Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has used the office to promote the acceptance of homosexuality and transgenderism abroad.

To read AFTAH’s press release on the new Obama/Clinton policy of using U.S. aid and power to advance homosexuality-based “rights,” go HERE. That link also contains a YouTube of Hillary Clinton’s UN speech.

Hillary Clinton’s “Human Rights Day” Speech

By Laurie Higgins, reprinted from Illinois Family Institute; originally published 12/8/11

On Dec. 6, 2011 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered a speech in honor of International Human Rights Day which is celebrated on Dec. 10, the date in 1948 when the United Nations formally adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But as we should have expected from a representative of the fervently pro-perversion Obama Administration, Clinton used the occasion to promulgate unproven, liberal assumptions about homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder (GID).

With the usual cunning of the Left, Clinton begins her speech by referring to the “beating, terrorizing, and executing” of homosexuals, but then with some skillful bait-and-switch rhetoric, she starts talking about undefined “discrimination.” Such a speech would be justified if Clinton were actually concerned only with real human rights abuses such as draconian laws that call for the execution of homosexuals or for acts of violence ignored by police. But anyone familiar with the incoherent world of “progressivism,” understands that moral disapproval of homosexual acts becomes “discrimination” which ineluctably results in “bullying” or “terrorizing.”

Clinton’s repeated use of the absurd comparison of race to homosexuality reveals that intelligence is no guarantee of wisdom. Even really smart people often hold ignorant and foolish ideas. Whereas race is 100 percent heritable, in all cases immutable, and has no behavioral implications that are amenable to moral evaluation, homosexuality is not biologically determined, is in some cases changeable, and is constituted by volitional acts that are legitimate objects of moral evaluation. Someone should ask Clinton to explain the ways she believes race is analogous to homosexuality.

Clinton asserts that “Because we are human, we therefore have rights. And because we have rights, governments are bound to protect them.” Of course, she spent little time explaining exactly what rights she believes all people are entitled to because they’re human. She referred ambiguously to “the full measure of liberty, the full experience of dignity, and the full benefits of humanity,” [emphasis added] which sounds benign enough. To progressives, however, such noble phrases don’t mean only freedom from involuntary servitude, free speech, or the right to vote. To homosexual activists and their ideological allies, the “full measure of liberty, the full experience of dignity, and the full benefits of humanity” demands, for example, that they be given the unilateral right to reconstruct the legal definition of marriage.

Since Clinton can’t appeal to reason, she pulls on the heartstrings of those in her audience for whom “feelings” trump moral reason: “We need to ask ourselves, ‘How would it feel if it were a crime to love the person I love?’” If there are laws somewhere in the world that criminalize “love,” I haven’t heard of them. There are countries around the world that have unjust marital laws, but marital laws — just and unjust — prohibit acts, not feelings.

Here in the U.S., we have laws that prohibit polyamorists from marrying all the people they love, but there are no laws that criminalize their love. We have laws that prohibit close blood relatives from marrying, but there are no laws that criminalize their love. And most states have just and reasonable marital laws that prohibit men from marrying men and women from marrying women, but there are no laws that criminalize their love.

Clinton alludes to the Obama Administration’s troubling intention to withhold foreign aid from countries that don’t share the moral views of American “progressives” on homosexuality and cross-dressing and of the Obama administration’s creation of a Global Equality Fund which will use $3 million of taxpayer money to fund homosexuality-affirming efforts around the world. Peter Sprigg aptly describes this as “cultural imperialism.” The Obama Administration is using our taxes to disseminate non-factual, fallacious moral, philosophical, and political propositions throughout the world.

Clinton shared that she has experienced a “deepening” of her convictions about homosexuality as she has “devoted more thought to it, engaged in dialogues and debates, and established personal and professional relationships with people who are gay.” In the past, Secretary Clinton has been open about her Christian faith, and in this speech, she shared that her “religious belief and practice is a vital source of meaning and identity, and fundamental to who” she is. One wonders if in all her dialogues, debates, and thinking, she ever seriously studied the work of scholars throughout the history of the church on the topic of homosexuality. Since prior to the late 20th Century, no Old Testament or New Testament scholar affirmed what some refer to as “gay theology,” it’s surprising to see intelligent people like Clinton (and Obama) embracing what many of the best scholars, including contemporary biblical scholars, would consider heresy.

