Connect with us

Faith

Former LGBT Millennials Speak Out Against California Law Banning Anyone From Helping Those Struggling With Same-Sex Attraction

On Tuesday, California AB 2943 was passed into law.

Published

on

On Tuesday, California AB 2943 was passed into law, effectively banning the practice of offering or receiving therapy for anyone looking to overcome homosexual attraction.

The text of the bill says that “advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual” would be illegal under the state’s consumer fraud law. “Sexual orientation change efforts” are defined as “any practices that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”

A group of former homosexuals who had been campaigning against the bill want the world to know that it is a tremendous attack on religious liberty to ban these services, and are using their testimonies to do so.

The Christian Post reports:

Luis Javier Ruiz, a survivor of the deadly 2016 Orlando Pulse Gay Nightclub shooting, has since walked away from a life of homosexuality and credits godly counsel and the Bible. He was invited to the California State Capitol on Tuesday by California Family Council to speak out against the bill. He said he’s now “lovesick” for Jesus and will not allow the bill to silence his truth and limit others from receiving the support they need.

“If they do pass that [bill] in California it will take away the rights of counselors, pastors, people that want to give you guidance on coming out of homosexuality, or any kind of help, prayer, which will include the BIble, because the Bible has six verses that speaks out about it, so that would take away the Bible and hurt the church,” Ruiz told The Christian Post ahead of the vote.

“I came to Christ through the word of God, I came to Christ over Godly counsel — pastors, people that prayed me through,” Ruiz continued. “Me coming over there as a Pulse survivor, sharing my story is going to show a lot of people that if this does get passed in California it can probably hit all over the U.S.”

“As we know it, the church is going to be in a lot of persecution,” he warned.

Ruiz, whose life was impacted through the film Here’s My Heart: A Documentary of Surrendering to Freedom by Uprooted Heart INC, feels that now is the time for the church to unite over such clear attacks on our freedom as Christians, and feels that God can use this for his glory:

“God has a way of moving and I believe this opens the door of a wave of God’s glory,” Ruiz shared. “This will provoke the church to rise and get out of the church and walk in relationship, not religion. They voted yes to the bill but we still serve a big God and we are not defeated.”

MJ Nixon, the founder of Uprooted Heart INC, has joined forces with Ruiz and other “overcomers” to interject their testimonies and the praise the give the Lord into the conversation about homosexuality and faith. Together, they founded the Freedom March, which was held for the first time in Washington, D.C. on May 5th. The founders have been working with California Family Council to bring awareness to AB 2943, and warn it could spread to other states.

But if it’s going to spread to other states, Nixon says, they will as well.

“The stronger, unified we are, the greater our voice,” Nixon told CP. “I found the LGBTQ community, the greatest strength they have is if they have an event so many people come out. So we’ve actually now put together a Freedom March.”

“We want to go all around the United States into the cities,” she added. “Where the Pride Marches are all about sexual perversion, we want to have a march that’s about purity, about righteousness, and about the truth of what Jesus did in all of our lives.”

Faith

Pelosi is Barred from Communion by Archbishop of San Fran

WHOA!

Published

on

Of all of the personal, bitter, hot topics that our nation is facing, perhaps none is quite as raw as abortion.

With the Supreme Court seemingly poised to overturn Roe v. Wade sometimes in the not-so-distant future, the issue is once again at the forefront of the American political theater, and the fervor is increasing by the minute.

Now, in a wild escalation of the national narrative, church is giving state a little bit of blowback.

San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone announced Friday that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is barred from receiving Holy Communion due to her pro-abortion stance — marking an escalation in a decades-long tension between the Roman Catholic Church and liberal Democratic politicians on abortion.

Cordileone has written to the California Democrat, informing her that she should not present herself for Holy Communion at Mass, and that priests will not distribute communion to her if she does present herself.

He did not hold back.

“A Catholic legislator who supports procured abortion, after knowing the teaching of the Church, commits a manifestly grave sin which is a cause of most serious scandal to others. Therefore, universal Church law provides that such persons ‘are not to be admitted to Holy Communion,'” he says in the letter.

And also:

Cordileone says in his letter that he wrote to her on April 7, informing her that “should you not publicly repudiate your advocacy for abortion ‘rights’ or else refrain from referring to your Catholic faith in public and receiving Holy Communion, I would have no choice but to make a declaration, in keeping with canon 915, that you are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” He says that since that time, she has not done so.

“Therefore, in light of my responsibility as the Archbishop of San Francisco to be ‘concerned for all the Christian faithful entrusted to [my] care” (Code of Canon Law, can. 383, §1), by means of this communication I am hereby notifying you that you are not to present yourself for Holy Communion and, should you do so, you are not to be admitted to Holy Communion, until such time as you publically repudiate your advocacy for the legitimacy of abortion and confess and receive absolution of this grave sin in the sacrament of Penance.” he said.

