Prof. Ken Howell

This is Part One of AFTAH’s interview with Professor Ken Howell, Senior Fellow at the School of Catholic Thought of the John Paul II Newman Center, which resides at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC).  Prof. Howell was fired (and the reinstated) by the University of Illinois (Champaign) last year for teaching the Catholic “Natural Moral Law” understanding of homosexuality. This interview was pre-recorded and aired Nov. 5, 2011. Howell explains the circumstances surrounding his firing, and how he ended up at UIC (but not actually teaching for UIC).

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.

11-5-11, Ken Howell, Part One

Pastor John Kirkwood of Grace Gospel Fellowship church in Bensenville, IL.

We are catching up on posting AFTAH Radio Hour interviews. The following is Part Two of my interview with Pastor John Kirkwood [click HERE to listen] of Grace Gospel Fellowship (www.gracebeliever.com) church in Bensenville, Illinois. It aired October 1, 2011. (Listen to Part One HERE.) Kirkwood describes what got him involved in the movement to resist the pro-homosexuality agenda: watching the angry homosexual protests against Mormon churches due to the Mormons’ leading role in fighting Prop 8 (an amendment to preserve traditional, man-woman marriage in California). John, who describes himself as an Acts 17:11 Christian, has a radio show on WYLL-1160 AM Chicago at noon on Sunday, “In the Arena.” He describes how homosexual activists are ripping off Christianity, from stealing the rainbow and turning it into a symbol of “gay pride” — to singing “This Little Light of Mine” — a song taught to young children about believing in Jesus Christ — to celebrate “coming out” (declaring one’s homosexuality publicly). I discuss the boundless perversions of proud homosexuality, citing this San Francisco photo. Kirkwood says that because Christians are so biblically illiterate, in the realm of sexuality (and other areas) the Church is “becoming the world…There is a vacuum in the Church of integrity.” He discusses Romans 1, evolution and homosexuality, and the idea that Bible-believing Christian speech is causing ”gay youth” suicides. Kirkwook also addresses one of the common cliches homosexuals use against Christians, such as the common line, “Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.” – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

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.

10-01-11, John Kirkwood, Part Two

Dear AFTAH Readers,

Homo-fascism is escalating, and good people — and the national interest – are its tragic victims.  The idea that Americans should be smeared as ”hateful” because they take a stand against oxymoronic “same-sex marriage” — when citizens in 31 states voted to defend traditional (real) marriage — is beyond absurd.  (In fact, it is hateful!)  The name of the game is INTIMIDATION — and after so many years of practice, the “gay” activists are quite good at it.  But their strategy could not work without the liberal media acting as a de facto arm of the Homosexual Lobby.

Of course, my heart goes out to Peter Vidmar — and all victims of homosexualist intolerance — but at some point leaders will have to stand up to the “gay” bullies or America will cease to be a free land.  You can call or write Vidmar (760-603-8010) using THIS FORM, or send him an e-mail at info@speakersoffice.com.  To call Congress to voice your strong opposition to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act – a federal “sexual orientation” bill that would surely create thousands of new “Peter Vidmars” (always in the name of “tolerance” and ”gay civil rights,” of course…) – call 202-224-3121 (Senate) or 202-225-3121 (House).  Or go to www.Congress.org.  [More info on ENDA: Click HERE for a GovTrack report on the 2011 version of ENDA, HR 1397; click HERE to read my piece: "14 Good Reasons to Oppose the 'ENDA Our Freedom' Bill"]

Stay strong: the homo-fascists may be winning now, but Americans will see through their schemes, and fight back against their evil agenda of demonizing religious people by equating the defense of historic Judeo-Christian values with  ”hate and bigotry.”  – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org; americansfortruth@gmail.com    

American Family Association’s “One News Now” reports:

_______________________________________________________

Gold medalist resigns, thanks to pro-’gay’ criticism

Charlie Butts – OneNewsNow – 5/12/2011 [Click HERE to read story online; to listen to the report, click the microphone icon at the upper right of the story on the One News Now page.]

Pressure from homosexual activist groups has compelled the head of the 2012 U.S. Olympic gymnastics team to quit.

Two-time gymnastics gold medal winner Peter Vidmar has resigned upon receiving harsh criticism from homosexual and lesbian athletes and activists, who complained that he had donated $2,000 to promote California’s Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

“I wish that Peter Vidmar had not resigned,” laments Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH). “I wish that he’d stood up for his right to defend marriage, and I wish that he’d forced them to fire him if that’s what they were going to do, because that would engender the sort of national discussion that we need against this escalating intolerance against…opposition to gay marriage.”

And he disagrees with openly homosexual Olympic figure skater Johnny Weir, who describes Vidmar’s position on marriage as “disgraceful.”

“How dare he seek to marginalize Peter Vidmar, who simply stood up for his beliefs,” LaBarbera contends. “Most people believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. The radical redefinition of marriage still does not have majority support in this country, despite the huge media blitz in support of it.”

The AFTAH president concludes that the homosexual movement is clearly “seeking to intimidate people into silence, and we’ve got to stand up to their bullying.”

Maggie Gallagher, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, does not fault Vidmar for his decision. She told CitizenLink that the Olympic medalist’s entire career and livelihood were at risk when the “gay rights movement decided to go after him.” Vidmar, she points out, is currently one of the leading corporate motivational speakers in America.

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

WARNING: Offensive descriptions and photos of materials that should NOT be promoted to college students 

Books on display at "Leather Library" exhibit hosted and sponsored by University of Chicago. Book at center, "Macho Sluts," combines S&M, incest and pedophilia. Other books promote sadistic perversion and public sex. Photos: Peter LaBarbera; click to enlarge.

[First of several reports on U-Chicago's corruption of students]

TAKE ACTION: Call the University of Chicago at 773-702-1234 and ask for President Robert Zimmer’s Office. [e-mail him at president@uchicago.edu]. Let him know that you are appalled that the Universiity is promoting sexual sadism and deviant pornography – even pedophilia – to its students.  The Chicago Sun-Times reports that U-Chicago could be the first of MANY colleges to host the perverse ”Leather Library” exhibit — but it also could be the last if this academic abuse causes the appropriate controversy. So make your voice heard on this today.

Keep this story alive: Lastly, contact Sun-Times reporter Kara Spak at kspak@suntimes.com [312-321-3000; press #5 twice] and: 1) thank her for doing the story; 2) tell her that most Americans would be outraged to learn of this academic abuse; and 3) urge her to keep following this shocking story of U-Chicago directly promoting S&M to students in the name of “diversity.”

___________________________________

University of Chicago Promotes Sadomasochism and Pedophilia to Students — in the Name of Diversity 

CHICAGO–The University of Chicago provided nearly $3,200 to a “kink” student group for a traveling sadomasochistic “leather library” exhibit at the University that eroticized pedophilia, incest, and the most deviant pornographic perversions known to mankind. 

Americans For Truth about Homosexuality (AFTAH) sent a reporter yesterday to the exhibit – at the University’s International House – and came back with photos of the shockingly perverse offerings of the “Carter Johnson Leather Library,” including: 

• The lesbian porn book “Macho Sluts,” by Pat Califia, which includes a story about a mother who engages in sadistic, violent “sex play” with her own 13-year-old daughter;
• Numerous books celebrating “Master-Slave” relationships;
• “Gay” male pornographic fiction books with pederastic themes, including one 1975 book, “Small Town Boy,” about a 15-year-old boy who meets up with and is sodomized by an adult businessman visiting from New York City;
• Photos and posters depicting the twisted violence and “consensual” degradation and cruelty of S&M – including one of a woman caning her ball-and-chained male ”slave.”

The University of Chicago "leather" exhibit featured dozens of homosexual porn fiction books like this one, "Small Town Boy," about a 15-year-old boy who williingly is sodomized by an adult man visiting from New York City.

Incredibly, the University of Chicago now officially sanctions a “student group” for sexual sadists: RACK (Risk-Aware Consensual Kink), through which the traveling “leather library” exhibit was funded. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, RACK “received nearly $3,200 in university grant money to bring the display to campus.” 

The grant for the “fetish” exhibit came from the “Uncommon Fund,” a $40,000, student-run program that “offers a chance for students to pursue a wide range of ideas that can benefit the campus community and campus life,” a U-Chicago spokesman told the Sun-Times. 

Photo-"art" from the Leather Library shows a woman beating her male "slave," who has a ball-and-chain attached to his ankle. Why would the University of Chicago pay to promote such "sexualized cruelty" to its students?

The sadistic-sex exhibit was free and open to the public, and while AFTAH’s reporter was present, a few young women and men – who appeared to be around 20 – came to view the depraved materials. Exhibit creator Vi Johnson exulted to the Sun-Times: “Being able to bring this display to a college campus, put a 300-year-old book [about deviant sex] in the hands of a 20-year-old and say, ‘Here’s your history’ – it’s such a rush.” 

Just down the street from the International House is the University of Chicago Laboratory School (where Malia and Sasha Obama once attended). Around 3:00 PM Wednesday, as the “Leather Library” exhibit was winding down on its third and final day at the private university, dozens of elementary school children from the Lab School spilled onto the sidewalk. 

Poster advertises conference for bizarre dog-and-master perversion.

Coulter Lounge at University of Chicago's International House, where the "Leather Library" exhibit was hosted for three days.

“There could not have been a more jarring contrast between the innocence of children and the potential corruption that awaits them a mere decade later – at the hands of academic elites brandishing a particularly toxic form of tolerance,” said AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera. “I doubt many U-Chicago parents or alums are aware that U-Chicago is using its funds to expose young men and women to high-risk, vile behaviors – all in the name of ‘diversity.’”

One of hundreds of sadistic-sex books on display at University of Chicago's "Leather Library" exhibit.

:
As the Sun-Times reported, the University of Chicago’s promotion of sexual sadism to youth follows another S&M sex scandal — at Northwestern University, on the north side of Chicago, where, “in February, two non-student fetishists performed a live sex act with a custom designed sex toy in an optional, after-class Human Sexuality seminar.” Read Illinois Family Institute writer Laurie Higgins’ account of it HERE.

Joe Jervis is in the business of "Defamation" -- he especially hates Christian conservatives who criticize homosexuality -- and yet he got an "Outstanding Blog" award from GLAAD, a "gay" "anti-defamation" group.

