text:
American Orations: The Anti-Slavery Struggle [1st volume] / Alexander Johnston and James Albert Woodburn, eds. -- N.Y.: J.P. Putnam's Sons, 1897
According to information on the verso of this volume, American Orations is a series of books in four volumes printing important speeches in American history. The first volume includes speeches on colonialism, constitutional government, the rise of democracy, and the rise of nationalism. The second volume (under review here) includes speeches on the question of slavery. Slavery is also the subject of the speeches in the third volume. The fourth volume important subjects of the post-war era. The speeches found in the present volume are by Rufus King, William Pinkney, Wendell Phillips, John Quincy Adams, John C. Calhoun, Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and Charles Sumner. Together they provide an interesting look into the salient issues leading up to the Civil War and the manner of oratory of the time.
New York Senator Rufus King addressed the Senate in February, 1820 during the debate over the Missouri Compromise. His speech is an impressive brief, outlining the precedents and principles giving Congress the power to regulate and ban slavery in newly admitted states, without extending that power to currently recognized states. His argument rests on the constitutional principle that Congress has '"the power to make all needful regulations" governing any territory of the United States. Furthermore, Congress retains the power to admit new states, without limitation on the terms of admission. Consequently, Congress may prohibit slavery in U.S. territories and admit states on the condition that slavery remains prohibited. At the same time, Congress my choose not to exercise these powers. He also explains that the current states, having established slavery prior to the adoption of the constitution, are free to maintain slavery within their borders as their ratification of the constitution was dependent upon the continuation of slavery within their states. King's speech recounts several instances in which states were admitted to the Union consistent with these principles, importantly, the Northwest Territory that would be composed of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and eastern Minnesota. Among the speeches contained in this volume, King's stands out as well-argued.
In the same week as King's speech, Maryland Senator William Pinkney rose in rebuttal. Pinkney argued that to admit new states on terms different from the original thirteen was to deny the equality of states and create a different form of union. While Pinkney no doubt reasons from a plausible premise of equality among states, the protagonists of freedom can just as plausibly argue that there is no reasons that the terms of formation and expansion of the union might not be different. Taken together, King and Pinkney provide clear examples of the two sides of the debate during the discussion of the Missouri Compromise.
The third speech in the volume is by Wendell Phillips which he gave in Boston in 1837 following the murder of Elijah Lovejoy. Lovejoy printed an abolitionist newspaper in St. Louis until the proponents of slavery destroyed his printing press for a third time. He then set up his newspaper across the Mississippi River in Alton, Illinois, but the mob followed him and murdered him while he attempted to defend his press. I'll confess that coming from St. Louis, I have always held Lovejoy in the highest esteem. There are few white abolitionists prior to the war who remained so determined and risked so much as Lovejoy. Consequently, I was rather disappointed in Phillips's speech. While it did eulogize Lovejoy, its primary point was to defend the freedom of the press -- a good cause, no doubt, but I had hoped for a more forceful call to follow Lovejoy's example and raise the profile of resistance to slavery.
John Quincy Adams's speech, given on the floor of the House in 1837. The occasion of the speech was a bill to authorize money to suppress an Indian revolt in Georgia. Adams pointed out that many of his constituents might not be in favor of such an expenditure and that it was beyond the authority of the federal government to tax them for this purpose. In response, Adams argued that the federal government had authorities in peace and authorities in war. While the authorities in peace are limited, authorities in war know no limits. In modern terminology, Adams was appealing to a "national defense" argument. To make this case, he observed several instances when the federal government intervened on the issue of slavery. This was his real purpose. Early, he had been prohibited from making comments about slavery when a resolution was moved that the federal government had no authority to intervene in the slavery question, due to the "gag rule" previously passed into law. No, in the context of appropriating money to suppress an Indian revolt, he was able to lay out his case for why the federal government had the authority to intervene in the slavery question. The speech provides an interesting glimpse into the subtleties of the parliamentary contest that Congress was engaged in during the 1830s along with the constitutional questions that slavery posed.
John C. Calhoun's speech recorded in this volume was the last and perhaps the most significant that he ever gave. It occurred in 1850 during the debate of the great compromise fashioned by Henry Clay. The bill -- an omnibus bill -- called for admitting California as a free state, forming a territorial government in Utah without mention of slavery, amending the Fugitive Slave Act, the abolishing the slave trade in Washington D.C., and establishing the border between Texas and New Mexico. The bill failed in its omnibus form, but each element was subsequently passed by Congress. Calhoun's speech was noteworthy for its rigorous reasoning in opposition to the compromise. His main objections were leveled against allowing California to be admitted as a free state and not unambiguously asserting a right that slaveholders might bring slavery to the territories and establish slavery under the territorial laws. This became known as "squatter sovereignty." He argued that by denying the authority of Californians to choose their own laws related to slavery and failing to stand up for the "rights" of the slave holding states, the honor and equal standing of those states were diminished. With the advantage of an modern viewpoint, it seems clear that Calhoun must have understood that slavery could not be saved by normal political means and that he understood that the slave states would eventually need to secede in order to preserve their human property. Indeed, his speech directly threatens secession if the federal government does not accommodate slavery throughout the nation. Of all the speeches in this volume, Calhoun's is perhaps the most significant and the most reprehensible.
During that same debate, Daniel Webster made a speech that forever separated him from the opponents of slavery. He had previously been seen as at least a lukewarm ally, but his forceful defense of the Fugitive Slave Act outraged his former fellow travelers. The amended Fugitive Slave Act would strengthen the powers of slave hunters and require state and local officials to assist in the captures. The Fugitive Slave Act was justified by a clause in the Constitution which directs that persons "held to service or labour in one state...escaping into another...shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due." Webster found this was sufficient to bind state and local authorities to assist in the capture and return of fugitive slaves. He furthermore referenced the Supreme Court's support for this view. At the time, opponents of the Fugitive Slave Act argued that the clause did not specify "slaves," but on persons "held to service or labour." This reading required the authorities to return indentured servants or other persons who were under contract to perform service or labor. Had it been meant to include slaves, the clause would have said as much. Webster's decision to read the critical clause to include slaves was taken as a betrayal by his anti-slavery supporters. Webster might be praised for standing by what he believed was an honest interpretation of the Constitution, but a reasonable case can be made that no law permitting the enslavement of a person can be valid under a constitution putatively dedicate to freedom. Furthermore, the concept of natural (or human) rights was already well-established, making a free state's assessment of the invalidity of slave labor arguably justified. Webster chose not to avail himself of these arguments and must go down in history as a proponent of a reprehensible positive law at the expense of human rights.
The next speech in the volume is by Henry Clay, the author of the Compromise of 1850. Here we get his direct appeal to the Senate to pass his bill. It is a classic appeal to everyone to give a little in order to get a little. He understands that no one, perhaps including himself, will be happy with every element of the bill, but that peace and tranquility in the nation requires that the Congress come to an agreement on the vexing issues of the day and that given the profound disagreement within the country on so many of these issues, there can be no agreement that satisfies everyone. Perhaps the most surprising passages in the speech -- at least for me -- were those in which Clay condemned slavery in no uncertain terms. I had always understood that he his attitude toward slavery was ambiguous. He both attempted to have it outlawed in his home state and owned 60 slaves at one point. It appears he thought it an unfortunate evil that should not be extended beyond its current scope, but that it was also a fact of economic life for the well-to-do Southerner. Perhaps much as a democratic socialist might regard his or her stock portfolio today. It is an interesting lesson in parliamentary strategy to recognize that his compromise was defeated in its omnibus form, but that each element passed Congress. Often omnibus bills are crafted to ensure an unpopular element passes, but in this case the aggregated opposition minorities combined to defeat the omnibus bill. Alone, each minority failed to defeat what they opposed.
