Folks, below my friend Laurie Higgins ably rebuts the spurious, ongoing “gay” activist attempt to blame Christians and religious people for tragic, violent attacks on homosexuals, like the August 1 slaughter at a “gay youth” center in Tel Aviv. Many homosexual activists apparently are compelled by their rejection of Biblical morality to lie in such a way about Christians. (At the same time, they malign us for highlighting gay-on-gay violence and for pointing out the obvious: that homosexual practice threatens longevity.)  The claim that Christian, conservative and religious speech causes “anti-gay violence” will continue to be used to advance a totalitarian homosexualist agenda, here and abroad. All lovers of freedom must fight this Orwellian agenda that has as its end game the very destruction of liberty as we know it — all in the name of “civil rights.” Please send this article to your friends. — Peter LaBarbera, www.americansfortruth.com

P.S. Unlike the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, I would support the death penalty for the Tel Aviv murderer (though Israel abolished the death penalty for such crimes). That would be far more effective than “hate crimes” laws in deterring such attacks in the future.

_________________________________

Higgins writes:

Are Christians Responsible for Anti-Homosexual Bloodbath in Tel Aviv?

By Laurie Higgins, reprinted from Illinois Family Institute, 8/3/09

Yet another tragic, horrific, and utterly unjustifiable murder of homosexuals has taken place, this time in Tel Aviv, Israel at a youth center for homosexual teens. Saturday night [August 1], two were killed and thirteen wounded when a gunman opened fire in a club where homosexual teens meet. The unspeakable carnage exposes how very dark the mind of fallen humans can become.

And this recent mind-numbing crime provides yet another occasion for homosexual activists and those who support their social and political goals to lay an unbiblical, unchristian, indefensible crime at the feet of all Christians who hold biblical views on the nature and morality of homosexuality and who deplore murder.

Mourning for those young people whose lives were violently taken had not even begun before attacks on Christians could be found in the comments section of homosexual blogs. For example, last night one blog comment read, “The extremist religious people in our society, especially those like [National Organization for Marriage] and other anti-gay religious organizations (Pat Robertson, et al) are the cause of this kind of violence against the GLBT community. Members of these organizations spew their hatred on television and in their churches, and the weak-minded grab hold of their hateful words and act on them.”

Another read, “Last night I was at evening Mass in my home town. The priest began his sermon by talking about the ‘culture of death’ and his disapproval of euthanasia. How did he get from that to an attack on gays and lesbians? I don’t know, but somehow he did. He ranted about the introduction of civil partnerships for gays and lesbians in the UK and the adoption of children by gays and lesbians, and said that God had shown his attitude to ‘active homosexuality’ once and for all by his destruction of those ‘wicked people’ of Sodom and Gomorrah. We see from the events in Tel Aviv exactly where that kind of thinking leads.”

In an exploitative effort to silence Christians, homosexual activists rush in to impute culpability directly and speciously to orthodox Christian teaching on the morality of homosexual acts.

Can any homosexual activist provide evidence that those who are responsible for crimes associated with hatred of homosexuals are or were serious, committed followers of Christ who loved the Lord and His Word, knew Christian doctrine, and sought to live a life that would bring glory to God?

How specious to claim that the deaths of Nir Katz and Liz Trubeshi in Tel Aviv, Sakia Gunn, Sean Kennedy, Lawrence King, Jose Sucuzhanay (who was presumed to be but was not homosexual), Scotty Joe Weaver, or Carl Walker-Hoover and Jaheem Herrera (who were not homosexual but called anti-homosexual epithets) were caused by the orthodox beliefs of those who desire nothing more than that all should come to Christ so that they can know “the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding” and the “fullness of joy.”

How specious to claim even implicitly that the convicted offenders Richard McCullough, Stephen Andrew Moller, Brandon McInerney, Hakim Scott, Christopher Gaines, Nichole Kelsay, Keith Phoenix, and the schoolyard bullies who harassed children were true followers of Christ who believed that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves.

One of the problems with the line of reasoning manipulated by homosexual activists is that they make the error of claiming that because two disparate groups of people share one idea in common, they must share all ideas in common. In other words, homosexual activists falsely claim that because orthodox Christians believe homosexual acts are wrong and anti-homosexual haters believe homosexual acts are wrong, both groups share all ideas in common and are equally culpable for the acts of violence that only one group endorses and in which only one group engages.

That would be like saying that Quakers who opposed the war in Viet Nam but rejected violence and the Weather Underground that opposed the war and endorsed the use of violence were equally culpable for the violence committed only by the Weather Underground.

Or it would be like saying that all people who oppose the exploitation of the environment are culpable for the acts of ecoterrorism engaged in by the Earth Liberation Front.

It’s exactly the same kind of charge that pro-abortionists level at all pro-lifers. Pro-abortionists offensively claim that those who oppose the killing of the unborn and reject murderous vigilantism are responsible for the murderous acts of vigilantes.

Are homosexuals who believe that polyamory, or “swinging,” or adult consensual incest is immoral guilty of creating a climate of hatred and danger to those who are in plural relationships, open relationships, or incestuous relationships? Do all moral claims about behavior constitute hatred toward people and contribute to climates of danger and fear, or is it just the moral claims with which homosexuals disagree that create climates of hatred, danger, and fear?

The kind of reasoning employed by homosexual activists is akin to the logical fallacy of “guilt by association.” Homosexual activists are attempting to coerce orthodox Christians into either self-censorship or outright rejection of the belief that homosexuality is immoral by associating it with a group with whom no one, including orthodox Christians, would want to be associated. But as one writer explains, “the fact that someone does not want to be associated with people she dislikes does not justify the rejection of any claim. For example, most wicked and terrible people accept that the earth revolves around the sun and that lead is heavier than helium. No sane person would reject these claims simply because this would put them in the company of people they dislike (or even hate).”

This line of reasoning also employs the logical fallacy of “hasty generalization” in which all members of a group are assumed to have all the characteristics of one or a few of its members.

In the book After the Ball [see MassResistance analysis HERE], homosexual tacticians Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, architects of what is referred to in the book’s acknowledgments as a “gay manifesto,” urge homosexual activists to “learn from Madison Avenue, to roll out the big guns. Gays must launch a large-scale campaign. . . .We’re talking about propaganda” which “relies more upon emotional manipulation than upon logic, since its goal is, in fact, to bring about a change in the public’s feelings.”

Kirk and Madsen’s goal is to “make homohating beliefs and actions look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from them.” What must be made clear is that what Kirk and Madsen mean by “homohating beliefs” are any negative views of homosexual acts, including even those that involve no hatred whatsoever. They go on to say that they “intend, by this tactic, to make the very expression of homohatred so discreditable that even Intransigents will eventually be silenced in public.”

Then they offer their truly pernicious tactic:

“The public should be shown images of ranting homohaters whose associated traits and attitudes appall and anger Middle America. These images might include:

• Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered or castrated;
• Hysterical backwoods preachers, drooling with hate to a degree that looks both comical and deranged;
• Menacing punks, thugs, and convicts who speak coolly about the ‘fags’ they have based or would like to bash;
• A tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.”

I’m sure Kirk and Madsen would have liked nothing more than to be able to associate the Tel Aviv masked gunman’s bloodbath with orthodox Christianity.

Christians ought not to fall victim to this tactic. Christianity teaches not only that homosexual acts are sinful but also that no person shall commit murder; that hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all offenses; that we are to love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God; that anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love; that we are to do good to those who hate us and bless those who curse us and pray for those who mistreat us; and that all are created in the image and likeness of God.

Orthodox Christians who are living out the entirety of Scripture do not hate, commit acts of murder, or endorse acts of murder.

Now is the time to pray for those who were injured and for the loved ones of those lost in Saturday’s carnage and to administer the full weight of civil justice to the guilty party: the man with the seared conscience who opened fire on a group of teens.

We presume based on the Times‘ summary that the Lancet article is rife with pro-homosexual political correctness, as Western elites generally yearn to bring their decadent “First World” attitudes to economically underdeveloped countries that still regard homosexuality as deviant. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com

_____________________________

The New York Times reports (emphasis added):

Aids: Role of Gay Men in Spreading Virus Is Ignored in Africa, Study Finds

By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.
New York Times, July 20, 2009

The role of gay sex in the transmission of the virus that causes AIDS in Africa has been long ignored, say the authors of a new study in the medical journal Lancet.

While most transmission of the virus in Africa is heterosexual, 19 recent studies of African men who have sex with men show that they have “considerably higher” infection rates than other adult men in their respective countries, said the authors, who were from Oxford University and research institutions in Ghana and Kenya.

These men also have less access to prevention and care; most African countries have allocated no money to gay men, and homosexual sex is illegal in 31 African countries, in four of which men risk the death penalty.

African male sexual networks overlap with male-female ones, the authors found, since many of the men also report recent sex with women or are married. In three genetic studies the authors compared, gay white men in South Africa had a virus from a type common among gay European and American men, while gay black men in Kenya and Senegal had the type circulating in their country’s black populations.

Gay men face ridicule from their families and health care workers and harassment by the police, the study reported. And because African governments and media aimed very little safe-sex information at gay men, false rumors were common — including rumors that gay sex or anal sex were safer than heterosexual sex.

The Ugandans are a thousand times better off inviting Scott Lively (left) to their country than pro-homosexuality, Christian-hating activists like Wayne (”Anything but Straight”) Besen.