Clinton concluded with these words: “As it has happened so many times before, opinion will converge once again with the truth, the immutable truth, that all persons are created free and equal in dignity and rights.” Ever the diplomat, Clinton implies without explicitly stating that her beliefs about the nature and morality of homosexuality are “immutable truths.” Whereas it is true that all humans are equal in worth and dignity, it is not true that all beliefs and behavioral choices are equal in worth or dignity. The troubling notion that permeates Clinton’s speech is that a society that honors the dignity and liberty of all must embrace the ontological and moral beliefs of homosexuals.

For progressives, powerful, persistent feelings and volitional acts — at least powerful, persistent homosexual feelings and acts — are constitutive of identity and inherently moral. For progressives, to believe such feelings are disordered and such acts immoral represents an act of illegitimate discrimination against persons. But Christians understand that in this fallen world, our feelings are disordered, our will perverted, and our intellect corrupted — hence the need for laws.

And on that point [Illinois Family Institute, and Americans For Truth agree] with Secretary Clinton who accurately stated that “progress comes from changes in laws…. Laws have a teaching effect.” The question is, will America have laws that embody and teach truth — or not?

_______________________________________________

Contact AFTAH: americansfortruth@gmail.com

With their new escalation of promoting homosexual behavior to other nations through U.S. foreign policy, President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have raised America’s defiance toward her Creator to a new level — while needlessly alienating nations less morally compromised than our own.  Not content to keep our decadence between our shores, the United States – through aggressively pro-“gay” Democratic administrations – now demands that other countries sink to our level by embracing homosexuality as a “human right.”

Who knew that when President Ronald Reagan spoke idealistically about America becoming a “shining city on the hill,” that city would turn out to be Sodom?  Hillary earned plaudits from the Left with her U.N. speech on international “gay rights,” but her words were an affront to our Declaration of Independence, which appeals to “Nature and Nature’s God.”

By redefining “human rights” to include the normalization of same-sex behaviors and gender confusion, Obama and Clinton have turned God’s natural moral order on its head.  There are many countries – including Muslim-dominated nations and major powers like Russia – that reject homosexuality.  By pushing sexual deviance on these nations, we only confirm their perception of America as a corrupt and declining – and very arrogant — superpower.

America, rooted in the Bible, historically embraced anti-sodomy laws, but now we are in the grip of an unprecedented moral and spiritual crisis that blackens our reputation worldwide.  As one Muslim tweeted in reaction to Obama’s international “gay rights” plan: “There is a great divide between the Founding Fathers and the pro-gay regime ruling America [today].”

Aberrant sexuality is not a fundamental liberty, and defending morality is not hateful “bigotry.”  Hillary claims, “Being gay is not a Western invention, it is a human reality.”  But homosexuality is about changeable behavior – not intrinsic, innate identity – as evidenced by countless men and women who now live happy lives apart from homosexuality, despite once considering themselves “gay” or “lesbian.”

Homosexuality – once widely regarded as a Crime Against Nature — is no more a “fundamental human right” than any other sexual sin.  Moreover, its practice is linked disproportionately to sexual diseases like HIV, anal cancer, hepatitis, gonorrhea and syphilis.  Culturally and politically speaking, what makes this perversion unique is that it has a powerful and well-funded (“gay”) movement behind it.  (There are no “Adultery Pride Parades” or “Porn-Users Pride Months.”)  However, that does not make it right.  All Americans who love God and respect His wonderful design for mankind should be ashamed of Obama’s and Hillary’s campaign to force a deeply flawed sexual ideology on innocent nations that do NOT want to emulate American decadence.

___________________________________________

YouTube of Sec. of State Hillary Clinton’s Dec. 6, 2011 UN address:

_______________________________________________

Obama offers plan for U.S. to be global LGBT sex cop

Wants to import homosexuals with special asylum privileges

Posted: December 07, 2011
8:28 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WND

The Obama administration has announced it intends to make the United States the global sex cop, with plans to try to intervene in the workings of other nations where homosexuality is not promoted as well as plans to create special provisions for homosexuals and those with other lifestyle choices to gain special admittance to the U.S.