The volume includes a second speech by Wendell Phillips. This is perhaps appropriate as he was widely regarded as the most effective abolitionist speaker. It is a masterful summary of the abolitionist movement starting in 1830 with William Garrison's groundbreaking newspaper The Liberator. He provides an account of the contributions of most of the important abolitionists and places their work in the context of the social and political opposition that they faced. He emphasizes that abolitionists have always been a despised minority, but points out how successful they have been in moving public opinion. He shows how many Whigs, Northern Democrats, and members of the Free Soil Party eventually made use of the arguments of the more radical Garrisonians and other abolitionists when it became politically expedient to do so. For Phillips, staking out a principled, though unpopular opinion was a necessity and he relied on its fundamental decency to eventually win popular support. It's hard to say his strategy was mistaken.
His speech was given in 1853, just three months after the death of Daniel Webster and his unwillingness to speak well of the dead with whom he disagreed is a testament to his principled stand for truth. At one point, he denounces Webster's "treachery," underscoring the abolitionists' dissatisfaction with Webster's support for the Compromise of 1850, particularly his defense of the Fugitive Slave Act.
One could get tied in knots attempting to understand the legal and constitutional status of slavery, the slave trade, the power of the federal government to regulate it, control it within the territories, etc. The intractability of these legal and constitutional questions is rooted in the contradictory attitudes of the framers of the constitution and the presidents and legislators who labored under the Constitution; but the question of the fate of slavery was for many people prior to the war so monumental that it transcended the constraints of law and the Constitution and posed a profound moral question. Wendell Phillips's speeches make it perfectly clear that he understood this and his voice, as much as anyone's, moved our country beyond the terrible condition that it had inherited from colonial times.
The final speech in the volume is by Charles Sumner, given in 1853 on the occasion of a debate over the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act. Sumner was widely recognized as the Senate's most articulate proponent of the abolition of slavery. He is perhaps best known as the victim of a "caning" by Rep. Preston Brooks on the Senate floor. Two days following a speech given by Sumner, Brooks beat Sumner unconscious with a gold tipped cane. His reason for doing so was that Sumner's speech had insulted another Senator Andrew Butler, who was related to Brooks. It is noteworthy that in the run up to the Civil War, it was not uncommon for Congress members to come to debates armed and on at least one occasion, several pistols were drawn on the floor of the House.
In Sumner's speech recorded here, he presented a detailed argument that slavery was not properly considered "national," but instead an institution of the states. Consequently, the federal government had no obligation to require officers of free states to participate in the return of fugitive slaves. His argument was based primarily on references to the sentiments of the nation's founders. He then turned to a critique of the argument that the Fugitive Slave Act was required by the Constitution. here is argument was quite strong. Sumner provided a detailed summary of the controversy at issue during the drafting of the Constitution in order to establish the original intent of the Constitution. He makes a strong case that the clause requiring that "persons held to service or labour...escaping to another state" shall be delivered up to whom their service or labour is due was not intended to include slaves. Sumner mentions that an earlier draft of the clause which specifically mentions fugitive "slaves" was rejected and that in a passage in the Constitution the term "service" was adopted in place of "servitude" in order to specify the work of free labor. It is interesting to read Sumner's speech along with Daniel Webster's speech also in this volume. Here, two Massachusetts senators come to completely different interpretations of the Constitution. Perhaps it is my own desire that the Constitution not endorse slavery, but Sumner's arguments seem obviously stronger.
In all, the speeches recorded in this volume are indeed noteworthy, though not always Earth-shattering. Their seeming moderate nature may be due to the distance we have from the super-charged political environment of the antebellum decades. Nonetheless, one does get a sense that the speakers on both sides understood the gravity of what was at stake. Whether they all truly understood that they were drifting toward what William Seward would call an "irrepressible conflict" isn't so clear.
Labels: American Civil War, Constitutional Law, U.S. History
The Bhagavad Gita / Franklin Edgerton: Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1952
The Bhagavad Gita is among the world's greatest works of sacred literature. It is a portion of the larger Sanskrit work, The Mahabharata which tells the story of the dynastic struggle between the Kaurava and Pandava princes, all members of an extended family. The Gita recounts a critical episode in that struggle in which he two dynasties are preparing to face one another in an epic battle. It recounts the dialogue between the Pandava prince Arjuna and his charioteer Krishna. Arjuna, seeing his family members -- on both sides -- arrayed for battle becomes paralyzed with grief and foreboding of the senseless carnage that is about to occur. Whereupon, Krishna excoriates him for his weakness. In the course of the dialogue, Krishna discusses three forms of yoga: jnana (wisdom), karma (action), and bhakti (devotion). His message is essentially that Arjuna duty is to perform the actions that are appropriate to his station as a warrior and that the death and suffering that is about to occur does not touch the true self or selves of the warriors. What is essential about us is eternal. The climax of the dialogue comes in the eleventh chapter when Krishna reveals himself to Arjuna as God. This chapter is, to me, the very highest expression of mystical monotheism ever set down in verse.
There are countless English translations of The Gita. The translation contained in this volume is by Edwin Arnold, the illustrious English journalist/orientalist. His most famous work is The Light of Asia, a biography of the Buddha. Originally published in 1885, Arnold's Gita is a fine example of Victorian poetry. It is perhaps not the most literal translation of the original Sanskrit Gita, but it's poetic sensibility makes for exhilarating reading.
There is much that is contradictory in The Gita. So much so, that an unguided reading can be quite confusing. Here is where Franklin Edgerton's introductory essay on The Gita, included in this volume, provides excellent help. Edgerton is at pains to explain that The Gita is first and foremost a poetical work and that the requirements of consistency that we expect from an academic treatise do not apply. Consequently, we read Krishna's praise of all three types of yoga, with only a general sense that karma yoga is thought by the author to be the highest form of yoga; however, this may only be due to the fact that Arjuna, the primary audience of the treatise, is a warrior who, as a warrior, is expected to act.
For Edgerton, The Gita offers us an opportunity to compare the virtues of all three types of yoga. Jnana yoga is the path to spiritual liberation that involves a thorough intellectual understanding of reality. It is usually practiced by those who retire into meditation and religious study. In contrast, karma yoga is the path to spiritual liberation that involves embracing an active role in the great unfolding of worldly affairs. There is, however, an important cautionary message in Krishna's advice. While jnana yoga fails -- for Arjuna -- to fulfill his proper role in life and lead to liberation, one can easily mis-tread the path of karma yoga by becoming to passionately involved in the results of action. Karma yoga requires that the actor perform his or her duty without regard to the results. One must act of the sake of the proper action and not for a practical end. Karma yoga, properly pursued, includes the kind of dispassion that is characteristic of the reclusive jnana yogi. There are passages in The Gita which also praise bhakti yoga which has become the predominate form of Hindu worship. It involves an unrestrained love and devotion to God, in this case Vishnu or Krishna as he is manifested in The Gita.
Anyone interested in the religious tradition(s) of India must, by all means, read and become familiar with The Bhagavad Gita. It is a short and easily finished work, replete with astonishingly poetic visions of God. It will be puzzling, however, to anyone not already quite familiar with the yogic traditions of India. Here is where Edgerton can provide excellent guidance.
Labels: Hinduism, Religion
American Orations: The Anti-Slavery Struggle [1st ...
The Bhagavad Gita / Franklin Edgerton: Cambridge,...