DefendTheFamily.com Alert

The following was sent out March 10 by Scott Lively, founder of Abiding Truth Ministries and its affiliated website, www.defendthefamily.com. It has been fascinating to watch the homosexual activists — and their new, unexpected ally, Warren Throckmorton of Grove City College — seek to make a huge controversy over the illegality of homosexual acts in Uganda and the call at this conference to substitute reparative (ex-”gay”) therapy for incarceration. (Note in bold below how Lively says they distorted his advice to the Ugandans.) Perhaps the “queer” ideologues and their misguided fellow travelers ought to reflect on the massive crisis that legal and celebrated homosexuality has caused here in the United States of America — including hundreds of thousands of premature deaths linked to deviant sexual behavior — before lecturing the poor Ugandans, who are attempting to maintain a pro-Christian-morality public policy (what a concept).

At AFTAH, we preach Christian mercy and have denounced Talibanesque capital punishment for homosexuals in countries like Iran. But we also believe that if states and localities here in America (and governments abroad) wish to ban sodomy, they have every right to do so — notwithstanding polemical U.S. Supreme Court decisions inventing newfangled “constitutional rights” and influenced by inaccurate homosexual activist amicus briefs. We’ll have more on the Throckmorton controversy (see his Christianity-defying, pro-homosexuality 2007 interview quotes HERE) in the coming days, including Lively’s public call on Throckmorton to repent. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com

P.S. I wish Warren would cease his gossipy, online correspondence with activists committed to aberrant, ungodly sexuality and think about the answer to this: How many American men would still be alive today had they never practiced the sin of sodomy?
_________________________________________

Defendthefamily.com Report from Kampala

By Scott Lively

I’m writing from Kampala, Uganda where I am teaching about the “gay” agenda in churches, schools colleges, community groups and in Parliament. My visit here is being treated as an international crisis by the “gay” activists and their media toadies, who are spinning lies in their usual manner, but the Ugandan response has been resoundingly positive.

My week began with a meeting with about fifty members of the Ugandan Christian Lawyers Association on the evening of my arrival, then an address to members of the Parliament on the following morning. There were from fifty to one hundred persons in attendance, including numerous legislators and the Minister of Ethics and Integrity, with whom I enjoyed a personal chat for more than half and hour leading to the event. The centerpiece event was a three-day conference featuring myself, Don Schmierer, author of An Ounce of Prevention and several other books designed to help the families of homosexuals, and Caleb Lee Brundidge of International Healing Foundation, a formerly “gay” African-American man who now leads recovery workshops. It was a paid event, very well attended, mostly by professionals in various fields including education, counseling, government and medicine. Their feedback was extremely favorable.

My part of the conference was a series of three lectures on the final day, lasting most of the day. We gave two seminars at Kampala Pentecostal Church, to a combined total of about 2,000. I shared the platform with the other men the first night, then gave what I think was one of my best motivational sermons ever as the main presenter on the following night. Caleb and I were joint presenters at one of the biggest universities in the city to a crowd of up to 5,000 college students (which began by learning some traditional Ugandan dance moves on stage — to some uproarious laughter from the youths). We spoke to three large groups of secondary school students, a total of maybe 4,000, and did two radio shows, one Christian, one secular, and a one-hour television program on live national television. I did interviews with several newspapers during the week, and had private conversations with several influential leaders. I ended the week with a strategy and brainstorming session with a small group of key Christian activist leaders. All in all it was a highly successful and satisfying campaign.

The Ugandan people are strongly pro-family, and there is a large Christian population which is much more activist minded than that of most western countries. However, the international “gay” movement has devoted a lot of resources to transforming the moral culture from a marriage-based one to one that embraces sexual anarchy. Just as in the U.S. many years ago they are leading with pornography to weaken the moral fiber of the people, and propagandizing the children behind the parents’ backs. On the TV show we exposed a book distributed to schools by UNICEF that normalizes homosexuality to teenagers. (We expect a massive protest by parents, who are mostly not aware that such materials even exist in their country, let alone in their childrens’ classrooms.)

And remember that homosexuality is literally illegal in this country. Imagine how bad things would be if the criminal law were abandoned. By the way, the false accusation against me, now circulating in the US, is that I called on the Ugandan government to force homosexuals into therapy. What I actually said is that the law against homosexuality should be liberalized to give arrestees the choice of therapy instead of imprisonment, similar to the therapy option I chose after being arrested for drunk driving in 1985 (during which time I accepted the Lord and was healed and transformed into a Christian activist).

Uganda is an important target for the “gays” because of it’s internationally-renowned victory over AIDS through abstinence campaigns. It went from having the highest to the lowest disease rates in Africa.

Sadly. there are numerous indications that the “gay” efforts are working. We heard testimonies in our meetings from teachers, pastors and counselors that incidents of homosexuality are on the raise among the youth, including male-on-male rapes in boys boarding schools, and increasing lesbianism in several public schools. It was reported that in at least one of the schools two girls had actually been hired by the underground “gay” movement to recruit other girls at school, resulting in a total of thirteen girls self-identifying as lesbians by the end of the year. There is also a very high incidence of “cross-generational relationships” (i.e. pederasty), so much so that during my stay there was a public-service radio campaign urging young people not to give in to “sugar-daddies.” What happens, according to reports from the youths, is that wealthy white “gays” are coming to Uganda from Europe and America using cash and gifts to lure teenage boys into homosexual relationshi! ps. These “rent boys” then brag to their friends that they too can have money and material things if they offer the same services. Unfortunately, in a poor country like Uganda where many people live on less than $5 per day, it isn’t very expensive to corrupt the young.

On the positive side, my host and ministry partner in Kampala, Stephen Langa, was overjoyed with the results of our efforts and predicted confidently that the coming weeks would see significant improvement in the moral climate of the nation, and a massive increase in pro-family activism in every social sphere. He said that a respected observer of society in Kampala had told him that our campaign was like a nuclear bomb against the “gay” agenda in Uganda. I pray that this, and the predictions, are true.

Now my attention is turned to equipping the activists in Uganda with helpful materials. I have given them permission to make unlimited use of Defeating “Gay” Arguments With Simple Logic, and Seven Steps to Recruit-Proof Your Child (a much-esteemed book among the Africans). I still want to send them my remaining stock of about 100 or so copies of Seven Steps, but I didn’t raise any money toward this in my last appeal. If you would like to help, please make a donation at www.defendthefamily.com/help/donate.php.

Please also pray for my ministry (which has come under withering attack in recent weeks) and the Ugandan people.

Your Fellow Servant,

Dr. Scott Lively

_____________________________________

Parents for Democracy in Education Society

Len Remple, President; Marc Gravelle, Vice President

PARENT, WOULD IT ALARM YOU IF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION WAS TRUE?

Well, it is true and it is alarming.

The British Columbia school curriculum from K to 12 has been revised to present a favourable portrayal of homosexuality and the homosexual life style.

First they wanted “tolerance”, then they wanted “acceptance”, now they want to teach “celebration” of that lifestyle.

This was the result of the B.C. government giving two homosexual activists a legal, binding agreement to oversee and critique the revision of the school curriculum. Can you imagine only two persons receiving such an agreement?  And it was all done in secret. No parents group or other organization was allowed to participate.  Efforts to include parents in the revision have been refused by the Liberal B.C. government.

Is this the “new democratic way” of governing?

Our organization is formed to oppose and resist this revision of the school curriculum.

Look us up on www.parents4democracyineducation.org. There is additional information at www.takebackourschools.org

Questions and requests for information are welcomed through either website, or e-mail: parents4democracyineducation@gmail.com.

There is no precedent in history for such myth-driven “democratization” of a disease, nor for the abominable unfairness in allocating funds away from so many curable illnesses. — Michael Fumento

The full New York Post column by Michael Fumento appears HERE. Emphasis added below:

A Myth that Kills

By Michael Fumento

New York Post, July 3, 2008 –THE Senate is near to passing a massive $50 billion Emergency Plan for HIV/ AIDS Relief — a bill whose priorities are based on myth, just like virtually all anti-AIDS efforts worldwide.

The world’s top AIDS bureaucrat recently admitted the truth: “It is very unlikely that there will be a heterosexual epidemic” outside Africa, Kevin de Cock, director of the World Health Organization, told London’s Independent newspaper. His bosses at the United Nations issued an official denial — but couldn’t truly challenge his science.

The effort to “democratize” AIDS dates back to the mid-1980s, when the media and health officials began a desperate and concerted effort to divert attention and make it seem everyone was at risk. The 1985 Life magazine cover, blaring “NOW NO ONE IS SAFE FROM AIDS” in huge red letters, represents this effort. Surgeon General Everett Koop coined the term “heterosexual AIDS explosion” in 1987, while in 1993 HHS Secretary Donna Shalala told Congress that AIDS may leave “nobody left.”

Even today, the Centers for Disease Control’s HIV/AIDS Web site refuses to acknowledge any difference in the risks of AIDS between anal, vaginal or oral sex.

Peter Piot, now executive director of UNAIDS, warned as late as 1997 that “HIV will cut through Asian populations like a hot knife through cold butter.” UNAIDS’s 2001 estimate had 30 million infected adults in sub-Saharan Africa.

Last year, the UN had to cut that Africa figure by almost half — and drop its Asia number by 38 percent from just the year before. Dr. James Chin, a former top AIDS epidemiologist at the World Health Organization, has long declared the UN figures to be to too high and insists they still are.

