner and common grace that restrains sin in society.

Dr. Harry L. Reeder III is the Senior Pastor of Briarwood Presbyterian Church in Birmingham.

This podcast was transcribed by Jessica Havin. Jessica is editorial assistant for Yellowhammer News. Jessica has transcribed some of the top podcasts in the country and her work has been featured in a New York Times Bestseller.

print

9 hours ago

AUDIO: ‘The University of Alabama showed great courage in its defense of open debate and free speech’ — J. Pepper Bryars

Earlier this week J. Pepper Bryars, editor of Yellowhammer News, appeared on WYDE’s “The Ford Faction” to discuss a speech that was scheduled to be given by a “race realist” this Thursday at the University of Alabama.

“The University of Alabama showed great courage in its defense of open debate and free speech through its willingness to allow this speaker on campus,” Bryars said, adding that “the only cure for hate speech is more speech.”

The details:

— An obscure student group invited self-described “race realist” (aka: a racist) Jared Taylor to deliver a lecture on campus.

— The university initially approved the event because the group had followed the required process, although administration officials made clear Taylor’s message ran contrary to the school’s values.

— Eventually, however, the student group was found to be in violation of key requirements (having a faculty advisory, etc.), and after officials gave the students time to come into alignment, the group failed so the invitation was rescinded.

“Had the group met the requirements and followed the process like any other, Alabama was prepared to allow its students to hear the racist arguments this man makes, and that’s a great thing,” Bryars said. “Because the only way our society can refute such claims is to know of their existence and how to properly dispose of them … like the garbage they are.”

LISTEN NOW:

@jpepperbryars is the editor of Yellowhammer News and the author of American Warfighter

1
10 hours ago

Alabama man charged after hunters find remains of missing woman

An Alabama man has been charged with murder after hunters found the skeletal remains of a missing woman.

News outlets report that 58-year-old Kenny Darity of Montgomery is charged in the strangling death of Christina Bloss.

Darity was arrested and charged Tuesday, and bond was set at $150,000. Jail records on Wednesday did not show whether he is represented by an attorney.

Bloss was reported missing Feb. 28, 2017, in Montgomery County. Authorities now think she had been killed 10 days earlier.
A Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department captain, George Beaudry, says Darity and Bloss were acquaintances.

Hunters found her remains Thursday in Lowndes County, which is just west of Montgomery County.

(Associated Press, copyright 2018)

1
11 hours ago

Michael Knowles featured at Alabama Policy Institute’s 19th annual dinner event in Mobile

On Tuesday, the Alabama Policy Institute held its 19th annual Mobile dinner event in the airplane hangar at the USS Alabama Battleship Memorial Park.

“I cannot think of a better place to discuss freedom and liberty than at the U.S.S. Battleship Memorial Park and Aircraft Pavilion, a place that holds so many reminders of the sacrifices that thousands of Americans have paid to guarantee our freedom and liberty,” Caleb Crosby, President and CEO of API, told Yellowhammer News.

The “Evening with the Alabama Policy Institute” included keynote speaker, Michael Knowles.

Knowles is a talk show host and former managing editor of The Daily Wire, who is most well-known for his best-selling (and blank) book Reasons To Vote For Democrats: A Comprehensive Guide.

Part of a generation of young-ish conservatives that includes the Wire’s, Ben Shapiro, Knowles spends much of his time traveling to universities and rebutting their brand of “illiberal liberalism,” as Frank Bruni of the New York Times has called it.

289

“I feel that here we’re in a safe space,” Knowles opened his speech last night, mirroring Crosby’s sentiment by ironically appropriating the campus buzzword.

“We’re definitely in a safe space because there are lots of guns and battleships. This is the perfect safe space for conservatives to be on tax day.”

Knowles’s speech before API and guests was as much about making the case for conservatism and for President Trump as about rebutting progressivism.

He began by reminding everyone in the room of all the good that the Trump presidency has accomplished: tax cuts, deregulation, originalist judges.

“Now you might be having déjà vu,” he said, “because I could have given that exact same [list] in 1981.”

Pointing out similarities between Reagan was Knowles’s primary way of arguing that Trump has governed as a conservative. In some ways, it also seemed to be his way of coaxing those never-Trump conservatives to embrace the president, or at least to encourage those conservatives supportive of — but still apprehensive — about him.

“Take the victories that we can get today,” Knowles said.

His chief point was that politics is about the now.

“Politics changes all the time,” he said. “There are different circumstances. There are different public policy challenges. There are different public policy prescriptions. There are timeless principles. And of course the hope, is that we conservatives can maintain the bedrock of timeless principles that we can apply to new circumstances and new challenges and make America great again, again.”