text:
Native Activist Who Harassed Catholic Teens Identified As Actor From 2012 Skrillex Video About Attacking Police
Nathan Phillips, the Native American radical activist who confronted the MAGA hat-wearing Catholic teens at the March For Life, starred in a 2012 Skrillex video called "Make It Bun Dem," in which Phillips does some spiritual warfare connected to a violent attack on a police officer. Phillips was identified as the star of the video in his speaker bio for Tribal Hemp & Cannabis Education and discussed the role in a 2017 interview.
BLP reported:
Nathan Phillips, the Native American man at the center of the controversy involving Covington Catholic High School students who were unfairly smeared by the media, is raising money with the help of a major big-money left-wing operation, and has a history of appearing in the press claiming to be a victim of anti-Native racism.
"[Phillips] is a Vietnam Veteran and former director of the Native Youth Alliance," according to Heavy.
The Native Youth Alliance appears to be a standalone entity. However, the larger well-funded Native Youth Leadership Alliance — which told us that it is not associated with Phillips — is currently promoting Phillips' fundraising campaign stemming from the incident with the Catholic teens.
The Native Youth Leadership Alliance (NYLA) is a non-profit organization that is funded by the same far-left power players who are often involved in bankrolling leftist causes. The organization's funding partners include the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and the Social Justice Fund Northwest.
The homepage for the NYLA is promoting Phillips' fundraising campaign.
The point is this: Phillips is not simply a random Native man who was accosted by "racist" MAGA-hat wearing teens, as the mainstream press has reported. He is connected to leftist activists who donate large sums to leftist causes. And now, he is personally fundraising off the mainstream press' misdeeds.
Given that the full, unedited video of the interaction between Phillips and the students shows that Phillips clearly approached the students, and given that he is connected to left-wing social justice causes, one could conclude that he targeted the teenagers for their support of President Donald J. Trump. Yet the mainstream press narrative is exactly the opposite – that the boys targeted Phillips.
Additionally, this is not the first time that Phillips has been at the center of controversy involving alleged racism against the Native Population. In 2015, Phillips claimed that he was "bombarded by racial slurs" by students at Eastern Michigan University.
Fox2 reported:
An Ypsilanti man says he was trying to teach a few students dressed in American Indian theme party about respecting Native Americans.
Not long afterward, Nathan Phillips said that an interaction with party-goers and students turned ugly.
Nathan Phillips says he was out for a noon walk on a Saturday in mid-April
He walked by a home where he saw Eastern Michigan University students dressed as Native Americans.
"They had little feathers on, I was just going to walk by," Phillips said. "A group of them said 'Come on over, come here.'"
He says he walked over to the fence and saw roughly 30 to 40 students involved in a theme party.
"They had their face painted," Phillips said. "I said what the heck is going on here. 'Oh we are honoring you.' I said no you are not honoring me."
It was a statement he says they took offense to.
"Then started whooping and hollering," he said. "I said that wasn't honoring, that was racist. Then at that time, it really got ugly."
Phillips says he was bombarded with racial slurs.
"(They said) 'Go back to the reservation, you blank indian,'" he said.
One student, he says, threw a beer can at him.
"If I would have stayed where I was at, it would have hit me in the head," he said. "I backed up and it hit me in the chest."
ABUSE: HBO's 'Transhood' Shows How Monstrous Parents Push Their Kids Into Transgenderism
This clip is very telling.
A new HBO television show "Transhood" is demonstrating the inner workings of the youth LGBT movement and the depths of their depravity and perversion.
One clip features a butch lesbianic woman and her "daughter" Avery, and it shows exactly how children are being systemically abused by pederasts.
"We actually go and meet with our senators and our representatives, and after that, we go and sit and sell some of Avery's books for a little while," the ghoulish woman said of her daughter who she uses as a political prop.
This is when Avery expressed the sentiment that she does not want to be exploited for the pleasure of reprobates.
"I just don't want to even have a book. I've done too much in this world. It's ruined my life enough and now, everyone in this world is going to know if I sell my book, it's going to get on the news along with me for like the 50th time at this point, and it's going to make my life worse," Avery said.
"A couple of years ago, you wanted people to know," the "mother" responded.
"Yeah, I did, but I know that was a stupid, silly mistake and now I don't," Avery said.
The entire clip can be seen here:
Scene from HBO's pro-trans documentary. A young boy ("girl") tells his mom that the LGBT activism she's forcing him to do is "ruining his life." She parades him around to show him off while he is visibly in despair. Here he tries to explain how he feels but she disregards it. pic.twitter.com/lMTJQy1Ycl
— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) November 23, 2020
Avery's words show how transgender children can be pushed into that lifestyle by outside forces and then come to regret their actions after they mature.
Big League Politics has reported about how feminist mothers regularly push their children into transgenderism and then pimp them out to predators in the name of tolerance:
A 16-year-old Australian-American boy has come forward with a shocking story about how his mother attempted to force him to be transgender starting at the age of eight.
"I didn't know who I was," Lucas told Sausage Roll. His mother dressed him in girl's clothes before school, which resulted in alienation and confusion within the poor lad. He explained the shocking story about how the LGBT abuse started in his life.
"My parents met online on some, now defunct, dating website. My father is an Australian labour worker and my mother was working as a waitress in Los Angeles, California, at the time," Lucas wrote in an email.
"I grew up and went to school in Australia and everything was quite normal. I had a few friend and we'd hang out and play video-games or just mess around at the local part," he added.
Lucas' childhood was normal until his parents split up, which is when his mother without a strong patriarchal figure around to keep her in check started abusing her son by instilling transgender dogma into him. Lucas was forced to move to America, which alienated him, and his mother began forcing the gender transition upon him….
Lucas began thinking something was up after he saw his mother blatantly lie about his father in a magazine in which she played the victim and made up fantasies about nonexistent abuse.
"I remember reading the article and thinking it was all a load of crap. She said my dad beat me and called me homophobic slurs. I asked my mum about this and she kept insisting that it happened and that I just don't remember it because I was traumatized. It never happened, though," he said.
Lucas detailed the abuse he received as he was inducted into the satanic LGBT lifestyle by his own mother.
"She took me to a high-end club that was filled with men who were practically nude. They'd have stage shows where the guys would dance promiscuously and strip. A lot of these guys would always say nasty things to me and touch me inappropriately. I didn't like it, I told my mum yet she didn't care. She told me to 'man up', which I thought was very ironic," he said.
She even attempted to pimp him out to LGBT predators who they met at these events. A man once approached Lucas' mother and told her that he would "absolutely love to get to know Lucas a bit better."
"My mother wanted me to go visit him… ALONE! She told me she'd already set up a date for the two us and said it would be fun. 'It's just two queens going shopping and having fun, Lucy. Don't be such a baby,' she said. I refused. I cried. I screamed," Lucas said.
The deranged mother even tried to show Lucas pornographic movies as a way to warp his mind so he would accept her transgender push.
This agenda is satanic and must be stopped, otherwise countless children are going to be victimized by this organized cabal of serial predators.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Cell Calcium. 2011 May;49(5):290-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ceca.2011.04.003. Epub 2011 May 11.
Calcium-response factor (CaRF) is a unique DNA-binding protein first recognized as a transcription factor for its role in modulating transcription of the gene encoding Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor (BDNF) in neurons. Here I review evidence for the biological functions and transcriptional targets of CaRF in the brain and discuss potential mechanisms by which calcium-activated signaling pathways may modulate CaRF-dependent transcription. These data paint an emerging picture of CaRF as a regulatory nexus for signaling pathways that control aspects of synaptic development and neuronal function.
Genbank mRNAs encoding Bdnf mapped onto chromosome 2 from Mus musculus. The numbers show genomic coordinates for the Bdnf gene from the July 2007 mm9 assembly of the mouse genome (http://genome.ucsc.edu). Black boxes represent exons and the thicker black region of exon IX indicates the coding sequence. The gray lines show the splice variants of Bdnf arising from alternate promoter usage.
Three CaREs are found in the 170bp upstream of the TSS of Bdnf exon IV. The CaREs are found within a nucleosome-free region of the proximal promoter flanked by two well-positioned nucleosomes (B. Li and A.E. West, unpublished observations). The histones (H3 and H4) in these nucleosomes are modified by acetylation (Ac) and methylation (me1 or me3) at specific lysine (K) residues . Although both MEF2 and Npas4 have been localized to Bdnf promoter IV by ChIP, their binding elements have not yet been reported. The question mark in the circle on CaRE1 represents the likely presence of additional CaRE1 binding proteins that mediate the function of this element in the absence of CaRF. The numbers represent base position with respect to the TSS. PolII, RNA polymerase II; CBP, the histone acetyltransferase CREB binding protein; P, phosphorylation of CREB at serine 133, which recruits CBP to Bdnf promoter IV.
A) Post-translational modifications of CaRF. The numbers represent amino acid positions from human CaRF. P, phosphorylation; Ac, acetylation; S, serine; K, lysine; DBD, DNA binding domain; TAD, transcriptional activation domain. B) Model for the bimodal calcium-dependent regulation of CaRF-mediated transcription. Membrane depolarization induced by the elevation of extracellular potassium leads to the opening of voltage-gated calcium channels. This stimulus is associated with an increase in the transcriptional activity of the CaRF activation domain tethered via UAS-Gal4 to a luciferase reporter plasmid, whereas the same stimulus results in a decrease in Carf mRNA expression 6 hours after membrane depolarization.


