Scott Lively addressing the AFTAH banquet in October. Lively received AFTAH's "Americans Truth Teller" award for 2011.

Part Five of the AFTAH interview [click HERE to listen] with Scott Lively of Defending the Family International.  This was pre-recorded and aired Dec. 3, 2011. Go to the AFTAH Radio Hour Archive for the rest of this very informative interview. In the course of AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera’s interview with Lively, the two discussed:

• The dire state of the American Christian Church vis-a-vis the aggressive movement to normalize homosexual behavior and gender confusion in the culture;
• The “terror” tactics and aggressive campaigns used by homosexual activists to intimidate good people into silence on this issue;
• Lively’s personal experience with the dirty tactics and lies used by radical LGBT activists against pro-family leaders attempting to stop the “gay” revolution (including one notorious fake “anti-gay hate crime” in Oregon). Lively more than almost any pro-family conservative alive today has experienced these tactics firsthand in more than 20 years of working on the front lines (here and abroad) against the homosexualist agenda;
• The futility of relying on politics and the courts to contain the advance of government-backed homosexuality — and how many “ministry-minded” or apathetic believers are woefully naive about the Culture War raging on this issue;
• The campaign of lies used by pro-homosexual militants (and repeated by the media) to smear Lively and others as allegedly supporting the murder of homosexuals in Uganda;
• The corruption of words by the pro-homosexual Left, including “gay,” “sexual orientation” and “marriage equality”;
• The appearance of PRO-homosexuality “evangelicals” like Grove City College’s Warren Throckmorton and Chicago’s Andrew Marin – who confuse Christians and undermine biblical truth on the issue by capitulating to pro-”gay” ideology and semantics;
• The connection of homosexuality and sexual deviance to the Nazi Party in Germany. (See Lively’s book, The Pink Swastika);
• The very real threat to religious liberty posed by the tremendous rise of homosexual (“gay”) power in the United States.

HOW TO LISTEN: This is an mp3 file, supported in most operating systems by Windows Media Player, Quick Time and/or I-Tunes.  Real Player is not supported and there may be difficulty when attempting to listen with it.  Left click once on the link below to play. (Please be patient, depending upon the speed of your internet connection it may take a moment or two to load.)  OR right click the link then “save target as” to download the whole show.

12-3-11, Scott Lively, Part Five

Prof. Ken Howell

Here is Part Two of our interview with Catholic Prof. Ken Howell, Senior Fellow in the School of Catholic Thought at the John Paul II Newman Center, located at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC). Howell was fired and then rehired last year by the University of Illinois (Champaign) after a “friend” of a student complained about an e-mail lesson he wrote on Natural Moral Law and homosexuality. A little known fact arising from the controversy is that Howell is no longer emplyed by the University of Illinois after a long stint there (thus, his liberal detractors were rewarded). In this interview, which aired November 12, 2011, Howell goes deeper into explaining Natural Law. You can listen to Part One HERE.

HOW TO LISTEN: This is an mp3 file, supported in most operating systems by Windows Media Player, Quick Time and/or I-Tunes.  Real Player is not supported and there may be difficulty when attempting to listen with it.  Left click once on the link below to play. (Please be patient, depending upon the speed of your internet connection it may take a moment or two to load.)  OR right click the link then “save target as” to download the whole show.

11-12-11, Ken Howell, Part Two

Dear Readers, below is a YouTube video of President Obama’s Dec. 22, 2010 signing of the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”  — ie., the ban on open homosexuality in the military. Republicans currently are struggling to respond to the rapid pro-homosexual changes in our military — which have their root in a campaign promise by Obama to his homosexual activist supporters. Take note at how everything in this White House celebration presumes that homosexuality be understood as an innocuous or positive identity, and the advancement of the “rights” of a minority (“gays and lesbians”). What is alien to this celebration of the “GLBT” Lobby’s greatest political victory to date is the conception of homosexuality as immoral (sinful), unnatural and/or destructive behavior.

The public’s embrace of this zeitgeist exchange of identity/group-civil rights for anti-social misbehavior is the single greatest achievement of the modern homosexual activist movement. However — just as the popularization of “pro-choice” rhetoric has no bearing on the ethics of killing innocent, unborn babies in the womb – this highly strategic, pro-”gay” cultural transformation has no bearing on the morality of homosexual practice. Nor does it negate the massive health risks and other pitfalls associated with homosexuality, including the emerging reality that homosexuality-based “rights’ destroy religious freedom (to oppose same-sex conduct). These matters obviously are of little concern to liberals, who are now so wedded to the “gay civil rights” paradigm that they see any attempt to view homosexuality through the (religious) lens of wrong-yet-changeable behavior as itself an act of “prejudice,” to quote our Commander-in-Chief.  — Peter LaBarbera, www. aftah.org

The following is excerpted from a Dec. 1 news release by the Center for Military Readiness:

Following release of the Pentagon’s Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG) report on the issue of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders in the military, Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, issued the following statement:

“At a time of growing uncertainty and concern about America’s national security, it is unsettling to see Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen devoting so many hours this week to well-orchestrated but superficial media events designed to deliver on President Obama’s political campaign promises to the LGBT Left. Yesterday’s briefings were quite a show and they gave it their best shot. The grim faces of Mullen and Gates, however, betrayed an inconvenient truth: The CRWG Report does not mention a single beneficial result of repealing the 1993 law, which would strengthen recruiting, retention, and readiness in the All-Volunteer Force.

“Instead, Secretary Gates and Adm. Mullen let down the troops by demanding involuntary acceptance of unnecessary burdens that disregard the normal human desire for privacy and modesty in sexual matters. Elevating unrealistic theories over practical experience, yesterday’s presenters tried but failed to divert attention from information buried in the report. Page 74, for example, reports that ‘Nearly 60% of respondents in the Marine Corps and in Army combat arms said they believed there would be a negative impact on their unit’s effectiveness in this context; among Marine combat arms the number was 67%.’

“Neither official showed any concern about the thousands of experienced troops, starting with but not limited to the chaplains, who would be subject to career-ending “Zero Tolerance” penalties if they do not support mandatory LGBT Law and corollary policies in our military.

“Recommendations for LGBT training curricula and living conditions that elevate the risk of sexual misconduct, both voluntary and involuntary, betray skewed priorities reflecting the president’s political promises. Denials of these risks were no more convincing than endorsements of body armor with a risk of failure estimated to be “only” 10%.