“Political victories are never permanent,” Knowles continued. “Political successes are never permanent. That’s why you always need to be making America great again. It’s because otherwise, it’s going to revert to its natural state of decay and destruction.”

@jeremywbeaman is a contributing writer for Yellowhammer News

11 hours ago

Why the Alabama Legislature holds the power — and a breakdown of interesting open seats

Our antiquated 1901 Constitution was designed to give inordinate power to the Legislature. During the Wallace years, the King of Alabama politics, George Wallace, usurped this power and controlled the Legislature from the Executive Branch of Government. Over the last couple of decades the Legislature has wrestled this power back and pretty much excluded the Governor from their bailiwick. Governors Bob Riley and Robert Bentley were ostracized and pretty much ignored. Their proposed budgets were instantaneously tossed into the nearest trashcan.

Legislative power is derived from controlling the state’s purse strings. Thus the old adage, “Those who have the gold set the rules.” The Legislature has gotten like Congress in that incumbents are difficult to defeat. Therefore, the interest will be on the open Senate and House seats. Most of the Montgomery Special Interest money will be focused on these Legislative races.

Speaking of Montgomery, two open and most interesting Senate seats in the state will be in the Montgomery/River Region. One is currently in progress. Montgomery City Councilman, David Burkette, Representative John Knight and Councilman Fred Bell are pursuing the Democratic seat vacated by Senator Quinton Ross when he left to become President of Alabama State University. Burkette has already bested Knight and Bell in a Special Election last month. A rebound race is set for June 5.

578

The Republican Senate seat in the River Region held by Senator Dick Brewbaker is up for grabs. This seat was expected to attract numerous well-known aspirants. However, when the dust settled at the qualifying deadline two relatively unknown candidates were the only ones to qualify. Will Barfoot and Ronda Walker are pitted against each other in a race that is considered a tossup.

The Etowah County/Gadsden area was considered one of the most Democratic areas of the state for generations. However, in recent years it has become one of the most Republican. State Representative, Mack Butler, should be favored as a Republican. Although, polling indicates that veteran Democratic Representative, Craig Ford, could make this a competitive race in the Fall. He is running as an Independent.  

Veteran State Senator Harri Ann Smith has represented the Wiregrass/Dothan area admirably for over two decades. She has been elected several times as an Independent. However, she has decided not to seek reelection. Her exit leaves State Representative Donnie Chesteen in the catbird seat to capture the seat.

Republican State Senator Paul Bussman, who represents Cullman and northwest Alabama, is a maverick and very independent. This independence makes him powerful. He will be reelected easily.

State Representative David Sessions is predicted to win the seat of Senator Bill Hightower who is running for Governor.

Most of the state Senate’s most powerful members are unopposed or have token opposition. Included in this list of incumbent State Senators are veteran Senate leader and Rules Chairman, Jabo Waggoner, R-Vestavia, Senate President, Del Marsh, R-Calhoun, Senate Majority Leader, Greg Reed, R-Jasper, veteran Senator Jimmy Holley, R-Coffee, as well as Senate leaders Arthur Orr, R-Decatur, Cam Ward, R-Alabaster, Clay Scofield, R-Marshall, Clyde Chambliss, R-Autauga, Steve Livingston, R-Scottsboro, Tom Whatley, R-Lee, and Shay Shelnutt, R-Gardendale. The Senate leadership will remain intact, as will the House leadership.

Almost all of the House leaders are unopposed or have token opposition. This prominent list includes: Speaker Mac McCutcheon, R-Madison, Budget Chairmen, Steve Clouse, R-Ozark, Bill Poole, R-Tuscaloosa, Speaker Pro-tem, Victor Gaston, R- Mobile, Rules Chairman, Mike Jones, R-Covington.

In addition, there are numerous Veteran lawmakers, who will be reelected, including Lynn Greer, Mike Ball, Jim Carnes, Howard Sanderford, Kerry Rich, and Jimmy Martin; as well as rising leaders: Nathaniel Ledbetter, Kyle South, Connie Rowe, Tim Wadsworth, April Weaver, Paul Lee, Terri Collins, Danny Garrett, Dickie Drake, Chris Pringle, Randall Shedd, Allen Farley, Becky Nordgren, Mike Holmes, David Standridge, Dimitri Polizos, Reed Ingram and Chris Sells.

Even though there are 22 open House seats and 10 open Senate Seats, the leadership of both Chambers will remain the same.

There are some competitive House seats that will be interesting. In the Pike/Dale County Seat 89, Pike Probate Judge Wes Allen is pitted against Troy City Council President Marcus Paramore. Tracy Estes is favored to replace retiring Mike Millican in Marion County. Alfa is going all out for Estes. David Wheeler is expected to capture the open House seat in Vestavia.