text:
Even More Anti-Christian Bigotry
by Bill MuehlenbergPosted on Oct 11, 2010 Feb 17, 2013
We live in an age in which no group or person is allowed to be offended, vilified or discriminated against – except Christians that is. It has been open season on Christianity for some time now, so the double-standards of the PC brigade are rather startling, to say the least.
Indeed, Christianity is actively being targeted by its many enemies, the mainstream media, and by an activist judiciary. On a regular basis courts are warring against Christianity, using various discrimination laws and equal opportunity legislation to do so.
What is even more galling about all this is the lies being told by the other side. Every time I publically debate some of these activist groups, they assure everyone that Christians will not be put at risk. For example, when I debate homosexual activists about the dangers of society granting them special rights, they deny that Christians will be adversely affected by this.
I reply that they not only will be, but they already have been. When governments grant special rights to activist minority groups like the homosexual lobby, they of necessity take away rights from the majority. And many of these discrimination laws are doing just that.
What it amounts to is reverse discrimination. If a court says a homosexual cannot be "discriminated" against under any circumstance, that means religious bodies for example will be forced to employ homosexuals, even if it goes against their deeply held religious beliefs.
And it will mean small business owners or home owners who for various reasons wish to employ or rent to only certain people will be forced to do just the opposite. There are often very limited exemptions to these laws, but they are easily circumvented, so time and time again Christian groups are being targeted.
One recent court pronouncement is just the latest example of this. This is how a newspaper reported the story yesterday: "A youth camp owned by the Christian Brethren church has been ordered to pay $5000 compensation for discriminating against a suicide prevention group for young gays. Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal judge Felicity Hampel found the Phillip Island camp breached the Equal Opportunity Act when it refused to take a booking from members of Cobaw Community Health Service's Way Out project."
The judge claimed it was not clear from the "homepage" of the website that this was a Christian organisation. But a quick look at their site would have revealed that it certainly was. And given that there would have been hundreds of other such camp sites and retreat centres to choose from, why did this homosexual group so intently decide on this particular Christian campground?
It all sounds like a set up job to me. And that of course would not be the first time. One just need think of how the Victorian government effectively sought to entrap Christian pastors who were holding a seminar on Islam some years ago in Victoria.
There is a concentrated move to target Christian groups, and effectively put them out of business if they seek to remain true to biblical principles. And as usual, this judge was totally ensconced in the PC camp, embracing the homosexual activists' ideology.
Judge Hemple said this: ""They are not entitled to impose their beliefs on others in a manner that denies them the enjoyment of their right to equality and freedom from discrimination in respect of a fundamental aspect of their being."
There are plenty of problems with this statement. Homosexual activists are of course imposing their beliefs on the rest of society all the time. Why doesn't the judge equally object to this? Why is the judge taking sides with the social engineers and activists, while siding against religious groups with long-standing conscientious concerns about such matters?
And how in the world is this discrimination against a fundamental aspect of their being? This is simply pushing the pro-homosexual myth that homosexuals cannot change. Never mind the evidence on this: tens of thousands of people have left the homosexual lifestyle and gone on to heterosexual marriage and family.
Also, this is a complete furphy about discrimination. There would be hundreds of campgrounds around Melbourne to choose from. Why did this homosexual group insist on just this one? We have a pretty good clue as to why this happened, but obviously the judge does not have a clue – or just does not want to know.
But we expect this from the secular left. It is happening all the time. But what we don't expect is for those who should know better to side with the homosexual activists. Some Christians have actually been siding with the activists against the Christians.
One said they should have allowed this group in, to show them grace. He said it was only the Pharisees who were ungracious and not accepting. But what in the world does pharisaism have to do with anything here? This is about the right of Christian groups to use their facilities as they see fit.
If homosexuals demand to preach in our churches, must we accept that as a 'grace' moment as well? Sorry, but this person misses the point here big time. There is a war going on to shut down Christianity, of which this is just one example. But by his reasoning we should invite pedophiles into our Sunday Schools in order to show them grace.
Indeed, until this person invites drug dealers, conmen and pimps into his home in order to 'show grace', I think we need not pay too much attention to such concerns, even if they are the result of good intentions, or the desire to somehow be Christlike. Jesus said that often the children of this world are wiser than the children of light. That's for sure.
And another believer complained about this group not being allowed in, and that suicide was an issue affecting all of us. But this case of course had absolutely nothing to do with suicide prevention, and everything to do with activist groups targeting a Christian site, knowing full well there were hundreds of others to choose from.
But some believers are so naive and gullible, they will usually side with the enemies of the faith. Indeed, there were believers who sided with the Muslims in the court case I mentioned above. Lenin used to call Christians and other Westerners who supported the Communist agenda "useful idiots". Not a bad term.
The truth is, there is a war going on. But many believers live and act as if there is no war going on. Or, for one reason or another, they have decided to join with those who have declared war against the church. Sadly, many of them think they are actually being more like Christ when they do side with the militant secular activists. Go figure.
We have a clear message from this case. It shows quite clearly that if you are a Christian group which seeks to maintain biblical absolutes, and refuses to cater to homosexual activists, you will be fined in Victoria. And if things keep moving in this direction, it may well soon be more than just fines.
www.theage.com.au/victoria/church-camp-found-guilty-of-discrimination-20101009-16d3f.html
[1187 words]
Let's Finish Off Christian Schools
The Sin of Being a White Male Christian
Leftists Cancelling Christianity and Freedom
The New McCarthyism
Activist Assaults On All Things Christian
The World's Quickest Case of Christophobia in Action
Leftists, Double Standards, and Woke Dilemmas
Never-Ending Gender Insanity
5 Reasons Why Christians Should Confront Non-Christians
A Few Home Truths About Persecution
Perrottet: More Anti-Christian Bigotry
On Church Scandals and Scandalous Christians
This Is About One Thing Only: Rabid Christophobia
Christianity in the Crosshairs
Scenes from the Conservative and Christian Purge
The Impending Crackdown On Christianity
Silencing the Churches
Australia's Most Shameless Christophobe
Gasp: They Actually Hired a Christian!
Posted in Article Reviews, Culture Wars, Homosexuality, Law and Legal Issues, Persecution, Political Correctness, The Church
Published by Bill Muehlenberg
View all posts by Bill Muehlenberg
Prev Head for the Hills, it's the End of the World
Next On Trapped Miners and Spiritual Truths
55 Replies to "Even More Anti-Christian Bigotry"
Scott Buchanan says:
I too was troubled by what I read yesterday. It seems the judge is working according to a double-standard. On the one hand, he doesn't think it's legitimate for a Christian camp organization to, as he puts it, "impose" its views on others. However, on the other hand, he seems to have no problem trying to coerce others into accepting the prevailing legitimisation of homosexual behaviour. As you rightly point out, the group had many many camp sites from which to choose. Why make a persistent effort with this particular camp site?
And it seems to me that the judge's comments reflect a basic logical flaw, since the Christian Brethren were not trying to stop members of the group from engaging in homosexual behaviour; that indeed would have constituted the attempt to "impose" one's beliefs upon another. Instead, they simply expressed grave reservations about giving tacit approval to a lifestyle they -and I – believe to be a manifestation of humanity's sinful state. By suggesting that the camp site tried to impose its beliefs on the organization, the judge made a significant error in his use of language and his interpretation of the camp site's actions.
Interesting to note that the article from which you quote sat right next to another speaking about the increasingly visible presence of real-life vampirism as a new form of spirituality. Is the paper trying to suggest that Christianity is passe?
Scott Buchanan
The way the homosexual rights movement carries on, you'd be forgiven for thinking they were the only ones being discriminated against. There's plenty of other groups out there who suffer silently under genuine discrimination, but aren't as well organised and vocal, and lack the support of the mainstream media.
Ross McPhee
John Heininger says:
Is this case decision being appealed? Particularly when religious liberty is at stake and the decision is contrary to Article 116 of the Constitution, and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.
John Heininger
Ros Phillips says:
The Christian Brethren campsite on Phillip Island is not the only recent victim of this type of discrimination.
Channel Ten has told Kenneth Copeland Ministries (http://www.kcm.org.au/ ) that the contract for their program, "Believer's Voice of Victory", which used to be broadcast at 2.30 am weekdays, will not be renewed. Supporters of the ministry are contacting Channel Ten to ask them to reconsider, but I gather they have not yet been successful.
After receiving one complaint, presumably by a homosexual activist, Channel Ten said the program broadcast on 2 June 2010 breached the Commercial TV Code of Practice (1.9.6): http://www.kcm.org.au/content/broadcast-update .
Section 1.9.6 of the Code prohibits the broadcast of any program which is likely to:
"provoke or perpetuate intense dislike, serious contempt or severe ridicule against a person or group of persons on the grounds of age, colour, gender, national or ethnic origin, disability, race, religion or sexual preference".
You may not agree with everything Kenneth Copeland teaches, but I believe that on 2 June he was merely gently expounding biblical teaching on homosexual behaviour – including Romans 1: 27-32. He said, "It's not who you are, but what you do." http://www.kcm.org.au/broadcast/1313
How long before they ban the Bible altogether?
Ros Phillips
Anna Cook says:
The infant church was dynamic under persecution. We started to weaken when we became "official" under Constantine. Christianity was the "in" belief and perhaps many simply drifted in for social convenience, rather than under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I don't welcome all this but God will bring good from it if we must endure it.
Anna Cook
Jay Rusty says:
Well I suppose now we can hire GLBT building or facility for christian activities and they couldn't / wouldn't refuse us?
How fun would it be to hold a series of talks with people sharing their recovery from homosexuality such a building?
Really though, most Christians would have way more manners if a private business run by someone homosexual asked them not to have their meetings there.
Jay Rusty
Trevor Grace says:
Is it possible, then, that books which oppose homosexuality or Islam are already being quietly removed from the shelves of Christian bookshops, around most states in Australia, so as to avoid potential fines; perhaps unbeknown to customers, who may have purchased these books as a means of information and/or educating others, especially children?
Trevor Grace
Bill Muehlenberg says:
Thanks Trevor
It most certainly is possible. This is just the tip of the iceberg. All over the Western world so-called 'hate-speech' laws are being enacted, and the Bible is considered to be full of hate speech. It is only a matter of time before they start clamping down on all sorts of literature, and of course websites such as this.