“Living conditions offering little or no privacy are difficult, and combat missions are hazardous enough. Why are these officials pushing for radical, unneeded social changes that would make
military life more difficult and ultimately more dangerous in the All-Volunteer Force—the only military we have?

“Secretary Gates cannot have it both ways—claiming that the “Comprehensive Review Working Group” survey was not intended to be a ‘referendum’ of the troops, while
simultaneously allowing media reports to claim that it was. The truth is that military personnel and families who support the current law were not given an equal opportunity to have their views respected and reported. None of the CRWG survey instruments include the basic question of interest to Senator McCain and most members of Congress: Should the 1993 law be retained or repealed? It was not enough to ask the troops to suggest remedies for irresolvable problems that could be avoided by simply retaining the 1993 law.”

Donnelly continued, “Secretary Gates’ claim that congressional action is needed to head off precipitous court orders does not qualify as a positive argument—in fact, those comments suggest that DoD General Counsel and CRWG Co-Chair Jeh Johnson forgot to tell his boss about a problem that other legal experts recognize. The rogue ruling of San Diego U.S. District Judge
Virginia Phillips’ in the Log Cabin Republican case challenging the constitutionality of the current law, Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C., is being appealed and likely will be overturned by the
Supreme Court if not by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“The Phillips ruling purported to seize policy-making power over the military despite many precedents confirming “deference” to Congress under Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution. If Congress rushes to repeal the law, all appeals will be dropped, leaving the outlandish ruling of San Diego District Judge Virginia Phillips to stand as precedent within the Ninth Circuit.

“If this happens, future plaintiffs will seek similar court rulings striking down any military law or policy they don’t like. If Secretary Gates does not want west-coast federal judges making policy for the armed forces, he should stop encouraging Congress to repeal the law in the lame-duck session.

“Furthermore, Secretary Gates should not complain about several days of unnecessary turmoil that occurred when the Defense Department imposed on- and off-again changes in eligibility
regulations. Both Gates and DoD General Counsel Jeh Johnson were themselves responsible for causing unnecessary confusion when they rushed to bow to Judge Phillips’ worldwide injunction halting enforcement of the law.

“The U.S. Senate and the Congress as a whole will not be fooled by showmanship reflecting the Hollywood background of Adm. Mullen. The American people will demand that they take this issue seriously, and the troops deserve no less.” [continued HERE at CMR website]

If it is not proper for male TSA agents to frisk female travelers, why would the TSA allow homosexual men to "pat down" male travelers, or lesbians to "pat down" women?

News Release, November 16, 2010

Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 630-717-7631; americansfortruth@gmail.com

CHICAGO – Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) today questioned the propriety of “same-gender” TSA (Transportation Security Administration) “pat-downs” – if the TSA agents doing the “patting down” are homosexual, lesbian or bisexual. 

Homeland Security Sec. Janet Napolitano went out of her way yesterday to stress that the TSA pat-downs are “same-gender” – mostly to reassure women that men will not be groping them at airports in the name of safety.

“But what about homosexual TSA agents?” AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera responded. “Isn’t it just as inappropriate for a ‘gay’ male TSA agent to pat down male travelers as it is for a normal, heterosexual male TSA agent to pat down female travelers?

“The reality is, most traveling men would not want Barney Frank to pat them down at the airport security checkpoint,” LaBarbera said. “Neither would it be fair to assign Ellen DeGeneres to pat down female travelers. (In the same vein, the Army should no more force normal male soldiers to shower and bunk with homosexual male soldiers than it would force females soldiers to bunk and shower with their male counterparts.)”

The TSA, as a federal agency, is barred from discriminating on the basis of “sexual orientation,” thanks to a pro-homosexual Executive Order signed by President Clinton in 1998.

Said LaBarbera: “Obviously Napolitano wants to assure the public that sexual tension will be taken out of the equation. Hence, we must take seriously the self-identified desires of homosexuals. ‘Gay’ men define themselves as being sexually attracted to other men. Lesbians are sexually attracted to women. And bisexuals are attracted to both. Some observations:

• Perhaps some common-sense, healthy “discrimination” is in order: the TSA should put conditions on employment for self-acknowledged homosexuals – that they not be assigned to pat down travelers so as to avoid being put in sexually compromising situations;
• It would not be workable to assign, say, gay male TSA agents to pat down female travelers – as the latter – thinking the agents to be normal men – would protest that they are being patted down by males. Chaos would ensue;
• Does the TSA know which of its employees are homosexual, anyway, and how? If not, is it fair to travelers who may end up getting ‘groped’ by homosexual TSA agents who are secretly getting turned on through the process?
• Could the TSA be subjected to a sexual harassment lawsuit if the agent who engages in an overly aggressive “same-gender pat-down” – and gets sued – turns out to be homosexual?

LaBarbera said that even if it could be assumed that most TSA agents – regardless of their sexual proclivities – would act professionally, that is not the issue. Male TSA agents – no matter how “professional” their conduct – cannot frisk female travelers.

“To allow homosexual agents to conduct same-gender pat-downs is tantamount to a new form of discrimination that must be recognized and prevented,” he said.

New York City homosexual activist blogger Jeremy Hooper (right) and his boyfriend/"husband" can attend AFTAH's banquet Saturday, but they will not get our $50 Married Couples Discount, even though they went through a legal "marriage" ceremony in Connecticut.

When:  Saturday, Nov. 13, 2010; 6:00 PM; doors open at 5:30.

Who/What: Pastor Ken Hutcherson, keynote speaker. Catering by Maggiano’s Little Italy. Hutch is founder of the “Mayday for Marriage” rallies, a former NFL linebacker for the Dallas Cowboys and Seattle Seahawks, and pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Redmond, WA. [More info on Hutch HERE.] There may also be a testimony by a former lesbian who now helps others change through the Gospel of Christ.

Where:  Christian Liberty Academy, 502 W. Euclid Ave., Arlington Heights, IL 60004.

Tickets:  $75 per person (after Nov. and at the door. Married couples discount (one man/one woman only!): $100 per couple, no matter when you sign up.  Pay online at www.americansfortruth.com/donate. Or mail your check to: AFTAH, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522. Pastors attend FREE; sponsor a pastor with your extra gift of $50!

_____________________________________________________

Yes, AFTAH Discriminates…in Favor of Real Marriage

By Peter LaBarbera, President of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality:

Dear Readers,

It struck me yesterday as I was reviewing my recent e-pitch for our AFTAH banquet — this Saturday, Nov. 13^th at Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights — that I wasn’t quite clear about the “discriminatory” intent of our invitation. Well, I wouldn’t actually use that word, but our fanatical homosexual activist opponents certainly would. You see, AFTAH is offering a Married Couples Discount for the banquet of $100 per married couple – a savings of $50 off the cost for last-minute registrants (and those at the door), who normally would have to pay $75 per person (or $150 per couple).