In fact, there was never any indication AIDS had or would “break out” from the well-defined risk-behavior groups, as I was writing as far back as 1987 and in my 1990 book “The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS.”

I’m no Nostradamus. I merely analyzed public data and studies showing how terribly difficult the disease is to transmit vaginally or orally. But the myths are still the basis for AIDS policy.

The group Fair Allocations in Research compiles statistics on federal spending to fight various diseases, compared to how many Americans each disease kills. Measured that way, we spend 21 times as much on AIDS as cancer — and 78 times what we spend on coronary artery disease, 97 times anti-stroke spending.

Plus, the Ryan White Act mandates taxpayer handouts to HIV/AIDS victims of about $1.2 billion a year. We have no remotely similar program for victims of any other disease.

The same official grotesque distortion holds internationally. Chin charges that the United Nations puts HIV/AIDS victims on a pedestal while other disease victims stay submerged in deadly muck.

Robert England (who heads the charity Health Systems Workshop) recently made the same point in the British Medical Journal: “Although HIV causes 3.7 percent of [worldwide] mortality, it receives 25 percent of international health-care aid.” …

Consider: A 2008 WHO/UNAIDS/UNICEF report demands AIDS drugs for every victim worldwide, requiring spending hikes from $8.1 billion now to $35 billion by 2010. Yet AIDS remains incurable. Conversely, an African with non-resistant tuberculosis is curable with merely $25 of drugs.

“Easily preventable diseases are still killing millions of children each year, while billions of dollars are being squandered annually by AIDS programs . . . who are not at risk,” says Chin. (Yes, the Senate bill funds anti-TB and -malaria programs – but not anything like its anti-AIDS spending.)….

There is no precedent in history for such myth-driven “democratization” of a disease, nor for the abominable unfairness in allocating funds away from so many curable illnesses. Says England: “We have created a monster with too many vested interests and reputations at stake.”

CLICK HERE to read Fumento’s entire New York Post column.

Michael Fumento is director of Education and Research for the American Security Council Foundation in Washington, DC.

The following is Laurie Higgins’ response to British pro-homosexual activist Peter Bradley’s e-mail to AFTAH stating, “You are very lucky that you live in the United States as we have laws in the United Kingdom about inciting hatred based on sexual orientation… here you would be imprisoned; and justly so.” Other responses to Bradley’s letter are HERE by Ron Loree and HERE by fellow Brit David Burdett.

__________________________

By Laurie Higgins

After reading Mr. Bradley’s troubling email to AFTAH, I am even more deeply thankful for our proper understanding here in the United States that liberty depends on the freedom to speak and practice one’s religion. If, as Mr. Bradley claims, I would be imprisoned in the United Kingdom for what I’m about to say, I’m sure glad I live here.

I must respectfully disagree with an implied contention in Mr. Bradley’s polemic: making claims about the immorality of certain kinds of conduct does not constitute incitement to hatred. If it did then Mr. Bradley’s implicit claims that Mr. LaBarbera’s actions are immoral would constitute inciting hatred toward people of faith who hold that homosexual conduct is wrong.

Do public statements about the immorality of promiscuity, adult consensual incest, bestiality, polyamory, selfishness, gambling, smoking, or aggression constitute incitement of hatred toward those who are promiscuous, incestuous, polyamorous, selfish, gamblers, smokers, or aggressive? If Mr. Bradley deems these kinds of moral claims as somehow constituting jail-worthy offenses, his utopia will be a place of moral anarchy in which no public moral statements can be uttered, including his statements about Mr. LaBarbera. Or would some elite group decide which moral propositions can be made in public and which send people to jail?

Many here in America view the right to speak freely as fundamental to human liberty. We value the marketplace of ideas in which bad ideas are challenged by better ideas.

Apparently, the “diversity” Mr. Bradley exalts does not include the faith communities that throughout their long histories have held that homosexual conduct is profoundly displeasing to a just and holy God and if unrepentantly engaged in will result in eternal separation from Him. Mr. Bradley’s diversity is narrowly circumscribed in such a way that it excludes philosophical diversity on what precisely homosexuality is and whether homosexual conduct is moral or not.

Mr. Bradley libelously claims that AFTAH is guilty of “inciting hatred based on sexual orientation.” Once again social radicals redefine terms, trusting that few will notice their willful disregard for accuracy in meaning. Believing that homosexual conduct is immoral no more constitutes hatred for homosexuals, than believing that selfish conduct is immoral constitutes hatred for selfish people. The specious claim that people who believe that homosexual conduct is wrong hate homosexuals remains a pernicious, malignant lie no matter how many times homosexualists spew it out.

Mr. Bradley calls the articles on AFTAH “prejudiced rubbish” evidently ignorant of the meaning of prejudice.“Prejudice” refers to “an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.” As such, opinions formed, even negative opinions, after careful consideration do not represent prejudice.

Mr. Bradley expresses astonishment that Mr.LaBarbera’s “life’s work is dedicated (every day) to furthering your cause of hatred.” To reiterate, believing conduct is wrong, even hating conduct, does not constitute hatred of persons. Perhaps Mr. Bradley hates those whose beliefs and behaviors he believes are wrong, but he ought not to project his feelings and attitudes on to others.

Homosexualists seek to persuade the American public that the following utterly fallacious and destructive propositions are true: that homosexuality is equivalent to race; that homosexuality is biologically determined; that the possible presence of some biological factor in shaping same-sex attraction renders same-sex conduct automatically moral; that homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexual conduct; that gender is socially constructed; that gender identity disorder (aka “transgenderism) is not a disorder; and that same-sex marriage will not affect the traditional, natural family. The problem is that widespread societal acceptance of these fallacious propositions will wreak havoc on American society in countless ways.

We can glimpse the contours of the future through the seething hate-filled rhetoric of Mr. Bradley: homosexualists seek to silence absolutely, using the repressive powers of the state, all expressions of opposition to the arguable claims of homosexualists about the nature and morality of homosexuality. They find no compunction about abrogating fundamental speech and religious rights if doing so serves their unrighteous goal of normalizing homosexuality and gender identity disorder.

I’m sure Mr. LaBarbera has many more things he would like to be doing. If only more people of faith—Jews, Muslims, Catholics, and Protestants, and especially their religious leaders—would acknowledge and address unequivocally, unapologetically, and directly the nature and morality of homosexuality and the threat posed to speech and religious rights, parental rights, and truth, then maybe Mr. LaBarbera could do some of those other more enjoyable things. If homosexualists would stop trying to impose their unproven philosophical presuppositions regarding the nature and morality of homosexuality onto the rest of society through rhetorical manipulation, demagoguery, the usurpation of public education, and the usurpation of the judicial system, then perhaps Mr. LaBarbera would be freed from this onerous, oppressive, thankless but yet absolutely essential work.

The problem is not that Mr. LaBarbera dedicates too much time to this serious threat to family, faith, and freedom, but that too many dedicate so little.

Mr. Bradley wonders what God must think about Mr. LaBarbera “making decisions for [God].” Although it’s unclear precisely what decision Mr. Bradley thinks Mr. LaBarbera has made for God, it’s quite clear what God thinks of homosexual conduct. What we know comes not from our own selfish, protean imaginations, but from His Holy and inspired Word, which tells us in no uncertain terms what God thinks about the nature and morality of homosexuality. And the traditional understanding that Scripture teaches that homosexual conduct is an abomination to God is not some wild exegetical interpretation. Most of the greatest theologians, both Jewish and Christian, throughout history and still today acknowledge that God abhors homosexual conduct.

My guess would be that one day God will say to Mr. LaBarbera “Well done my good and faithful servant.”

Unlike Mr. Bradley, whom I presume has never even met Mr. LaBarbera, I know him well. I have never read one word written by him or heard one word spoken privately by him that even suggests that he hates those who self-identify as homosexual.

I too believe that homosexual conduct is immoral, and yet I have never felt even mild dislike of someone because they are homosexual. My beliefs do not diminish my recognition that everyone is created in the image and likeness of God and, therefore, by virtue of their humanness are worthy of respect. That respect is accorded to all despite our universal engagement in acts that diminish our dignity. My beliefs about homosexuality do not affect my appreciation for the admirable traits of those who self-identify as homosexual, or the pleasure I take in their company, or the love I feel for them. Everyone I know who shares my beliefs on the morality of homosexuality, shares these experiences of admiration, appreciation, and love—including Mr. LaBarbera.

Laurie Higgins is a freelance writer based in Deerfield, Illinois. She can be reached through AFTAH by writing americansfortruth@comcast.net.

“In fact, the most hate-filled people we have ever met are the homosexual activists who are forcing their world view on others.”–David Burdett, UK

Dear AFTAH supporters,

David Burdett’s excellent letter responding to a fellow Brit, Peter Bradley, who says Americans For Truth would be “imprisoned” in the UK, reminds us that the battle for Truth on this issue is worldwide in its scope. We who reject the immoral, anti-Christian homosexualist agenda and the homo-fascism that it naturally spawns must work together to preserve freedom and the time-tested Judeo-Christian sexual ethic. — Peter LaBarbera

Read Bradley’s censorious message HERE, and write us with your response defending American freedom and Judeo-Christian norms at americansfortruth@comcast.net. Mr. Burdett writes June 25 through AFTAH’s website:

Dear Mr. Bradley,

My wife and I are Christians and from England, we believe that the homosexual lifestyle in sinful and we have should have the right to be able to express our religious beliefs without fear of being branded as hate-inciting criminals. In fact, the most hate-filled people we have ever met are the homosexual activists who are forcing their worldview on others. We all have free will to live as we choose and I accept that. However, we object in the strongest possible terms to the ‘gay’ agenda being forced onto us via the schools (teaching four-year-olds about same sex relationships); via the TV (the Heinz advert [in the UK showing a homosexual male couple kissing; Heinz pulled the ad after British protests]; two priests getting “married” in a church last week; and the pro-gay government and their biased laws.