Culture warrior Matt Barber — one of the many people who have personally suffered at the hands of pro-homosexual activists — had this to say about GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) giving its 2011 “Outstanding Blog” award to radical, hateful homosexual activist Joe Jervis and his “Joe.My.God.” blog:

“So GLAAD, a self-described anti-defamation group, gives an award to one of the most vicious, vile and vulgar anti-Christian bigots on the planet and expects to be taken seriously? Hey, while we’re at it why not give Muammar Gaddafi the ‘Humanitarian of the Year’ award. Or how about a Nobel Peace Prize for Barack Oba… Oh, wait….”

Barber is Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action, an Associate Dean at Liberty University School of Law, and Board Member of Americans For Truth. By the way, we’re delighted to report that the devious Jervis is wasting his money on the purchase of the web domain ”americanfortruth.com” (no “s” after “american”) to steer unsuspecting visitors who intend to reach AFTAH (www.americansfortruth.com) to his mean-spirited blog. We’re pretty sure pro-family people won’t be persuaded by his particular brand of anti-Christian “defamation” — although Jervis does help us keep up with homosexuality-related news. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

April 21, 2011 [WARNING: Offensive content in video] 

This man in drag and member of the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" is wearing a shirt that says "Bottom For Jesus" at the sadistic-sex-celebrating Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco in 2007. "Bottom" refers to the receiving position in anal sodomy. Every year on Easter Sunday, the "Sisters" hosts the blasphemous "Hunky Jesus" contest. See video below, and click on photo above to enlarge.

Contact: Peter LaBarbera: americansfortruth@gmail.com  

CHICAGO – This Easter Sunday in San Francisco’s Delores Park, Christianity-spoofing homosexual drag queen “nuns” calling themselves the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” will stage their annual “Hunky Jesus” contest — mocking the Savior of the world, Jesus Christ — as shirtless men in “crucifixion” costumes parade on stage in an atmosphere of haughty, homoerotic humor. 

The profane and shockingly insensitive spectacle illustrates the secular, pro-“gay” Left’s hypocrisy in demanding “respect” for homosexuals and transsexuals — even as they cynically mock Christ and true religion on the holiest day of the year for Christians, says Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH). 

“There’s nothing that delights arrogant, pro-homosexual liberals more than making fun of Bible-believing Christians – as evidenced by this blasphemous Easter ‘contest,’” LaBarbera said. “Of course, it goes without saying that these defiant champions of ‘tolerance and diversity’ wouldn’t dare hold a ‘Hunky Muhammad’ contest during Ramadan — so it seems even envelope-pushing, in-your-face, pro-perversion libertines know their limits. (Muslims: beware: LGBT activists will end up hating you as much as they hate Christians.)” [Watch YouTube below; press release continues after the page jump and video:] 

LaBarbera said the “Hunky Jesus” contest symbolizes the contempt that many homosexual militants have for God and religion. Politically this translates into their growing advocacy of pro-homosexuality laws that use State power to crush Americans’ historic religious and First Amendment liberties – i.e., to reject homosexuality and other immoral, destructive behaviors. 

“Gay activists are out of the closet in their plans to criminalize Christianity insofar as it relates to their particular politically-correct sin,” he said, “One way they do that is by reviling and ridiculing committed Christians and others who oppose homosexuality — portraying them as sociopaths and the heartless equivalent of deranged racists. But the fact that African-Americans now poll strongest against ‘same-sex marriage’ throws a wrench into this evil ‘frame.’” 

LaBarbera said the “Hunky Jesus” contest – despicable as it is — actually is less threatening to Christendom than the escalating campaign by “LGBT” activists to re-define Christianity and other religions as “gay-friendly.” 

“Homosexual political groups are strategizing on how best to persuade evangelicals that supporting pro-homosexuality-laws including ‘same-sex marriage’ is part of the Christian’s duty to ‘love thy neighbor,’” he said. “Who knew that creating a system of superior legal ‘rights’ based on a sin that God’s own Word, the Bible, says is ‘detestable’ was part of the divine plan?! 

“Truth is, the most compassionate thing a Christian can do for people practicing homosexuality is to reach out to them with the Gospel – with an uncompromising ‘tough love’ that says proud homosexuality is never part of God’s plan for anyone’s life. The same Jesus Christ whom the San Francisco liberals mock not only will judge them one day – but He has helped innumerable men and women — like Trace McNutt and Denise Jones — leave homosexuality behind.”

Apple Inc. has dropped two pro-family "apps" from its iPhone following protest campaigns by homosexual activists.

TAKE ACTION: Contact Apple Inc regarding its open hostility to faith-based customers defending traditional morality and its capitulation to homosexual activists. Call 408-996-1010.

Apple Inc.
1 Infinite Loop
Cupertino, CA 95014
408-996-1010

By Peter LaBarbera

On Wednesday, Apple Inc. succumbed to a web-based homosexual lobbying blitz demanding that it drop an “app” for the ex-”gay” ministry Exodus International from its iPhone. This capitulation is only the latest to reward a creeping ’homo-fascism’ that is spreading across America and the world — and which is integral to the wider LGBT activist strategy of demonizing and marginalizing religious people opposed to homosexuality. We don’t use this term lightly — the Homosexual Lobby’s hardball strategy is built on lies, intimidation and even bullying of well-meaning, compassionate Christians and religious people who simply disagree with the practice of homosexuality.

Incredibly, a tiny Sexual Sin Lobby–  purporting to represent perhaps 1-2 percent (or less) of any given population — presumes to dictate to the rest of us what is and is not acceptable speech, ideas, and conduct with regard to homosexuality and same-sex “marriage.” (They even claim to be the arbiter of what is ”love” and “hate.”) The failure of the national media — stuck in “gays-as-victims” mode – to question the growing pro-LGBT intolerance, demonization, and oppression of adherents to Judeo-Christian  moral teachings, itself contributes greatly to the persecution of people of faith.

How absurd that in a nation still split on the morality of homosexuality (despite the media’s and Hollywood’s relentless pro-homosexual bias), only groups that encourage the embrace of this unhealthy and unnatural behavior are to be tolerated and receive corporate and government support. Even more ridiculous is the idea of affixing a ”civil rights” label to homosexual militants like ”Truth Wins Out” (TWO) who are devoted to crushing the civil rights and voice of opposing pro-family advocates. Good is evil. Evil is good (Isaiah 5:20). (Click HERE and especially HERE to read TWO’s rationale for opposing the Exodus iPhone app; it is typical of homosexual activist arguments that conflate disagreement with TWO’s pro-homosexual ideology with “hate.”)

Exodus’ ‘niceness’ gets them nowhere

There are some interesting side stories and ironies to this second of two Apple cave-ins to LGBT pressure-campaigns. One is that Exodus International — a leading umbrella group for people desiring to abandon homosexual practice or resist unwanted same-sex desires – has gone out of its way (too far, in our view) NOT to offend homosexual activists. And look where it got them. In fact, a while back Exodus declared that it was disengaging from the ”Culture War” over homosexuality (in favor of ministry pursuits) – yet now it is thrust right back into it. This is a lesson for all naive Christians who think that by somehow sidestepping the cultural battle over homosexuality, it won’t rage on,  with homosexual activists attempting to muzzle the Gospel.

Christians and moral-minded Americans MUST actively defend truth on this issue against the many “gay” lies (even the activist term “gay” is a lie…) — and realize that the end-game of the LGBT movement (not all, but many self-styled “queer” activists) is to shut down critics and alternative voices on this issue – first in the private sector, and then using Government power. Aggressive homo-fascism hates dissent, religious or otherwise. For goodness sake, 31 out of 31 states provided the opportunity have voted down “same-sex marriage,” and yet opposition to same sex marriage is now widely derided as “hate” by all major homosexualist organizations!

What Exodus’ well-intentioned leaders — and millions of “ministry-minded” Christians — do not understand regarding this cultural debate is that no matter how “nice” you are to the likes of TWO, the only thing that counts is that you oppose homosexual behavior. Though Christians must lovingly extend the Gospel of grace and salvation through Jesus Christ to all sexual strugglers, we also must stand against the growing tyranny engendered and envisioned by pro-homosexual militants. The expanding list of victimized Christians [click HERE and HERE] makes clear: our very freedom to act on our beliefs and to preach the full Gospel to all sinners, including people practicing homosexuality, is in danger. (Of course, LGBT activists claim to support religious freedom, but what good is liberty if we cannot publicly proclaim and act upon our historic biblical beliefs about sex, marriage and family?)

Cultural bullies

Far from being victims, the best way to think of name-calling homosexual activists like TWO’s Wayne Besen is as bullies: the more you try to appease them – e.g., by constantly apologizing for alleged “anti-gay hate” in the Church, or adopting the dubious semantics of “gay rights” and “gay” identity (at the expense of biblical fidelity) – the more they sense weakness, leading them to castigate and target you all the more.

A sexual/gender movement built upon the Big Lie that changeable sexual perversion is the basis for: a) a healthy identity; and b) ”civil rights” has zero respect for the religious beliefs and freedoms of citizens committed to God’s Truth. And, of course, any “civil rights” movement that aggressively seeks to deny the civil and religious liberties of others is, well, not a civil rights movement at all.

Truth Wins Out: the real haters

Demonizaton of opponents is critical to the LGBT campaign to push Christians and moral critics of homosexuality out of the cultural debate over homosexuality. Take special note of “Truth Wins Out’s” preposterous characterization of Exodus as “hateful and bigoted.” Any rational observer who compares TWO’s and Exodus’ rhetoric will see who the real “haters” are, and it’s not Exodus. TWO regularly engages in extreme, ad hominem, and blatantly anti-Christian rhetoric. (Wayne Besen proudly came up with the ugly “Porno Pete” smear to tar this writer.) Substituting “gay” ideology for reality, they simply deny the existence of former homosexuals — and then they have the gall to accuse others of “dehumanization.” (Recall that homosexual activists once chanted, “We here, we’re queer, get used to it!”…) TWO actively demonizes anyone who goes public about overcoming homosexuality in their life – and especially mocks those who claim to have done so with the divine help of Christ. (Besen’s snarky attack-slogan for Christian, ex-homosexual overcomers is “Pray Away the Gay.”)

Media enablers

Homosexualist intolerance would not so easily flourish if the “mainstream” (liberal) media were not almost completely sold out to the “gay rights” cause. Too often reporters and editors cater to the left-wing notion that ideas (especially Christian ones) are hateful, as opposed to actual actions and speech that are objectively caustic, hateful and mean-spirited.  The lack of media accountablity enables and empowers homosexual activists’ who employ an end-justifies-the-means rationale to fight and vilify the “haters” — including shutting down their speech.

To be sure, the Gay Thought Police’s penchant for squelching the opposition’s voice isn’t new — over a decade ago homosexual activists led by GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) lobbied major media to deny ads featuring happy ex-”gays” — but there is a special intensity to the current censorship campaign, perhaps due to the media’s suffocating political correctness.