Here’s what I forgot to mention in the e-mail: our Married Couples Discount is available only to legitimately married couples (one man, one woman) – not homosexual “couples” playing house and pretending to be “married” as they practice a changeable and destructive lifestyle that defies their loving Creator and mocks the bedrock institution that they’ve politically appropriated in the name of “equality.”

And no: we will absolutely NOT give our discount even to those coupled homosexuals possessing legal “marriage” certificates from the following states: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and California. Those pieces of paper – though efficacious to garner marriage-like benefits and status in those corrupt states — are bogus in the eyes of God and in light of America’s Judeo-Christian moral tradition – as they make a mockery of the very institution they are meant to “equalize.”

So to the ACLU I say: go ahead and sue us, because unlike those sorry states, Americans For Truth will not incentivize blasphemous and phoney “marriages.” (As Clint Eastwood said, Go ahead, make my day. We’ll count on our good friends at Liberty Counsel to defend us.)

Homosexuals welcome

This is not about “hate,” as so many (hateful) homosexual activists allege, but principle. A little discrimination can be a good thing, to quote my friend and Wisconsin pro-family advocate Ralph Ovadal (who has been brutally assaulted by “tolerant” pro-”gay” activists while defending truth on this issue). We all “discriminate” (definition: use good judgment) in healthy ways — e.g., choosing where to send our children to school –  and that’s exactly what the current societal effort to preserve marriage in our profane culture is all about.

If I and AFTAH hated homosexuals, we wouldn’t welcome (non-disruptive) people practicing homosexuality to come to our banquet. (A radical, lying Marxist homosexual group, the Chicago-based Gay Liberation Network, is leading a protest outside of the event.) I want them to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ as presented by our keynote speaker, Pastor Ken Hutcherson. [Listen to my recent interviews with Ken on the Americans For Truth Hour Here: Part 1; Part 2; and Part 3.] But homosexually-joined couples will have to fork over the extra 50 bucks if they choose to come.

‘Gay equality’ vs. true liberty

Election results for three Iowa Supreme Court judges who supported "gay marriage" and then were rejected Nov. 2 by the state's voters. Thankfully, Iowans showed "discriminating" judgment in favor of preserving real marriage. Click on graphic to enlarge.

Consider this a lesson in how homosexual “marriage” laws destroy the freedom of religious- and moral-minded Americans to live out their faith. Say you are an orthodox Jew and you own a business in Iowa (where in 2009 seven arrogant and socially left judges imposed counterfeit “marriage” on that state’s citizens; three of those judges were denied retention on Nov. 2!). You are a family-oriented guy trying to recruit good workers, so you offer generous employee benefits to all your married employees. Then one of your female homosexual employees takes advantage of the outrageous 2009 Iowa Supreme Court ruling by “marrying” another woman.

Under Iowa’s new marriage law, if you offer marriage benefits to your other employees, you must now extend those benefits equally to your homosexually “married” employees. So you face a choice: either get rid of the benefits for all married employees or join the Sin Subsidizing business with your hard-earned entrepreneurial profits. Fearing lawsuits and the well-heeled “Gay” Lobby, I’m afraid that most employers will probably go for the second option.

Note that in any state where the government rewards homosexual “domestic partners,” “civil unions” – or counterfeit “marriages” – the taxpayers, too, become subsidizers of homosexual misconduct.

Nature discriminates against homosexuality

Healthy, God-honoring societies do not subsidize and encourage destructive behaviors – especially through noble institutions like marriage. Yet that’s where America is heading, thanks to the work of revolutionary homosexual activists and their liberal allies.

The charter for the United States of America – our Declaration of Independence – references the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” Nature, created by God, obviously discriminates against homosexuality (who can doubt this—can two men make a baby together?). That is because homosexuality is not part of God’s plan — unlike marriage, His wonderful design for a man and a woman to “become one” and unite to make a family.

In fact, our true rights come from God and are consistent with His natural, created order – not sexual perversion! Liberty was never intended to advance unnatural sin, but the godly good. As England’s Sir William Blackstone –the father of English common law, and hence American law – wrote (emphasis added):

By the absolute rights of individuals we mean those which are so in their primary and strictest sense; such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it . . . . Human laws define and enforce as well those rights which belong to a man considered as an individual, as those which belong to him considered as related to others.

For the principal aim of society is to protect in the enjoyment of those absolute rights, which were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature; … Hence it follows that the first and primary end of human law is to maintain and regulate these absolute rights of individuals . . . .

The absolute rights of man, considered as a free agent, endowed with discernment to know good from evil, and with power of choosing those measures which appear to him to be most desirable, are usually summed up in one general appellation and denominated the natural liberty of mankind. This natural liberty consists properly in a power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature; being a right inherent in us by birth, and one of the gifts of God to man at his creation, when he endued him with the faculty of free will.

It is fascinating that with the growing acceptance of homosexuality and other sexual sins in our increasingly decadent, post-Christian culture, we once again face the very threat that Thomas Jefferson feared – and which inspired our First Amendment: governments encroaching on Americans’ free exercise of religion. The homosexual activists’ desperate push for affirmation, lately aided by the State, has driven them into the realm of persecuting others by arguing that their newfound “right” to practice homosexuality (in all its manifestations, including homosexual-led families) supersedes the natural liberty of others NOT to accept, much less subsidize, ungodly conduct.

We must not allow government to suppress our natural, God-given liberties for the pursuit of an egalitarian agenda that posits a false “equality” between two things — real, man-woman marriage and counterfeit homosexual “marriage” — that are anything but equal.

Ann Coullter comes to Chicagoland Thursday, Oct. 7th. Coulter outraged "queer" liberals like Perez Hilton when she told 'conservative' homosexuals at GOProud's "Homocon" event that same-sex "marriage" "is not a civil right -- you're not black!"

