Tolerance?

The E-Mail that Got Dr. Kenneth Howell Fired at U. of Illinois

Monday, July 12th, 2010

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).

Ex-Gay Greg Quinlan of PFOX Challenges Pro-Gay PepsiCo Execs on Lack of Diversity

Thursday, May 13th, 2010

The following is the speech by Greg Quinlan, President of PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays, at the May 5 shareholders meeting for PepsiCo. You can listen to Quinlan’s speech HERE. Please click HERE to donate to PFOX — dollar for dollar one of the most effective pro-family groups in the nation. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

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.”

Read the rest of this article »

Oops! Southern Poverty Law Center Mistakes Peter LaBarbera for Paul Cameron

Thursday, May 6th, 2010

Update: leftist group fixes error but retains inaccurate claim about LaBarbera

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.

Read the rest of this article »

Barber: The Hard Left and Fred Phelps Have Something in Common

Tuesday, April 6th, 2010

“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):

Read the rest of this article »

‘Gay Liberation Network’ Leader Pronounces Catholic Church ‘Haters’

Tuesday, March 30th, 2010

“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.

Read the rest of this article »

LISTEN - CWA: SPLC Takes ‘Hate Group’ Definition Too Far

Thursday, March 25th, 2010

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

PFOX’s Quinlan Appeals to Disney Board of Directors for ‘Ex-Gay’ Diversity Training

Saturday, March 13th, 2010

Questions “gay” lobby for rejecting equality for ex-gays

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.”

Read the rest of this article »

Does a Candidate’s Adulterous Past Matter? Just Ask Rich Miller

Wednesday, January 27th, 2010

Over at Republicans For Family Values, a political site, I examine the case of a local DuPage County, Illinois candidate running on a strong “pro-family” record — Debra Olson — who has engaged in adulterous affairs — as revealed mainly by the aggrieved wife of David Allen, Olson’s former illicit partner. To some voters, that’s a serious issue and a big story. To others, it’s just that much more “religious right” prudery.

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


Support Americans for Truth about Homosexuality

Americans for Truth
P.O. Box 5522
Naperville, IL 60567-5522


Americans for Truth Radio Hour

Americans for Truth Academy

Want to See Every New AFTAH Article?

If you don't want to miss anything posted on the Americans For Truth website, sign up for our "Feedblitz" service that gives you a daily email of every new article that we post. (This service DOES NOT replace the regular email list.) To sign up for the Feedblitz service, click here.