Precious few journalists are willing to call out the Homosexual Lobby on its totalitarian-like, censorious approach to ideas and biblical/religious truths that it does not like, so we must. Christians need to wake up and stay fully engaged in this raging Culture War before it is too late and our freedom to disagree with homosexuality is destroyed.

Fellow advocate of godly morality, please understand this: militants on the homosexual-bisexual-transgender Left hate you enough to shut down your voice anywhere they can. If you value Truth and your constitutional, God-given freedom to defend it, do not let them.

–Peter LaBarbera, www.AFTAH.org; write me at americansfortruth@gmail.com

____________________________________________

The following is reprinted from LifeSiteNews; March 23, 2011; [to sign up for LifeSite's e-News updates, go HERE]

Apple pulls ex-gay app after complaints from gay activists

CUPERTINO, California, March 23, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Apple has now pulled the iPhone application that caused such a stir this week after the homosexual activist group Truth Wins Out (TWO) complained that it was “hateful and bigoted.”

This marks the second time that Apple has pulled an app because it promoted a traditional Christian view of homosexuality. In November of last year Apple pulled an app created for the Manhattan Declaration, a pro-life and pro-family document signed by nearly 500,000 people. The app was attacked because it opposed same-sex “marriage.”

The recent app, created by the international Christian ex-gay ministry Exodus International and available through Apple’s online iTunes store, originally received a 4+ rating from Apple, meaning that it was found to contain no objectionable content. The app provided a gateway to the ministry’s news, blog, podcasts, and other social networking and resource materials.

Exodus International denied that the app was aimed at “curing” homosexuality, as was claimed by its critics.  “In no way shape or form is our message about trying to cure or do we try to promote that type of methodology or message,” Jeff Buchanan, Exodus International’s Senior Director of Church Equipping & Student Ministries, told The Christian Post.

“This is a label that has been put forth by opponents to the application to serve as propaganda in order to stigmatize and really label the application in a false way and provoking a response such as you are seeing with the application.”

Meanwhile, TWO and Change.org praised Apple for removing the app.  “Apple made a wise and responsible decision to dump an offensive app that demonized gay and lesbian people,” said Wayne Besen, Executive Director of Truth Wins Out. “The real winners today are LGBT youth who are safer and less at risk for receiving Exodus’ malice and misinformation.”

“We’re thrilled that Apple has removed this ‘gay cure’ app from the iTunes store after more than 150,000 people signed this petition,” said Mike Jones, Editor at Change.org, the platform used by TWO to launch the petition. “The message Apple is sending here is clear: there is no place for ‘ex-gay therapy’ on the Apple platform.”

TWO claimed the app “relied on twisting legitimate research” to “dehumanize LGBT people” and by dropping the app, Apple joined the line of “every respected mental health organization in the nation.”
“We are disheartened at the fact that there are activists who are rising up to silence our voice on the Exodus iTunes platform,” Exodus’ Buchanan said on Tuesday. “We want to ask that there would be fair and equal representation of religious belief on this platform.”

“We are helping those who have unwanted same-sex attractions. Those who are gay or identify themselves that way, in no way, shape or form are we trying to speak to their position or trying to impose anything upon them,” he said.  “Exodus believes the opposite of homosexuality is not heterosexuality. It is holiness. We promote the belief that one can live a life that is congruent with their faith. That is our mission – period.”

Contact:

Apple Inc.
1 Infinite Loop
Cupertino, CA 95014
408.996.1010

The SPLC's Mark Potok oversees the organization's de facto "campaign of defamation" painting groups like AFTAH that oppose homosexuality as "hate groups." Potok admits that the SPLC has never identified a single "gay" group as hateful even though militant homosexual organizations like ACT UP and Bash Back! have targeted churches with vicious attacks.

TAKE ACTION: Contact the Senate Judiciary Committee (members listed HERE; Senate Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121) — and the House Committee on Homeland Security (202-226-2616; members listed HERE; House Switchboard: 202-225-3121) and urge them to investigate the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) working relationship with the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI. The leftist SPLC is now slandering conservative, Christian and Tea Party groups by mislabeling them as “hate groups” on a par with genuine, fringe hate groups like the KKK.  American taxpayers should insist that the federal government have no role in legitimizing the SPLC, which has politicized “hate” and turned it into a fund-raising business to demonize conservatives – including mainstream pro-family groups that oppose homosexual activism. To read an in-depth report exposing the SPLC’s unethical practices, go HERE.

_______________________________________________

Below is a useful article by Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute — on the leftist Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) preposterous smear-job against mainstream pro-family groups (including AFTAH, IFI, Family Research Council, and AFA) as “hate groups” because we oppose homosexuality and LGBT (“gay”) activism. Technically, the SPLC would argue that AFTAH and the other groups opposed homosexuality in the wrong way, but let’s be honest: ideologically speaking, the SPLC is so deeply committed to pro-”gay” advocacy that it considers suspect any organization that opposes pro-LGBT activism. Predictably, the left-wing, pro-homosexual echo chamber is using the SPLC’s “findings” to discredit pro-family groups.

Indicative of the SPLC”s tendentious and polemical “hate reporting” is its description of this writer as a “longtime gay-basher.” Using such semantics, that would make SPLC staffers like Mark Potok “longtime Christian bashers.” To read an excellent set of reports on the SPLC’s escalating “campaign of defamation” against conservatives and traditionalists, read this special Social Contract Journal edition.

As Barb Anderson of the (potential future “hate” group?) Minnesota Family Council and I discussed in Part One of our AFTAH Radio Hour interview [click HERE to listen], the SPLC’s cynical “hate” dragnet is growing so wide that we have almost reached the point where if a pro-family group is NOT INCLUDED on the SPLC’s “hate” list, it must be slacking off in resisting the destructive homosexual agenda. I write “almost” because some of our good friends such as Liberty Counsel and Campaign for California Families have not yet officially been designated “haters”; their time will come. Of course, the truth is, nobody “hates” like the American Left — especially militant homosexual activists.

I like Laurie’s reference to the “Morality Police”; how ironic that the Left has become the mirror of what it hates:  the societal “moral” scold. Remember that the dogmatists on the Left once screamed against the “Religious Right”: “Don’t impose your morality on the rest of us!” Now it’s the pro-”queer” Left that works diligently to “impose its immorality” on America using every dirty tactic ever conceived by Saul Alinsky (e.g., “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it”; see this piece). I half expect Potok or SPLC co-founder Morris Dees to show up in Wheeling, West Virginia, claiming to “have in my hand the names of 57 newly designated anti-gay hate groups….”

Prior to Americans for Truth About Homosexuality’s “graduation” to full-fledged SPLC “hate” group, we were labeled a “hate” website by the SPLC — after a very… well, bigoted and hateful Marxist homosexual organization, the Gay Liberation Network (GLN), “reported” us to the Alabama-based SPLC. (You know those Communists are all about love, tolerance and honesty … one GLN leader, Bob Schwartz, a self-described Trotskyite, told me at a Chicago protest that he’d push me into oncoming traffic if it weren’t for the cops standing nearby; Schwartz has never denied making the threatening remark. I hereby report the GLN to the SPLC as a “hate” group for targeting sincere Christians with its slanderous and bigoted vilifications and protests.)

No hateful homosexuals?

You will recall that earlier this year SPLC Intelligence Project director Mark Potok confirmed to me via e-mail that no “gay” advocacy group has ever made the SPLC’s “hate” list — despite the fact that miltant homosexual organizations like ACT UP (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power) have engaged in numerous planned assaults against churches and other political opponents. (In 1989, as part of a huge protest againset then-Cardinal John O’Connor, ACT UP members stormed St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City during a Sunday mass; it was a particularly ugly, anti-Catholic attack in which protesters screamed and tossed condoms in the air, and even stomped on a consecrated wafer believed by Catholics to be the Body of Christ. More recently, in 2008, the homosexual activist group Bash Back! staged an invasion of a large evangelical church in Lansing, Michigan; the church was specifically targeted for its outspoken belief that homosexual practice is sinful and that “gays” can leave that lifestyle through faith in Jesus Christ. [Regarding that point and the SPLC's #10 "myth" below, we must ask: does the Southern Poverty Law Center "hate" former homosexuals?] A thorough investigation into the pro-homosexual “hatred” unleashed against Prop 8 supporters in California – especially churches — is in order.)

In the ensuing months since I corresponded with Potok, the SPLC appears not to have made even a token move to identify homosexual activist hate groups and websites (gay activist Dan Savage’s shockingly evil “Santorum.com” comes to mind [Warning: highly offensive content] — while it greatly expanded its list of alleged pro-family alleged “hate groups.” This contradiction alone demonstrates the SPLC’s extreme bias and the folly of taking seriously its self-appointed role as an objective, impartial hate-monitoring organization.

Higgins deftly exposes the shoddy “research”  of the SPLC (as we at AFTAH have personally experienced; the incompetent researchers for SPLC’s “Intelligence Report” initially confused me with Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute). All this would be comical except that the SPLC is taken seriously by the liberal media and is used as an informational resource by the federal government’s Department of Homeland Security, so please take the action steps above.

Always remember: defending biblical morality is not ”bigotry” and disagreeing with homosexual activists is not “hate.” Thanks for standing with AFTAH for truth amidst all the politically correct lies. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org; write us at americansfortruth@gmail.com

Laurie Higgins writes:
_____________________________________________________

The Morality Police at the Southern Poverty Law Center

Evelyn Schlatter, Southern Poverty Law Center author of "hate groups" article

By Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute

Oh, for the good old days when the term “hate group” referred to groups that actually hated someone. Now the term “hate group” refers to any group that expresses political, philosophical, moral, or theological beliefs with which the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) disagrees.

Last week, the SPLC released the winter issue of Mark Potok’s ironically named “Intelligence Report.” The article, “18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda,” by Evelyn Schlatter lists 18 organizations as “anti-gay” groups with 13 of those to be added to their formal list of “hate groups.” The American Family Association, Family Research Council, and the Illinois Family Institute are three of the 13 that will be included on a list with neo-Nazi organizations.