Read more: Obama offers plan for U.S. to be global LGBT sex cophttp://www.wnd.com/?pageId=375277#ixzz1fz5p4Y2q

Grove City College Professor Warren Throckmorton

Throckmorton asserts that proclamations of truth constitute a “considerable offense” [against people practicing homosexuality]. Someone should ask him if he thinks Paul’s “vilification” of homosexuality constitutes a “considerable offense.” – Laurie Higgins

__________________________

By Laurie Higgins, for Americans For Truth

Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton has written a self-serving and exploitative analysis of Letter # 7 in C.S. Lewis’ classic The Screwtape Letters, which Throckmorton correctly sees as a warning to Christians not to allow cultural issues to supplant the central message of the Gospel.

The problem is that Throckmorton uses Lewis’ prescient warning to chastise only those Christians who work tirelessly to counter the spate of lies spewed by the culture on the topic of homosexuality, lies which even our public schools have been recruited to disseminate.

Throckmorton writes as follows:

Screwtape encourages his apprentice to foster devotion to a cause. This then takes him further away from the real encounter with God and the faith relationship. Indeed, if Wormwood’s human “patient” can put movements and organizations and crusading ahead of all else then he is of no real threat to Screwtape.

I think this passage provides caution to those who believe fighting the culture war is Christian ministry. When fighting the culture war becomes more important than a witness to the gospel, then the mischief really begins. Specifically, in the past several years, I have seen people who are so concerned with the “gay agenda” that they overlook cult involvement in people because they are “ex-gay.” Some here in the US who are willing to tolerate the very unChristian stance of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill because, in Lou Engle’s words, ”Uganda has become ground zero” in the fight against the gay agenda.…

Some might argue that I am just as guilty because of my advocacy against the Uganda bill. And I would not take that criticism lightly. My view is that freedom of conscience is necessary for the Church to have the greatest impact. Advocacy for that position is important business but it is not the main business. I doubt that such advocacy will lead anyone away from the redemptive business of the church. On the other hand, my great concern is that culture warring lulls people into feeling that that the cause justifies the considerable offense that comes with vilifying those the church yearns to reach.

Dr. Throckmorton shrewdly pre-empts any challenge to his own complicity in the culture war, complicity which often seems to serve efforts to normalize homosexuality. Throckmorton proleptically introduces the challenge and responds to it by claiming meaninglessly that he wouldn’t take such a charge “lightly.” He attempts to efface the charge that he himself may be guilty of making “the world an end.”

Dr. Throckmorton asserts that “freedom of conscience is necessary for the Church to have the greatest impact. Advocacy for that position is important business but it is not the main business.” Huh?

What precisely is Dr. Throckmorton concealing here through his ambiguous rhetoric? Is he advocating for freedom of conscience regarding the morality of homosexuality? If so, who disagrees? Certainly the mere expression of theologically orthodox views about homosexuality does not diminish anyone’s “freedom of conscience.” Those who affirm homosexuality are as free to reject theologically orthodox moral propositions as the theologically orthodox are free to reject heresy.

Since this ambiguous phrase follows a reference to the Ugandan law, perhaps he actually thinks that what most alarms his critics is his obsession with it. Perhaps he is trying to divert attention from his ambiguous stance on the morality of homosexuality to the controversial Ugandan law, his opposition to which he may be mistaking for “Christian ministry.”

If so, Dr. Throckmorton needs to know that what most concerns his critics is that he may be on a crusade not merely to affirm that individuals should have the freedom to believe as they wish, but that he may also be on a crusade to affirm that homosexual practice is permissible for Christians, which would constitute a decidedly non-orthodox theological position.

Dr. Throckmorton continues: ”I doubt that such advocacy will lead anyone away from the redemptive business of the church.” In Dr. Throckmorton’s world, advocacy of “freedom of conscience” will not “lead anyone away from the redemptive business of the church,” but preaching the truth about homosexuality will.  Curiouser and curiouser.

It would be enormously helpful if Dr. Throckmorton would fight as tenaciously for the freedom and right of parents to protect their children from unbiblical ideas and images of homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder in American public schools as he does to oppose laws in foreign countries.

Throckmorton further claims that “my great concern is that culture-warring lulls people into feeling that that the cause justifies the considerable offense that comes with vilifying those the church yearns to reach.”