You seem to think the UK is some kind of great place to live. I guess you haven’t seen the statistics about England’s huge drug problem amongst the young, the rise in teenage pregnancy and spread of sexually transmitted diseases. All of this is due to being a Godless society — thank God we have people like Peter LaBarbera who are not afraid to speak the truth!

Thanks,

David Burdett
London, England

Heinz Unit in the UK Withdraws TV Commercial for Deli Mayonnaise

LONDON, England–June 23–BUSINESS WIRE–Heinz UK today confirmed that it withdrew a UK TV commercial for Deli Mayo last week following consumer feedback. The advertisement was no longer on air in the UK as of Friday, June 20.

“It is our policy to listen to consumers. We recognize that some consumers raised concerns over the content of the ad and this prompted our decision to withdraw it,” said Nigel Dickie, Director of Corporate Affairs for Heinz UK.

“The advertisement, part of a short-run campaign, was intended to be humorous and we apologize to anyone who felt offended,” said Dickie.

The Deli Mayo TV advertisement in the UK was created as a humorous take on a slice of life and featured a genuine New York deli chef taking the place of a mum preparing great tasting sandwiches in the kitchen using UK Deli Mayo.

The Heinz British ad featured a domesticated male homosexual couple with kids, who call the one man (making their sandwiches) “mum” as they run off to school. The ad ends with the man kissing his homosexual partner, who is also rushing off, to work. You can play the video commercial at the British newspaper The Guardian’s story on it here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jun/16/advertising3

That the ad ran at all says as much about the new, evolving, anti-Christian Britain and its plummeting morality as it does about Heinz. The ketchup corporation would never run this ad in the USA, although surely we’re not far behind the Brits given current trends.– Peter LaBarbera

You can contact Heinz HERE. Below is Heinz’s online description of itself:

H. J. Heinz Company, offering “Good Food Every Day”TM is one of the world’s leading marketers and producers of healthy and convenient foods specializing in ketchup, sauces, meals, soups, snacks and infant/nutrition. Heinz provides superior quality, taste and nutrition for all eating occasions whether in the home, restaurants, the office or “on-the-go.” Heinz is a global family of leading branded products, including Heinz® Ketchup, sauces, soups, beans, pasta and infant foods (representing over one third of Heinz’s total sales), Ore-Ida® potato products, Weight Watchers® Smart Ones® entrees, Boston Market® meals, T.G.I. Friday’s® frozen snacks, and Plasmon® infant nutrition. Heinz is famous for its iconic brands on five continents, showcased by Heinz® Ketchup, The World’s Favorite Ketchup®. Information on Heinz is available at www.heinz.com.

AFTAH’s Peter LaBarbera interviewed by the Brazilian magazine Enfoque Gospel.

You can read my extended interview with the Brazilian Christian magazine Enfoque Gospel HERE IN ENGLISH, or HERE IN PORTUGUESE on the Enfoque Gospel website. The English version is found on the blog of Brazilian pro-family hero Julio Severo, who is himself a target of pro-homosexual activists in that great South American nation.

Click here to read Gay Christian Movement Watch’s short interview with Severo. — Peter LaBarbera

So Chelsea Clinton partied with 2,000 boys (can we call them men?) in dresses at Portland’s annual “Red Dress Party” on April 12? Can’t say I’m surprised given the polling data on how “gay-friendly” youth are these days. But instead of the usual shock and outrage, let’s dwell for some moments on what these photos say about the social movement that so accurately calls itself “queer.” (See Willamette Week excerpts from the Portland event at bottom.)

Homosexual Men in Dresses

According to this article in the Willamette Week, the Red Dress Party “started years ago as a way for gay guys to wear girlie gowns and get stinkin’ drunk.” Like they needed an excuse. Why is it so easy to get homosexual guys in a dress anyway? Could it be because they are confused about their God-given masculinity to begin with? Sorry, my digression has taken me into overlapping phobias: I don’ t know which I’m more guilty of: homo- or trans-phobia? (Both, you Bible Bigot! I’m reporting you to the Thought Police.)

Sometimes you just have to laugh at a homosexual world that is so utterly lacking in seriousness. We’re dealing with a movement that is filled with overgrown adolescents who still have the gall to compare themselves to the Black civil rights movement. (Shhhh! — don’t tell anyone about the annual Aspen “Gay Ski Week” or how homosexuals travel abroad more (”especially for leisure purposes”) than straights — they’re VICTIMS — VICTIMS OF DISCRIMINATION, I tell you!)

Perhaps even a few non-activist homosexuals might agree with me that it’s silly — from a grown-up standpoint — for:

• men to party until all hours of the night — many high on stimulant drugs to keep them awake and …. enabling them to … well, uh … perform multiple and untold sexual perversions — at massive parties that double as “fund-raisers” for AIDS research and prevention! … Apparently, the Red Dress Party that Chelsea attended serves as a fund-raiser for AIDS prevention and “queer youth” support groups; isn’t that special?
• men to engage in sodomitic sex in public bathrooms and parks … facilitated by porn-financed homosexual websites that get millions and millions of hits per month …
• homosexual activists like Human Rights Campaign’s Joe Solmonese to demand that the ban on homosexual male blood donations be lifted (he’s crying discrimination) when the FDA has said: “Several scientific models show there would be a small but definite increased risk to people who receive blood transfusions if FDA’s MSM [men who have sex with men] policy were changed and that preventable transfusion transmission of HIV could occur as a result”; turns out a little discrimination is a good thing….
• transvestite men with their burly arms and legs (and Adam’s apple — can’t cut that off) trying to “pass” as women ….
• lesbian “drag kings” doing their own pathetic imitation of the real deal (men) at shows across the country — yes, the gender-confused lesbians, too, try to “pass” as men, “packing” fake penises, etc. … Add to that the specter of lesbians using sex toys to simulate male anal sex (who could make this stuff up?) …
• one of the most intolerant and bigoted (anti-religiously speaking) movements in the world lecturing everyone else about … tolerance and bigotry …
• homosexual activists to scold Pope Benedict about his “sins”: the following is from the website “PinkNews” (now that’s serious): “The Rainbow Sash Movement [RSM] said it is calling on ‘Catholics of good will’ to take the Papal visit as an opportunity to shower the Pope-mobile with ashes instead of confetti. Ashes are an ancient and appropriate greeting for a sinner who has caused the Church so much division and pain,’ RSM said in a statement.”
• transgenders of all persuasions using opposite-sex restrooms and demanding same as their “civil right” (talk about dragging down MLK’s movement …);
• self-described “queer” theologians to pretend that they are Christian or have something to teach the Church when their real goal is to undermine Biblical truth on the subject to justify their lifestyle choices …
• activists to promote homosexuality and gender “nonconformity” in schools — even for young children — in the name of safety, of course …
• for one member of a homosexual household to play the “husband” and the other the “wife” in the relationship — at least they admit there is a standard of normalcy;
• pro-homosexual advocates to pretend that HIV/AIDS is not a predominantly “gay” disease in America — and teaching kids in school that AIDS “does not discriminate” when it clearly does (the homosexual Task Force’s Matt Foreman went off the “gay” taking points here when he declared that “HIV is a gay disease”) …
• smug homosexual academicians and activists to claim that same-sex parents are actually better for kids than traditional mom-and-dad households … Hitler would be proud: always go after the Big Lie….
• for GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Discrimination) and other same-sex whiners to complain that the movies and TV are not sufficiently pro-”gay” when everyone knows Hollywood is largely run by homosexuals (and straights who are strongly pro-”gay”) …
• leftist and “queer” bloggers like Pam Spaulding to feign outrage over Oklahoma State Rep. Sally Kern for saying the homosexual agenda is a greater threat than terrorism when they compare groups like AFTAH and pro-family leaders DIRECTLY to terrorists all the time. (I write this as a one-time designated member of the “American Taliban”; the subtle, judicious Spaulding now says she’s tired of the term — preferring a new putdown: “The Peter” — a phallic slang reference I used to hear as a kid; now that’s doing your Duke University employers proud, Pam!);
• men to say that they are really a lesbian trapped in a male’s body, and vice versa, and all the perverse permutations associated with the “T” in the “GLBT” movement: transsexualism, transvestism, etc.
• women to stay married to their husbands for decades and raise children to adulthood — and then leave their husband for a woman, only to claim that they were “always lesbian” and are just living out “who they really are” …
• the city of San Francisco to allow the sadistic Folsom Street Fair to go on every year with its rampant full nudity and even orgies in the streets — while the cops stand idly by doing nothing;
• homosexual activists to scold the Roman Catholic Church for harboring pedophiles when it was homosexual men who entered the Church after seminary standards were lowered — and then who engaged in so many of the predations on boys that brought dishonor to the Church in the first place. Have homosexual activists no shame?

