What Would YOU Do if America Started Censoring Moral Speech like Canada?

In America, we bristle at the idea of speech –– even unpopular speech –– being censored or officially condemned by the government. But in Canada, it’s happening, and the shocking thing is that speech defending age-old, Judeo-Christian morality is the target. Unlike Canada, the United States has a First Amendment, so it will be much more difficult for the Gay Thought Police to prosecute moral and pro-normalcy speech here than there. But they will try. (Click HERE to read the ex-“gay” group Exodus International’s press release opposing new attempts to pass a “Hate Crimes” law that includes “sexual orientation.”)

Already in America, Christian speech against homosexuality has been censored and restricted by the government. (Click HERE to read about the “Philly 11” losing their civil rights case against the City of Philadelphia.) With respect to the story below about a Canadian city councilman who was fined $1,000 for saying, in accordance with his Catholic beliefs, that homosexuality is not normal or natural, I pose these questions to our readers:

I. To the conservative American legislator or Bible-believing pastor — If we ever reached the point where laws were passed banning and fining “anti-gay” speech (it would be termed “homophobic”), would you: A) comply and stop discussing the issue or B) go on voicing and defending your beliefs in public? If you lived in Canada and faced Mr. DeCicco’s predicament, would you pay the fine? Would you apologize to homosexuals to avoid facing a “human rights” tribunal, even if you knew you said nothing wrong?

II. To what extent in American are we buying into the Left’s definition of “hate speech” in the face of relentless pro-homosexual organizing and political correctness? That is, do many of us who oppose homosexual practice as destructive or sinful opt for silence rather than defend our beliefs, because we fear being called a name? Why do we so easily allow defenders of falsehood and historically wrong behavior to dominate the debate? Are we ashamed of or confused about our moral heritage on this issue? Why?

Pro-lifers are bolder in defending life than pro-family advocates are in defending the principled position that homosexual conduct is always wrong, yet changeable. Why? What can each of us who agree with God do to change public discourse so that we who defend natural (biblical) sexuality (in marriage) are as bold as the defenders of perversion?

P.S. To the homosexual activists who read this email — Would you renounce all pro-“gay” “hate speech” prosecutions (like that against DeCicco)?

To all: be honest in your answers and we’ll publish some of them. Write us using our web contact form. God bless freedom. -– Peter LaBarbera

——————————

Excerpted from Canadian City Councillor Fined $1000 for Saying Homosexuality “not Normal or Natural”, by John-Henry Westen and Gudrun Schultz, published Jan 19, 2007, by LifeSite News:

A Catholic city councillor [John DeCicco, pictured left] in Kamloops, British Columbia, who was himself the victim of the crime of vandalism due to his faith, has been forced to apologize and pay a homosexual activist couple $1000…

Strangely, it was councillor who was shown true discrimination worthy of a human rights complaint. In June, the councillor opposed a homosexual pride proclamation, after which his barber shop was vandalized with “Homophobia Die” scrawled on the door of his business…

In August, homosexual activist couple John Olynick and Greg Koll filed a complaint against DeCicco with the human rights commission over remarks he made at the council meeting and repeated in media interviews. In line with Catholic teaching on the matter, he described homosexual acts as “not normal and not natural.”

In the June interview with LifeSiteNews.com he explained, “I’m not against lesbian and gay people, but I don’t agree that I should have to endorse it.” He also said that people can do what they like in the privacy of their own homes, but, he said in reference to gay pride parades, they shouldn’t “go out and flaunt it, in front of people who don’t necessarily agree.”

While DeCicco already apologized for the incident once back in October, that apology was not considered part of the settlement. In addition to paying $1,000 to Olynick and Koll, DeCicco will provide a statement saying his comments were “inappropriate and hurtful to some.” The settlement will allow the councillor to avoid a Human Rights Tribunal hearing…

DeCicco has said the settlement will not change his opposition to gay pride week. “I’m not going to change my view of my stand,” he said. “My public comments have to be a little more refined.”

Continue reading at LifeSite News…

In a future post, we’ll revisit the flack that Greg Freeman got from the Thought Police over at GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) for writing this piece.