There are a couple of points to be made in response to this stupefying statement.

• First, this statement implies that those who affirm homosexual acts as moral are not engaging in the culture war.
• Second, this statement employs the non-biblical, fallacious argument common among homosexualists that condemnation of volitional homosexual acts constitutes hatred or “vilification” of persons. One wonders how Dr. Throckmorton is able to expound any biblical truths regarding behavior if he believes that expressions of opprobrium constitute vilification of persons which, in turn, he believes impedes the redemptive business of the church.

Throckmorton asserts that proclamations of truth constitute a “considerable offense.” Someone should ask him if he thinks Paul’s “vilification” of homosexuality constitutes a “considerable offense.”

Does society’s “vilification” of pornography or pedophilia constitute a considerable offense against the porn-makers, porn-partakers, or pedophiles that the church hopes to reach?

Did Martin Luther King Jr.’s “culture-warring” against racism constitute a “vilification” and “considerable offense” against the racists that the he hoped to reach?  Did MLK Jr. mistakenly believe that fighting the “culture war” was a Christian ministry?

Of course, anyone who supplants the Gospel with philanthropic or political efforts is in error, but Throckmorton seems to suggest that those who oppose the homosexual agenda are somehow guiltier of this error than those who seek to normalize homosexuality.

The reality is that there are people whose work–their vocation–is to promote truth in the culture and to oppose the cultural and legal promotion of moral error. Some people are accountants, some veterinarians, some plumbers, some sales clerks, and some are “activists.” The fact that some men and women are called to activism for their vocation no more means they have lost sight of the most essential truth, which is the Gospel, than the fact that some are called to work as architects means that they’ve lost sight of the most essential fact of human existence: the Good News of Christ’s substitutionary work on the Cross.

In my estimation, there are far too few Christians who are willing to speak the truth in the public square. At different times in history, different biblical truths are attacked with particular ferocity. During the era of slavery and Jim Crow laws, biblical truth about the dignity and worth of African American women and men were attacked with special intensity. During those decades, an equally vigorous public response to the cultural lies that destroyed lives and families was necessary. Unfortunately, for far too many years, the white church failed to respond courageously.

Similarly, the church is failing now to respond with courage and vigor to the assault on  biblical truth about sexuality, marriage, and the family from the mainstream news media, Hollywood, Madison Avenue, the music industry, and public education. Throckmorton is right when he warns against mistaking bold proclamations about biblical morality for preaching the Gospel. He is wrong in trying to persuade Christians to remain silent in the face of perilous cultural lies.

________________________________

Laurie Higgins is a writer and analyst for the Illinois Family Institute. To listen to the AFTAH Hour’s recent radio interview with Higgins, go HERE for Part One, and HERE for Part Two.

Pro-family Christian Julio Severo fled his home country of Brazil to avoid state prosecution and harassment on "homophobia" charges. Would Severo be granted U.S. asylum like Brazilian homosexual Augusto Pereira de Souza?

By Peter LaBarbera

Homosexual websites are celebrating that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has granted asylum to 27-year-old Brazilian homosexual Augusto Pereira de Souza, who claims he would face torment and violent attacks if forced to return to his country.

I wonder what would happen if Julio Severo (right), the outspoken Brazilian Christian advocate who fled his country due to escalating oppression against critics of homosexuality, were to apply for applied for U.S. asylum. An article in the “Queerty” blog claims that Brazil is “one of the world’s most violently anti-gay countries … with 180 reported LGBT murders in 2008 alone.” I do not know the accuracy of this information. But here is the problem: already Queerty and other pro-homosexuality activists are citing the case of Souza (whose asylum claim was secured by three students at Columbia Law School’s Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic,” Queerty reports) as good news for Ugandan homosexuals who might want to make similar claims.

Is the United States of America under President Obama going to become the magnet for foreign homosexuals and “queer” activists the world over? AFTAH has condemned draconian punishments against homosexuals (such as “solutions” prescribed by radical Islamists). However, America and the West have no right to impose their decadent, perversion-celebrating values on the rest of the world, and other countries certainly have the right to criminalize homosexual behavior just as it was criminalized in the United States prior to the Supreme Court’s activist Lawrence v. Texas decision. (Anti-sodomy laws remain on the books in many states and laws that do not solely ban homosexual sodomy have NOT been struck down; here is a Wikipedia article which — despite that website’s strong pro-homosexual bias — describes the sodomy law situation in all 50 states.)