The list could go on and on. Answer to the last question: no. So why are we losing to a movement this “queer,” again? Perhaps because most people don’t take it seriously. But mostly because the activists on their side care about their agenda (and, ultimately, their perversions) — more than most Americans care to stop them. Apathy and politically correct silence rule the day — at least for most straights and, to our shame, for most religious people.

Unfortunately for all of us, the dangers that the homosexual activist movement poses to America — to our religious and First Amendment freedoms, the corruption of youth, the sanctity of marriage, etc. — are very real indeed, and not funny at all.

___________________________

Below is an excerpt from the Willamette Weekly article:

Party Girl: Chelsea Clinton Cuts Loose With 2,000 Gay Men in Red Dresses

…

Yes, Chelsea Clinton made it to the infamous “Red Dress” Party.

Not to be confused with that other annual “Red Dress” fundraiser, this is the “Red Dress Party,” a mondo-alcohol-fueled dance party where nearly 2,000 gay men in various states of red dress undress (and several nearly naked straight men as well as one very colorfully decorated naked woman) invade a warehouse in Northeast Portland and dance their collective asses off to pounding disco music and the incredible Storm Large and her Balls (they were beyond fabulous).

CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL Willamette Weekly STORY

Mike Heath was accused of “hate speech” for relating Jesus Christ’s warning in the Book of Matthew (18:6) of God’s punishment for those who cause innocent children to sin. Heath made his comment while opposing a middle school’s plan to dispense birth control pills without parental permission.

The following column ran Feb. 29 in the Portland [Maine] Press Herald. To read the entire column, click HERE. Mike Heath, in addition to being a truly Great American, is executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine and Chairman of the Board of Americans For Truth:

By M.D. Harmon, Portland Press Herald

— The head of the state’s least-known government office pushed the intercom button summoning his chief assistant.

“Raul, come to my office, would you?” he asked. “We’ve just been handed a very important case and I need your advice on it.”

“Be right there, chief,” came the reply, and a minute later the top aide to the director of the Maine Bureau of Public Censure stepped into his superior’s office.

“Close the door, Raul,” said the director. “I need your discretion on this one.”

“What’s up, boss? Usually you let me handle most things on my own.”

“True, but this is a very special case. It’s a 502-AS.”

Raul let out a low whistle. “Gee, a Committing Christianity in Public complaint, boss? And elevated to Aggravated Status, too! We don’t get very many of those these days.”

With a sigh, the director settled back in his chair.

“You’re right, Raul, but this came from the highest possible outside source, and it’s particularly egregious. It’s Designated Offender No. 1 again.”

A dark look came into the aide’s eyes, and between compressed lips he spat out the hissed name, “Heath!”

“Yes,” his boss confirmed. “He really stepped over the line on this one, and we’ve really got to make an example of him once and for all.”

“I assume we can dispense with the usual assumption-of-innocence-until-proven-guilty garbage with him again this time, right? Boy, I wish we were in Canada, where people like this can be fined, or forced to take re-education courses, or even tossed in jail.” Continued…

Click HERE to read the rest of the column

Stephen Green, national director of [British group] Christian Voice, said, “It seems that Christians are gradually being squeezed out of the adoption process. It’s exactly what we said would happen. In the name of equality, it’s discriminating against Christians.” 

 British couple Owen and Eunice Johns are being denied as foster parents because they agree with their Creator about homosexuality.

By Peter LaBarbera

Commenting on LifesiteNews story by Hillary White:  http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08022705.html

For more information, see the British Christian Legal Centre’s site at: http://www.christianlegalcentre.com/view.php?id=253

The once-great nation of Britain is being reduced to a bastion of politically correct silliness. Is America next? So now British couples aren’t qualified to raise children unless they can recite pro-”gay” shibboleths?

Why no, Johnny, you don’t have to have a man and a woman to get married — in fact, two daddies are often better at raising children than a mommy and a daddy. When you are old enough, we will tell you all you need to know so we can support you if you have a gay or transgender orientation. Did you know that being gay is a one of God’s gifts for special people?”

You chuckle, but it is surreal to behold the deterioration of Western civilization before our very eyes – one sad story like this at a time. Meanwhile, smug, agnostic pundits and religious leftists like Jim Wallis castigate the “Religious Right,” which is made up of people who are merely trying their best to hold back the march of evil (masquerading as progress). Which reminds me: when is the last time you heard the media use the phrase “Religious Left,” anyway?

Destructive and radical ideologies (e.g., Marxism) often are imposed from above by force, relying on disinformation – or stealth strategies — because an informed, moral (and generally conservative-leaning) citizenry would never approve such nonsense on their own. Hence the homosexual activists’ drive for power culminates in state punishment and repression of their opponents — mainly Christians and other religious adherents. Invariably, as we are seeing abroad and now here in the USA, “gay rights” comes at the expense of religious freedom.

Liberals and “gay” activists alike ask: “But how does granting equal rights for gays and lesbians affect you?” It’s the wrong question (it’s not all about ME), and one that radically redefines civil and human rights, but here’s part of the answer: state-enforced, pro-homosexuality ideology ultimately criminalizes Judeo-Christian ethics, ideas and even compassion (per the U.K.) – and that destroys societies and hurts children. “Gay” ideology is at war with common sense and “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” – as our Declaration of Independence from Britain states — giving rise to misguided social policies like that below. 

It is no overreach to assert that the pro-homosexuality, pro-bisexuality, pro-transsexuality agenda helps destroy ideas of right and wrong that have served mankind well for centuries. If two men having “sex” (committing heinous sodomies together), getting “married,” and then acquiring and raising kids isn’t wrong, then nothing is wrong.

If a gender-confused man having his penis surgically turned into a makeshift “vagina” — or a young woman having her healthy breasts removed (I witnessed this phenomenon firsthand at a “transgender” conference) as the last, desperate act in some futile quest to “become” the opposite sex — is not wrong, then what is?

Shoplifters, take note.

And if “consensuality” is their main criterion for right and wrong, well, the poor kids adopted into such disordered households did not “consent” to it, so what about their rights? (As we’ve said many times, it’s all about the ‘GLBT’ adults.)  

Thanks to social liberals who promote this agenda — which would be better described as a sexual revolution – our children are being raised in a culture in which moral truths are ridiculed and “gay” myths and lies are celebrated. We in America must fight on and dispense with any misplaced guilt if we are to avoid the tragic fate of our mother country.

Welcome to Britain’s Brave Gay World, where the committed Christians are the criminals (emphasis added):

Another UK Couple Rejected for Fostering Children over Religious Beliefs on Homosexuality

By Hilary White, Lifesite News

OAKWOOD, Derby, UK, February 27, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In November 2007, LifeSiteNews.com reported that a Christian couple in Somerset, UK, was being forced to retire from fostering needy children on conscientious grounds after the local council imposed rules requiring them to discuss homosexuality with the children. Now a similar case is reported in Derby, in which the local council is being sued after rejecting an application from a Christian couple to assist foster children under ten years old. The Telegraph reports that Eunice and Owen Johns refused to talk to children about homosexuality as though it were an acceptable “lifestyle”.

The Labour-controlled council adoption panel was also reportedly “upset” that the couple insisted that children in their care would be required to accompany the family to church on Sundays. The Johns have been married for 39 years and have four adult children of their own. Mrs. Johns is a retired nurse and Sunday school teacher.

The adoption panel admitted in internal documents that Mr and Mrs Johns of Oakwood, in Derby, might have grounds to feel that they had been “discriminated against on religious grounds.”

In the Somerset case last year, Vincent and Pauline Matherick were able, after their case caught national media attention, to reach an agreement with their local council authorities and keep their current child, a ten year-old boy, in their home. They had made almost identical complaints and told media that they intended to retire from fostering children after the council insisted that they participate in discussions about homosexuality.

Mr. and Mrs. Johns’ lawyer said the couple were not ‘homophobic,’ but believed that sex outside of marriage was wrong and that marriage cannot include same-sex partners. The couple are being represented by the Christian Legal Centre, which is asking for a judicial review of the council’s decision.

Evangelical Alliance General Director, the Reverend Joel Edwards, said, “We are worried about this issue because it appears someone can be disqualified from giving care to vulnerable children because of a local council’s attitude to their conscience – which we believe violates their rights as citizens.”

Stephen Green, national director of Christian Voice, said, “It seems that Christians are gradually being squeezed out of the adoption process. It’s exactly what we said would happen. In the name of equality, it’s discriminating against Christians.”

“I would like to see the council back down and adopt a more realistic approach. Either that or tell Christians that they are not welcome to foster in the future. At least that would be more honest.”

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

UK Christian Couple who Refuse to Promote Homosexuality Forced out of Child Foster Care
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/oct/07102502.html

Christian Couple no Longer Required to Promote Homosexuality in Fostering Children
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/nov/07110205.html ;

Dear Readers,

The preposterous and astonishingly bigoted rant above by Matt Foreman, head of the second largest homosexual organization in America, illustrates the dangerous potential of pro-homosexual, pro-transsexual “hate crimes” legislation, S. 1105, which reportedly could come up for a vote before the U.S. Senate TODAY.

TAKE ACTION : Call your U.S. Senators today at 202-224-3121, or write then via www.congress.org. Urge them to oppose the Kennedy-Smith-Reid Hate Crimes Bill, S. 1105. Pass this message on to your friends and contact list.