In the light of all this, this new warning is worth heeding: http://www.christian.org.uk/news/christians-must-toughen-up-and-speak-out-lord-carey/
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
david skinner says:
If I am running a vegetarian restaurant and someone comes in and demands a meat dish, I have every right to refuse them. In a moment of generosity I might point them to numerous restaurants, just across the street that cater for their taste. I am not attacking meat eaters or telling them to stop eating meat; I am merely saying that my customers have a right not to have either the taste of smell forced down their throats.
Earlier this year, I had the privilege and opportunity of placing a petition on the UK government's petition site that reached over 35,000 names. Basically, it was asking for the right for churches not to employ out-proud, practising, self-identified, gays, queers, pinks LGBTs. Mercifully the attempt by the government to force Churches to do so was defeated in the House of Lords. Since the list of signatories to the petition contained the names of heavy weight churchmen and academics, I also assume that they sent supporting letters to the House of Lords.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/harryhammond/
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2010/01/06/petition-amendments-to-equality-bill/
Muslims are not forced to employ Jews and the Labour party is not forced to have a Liberal/Conservative leader. So why should Christians be the only ones forced have their integrity compromised and open to attack?
However, unless we demolish once and for all the idea that homosexuality is a state of being instead of an acquired taste and behaviour, we are wasting our breath. This lie, once and for all needs to be exposed and put to death.
The word "homosexual" is a modern, evolutionary invention, as fanciful as "slimy custard man," the "GayTranselvanian," or the Nazi superman. It needs to be stripped from the Bible. The fact that it appears only once, 1 Corinthians 6:9, in the NIV version, in no other, ought to make us suspicious; even more so when we realise that one of the original translators, Dr Virginia Mollenkott, was herself a lesbian.
The Site, New International Perversion has this to say:
'A literary critic on the NIV translation was homosexual author Dr. Virginia Mollenkott. In Episcopal, Witness (June 1991, pp. 20-23), she admits, "My lesbianism has ALWAYS been a part of me. . ." To no surprise, "sodomite" is completely removed from the NIV. (Deut. 23:17, I Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46, II Kings 23:7) And of course, I Cor. 6:9, ". . . effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. . ." is replaced with the non-offensive ". . . nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders. . ." Notice the NIV in I Cor. 6:9 does NOT condemn "homosexuals" or the "act of homosexuality" – but ONLY "homosexual OFFENDERS".'
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/new_international_perversion.htm
The case against Mr and Mrs Wilkinson
http://www.christian.org.uk/news/christian-bb-owners-besieged-by-abuse/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1259646/Gay-couple-turned-away-guest-house-owner-let-share-bed.html
David Skinner, UK
John Angelico says:
John H you said:
Please check carefully, because the Federal Constitution Article 116 does not provide a blanket freedom of religion. It gives a specific (and denominational) freedom from religious tests for public office.
The UNO ICCPR is riddled with loopholes and weasel words so that the States can implement its "protections" in any way they choose, and as you have seen Justice Felicity Hemple follows the PC line all the way.
If you seek religious freedom as a fundamental right, you will have to look back to 1688 and the "Glorious Revolution" in the UK, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution – wiki for speed, I'm sure there are plenty of more scholarly references available). The Bill of Rights 1689 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689 ) followed the enthronement of William and Mary.
Even there the context was Catholic vs Protestant, so it isn't clearly a matter of universal religious freedom, but mainly denominational, within the Christian faith.
By virtue of various Succession Acts and Statutes of Westminster, the "uncodified Constitution of England" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom) was collectively but very deliberately applied to the colonies/States, but it is a fearsome task to trace it all back and still have such rights survive later things such as the Australia Acts of 1986.
So our difficulty is that the lawyers are mostly not intersted in supporting the Christian cause for religious freedom. They are predominantly in the PC camp, and don't realise that we stand for what they seek and enjoy, and they won't realise its loss until it's too late.
Here, I remember Martin Niemoller's famous statement often attributed to Bonhoeffer "First they came…" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came…
But thanks Bill for this site!
John Angelico
Kylie Anderson says:
When I was at university there were student union room for our use. We used the womyn's room that we had to remove pictures from before use for the sake of the men in our Bible Studies. We also used the prayer room. First we were asked to take of our shoes in deference to the Muslims, then we were asked to use the room the Muslim women prayed in rather than the men, then we were kicked out of the prayer rooms completely. We even held a Bible study on the staircase once because there was nowhere else to go. One room for womyn, two for Muslims and none for Christians. Anti-discrimination at work.
Kylie Anderson
Yes quite right Kylie
Jereth Kok says:
We should watch how the pro-gay lobby reacts to this development. Here's how some pro-gay sources have reported the win so far:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/10/08/australian-lgbt-support-group-wins-legal-pay-out/
http://www.sstar.net.au/news/2010/10/09/wayout-wins-discrimination-case/14883
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/legal-win-for-gay-suicide-support-group-20101008-16bvv.html
Note particularly what is said in the opening paragraph:
http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/2010/07/15/bretheren-case-%E2%80%98has-future-implications%E2%80%99/27943
"A case before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) could have future implications on the way religious groups can legally discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation."
Should we expect more to come?
Jereth Kok
Thanks Jereth
You bet your boots we can expect more of this. This is just the beginning. And it is largely due to apathetic, lazy and careless Christians who just don't seem to give a rip about such matters. Lord Carey has just written that "Christians must toughen up and speak out".
Or as Martin Niemoller, German pastor and Holocaust survivor, put it: "In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Some, especially sodomites who also self-identify as Christians, say that Christians should be so confident of their faith that they should be able to stand on their own feet and not need protective legislation. Just as Voltaire contemptuously said "God forgives because it's his business," so there are those who would say that "Christians are persecuted because that is their calling."
And yet both Islamic and gay fascists are frenziedly and rabidly pushing for more and more repressive laws that protect their ideologies whilst controlling the minutiae of our everyday lives – indeed for every thought; every emotion and every sneeze. No standing on their own feet in the market place of ideas.
As for the high incidence of suicide amongst homosexuals, this cannot be blamed upon an un-accepting society. Sodomites have never had it so good. The wind has been definitely blowing in their favour for the last decade at least. Gays commit suicide because what they are searching for can never be found in homosexuality.
Elton Johns former lover committed suicide
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/03/15/elton-johns-former-lover-killed-himself/
Stephen fry tempted to take own life
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-2022.html
Gay website founder 'yelled Waheey and somersaulted off the balcony' Suicide of Garry Frisch, founder of Gaydar.com
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=449526&in_page_id=1766&ito=1490
Kevin Greening: risks, drugs and the face of homosexuality
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=506197&in_page_id=1773
Death wish of homosexuals
http://www.timeout.com/london/gay/features/3892.html
Narth's analysis.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Lhi8Sx3CiWwJ:www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html+narth+whitehead+suicide+depression&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
Damien Spillane says:
Another strike for totalitarian, secular leftism. What a deceit has been the Rawlsian decree that secular leftism is 'neutral' between competing belief systems.
But I don't think this is JUST an issue of anti-Christian secularism (although that certainly is a major part). This is also an issue of violation of private property. I believe that if Australian held to private property in a much more robust way then these gay, secular fascist forces would have a much harder time bullying Christian groups into giving up their rights. If it is a Christian groups' private property then they have a right to invite whomever they wish – it is their property after all.
Damien Spillane
The most iniquitous thing about western governments under the thrall of secularism is that they have said that there should be a clear distinction between public and private morality; and the 'real world' and religion. Whilst the government wants to compartmentalise private and public, and secular and religious it does not hesitate to intrude and eat into the most intimate area of our lives.
Dr. Katherine Rake of Gordon Brown's government funded Family and Parenting Institute said last year, "We want to transform the most intimate and private relations between women and men."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1232185/ROSA-MONCKTON-Dr-Rake-live-sink-estate-year.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1232191/Dr-Katherine-Rake-The-feminist-derides-nuclear-family.html
Yes, Bill, I can't help but wonder if there was something strategic in launching the first strike at the Brethren church (which is small and relatively obscure in this part of the world). I mean, why didn't they go for the Catholics first? Might it be because they knew they couldn't take on Dennis Hart and a team of well funded Catholic lawyers, and expect to win? (Am I being too cynical?)
Maybe in time to come, Neimoller's saying could be adapted along these lines:
"In Victoria they came first for the Brethren, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Brethren. Then they came for the Presbyterians, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Presbyterian. Then they came for the Salvos, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Salvo. Then they came for the Baptists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Baptist. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Well said and great line!
Dale Keily says:
Brothers and sisters, there is another side to this anti-Christian bigotry that should not go unseen.
Christ warned us ahead of time, "that many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other and of the increase of wickedness where the love of most will grow cold" (Matt 24:10-12).
The Scriptures counsel us, "that the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so" (Rom. 8:7). "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces" (Matthew 7:6).
In obedience to the Lord, we are required to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us, "that you may be sons and daughters of your Father in heaven" (Matt. 5:44-45). And "bless those who curse you" and "pray for those who mistreat you" (Luke 6:28). We must forgive otherwise we will not be forgiven (Matt. 6:15).
My point is, if we do not bless, pray for, and forgive these anti-Christian bigots who persecute us we will bear the fruit of hatred and bitterness which is contrary to the Spiritual freedom which Christ blesses us with.
The devil wants to overcome us and will use disobedience and unforgiveness as an entry point to conquer us and defile our hearts. We are not unaware of the devil's schemes and ought to consider that he also stands at the door and knocks that whoever opens up he will come and eat with them that they may eat with him.
