Topic: WorldNetDaily
There has been so much fake news and misinformation to document at WorldNetDaily of late that we got behind in documenting Michael Brown's hatred of LGBTQ people (even as he pretends he doesn't hate them), so we are still in catch-up mode. In his Feb. 22 column, Brown effectively argues that God mandates Christians to hate LGBTQ people:
If you decide not to acquiesce to the latest LGBTQ+ talking points on the job or in school, you will be vilified, marginalized and demonized. You will be excluded, marked, mocked and even canceled. You will be branded a bigot, a hater, a Nazi, to the point of losing promotions, jobs, scholarships and your reputation. Who wants any of this? Better to conform than to resist. At the least, better to be silent. That's certainly what the flesh wants to do.
Yet when we do this, compromising our convictions for the sake of our comfort, we compromise our very souls. This, too, is part of the Lord's warning, and it accurately describes the culture of the day. Lawlessness abounds. Wickedness has increased. The opposition to holiness is mounting. The resistance to the Gospel is growing.
Brown's Feb. 27 column was inspired by ther film "The Jesus Revolution," arguing that Christians shouldn't reject others interested in the faith -- while also being condescending to those same people if they're not straight:
To say it once more: We cannot afford to repeat that same error in the days ahead, as thousands (millions?) of young people (and others) from many different backgrounds begin to pour into our churches, looking for God, looking for hope, looking for meaning, looking for truth.
I fully expect that among them will be many who identify as LGBTQ+, including men wearing dresses and carrying Bibles, and same-sex couples, telling us how they really felt the Spirit in our services.
Will we have wisdom to meet them where they are, helping them truly encounter the Lord while the Spirit convicts them and changes them? Will we have the patience to recognize that they are coming from many different backgrounds and, in some cases, are totally without biblical foundations? Will we have sensitivity without compromise? Will we walk in both grace and truth?
Seems like the answer is going to be no.
Brown spent his March 6 column insisting that LGBTQ people shouldn't be treated with empathy, and that transgender people deserve no empathy at all:
It is partly because of empathy that a disproportionate percentage of Gen Z'ers identify as LGBTQ+, even though only a small percentage of them are actively, let alone exclusively, involved in same-sex relationships and activity.
As a result, this quality of empathy, which can be very positive in and of itself, has been coopted in a destructive, negative way. And so, to give just one example, out of empathy, many teens will instinctively defend a trans-identified peer, not realizing that this peer is about to destroy his or her life via chemical castration and genital mutilation. Their empathy in the short term actually contributes to their friend's long-term pain.
And so, rather than lovingly help their friend not to mutilate and alter the healthy body God has given them, their empathy moves them to side with an act of self-destruction.
It's the same with the pursuit of justice and equality, in the name of which a male who identifies as female can compete against real females, not to mention share a locker room with them. Yes, this uncomfortable, unequal and potentially abusive situation is justified in the name of equality.
He added: "This reminds me of a quote by Ayn Rand (hat tip to John Hawkins for the quote): 'Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent.' How easy it is to turn something good on its head." Strange that Brown is citing a woman who rejected religion to justify his hate.
In his March 13 column, Brown portrayed transgender people being allowed to have rights as "more evidence that the world is losing its mind":
In the midst of many positive things that are happening in America and abroad, including the beginnings of both spiritual and moral awakenings, there's also plenty of evidence that, on another level, the world is losing its mind. Here are some striking, recent examples.
Writing for Breitbart, Jack Montgomery reported, "Women and 'non-binary' people with breasts will be able to go topless at Berlin swimming pools after a ruling from the German capital's diversity ombudsman."
Indeed, "Dr Doris Liebscher, who heads the city's ombudsman office, hailed the change, saying: 'The ombudsman very much welcomes the decision of the bathing establishments because it creates equal rights for all Berliners, whether male, female or non-binary and because it also creates legal certainty for the staff in the bathing establishments.'"
But of course! There's no difference between a man's body and a woman's body, right? If a man can go topless, why not a woman? Equality for all!
And then this priceless paragraph (and note the gender pronouns): "The municipal government in the university city made the change in response to a complaint by a biologically male transman, who was banned from a pool for refusing to cover their breasts on the basis that they were a man, and men did not need to cover their chests."
So, if I have this right, this is a biological male, who now identifies as a female (but is being referenced here as a "transman") and who (apparently) has female breasts, who is protesting the fact that he (who now claims to be a she) must cover his chest. But since men do not have to cover their chests and he is really a man (at least for the sake of the court case, since he otherwise identifies as a woman), then he, even as a she, shouldn't have to cover his chest (sorry, their chest). Is that correct?
This gentleman may be very sincere and may truly feel aggrieved. But turning logic and reality upside down will solve nothing.
Brown then cheered that anti-transgender hate is spreading:
The bad news is that the world is really losing its mind. The good news is that many others are now waking up and saying, "Enough is enough."
May God help these trans-identified individuals find wholeness within their natural bodies, and may the rest of society regain its bearings, before the slippery slope becomes a steep and treacherous cliff.
Brown spent his March 20 column complaining about the handling of an event by Charlie Kirk's right-wing Turning Point USA at the University of California at Davis and against the school 's diversity policy:
Under the heading of "Diversity and inclusion," the UC Davis website states: "Respecting difference, striving for equity. The way we see it, the world is just too big to be bound by narrow perspectives. In an intellectually vibrant place like UC Davis, creativity connects ideas from the obvious to the outlandish. The most comprehensive solutions come from the most diverse minds."
Put another way, we warmly welcome all points of view that challenge the narrow bigotry of the right. As for those hateful, bigoted, homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, racist voices, they have no place on our campus. We are diverse! We are inclusive!
Does no one see the irony and the contradiction?
I have no doubt that hostile, narrow-minded, bigoted, intolerant views against conservatism (and/or conservative Christianity) are expressed at UC Davis on a regular basis. And I have no doubt that students who hold to these conservative and/or biblically based views feel isolated and marginalized.
Once again, diversity and tolerance seem to be one-way streets, and this should be recognized whether or not one likes or dislikes Kirk and TPUSA.
Brown didn't explain why his hatred of LGBTQ people should be tolerated by the rest of us, or why he's trying to reframe that hate as "conservative and/or biblically based views."