A strengthened federal “Hate crimes” law — which would include transsexuals (perceived “gender identity”) for the first time in federal law – would provide a powerful foundation for politically-motivated, pro-homosexual prosecutors to go after people of faith, based on their alleged ”anti-gay” speech.

Foreman is lying about the link between Christians and violent, despicable crimes, just as the homosexual lobby is lying about the supposedly pressing need for this legislation (see below). The last thing America needs is to put the power of the federal government behind a system of law that creates a politically correct hierarchy of victims — in a country where homosexual victims already receive far more media attention than religious victims like Mary Stachowicz.

S 1105 would also spend YOUR tax dollars on biased “anti-hate” programs that invariably discriminate against faith-based opposition to homosexuality.

No need for this bill

A thorough report on S 1105 by the Traditional Values Coalition states that S. 1105 “makes the following fraudulent and ridiculous claims in [its] Findings:

• Homosexuals are fleeing across state lines to avoid persecution;
• Perpetrators are crossing state lines to commit crimes against them;
   
• Homosexuals are so persecuted they have trouble purchasing goods and services or finding employment. [now that's a whopper--Editor]
   
• These false claims about homosexuals fleeing across state lines are being used as a hook to justify federal involvement in local law enforcement through the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
   
• No Epidemic Of Hate Crimes Exists! S. 1105 falsely claims in The Findings, without any evidence, that “the incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem.”
   
• FBI statistics from 2005 (the latest available) reveal that there is no national epidemic of hate against minority groups or against homosexuals:
   
• According to the FBI, in 2005 there were only 5,190 hate crimes directed against all persons. Of this figure, only 1,171 were sexual orientation bias crimes. Out of this 1,171:
   
• 301 were listed as “intimidation.”
   
• 333 were listed as “simple assault.”
   
• 177 were listed as aggravated assault! There was one forcible rape and no murders based on sexual orientation in 2005.
   
• 1 forcible rape; 30 robberies; 10 burglaries; 27 larceny-theft; 2 motor vehicle theft; 1 arson; 275 damage/vandalism; 3 other; 5 crimes against society.
   
• Nationwide there were 862,947 aggravated assaults against all persons. (Source: FBI Crime in the United States 2005, Aggravated Assault)
• Out of 862,947 cases of aggravated assault, only 177 were motivated by sexual orientation bias. This is 0.000205 percent of all aggravated assaults in 2005.
   
• In a nation of 300 million, this is no epidemic of hate against homosexuals that needs federal involvement in local law enforcement. (Source: Tables 2 and 4, FBI Hate Crime Stats, 2005)

My good friend Bob Knight lays out the basic problems with expanded, pro-homosexual federal “hate crimes”, arguing that legislation like S. 1105:

• violates the concept of equal protection under the law by designating special classes of victims, who get a higher level of government protection than others victimized by similar crimes.
• politicizes criminal law, leading to pressure on police and prosecutors to devote more of their limited resources to some cases, at the expense of other crime victims’ cases.
• vastly expands the power and jurisdiction of the federal government to intervene in local law enforcement matters, once a crime is called a “hate crime.”
• has a chilling effect on free speech by making unpopular ideas a basis for harsher treatment in criminal proceedings. More than half of the so-called “hate crimes” in the last U.S. Justice Department report were categorized as “intimidation” or “simple assault,” which do not necessarily involve anything more than words.2 In terms of the proposed national hate crimes bill, this makes name-calling literally a federal case.
• confuses law enforcers, because the definition of what constitutes a “hate crime” is clear in some instances but unclear in others. This burdens prosecutors and opens up endless opportunities for defense attorneys to invoke technicalities.
• is not necessary. There is no evidence to substantiate the claim that “hate crime” victims are receiving less justice than other crime victims.

The last thing America needs is to expand federal power unnecessarily while creating the foundation for dubious federal ”rights” based on homosexuality and gender confusion. Read the full TVC report on S. 1105 HERE. And call your Senators today at 202-224-3121, or e-mail them at http://www.congress.org/.

This “hate crimes” bill has already passed the House, so if it passes the Senate, we will be urging President Bush to wield his presidential veto: call the White House comment line at 202-456-1111 or use the Contact Page on the presidential website.

Thank you for standing up for truth and freedom.

Sincerely,

Peter LaBarbera

Americans For Truth

By WorldNetDaily.com, August 6, 2007

Motivated by Christian beliefs, a Canadian mayor refused to fly a rainbow “gay pride” flag at his town hall.

The decision by Bill Mills was backed by the town council of Truro, Nova Scotia, with a 6-1 vote Friday, reported the Canadian television network CTV.

“There are writings in the book of Romans chapter one, to name a few – basically I have to go with that conviction, and I know it’s not a popular one,” said Mills, who leads a town of about 12,000 people.

Mills contended he had a right to his opinion, but a local homosexual activist group called the decision a sign of homophobia in a government that should be secular.

Click HERE to read the rest of the article in WorldNetDaily

The following article is reprinted with permission from Lifesitenews (http://www.lifesite.net/), which has become one of the world’s leading pro-family sources for news. (To sign up for Lifesite e-updates, click HERE.)

Call it homo-fascism, homo-totalitarianism, homo-supremacy or whatever you will, but the “gay” activist movement’s drive to silence opponents is intensifying worldwide. Yet American liberals and homosexual activists alike –with rare exceptions such as lesbian Georgetown University professor Chai Feldblum – play dumb, as if they cannot comprehend how homosexuality-based “rights” (in the guise of sexual orientation “equality”) will erode the freedoms of those who regard homosexual behavior as wrong.

We welcome homosexual (and liberal) activists who are not afraid of freedom and the battle of ideas to denounce the growing pro-”gay” trend of silencing opposing speech — whether it’s GLAAD threatening to sue a news producer to squelch a report on lesbian bullying; Britain trotting out the “anti-homophobia” police to crush that grave threat to democracy of a Christian passing out tracts at a “gay” event; or pro-homosexual militants claiming that decent religious people who agree with God about sexual sin are causing the murders of homosexuals like Matthew Shepard.

Where else but in the Orwellian world of pro-GLBT “multiculturalism” would you see politically correct bureaucrats squelching faith-based dissent in the name of “diversity” and “tolerance”? The time to speak out against the coming tyranny is now. We would do well to read Feldblum’s paper (delivered last year at a Becket Fund for Religious Liberty symposium): at least she acknowledges that the struggle between “gay rights” and religious freedom of conscience is a “zero-sum game.”

P.S. Take a guess which side Feldblum says deserves to win.– Peter LaBarbera 

___________________________ 

Here is the LifeSiteNews report on Brazil; for Part One, “Brazilian Homosexual Activist Luiz Mott Confesses to Pederastic Love for Boys,” click HERE:

Brazil Attacks Against Family Defenders Backed by Pro-Homosexual Regime of Nation’s President
Part 2 of Lifesite’s report on Brazil’s aggressive homosexual movement

See Part 1 – Leader of Brazil Homosexual Movement Under Investigation for Pedophilia
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jul/07073011.html

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

BRAZIL, July 30, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In recent months other Brazilians have been subject to the wrath of Brazil’s pro-homosexual regime. 

In June of this year a coalition of protestant church groups, the National Vision for a Christian Conscience (VINACC), was ordered to halt their campaign “In Defense of the Family”, which displayed billboards that said “Homosexuality: God made them man and woman, and saw that it was good!”  A court order decreed the removal of the billboards and the cancellation of a public event scheduled by VINACC to further the defense of family values, claiming that it was “homophobic”.

On May 29th of this year, a Lutheran pastor in the Brazilian town of Rancho Queimado; the Rev. Ademir Kreutzfeld, was subject to a criminal investigation when he was accused of calling local businesses in an effort to inform them that a newspaper they were sponsoring was promoting the homosexual agenda. The homosexual activist who owns the paper filed charges against the pastor for “defamation.” 

Although no further steps have been taken against the minister as yet, homosexuals are agitating for his prosecution. “What have I done?” asks Kreutzfeld. “I just made some phone calls to shops, alerting that they were, without perceiving, sponsoring a newspaper of homosexual ideology. As a Christian committed to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, I could not fail to inform them. Of course, I am not ‘homophobic.’ As a Christian, I love sinners. I am also one of them. But I cannot remain silent before sinful practices”.

Julio Severo (see his English-language blog HERE), who is seen as the principal opponent of Brazil’s militant homosexuals, and who has written a book called “The Homosexual Movement” warning against the political goals of the movement in Brazil and worldwide, states that, since he began his efforts against the homosexual movement in Brazil, he has suffered persecution and has been forced to flee his hometown.  According to Severo, a homosexual government official used his refusal to involve his children with vaccines against him and had a court order to remove his children from their home (Severo and his family believe that vaccines are dangerous and often ineffective). 

Severo states that others in the town also do not vaccinate their children, but he believes they were ignored in favor of him because of his stance against homosexual behavior. He now lives in hiding in another part of Brazil.

The attacks on Julio Severo, Jael Savelli, and others by the homosexual movement in Brazil are taking place within the political context of the strongly pro-homosexual regime of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who has led Brazil’s executive branch since 2003.