Therefore, we must encourage one another (Heb 3:13), just as iron sharpens iron (Prov. 27:17) that we do not lose connection with the Head (Col 2:19), because God gives the Spirit without limit (John 3:34; Luke 11:13; Col 1:29). We must fan into flames what God has given us, for he has given us, "a Spirit of power and of love and of a sound mind (2 Tim 1:6-7).
Then we will be strong in the Lord's mighty power and remember that "our struggle is not against flesh and blood but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms" (Ephesians 6:10-14).
Dale Keily
Yarra Ranges, VIC AUST
Rachel Smith says:
I always maintain that homosexuals took the first step in discrimination against heterosexuals by taking the stance that for various reasons they don't want sexual relations with heterosexuals, a sort of heterophobia. I have homosexual friends and have asked them what's the situation and they say they don't hate women and like women as friends although not sexually. Something about all women puts them off, eg one cited a woman's smell and another the sex act. Sometimes they are reported as referring contemptuously to women as "breeders". However, some homosexuals lionise larger than life woman as icons. Clearly there is some psychological thing going on which seems to emanate from the mother figure, which I wish psychologists would enlighten us on but they are annoyingly silent. I wouldn't be surprised if some men simply can't relate to girly narcissistic women and some women recoil from macho crude men. Those same-sex people I know have a background that suggests they are on the rebound from some situation to do with relationship breakdown or betrayal – although not all. Some seem to have everything going for them but just find people of their own sex more physically attractive and more understanding. The big trouble is that, with the advent of feminism and the female resentment of Men, men and women have polarised in the battle of the sexes and you notice the sad situation that men and women are not finding soul mates in each other or happiness but instead recoiling to their own sex for relationships or staying single and lonely. It seems to be a problem for men and women to forge lasting relationships and this is creating a massive problem with fatherless, unwanted,deserted or illegitimate children. In other words we have generational dysfunction. In my opinion this could be improved if people thought of themselves firstly as thinking humans and secondly as their sexual identity, thus losing the prejudice and hatred of the opposite sex.
anne van tilburg says:
Thanks Bill for your article.
Oprah is pushing a new book called, "Conversations with God."
it sounds harmless enough, but don't judge a book by its cover. The author answers various questions asked by children using the "Voice of God." The answers that he gives however, are not Bible-based and go against the very infallible word of God.
For instance, when a girl asks the question, "Why am I a lesbian?" His answer is that she was 'born that way' because of genetics (just as you were born right-handed, with brown eyes, etc). Then he tells her to go out and "celebrate" her differences.
Another girl poses the question "I am living with my boyfriend. My parents say that I should marry him because I am living in sin, Should I marry him? His reply
"Who are you sinning against? Not me, because you have done nothing wrong."
Another question asks about God's forgiveness of sin.
His reply, "I do not forgive anyone because there is nothing to forgive…….There is no such thing as right or wrong and that is what I have been trying to tell everyone, do not judge people. People have chosen to judge one another and this is wrong because the rule is 'judge not lest you be judged."
This is a real attack against all children.
The devil roams about as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. (1 Peter 5:8)
Anne Van Tilburg
This is the second major attack on religious freedom by Victorian courts in the last decade. The first was the 2 Danny's case back in 2004. That case was ultimately overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court. This was a victory for religious freedom, because since then no one has dared to take legal action against the church on the grounds of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act.
Does anyone know how things proceeded in that case, and what led to the successful appeal? Could a similar course be followed with this case?
Mansel Rogerson says:
Jereth,
A good summary of the case, with links to more detailed information is available here:
http://saltshakers.org.au/component/content/article/80-vcat-two-dannys/285-outline-of-the-case
Mansel Rogerson
Thanks, Mansel. Interesting read.
From the point of view of the defeated campsite, $5000 is not a large sum of money. Especially considering that it cost $300,000 for the two Dannys to appeal their case to the Supreme Court.
You would forgive them for hanging up the gloves at this point. But the worrying thing about that is that it would leave this ruling in place, serving as a legal precedent for many future attacks on Christians.
See this link:
http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/5974/Gay-group-win-discrimination-case-against-Christians.htm
"In a ruling which has major implications in future cases of how religious groups can legally discriminate on the bases of sexual orientation, the Victorian Court ordered the Christian Youth Camps to pay a compensation of $5,000 to Way Out."
Sounds like they are hungry for more.
Thanks Jereth,
You're quite right. And this case was judged under the Equal Opportunity Act 1995 which has now been superceded by the much worse Equal Opportunity Act 2010.
In practice these laws are really just a big green light for homosexual groups to target Christian businesses, schools and churches to have them harassed, fined and shut down.
All a homosexual group has to do now is identify a Christian institution, apply for a job or a service with it, and if turned down, to make a risk-free complaint to the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission.
To my mind, this ruling is morally wrong and I entirely disagree with it. Sadly it was also completely predictable that the decision went this way – it was what I was expecting – and not surprisingly the court has lived up to my worst expectations of it. Bill I agree with you entirely that only a handful of Christians ever bother to stand up and denounce poor decisions like this and as a result political activists are continuing to gain confidence in their attacks on Christians and Christian values.
Andrew Stagg
Dennis Newland says:
Christian churches throughout Australia should be joining together in a class action to reverse this ruling. For as night follows day it will surely be used as a precedent to affect all churches that have getaway camps weekend retreats or even conference facilities for hire.
Divided we fall.
Dennis Newland
As has been said before gays are more than catered for. Why should vegetarians demand that all restaurants provide vegetarian food or Muslims, for that matter, demand that every shop and restaurant provides Halal meat? http://www.christian.org.uk/news/big-british-institutions-serving-up-halal-only-meat-option/
It is not so much that Christians are stopping gays from expressing their perverted tastes but that gays wish to stop Christians from exercising self control and moral constraint. The whole Christian life is about putting to death the flesh. We battle everyday against the old man. Instead Gays demand that we follow them in smashing down the moral barriers and enter their world of absolute sexual anarchy – straight and gay.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1318499/Doggers-indulging-outdoor-sex-protected-victimisation.html
Absolutely, Dennis. It will be used as a precedent, and indeed, the gay lobby has already indicated that they intend to ramp up their war on Christianity by taking their campaign nationwide.
http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/2010/10/13/wayout-defeats-brethren/31762
"This decision suggests the ability of those [religious] organisations to discriminate will be narrowed. It's certainly not binding on other jurisdictions, but clearly … it would be influential, so we think it's got nation-wide importance because there's similar legislation in other states and territories."
I presume someone has already written instructions for the managers of Christian churches/ministries/camps etc on how to handle a potential "customer" asking for anti-Christian rights. And I assume these instructions will not be given away on this forum… Yes???
Tim Lovett
Sadly I suspect many church groups would not have any thoughts on this (whether written or not). Many have no idea of the greater battles taking place around them. As but one indication, a leading Christian legal group issued a short statement a decade ago when the Victorian religious vilification laws were passed. The statement basically said this legislation was no big deal, so don't worry too much about it. They really did not have a clue as to what was actually going on.
Patricia Halligan says:
Dear Bill, Your article was spot on as usual. Homosexuals have taken advantage of the tolerance that has been shown to them over the decades by liberal democracies like ours. Unfortunately this tolerance is starting to backfire on us badly. Instead of being grateful they have become more and more militant and demanding ridiculing any person or group who does not agree with their perverse behaviour and demands. Apparently they are not getting it so easy in some countries a fact which the media makes much of I notice.
Patricia Halligan
I believe that it is only when parents themselves fight this battle that this evil will be put to death. This fight appears to be taking place in Hamilton, Ontario Canada. Its leader, Phillip Lees appears to be in heavy demand at the moment and is therefore temporarily difficult to contact. But here are the contact details: http://peacehamilton.org/index.php
Hi Bill, greetings in our Lord Jesus Name. It is certainly disgusting and we can speak a lot about it but all it amounts to – just words. We can and should pray but we knowing that He is control of the HISTORY of all events and He is the MASTER over all these. The good news is like the saying – they can take away our "outward" appearance and "perceived" recognition – but they cannot take away our life and faith and hope and belief and joy, the very weapons which will still be effective in saving souls. Like a camp we just attended, the Pastor Edward Chan from Singapore said that what we need is personal evangelism and keep a watching lookout for 'divine appointments' to make a difference in someone else's life. It no point bombarding someone when he or she i not ready – the Lord knows the exact time, place, what to say and how to say and how to start etc – all we need to do is being sensitive to His Holy Spirit prompting. I have begun to learn to experience this and I have to confess I am still learning in this area. But all these will not rob my joy and belief in Truth. God bless.
Jon Leong, Perth
Garth says:
The persecution via the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 is going to come thick and fast unless it is defeated at every step.
What the US seems to do well is create Christian lobby groups that are specific in their targeting which seek to gather funding from businesses and groups affected by their particular area. Maybe this is something that some bright minds/heavy hitters in Australia may want to consider.
Garth Penglase
Maurice Colbourne says:
"This is simply pushing the pro-homosexual myth that homosexuals cannot change. Never mind the evidence on this: tens of thousands of people have left the homosexual lifestyle and gone on to heterosexual marriage and family."
You really think that people like that no longer have any homosexual desires?
You really think human sexuality is so malleable that it's a simple matter of choice?
Could you, Bill, decide, just for five minutes, to be attracted to a member of the same sex? Is that a choice within your control?
If not for you, then what makes you think that gay people can switch sexualities on a whim?
Maurice Colbourne
Thanks Maurice
But you don't have to take my word for it. Plenty of more honest homosexuals have clearly admitted to the ability to change. Let me just quote two such activists (and many more could be cited here):
"I think the idea that sexuality is genetic is crap. There is absolutely no evidence for it at the moment, and I think it is unhealthy that people want to embrace this idea. It does reflect a desire to say, 'it's not our fault', as a way of deflecting our critics. We have achieved what we have achieved by defiance, not by concessions. I think we should be recruiting people to homosexuality. It's a great lifestyle and something everybody should have the right to experience. If you believe it's genetic, how are you going to make the effort?"