See you next week.

Steve Flowers is Alabama’s leading political columnist. His weekly column appears in over 60 Alabama newspapers. He served 16 years in the state legislature. Steve may be reached at www.steveflowers.us.

 

11 hours ago

Alabama aging death row: Is executing old or infirm inmates cruel?

Vernon Madison has spent decades on Alabama’s death row. Now 67, Madison has suffered from strokes and dementia and his lawyers say he no longer recalls the crime that put him there: the 1985 killing of a police officer.

His speech is slurred, he suffers from confusion, and once thought he was near release and talked of moving to Florida, according to his lawyers. This fall, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to review the claims by Madison’s defense team that executing someone in his condition would violate the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

“Killing a fragile man suffering from dementia is unnecessary and cruel,” Madison’s attorney, Bryan Stevenson of the Equal Justice Initiative, said in January, when the justices stayed Madison’s execution the night he was to receive a lethal injection.

728

The U.S. death row population is aging, and that leaves courts increasingly likely to grapple with questions of when it becomes unconstitutionally cruel to put someone to death who is mentally frail — or whose medical conditions could complicate the execution procedure.

“That is going to be an increasing issue in carrying out the American death penalty,” said Robert Dunham, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington. “We are reaching a stage, as death row inmates age, we’ll see this more frequently.”

About 2,800 people are on death row in prisons nationwide, and about 1,200 of them over age 50, the non-profit group said. An Associated Press review of the group’s data shows the median age of an executed inmate in the U.S. rose from 34 to 46 between 1983 and 2017 — a fact observers attribute to appeals taking longer — sometimes decades.

One of the oldest, 83-year-old Walter Leroy Moody, is scheduled to be executed Thursday in Alabama for the 1989 package bomb killing of a federal judge. If the sentence is carried out, Moody would be the oldest person and the first octogenarian put to death since U.S. executions resumed in the 1970s, Dunham said.

“Many of these defendants have done terrible things. People are torn between wanting to punish severely and the belief it is beneath us as a nation to kill a frail person who is already dying. It’s a challenge to our morality and our sense of humanity,” Dunham said.

Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the pro-death penalty Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, supports steps to reduce the time between an inmate’s sentencing and execution.

“There is no constitutional issue from age alone, though dementia does, of course, become more common with age. The underlying question about what kind and degree of mental illness will prevent an execution is not new. It is ancient.”

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing in Madison’s case, noted the growing number of aging prisoners on death row and said, “Given this trend, we may face ever more instances of state efforts to execute prisoners suffering the diseases and infirmities of old age.”

Age by itself isn’t the issue, but rather the illnesses more common with old age.

Take Alva Campbell, 69. He died last month in an Ohio prison of natural causes after his 2017 lethal injection procedure was halted when a usable vein couldn’t be found. Alabama similarly aborted last month’s execution of Doyle Lee Hamm, 61, who has battled lymphoma. His lawyer said Hamm had at least 11 puncture wounds from attempts to find a vein.

“It was precisely Doyle’s old age and illness that raised all the problems. The state of Alabama was not prepared,” Hamm’s attorney, Bernard Harcourt, wrote in an email.

Yet 75-year-old Tommy Arthur, who had argued that his cardiovascular disease would complicate execution, was put to death without obvious incident last year in Alabama.

Madison was convicted of killing Mobile police officer Julius Schulte.

Schulte responded to a missing child report on April 18, 1985. Arriving at a home, he found the child had returned but Madison and his girlfriend were embroiled in a domestic dispute. According to court records, Schulte interacted briefly with Madison, telling him to “just to go on and let things cool down.” According to prosecutors, Madison left but then crept up behind Schulte as he sat in his police car, shooting him twice in the head.

The Supreme Court has ruled inmates must have a rational understanding of why they’re being executed, faculties which Madison’s lawyers say he doesn’t possess.

His attorneys argue strokes have left Madison frequently disoriented with no independent memory of his crime. They also say he is legally blind, cannot walk independently and has urinary incontinence from his brain damage.

The state’s lawyers counter that Madison was found competent at a 2016 hearing, hasn’t presented new evidence and is aware he received the death sentence — even if he doesn’t remember killing Schulte.

“What happened to my dad was cruel and unusual punishment,” said Schulte’s son, Michael. “He was shot twice in the head while he was trying to help somebody.”

Schulte, 59, has suffered health problems of his own, including a stroke and heart attack. Yet he said Madison’s protracted legal fight has been hard on his family and doesn’t “do my dad justice.”

Said Schulte: “Somebody needs to make a decision. Either we are going to have the death penalty or we’re not.”

(Associated Press, copyright 2018)