During its second year in office, the Lula regime initiated a program, “Brazil Without Homophobia” which teaches that homosexual orientation is unchangeable, and seeks to construct “a culture of peace and values for promoting human diversity.” According to the program’s charter document, this would include “the production of cultural goods and support for events with massive visibility for affirming sexual orientation and the culture of peace”, “artistic productions that promote a culture of non-discrimination for sexual orientation”, and preserving “the cultural, social, and economic values congruent with the participation of the Brazilian homosexual population in the process of development, based on its history and culture”. 

Since the initiation of Brazil Without Homophobia, the government has spent millions of dollars funding “Gay Pride” parades and TV programming, and is promoting pro-homosexual “education” programs in the public schools. Homosexual leader Luiz Mott is one of those who participated in the creation of the document, according to the credits listed at the beginning. 

In addition, the Lula administration is promoting a new “anti-homophobia” law that would prohibit any expression contrary to the homosexual agenda, forbidding Brazilians “To practice, induce or incite discrimination or prejudice of race, skin color, ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, sex, sexual orientation and gender identity…What is determined in this article involves the practice of any kind of violent, constraining, threatening or humiliating action, of moral, ethical, philosophical or psychological order.” 

Although the legislation has stalled in the Brazilian Senate, the issue will be taken up again this fall. The Brazilian legal system has also begun to allow homosexual adoptions (see http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/05071202.html).

“Brazil Without Homophobia” also promises to promote the homosexual agenda at the international level, a commitment that the Lula regime has fulfilled with a rare enthusiasm.  In 2003, 2004, and 2005 it introduced resolutions in the United Nations to declare homosexual orientation as a protected “right,” but failed in every case.  In 2006, the Lula administration began pushing the resolution within the Organization of American States (OAS), although to date it has not passed in that venue either.

Those who wish to contact Julio Severo may do so through his email address which is found at http://www.blogger.com/profile/03079977728841299575. He speaks English. His English blog can be found at http://lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com/, and his Portuguese blog’s address is http://juliosevero.blogspot.com/.

For more information about what is being referred to as the rise of homosexual “fascism” in Brazil, readers may contact the Brazilian philosopher Dr. Olavo de Carvahlo at olavo@olavodecarvalho.com.

Source: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jul/07073108.html

“In my opinion, the taboo and repression of sexual relations between adults and youth is supported by two prejudices, that sex has a particular legal age to begin and that every relationship between someone older and younger always implies violence and oppression.”

“[I]if I could choose freely, what I would like for myself would not be a man but a boy, an ‘adolescent’ of the type that the nobles of ancient Greece said was the thing most handsome and pleasurable to be loved and [expletive].”                 

– Brazilian homosexual activist Luiz Mott

The following is Part One of a two-part series by LifeSiteNews, the excellent pro-family web news service (sign up for Lifesite e-updates HERE), about escalating pro-homosexual activist bigotry and repression in Brazil. Click HERE for Part Two, “‘Homo-Fascism’ in Brazil: Pro-Family Advocate Julio Severo Is Targeted”:

Leader of Brazil Homosexual Movement Under Investigation for Pedophilia

Plan to Shut Down Blog of Brazil Pro-Family Leader Backfires

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

BRAZIL, July 30, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A recent attempt by Brazilian homosexuals to silence two weblogs failed when Google, the hosting service, restored them after blocking them for several days.  Now the contents of the blogs have drawn the attention of Brazilian prosecutors, who are investigating Luiz Mott, the leader of Brazil’s homosexual movement, for pedophilia.

The first blog, by the anonymous author Jael Savelli, was blocked for only a few hours several weeks ago, but the second, authored by Brazilian Christian activist Julio Severo and hosted by Google’s “Blogger” service at http://juliosevero.blogspot.com, was blocked from July 16 to July 19. 

The site’s contents were removed and replaced with a statement that read: “This blog is being reviewed for possible violations of the Blogger Terms of Service, and can only be opened by the authors.”  Although Severo states that Google never informed him of its reasons for blocking the site, the removal occurred after a bitter campaign against him by homosexual activists on Google’s partner service, Orkut.com.  The service is widely used by Brazilians to socialize and exchange information, and became an organizing point for opposition to Severo and his site.

Three days after Severo’s site was suppressed, the eminent Brazilian philosopher Olavo de Carvalho blasted the campaign against Severo in his regular column for the newspaper Jornal do Brasil.

“A group of militant gays has secured the removal of the site http://juliosevero.blogspot.com, ” wrote de Carvalho. “The method was to spread through Google a storm of denunciations against the author of the blog, the writer Julio Severo, accusing him of preaching violence against homosexuals.  ‘He wants us to remain masked, without the right to defense,’ bellows one of those who incited the attack in the Orkut community used as the headquarters of the initiative.  ‘He wants us to be subject to beatings without our aggressors paying for it.’”

“The accusation is manifestly false,” Carvalho continued.  “Anyone who reads the blog without deformed lenses perceives that.  Severo limits himself to arguing against homosexuality based on Christian morality, which doesn’t command that anyone be beaten. I defy the militant gays to show where he affirms that homosexuals should subject to such violence without the right of protection of the laws.”

Carvalho went on to point out that, if anyone had violated the laws, it was the homosexuals attacking Severo based on his religion: “It is they who committed against him the crimes defined in articles 240 and 251 of the Penal Code: publicly defaming and ridiculing a citizen because of his religious belief.  They added to this the crime foreseen in article 138: false imputation of a crime.” 

De Carvalho encouraged protestant church groups to support and defend Severo. “Julio Severo, as a reprisal against his moral crusade, now has his social and professional life totally destroyed. He is the most discriminated against and persecuted of Brazilians.  He cannot confront, alone, a gigantic mass movement subsidized by billionaire foundations, that, having made itself out to be a victim persecuted by a solitary and poor adversary, now shows a monstrous, cynical, and perverse dishonesty.”

According to Severo, numerous individuals responded by submitting complaints to Google. The day following Carvalho’s article, Google restored Severo’s website, again without any explanation.

The actions taken against the two blogs, however, drew attention to information contained in one of the blogs against Luiz Mott, the self-described “dean” of the homosexual movement in Brazil.  The blog of “Jael Savelli” (the pseudonym of the blog’s anonymous author), had published an article entitled “Pedophilia Now!”, containing evidence that Luiz Mott is a pedophile.

The article, which was linked to by Julio Severo’s blog and republished on another website called Midia Sem Mascara (Media Without a Mask), quoted an essay on Mott’s own website, “Meu Moleque Ideal” (My Ideal Boy). 

In the essay, which is displayed at Mott’s site at http://br.geocities.com/luizmottbr/cronica6.html, Mott states that, “fundamentally, all of us gays (and non-gays) feed in our imagination on a type of ideal person that we would like to love and have at our side…in my case, to tell the truth, if I could choose freely, what I would like for myself would not be a man but a boy, an ‘adolescent’ of the type that the nobles of ancient Greece said was the thing most handsome and pleasurable to be loved and [expletive].”

Mott’s essay, noted Savelli’s blog, is praised by users of the pedophile website Aescola.net, who call it “a marvelous text” and “Sensational. An article that manages to summarize my desires.” 

The same website contains another essay attributed to Mott (“Pedophilia and Pederasty“) in which he says that, “in my opinion, the taboo and repression of sexual relations between adults and youth is supported by two prejudices, that sex has a particular legal age to begin and that every relationship between someone older and younger always implies violence and oppression. Studies prove that even in the uterus a baby already has an erection…”  The essay goes on to give examples of children in sexual relationships with adults in various tribal societies, and advocates as a struggle against the “hypocrisy” of those who “deny the inalienable right of children and adolescents to receive respect for their free sexual orientation and their sexual freedom.”

Mott also maintains what he calls Brazil’s only “erotic museum,” which contains various paintings and figurines depicting human body parts and sexual acts.  As he discusses his “erotic museum” in a video displayed on YouTube, Mott stands next to a statue of a naked child, with his arm around its waist.  During part of the video, as Mott continues to talk, the camera moves down and focuses on the genitals of the statue.

In the backlash against Mott’s militant homosexual movement, information from Savelli’s site has been given to prosecutors in the states of Bahia (where Mott lives) and Juiz de Fora. 

The Christian Apologetics Study Center (CACP) reports that a prosecutor in the Federal Attorney General’s office in the state of Bahia, responded to their complaint with an assurance that he would initiate procedures to begin a criminal investigation and to remove the offending sites from the internet: “I immediately decided to institute an Administrative Procedure to investigate and remove the site, as well as a representation for the opening of a Police Investigation against those responsible.  Thank you very much.”

See Part 2 of Lifesite’s story HERE

TAKE ACTION:  Read the C-FAM alert below and contact the White House using their comment page or call the White House comment line today (202-456-1111).  (You also can e-mail a comment to the U.S. State Department HERE or call their comment line at: 202-647-6575.) Respectfully urge the President to stop using the authority and goodwill of the United States of America to promote the normalization of homosexuality abroad. Tell the Administration that you oppose the USA voting to approve coveted United Nations consulting status for organizations whose mission is to push a pro-homosexuality agenda — including radically redefining marriage and promoting dangerous GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual) “identities” to vulnerable youth — on unsuspecting nations.

 

HATE CRIMES/ENDA ALERT:  While you’re at it, e-mail or call your U.S. Senators (202-224-3121) and urge them to oppose the “hate crimes” bill and the pro-homosexual/transsexual employment ENDA bill — which we’re calling the “Transgender Bathrooms for Businesses Bill” – which threaten to federalize “sexual orientation” law, thus curtailing your “freedom to be moral.”  Call 202-224-3121 or visit http://www.congress.org/.