"To be Haitian or a hemophiliac is determined at birth, but being gay is an identity that is socially determined and involves personal choice. Even if, as many want to argue, one has no choice in experiencing homosexual desire, there is a wide choice of possible ways of acting out these feelings, from celibacy and denial . . . to self-affirmation and the adoption of a gay identity. Being gay is a choice".
And of course you are simply calling those tens of thousands of people who have made genuine change liars, simply because they do not fit into your homosexual ideology and agenda.
Bruce Burn says:
When the so-called "homosexual Ammendment Law" was passed into legislation in NZ despite a overwhelming referendum result against the Law, we used to joke that "…at least they're not making it compulsory.." From the nature of your judges comments, perhaps that's the next step in their campaign.
Bruce Burn, NZ
Angie Robinson says:
It works both ways though. If a Christian group were refused access to a property or campground offered for rental to the public, they would be able to claim discrimination.
Angie Robinson
Thanks Angie
But I must call your bluff. It is all one way traffic here. Christians are the ones being discriminated against, not homosexual activists. Indeed, time after time VCAT has allowed homosexual groups to discriminate against others. These laws have little or nothing to do with genuine equal opportunity, but everything to do with special rights for homosexuals.
With respect I must ask why the camp chose not to allow homosexuals. Was it the express purpose of the group being homosexual? Would a pro-choice group be allowed to camp? What about de-facto couples?
I don't know who the camp allows/disallows but I am just questioning consistency. What Christian principle is applied when deciding if a group can use the campsite?
With respect
Thanks Kylie
As to the specific polices on all this you of course would have to ask them. But surely every small business as well as every Christian organisation has a right and a responsibility to set all sorts of limits. Every other group, organisation and club in the country does, so why can't Christian organisations? And we must not be naive here. There are many activist groups hard at work to break down every sort of barrier, to effectively shut down those biblical Christians who speak out on these issues. The end will be one in which homosexual activists for example can ask to teach in your Sunday school, and you will have no legal means to say no to this. This is where this is all heading, and sadly far too many believers are clueless about the relentless attack the Christian church is under.
Yes. Perhaps my point is: Is it written in policy or just a thing they decided when the time came? I would hope policy would be easier to defend in court than a one time decision. But perhaps it makes no difference under the anti-discrimination laws.
As I say, one would need to ask them for specifics. But you are right on both points: written policies could be a wise move for all such groups, but given our draconian discrimination legislation, that still may not do very much good!
Hi Kylie,
I believe the Bible gives man a fundamental right to own (i.e. control) property in the eigth commandment. In exercising this right, the campsite (as well as everyone else) has the right to accept or refuse applications to use their property entirely as they see fit. The proper role of the civil government is to uphold this right, not contradict it.
It is always a privilege to use another's property and never a right. We Christians therefore deny our God-given freedoms and contradict God's role for the civil government when we refuse to oppose completely and in principle all government "anti-discrimination" legislation.
I made a factual statement about how the law works. I don't know what you think "call your bluff" means, but your use of the expression is weird in this context.
Discrimination law applies to all kinds of organisations that operate in the public sphere, i.e. property for rent in this instance. The action taken by the camp is no different from a hotel which refused to serve a black person because of their race. It is a fairly simple principle in law and Christians do themselves a disservice by suggesting that this is somehow reverse discrimination. Think how silly that hotel would look if it claimed it was being discriminated against when the law says sorry, you can't refuse to serve someone because of their race. That's how ridiculous you look.
I think Christians need to show some Christian love and compassion on the homosexual issue. Gays often have miserable lives because of the way they are treated by society. Thankfully, most people in the community have come to be more accepting and have stopped persecuting them. It's about time Christian dinosaurs like you did the same.
But let me call your bluff again, since you continue to make non-factual statements. You now take a page straight out of the homosexual activists' handbook, with your silly claim that homosexual lifestyle choices are somehow on a par with innate characteristics such as skin colour. The truth is, tens of thousands of people have successfully and decisively left the homosexual lifestyle, while I am not aware of any white person who has morphed into a black person, or vice versa.
And if you really want to show love and compassion to homosexuals (or anyone else trapped in their sinful lifestyles), you need to let them know that with the help of Christ they can be set free from their harmful and destructive lifestyles. And that of course has absolutely nothing to do with persecution, so let me call your bluff there as well.
If seeking to offer real help and healing to homosexuals, and remaining true to biblical teaching, makes me a dinosaur, then I will gladly wear your slur as a badge of honour.
Angie, Christianity has been the driving force behind the abolition of slavery and of changing people's racial discrimination since this is a principle strongly held in the Bible, namely because it is an inherent characteristic of a person and ttherein lies the truth of the matter. All Christian establishments would be acting against their beliefs is they were to turn a black or yellow person away. However the distinction here is with homosexuality which is clearly and unambiguously spoken against in the Bible, just the same as with witchcraft/clairvoyancy/adultery etc. and as such is something which Christians, up until recently, have a right to refuse to assist/be involved with/accept. These would include a naturists convention, or a polygamists convention or a "swingers" convention, or any such group who is engaged in things which are against the principles clearly stated in the Bible. However "swingers" or adulterers were indeed born with their sexual "preference" yet we know it is a matter of discipline and will to refrain from such things. Homosexuality is no different being simply a sexual sin, a terrible one as, more than others, it gives way to uncontrollable and unnatural desires, & like bestiality, is abhorrent to God as well. The Bible describes sexual sins as being the only sins that we commit against our own bodies, against ourselves, as they create in us awful habits that bind us and are not easily let go of. Once the door is opened to sexual sins, turning from such sin becomes increasingly difficult the more it is indulged, and it has an addictive quality to it – scientists have shown that what we give in to directly affects our chemical makeup. As with serial pornographers, nymphomania etc. homosexuals find that this is especially so.
Your argument is false on two counts: (a) homosexuality isn't inborn, that's a lie which is propagated by many to justify their lusts & (b) Christians turn away things that are against Biblical principles, not on the basis of whether they are accepted by greater society (such as swingers / adulterers etc.) or not. Any conference aimed a promoting or propagating such activities should be rejected by Christians.
Timothy Brooke says:
I have news for you. People do not "choose" their sexuality. If gay people stop dating members of their own sex and have a straight marriage, then they still have homosexual impulses, whether or not they choose to act on them.
Christianity, or any other religion, is however, a lifestyle choice. This is why religious organisations oughn't be allowed to impose their own prejudices on other people. You could easily give up the Christian lifestyle and become tolerant if you wished. There is no reason why a homosexual ought to give up acting out their natural impulses, just because a minority of people like you don't approve. It's nothing to do with you how consenting adults behave.
Timothy Brooke
Thanks Timothy
But I must call your bluff here. While there is both nature and nurture at work in the development of the homosexual condition, it seems that in the majority of cases a weak or absent father figure, and/or abuse in childhood, is a leading factor in people embracing the homosexual lifestyle. Thus one's environment is a leading factor in all this, as the person starved of same-sex love and affection from their parents will wrongly seek to make up for that deficit by same-sex sexual encounters.
But despite such unfortunate backgrounds, plenty of people have moved on and recovered their heterosexual identity, including heterosexual marriage and family life. I know many such people. They are living proof that homosexuality is not innate and inalterable.
And your silly statement about 'nature made me this way so I must act that way' is easily refuted. Let me just substitute a term from your sentence:
'There is no reason why an arsonist ought to give up acting out their natural impulses, just because a minority of people like you don't approve.'
'There is no reason why a pedophile ought to give up acting out their natural impulses, just because a minority of people like you don't approve.'
'There is no reason why someone into incest ought to give up acting out their natural impulses, just because a minority of people like you don't approve.'
'There is no reason why someone into overeating ought to give up acting out their natural impulses, just because a minority of people like you don't approve.'
All sorts of lifestyle are being pinned down to genetics or nature. So by your reasoning, whatever tendencies or inclinations we find ourselves we should just indulge in them, no questions asked. Sorry, but civilization is all about restraining or denying unhelpful, anti-social, or self-destructive desires, cravings or leanings. It is what separates us from animals.
james smith says:
Thank you Bill for standing up for the truth. Unfortunately many people do not want to admit their wrongs despite being shown they are in error.
Fortunately there are plenty of people who lived that lifestyle, and have left behind them and moved on as you have been showing on this site time and time again.
Here are a few testimonies in case anyone is interested. Christ is still alive.
Jesus Christ Saved Me from 27 Years of Homosexuality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqdQ6_MAH2A
Is Someone Born a Homosexual?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1-EG8onM5A&feature=channel
Freedom from Homosexuality – Testimony
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5GnzD1Fp6I
As there is nothing to prevent the Cobaw Community Health Service's Way Out project group, or any homsexual group or individual, in doing the same thing again to a range of Christian organisations or businesses, it seems not only reasonable but the right thing to do that we should be willing to support the Brethren church in any way we can (ie with lawyers, financially, letters, protest rally, etc) so they can challenge their $5000 discrimination fine. This is a good opportunity, and witness, to come to the assistance of other brothers and sisters in Christ who are standing up for what is right and good.
larry dillon says:
You people are absolutely insane.It is funny though,I was surfing the net looking for examples of religious hate and intolerance and look what I found.You people make it to easy.Your right though,in not too many years we gays will be excepted as completed equals and Your not going to be able to stop that.If you attack me for my "gayness"your gonna be held accountable by law.We're not going away ever and were fighting back if this means blowing the church to hell so be it.Remember I'm here,I'm queer,and your gonna have to deal with it.
Larry Dillon
Thanks Larry
Yes we all know how loving and tolerant you guys are, so thanks for again confirming what we all already knew. And we have seen plenty of your side demonstrating this as you continue "blowing the church to hell". We'd sure hate to see you guys in action when you are being intolerant and unloving.
Gettin' Kinda Old – And God's Grace
45 Powerful Quotes on the Cross
40 Great Quotes on Tolerance
Daughters and Their Dads: The Vital Relationship
The New Age Movement Versus Christianity
Difficult Bible Passages: Proverbs 18:21