And with Catholics making up a rather large voting bloc in America, (and California, too), Nancy Pelosi may have to get to praying.

Of all of the personal, bitter, hot topics that our nation is facing, perhaps none is quite as raw as abortion. With the Supreme Court seemingly poised to overturn Roe v. Wade sometimes in the not-so-distant future, the issue is once again at the forefront of the American political theater, and the fervor is increasing by the minute. Now, in a wild escalation of the national narrative, church is giving state a little bit of blowback. San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone announced Friday that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is barred from receiving Holy Communion due to her pro-abortion stance — marking an escalation in a decades-long tension between the Roman Catholic Church and liberal Democratic politicians on abortion. Cordileone has written to the California Democrat, informing her that she should not present herself for Holy Communion at Mass, and that priests will not distribute communion to her if she does present herself. He did not hold back. “A Catholic legislator who supports procured abortion, after knowing the teaching of the Church, commits a manifestly grave sin which is a cause of most serious scandal to others. Therefore, universal Church law provides that such persons ‘are not to be admitted to Holy Communion,'” he says in the letter. And also: Cordileone says in his letter that he wrote to her on April 7, informing her that “should you not publicly repudiate your advocacy for abortion ‘rights’ or else refrain from referring to your Catholic faith in public and receiving Holy Communion, I would have no choice but to make a declaration, in keeping with canon 915, that you are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” He says that since that time, she has not done so. “Therefore, in light of my responsibility as the Archbishop of San Francisco to be ‘concerned for all…

Continue Reading

Faith

SCOTUS Rules Against Boston After City Refused to Fly Christian Flag

The decision was seen as a win for Christians everywhere.

Published

on

In the United States, we are guaranteed the freedom to practice whichever religion we should choose, and have been since the inception of this great nation.

What we are not guaranteed, however, is freedom from religion.  We are allowed to believe what we wish, but we must also understand that this means we may bear witness to the beliefs of others who are exercising their rights.  Maybe we’ll see a yarmulke at the grocery store, or get stuck in traffic as a baptist megachurch lets out on Sunday.

It also means that all religions must be treated equally – something that the City of Boston is learning the hard way this week.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a program of the city of Boston that allows outside groups to fly flags at city hall must permit the flying of flag with a cross that a camp referred to as a “Christian flag.”

The question before the court was whether flying the flag as part of a government program was considered government speech if the flag belonged to a private organization, in this case, Camp Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that it is not.

The ruling left no room for interpretation.

“We conclude that, on balance, Boston did not make the raising and flying of private groups’ flags a form of government speech,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the court’s opinion, stating that as a result the city improperly violated Camp Constitution’s free speech rights.

And that’s not all:

The court’s opinion pointed to how Boston said their goal is “to accommodate all applicants” looking to hold events in the city’s “public forums,” including City Hall Plaza, and the flag flying application only asked for contact information and a short description of the event being requested.

Breyer noted that the city employee who fields flag applications testified that before Camp Constitution’s application, he had never even asked to see a flag before granting approval or even before they were raised.

“The city’s practice was to approve flag raisings, without exception,,” Breyer wrote.

The news comes as the mainstream media continues to equate the religious right with the lesser opinions they hold of conservatives in general, thereby creating a soft vilification of Christianity in the process.

In the United States, we are guaranteed the freedom to practice whichever religion we should choose, and have been since the inception of this great nation. What we are not guaranteed, however, is freedom from religion.  We are allowed to believe what we wish, but we must also understand that this means we may bear witness to the beliefs of others who are exercising their rights.  Maybe we’ll see a yarmulke at the grocery store, or get stuck in traffic as a baptist megachurch lets out on Sunday. It also means that all religions must be treated equally – something that the City of Boston is learning the hard way this week. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a program of the city of Boston that allows outside groups to fly flags at city hall must permit the flying of flag with a cross that a camp referred to as a “Christian flag.” The question before the court was whether flying the flag as part of a government program was considered government speech if the flag belonged to a private organization, in this case, Camp Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that it is not. The ruling left no room for interpretation. “We conclude that, on balance, Boston did not make the raising and flying of private groups’ flags a form of government speech,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the court’s opinion, stating that as a result the city improperly violated Camp Constitution’s free speech rights. And that’s not all: The court’s opinion pointed to how Boston said their goal is “to accommodate all applicants” looking to hold events in the city’s “public forums,” including City Hall Plaza, and the flag flying application only asked for contact information and a short description of the event being requested. Breyer noted that the city employee who…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week