Certainly, we as a nation can and should support true human rights without crusading for the acceptance of immoral lifestyles. Genuine human rights — and civil rights — are not based on sex, especially deviant sex. Countries should have the right to regulate homosexual sodomy — as we did in America from our inception until 2003, when the Supreme Court reversed a 17-year-old precedent in the Lawrence v. Texas sodomy law case. We should be careful as the world’s most powerful nation not to push the American Secular Left’s decadent values — abortion, homosexuality, condom “sex ed” – on poor countries. Radicals used to call that cultural “imperialism.”

Having America become a leading promoter of immoral-sex-based rights masquerading as “human rights” is a far cry from President Reagan’s vision for this nation being a “shining city on a hill.” Write or call President Bush today: 202-456-1111.– Peter LaBarbera

________________________

Friday Fax, Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM)

July 26, 2007 | Volume 10, Number 32
Dear Colleague,

Radical homosexual groups are flooding the UN accreditation process for non-governmental organizations and they seem poised to cause serious problems for traditionally minded countries.

Spread the word.

Yours sincerely,

Austin Ruse
President, C-FAM
 
Controversial UN Procedures Lead to UN Status for Homosexual Groups

By Samantha Singson

(NEW YORK — C-FAM) Overturning a prior decision by the NGO accrediting committee, the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) voted to grant official consultative status to the Coalition Gaie et Lesbienne du Quebec (CGLQ) and the Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights (RFSL) in Geneva last week.

The voting process was mired in confusion over unclear language. Several delegate requests for clarification interrupted the roll-call vote and led Pakistan to call for a point of order and ask for a re-vote. No re-vote was taken. The motion to grant ECOSOC status passed with 22 countries voting in favor, 13 against, 13 abstaining and 6 absent.

An attorney for one NGO at the Geneva meeting told the Friday Fax, “Increasingly in the past several months, at meetings such as the CSW [Commission on the Status of Women], the Human Rights Council and now the ECOSOC council, there have been serious issues regarding transparency in the voting process.  After witnessing several of these types of incidents, one has to wonder whether voting at the UN really matters or if the result is preordained.”

The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) and ARC International launched intense lobbying campaigns preceding the ECOSOC vote to ensure that both groups’ applications would be approved. 

In January, the 19-member NGO accrediting committee, a subcommittee of the ECOSOC, rejected CGLQ’s application and deferred RFSL’s request. Despite the fact that there had been a thorough examination of the evidence, the representative of the United Kingdom charged that the rejection of the homosexual rights groups was “straightforward discrimination.”

Debates within the NGO accrediting committee meetings over applications from homosexual rights groups have become increasingly heated in the last few years. While the ECOSOC council almost always accepts subcommittee recommendations, it has made exceptions twice in the last year in order to accredit radical homosexual groups.

The International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA), an NGO that was stripped of its ECOSOC status because of ties to pedophilia and whose repeated attempts to regain ECOSOC status have been denied, launched an international campaign in 2006 to encourage all of its 550 affiliate organizations to submit NGO applications for UN consultative status. Many have applied and been accepted.

ECOSOC members voting in favor of granting status to CGQL and RFSL included  the United States, the United Kingdom, Albania, Austria, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Iceland, Japan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal and Romania.

Voting against were Algeria, Belarus, Benin, China, Guinea, Indonesia, Iraq, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka and Sudan.

Speaking to the press after the ECOSOC vote, CGLQ’s executive director and ILGA North America representative, Yvan Lapointe, said that his group now plans to use the UN as a platform for spreading “homosexual rights” to many of the same countries that voted against it.

For more news visit us at http://www.c-fam.org/; copyright 2007 – C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute). Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.

We’ll have much more on this case and other cases evincing the growing threat of homosexual legal activism to basic religious freedoms:

Bishop Loses Gay Employment Case

BBC, July 18, 2007 

A gay man has won his case for unlawful discrimination after he was refused a youth official’s job by a Church of England bishop.

The employment tribunal said John Reaney, 42, was discriminated against “on grounds of sexual orientation” by the Hereford diocesan board of finance.

Mr Reaney, from Colwyn Bay, Conwy, said he was “delighted” at the decision.

The Bishop of Hereford, the Rt Rev Anthony Priddis, said he was “naturally disappointed” and may appeal.

During the tribunal in Cardiff in April, Mr Reaney said he was questioned by Bishop Priddis on his previous gay relationship during a two-hour meeting on 19 July 2006

It came after he was told he had emerged as the outstanding candidate for the job during an eight-man interview, the hearing heard.

Mr Reaney, whose case was supported by Stonewall, also told the tribunal he was left “very embarrassed and extremely upset” following the meeting and said he felt like “a total waste of space”.

During his evidence, Bishop Priddis said he had made clear to Mr Reaney that a person in a committed sexual relationship outside of marriage, whether they were heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or transgender, would be turned down for the post.

But the tribunal found that the bishop should only have considered the present lifestyle of Mr Reaney, who is single, and he should have not questioned his future relationships.

Delivering the judgement, the tribunal said the case would now be listed for a remedy hearing.

“The respondents discriminated against the claimant on the grounds of sexual orientation,” said the judgement.

To read the full BBC story and watch related BBC videos on the case, click HERE

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, for LifesiteNews.com

SAO PAULO, June 14, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Some three million Christians marched through the streets of the Brazilian metropolis of Sao Paulo last week, only three days before the annual “Gay Parade”, chanting slogans against homosexuality and affirming their religious beliefs.  The “March for Jesus”, held June 7th, was organized by a major evangelical protestant ministry in Brazil and included over thirty live bands playing religious music, many placed on top of flatbed trucks that rolled through the main avenues of the city. 

One minister led the crowd, paraphrasing a traditional Latin exorcism prayer with “Vade retro, Satan!”, adding “Vade retro, homosexuality!” (Get back, Satan! Get back homosexuality!).  Although the Associated Press, Reuters, and other English-speaking news services claimed that only a million people attended the march, the mainstream Brazilian press widely reported that three million attended, citing the Policia Militar (Military Police).

When questioned by the media, marchers denied hostility towards homosexuals, and expressed concern for their well-being.  “Through the Bible, we know that God doesn’t agree with what they do,” members of one church group from the Vila Carrão neighborhood of Sao Paulo told the Brazilian news service G1.  “We condemn their actions, and never the people. What we want is for them to know God.”  …

Although the mainstream media generally quoted the parade organizers’ estimate of 3.5 million attendees uncritically, both Reuters (quoted in The Australian) and the Brazilian news service Ultimo Segundo stated that the police only counted one million, while admitting that thousands more probably remained uncounted on side streets. 

Also in stark contrast to the March for Jesus, this year’s Gay Parade enjoyed heavy support from government and affiliated business institutions in Brazil.  Unlike Parades in years past, this year’s event was sponsored by Brazil’s state energy company, Petrobras, as well as the state-owned Caixa Economica Federal Bank.

To read the entire Lifesite article, click HERE.

Julio Severo, a Brazilian protestant whom I met through my writings on the March for Jesus and the Gay Parade in Sao Paulo, is doing extremely useful work on the issue of what Latins call “homosexualism” — the new ideology, or even religion, that justifies sodomy and other sexual perversions. Among his writings (which can be found on his English blog) is a very incisive analysis of the roots of the moral crisis in Brazil. He notes what should be obvious to all of us: that in a country whose citizens are overwhelmingly Catholic, the blame for the rise of “homosexualism” and other perversions rests on the weakness and doctrinal corruption within the ranks of the Catholic Church itself. (It should be noted that he also blames the situation on corruption among protestants in Brazil). Severo notes that when the Church was strong in Brazil “homosexualism” and other ideologies of sexual liberation and perversion wouldn’t have had a chance:

The social and moral structure of Brazil in the decade of 1950 and 1960 was basically strong, largely because of the predominant Catholicism in more than 90 percent of the population. In many places, evangelicals were threatened with lynching if they tried to evangelize, especially in small towns. Homosexual activity was a shameful and secret behavior, despised by the society. A pregnant girl out of wedlock ran the risk of being expelled from her house. The Brazilian people were socially conservative, although the Carnival and public prostitution were tolerated.

 

The largest threat to the society came from radical leftist movements. Communists almost took control in Brazil in 1964, but the military took over the government and was able to stop a communist coup.

 

The Catholic Church was a driving force against the communist threat, but after the Vatican II many Catholic leaders began surrendering to the Theology of Liberation. In the decades of 1970 and 1980, traditional Protestant churches embraced Protestant versions of this theology. In late 1990s and early 2000, Pentecostal and charismatic churches also subscribed. These leftist Christians are today known as progressistas. The Brazilian term progressista (progressive), according to the noted Aurélio Dictionary of Portuguese Language, means “someone who, though not being a member of a socialist or communist party, accepts and/or supports socialist or Marxist principles”. So evangélicos progressistas are evangelicals committed to supporting and promoting the socialist agenda.

I highly recommend this piece to those who want to understand why Brazil, and Latin America generally, are beginning to succumb to the same moral decline already destroying Europe and Anglophone North America:

Julio Severo article: Last Days Watchman: Behind the homosexual tsunami in Brazil