text:
<!DOCTYPE html>

  <title>Guide visitors through your website with Guide.js</title>
  <meta charset="UTF-8">
  <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="demo.css"/>

Enable debugging

  <button id="displayHelpText">Display help for Navi</button>
  <button id="displayHelpImprint">Display help for Imprint</button>
  <button id="deactivateAll">Deactivate all Guides</button>
  <button id="activateAll">Activate all Guides</button>

Home

Products

About us

Imprint

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Share a story idea here (link opens in a new window)
NexThought Monday: Impact Investing 'Skeptics Have Been Defeated' – Our Q&A With LeapFrog CEO
Whereto next for the $1 Billion-plus impact Fund manager?
To many of us, insurance is, well, boring. There are two key reasons why. One, in developed markets anyway, many of us (but unfortunately far from all of us) just expect it to be there. Like roads, or plumbing, or air, insurance hovers in the background. You set it up, pay for it and then promptly forget about it – until you need it. The second reason is the perception that insurance can't be innovative, let alone an exciting business or global development tool.
Disrupting those preconceptions is LeapFrog Investments. Operated principally as a private equity fund manager, LeapFrog's portfolio of investment companies make insurance and financial services their business, and their clientele are those who earn $10 or less a day. Reaching those consumers has become an attractive investment and social development opportunity, both for global footprint insurers like Prudential Financial Inc. and major development organizations such as the Overseas Private Investment Corp. Together, these two entities have (in separate investments) supported LeapFrog to the tune of more than half a billion dollars in just the last two months. Each has entrusted LeapFrog to identify, invest in, mentor the management of and profitably exit insurance and financial service companies that place a premium on inclusion. (LeapFrog says it has successfully exited two of its investments).
I spoke with Andrew Kuper, the Sydney-based founder and CEO of LeapFrog, soon after OPIC announced a $200 million investment in LeapFrog's Emerging Consumer Fund III, which will make investments in financial services and health care companies operating in South Asia, Southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. We chatted back and forth over email about LeapFrog's trajectory, the shakiness of emerging markets, and the challenges of reaching consumers for whom insurance can provide both a safety net and an economic springboard.
Scott Anderson: With the OPIC deal, LeapFrog Investments has now raised over a billion dollars in investment capital. What will the OPIC investment mean in terms of how LeapFrog will grow, your future potential investments and the ultimate impact you to make?
Andrew Kuper: LeapFrog is the first equity impact investor to cross the $1 billion mark. So OPIC's approval on up to $200 million, which allowed us to cross this historic threshold, marks a transformative moment not just for the firm but for impact investing. The skeptics have been defeated, by emphatic demonstration of scale and commercial success.
The OPIC approval is also the largest single commitment in history to an impact fund manager. So it's also an important signal for other major financial investors, about the potential of companies in Africa and Asia to serve billions of rising consumers, achieving what we call Profit with Purpose.
While we should celebrate these breakthroughs, we should also realize and be humbled by how much remains to be done. We need to be ready to answer more specific critiques of impact strategies, with robust data and a host of examples.
LeapFrog will invest the capital in financial services and health care companies. We will maintain our focus on high-growth and purpose-led companies that offer emerging consumers the essential tools they need to improve their lives. We just announced, for example, an investment by which we acquired a majority of UT Life in Ghana, which uses a bank distribution model to reach a large number of customers who are otherwise hard to reach. We think the business is poised to grow massively.
Ultimately, alongside top-tier returns, we aim to achieve financial services and health care coverage for tens of millions of underserved individuals – helping end cycles of poverty.
SA: LeapFrog began by focusing on insurance for low-income people and then moved into a number of adjacent financial services such as pensions, savings, credit and payments. With this recent investment announcement, LeapFrog said it would be exploring health care in addition to financial services. Why is this the natural next step for you? What does that mean in terms of the types of companies you might seek out for investment?
AK: Insurance and financial services were a natural place to start, because so few emerging consumers (those earning between $1.25 and $10 per day) have access to the financial tools needed to improve their standard of living. Today, our companies serve 51.8 million people, of whom more than 36 million are emerging consumers.
As we worked with portfolio companies, we found that health events and ongoing illnesses were major causes of hardship and suffering. As we acquired leading health insurers in markets such as Kenya, Thailand and Indonesia, we also saw that many of these challenges are avoidable or effectively treatable.
The logic then unfolded quite naturally: Our companies expanded health insurance coverage to millions of people, profitably. Our team became ever more expert on understanding the provider part of the equation, such as clinics. We also accessed unique data sets around morbidity and mortality in various markets, and saw both patterns and opportunities.
So, as you can see, health care was a natural extension for us. It enables us to leverage our specialist knowledge of the emerging consumer and our exposure to health insurance.
Finally, a deep bench of talent is always essential before we expand. As it happens, our team had decades of experience delivering health care solutions and investments in emerging markets. LeapFrog partner Michael Fernandes, for example, led Khazanah Nasional Berhad's Health portfolio, which was rolled up into IHH Healthcare and an IPO executed for close on $7 billion.
From all this, you can tell that we will be seeking out opportunities where companies are serving many people, whether hospitals, pharmacy chains, medical equipment providers, or other essential goods and service providers. We will invest with particular enthusiasm where there is, or we can help create, a data or distribution edge.
SA: You and your colleagues at LeapFrog often refer to "emerging consumers" or those people generally making less than $10 a day, who are purchasing financial services from investee companies, often for the very first time. But 2015 was a very tough year for emerging economies, in terms of both equity markets and consumer spending, trends that affect those emerging consumers. How does LeapFrog evaluate companies in the midst of some fairly challenging macro-economic trends?
Andrew Kuper, CEO of LeapFrog Investments
AK: LeapFrog focuses on a market of some 2 billion people across Africa and Asia, who are chronically under-served. They are rising toward the middle class, but lack access to essential services to rapidly improve their lives. Market fluctuations may mildly slow down or speed up that long-term trend. But demography is destiny.
The facts remain: Emerging markets are growing far faster than developed markets, and will continue to do so. Hundreds of millions of hard-working and aspirational consumers and producers in the likes of Indonesia, India, Kenya and Nigeria are not going to vanish. They are shaping the future.
The companies we look for are those that are tapping this opportunity, at significant scale, or at least have the potential to do so rapidly. Take our current investee companies. Yes, they reach 51.8 million people. But equally strikingly, these companies are growing at a tremendous pace: on average, they bumped up their top-line by 60 percent in 2014 and 40 percent in 2013. These are rates that the vast majority of businesses in developed markets can only dream of.
Each of these companies is an innovator with core competitive advantages. It might be data analytics, mobile distribution, retail distribution partnerships, high-quality governance and management teams, or something else. Part of the skill is picking and partnering well with the right co-owners and managers.
We also find that purpose-led companies that operate ethically, have exceptional governance, and are focused on achieving both social and financial impact, are more resilient in the face of any macroeconomic headwinds. This is common sense, not grand theory: shareholders, staff, suppliers and customers are "stickier" when they believe in and trust the company.
In short, market fluctuations are realities to be confronted and managed; but their impacts are mitigated and overcome by strong partner selection, portfolio diversification (our investments currently operate across 21 markets), high growth rates and intrinsic resilience built on Profit with Purpose strategies.
SA: When LeapFrog first launched in 2008, the notion of designing products and services for the base of the pyramid was fairly novel. But now, especially with the proliferation of mobile technology, the marketplace is more competitive. How has that affected what you do? Can you provide a few regional examples perhaps?
AK: Scale matters so mobile technology matters – billions of people have joined the grid, as consumers and producers, who are seriously under-served, and mobile is the fastest way to reach them.
Our portfolio company BIMA, one of the world's leading mobile insurers, is a prime example of this. By working through low-cost mobile channels, BIMA offers insurance policies for as little as 24 cents per month. BIMA bridges the gap between insurers and mobile phone providers: It helps insurers gain access to low-cost and vast mobile distribution networks, and helps mobile phone companies increase customer loyalty through the addition of a value-added product that keeps customers coming back. In little over 5 years, BIMA has signed up some 20 million subscribers across 14 markets. It's also growing by some 500,000 subscribers per month. Almost 97 percent of BIMA's customer base is accessing insurance for the very first time.
This kind of business model is exciting both financially and socially. The scale and gravity of the problem can now be matched by the scale and speed of the solution.
We need many such businesses, and many investors, working in the space, and that's something we've encouraged from day one. When we launched LeapFrog with President Clinton in 2008, we called for the emergence of "a hundred LeapFrogs" and "a hundred partnerships with LeapFrog." The more activity there is in the market, the better for all participants, especially the leaders and market-builders.
SA: LeapFrog uses its own, proprietary impact metrics toolset: FIIRM (Financial, Impact, Innovation and Risk Management). How does FIIRM differ from some of the other impact metrics tools out there?
AK: LeapFrog sees measurement as a critical enabler to achieving top-tier financial and social returns. So, early on, we developed FIIRM, the leading Profit with Purpose measurement framework for insurance and related financial services. The framework uniquely combines social, financial, innovation and governance KPIs (key performance indicators) to measure and drive company performance.
Driving performance, not only measuring it, is the critical point here. We don't believe in social, innovation and governance factors being tick-box matters for after-the-fact reporting. We believe they can empower management, as part of a dashboard for understanding the key drivers of enterprise success.
We believe this is so fundamental that we use the FIIRM framework across the entire investment lifecycle – for due diligence when assessing a potential investment, to drive value during the life of that investment, and to ensure a responsible exit when the company graduates on to its next owners.
FIIRM has certainly informed broader industry developments: Its KPIs were used as a foundational frame of reference for the Impact Reporting and Investment Standards (IRIS) for insurance. And the focus on driving-beyond-reporting has become a mainstay of the industry.
All that said, we would never claim a monopoly on metrics that matter. We are eager to learn from others and share our thinking. Our Head of Impact, Sam Duncan, collaborates extensively with top impact investors, IRIS, the UN PRI and others. We want, in many ways and with many partners, to build the field on which we all leap.
Scott Anderson is the managing editor of NextBillion.
Top image: A BIMA customer in Ghana. Images courtesy of LeapFrog Investments.
Health Care, Impact Assessment, Investing, NextBillion Originals
financial inclusion, financial products, financial services, health insurance, healthcare, impact investing, insurance, social capital, social impact
Friday January 17, 20202020 Will See Mass Market Adoption of Financial Inclusion. Here's Why.
Thursday January 16, 2020Filling the Funding Gap: Two Innovative Ways to Improve Financing Opportunities for Social Impact Entrepreneurs
Wednesday January 15, 2020Lighting the Way: How the PAYGo Solar Industry is Expanding to Other Life-Changing Products
News View More news
Friday January 17, 2020Press Release: Citi Launches $150 Million Impact Investing Fund
Friday January 17, 2020Tiedemann Advisors to Offer an Impact-Investing Cash Solution
Friday January 17, 2020Brazil's Unicorn FinTech EBANX Pilots Digital Wallet
Thursday January 16, 2020Cash Is Dying, and the Unbanked Are Being Left Behind
Calendar View More calendar
Friday January 24, 2020Webinar: A Virtual Conversation on Decolonizing International Development Aid
Sunday January 26, 2020Deadline: Call for Proposals – Pears Program-IsraAID Pilot Fund
Select Year 2020 (10) 2019 (237) 2018 (253) 2017 (298) 2016 (302) 2015 (415) 2014 (546) 2013 (557) 2012 (418) 2011 (512) 2010 (402) 2009 (305) 2008 (401) 2007 (363) 2006 (355) 2005 (163)


text:
title: Installer::checkInstanceName — Autoconfiguration/Installation Support
package: install
packageTitle: Autoconfiguration/Installation Support
layout: default
className: Installer
type: method
---

# Installer::checkInstanceName

## Synopsis

public function Installer::checkInstanceName()