Americans for Truth about Homosexuality

The following is excerpted from a LifesiteNews.com article titled, “English-Language Media Wildly Overestimated Brazil Gay Pride Numbers, Underestimated Pro-Family March
Brazilian Gay Pride March vs March for Jesus: A Comparative Analysis.”

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, for LifesiteNews.com

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

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

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

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

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

To read the entire Lifesite article, click HERE.

By Matthew Hoffman, from his Matthew Hoffman.net:

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

The following is excerpted from LifeSiteNews.com, a must ”go-to” site for pro-family advocates and citizens no matter what country you live in. Needless to say, you would have heard a lot more about this huge Italian rally had it been an “anti-Bush” protest against the war, or maybe a pro-”gay marriage” protest. The people ”get it” regarding marriage and family; the secular media are obsessed with political correctness. One wonders how the political/cultural equation over homosexuality would be different if the media’s coverage were anything close to being fair rather than overwhelmingly pro-”gay”-activist as it is in most of the West today.– Peter LaBarbera  

1.5 Million Italians Turn Out in Massive Rome Protest Against Homosexual Civil Unions
Oraganizers Were Expecting Only 100,000

By Gudrun Schultz, LifeSiteNews.com

ROME, Italy, May 14, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Italians from across the country poured into Rome May 12 to join in a demonstration against a law that would give legal recognition to homosexual couples–reports showed up to 1.7 million people overflowed the St. John Lateran piazza. Organizers initially expected to draw about 100,000.

The proposed legislation would give homosexual couples–and unmarried heterosexual couples–similar rights to those of married couples, stopping just short of legalizing homosexual marriage.

“Living together is not family,” protester Anna Manara told the Associated Press.
“A commitment such as marriage cements the bond, while other models make it easier to be together and therefore end up making it less valuable.”

While the pro-family demonstration was backed by the Vatican and Italy’s Catholic bishops, it was organized by lay people independently of the Church. The “mind-blowing” success of the event is an outstanding example of the power held by ordinary citizens when sufficiently mobilized in support of traditional values, said Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, a priest in Rome who is the moderator of the Catholic Online Forum (see blogsite: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2007/05/winners-and-losers).

“The importance of this event is not merely that when left to their own devices the Italian people will support traditional values in great numbers, giving the lie to the script presented by the intellectuals in the press. It also means in concrete terms that the traditional values laity can organize and achieve results.”

“The success of “Family Day” also highlights a now deeply entrenched trend not only in Italy, but in the West: the marginalization of the Church from the public square,” Fr. Zuhlsdorf said. “Nearly everywhere the Church’s is being denied its right to speak freely. Committed Catholic and other religious politicians and public figures are pressured never to make reference to their religious convictions. The constant mantra is that religion should be a purely private matter than has no influence on public policy. Be religious, fine. But you may never act outwardly on your interior opinions.”

Read the rest of this article »

The following is reprinted with permission from the Howard Center’s ”Family in America” newsletter (“New Research,” December 2006; emphasis added). The Howard Center is a wonderful organization, based in Rockford, Illinois, that is home to esteemed family scholar Allan Carlson — who founded the World Congress of Families, an annual event designed to build worldwide, intellectual support for the “natural family.” This year’s Congress convenes Friday in Warsaw, Poland; check out its website to read about the battle between old-line, anti-family European Unions forces and Eastern European nations like Poland that are fighting to preserve marriage and a “culture of life” (which does NOT include teaching homosexuality as normal to children). 

We encourage you to sign up for Howard Center’s e-publication and request a sample printed copy of the “Family in America” newsletter, which is loaded with important, scholarly research on family issues. (You can call Howard Center at 815-964-5819 or e-mail info@profam.org.)

Common sense dictates that unnatural homosexual unions are more volatile than traditional marriages, and the research backs that up. Here are the Demography study’s two key findings on “gay” unions in Norway and Sweden:

1. Few homosexuals choose to “marry” or register their union with the government;
2. Homosexual unions end in divorce much more often than heterosexual marriages.

Homosexual Unions: Rare and Fragile 

Progressive activists in the United States have argued strenuously in recent years that giving homosexuals the legal right to marry will improve life for homosexual couples and will consequently benefit society as a whole.  A new study of same-sex marriage in Scandinavia, however, casts serious doubt on such assertions.  For, as it turns out, relatively few homosexual couples avail themselves of this revolutionary right. And a surprisingly high percentage of those who do so end up in divorce court.