Here in America, we realize that sodomy may never be criminalized in San Francisco, where men are allowed to walk the streets fully naked. But if more conservative locales or states choose to do so according to their local community standards, that SHOULD be their prerogative (ditto for legislative attempts to ban abortion or “partial-birth” infanticide). And if liberals are concerned about the death penalty being imposed against homosexuals, and rightly so, they should also be concerned about public policy that promotes homosexual behavior with all its attendant, even life-threatening, consequences.

A good place for America to start “re-criminalizing” would be to ban all bathhouses and sex clubs were sex is allowed to go on in a commercial establishment. “Gay” and straight. See this AFTAH article about ex-”gay” Christian advocate James Hartline’s successful campaign in San Diego to close down a local homosexual bathhouse.

Augusto Pereira de Souza (center)

For more on Brazil: go HERE to read a LifeSite article about the socialist Brazilian President’s “hate speech” plans. And go HERE to read Julio Severo’s blog. To subscribe to LifeSiteNews’ daily news feed, go HERE, and to subscribe to OneNewsNow’s daily news brief, go HERE. — Peter LaBarbera, www.americansfortruth.org

One News Now reports:

__________________________________________

Asylum for Homosexual Perverts U.S. policy
By Charlie Butts – OneNewsNow – 4/6/2010

A homosexual from Brazil has been granted asylum in the United States because he fears mistreatment in his home country over his sexual orientation.

According to LifeSiteNews.com, 28-year-old Augusto Pereira de Souza — as a result of the ruling — will be allowed to work and receive Social Security benefits in the U.S., and eventually will be permitted to apply for permanent residency. De Souza had submitted testimony that he had been verbally harassed by a policeman and, on a separate occasion, been chased by “skinheads” who were armed with baseball bats.

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality finds the case astounding because Brazil, he notes, is one of the most pro-homosexual countries on the map. He says Christians are the target of animosity in Brazil if they speak out against homosexuality.

Peter LaBarbera”I happen to have a friend, Julio Severo, who left Brazil in fear for being prosecuted as a Christian under the anti-homophobia mechanisms that are being set up in that country,” he explains.

The Americans for Truth spokesman admits he finds it hard to believe that de Souza had anything to fear in Brazil over his choice in favor of homosexuality.

“It’s not becoming a friendly place for people who believe homosexuality is wrong,” he says, “and so this is just preposterous that the United States is accepting a Brazilian homosexual on that basis.”

LaBarbera adds that since Brazil is becoming “a homosexual dream country,” it is a perversion of U.S. asylum policies to grant Brazilian homosexuals the privilege of coming to America over fears of persecution for their lifestyle.

[To listen to the ONN story online, click on "HEAR REPORT" button at upper right corner of the ONN story; to subscribe to ONN's "Daily News Brief," click HERE; to subscribe to ONN's Web Alerts, click HERE. ]

______________________________________________

LaBarbera: UNAIDS has ‘backwards’ thinking
By Charlie Butts – OneNewsNow – 3/17/2010

A United Nations Aids agency complains that homosexuals, drug users and prostitute don’t seek help because of laws that criminalize their practices.

Michel Sidibe of UNAIDS is quoted as saying it is unacceptable that 85 countries still make homosexual conduct illegal, but Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), does not accept that thinking.

“They’ve got everything backwards,” he contends. “Rather than have a campaign – for example an anti-sodomy campaign, an anti-prostitution campaign, an anti-drug abuse campaign that targets the bad behaviors themselves – instead they target countries that are trying to implement conservative policies that target homosexuality.”

In compatibility with his logic, Sidibe suggests that laws against the immoral behavior be changed.

“Mr. Sidibe is just completely confused,” LaBarbera notes. “He says that in states where there are not repressive laws, HIV is contained. Then he goes on to express shock that more than 50 percent of infections in the United States are among homosexuals. So he contradicts himself.”

Homosexual behavior is not illegal in this country, but the AFTAH president believes the answer to the issue is to launch an all-out campaign to educate people and change the behavior that results in infection. That is what reduced smoking in this country.