WARNING: GRAPHIC DESCRIPTIONS

[CORRECTION: we received a note from homosexual blogger Joe Jervis (Joe.My.God.) pointing us to a Human Events article by Lisa De Pasquale that clarifies some careless reporting by Politico of Ann Coulter's GOProud speech: it was not a GOProud member (as I reported, relying on Politico) but rather a joking Greg Gutfeld of the latenight FOX show "Red Eye" who "heckled" Coulter, blurting out, "What's wrong with fisting?" after she -- using her patented comic hyperbole -- accused liberals of wanting to teach kindergartners about "fisting." Coulter and Gutfeld are friends. (Her point of reference was surely the infamous 2000 Boston "Fistgate" incident, in which middle- high school kids actually WERE instructed verbally about "fisting" -- at a Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Netword (GLSEN)-sponsored conference. ("Fisting" is a dangerous homosexual sadomasochistic perversion in which a man inserts his arm up another man's rectum.) 

[We have removed the portion of this article in which we speculated that it was a GOPround member or supporter who asked, "What's wrong with fisting?" Also, it also should be noted that, despite the value of correcting the record on Coulter's speech, De Pasquale works for American Conservative Union, which supports GOProud and defended the homosexual group's sponsorship of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) -- against complaints by conservative Christian groups who accused CPAC of promoting the acceptance of homosexuality. AFTAH opposed GOProud's sponsorship of CPAC.  -- Peter LaBarbera, www.AmericansForTruth.org]

_______________________________________

By Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Dear AFTAH Readers,

If you are near Chicago, I’d like you to consider attending an Ann Coulter speaking event a week from today — put on by my good friend Sandy Rios, president of Culture Campaign, a pro-family action group based in Illinois. Sandy, a FOX News contributor, is a brave truth-teller who surely would have gone farther in the media had she not stayed true to her Christian principles; please support her by coming out this Thursday night!

I know that’s sort of an odd request given the swirl of controversy and debate surrounding Coulter’s recent speech at ‘HomoCon,’ an event put on by the homosexual Republican group ‘GOProud.‘ But trust me, you will be blessed by this event — and you’ll be helping out a solid organization, Culture Campaign, that has stood strongly against the homosexualist agenda.

First, here are the details:

WHEN: Thursday, Oct. 7, 7:30 PM — less than a week away

WHERE: The Meadows Club, 2950 W. Golf Rd., Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 (suburb north of Chicago). Online map here: http://www.themeadowsclub.com/location.htm

WHO: Ann Coulter, feisty conservative pundit and author of “Godless: The Church of Liberalism,” “Guilty: Liberal ‘Victims’ and their Assault on America,” and other books.

COST: $50; $35 for students; tickes will NOT BE SOLD AT THE DOOR

HOW TO ORDER TICKETS: Go online to Culture Campaign’s online order form: http://www.eventbrite.com/event/747925064. Tickets can be ordered up to 3 hours before the event’s start time (7:30 PM, Oct. 7th).

SPECIAL VIP DINNER OPPORTUNITY: Before the main event you can be a part of an exclusive VIP Reception & Dinner that includes a photo with Ann along with a personally signed book. For more information on this limited seating function contact Michael Glenn, Executive Director of Culture Campaign, at mglenn@culturecampaign.com.  

_______________________________________

If you come, I will see you there. Here’s why I’m going – even after my disappointment with Ann Coulter for lending legitimacy to a Republican upstart “gay” group (GOProud) that talks a good game about being conservative but really isn’t. As GOProud Chairman Chris Barron said in an August 4 Twitter post: “We are a gay organization, we only work on gay issues, we have never claimed otherwise. My God people.”

(The core purpose of GOProud is to promote the acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex relationships. Promoting ”pride” in a sin, supporting a judge who imposes ”gay marriage” against the expressed will of millions of California voters, and backing governmental/taxpayer recognition of aberrant sexual relationships is not conservative — period. However, GOProud does take conservative positions on issues like gun control and lower taxes – and it has even endorsed the Republican opponent of homosexual Barney Frank (D-MA), for which they were pilloried by liberal activist homosexuals.)

All that said, I agree pretty much with Bryan Fischer of AFA below (writing for Renew America) that Coulter redeemed her much-discussed GOProud booking to defend truth, including the idea that “same-sex marriage” has nothing to do with civil rights. Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily went further in his recent debate with GOProud founder Christopher Barron in Miami — exposing GOProud’s hypocrisy in claiming to be for “limited government” while failing to condemn a federal judge (reported homosexual Vaughn Walker) for invalidating the people’s vote in California in favor of traditional marriage. After Walker’s ruling, GOProud’s Jimmy LaSalvia made these comments — perfectly reflecting GOProud’s desire to have it both ways on ”conservatism” and “gay marriage.” The FrumForum blog quotes LaSalvia:

“As long as the government is in the marriage business it should treat gay couples as equal to their straight counterparts.  Accordingly, we are pleased with the outcome of the Prop 8 case.”

That said, LaSalvia qualified his satisfaction by noting that, “As conservatives, however, we continue to have reservations about using the courts to achieve these ends.”

GOProud’s Barron debates WND’s Farah

Christopher Barron of GOProud (left) debates WND's Joseph Farah. Photo: WND.com

It took some guts for Barron to come to the WND “Take America Back” conference and debate Joseph Farah (see photo) — although it also fits Barron’s masterful PR strategy of using controversy to stay in the news. I attended the event, and it was fascinating as much for what was not debated as for what was. (For example, when questioned from the floor, Barron acknowledged that rights come from God but he was never asked whether and on what basis he defends homosexual practice itself as moral and “conservative.”) 

Suffice it to say that Barron played a good game of dodging and weaving regarding his promotion of homosexual activist goals – even stating that GOProud did not “celebrate” the recent court ruling invalidating Prop 8 in California when clearly – like all other homosexualist groups — GOProud cheered the radical decision. I would welcome a debate with Barron that is less restrictive and more free-wheeling than the WND event, with more opportunity for follow-up questions.

Some gays don’t want ”gay rights” laws

Despite his and GOProud’s previous cheap shot at me after I challenged Coulter on the GOProud speech, I could sit down over a cup of coffee and discuss issues with Barron and we’d probably agree on as much as we disagree on. (When I met Barron at the debate and challenged him on his attack on me, he responded that I specialize in cheap shots.) The fact is, there are many homosexuals who disagree with the demands of the largely liberal-Democratic Homosexual Lobby – and who also disagree with its anti-religious stridency. Many don’t want “special rights,” as conservatives once widely called “sexual orientation” laws. And while GOProud equivocates and tries to ride the fence by claiming neutrality on dangerous big-government-gay bills like ENDA (Employment Nondiscrimination Act), some homosexuals completely reject the “gay rights” political agenda and just want to be left alone. (Barron says he does support Americans’ First Amendment and religious right to disagree with homosexual practice, but by advocating for federal Domestic Partner legislation, he would essentially force all citizens to subsidize it with their tax dollars.)

