Nominee for EEOC openly argues for rule of homosexual rights over Christianity
is by Matt Cover at CNSNews.com
Obama’s EEOC Nominee: Society Should ‘Not Tolerate Private Beliefs’ That ‘Adversely Affect’ Homosexuals
- end of initial entry -
Chai Feldblum, the Georgetown University law professor nominated by President Obama to serve on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, has written that society should “not tolerate” any “private beliefs,” including religious beliefs, that may negatively affect homosexual “equality.”
Chai Feldblum (photo from
Georgetown Law website)
Feldblum, whose nomination was advanced in a closed session of the Senate Health Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on December 12, published an article entitled “Moral Conflict and Liberty: Gay Rights and Religion” in the Brooklyn Law Review in 2006.
“Just as we do not tolerate private racial beliefs that adversely affect African-Americans in the commercial arena, even if such beliefs are based on religious views, we should similarly not tolerate private beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity that adversely affect LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] people,” the Georgetown law professor argued.
Feldblum’s admittedly “radical” view is based on what she sees as a “zero-sum game” between religious freedom and the homosexual agenda, where “a gain for one side necessarily entails a corresponding loss for the other side.”
“For those who believe that a homosexual or bisexual orientation is not morally neutral, and that an individual who acts on his or her homosexual orientation is acting in a sinful or harmful manner (to himself or herself and to others), it is problematic when the government passes a law that gives such individuals equal access to all societal institutions,” Feldblum wrote.
“Conversely, for those who believe that any sexual orientation, including a homosexual or bisexual orientation, is morally neutral, and that an individual who acts on his or her homosexual or bisexual orientation acts in an honest and good manner, it is problematic when the government fails to pass laws providing equality to such individuals.”
Feldblum argues that in order for “gay rights” to triumph in this “zero-sum game,” the constitutional rights of all Americans should be placed on a “spectrum” so they can be balanced against legitimate government duties.
All beliefs should be equal, regardless of their source, Feldblum says. “A belief derived from a religious faith should be accorded no more weight—and no less weight—than a belief derived from a non-religious source.” According to Feldman, the source of a person’s belief—be it God, spiritual energy, or the five senses—“has no relevance.”
‘Identity liberty’ versus ‘belief liberty’
Feldblum does recognize that elements of the homosexual agenda may infringe on Americans’ religious liberties. However, Feldblum argues that society should “come down on the side” of homosexual equality at the expense of religious liberty. Because the conflict between the two is “irreconcilable,” religious liberty—which she also calls “belief liberty”—must be placed second to the “identity liberty” of homosexuals.
“And, in making the decision in this zero sum game, I am convinced society should come down on the side of protecting the liberty of LGBT people,” she wrote.
“Protecting one group’s identity liberty may, at times, require that we burden others’ belief liberty. This is an inherent and irreconcilable reality of our complex society,” Feldblum wrote.
“But in dealing with this conflict, I believe it is essential that we not privilege moral beliefs that are religiously based over other sincerely held core, moral beliefs. Laws passed pursuant to public policies may burden the belief liberty of those who adhere to either religious or secular beliefs.”
The full Senate must now vote on Feldblum’s nomination, but a date for that vote has not yet been set.
As an EEOC commissioner, Feldblum would rule on cases involving alleged violations of federal employment law, including gender, age, and race discrimination.
[end of CNS News article]
Once again we see in full view the diabolical workings of the Cultural Marxists. For her, finally, “Evil, be thou my good.” She is a hard-core Leftist anti-Christian—not just some useful idiot blubbering liberal platitudes—ready to slide into her assigned slot in the ruling elite whence she will unleash the dogs of culture war.
Rick U. writes:
Here is the Wikipedia page on Ms. Feldblum. She apparently is a lesbian, which is all well and good, but she is clearly against the Constitution, which is not well and good. This is easily the most radical presidency in the history of America. Shame on the Senate if they confirm this woman—her oath of office would be a sham.
Brett A. writes:
After reading this post of yours I have to reconsider whether Islam taking over is such a bad thing after all. If Christians are bound to be dhimmis to either the secular left or the Islamists, then I’d prefer the Islamists, just to see Chai in a burka where she belongs.
Your reaction is understandable as a momentary reaction—not as a serious position.
Richard Hoste writes:
It seems to me when she says that making us accept homosexuals is like the civil rights laws her reasoning is correct. Republicans accept MLK and the outlawing of private discrimination based on race. They also don’t morally condemn homosexuals. They’re left without a moral or legal argument to oppose this leftist argument.
Her position is that society should not tolerate private beliefs, e.g., disapproval of homosexual conduct, that may negatively affect homosexual equality. Mr. Hoste is correct that our present liberal/”conservative” regime does not tolerate private beliefs that may negatively affect black equality, e.g., the belief that there are significant racial differences in intellectual ability, the belief that racial diversity is not desirable, the belief that blacks commit vastly more violent crime than other groups. So it would appear that Mr. Hoste larger point is also correct. What argument do mainstream conservatives have against Feldblum?
Jake Jacobsen writes:
So to follow up on Mr. Hoste’s point, how then do we return to sanity if sanity is proscribed? Who will lead us there if the leadership of all our viable political entities would rather immolate themselves politically than deal with these heretical notions? And if as we’re told that it would take to long to form a viable third party?
It is my belief, though I wish it wasn’t, that this will come to violence. That it has to. Am I wrong? Can this thing which appears to be insoluble through the electoral process, when we must fear both our political parties as existential threats to this nation and her people, be solved through the electoral process?
And with people like this nominee who, it seems to me, would cheerfully round up those who disagree with her and re-educate them if not worse.