To analyze the demographics of homosexual ["marriages,"] a team of German and Norwegian scholars recently examined data collected in Norway and Sweden since these bellwether countries discarded centuries of legal tradition by authorizing homosexual unions (in 1993 in Norway and in 1995 in Sweden).  Both countries have thus now enacted laws granting homosexuals “the legal right to registered partnerships, a civil status that [the researchers believe], in practice does not deviate much from the concept of marriage.”  The legal equivalence of homosexual unions to heterosexual marriage indeed largely explains why the researchers use “the terms registered partnerships and same-sex marriage interchangeably.”   Similarly, the researchers “use the term divorce to refer to [homosexual] partnership dissolution because the divorce procedures of the marriage act [in both countries] apply to registered [homosexual] ["marriages"] as well.”

As the German and Norwegian scholars survey the available data for homosexual unions, they cannot avoid one obvious reality: “the incidence of same-sex ['marriage'] in Norway and Sweden is not particularly impressive.”  Between 1993 and 2001, while Norway recorded 196,000 heterosexual marriages, the country witnessed the legal registration of only 1,293 homosexual partnerships.  Similarly, while Sweden recorded 280,000 heterosexual marriages between 1995-2002, the country saw the formation of only 1,526 registered homosexual partnerships.  The researchers accordingly calculate “a ratio of around 7 same-sex ['marriages'] to every 1,000 new opposite-sex marriages” in Norway and a comparable “ratio of 5 new partnerships to every 1,000 new opposite-sex marriages” in Sweden.  The researchers remark that the numbers of same-sex ["marriages"] have run “considerably lower” than might have been expected by those relying on recent surveys of sexual behavior.  These surveys have indicated that “well over 1%” of women and between 1 and 3% of men have had a same-sex partner during the last year, with between 4 and 9% of men and approximately 4% of women reporting that they have had a same-sex partner at some time during their lives.  (The authors of the new study are too well informed to rehash the now discredited absurdity—promulgated by Alfred Kinsey—that fully ten percent of the adult male population is homosexual.) [Note: see Judith Reisman's website for more good information on Kinsey and his fraudulent research.--Peter L.]

The data for same-sex unions in Norway and Sweden indicate, however, not only that such unions are relatively rare, but also that they are remarkably fragile, ending in divorce significantly more often than do the heterosexual marriages of peers.  The statistics indeed reveal “that the divorce risk for partnerships of men is 50% higher than the corresponding risk for heterosexual marriages and that the divorce risk for partnerships of women is about double (2.67) that for men (1.50).”  

Read the rest of this article »

We share Austin Ruse’s outrage at the arrogance of the European Parliament for re-defining Judeo-Christian morality in Poland as “homophobia.” Regarding pedophiles marching in the streets, the notorious NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) once marched in homosexual ”pride” parades until “gay” organizers got smart and started banning the pederasty group. However, one “father of gay rights,” Harry Hay, avidly defended NAMBLA, and protested the man-boy-sex group’s exclusion from the 1986 Los Angeles “gay pride” parade, holding a sign that read, “NAMBLA walks with me.” In 2005, ex-gay Christian activist James Hartline made headlines when he revealed that two convicted pedophiles were were working as volunteers for San Diego’s homosexual “pride” festival. Please help Poland by signing C-FAM’s petition.– Peter LaBarbera  

Dear Colleague,

The power of the radical homosexual movement in Europe has just been shown. The European Parliament just voted to condemn Poland on what they term “homophobia.” What was Poland’s crime? The Polish Prime Minister said that Polish school children should not be subject to “homosexual propaganda.”

Polish authorities have also resisted demands from radical homosexuals that they be allowed to march in the streets. If you live in any major city you know these marches where leather boys and pedophiles march freely and disruptively through the streets.

The response of the European Parliament was to pass a resolution calling these sensible actions “hate speech” and asks competent legal authorities to take action against these officials and the government of Poland.

This is outrageous and all people of good will must stand with the Polish people against the radical homosexual movement in the European Union.

I ask you to go immediately to the petition “Homosexual Hands Off Poland” at www.c-fam.org/handsoffpoland.php.

The petitions will be delivered to the Polish authorities on Thursday, May 10. I will personally deliver them to Polish Members of the European Parliament and to members of the Polish government when I am in Warsaw for the World Congress of Families.

We only have a few days to get as many names as possible. I urge you to go to www.c-fam.org/handsoffpoland.php and sign the petition, then send this message to everyone you know. We need to deliver thousands of names of supporters from all over the world. I especially urge those in the EU countries to get this message to everyone you know. We must tell the radicals in the European Union to keep homosexual hands off of Poland!

