—Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of Great Britain, 1979-1990. For more information on this great leader and the principles of freedom and prosperity she embodied, see the Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

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

Loree writes (web links and emphasis added):

Mr Bradley,

In a spirit of love I will strongly recommend that you focus on the disease-ridden, self-destructive TRUTH regarding homosexuality, rather than the empty, hollow homosexual rhetoric that’s been used over the past 20 years. Honestly, Mr Bradley, all of the accusations of hate, bigotry, discrimination, spiritual violence, etc. are as old as a worn out shoe, and have little if any impact on those of us who know the TRUTH. The psychological “terrorism” that was calculated and conceived back in the late 1980s is nothing more than blatant deception in an attempt to get people, through emotion, to accept this unnatural and self-destructive behavior.

It was earlier this year that the outgoing head of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force admitted that “HIV is a gay disease” in the United States. If you’re honest, you’ll agree that there is an undeniable link between homosexual behavior and the HIV virus which can lead to AIDS. This is both medically valid and universally accepted. But you don’t address this side of homosexuality much, do you? The diseases that result from the homosexual lifestyle is REALITY and it is the TRUTH!

The most loving thing that a Christian can do, then, is to stand in firm opposition to the homosexual lifestyle. Real love will offer the message of hope that leaving the homosexual lifestyle is possible, and testimonies abound from both men and women who have done just that. For if there is anything that is truly innate or inborn regarding homosexuality, it is the God-given “voice of conscience” which is in all of us. If homosexuals could only silence that inner voice of conscience, then they could feel comfortable with their lifestyle without having to deal with TRUTH and REALITY. But real love, Mr Bradley, confronts with the TRUTH, with the desire that changed lives will be the result. Leaving the homosexual lifestyle may be difficult and may take time. In love, I do not propose that there is a simple 1-2-3 step “formula” or that one “method” fits all. But I do know that change can and does take place, and it is my prayer that many will yet have the courage and motivation to honestly look at the TRUTH and then seek out the help that can bring about that change. (Americans For Truth can help in giving direction to those who would contact them*.)

In Christian Love,

Ron Loree
Muskegon Michigan
E-mail address: loreebarney@msn.com

* Here are some ex-”gay” ministries: Stephen Bennett Ministries; Exodus International; Charlene Cothran’s “Victory” magazine; Stephen Black’s

From homosexuality-embracing Britain, we received this note via the AFTAH website (June 25, 2008). I wonder how many American “queer” activists think like him (even if they wouldn’t admit publicly it yet). Send us your responses to Mr. Bradley, and your defense of American freedom, at americansfortruth@comcast.net. We’ll publish some, and pass them on to him:

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. I have never seen such a diatribe of prejudiced rubbish in my entire life. Also the fact that your life’s work is dedicated (every day) to furthering your cause of hatred astounds me. Do you have nothing better to do with your time? I thought that Christians were meant to be out building wells in Africa where help is needed, not dressing up in smart suits waging campaigns against marginalised groups of people. I wonder what God thinks of you making decisions for him? Maybe if America had a more united culture like we do in the UK it may be more tolerant of all groups – we over here in Europe see you as a very disparate country made up of groups that know nothing about each other, and who have very little respect for diversity. You should take some lessons from the old world… it seems we have advanced much more than you have.

Peter M Bradley

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.

P.S. We can’t let the homosexual activists steal the rainbow just like they stole the word “gay” and are trying to steal “equality” by applying it to counterfeit same-sex “marriage.”

_________________________

The British homosexual website PinkNews reports:

Flying the Rainbow flag is a decision for individual British embassies

By Tony Grew, PinkNews, June 10, 2008

The sight of the international symbol of the gay community flying from British embassy buildings in Riga and Warsaw in past weeks has been widely praised as a symbol of the UK’s commitment to gay rights.

The Rainbow flag has been displayed twice, both times in EU nations that have banned gay events.

A spokesperson for the Foreign and Commonwealth office told PinkNews.co.uk that the symbolic gesture is not part of an “overall” policy to promote LGBT equality. …

The decision to fly the flag in Riga and Warsaw to show support for their respective Pride events was warmly welcomed by gay rights activists in Poland and Latvia.

In May the Foreign and Commonwealth Office confirmed its commitment to engage with foreign governments about the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans people.

It issued an ‘LGBT Toolkit’ to its 261 embassies, high commissions and other diplomatic posts.

The kit contains information on the official British policy on gay rights and instructions in how to “provide added value to equality and non-discrimination work.”

It covers a wide range of issues, from decriminalisation, sexual health, reproductive rights [abortion] and health education to bilateral work with other countries. …

Click HERE to read the entire “Pink News” story, “Flying the Rainbow flag is a decision for individual British embassies”