Like Farah, I will grant Barron this: you can hold conservative positions on a number of issues like guns and taxes yet have a homosexuality problem (or a theological one: Barron considers himself a Catholic yet says he is “married” to another man). But if you form an organization dedicated philosophically to advancing homosexuality – thereby undermining the historic, biblically-based moral/religious basis for American freedoms and prosperity – that ain’t “conservative” because you are working to reconfigure — not “conserve” — marriage and family as God designed them.

As Farah said at the debate: “Chris, your argument is not with me. It is with God. It’s with 6,000 years of Judeo-Christian history and the founding principles of this country.”

The same could be said of anyone — straight or “gay,” conservative or liberal, socialist or libertarian, religious or secular — who advocates for “same-sex marriage” and/or state and corporate recognition of homosexual relationships as a social good – or of homosexuality as the basis for civil rights.

Coulter’s GOProud Gold

I didn’t see a full text of Ann Coulter’s GOProud speech, but good for her for nailing the fraudulent case for oxymoronic “gay marriage” and homosexuality as a “civil right” with a couple of catchy one-liners. From Politico’s Ben Smith, who attended the event:

Coulter’s jokes Saturday riffed on the theme that GOProud doesn’t make same-sex marriage central to its appeal; it considers, Barron says, national security and the economy more important.

Marriage “is not a civil right – you’re not black,” Coulter said to nervous laughter. She went on to note that gays are among the wealthiest demographic groups in the country.

“Blacks must be looking at the gays saying, ‘Why can’t we be oppressed like that?’”

Hello, Republicans… Want to get more black votes? Then don’t abandon the fight against homosexual “marriage”!

GOProud member to Coulter: ‘What’s wrong with fisting?’

I read this liberal homosexual account of Coulter’s GOProud appearance on the website of homosexual Hollywood gossip writer Perez Hilton, who titled his piece, “Ann Coulter Sinks to New Lows of Vileness!” (emphasis added):

According to Talking Points Memo’s Megan Carpentier:

In fact, despite opening her speech with a joke about the difficulty of “coming out” as a fiscal conservative to one’s parents — something she congratulated the attendees on — Coulter’s speech to GOProud mystifyingly focused on social issues and not the fiscal and foreign policy issues that brought most of the attendees there. For instance, she told GOProud that the conservative gay rights movement ought to make common cause with the anti-abortion movement because, she said, “as soon as they find the gay gene, you know who’s getting aborted.” Coulter also made a forceful case against sex education in schools, accusing liberals of attempting to teach kindergartners about “fisting” (which garnered her a heckler, who shouted out “What’s wrong with fisting?”) [Editor's Note: see clarification at top: the heckler was Coulter's friend and FOX "Red Eye" host Greg Gutfeld--making a joke] and told the crowd that most parents didn’t want their children learning about the “homosexual lifestyle” instead of reading and writing.

As for Coulter being accused of “vileness” by the intolerant, vulgar and über-obnoxious Hilton (the guy who trashed Carrie Prejean with his gay-potty mouth running wild), that definitely commends Coulter. (Hilton, ever the sophisticated critic, completed his attack on Coulter with one of his patented mark-ups of her web photo with horns and something white scribbled on her mouth (don’t ask).

Homosexual activist blogger Jeremy Hooper (“Good As You”) cited this remark by Coulter as evidence that she’s a B-A-A-A-D person:

Coulter: the gays “ought to start being antiabortion because “once they find the gay gene, guess who’s getting aborted”

Hooper is probably too young to know that Coulter was merely parroting the line of a homosexual group called PLAGAL (Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians), which — at the height of the media’s hype of over the supposed genetic basis for homosexuality – made news by arguing that homosexuals should be pro-life because most parents would abort their unborn child if he or she was discoverd in utero to possess the postulated ”gay gene.”

Gay Porn Kings for the GOP!

Somehow I doubt that homosexual porn magnates make up an important voting bloc for the GOP, but with GOProud’s help, the Republicans could make a dent in that slimy constituency. Check out this from Politico’s coverage of Coulter’s speech (emphasis added):

Coulter’s talk drew a mixed response, but her presence marked the increasingly mainstream Republican embrace of gay rights. Coulter had a falling out with a conservative website that has published her, WorldNetDaily, over her attendance. “She’s doing something important – she’s showing her base that it’s OK,” said one attendee, Michael Lucas. (Lucas also confided to a reporter, “I wonder what Ann will think about the fact that I am the biggest producer of gay porn on the East Coast and probably in the whole U.S.”)

Perhaps Lucas could form another gay offshoot: GOPorn, for Republicans, gay and straight, who proudly produce and use pornography — but who also favor low taxes and smaller government. Traditional morality-hating Libertarians would surely jump on board in solidarity.

In his extremism, Lucas illustrates our basic point: you can support the Republican Party for (most of) its conservative platform – even if, in other areas of your life, you are the farthest thing from “conservative” imaginable. But don’t pretend that forming an organization that will help to mainstream your particular immoral behavior is “conservative.”

I’ll see you at the Coulter event Thursday. She won’t get any questions from pornographers, to be sure. But this will be our opportunity to solicit her views in a friendly setting on the Republican Party, conservatives, and homosexual-agenda politics. We have so few friends in the pundit world … let’s see where Ann really stands on this issue.

____________________________________

Below is a Renew America column by Bryan Fischer of American Family Association expressing satisfaction with Coulter’s GOProud speech:

September 27, 2010

Ann Coulter gets her “Warrior Princess” badge back

By Bryan Fischer

I criticized Ann Coulter last month when news surfaced that she had accepted an invitation to speak at HomoCon 2010, a gathering of so-called conservative homosexuals. (They can’t call themselves conservatives, for the simple reason that using the anal cavity for sex is not a conservative value.)

You also will notice that they have no hesitation calling themselves “homos,” as in “HomoCon,” but take umbrage if anybody else uses their own chosen moniker.

I did say that Ann might surprise us all and take the homosexuals straight on, but guessed that a desire not to upset her hosts, who surely paid a princessly sum to entice her into speaking and appearing on all their promotional posters, would likely prevent her from getting up in their business.

Well, I was wrong.

Ann took them straight on and gave them some straight talk I doubt they were ready for. There is no amount of sugar that will help this medicine go down.