The following is excerpted from Bug Chasers, by Gregory A. Freeman, published Jan 23, 2003, by Rolling Stone:

Carlos nonchalantly asks whether his drink was made with whole or skim milk. He takes a moment to slurp on his grande Caffe Mocha in a crowded Starbucks, and then he gets back to explaining how much he wants HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. His eyes light up as he says that the actual moment of transmission, the instant he gets HIV, will be “the most erotic thing I can imagine.” He seems like a typical thirty-two-year-old man, but, in fact, he has a secret life. Carlos is chasing the bug…

Carlos spends the afternoon continually calling a man named Richard, someone he met on the Internet. They met on barebackcity.com about a year ago, while Carlos was still with his boyfriend. That boyfriend left because Carlos was having sex with other men and because he was interested in barebacking — the practice of having sex without a condom. Carlos and Richard are arranging a “date” for later that day.

Carlos is part of an intricate underground world that has sprouted, driven almost completely by the Internet, in which men who want to be infected with HIV get together with those who are willing to infect them. The men who want the virus are called “bug chasers,” and the men who freely give the virus to them are called “gift givers.” While the rest of the world fights the AIDS epidemic and most people fear HIV infection, this subculture celebrates the virus and eroticizes it. HIV-infected semen is treated like liquid gold. Carlos has been chasing the bug for more than a year in a topsy-turvy world in which every convention about HIV is turned upside down. The virus isn’t horrible and fearsome, it’s beautiful and sexy — and delivered in the way that is most likely to result in infection. In this world, the men with HIV are the most desired, and the bug chasers will do anything to get the virus — to “get knocked up,” to be “bred” or “initiated into the brotherhood.”

Mr. Swank says it well:

…The divine revelation is eternal ethic and thereby will not condone homosexual practice. Those running counter to this revelation will answer to God’s wrath in this life and at death at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

TAKE ACTION — You may send a note of support to Ron Warren, who rightfully recommends removing Bradley Schmeling from his position of authority.

——————————

Excerpted from Homosexual Lutheran Pastor Charged, by Grant Swank, published Jan 20, 2007, by The Conservative Voice:

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America concluded at its 2005 conclave that sex was to be practiced within marriage. Also, such sex was not open to homosexual lifestyles. All this is because the Bible ethic is against sex outside of marriage and prohibits homosexual activities.

Bradley Schmeling, pastor, St. John’s ECLA, Atlanta, makes known that he is homosexual and now has a partner. The congregation agrees that he should continue as minister. In fact, the parishioners had a party celebrating his formal announcement of partnership with a “lifelong companion.”

Bishop Ronald Warren, Southeastern Synod, told Schmeling to resign. Schmeling said he would not resign. “Disciplinary proceedings against him for violating church rules barring sex outside of marriage” have begun. That means Schmeling confronts a hearing composed of a dozen ELCA members deciding his fate…

If the committee concludes him to be defrocked, he would no longer be “recognized as an ordained minister in the ELCA,” per AP. If the congregation still calls him their spiritual leader, the church then could be disciplined…

Throughout the divine revelation right and wrong are set forth by God Himself. Consequently, for those espousing homosexual lifestyles as divinely blessed is to expose their biblical ignorance and theological liberalism, the latter basically given to writing one’s own religion.

Other denominations dealing with this matter include the Presbyterian Church, United Methodist Church, American Baptist Convention and segments within the Mennonite framework. Denominations which accept homosexuality as ethically legitimate include the Unitarian Society, United Church of Christ (Congregational), and the Episcopal Church of America.

Continue reading at The Conservative Voice…

By Peter LaBarbera

Then Jesus told them this parable:

“Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.”

— Gospel of Luke: 15:3-7)

Michael Johnston of Pure Life Ministries

Most people celebrate healthy change -– be it a man who overcomes a drug or drinking addiction, a young girl who escapes the deadly, self-loathing world of anorexia/bulimia, or a husband who stops using pornography and saves his marriage. Jesus (above) taught that there is a celebration in heaven when just one sinner repents and turns back to God.

And so, when proud, practicing homosexuals repent and say good-bye to that destructive lifestyle, we at Americans For Truth join God in celebrating it as a joyous thing. Countless thousands of people have left the homosexual lifestyle, many after converting to Christ or rededicating themselves to the faith of their youth.

But while we’re cheering, homosexual activists like Wayne Besen are grumbling and putting on their ANTI-ex-“gay” investigative hats in the hunt for another “ex-gay fraud.” Besen is one of the angriest (and most vicious) activists in the movement that oddly calls itself “gay.” Recently he embarked on a futile crusade called “Truth Wins Out” to deny the clear reality of change for people struggling with unwanted homosexual attractions.