_____________________________________

Excerpts from the Associated Press story:

“New HIV infections increasing among homosexuals”

By EDITH M. LEDERER (AP) – March 16, 2010

NEW YORK — New HIV infections are increasing among homosexuals, drug users and prostitutes who don’t seek help because of laws that criminalize these practices, the head of the U.N. AIDS agency said Monday.

Michel Sidibe, the head of UNAIDS, said “it is unacceptable” that 85 countries still have laws criminalizing same sex relations among adults, including seven that impose the death penalty for homosexual practices.

He called a proposed Ugandan law that would impose the death penalty for some gays “very unfortunate” and expressed hope it will never be approved.

At a time when UNAIDS is scaling up its program and seeking universal access to HIV treatment, Sidibe said he was “very scared” because bad laws are being introduced by countries making it impossible for these at risk groups to have access to services.

“You have also a growing conservatism which is making me very scared,” Sidibe added….

Sidibe told a group of journalists at a luncheon hosted by the United Nations Foundation that in countries from China to Kenya and Malawi, about 33 percent of new HIV infections are in men having sex with men, a significant increase.

By contrast, he said that in the Caribbean where most countries don’t have repressive laws, only between 3 and 6 percent of HIV infections are in male homosexuals.

Even in the United States, where laws are not restrictive and the gay community was the first to tackle AIDS, Sidibe said it is “shocking” that more than 50 percent of new HIV infections last year occurred among homosexuals. And he said in the 19-25 age bracket the infection rate was even higher.

“It seems like we have come full circle” in the United States, he said. “After almost no cases a few years ago we are seeing again this new peak among people who are not having access to all the information, the protection that is needed.” …

In Nigeria, where there are 1,000 new HIV infections every day, over 30 percent are in vulnerable groups — drug users, sex workers and homosexuals, he said.

Sidibe called for “a prevention revolution” including a campaign in major cities around the world like the anti-smoking campaigns launched in recent years.

Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton -- who is on record affirming homosexuality as "natural, normal and healthy" despite the College's biblical faith charter -- has joined homosexual activists in crusading against Uganda's proposed Anti-Homosexuality law. Perhaps Throckmorton, who has lost his faith in the ability of Jesus Christ to help "homosexuals" leave the lifestyle, could learn something from the more biblically faithful Ugandans.

TAKE ACTION: contact Grove City College HERE and GCC President Richard G. Jewell (rgjewell@gcc.edu; 724-458-2500) and request a written explanation as to why they employ an activist professor who undermines the Bible’s clear teachings on homosexuality as a changeable sin (and not a natural “orientation”).

___________________________

Folks, I’ve been trying to avoid the Ugandan “Culture War” on homosexuality because I figure we’re busy enough with our own here in the USA. But that hasn’t stopped American homosexual activists and fellow travelers like Professor Warren Throckmorton of the “evangelical” Grove City College from insinuating themselves into the Ugandan situation. (Sadly, Warren has lost his faith in the ability of God to radically change homosexuals through Christ, and now busily works — even in Uganda! — to promote the faithless and disheartening message that most “gays and lesbians” cannot change their basic “orientation”; see his Uganda Independent column in which he makes that assertion HERE.)

Here’s the question I keep asking myself about the Uganda controversy: just what is it that qualifies the United States of America to lecture the Ugandans about homosexuality? Is it our public policy that enshrines immoral sexual behavior (oops: “sexual orientation”) and gender confusion (er…”gender identity and expression”) as a “civil right”? Is it our homosexual “marriage” laws that make a mockery of this divine institution (laws about which Prof. Throckmorton is curiously silent)? How about our pro-homosexuality educational propaganda in K-12 schools that corrupts young students’ minds in the name of “tolerance”? Or the 24/7 “gay bathhouses” and sex clubs that proliferate in urban centers across the United States to facilitate quick-and-easy (and anonymous) deviant sexual hook-ups? (“Come to America: where you can have all the safe sodomy you want! Discounts for students (no joke) and free condoms available for your perverted pleasure!”)