Josh F. writes:
Richard Hoste’s main mistake in equating blacks civil rights with homosexual equality is that there is no equivalence. The push for black equality was simply laying the groundwork for homosexual supremacy. It is becoming ever more clear that radical liberalism is the political and philosophical manifestation of the homosexual nature. This may seem reductionist, but the thinking applied to the nature of Islam is exactly the same thinking that needs be applied to homosexuality and its radical advocates. Even further, the perverse relationship between Islam and elements of the far left is in many cases a relationship between dominant jihadists and submissive homosexuals.
Hence, rejecting the elevated supremacy of the homosexual nature is to reject modern liberalism AND entirely irrelevant to the “equality” of blacks.
To reject the supremacy of the homosexual nature DOES NOT NEED explanation as its elevation and its deleterious effects on society are self-evident. Literally, homosexual radicals are insisting that we die without a peep.
This does seem reductionist, and is also rather intricate. But maybe others will understand it better than I did.
Josh F. replies:
It is my contention that many years in the past a particular intellect made the profound observation that idealized heterosexuality meant both responsibility AFTER death and responsibility to those coming to life. This notion of a chain of life may or may not have preceded the intellect that originated the God concept. Nonetheless, such an understanding was bound to have unforseen consequences. The most serious consequence being the advent of the homosexual “nature.” The “intellectual” homosexual exists with a dual nature (genetic/choice) and represents the original radical liberal in rejecting responsibility after death and responsibility to those coming to life. The homosexual “nature” is the absolute detachment from the chain of life. The homosexual “nature” is radically autonomous (absolutely liberal). And in its most extreme form, its “nature” is to self-annihilate.
Modern liberalism is the political and philosophical will of the radical homosexual. Nondiscrimination, tolerance and equality are means to the end. That end being the radical autonomy and then self- annihilation of the radical homosexual.
I still have trouble following this. I do get your point that homosexuality is the source and paradigm of liberalism. I think that’s taking one part of the total picture and makiing it too important.
The views of this human are truly amazing. I say bring it on. Let us see Obama draw up the most nihilistic, vengeful and intellectually mutated crew he can.
Are we to the point where there are durable signs that the public will accept and endure virtually anything the left can dredge up? One would think the current selection of czars and czarinas would have people more alarmed, but clearly we remain economically and spiritually complacent. The details of some of these appointments are beyond belief.
The whole homosexual agenda may be emotive enough to do the trick for many. In any event, we must have a better notion of what “conservative radicalism” means before it is too late. Their frothing insanity must be met with a stout certainty of principle, without reserve.
Ron L. writes:
I knew this woman was a lesbian just by looking at her. (I blame her parents, in part. “Chai” is a man’s name; “Chaya” being the feminine.) Looking at her Wikipedia hagiography is just painful. This woman, having been turned away from overturning Orthodox Judaism by becoming a rabbi, became a lawyer to do the same. While she clearly would persecute Christians, her primary hatred is to Judaism and anyone who would follow the Bible. Orthodox Jews are not impressed.
Washington Post article about her.
Maggie Gallager did a good job of warning us about her in the Weekly Standard
Did no one bother to read her write up at Poz magazine before voting on the totalitarian?
“You have to disarm your enemies with creative language”
Chai Feldblum Federal legislation Clinic, Director Washington, D.C.
Chai Feldblum says that she decided to study law when she discovered that, as a woman, she couldn’t become a rabbi. After clerking for Supreme Court Justice Henry Blackmun, the New York City-born lawyer became the chief lawyer for the AIDS Action Council where she helped to develop cleverly worded amendments to defang Senator Helms and his gang. “I’m the person who figures out how to write an alternative amendment that protects us but sounds hateful enough for our enemies to vote for,” she says. Responsible for writing provisions of the 1990 American Disabilities Act for the ACLU, Feldblum now teaches students at the Federal Legislation Clinic to master the intricacies of writing legislation while continuing her legislative career as a consultant. Feldblum says she’s cautiously optimistic about new legislative gains but warns that there are compromises to make. “It’s important never to undermine the essence of a bill,” she says. “But you have to disarm your enemies with creative language. That means a lot of late-night writing and lots and lots of conference calls. I want laws which protect us even if they have some holes.”
Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 18, 2010 04:38 PM | Send
“Just based on the CNSNews article (I haven’t looked at the other articles yet), it’s hard to understand the basis of her position. She says that ‘identity liberty’ (of homosexuals) should prevail over ‘belief liberty’ (of religious people), but she doesn’t say why this is so. She tells us that she has made that determination, but doesn’t give any reason.”
I think she’d argue that identity trumps belief because identity is bound up with who a person IS, and cannot be changed (like skin color, etc.). Beliefs, however, are based on what a person THINKS, and therefore can be changed (e.g. changing one’s mind, which happens all the time).
Conservatives need to respond forcefully that
(1) freedom of conscience is foundational to who WE are, and thus not on the table; and
(2) we reject the notion that homosexuality is an identity. It isn’t what a person IS, first and foremost. It is what a person DOES.
Skin color is a purely physical condition that is not inexorably tied to behavior. Homosexuality is a practice or behavior. If it cannot be changed, then on what grounds should anyone think other practices/behaviors (e.g. pedophilia, bestiality, rape, murder) can be changed?
Now, if the best that this repulsive woman can do is try to short-circuit the argument by saying, “See, he’s equating gay love with murder!” we need to keep asking her: “What grounds do you have for legislating against the behavior/identity of murderers?” These people need to be pummeled intellectually, and from what I hear on talk radio and Christian radio, I think there are still enough reason-based conservatives who are up to the task.
But … if we start losing these arguments; if these views gain ascendancy among the elites, logic be damned; and if the powers that be start enforcing laws based on these twisted ideas; well then I have to agree with Jake Jacobsen: it will lead to violence.