This is an unusual week for this column. While I would like to respond to both of the letters I received (Mary Scoles' "Second Opinion", and Scott Duckett's) it's late (11:00p.m.) and I also have to defend Annette Sula's letter from last week. Starting my column late has become a bad habit which I will try to correct.

If I stay strictly to the core of these three opinions the conclusion will be shorter. The issue (as I see it) is: Should special public recognition be given to promote LGBT philosophy, using public property, facilities, and funding, be recognized as lawful? The question is both Constitutional and religious. This is an urgent national issue.

I've already stated, I agree with Annette Sula's opposition to public expressions of "LGBTQAI+ at taxpayer's expense, and the exposure of this quasi-religion to schoolchildren. LGBT is a highly emotional fraudulent contention. Sula claims that the City Council's official proclamation of Pride Month, in connection with the "LGBTQAI+ Pride Resource Fair", was wrong and possibly unconstitutional as (my words) an establishment of religion. I'm not a lawyer, just wondering if the same treatment would be given to L. Ron. Hubbard's Scientology? To most Christians, these mutually bizarre teachings smack of religion (Hubbard's recognized, federally) - which cannot be "established" with government money.

This new "theology" of the body (transgendering) is contrary to all known legitimate science, and irreconcilable to most Christian and non-Christian religious systems. Even if constitutional in itself, it's repugnant to Christian citizens attempting to educate their children in public schools. To include this belief system in our public school curriculum is far beyond the scope of academic authority. As I suggested, why not do the same for Scientology? Both are backed by billions of corporate dollars. Make no mistake, LGBT is BIG business.

This belief in so-called trans-gendering is anathema to more than 4,000-years of Judeo-Christian tradition, and an embarrassment on steroids to real science. I'm sorry if this revelation hurts the feelings of hopeful believers, but most educated Christian observers understand this same sex phenomenon to be an opportunity, and excuse, for condemned, unnatural cultic sexual practices. Not my opinion only; let's look at the Book:

"The Bible defines marriage in Genesis 2:24 as a union between one man and one woman. Jesus Christ upholds this definition of marriage in Matthew 19:5, as does the Apostle Paul in Ephesians 5:31. Any and all sexual activity which takes place outside of this context is treated as sinful, what Jesus calls ‘sexual immorality’ in Mark 7:21." See also: Romans 1:24–32.

So, objections to celebrating "LGBTQAI+" at any level, are based upon Constitutional grounds (leave it to the lawyers) but primarily as threats to the religious education of our children. The purpose and practices of this group are diametrically opposed to traditional Christian beliefs. Christian parents believe that their children, influenced to became sympathetic to this movement, would be threatened with eternal condemnation. "LGBTQAI+" is fundamentally opposed to the teachings of eternal salvation, and Christian parents insist otherwise. Parents have the God-given right (and duty) to be the primary teachers of their children.

I understand Christian beliefs are not fashionable today because so many no longer believe in God. But most Americans do believe in God. They point-out (for example) Psalm 14:1 NKJV- "The fool Says, There is No God." And, I don't know any 125-year-old living person - we must all die. Worldly atheism in the face of eternity is just pitiful. Catholics (among others) believe in the last 4 things: death, judgment, Heaven and Hell. To chose atheism over Christianity is a fearfully serious decision. I plead again that I'm not a preacher, but the subject of religion here is unavoidable. LGBTQAI+ influence cannot escape religion as part of the argument, and hundreds of millions of Christian believers will fight against this fanciful, pseudo religious nonsense. Preachers of the transgender faith should be what they want to be on their own time and on their own dime - but leave my children alone! It's your precious First Amendment Right to preach. But I will not pay for your message, nor expose my children to it, for the same reason I will not become a Scientologist. This religious intrusion into our schools amounts to psychological child endangerment.

Pro- LGBTQAI+ members will quickly protest "We don't believe in your God, or His commandments." The fact remains this whole group amounts to less than 2-percent of the American population, which is mostly Christian. When a sexual-social organization seeks to "Honor" itself with an especially designated month, it has a duty to explain, in detail, what it is about, not just refer the public to some website. The "Fillmore annual Christmas parade" has nothing to do with sodomy, contrary to the same-sex group you applaud. Would our City Council also approve a special day honoring the infamous NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association? Apparently, few organizations have escaped the stain of sodomy and pedophilia: Pope Alexander VI (Papacy began: 11 August 1492 - the worst). Today: "Homosexualist Jesuit Fr. James Martin is the public face of sodomy acceptance and promotion in the United States. The word "sodomy" is carefully chosen and accurate. While Martin and his ilk use the nebulous and always-changing term LGBT, the sin of sodomy is truly what he's seeking to normalize." The fight goes on.

About that "G" rating: In the words of the Motion Picture Association, G is for General Audiences — all ages admitted, meaning there is nothing in theme, language, nudity, sex, violence or other matters that the ratings board thinks would offend parents whose younger children view the picture."

The great difference here is the fact that while the children cannot participate in the LGBT lifestyle on screen, the Fair, etc., seeks to entice them to believe abnormal lifestyles are normal, which is wholly deceptive. Would the LGBT community reduce "bullying" if they avoided flaunting their often bizarre appearance? Why not simply punish the bullies? If "transgendering" is a private matter, why seek to publicize? This is truly social engineering at the most sinister level of pseudo science.

There may be "many different gender identities" according to LGBT group think - but not according to real science. Being left-handed is a quaint metaphor here, especially since many famous men were so inflicted - like President Obama. Hardly a handicap. I don't recall any incident disrespecting lefties. Aristotle, Napoleon and baseball legend Babe Ruth were all lefties. Cheer-up. Things have improved - except for threats to the spiritual-sexual welfare of children, due to LGBT exposure. Should the normal 98-percent suffer for the less than 2-percent "intrinsically disordered?"

For anti-LGBT parents, this is a spiritual fight, and a thing worth dying for.