According to the leftwing website Politico.com, she complimented the Christian audiences before whom she speaks by telling these homosexuals that the people who get her “gay jokes are gays.” Christians get them, she hinted, but “out of sweetness they don’t laugh at the gay jokes.” Alas, she was suggesting, if only Christians were as mean-spirited as everyone says they are! I have to leave my gay jokes in the green room because those Christians are just too darned civil and courteous and kind!

Then she let the air out of the tires on the tired argument that homosexual marriage is the civil rights issue of our day. Reminding them that blackness is an innate characteristic but sexual behavior is a choice, same-sex marriage, she said pointedly, “is not a civil right — you’re not black.”

As Gen. Colin Powell himself said, the comparison between homosexual behavior and race is “convenient but invalid.” People are born black, but they are not born gay. And many people who enter the homosexual lifestyle later leave it. So there are plenty of ex-gays, but you will never meet an ex-black.

Then she punctured a hole in the entire oppressed-minority argument by pointing out that homosexuals are among the wealthiest demographic groups in the nation, again making the civil rights argument utterly invalid.

Survey after survey has revealed that homosexuals tend to be more highly educated than their straight counterparts and have higher levels of income.

“Blacks must be looking at the gays, saying, ‘Why can’t we be oppressed like that?’” said Coulter.

So Christians are too tolerant to make fun of gays, homosexuals have no civil right to marry, and homosexuals can’t claim oppressed minority status. This from the keynote speaker at HomoCon, who got at least five figures to get right in the grill of her hosts.

Anybody at HomoCon want their money back?

And Ann, all is forgiven. Humble pie has never tasted so sweet. You are no longer the “Joan of Arc of homosexuality,” as I described you last month, you are now Daniella of the Lion’s Den. Good on ya, lass.

Ryan Sorba addressing AFTAH Truth Academy in early August. Sorba is taking a lead in refuting the commonly held notion that people are "born gay." Click on photo to enlarge.

Americans For Truth President Peter LaBarbera interviews young conservative activist Ryan Sorba for this AFTAH Hour program that aired August 21, 2010 [Click HERE to play]. Sorba was an instructor at the AFTAH Truth Academy August 5-7. In this, Part One, interview, he discusses the “born gay hoax” (the title of his unpublished book about the myth of genetic homosexuality) — and how pro-homosexual researchers like Dean Hamer have tried to prove inborn homosexuality have never been able to replicate their research.

LaBarbera relates a bizarre incident about Hamer — who divorced his wife to become a practicing homosexual, and then released his media-celebrated “gay gene” study just in time to affect the Clinton-era ”gays in the military” debate. As LaBarbera tells it, Hamer spoke at a Maryland PFLAG (Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) meeting, which LaBarbera attended (as a critic and reporter for The Lambda Report, the forerunner to Americans For Truth). After the speech, and with a few parents still present, LaBarbera went up to introduce himself to Hamer — who, learning who he was, immediately flew into a screaming rage in which he ridiculously accused LaBarbera of crusading to stalk and “kill” homosexuals.

Dean Hamer

The very weird spectacle revealed Hamer’s unprofessionalism and a fanatical commitment to radical “gay” politics that certainly called into question his objectivity as a researcher. (No major media, in reporting Hamer’s genetic study, had reported that he was homosexual, much less an unstable ”gay” activist.) Ultimately, Hamer’s “genetic homosexuality” study — which received millions of dollars’ worth of free media publicity and greatly influenced the idea of inborn homosexuality in the public’s mind – could not be replicated. Hamer and his homosexual lover are now activist documentary filmmakers.

Sorba discusses how today’s young people are susceptible to the ubiquitous pro-homosexuality propaganda that now soaks the culture, and how ignorant they are about information that contradicts homosexual activist myths. He expands on natural moral law approaches that undergird biblical morality, and urges a return toward thinking and talking about homosexuality in terms of unnatural behavior rather than LGBT identity.

HOW TO LISTEN: This is an mp3 file.  Left click once on the link below to play.  (Please be patient, depending upon the speed of your internet connection it may take a moment or two to load.) OR right click the link then “save target as” to download the whole show.

8-21-10, Ryan Sorba, All

New University of Illinois President Michael Hogan

We have heard from several readers who received the form letter below from University of Illinois President Michael Hogan after writing or calling the University concerning Catholic professor Dr. Kenneth Howell being terminated after explicating Natural Moral Law opposed to homosexuality. Call him at (217)333-6400; or go HERE for more U-I contact info and action steps. Thanks to all of you who took action against this injustice — which we hope will be corrected soon. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

______________________________________________________

—– Forwarded Message —-
From: President Hogan <uipres@uillinois.edu>
To: [---------]
Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 11:45:16 PM
Subject: RE: Sham “Inclusivity” Policy

Dear [--------],

Let me begin by thanking you for expressing your concerns.  Academic freedom is at the core of our teaching and research missions.  It’s vital to our ability to explore new ideas, educate our students, and promote the civil and free exchange of alternative viewpoints in a democracy.

I learned of this action on the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) campus late last week and immediately asked Chancellor Robert Easter, who oversees the campus, to provide me with a briefing on the matter.  I want to assure you that the University administration shares my commitment to the principles of academic freedom.  At the same time, we do believe it’s important to fully investigate all of the details related to this situation.  As I’m sure you’re aware, it is sometimes the case that public reports may convey only part of the story.  I think it important to reserve judgment until I have all of the facts and I hope you’ll agree.

We have asked the UIUC Senate’s standing Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure to immediately review this action.  This is the mechanism on the campus through which these matters should be vetted.  We expect this review to be completed very soon.  By using our channels of shared governance and review, we are in the best position to make informed decisions that afford a fair process for all.

Again, I’m grateful to have heard from you and others about this and I’m grateful for the opportunity to respond.  It reaffirms the deep commitment that so many have to the University and public higher education and to ensuring that the University of Illinois continues to be a beacon of excellence, as it should be for the state, the nation, and the world.

Sincerely,

Mike

Michael J. Hogan
President
University of Illinois

Dr. Kenneth Howell, Adjunct Associate Professor of Religion, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, was fired after a liberal student complained about an e-mail he sent to his students explaining Natural Moral Law.

By Peter LaBarbera

The University of Illinois has fired Dr. Kenneth Howell, a Catholic adjunct religion professor who was doing his job of teaching a class on Catholicism — after a liberal student complained to the university about an e-mail Howell sent to his students explaining Natural Moral Law. (The professor’s instructive e-mail and the student’s complaint e-mail are reproduced below.)