Schlatter explains that the “propagation” of “known falsehoods” about homosexuality will result in organizations being included on the SPLC’s “anti-gay” list and perhaps also their “hate groups” list. Here are the “known falsehoods” that she and co-author Robert Steinback cite in the companion article “10 Anti-Gay Myths Debunked”:

1. If an organization claims that homosexuals “molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals,” it goes on the SPLC’s “hate groups” list.
2. If an organization says that “same-sex parents harm children,” it goes on the SPLC’s “hate groups” list.
3. If an organization claims that “people become homosexual because they were sexually abused as children or there was a deficiency in sex-role modeling by their parents,” it goes on the SPLC’s “hate groups” list.
4. If an organization claims that “homosexuals don’t live nearly as long as heterosexuals,” it goes on the SPLC’s “hate groups” list.
5. If an organization claims that “homosexuals controlled the Nazi Party and helped to orchestrate the Holocaust,” it goes on the SPLC’s “hate-groups” list.
6. If an organization claims that “hate crime laws will lead to the jailing of pastors who criticize homosexuality and the legalization of practices like bestiality and necrophilia,” it goes on the SPLC’s “hate groups” list.
7. If an organization claims that “allowing homosexuals to serve openly would damage the armed forces,” it goes on the SPLC’s “hate groups” list.
8. If an organization claims that homosexuals “are more prone to be mentally ill and to abuse drugs and alcohol,” it goes on the SPLC’s “hate groups” list.
9. If an organization claims that “no one is born a homosexual,” it goes on the SPLC’s “hate groups” list.
10. If an organization claims “Gay people can choose to leave homosexuality,” it goes on the SPLC’s “hate groups” list.

Under each of these “myths,” Schlatter and Steinback offer analyses and evidence of such poor quality that their arguments wouldn’t pass muster in many high school English classes in which there are actual standards for logic and use of evidence. I will examine just a few of the many problems in their analyses, which in turn will reveal the intellectual and ethical vacuity that pervades the SPLC.

Same sex parents harm children

The SPLC thinks that the belief that same sex parents harm children constitutes hatred. The first problem is that Schlatter and Steinback fail to define harm. If one believes that homosexuality is morally flawed, then a household centered on a morally flawed relationship cannot be beneficial.

It is entirely possible that a brother and sister in an incestuous relationship or that polyamorist parents could raise children, providing for their physical needs, comforting them, and teaching them their ABCs. But most of society believes that such relationships would harm children because they would teach children that incest or polyamory are morally permissible. Would Schlatter and Steinback include organizations on their “hate groups” list that propagate the belief that incestuous parents or poly-parents harm children?

The SPLC and many homosexuals are outraged over any comparison of homosexuality to adult consensual incest or polyamory because they view homosexuality as moral and incest and polyamory as immoral. But no one is obligated to accept the SPLC’s flawed comparison of homosexuality to race or to accept their moral assumptions. After all, who is the SPLC to impose their moral views on all of society? Why are IFI’s moral beliefs about homosexual acts hateful and the views of those who oppose incest or polyamory legitimate? Why do IFI’s moral beliefs about volitional homosexual acts land us on the “hate groups” list, while the moral beliefs of those who oppose incestuous parents or poly-parents do not land them on the “hate groups” list?

Homosexual parents teach their children that gender is irrelevant to marriage and to parenting. They teach them that homosexual acts are inherently moral. And they deliberately deprive children of either a mother or a father. Those corruptions of truth and essential human relationships harm children.

Childhood molestation, innateness (“born that way”) and homosexuality

The one point about which many on both sides of the homosexuality debate agree is that the causes of same-sex attraction are not known. Many believe that same-sex attractions result from a complex interaction of biologically shaped predispositions and environmental factors. If we do notknow the causes of same-sex attraction, and if some of the factors that contribute to it are environmental experiences, how can anyone declare that childhood molestation never contributes to the development of same-sex attraction? And if childhood molestation may contribute in some cases to the development of same-sex attraction, how can it constitute hatred to say so?

Oprah, an inveterate promoter of all things homosexual, recently did two powerful programs about men who were molested as children. One of her guests was a therapist who has treated hundreds of men who were molested as children. He stated that one result of the sexual molestation of boys is “sexual orientation confusion.”

Schlatter and Steinback also assert that it’s hateful, false, and mythical to say “no one is born homosexual,” and then virtually their entire analysis reveals that there is no research proving that people are “born homosexual.” Schlatter and Steinback write, “a great many studies suggest that it is the result of biological and environmental forces.”

Following their repeated assertions that there is no proof that homosexuality is congenital, Schlatter and Steinback suggest the false dichotomy that if people do not choose their same-sex attraction, they must be “born that way,” completely ignoring two essential truths. First, the fact that people do not choose their feelings does not mean that such feelings are biologically determined. Second, freely chosen behaviors that emerge from feelings shaped by biological influences are not automatically moral.

IFI has consistently said that although no one chooses their feelings, people do choose how to respond to them. Saying that people ought not to act upon same-sex attraction is no more hateful than saying that people ought not to act upon unchosen, powerful, persistent attractions to pornography, multiple people, or their siblings. All moral beings have to decide which of their unchosen, powerful feelings are morally legitimate to act upon.

Homosexual men and shortened life spans

Under the “myth” about the shortened life spans of homosexual men, Schlatter and Steinback made the following statement:

Bob Unruh, a conservative Christian journalist who left The Associated Press in 2006 for the right-wing, conspiracist news site WorldNetDaily, said shortly before the federal law was passed that it would legalize “all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or ‘paraphilias’ listed by the American Psychiatric Association.” This claim was repeated by many anti-gay organizations, including the Illinois Family Institute.

Either because of Schlatter’s and Steinback’s poor research or lack of ethics, they failed to include the fact that exactly one week after making the error regarding the DSM, writer Kathy Valente posted a correction which is still on our website. It reads as follows:

In the article entitled “Hate Crimes Bill Moves to Senate” (5/5/09), we mistakenly stated that the American Psychiatric Association’s actual definition of “sexual orientation” includes paraphilias. The APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) classifies “sexual orientation” as heterosexual, homosexual, and bi-sexual. The 547 mental disorders called paraphilias specifically involve non-human objects, physical pain, or unwilling partners as in pedophilia. IFI apologizes for the error.

I hope and assume that Schlatter and Steinback will demonstrate the integrity and professionalism that Ms. Valente did by publishing a correction and apology.

In their argument that talking about the shorter life spans of homosexual men constitutes an act of hatred, Schlatter and Steinback focused on research by Paul Cameron, while completely ignoring research by the well-respected International Journal of Epidemiology that found the following:

[W]e demonstrated that in a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 21 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality continued, we estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years would not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre were experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by men in Canada in the year 1871.

The authors of this article, upset that conservative groups disseminated this troubling fact, issued an update that said, “if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996.”

Though mortality rates have dropped due to improved treatment protocols, HIV infection rates for “men who have sex with men” (MSM) are soaring. According to the CDC, “While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men.”

I wonder if Schlatter and Steinback are planning on publishing an addendum to their article in which they address HIV infection rates for homosexual men, or perhaps they’re going to include the CDC on their “hate groups” list.

Nazism

Schlatter claimed erroneously that I “compared homosexuality to Nazism,” which makes me wonder if she even bothered to read the articles in which I referred to Nazism. Here’s an excerpt from one:

Although genocide and homosexual acts are both sins, in man’s economy–and my own belief system–genocide is a far greater sin. And although I believe that all sin represents rebellion against God, I believe that homosexuality and genocide are by nature distinct….I never posited that homosexuals were the moral equivalents of Nazis. Rather, I compared the rationalizations church leaders offered for the silence of the church in the face of the evil of Nazism to the rationalizations church leaders offer for the silence of the church in the face of the evil of using public schools to promulgate destructive, erroneous views of homosexuality….The feckless or deceitful claim that I said homosexuals are equivalent to Nazis makes no more sense than claiming that someone who says the church should address both the sin of murder and the sin of gossip are saying that murderers and gossips are morally equivalent.

Sin in the closet

The SPLC believes it’s an act of hate to say that homosexuality should remain in the “in the closet.” Ms. Schlatter quoted an article in which I said, “There was something profoundly good for society about the prior stigmatization of homosexual practice…. [W]hen homosexuals were ‘in the closet,’ (along with fornicators, polyamorists, cross-dressers, and ‘transsexuals’), they weren’t acquiring and raising children.”

Many people believe that immoral behavior should be concealed from the public rather than paraded about or publicly celebrated. For example, many people–perhaps most–do not want polyamorists’ or cross-dressers’ behavior to be public where children can see it. Does the SPLC view those who don’t want their children to see manifestations of polyamory or cross-dressing as haters?

And many people believe that children have a fundamental right to be raised by the biological parents who procreated them. Many people, including Roman Catholics, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, and Protestants as well as people who follow no faith tradition, believe it is immoral for homosexuals to adopt or use in vitro fertilization and surrogacy to acquire children. Do they all deserve to be labeled “haters”?

My belief that it would be better for society if homosexuality were not publicly affirmed, normalized, or celebrated no more constitutes hatred of homosexuals than does other people’s belief that polyamory should not be publicly affirmed, celebrated, or normalized constitute hatred of polyamorists.

Ex-gays

The SPLC states that saying people can choose not to act on same-sex attraction or that they can leave a homosexual lifestyle constitutes hatred of homosexuals. Following that logic, what does it mean when someone says people can leave a polyamorous lifestyle or that they can choose not to act on their powerful attractions to multiple people? And what does it say to the hundreds of men and women who have abandoned their homosexual lives that the SPLC says discussing such a path is an act of hatred?

Conclusion

No longer is hate defined as, well, hatred. Anyone who finds the SPLC’s analogies faulty; their research selective; their concealing of inconvenient facts troubling; or their unproven, non-factual moral beliefs wrong, is now guilty of hatred.

The SPLC holds the unproven, non-factual belief that homosexuality is moral and arrogantly demands that all of society agree, or be silent, or be labeled a “hate group.” That strikes me as a strange manifestation of tolerance or respect for speech rights and diversity. Ironically, the SPLC has become the oppressor.

The SPLC hopes that their smear campaign will silence conservatives so that only the SPLC’s moral views will be heard in the public square. No one should allow the unprincipled bullying tactics and specious reasoning of the SPLC to intimidate them into silence. The SPLC’s ontological and moral beliefs about homosexuality are not facts, and dissent from the ethically impoverished SPLC’s beliefs does not constitute hatred.

Please take time to read this comprehensive indictment of the SPLC from the Social Contract Journal, which dedicated its spring 2010 issue to exposing the SPLC.

And if that’s not enough, click HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.

Psychologist Mike Campion was vindicated when the City of Minneapolis settled with him for $211,000 rather than try to prove in court their false charge that he was an anti-gay bigot who could not professionally do his job of evaluating police and firefighter candidates -- due to his past affiliation with a Christian pro-family group.