Go to www.c-fam.org/handsoffpoland.php and sign the petition and send this email message to everyone in your address book.

Yours sincerely,

Austin Ruse
President
C-FAM

PS Poland stands almost alone in the European Parliament against an enormous coalition of radicals. Poland needs our help right now. Please sign the petition at www.c-fam.org/handsoffpoland.php and help Poland fight back.
 
 

By Chuck Colson, a Breakpoint Commentary

For further resources on this issue, go to the Breakpoint website. We encourage you to sign up for these excellent daily commentaries by e-mail.

In George Orwell’s classic novel 1984, the government Thought Police constantly spies on citizens to make sure they are not thinking rebellious thoughts. Thought crimes are severely punished by Big Brother.

1984 was intended as a warning against totalitarian governments that enslave and control their citizens. Never have we needed this warning more urgently than now, because America’s Thought Police are knocking on your door.

Last week the House Judiciary Committee, egged on by radical homosexual groups, passed what can only be called a Thought Crimes bill. It’s called the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. But this bill is not about hate. It’s not even about crime. It’s about outlawing peaceful speech—speech that asserts that homosexual behavior is morally wrong.

Some say we need this law to prevent attacks on homosexuals. But we already have laws against assaults on people and property. Moreover, according to the FBI, crimes against homosexuals in the United States have dropped dramatically in recent years. In 2005, out of 863,000 cases of aggravated assault, just 177 cases were crimes of bias against homosexuals—far less than even 1 percent.

Another problem is that in places where hate crimes laws have been passed, hate crimes have been defined to include verbal attacks—and even peaceful speech. The Thought Police have already prosecuted Christians under hate crimes laws in England, Sweden, Canada, and even in some places in the United States.

If this dangerous law passes, pastors who preach sermons giving the biblical view of homosexuality could be prosecuted. Christian businessmen who refuse to print pro-gay literature could be prosecuted. Groups like Exodus International, which offer therapy to those with unwanted same-sex attraction, could be shut down.

In classic 1984 fashion, peaceful speech will be redefined as a violent attack worthy of punishment.

This is the unspoken goal of activist groups. We know this because during the debate over the bill last week, Congressman Mike Pence (R) of Indiana offered a Freedom of Religion amendment to this hate crimes bill. It asked that nothing in this law limit the religious freedom of any person or group under the Constitution. The committee refused to adopt it. It also refused to adopt amendments protecting other groups from hate crimes—like members of the military, who are often targets of verbal attacks and spitting. They also shot down amendments that would protect the homeless and senior citizens, also often targeted by criminals. Nothing doing, the committee said—the only group they wanted to protect: homosexuals.

Clearly, the intent of this law is not to prevent crime, but to shut down freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of thought. Its passage would strike at the very heart of our democracy.

The full Congress may vote on this bill as early as this week. Unless you want Big Brother telling you what to say, what to think, and what to believe, I urge you to contact your congressman immediately, urging him or her to vote against this bill. If you visit the BreakPoint website, you’ll find more information about this radical law.

If we do nothing, 1984 will no longer be fiction, and Big Brother will be watching you and me—ready to punish the “wrong” thoughts.

Scottish Christian Party to make Holyrood election a referendum on the Sexual Orientation Regulation

GLASGOW, Scotland, April 30 /Christian Newswire/ — With the Sexual Orientation Regulations becoming law at midnight last night the Scottish Christian Party has mailed 2 million anti- Sexual Orientation Regulation leaflets to voters in Scotland.

In the Glasgow and the Central region of Scotland ¾ million leaflets have been sent in personally addressed envelopes with a covering letter.

Reverend George Hargreaves, leader of the Scottish Christian Party said, “We intend to high-jack the political agenda as far Christians are concerned. The SOR’s are a far more urgent matter to many Scottish Christians than independence or any other current political issue. It is an assault on their faith and conscience.

Thursday is their chance to say ‘No!’ to the SORs.”

In the party’s election broadcast, aired on BBC and STV last Tuesday, the SORs were compared to anti- Semitic laws passed by the Nazis in the early 1930′s. The broadcast featured footage of Hitler addressing a rally in 1933.

Reverend Hargreaves noted, “We are turning the Holyrood elections into a de-facto referendum on the Sexual Orientation Regulations.”

Note to Editors: In 2000 Brian Souter’s Keep the Clause campaign gained the support of over 1 million Scots. The Scottish Christian Party are fielding 72 candidates across Scotland on the Regional List; more than any other political party.