TAKE ACTION: Contact Michael Hogan, the University of Illinois’s new president, and urge him to reinstate Prof. Howell immediately: phone: (217) 333-6400; Fax: (217) 333-5733. Tell President Hogan that Howell’s firing is a nationwide advertisement that the University of Illinois is bigoted toward and intolerant of people of faith — giving lie to U-I’s mission statement to be “inclusive” and to ”treat each other with dignity and respect.” Board of Trustees: contact the U. of Illinois Bd. of Trustees at 217-333-1920 or write: UIBOT@uillinois.edu.]

The U. of Illinois’ “religion department’s website says Howell was recognized for excellent teaching in the spring and fall semesters of 2008 and 2009,” the Champaign News-Gazette reports.

Howell’s terminatioin draws attention to the emerging, cold reality of modern, politically correct America: in cosmopolitan areas and certainly in academia, you are more likely to be terminated, punished or persecuted on the job for opposing homosexuality than for “being gay.”

Here we are — on the verge, with our Democrat-controlled Congress, of creating federal employment “rights” based on homosexuality (and transgenderism), and people are being fired merely for expressing their sincere religious beliefs — which, in Howell’s case, was his job. Even as homosexual activists falsely claim that thousands of homosexuals face job losses because of “who they are,” the number of anti-Christian firings is piling up: remember the Allstate firing of Matt Barber? Crystal Dixon?

As you can see from below, Dr. Howell is a clear thinker who was doing what he was paid to do – teaching Catholic morality to his students. The complaint e-mail that got him terminated dismissses Howell’s e-mail as “absurd…It sickens me to know that hard-working Illinoisans are funding the salary of a man who does nothing but try to indoctrinate students and perpetuate stereotypes.”

If you want to know about the homo-fascist impulse that dominates so many institutions of “higher learning” (hah!) today, here are the key paragraphs from the News-Gazette story:

In a series of e-mail exchanges between [Robert McKim, head of the U-I religion department] and UI administrators about how to proceed regarding Howell’s teaching and his appointment as an adjunct professor, McKim states he will send a note to Howell’s students and others who were forwarded his e-mail to students, “disassociating our department, College, and university from the view expressed therein.”

In another e-mail, Ann Mester, associate dean for the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, wrote that she believes “the e-mails sent by Dr. Howell violate university standards of inclusivity, which would then entitle us to have him discontinue his teaching arrangement with us.”

Inclusivity? What about U. of Illinois’ “inclusion” of traditional Catholic students and students who adhere to historic Judeo-Christian morality? ‘Diversity” has become a code-word for punishing those who dissent from liberal, pro-homosexuality groupthink. Please read the excellent e-letter below on Natural Moral Law by Prof. Howell. And  take action to urge the University of Illinois to correct this injustice. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

______________________________________________

Dr. Kenneth Howell’s Teaching E-mail to Students:

The following is the e-mail to students that U. of Illinois religion professor Ken Howell sent to his students, as reported by the Champaign News-Gazette:

From: Kenneth J. Howell

Date: Tue, May 4, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Subject: Utilitarianism and Sexuality (for those in 447 FYI)

Dear Students:

Since there is a question on the final exam about utilitarianism (see the review sheet), I thought I would help with an example. I realized after my lectures on moral theory that even though I talked about the substance of utilitarianism, I did not identify it as such and so you may not have been able to see it.

It turns out that our discussion of homosexuality brings up the issue of utilitarianism. In class, our discussion of the morality of homosexual acts was very incomplete because any moral issue about which people disagree ALWAYS raises a more fundamental issue about criteria. In other words, by what criteria should we judge whether a given act is right or wrong?

Before looking at the issue of criteria, however, we have to remind ourselves of the ever-present tendency in all of us to judge morality by emotion. The most frequent reason I hear people supporting same-sex marriage is that they know some gay couples or individuals. Empathy is a noble human quality but right or wrong does not depend on who is doing the action or on how I feel about those people, just as judging an action wrong should not depend on disliking someone. This might seem obvious to a right thinking person but I have encountered many well-educated people who do not (or cannot?) make the distinction between persons and acts when engaging moral reasoning. I encourage you to read the final essay editorial I sent earlier to reflect on this. In short, to judge an action wrong is not to condemn a person. A person and his/her acts can be distinguished for the purposes of morality.

So, then, by what criterion should we judge whether sexual acts are right or wrong? This is where utilitarianism comes in. Utilitarianism in the popular sense is fundamentally a moral theory that judges right or wrong by its practical outcomes. It is somewhat akin to a cost/benefit analysis. So, when a woman is deciding whether it’s right to have an abortion, the utilitarian says it’s right or wrong based on what the best outcome is. Similarly, a man who is trying to decide whether he should cheat on his wife, if he is a utilitarian, will weigh the various consequences. If the cheating side of the ledger is better, he will conclude that it’s okay to cheat. If the faithful side is better, he will refrain from cheating.

I think it’s fair to say that many, maybe most Americans employ some type of utilitarianism in their moral decision making. But there are at least two problems. One is that to judge the best outcome can be very subjective. What may be judged good for the pregnant woman may not be good for the baby. What may be judged good for the about-to-cheat-husband may not good for his wife or his children. This problem of subjectivity is inherent in utilitarianism for a second reason. Utilitarianism counsels that moral decisions should NOT be based on the inherent meaning of acts. Acts are only good or bad relative to outcomes. The natural law theory that I expounded in class assumes that human acts have an inherent meaning (remember my fist vs. extended hand of friendship example).

One of the most common applications of utilitarianism to sexual morality is the criterion of mutual consent. It is said that any sexual act is okay if the two or more people involved agree. Now no one can (or should) deny that for a sexual act to be moral there must be consent. Certainly, this is one reason why rape is morally wrong. But the question is whether this is enough.

If two men consent to engage in sexual acts, according to utilitarianism, such an act would be morally okay. But notice too that if a ten year old agrees to a sexual act with a 40 year old, such an act would also be moral if even it is illegal under the current law. Notice too that our concern is with morality, not law. So by the consent criterion, we would have to admit certain cases as moral which we presently would not approve of. The case of the 10 and 40 year olds might be excluded by adding a modification like “informed consent.” Then as long as both parties agree with sufficient knowledge, the act would be morally okay. A little reflection would show, I think, that “informed consent” might be more difficult to apply in practice than in theory. But another problem would be where to draw the line between moral and immoral acts using only informed consent. For example, if a dog consents to engage in a sexual act with its human master, such an act would also be moral according to the consent criterion. If this impresses you as far-fetched, the point is not whether it might occur but by what criterion we could say that it is wrong. I don’t think that it would be wrong according to the consent criterion.