“Former City Council Member Scott Benson, who is gay and a lawyer, sent a note to then-interim Police Chief Tim Dolan and asked, ‘How did Dr. Michael Campion, who was a board member of the Illinois Family Institute (a notoriously discriminatory anti-gay group) become the psychologist for the Minneapolis Police Dept. for screening new hires etc?’

“The same month the city suspended work with Campion and hired another firm to do screening, citing better ‘diversity and transparency’ issues at the firm.” – Minneapolis Star Tribune, “Minneapolis settles suit with fired psychologist for $210,000″

By Peter LaBarbera

The City of Minneapolis just admitted its guilt and, in effect, shameful anti-Christian bigotry by settling with psychologist contractor Michael Campion for $210,000 rather than go forward with a U.S. District Court trial that it surely would have lost on First Amendment grounds. See the Minneapolis Star-Tribune article reprinted below. 

I know Mike Campion and his wife Kathy. He is a good and decent Christian man whom compassion-challenged liberals put through the grinder merely because he supports the objective truth that homosexuals can change their lifestyle (as countless have). His firm, Campion, Barrow & Associates, is one of the most professional in its field and evidently the City of Minneaopolis could not find anyone who would testify that Mr. Campion had mistreated or discriminated against them on the basis of “sexual orientation.”

In other words, unlike the liberals who sought to destroy him, Campion is no bigot. Pathetically, some city officials even tried to smear Campion as a racist to achieve their goal. End justifies the means, right?

Note the comment by homosexual activist Scott Benson above: a “gay” politician, working with pro-homosexual city officials, gets Campion fired because he was once a board member with a “notoriously discriminatory organization,” the Illinois Family Institute (IFI).

Most of AFTAH’s readers know of IFI, where I served as executive director from 2003-2006. This fine group and its followers merely defend the historic Christian and biblical teaching that homosexuality is outside of God’s expressed will. They believe that this sinful behavior is changeable through trusting in Jesus Christ, who in His grace and love and truth offers forgiveness to all sinners. Neither Mike nor IFI “hate” or “fear” homosexuals, and such spurious accusations — now tossed recklessly at any Bible-believer who expresses disagreement with sodomy, is itself a manifestation of reactionary, anti-Christian prejudice. 

Are you seeing the folly and frightening potential of this Orwellian sexual agenda: all across America and the world, homosexual activists are smearing Christians or even working aggressively to get them FIRED (or arrested) – in the name of “fighting discrimination”! The bald-faced hypocrisy of the pro-homosexual Left is exposed — and anyone not blinded by politically correctness (which unfortunately covers many in the media) can see it.

Truth is — as lesbian activist and Obama-appointed E.E.O.C. Commissioner Chai Feldblum asserts — there is a “zero-sum game” between homosexualist ideology/”sexual orientation”-based “rights” and our First Amendment freedoms. To the committed homosexualist, it doesn’t matter if you are black, white or brown – it only matters whether or not you affirm homosexuality. And if you don’t or, God forbid, you belong to a church or organization that questions the cherished myths of the powerful “Gay” Lobby, watch out! You could be in trouble with the Sexual Thought Police. (Read Julea Ward’s story HERE; Crystal Dixon’s story HERE; and Elaine Huguenin’s story HERE.)

How dare the liberal Left lecture us about ”rights” as they take away others’ rights and promote a vicious, new form of discrimination that cynically equates God-honoring moral convictions with “hate” and punishes them accordingly.

A new civil rights movement

The encouraging news is that the seeds of a new civil rights movement are growing — made up of Americans and citizens of all creeds and colors worldwide demanding that their freedom to live by their religious and moral beliefs be respected and made inviolable. This noble freedom-of-conscience movement will rise up against any and all attempts — government and corporate – to punish people for their deeply-held moral convictions. It will stand aggressively against laws and policies that belittle and demonize traditionalist and religious views – and which demand that our morality be shoved into some personal closet or church away from the workplace and public square.

America is a freedom-loving nation. We must not let it become a freedom-crushing nation, especially in the name of a misnamed ”tolerance” that will not tolerate dissent and a (non-diverse) “diversity” that punishes and maligns adherents of moral truth. (See my expulsion and then crude demonization by the curiously-named DiversityInc magazine and its hateful publisher, Luke Visconti.) In the spirit of our Founding Fathers, we will not tolerate government-enforced tyranny, and certainly not in the name of “rights” based on sexual misbehavior or any errant secularist cause that seeks to recast our God-given liberties to affirm worldly trends.

We understand that many social liberals hate us for defending biblical and moral truth, but that hatred does not allow them to steal way our rights. So, like past patriots, we WILL fight back against the Liberal, Pro-Gay Thought Police at every turn. Because our freedom — like Mike Campion’s — is non-negotiable.

__________________________________________

Star-Tribune article on Campion’s victory:

Minneapolis settles suit with fired psychologist for $210,000

Michael Campion was fired because of concerns over his ties to an “anti-homosexual” organization

By ROCHELLE OLSON, Star Tribune

September 3, 2010

A psychologist who screened potential Minneapolis police officers will receive a $210,000 settlement from the city over his firing, which stemmed from his affiliation with the Illinois Family Institute and his support for treating the “problem” of homosexuality.

The City Council unanimously agreed Friday after a closed-door session to pay Michael Campion of Campion, Barrow & Associates of Illinois Inc. (CBA) rather than go forward with a U.S. District Court trial scheduled to start Sept. 13 before U.S. Judge Joan Ericksen.

Council Member Gary Schiff, who is gay, said, “It was clear the settlement was in the city’s best interest.”

The Family Institute has stated that it opposes the “gay lifestyle.”

If the city had lost at trial, it could have been made to pay Campion’s attorney’s fees. Schiff said the settlement amount includes legal fees.

In reaching the decision, Schiff said, the council leaned heavily on an 18-page pretrial ruling from Ericksen, in which she wrote, “The court observes, at this preliminary state, that plaintiffs’ First Amendment interests appear to be strong.”

Jim Campbell, of the Alliance Defense Fund of Arizona, said the settlement “reinforces that the government cannot penalize Christian contractors for their beliefs.  The court had already issued a decision finding that the City of Minneapolis removed Dr. Campion because of his constitutionally protected involvement with a Christian organization, noting that Dr. Campion’s constitutional rights were strong.”

Schiff said the council realized that Ericksen’s ruling signaled an uphill legal fight.

CBA began working for the city in 2004, about a year after a federal mediator came to town to address concerns about biased policing and low numbers of minority officers. In 2006, members of the Police Community Relations Council, which grew out of the federal mediation, raised concerns about racial bias in CBA’s work. Another firm reviewed the work and found no such evidence.

Campion met with the community council in August 2006 and concerns were raised about his affiliation with the Family Institute, founded by James Dobson, and the “anti-homosexual” nature of the organization, the judge’s order said.

Former City Council Member Scott Benson, who is gay and a lawyer, sent a note to then-interim Police Chief Tim Dolan and asked, “How did Dr. Michael Campion, who was a board member of the Illinois Family Institute (a notoriously discriminatory anti-gay group) become the psychologist for the Minneapolis Police Dept. for screening new hires etc?”

The same month the city suspended work with Campion and hired another firm to do screening, citing better “diversity and transparency” issues at the firm.

CBA sued, claiming the city violated Campion’s First Amendment rights by taking action against him because of his association with the Family Institute.

The city argued that the decision to part ways with CBA stemmed not from Campion’s speech but by “concerns about bias.”

Campion’s business, based in Champaign, Ill., has performed psychological testing for 35 years for more than 100 law enforcement agencies, including St. Paul. A portion of Campion’s testing was developed through a U.S. Department of Justice grant in which he sampled St. Paul residents on what characteristics were important in an officer.

Before receiving the psychological exam, applicants are given a conditional job offer. If they are rated unqualified, they generally are not hired.

Campion has not commented on the case. His lawyers didn’t return a phone call.

Rochelle Olson • 612-673-1747

The following is video of the August 5 protest against the AFTAH Truth Academy by a coalition of pro-homosexuality groups led by the Marxist Gay Liberation Network. The Chicago-based GLN attempted to smear the Truth Academy as “teaching hate,” but the real hate came from some of the protesters — not Truth Academy instructors like Ryan Sorba (featured prominently in this video). Several Academy presenters including Matt Barber, Greg Quinlan and AFTAH founder Peter LaBarbera joined Sorba in wading into the crowd, engaging various protesters on the question of “hate.” The first video below was shot by Illinois conservative Lynn Thomas, creator of Cao’s Blog, and Janet Aldrich [a second YouTube follows the jump]:

This video of the protest was shot by Lynn Thomas; in it Gay Liberation Network co-leader Bob Schwartz says hopefully about Truth Academy instructor Cliff Kincaid — who exposed GLN’s deep linkage with pro-Communist organizations like the Sparticist League: “maybe he could get hit by a car” (now that’s tolerance….):

Jennifer Keeton

Here’s the latest victim of the Pro-Gay Thought Police (PGTP): Jennifer Keeton. Her predicament is further evidence of the “zero-sum game” in the Culture War between pro-”gay” policies/laws and religious liberty. It’s incredible that this public institution, Augusta State U,, is requiring this principled young woman to alter her beliefs and even attend a “gay pride” parade as a condition for completing the program. (Imagine the outcry if a public university required a committed, secular ”gay” student to go to a Bible-believing church as part of a remediation plan.)

Will authentic Bible-believing Christians (as opposed to the compromised, homosexuality-affirming variety) be boxed out of the counseling profession? If so, faithful Christians will have to support alternative counseling institutions, because unrepentant homosexuality will never be compatible with Christianity. And there are way too many happy ex-gays and ex-lesbians out there for sexually struggling people not to be given this healthy option.

Modern “diversity” is to genuine diversity as Marxist-Leninist “People’s Democratic Republics” are to true democracy. Wouldn’t true “diversity” allow people to exercise their own choice to see either a pro-homosexual counselor or one that adheres to traditional moral views? I guess that’s asking too much of left-wing academics and the pro-”GLBTQ” movement.  – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org 

P.S. Check out this Queety blog post on the Keeton case. It contains a video of Keeton giving her side of the story. Note the nasty and irrational pro-homosexual comments that follow the Queerty post, including this one:

Imagine if a KKK member became a firefighter and said “If a black person is in a fire I’m not going to save their life. It’s against my beliefs.” Rubbish.