Tell me: does Uganda have something to learn from Christian “defectors” like the opportunistic Prof. Throckmorton — who is now a de facto promoter of homosexuality as normal, natural and healthy while ostensibly still claiming some sort of “Christian” mission at GCC? (Grove City College boasts in evangelical circles that it is “authentically Christian” — an advertising claim of diminishing accuracy the longer it abides likes of Throckmorton.)

[TAKE ACTION: contact Grove City College HERE and GCC President Richard G. Jewell (rgjewell@gcc.edu; 724-458-2500) and request a written explanation as to why they employ an activist professor who undermines the Bible's clear teachings on homosexuality as a changeable sin (and not a natural "orientation").]

Challenge to Accommodationists: I stand corrected if Prof. Throckmorton or any Grove City prof — indeed, any homosexual activist or pro-”gay” apologist — can show me anything resembling “sexual orientation” in the Bible as this concept is currently understood and posited in academia, the media and society.

Nope. What we’re seeing here is sheer Western activist arrogance. (Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media calls it “Homosexual Imperialism.”) I haven’t yet studied the proposed Ugandan legislation but I agree with Bob Knight’s analysis below — and AFTAH is clearly on record opposing draconian penalties for homosexuality like those imposed by jihadist Islamic radicals. But I do know this: Uganda would do well to avoid the example set by America of a cultural-elite-driven society that celebrates homosexuality (along with other sexual immoralities) — and then reaps the whirlwind that results, including the following:

• devastating (public) health crises that are prolonged by the politically correct protection of the very sexual misbehaviors that helped spread the disease in the first place;
• the proliferation of “gay” activist groups that war against Judeo-Christian values and cruelly smear people of faith who dare to defend those values;
• pro-homosexuality, politically correct indoctrination — even on the job — masquerading as “diversity” — i.e., the gradual replacement of Christian proselytization with the institutional advocacy of sin, disguised as tolerance;
• public immorality and annual “gay pride” parades that subject children to immoral displays including public nudity;
• the undermining of historic Judeo-Christian teachings on sex and marriage; “queer” theological attacks on the Bible and sacred texts due to their unambiguous teachings against homosexual acts;
• the rise of “gay”-sympathetic, anti-religious bigotry and even laws that criminalize the outworking of a biblically-informed conscience against homosexuality; legal and cultural harassment of moral-minded organizations like the Boy Scouts and Salvation Army that refuse to treat homosexuality as a civil right;
• the corruption and victimization of children — including ever younger “coming out” ages for children declaring their supposed “gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender” (“queer”) identity.
• turning the public schools into indoctrination zones for the “GLBT” ideology — all in the name of tolerance and “protecting kids”; the spread of “gay” school clubs, first to high schools, then to middle schools, and ultimately to grade schools.

As you can see, most of America’s “lessons” on homosexuality for Uganda are negative ones. Could it be that the more faith-filled and Bible-trusting African Christians have something to teach jaded Americans like Barack Obama and Warren Throckmorton about homosexuality?  – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org ; send us your thoughts at americansfortruth@comcast.net

__________________________________

The following is a column by Bob Knight in World Net Daily:

____________________________________________

All the bile that’s fit to print

Exclusive: Robert Knight hits N.Y. Times for ‘knee-jerk spasms’ targeting Christians

Posted on WND January 13, 2010

You cannot find a better example of selective outrage and character assassination than the Jan. 5 New York Times editorial, “Hate begets hate.”

This humdinger of a self-descriptive screed has it all: wild, unsubstantiated charges; villains; hysterical calls for action; and a smug, holier-than-thou tone that would put “Saturday Night Live”‘s Church Lady to shame.

At issue is Uganda’s proposed law criminalizing homosexuality. But the editorial’s real focus is crucifying Christians who had given talks in Uganda and any part of Christendom that has not bowed its knee to the gay gods.

The Times notes that “three evangelical Christians, whose teachings about ‘curing’ gays and lesbians have been widely discredited in the United States, helped feed this hatred.” The editorial names Scott Lively, Caleb Lee Brundidge and Don Schmierer, who “gave a series of talks” last March that “claimed that gays and lesbians are a threat to Bible-based family values.”

I don’t know Mr. Brundidge, but I do know Mr. Lively and Mr. Schmierer. Both are honest and courageous men who, out of Christian compassion, dare to tell the truth about homosexuality. For this, the Times brands them as hatemongers.