But the more significant problem has to do with the fact that the consent criterion is not related in any way to the NATURE of the act itself. This is where Natural Moral Law (NML) objects. NML says that Morality must be a response to REALITY. In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same. How do we know this? By looking at REALITY. Men and women are complementary in their anatomy, physiology, and psychology. Men and women are not interchangeable. So, a moral sexual act has to be between persons that are fitted for that act. Consent is important but there is more than consent needed.

One example applicable to homosexual acts illustrates the problem. To the best of my knowledge, in a sexual relationship between two men, one of them tends to act as the “woman” while the other acts as the “man.” In this scenario, homosexual men have been known to engage in certain types of actions for which their bodies are not fitted. I don’t want to be too graphic so I won’t go into details but a physician has told me that these acts are deleterious to the health of one or possibly both of the men. Yet, if the morality of the act is judged only by mutual consent, then there are clearly homosexual acts which are injurious to their health but which are consented to. Why are they injurious? Because they violate the meaning, structure, and (sometimes) health of the human body.

Now recall that I mentioned in class the importance of gaining wisdom from the past. One part of wisdom we gain from such knowledge is how people today came to think of their bodies. I won’t go into details here but a survey of the last few centuries reveals that we have gradually been separating our sexual natures (reality) from our moral decisions. Thus, people tend to think that we can use our bodies sexually in whatever ways we choose without regard to their actual structure and meaning. This is also what lies behind the idea of sex change operations. We can manipulate our bodies to be whatever we want them to be.

If what I just said is true, then this disassociation of morality and sexual reality did not begin with homosexuality. It began long ago. But it took a huge leap forward in the wide spread use of artificial contraceptives. What this use allowed was for people to disassociate procreation and children from sexual activity. So, for people who have grown up only in a time when there is no inherent connection between procreation and sex –- notice not natural but manipulated by humans –- it follows “logically” that sex can mean anything we want it to mean.

Natural Moral Theory says that if we are to have healthy sexual lives, we must return to a connection between procreation and sex. Why? Because that is what is REAL. It is based on human sexual anatomy and physiology. Human sexuality is inherently unitive and procreative. If we encourage sexual relations that violate this basic meaning, we will end up denying something essential about our humanity, about our feminine and masculine nature.

I know this doesn’t answer all the questions in many of your minds. All I ask as your teacher is that you approach these questions as a thinking adult. That implies questioning what you have heard around you. Unless you have done extensive research into homosexuality and are cognizant of the history of moral thought, you are not ready to make judgments about moral truth in this matter. All I encourage is to make informed decisions. As a final note, a perceptive reader will have noticed that none of what I have said here or in class depends upon religion. Catholics don’t arrive at their moral conclusions based on their religion. They do so based on a thorough understanding of natural reality.

Kenneth J. Howell Ph.D.

Director, St. John’s Institute of Catholic Thought

Adjunct Associate Professor of Religion, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

_________________________________________________

U of I Student’s Complaint E-mail about Religion Prof Ken Howell:

The following is the e-mail complaint from student about U-I religion instructor Ken Howell, as reported by the News-Gazette:

Prof. McKim,

This past semester, a friend of mine took RLST 127: Introduction to Catholicism. Throughout the semester, he would consistently tell me how the teacher [Ken Howell], who I believe is a priest at the Newman Center, would preach (not teach) his ideology to the class. Many times, my friend (whom I wish to remain anonymous) said the instructor would say things that were inflammatory and downright insensitive to those who were not of the Catholic faith–it should be noted that my friend and I were both brought up Catholic. Anyways, my friend informed me that things got especially provocative when discussing homosexuality. He sent me the following e-mail, which I believe you will agree is downright absurd once you read it.

I am in no way a gay rights activist, but allowing this hate speech at a public university is entirely unacceptable. It sickens me to know that hard-working Illinoisans are funding the salary of a man who does nothing but try to indoctrinate students and perpetuate stereotypes. Once again, this is a public university and should thus have no religious affiliation. Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing. Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another. The courses at this institution should be geared to contribute to the public discourse and promote independent thought; not limit one’s worldview and ostracize people of a certain sexual orientation.

I can only imagine how ashamed and uncomfortable a gay student would feel if he/she were to take this course. I am a heterosexual male and I found this completely appalling. Also, my friend also told me that the teacher allowed little room for any opposition to Catholic dogma. Once again, he is guilty of limiting the marketplace of ideas and acting out of accord with this institution’s mission and principles.

I have Cc’d Leslie Morrow, director of the LGBT Resource Center, on this e-mail as well as (name redacted), former features editor at the Daily Illini (I’m sure they’d like to hear about this), and Siobhan Somerville, a former teacher of mine and the founder of the queer studies major.

I didn’t go to Notre Dame for a reason,

(name redacted)

___________________________________________

Bio of Kenneth J. Howell, Ph.D. from the St. John’s Catholic Newman Center at the U. of Illinois

Kenneth J. Howell
Director & Senior Fellow, Institute of Catholic Thought
kenneth.howell@sjcnc.org

In addition to being the Director and a Senior Fellow of the Institute of Catholic Thought, Dr. Howell is also an Adjunct Associate Professor in the Program for the Study of Religion in the University of Illinois. Dr. Howell studied theology at Westminster Theological Seminary where he concentrated in biblical languages and systematic theology.

In 1978, he was ordained a Presbyterian minister and served parishes in Florida and Indiana. After completing his Ph.D. in linguistics at Indiana University, he taught Greek, Hebrew, and Latin at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi. His teaching duties involved theological research which led to his conversion to Catholicism in 1996. During this time, he obtained another Ph.D. in the history of Christianity and Science from the University of Lancaster (U.K).

Dr. Howell is the author of four books and numerous articles. God’s Two Books: Copernican Cosmology and Biblical Interpretation in Early Modern Science (University of Notre Dame Press, 2002), Mary of Nazareth: Sign and Instrument of Christian Unity (Queenship Press, 1998) is a scriptural study of Marian doctrine. Meeting Mary Our Mother in Faith (Catholic Answers Press, 2003), Questions College Students Ask…about God, Faith, and the Church (co-authored with Christine Pinheiro) (Champaign, IL: The St. John Institute of Catholic Thought, St. John’s Catholic Newman Center, 2006), The Eucharist for Beginners: Sacrament, Sacrifice, and Communion (San Diego: Catholic Answers, 2006).