_______________________________________

LifeSiteNews reports [Click HERE to subscribe to LifeSite's daily e-mails.]:

Augusta State Univ. to Counseling Student: Change Beliefs or Get Out

AUGUSTA, Georgia, July 22, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) filed suit against Augusta State University Wednesday on behalf of a counseling student who was allegedly told that her Christian beliefs are unethical and incompatible with the prevailing views of the counseling profession. The student, Jennifer Keeton, says she has been told to stop communicating her beliefs and that she must undergo “training” to accept homosexuality in order to graduate from the counseling program.

Augusta State ordered Keeton to undergo a re-education plan, in which she must attend “diversity sensitivity training,” complete additional remedial reading, and write papers to describe their impact on her beliefs. If she does not change her beliefs or agree to the plan, the university says it will expel her from the Counselor Education Program.

“A public university student shouldn’t be threatened with expulsion for being a Christian and refusing to publicly renounce her faith, but that’s exactly what’s happening here. Simply put, the university is imposing thought reform,” said ADF Senior Counsel David French.

“Abandoning one’s own religious beliefs should not be a precondition at a public university for obtaining a degree. This type of leftist zero-tolerance policy is in place at far too many universities, and it must stop.”

Keeton, 24, is pursuing her master’s degree in counseling at Augusta State. Lawyers say that after her professors learned of her biblical beliefs, specifically her views on homosexual conduct, the school imposed the re-education plan. Keeton says she never denigrated anyone in communicating her beliefs but merely stated factually what they were in appropriate contexts.

The plan, according to ADF lawyers, assails Keeton’s beliefs as inconsistent with the counseling profession and expresses suspicion over “Jen’s ability to be a multiculturally competent counselor, particularly with regard to working with gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (GLBTQ) populations.” They say the plan requires her to take steps to change her beliefs through additional assignments and additional “diversity sensitivity training” and to “work to increase exposure and interactions with gay populations. One such activity could be attending the Gay Pride Parade in Augusta.”

Each month, Keeton is allegedly required to complete a report on how the “remediation” assignments have influenced her beliefs so that faculty can “decide the appropriateness of her continuation in the counseling program.” Lawyers say the plan concludes by noting that “failure to complete all elements of the remediation plan will result in dismissal from the Counselor Education Program.”

In an ADF video, Keeton said that, “While I want to stay in the school counseling program, I know that I can’t honestly complete the remediation plan knowing that I would have to alter my beliefs.” “I’m not willing to, and I know I can’t, change my Biblical views,” she said.

ADF attorneys filed the complaint and a motion for preliminary injunction in Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley with the U.S. District Court for the District of Georgia.

ADF is currently litigating a similar case involving a counseling student at Eastern Michigan University and successfully resolved a case at Missouri State University. Also in litigation is a case involving a Georgia counselor fired by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention because she would not agree to affirm homosexual behavior as morally acceptable.

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).

TAKE ACTION: To contact PepsiCo North America, call 914-253-2000 (ask for the president’s office); to reach PepsiCo’s various regional offices, go HERE.

________________________________

PFOX News Release (PFLAG link added):

Speech by Greg Quinlan to the PepsiCo Board of Directors

May 5, 2010 Pepsi Shareholders Meeting

See http://pfox-exgays.blogspot.com/2010/05/indra-nooyi-and-pepsi.html

Ms. Indra Nooyi [PepsiCo chair], last year at this same event, you said that PepsiCo is “committed to diversity and inclusion without imposition of personal judgment.” So why does PepsiCo continue to fund organizations that hate ex-gays like me?

Former homosexual Greg Quinlan, president of PFOX

PepsiCo, Inc. is the leading corporate sponsor of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, known as PFLAG. PFLAG’s latest publication, a religious guidebook, instructs its members to protest against religious conferences which feature ex-gay speakers like me. PFLAG’s religious guidebook even directs members on how to create picket signs for these protests. It also urges members to hold press conferences and issue press releases against ex-gay religious events “to remind people that there is more than one faith message.”

My church welcomes the ex-gay community. Why does Pepsi fund groups like PFLAG that disrupt Christian events which support former homosexuals like me? Why does PepsiCo fund an organization like PFLAG which issues religious publications urging readers to undermine other religions with which PFLAG disagrees? Why does Pepsi fund hate? Why?

Unlike the Coca Cola Company, PepsiCo refuses to divulge the exact amount of money it donates to various groups. This secrecy by PepsiCo leads to misuse of corporate funds. For example, PepsiCo says it gave ‘over $100,000′ last year to PFLAG, but refuses to specify the exact amount. In past years that amount has meant as much as half a million dollars. This means that Pepsi may be giving away $500,000 or more in corporate earnings to a controversial organization to help fund its religious viewpoint. Pepsi helps fund religious bigotry and hatred.

The Coca Cola Company lists the exact amounts of its corporate donations. Pepsi should do the same. Why is PepsiCo hiding this information? In the era of Bernie Madoff, Enron, bank failures and the like, Pepsi must be accountable; Pepsi must be transparent to her shareholders and customers. But you are not.

PepsiCo is listed on the PFLAG website as a founding sponsor of PFLAG’s so-called “Straight for Equality” program. This program is aimed at heterosexuals. It gives heterosexuals a list of 10 things they can do to be what they call, a “straight ally,” in their church.

This PepsiCo funded program also publishes a “Straight for Equality in Healthcare” manual for heterosexual doctors and nurses. This PFLAG manual misquotes medical associations in an attempt to discredit the ex-gay community. The manual also labels our lives as “snake oil” and “deceitful.” It makes a list of groups to avoid, called “Meet the Snake Oil Salesman.” Three ex-gay groups are listed. One of them is Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays, PFOX. My name is Gregory Quinlan; I am the President of PFOX. I am an Ex-Gay man.

Madame Chair and Board of Directors, I can tell you that almost everything said about PFOX on p. A-29 of your PepsiCo funded manual is a lie. Why would you donate even one dollar to spread this kind of hate against people like me? I’m asking you here and now to correct these lies about PFOX on PepsiCo’s website so you can immediately undo some of the damage you have paid for.

Ms. Nooyi, you lead PepsiCo’s Diversity and Inclusion Governance Council. I don’t want to hear any more words from you about diversity and inclusion — I want you to actually practice it. [Applause]

As for Peggy Moore, who represents PepsiCo on the PFLAG Board Workplace Diversity Committee, she should be fired because she doesn’t know the first thing about diversity if she can’t respect people like me. And PepsiCo should resign immediately from PFLAG’s so-called Diversity Committee. Why would PepsiCo sit on a committee that defines diversity to only include those people whose religious ideology they agree with?

Ms. Nooyi and PepsiCo Board of Directors do you make these decisions because of replicated scientific studies supporting specific biological etiology for homosexuality? I can answer that for you. You can’t because there is zero evidence. ZERO that anyone is born homosexual.

Once again, I urge the PepsiCo Board of Directors, yes; each and every one of you, to do your jobs and hold PepsiCo to the ideals and standards it claims to follow. I shouldn’t have to come here year after year asking PepsiCo to stop funding hate against people like me.

The PepsiCo Charitable Contributions Shareholder Proposal asks PepsiCo to fully divulge its funding to groups and account for how the company’s charitable contributions are actually used, a reasonable request. Otherwise, PepsiCo’s actions will adversely affect its public image and goodwill.

Thank you. [Applause]
_____________________________________

Listen to the speech at http://pfox.org/Pepsico_5-6-10.mp3. Go HERE to donate to PFOX.

Remember to read the PFOX blog regularly for ex-gay views and news: http://pfox-exgays.blogspot.com/

Southern Poverty Law Center director Mark Potok sent AFTAH a snide message to point out a small factual error, yet for years the SPLC has confused AFTAH's Peter LaBarbera with Family Research Institute founder Paul Cameron on its website.

EDTIORS NOTE: After the publication of our article, the SPLC fixed the major error described below of (twice) confusing AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera for Family Research Institute founder Paul Cameron. However, the leftist group’s website retains one error, claiming that LaBarbera called for closing down all homosexual “establishments.” In actuality, LaBarbera called for closing down all “gay” sex clubs and bathhouses (where men go to have anonymous sexual encounters with other men) in the interest of protecting the public’s health.

By AFTAH Staff

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a left-wing organization under fire for expanding its “hate” designations beyond racist fringe groups to pro-family organizations like Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) and the conservative Tea Party movement — has mistaken AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera for Family Research Institute researcher Paul Cameron in two longstanding “Intelligence Report” posts on its website.

The sophomoric error first appeared in a Spring 2005 SPLC “Intelligence Report,” “A Mighty Army,” about pro-family organizations opposed to homosexuality (see the section on Page 3 of Concerned Women for America). It was repeated in a Summer 2006 SPLC “Intelligence Report” article, “Passive Aggressive,” by Heidi Beirich. Both fallacious reports have been posted on the Southern Poverty Law Center website for years and have been repeated by sympathetic liberal activists on the web. The SPLC, which raises and spends millions of dollars annually for its “anti-hate” political and research activities, works with government and law enforcement authorities to provide research on alleged “hate” groups.

The above excerpt from the 2005 Southern Poverty Law Center report "A Mighty Army" mistakes Peter LaBarbera, founder of Americans For Truth, with Paul Cameron, founder of Family Research Institute. The typo in the first sentence (should be "In") appears in the original report.

Ironically, after the Southern Poverty Law Center outrageously designated Americans For Truth as a “hate” website — urged on by the pro-communist “Gay Liberation Network” — SPLC director Mark Potok sent Americans For Truth the following snide e-mail message to correct an inadvertent error in a column by (AFTAH Board Member) Matt Barber:

I know you all value accuracy above all things — I can tell that from the fine and incisive quality of your writing and research. Therefore, I\’m sure you\’ll want to let Matt know that we\’re based in Montgomery, Ala., not Atlanta, Ga. I know these places all seem the same to you — kind of like the unspeakable horrors of homosexuality — but hey, they\’re not. Of course, Matt does appear incapable of doing any actual reporting — his little attack piece is a compendium of ancient quotes he dredges from a 10-year-old Harper\’s magazine article.

Said AFTAH’s LaBarbera: “Perhaps Mr. Potok should redirect his derision toward his own staffers and writers, who appear to ‘value’ smearing Christian conservatives above accuracy. The SPLC’s credibility as a research organization is rapidly diminishing. Obviously, it is so consumed with its own animus toward religious conservatives that it cannot be trusted as an objective arbiter of ‘hate.’”

The above excerpt is reprinted from a 2006 SPLC "Intelligence Report" "Passive Aggressive," which repeats the confusion of LaBarbera with Cameron found in the 2005 SPLC report.