While Mr. Lively has written perceptively and passionately about countering the homosexual activists’ political and cultural agenda, there is no evidence of “hate.” Trying to steer someone away from destructive, immoral, changeable behavior is an act of love, not hate. And it is beyond absurd to label as a bigot a man like Don Schmierer, who supports AIDS ministries and reaches out to sexually conflicted people with the life-changing gospel of Jesus Christ. Casting the gentle, soft spoken Mr. Schmierer as a “hater” is like calling Mother Teresa a foul-mouthed harpy.

These men discuss sexual behavior and its consequences for individuals, families and societies, and the blessings of God-given hope. As is typical for a fully owned subsidiary of the homosexual activist movement, the Times falsely claims that the Christian leaders oppose the people themselves. The Times has bought into and promoted the media-fed fiction that people are born gay, cannot change and therefore their volitional sexual behavior is synonymous with identity. In gay parlance, it’s “who they are,” not what they do.

This is nonsense. If we are defined by our sexual behavior, then men addicted to pornography are nothing more than “pornophiles.” It is homosexual activists who have insisted on making sexual desire the be-all and end-all of personal identity. They did this to hijack the moral capital of the black civil-rights movement, equating “sexual orientation” with immutable characteristics like skin color or ethnicity. One big problem remains for them, though. Skin color and ethnicity are morally neutral. Sexual behavior is fraught with moral, social and physical consequences and has been regulated by every society since time began.

The Times ignores the Christian men’s pointed criticisms of the proposed Uganda law and says, “We don’t have much hope that they will atone for their acts.”

Well, we don’t have a whole lot of hope that the Times will atone for its many portrayals of Christians as hate-filled bigots whenever the “gay” issue surfaces. They are following the playbook of “After the Ball,” a gay strategy manual from 1989 that instructs activists to “jam” opponents into silence through threats of guilt by association, outright smears and phony “scientific” claims that go unexamined. The strategy has worked brilliantly, as even conservative voices have been frightened into silence or into steadily ceding moral ground, circling the wagons only around the word “marriage.”

The Times is not alone, of course, in its relentless pursuit of homosexual orthodoxy. On Jan. 7, the Washington Post ran an editorial about Uganda entitled, “A barbaric proposal.” The Post editors, at least, did not engage in Christian bashing, and stuck to very real problems with the proposed law. They did repeat a gay mantra, however: “Being gay is not a choice.”

Science has by no means settled the issue. None of the highly publicized studies by gay researchers in the 1990s has been replicated, and several have been discredited. Then, too, there is the inconvenient existence of many people who engage in homosexuality for years and later embrace the straight life. The “ex-gay” movement is large and growing, but the media are keeping it one of the best-kept secrets out of deference to militant gay activists in the newsrooms.

Uganda has been in the cultural elites’ hot water before by bucking the U.S.-backed condom crusade in Africa and slashing its AIDS rate with campaigns for abstinence and fidelity. The current homosexuality bill is seriously flawed. It contains such overreaches as jail terms for people who do not report homosexual activity and life imprisonment for people who engage in the behavior. But the Times and the Post go beyond criticizing the harsher aspects of the law and attack the underlying concern of Ugandans to defend marriage and family, avoid the corruption of their children and put the brakes on AIDS and other diseases.

The Times and the Post warn that Uganda will become a “pariah” nation “shunned globally” if the law is passed. That may be so. But it might behoove the press to take a closer look at some other countries in Africa whose governments, in the grip of Muslim extremism, routinely cut off people’s heads merely for changing religions. Some nations, such as Egypt, have governments that look the other way as young Christian girls are abducted, raped and forced into Muslim marriages. Do these nations qualify as “pariahs”?

The Times’ editors need to come to terms with their knee-jerk spasms against evangelical Christians and others who defend family values. They routinely depict pro-marriage Americans as motivated solely by hatred and prejudice, never by genuine, heartfelt concerns.

In their editorial’s own words: “You can’t preach hate and not accept responsibility for the way that hate is manifested.”

If this is so, the next equipment the Times should order for its newsroom is … a mirror.

____________________________

Robert Knight is senior writer and correspondent for Coral Ridge Ministries and the author of “Fighting for America’s Soul” (Coral Ridge 2009) and the upcoming book “Radical Rulers.”

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