By Peter LaBarbera 

Bob Schwartz of the leftist Chicago homosexual group Gay Liberation Network responded to my e-note asking if he favored laws censoring pro-family group’s speech critical of homosexuality. The following is Schwartz’s response (we’ve put his response at the top rather than following my note, as it was in the original).

I certainly doubt the accuracy of Schwartz’s claim about the Nigerian bishop, as he and his group typically lop all Christians who stand for traditional morality in with those who committed indefensible acts (e.g., violence or death threats) against homosexuals. Schwartz also engages in hyperbole typical of many leftists when he claims that Christian groups are a threat to democracy. Schwartz’s flagrant name-calling of committed Christians as “fascists” is a callous and hurtful shibboleth that has no basis in reality and is deeply offensive to all people and groups, like Americans For Truth, that abhor the Nazis’ genocidal record.

As to Schwartz’s claim about “hate speech,” many on our side of the debate regard GLN’s standard rhetoric — e.g., calling the historic Moody Bible Church in Chicago a “house of hate” — as hateful in the extreme.

Finally, regarding his note about socieities in decline, we commend the work of  the (anti-Christian) Edward Gibbons (The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire), historian Will Durant, Pitirim Sorokin, and others who have documented the role of sexual immorality in the demise of great civilizations.

All this said, we are pleasantly surprised that the GLN leader is not an outright advocate of censorship. Here is Schwartz’s reply to my question:

Is The Big House Peter LaBarbera’s future home?
 

_______________________________________________
 
Sure, its tempting to want to enact laws like those in Canada and across parts of Europe that restrict the very kind of hate speech you and others dole out to gays, all under cover of “religious freedom.” But, I do not favor governmental restrictions on hate speech.
 
I reach this conclusion, not because I care one iota about speech rights for people who would like to push me back into the closet, restrict my rights or see me dead, but because governmental regulation of speech–particularly in the United States–would likely be turned against people of the left, not of the right.  I’m not about to cut my own throat.
 
What I will do is keep portraying right-wing outfits like IFI and Americans for Truth, along with more effective hate groups like Focus on the Family, the John Hagee “ministries,” and the Coral Ridge fascist James Kennedy as dangerous to democracy. Dangerous because they include extremists who want to substitute the bible for the US Constitution. Dangerous because they are hate mongers who go after vulnerable gays today, but have an agenda that includes rolling back gains won thru struggle by workers, immigrants, women, and African Americans, as well as support to American/Israeli wars for empire.*
 
This summer, Gay Liberation Network will host a Nigerian gay man who has had to flee his native land following death threats from thugs spurred on by Christian leaders such as the Anglican archbishop, Peter Akinola, a man held to be a hero by some American gay haters.
 
Finally, as you will recall, we are prepared to take our ideas into the street.
 
You and others of your ilk deserve to be isolated, and ousted from respectable society.  The fate of Don Imus hopefully awaits antigay bigots as well.
 
BOB SCHWARTZ
Gay Liberation Network
 
[* See the book by Kevin Phillips entitled "American Theocracy." Phillips points out that elites of societies in decline often appropriate religious fervor as they attempt to stabilize the sinking ship, branding policy opponents as enemies, demonizing religious and sexual minorities, scapegoating "foreigners," calling upon the deity to bless military adventures, etc.]

….
 
I got the following response from Peter LaBarbera after I copied him on the message I posted regarding the IFI campaign to defeat federal hate crime legislation.  My response to LaBarbera follows his message. 
LaBarbera posted my original message and his response on his website: http://americansfortruth.org/
He can be reached at americansfortruth@comcast.net
 
 
…. You’d love to censor groups like IFI and Americans for Truth, wouldn’t you? If you had the power, you’d want to shut us down or ban certain aspects of our speech and conduct? For example, would you favor a federal “anti-hate” law that would have made our last email (“Satan’s Talking Points”) illegal? Or am I wrong and you actually support freedom of speech in the USA on the homosexual issue (which does not include direct harassing threats or advocating violence)? Would you favor using anti-discrimination hate speech laws to curb anti-gay speech? Which speech if any would you censor? Do you support anti-”hate speech” laws in Canada and England that are rapidly criminalizing (“discriminatory”) speech critical of homosexuality and are resulting in Christians being sued for discrimination or being jailed because they publicly oppose homosexual behavior? Did you support the jailing of the pastor in Sweden, Ake Green (www.akegreen.org), or do you think he should not have been prosecuted and what the government did to him was an injustice?  Since you’re charging us with being fascists, don’t we have a right to know? Would you use state power to restrict anti-gay speech, or not, and if so, under what circumstances?
 
Peter LaBarbera
Americans For Truth