It should be noted that the confusion of two conservative, pro-family advocates is only the most blatant error found in the SPLC documents. We will let Paul Cameron and his Family Research Institute provide a full correction of the SPLC’s misinformation about him (see this FRI post on the APA expulsion claim). As to the descriptions about LaBarbera in the two reprinted SPLC excerpts above, here are the mischaracterizations:

• The Lambda Report on Homosexual Activism, the precursor and flagship print publication of Americans For Truth, was not “inflammatory” but reported using firsthand information gathered from homosexual activist groups and “gay” events. Besides, the SPLC, with its reckless and preposterous linkage of demented, racist fringe groups like the KKK to mainstream pro-family conservative groups such as AFTAH and pro-Constitution Tea Partiers — all under the rubric of alleged “hate” — is in no place to lecture anyone about being “inflammatory”;
• LaBarbera was never a member of the American Psychological Association and is not a scientist, hence he was never expelled; here the SPLC mistakes him with Cameron [Editor's Note: for years the Left has distorted the facts surrounding Cameron's association with the APA; see this PhD dissertation apology to Cameron];
• LaBarbera’s work has not been “denounced by the American Psychological Association”; again, here the SPLC writer, relying on the 2005 erroneous SPLC report, mistakes LaBarbera for Cameron.
• At the 2006 Vision America conference in question, “The War on Christians,” LaBarbera did not call homosexuality “disgusting” but referred to specific homosexual acts and their unhealthy consequences as such. He continues to believe that shame, not pride, should be associated with all homosexual conduct because it is immoral.
• At the same Vision America conference, LaBarbera did not call for the closing of all homosexual “establishments,” but for shutting down homosexual sex clubs and bathhouses as public health hazards. These sex businesses — which helped AIDS explode nationally in the eighties — facilitate anonymous homosexual sexual encounters and hyper-promiscuity, which spreads disease and harms both men who have sex with men and and the women who are in relationships with these men. (The latter often are unaware of their partners’ secret promiscuity.)

AFTAH repeats its challenge to Mark Potok, Southern Poverty Law Center’s director, to a public “Debate on Hate” regarding the SPLC’s politically-motivated “hate” designations.

________________________________

Two SPLC reports with errors (unfixed as of May 6, 2010):

• “‘A Mighty Army’: A dozen major groups help drive the religious right’s anti-gay crusade” (2005; see section on CWA, p. 3);
• “Passive Aggressive” (2006)

________________________________

Related AFTAH articles:

• SPLC Plays Politics with Hate, Smears Americans For Truth as ‘Hate Site’
• AFTAH’s LaBarbera Challenges SPLC’s Potok to a ‘Debate on Hate,’ Asks to Reverse ‘Hate’ Designation
• Barber: Southern Poverty Law Center Officially Declared ‘Left-Wing Hate Group’
• LISTEN – CWA: SPLC Takes ‘Hate Group’ Definition Too Far

“Rather than taking the biblical ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’ approach to sexual immorality, these false prophets preach counterfeit Christianity, devoid of the faith’s core tenet: redemption.”–Matt Barber on Fred Phelps of “God Hates Fags” notoriety

"Rev." Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church clan are taking their twisted "God Hates Fags" to soldiers' funerals.

Folks, long before Fred Phelps started picketing soldiers’ funerals and “thanking God for IEDs” [improvised explosive devices], his ugly “God Hates Fags” message was proving to be a boon to the Homosexual Lobby and to liberal reporters working to make Christians look like kooks.

Do Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church have a “right” to stage their demented protests at servicemen’s funerals? The Supreme Court will decide. Last night on The O’Reilly Factor, I thought Ann Coulter was very persuasive when she noted that courts have blocked “free speech” rights for pro-life counselors in “bubble zones” surrounding abortion clinics — so why not protect grieving families of soldiers who died for our country?!

Personally, although I accept that there are good people and First Amendment-lovers on the other side of this issue, I would put this in a similar class with rejecting the supposed “free speech right” to burn the American flag. Having sad that, it would be foolhardy to ignore that there are plenty of homosexual activists and leftists who seriously would love to see the government censor all speech opposing homosexuality.

Let me echo Matt Barber’s observation about the Hard Left: with all their name-calling and nasty smears of religious opponents, pro-homosexual militants like Joe Jervis (of the blog “Joe.My.God.“); Pam Spaulding, the “Jeebus”-[Jesus]-hating lesbian and creator of the “Pam’s House Blend” blog; Rachel Maddow with her crude and cruel “Teabagger” rants, and Wayne (“Anything But Straight”) Besen, proud creator of the “Porno Pete” slur directed at yours truly, have more in common with Fred than they’d ever admit. — Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth

ACTION STEP: To make a donation to the father of slain Lt. Cpl. Michael Snyder, Al Snyder, who is battling the Westboro Baptist Church clan in court after his son’s funeral was protested by Phelps, go HERE.

Matt Barber, AFTAH Board Member, writes after the jump (some links were added that were not in the original piece):

__________________________________

The Face of Hate

By J. Matt Barber

Dishonored in Death: what did Lt. Cpl. Matthew Snyder do to deserve Fred Phelps' sickening protest?

“Progressives” are like pig farmers. In an effort to bury opposing viewpoints they sling pejorative slop, labeling as “bigot,” “hater,” “wingnut” or “racist” those with whom they disagree. It’s the height of intellectual sloth.

The ad hominem approach – chief among logical fallacies – undergirds an effort to both marginalize conservative viewpoints and avoid arguing on the merits the controversies of the day. For liberals, to set sail in fair debate is to navigate treacherous waters.

We’ve seen this tired tactic abused ad nauseum in recent days by the mainstream media and Democrats. Aided by hard-left outfits such as the Southern Poverty Law Center – all too eager to provide “expert analysis” tailor-made for jaundiced journalism – liberal elites have been desperate to throw poison on bourgeoning grassroots opposition to Obama’s careening Marxist agenda. It’s straight out of the “progressive” playbook: Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.”

Hence, in the face of zero supporting evidence, “Tea Party” conservatives, Constitutionalists, pro-life and pro-family Americans, and generally any patriot who disagrees with the Obama administration are smeared with “hate’s” broad brush.

Grandma and Grandpa; your fireman neighbor; school teachers; pastors; butchers; bakers; and candlestick makers are now “potentially violent right-wing extremists.” They are, as Mark Potok, Huffington Post columnist and SPLC director puts it: “…shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories and racism,” and are widely linked to “hate” and “vigilante groups.” (Knock it off, Mark. With the exception of your fellow Moveon.Org-types, the vast majority of Americans aren’t biting.)

Nonetheless, every once in a while, as it goes, “even a blind squirrel finds a nut.” While I rarely agree with the Mark Potoks of the world, today, on at least one issue, I find myself doing so. Cult leader Fred Phelps and his Westboro brood of “God Hates F-gs” fame are infused to the marrow with pure, unadulterated hate.

Phelps hates homosexuals. He hates the military. He hates America. He apparently hates everyone. But he also hurts people. Intentionally, I believe.

Phelps contends that every time a U.S. soldier dies in combat its God’s judgment for our nation’s affirmation of homosexual sin. Best known for disrupting military funerals, Phelps is – and was – a lot of things: He’s a former Kansas Democratic gubernatorial candidate; he was an Al Gore fundraiser for the ex-Veep’s 1988 presidential run; he’s a self-styled “Baptist minister;” and he’s a buffoon.

But one man decided to fight back. As reported by the AP: “Albert Snyder of York, Pa., is suing [Phelps’] church that picketed the funeral of his son, who died in a vehicle accident in Iraq. The Westboro Baptist Church contends U.S. military deaths are God’s punishment for tolerance of homosexuality. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.

“The appeals court ordered Snyder to pay $16,510 in court costs to Westboro and its pastor, Fred Phelps. Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly has pledged to donate that amount. An American Legion spokesman says the veterans’ group has collected more than $12,000 in donations. People can also donate directly to Snyder on a Web site in his son’s name.” (To donate go to www.mathewsnyder.org).

Indeed, Phelps and his incestuous band of Dale Carnegie rejects represent hate personified. Rather than taking the biblical “love the sinner, hate the sin” approach to sexual immorality, these false prophets preach counterfeit Christianity, devoid of the faith’s core tenet: redemption.

They labor under the misconception that, somehow, they are exempt from the Gospel’s central “judge not lest ye be judged” provision. “As it is written: ‘There is no one righteous, not even one.’” (Romans 3:10).

I pray that Phelps and Co. will both repent and seek Christ’s redemption for the harm they’ve caused people like the Snyders. I also pray that liberals will repent. By lumping together with Phelps those who recognize traditional, biblical sexual morality, homosexual activists and the left-wing media trivialize true hate.

Indeed, many Americans – perhaps most – adhere to the biblical notion that all sexual conduct outside the bonds of marriage between one man and one woman is sexually immoral. (Sorry liberals, that’s just the way it is; nothing personal. Despite disingenuous bleatings to the contrary, such beliefs are typically as far removed from hate as Phelps is from cuddly. Every major world religion, thousands of years of history and uncompromising human biology hold this to be true. And as with all absolute truth, it just is.)

So, Fred Phelps aside, every time you hear some lefty like Anderson Cooper or Keith Olbermann despicably refer to Bible-believing Christians as “homophobes,” or who call grandma a “teabagger” (slang for a vile homosexual act), consider who the real haters are.

Whenever Mark Potok, Rachel Maddow or some liberal politico in Congress attempts to equate conservative Joe to a “right wing extremists” or a “domestic terrorist,” contemplate who the true bigots are.

The palpable irony is that leftists – with their slanderous name-calling, harsh judgments and ad hominem attacks – are, in truth, more like Phelps than those they falsely accuse.

Progress demands a vigorous, open and honest debate. “Progressives” should quit the empty name-calling and stop running scared from true progress.
__________________________________

Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He is author of the book “The Right Hook – From the Ring to the Culture War” and serves as Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel. Send comments to Matt at jmattbarber@comcast.net. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)

“When you say that your organization is no more hateful than the Catholic church, we have a rare point of agreement. You are both haters.” — Bob Schwartz, Gay Liberation Network

The Catholic Church should also be on the "hate" list, says Bob Schwartz of the Gay Liberation Network.

Bob Schwartz, a leader of the Gay Liberation Network, a Marxist “direct action” group that reportedly lobbied the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to mislabel Americans For Truth as a “hate” website, sent the e-mail below to AFTAH through our website. Schwartz describes himself as a Trotskyist (after Bolshevik Leon Trotsky, who advocated worldwide communist revolution before being assassinated by a Soviet agent in Mexico in 1940). Communists have such a long and storied history defending human rights and individual rights and dignity, you know.

Note that you don’t have to agree with the Catholic Church’s handing of its homosexual/pedophile crisis (most Catholics I know do not) to see the absurdity of labeling the church a “hater” because it defends traditional sexual morality and natural marriage between a man and a woman. The folly of the SPLC’s expanding “hate” dragnet is that it threatens to engulf all religious/moral opposition to homosexuality. Indeed, it would be revealing to query the top 25 “GLBT” activist across the nation and ask them if they would also label, as Matt Barber pokes fun HERE, the following as “hate groups”: Family Research Council, AFA, the Roman Catholic Church, Focus on the Family, the Southern Baptist Convention and ADF. (I posed the question to one young “gay” activist, Alex Blaze, HERE, and received no response.)

[Homosexual activists] Wayne Besen/Evan Hurst/Joe Jervis/Jeremy Hooper/Rea Carey/[insert GLBT activist here]: take up the challenge!

Yes, we’re all “haters” now (except the likes of Schwartz, despite his bully tactics and GLN’s ugly, anti-Christian bigotry). And just like ObamaCare is padding the rolls of the IRS to keep Americans in “compliance” with government “health” mandates, perhaps the SPLC needs an infusion of Obama stimulus funds to expand its already large staff and huge budget to accommodate its “reporting” on the ever-expanding “hate” network.

Note Schwartz’s reference to an article in the Naperville (Ill.) Sun, reprinted below.  The headline for the print edition of this story was changed from “Local anti-gay group rejects ‘hate site’ tag” to “Web site called hateful by civil rights group.” The task ahead, to demonstrate that the SPLC is more of a pro-homosexual, left-wing advocacy group than an honest “civil rights” organization, is a necessary but difficult one. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

GLN’s Schwartz writes:

______________________________________________
From: [Bob Schwartz, Gay Liberation Network]
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 1:26 PM
To: americansfortruth@comcast.net
Subject: Fwd: [GLN Organizers] LaBarbera Says Group “No More Hateful Than the Catholic Church”

When you say that your organization is no more hateful than the Catholic church, we have a rare point of agreement.  You are both haters.  Hopefully, Ratzinger’s cover-ups of criminal pedophiles will result in more people leaving the gay- and woman-hating Church of Rome.

Bob Schwartz

_______________________

Naperville Sun article:

Local anti-gay group rejects ‘hate site’ tag

March 27, 2010

By JENETTE STURGES  jsturges@stmedianetwork.com

Naperville-based Americans for Truth About Homosexuality describes itself as “dedicated to exposing the homosexual activist agenda.”

Others just describe the group as “hateful.”

The anti-gay group was called out by civil rights group Southern Poverty Law Center for operating a “hate site,” one of 670 identified by the SPLC in its latest issue of their publication, Intelligence Report.

President of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality Peter LaBarbera says he has “taken issue” with that, and is asking for a public apology from the organization and a debate with its president, Mark Potok. His organization, he says, while against homosexuality, is not a hate group. “You can disagree without being hateful,” LaBarbera said.

The Southern Poverty Law Center did not add Americans for Truth About Homosexuality to its yearly listing of hate groups, which this year includes 932 groups including the anti-gay Family Research Institute, chapters of the Ku Klux Klan and the Nation of Islam. Also included on this year’s list of hate groups is Downers Grove-based anti-gay Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment.

But the content of AFTAH’s Web site did warrant the listing, according to Booth Gunther, public affairs coordinator at SPLC.

The AFTAH Web site, www.americansfortruth.com, is largely a collection of articles from across the Web focused on homosexuality that “defend historic Judeo-Christian moral norms,” according to the site.

The Chicago-based Gay Liberation Network, which contacted SPLC to have Americans for Truth About Sexuality added to the list, however, contends that the site, the group and its president spread inciting misinformation about homosexuality.

“Mr. LaBarbera has not only opposed marriage rights, he’s opposed equal employment and equal access. If that criterion were ever applied to other groups, the would be called a hate group,” said Andy Thayer, co-founder of the Gay Liberation Network.

Those who label the site as a “hate site” point to the repeated inclusion of research by Paul Cameron, psychologist at the Family Research Institute whose writings have claimed gays and lesbians are more likely to be child molesters and criminals, as well as the site’s association of homosexuality to everything from crystal meth to the North American Man/Boy Love Association.

Still, LaBarbera contends that his organization and its Web site are no more hateful than the Catholic Church.

As for a public apology or debate, the SPLC says there’s none coming.

“He can debate all he wants,” said Gunther. “We stand by our designation.”

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/2125076,Local-anti-gay-group-hate-tag_NA032610.article

SPLC co-founder Morris Dees once fought the Klan. Now his group targets pro-family Christians opposed to homosexual activism. The SPLC, lobbied by a pro-Communist homosexual organization, labeled AFTAH a "hate site."

Click HERE to listen to an interview by Concerned Women for America’s Martha Kleder with Matt Barber, a Board Member of AFTAH and Liberty Council’s Director of Cultural Affairs. CWA writes (links added):

Reports surfaced this week about Democrat lawmakers receiving threatening phone calls following the vote on health care reform. Interestingly, those news reports mentioned the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which is noted for “tracking and exposing the activities of hate groups.” Also this week the SPLC named Americans for Truth about Homosexuality a hate group. With more on this overstep by SPLC and the wanton use of the term “hate” is Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs for both the Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action.  Listen | Download

Greg Quinlan

Folks, Herr Herrschaft over at the “Human Wrongs Campaign” is building up quite a record for himself in shutting down dissent to the homosexual activist message. His homosexual comrades might call him The Enforcer: this is the fellow whose threat of a boycott at a 2007 DiversityInc Magazine panel on “Religion in the Workplace” succeeded in getting AFTAH knocked off the panel as the sole voice representing faith-based opposition to homosexuality. Isn’t it amazing how “queer” militants continually play the victim card to the public even as they aggressively lobby to squelch opposing views in the workplace and throughout society (all in the name of “diversity”!)? Kudos to Greg Quinlan and PFOX for exposing the raw hypocrisy of the GLBT Lobby. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

__________________________________________

Ex-Gay Addresses Disney Board of Directors

Contact:  Greg Quinlan, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX); 513-435-1125; PFOX@pfox.org

San Antonio, TX — Greg Quinlan of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) addressed the corporate directors of the Walt Disney Company at its annual shareholders meeting and asked them to approve a resolution to include ex-gays in Disney’s mandatory diversity training for employees.

“Disney’s diversity training emphasizes gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders, but fails to include ex-gays,” explained Quinlan.  “Ex-gays remain closeted because they are not protected by diversity policies and are subject to open disapproval.  Employees who support the ex-gay community are also not welcome to express their views.”

In response to the resolution asking for inclusion and diversity for the ex-gay community,  Daryl Herrschaft, director of the workplace project at the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, was quoted by Daily Finance as saying that the resolution is “wrongheaded.”  The Human Rights Campaign, known as HRC, is the nation’s largest gay rights organization advocating for gay equality.

“How can HRC demand gay equality when it refuses to extend equality to others?” asked Quinlan.  “HRC demands that gays and transgenders be included in diversity policies, but belittles ex-gays who ask for the same rights that gays and transgenders currently enjoy.  HRC insists that men can change their gender to become the opposite sex, but refuses to acknowledge that men like me can change our sexual orientation from gay to straight.”

Every year the HRC Foundation issues a Corporate Equality Index which rates American companies on their equal treatment of gays, bisexuals, and transgenders.  HRC gave Disney a 100 rating, its highest score.  HRC rated Disney on its corporate nondiscrimination policy, diversity training, benefits, employee resource group and diversity council, advertising to gays, sponsorship of gay community events or organizations, and for not engaging in action that would undermine gay and transgender equality.

“Is it a conflict of interest for any corporation in this country to donate money or other form of support to HRC, which then rates those same corporations on corporate equality?” asked Quinlan in his speech to the Disney Board of Directors.

“Disney, your equality index score is -0- for ex-gays and their supporters.  You should treat former homosexuals with the same respect and benefits you give to gays and transgenders.”

“This week HRC is celebrating the first “gay marriages” in Washington D.C., our nation’s capital.  As gay couples in D.C. lined up to apply for marriage licenses, they wore HRC victory buttons.  But there is one victory in Washington D.C., that HRC did not celebrate.  And that is the judicial decision issued by the D.C. Superior Court last year, in a case brought by PFOX.  The Court ruled that ex-gays are a legally protected class under sexual orientation and therefore specifically protected from discrimination under the D.C. Human Rights Act.”

“PFOX calls on HRC to issue public statements condemning hatred and discrimination against the ex-gay community. Human rights demand no less.”

The Disney resolution needed a vote of 3% to pass for inclusion at next year’s meeting, and received approximately 2%.  Quinlan is gratified by the support he received from shareholders present at the meeting.  “Shareholders applauded, shook my hand and said it was about time this happened,” said Quinlan.

###

Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) leads the nation in providing outreach, education, and public awareness in support of families and the ex-gay community. Remember to read the PFOX blog regularly for ex-gay views and news. See http://pfox-exgays.blogspot.com/

Here’s how Illinois liberal political blogger Rich Miller (Capitol Fax Blog) tries to slam my RFFV story:

One of Peter LaBarbera’s websites is currently attempting to out a suburban county candidate for having adulterous affairs. No link [read: Miller refuses to link to the story]. Try to avoid the Google. It’s really disgusting. LaBarbera has stooped to a new low.

Ouch, Rich. You wouldn’t want your readers to actually READ the piece you are criticizing, would you? Bottom line: Miller is an intolerant leftie who hates social-issues conservatives. Why is it a “new low” to investigate and expose serious moral compromise in the life a very public Republican “Christian pro-family” leader? (Of course, when Miller exposes hypocrites, it’s OK.)

Well, for the same reason that liberals like Miller despise those who oppose the pro-homosexuality movement. The secular Left’s “non-judgmentalism” is applied liberally when it comes to NOT criticizing those who transgress historic Judeo-Christian values. But as you can see, their nasty judgments overflow when it comes to bashing people and groups who stand up for traditional morality.

America is waking up to the reality that the Secular Left is a mean-spirited and highly intolerant political force that is bad for America. “Consensuality,” “choice,” “my truth” (versus absolute truth), “tolerance,” “diversity”: these are some of the Left’s self-satisfied buzzwords. But watch out if you uphold a divinely-ordered morality that pays no heed to their worldly, politically correct — and, yes, selfish — trends. Then you are anathema.

In other words, today’s liberals are fundamentalists of different stripe. And remember: don’t read that piece! — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org