Now Wayne and his friends think they have a new scandal because Americans For Truth is “selling” an American Family Association (AFA) video (“It’s Not Gay”) featuring an interview with ex-“gay” Mike Johnston, who lost his “ex-gay” ministry several years ago by falling back into homosexual perversion, but who now has been restored through Pure Life Ministries. In their zeal to crush AFTAH, Besen and other homosexual activists missed a wonderful story of one man’s redemption and his rescue from deep spiritual hypocrisy and sexual sin.

Celebrating Failures
Besen and his fellow homosexual activists have everything invested in the politically correct idea that people are naturally (born) “gay” -– and that “sexual orientation” (another misleading term inspired by homosexual activism) is unchangeable. They are downright cruel in hoping for and exploiting failures in the ex-“gay” movement.

Once again, the homosexual movement has it backwards: rather than applauding overcomers, the fanatics in “Wayne’s World” champion the failures -– people who tried to walk away from homosexuality but gave up, or -– even better, lost their ministries like Ted Haggard in scandal.

Whatever man may say, these are the words of God for the gender-confused:

Genuine transformation is possible in Jesus Christ. Come and see!

——————————

From The Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry:

A summit of religious leaders will be held 19-21 January 2007 at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, California, to focus on public and denominational policy issues that affect transgender communities.

The conference is co-sponsored by The Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry (www.clgs.org) and the National Center for Transgender Equality (www.nctequality.org).

The New York Times is clearly embracing this position in the culture war, using their packages of newsprint and ink multiplied by the millions to boldly state that marriage requires no gender distinctions; to reject the supremacy of the natural combination of male and female strengths in marriage; and to thumb its nose at apparently quaint notions of God’s judgment and sacred scriptures as if they were yesterday’s bird-cage liners.

— From Announcing Equality, read All the Sin That’s Fit to Print, by Brent Bozell, published Aug 30, 2002, by Townhall

Excerpted from Many U.S. Newspapers Print Gay Unions Announcements, published Jan 17, 2007, by the pro-homosexuality EDGE Boston:

Almost 60 percent of all daily U.S. newspapers now accept wedding and commitment ceremony announcements for gay and lesbian couples.

The number of papers running such announcements–883–represents a 584 percent increase since it was first measured in 2002, when only 129 newspapers said they would print such announcements.

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation announced the figures Jan. 16 in relaunching and expanding its Announcing Equality campaign…

As part of the expansion of the Announcing Equality campaign, GLAAD is urging local GLBT community members and their friends and families to reach out to newspapers that currently reject or do not accept wedding announcements for gay and lesbian couples.

Only a small handful of major metropolitan newspapers do not yet have inclusive announcement policies, among them: Kansas City Star, Fort Worth Star Telegram, Virginian-Pilot, Omaha World Herald, Oklahoman, and Richmond Times-Dispatch.

GLAAD is also expanding the scope of the Announcing Equality campaign to encompass other kinds of announcements, from birth announcements and baptisms to anniversaries and graduations, as well as other forms of media. Community members are now encouraged to announce their celebrations and share their stories in office newsletters, union periodicals, church bulletins and other publications.

Continue reading at EDGE Boston…

Excerpted from After Breathing Madison’s Air Too Long, City Council Has Endorsed Oath Breaking Because It Doesn’t Like the Definition of Marriage, by Rick Eisenberg, published Jan 17, 2007, by Constitutionally Correct (a resource of Alliance Defense Fund):

They did it – and by a landslide. The Madison City Council voted overwhelmingly to allow city officials to take a special oath of office…

By a vote of 14-4, the Madison city alders (as one local blogger calls them) voted to allow those assuming office to add to the official oath a statement that they took it under protest and promise to “work to eliminate [the state’s marriage amendment]” and work to prevent any discriminatory impact from its applications.

Continue reading at Constitutionally Correct…

According to the Wisconsin State Journal article cited above, the following aldermen sponsored the “special oath”: Alds. Brian Benford, 12th District: Ken Golden, 10th District; Judy Olson, 6th District; Robbie Webber, 5th District; Austin King, 8th District; Brenda Konkel, 2nd District; Mike Verveer, 4th District; Zach Brandon, 7th District; and Mayor Dave Cieslewicz.

Voting against the addition (upholding their oaths of office and respecting the 59% of Wisconsin residents who voted in favor of the marriage amendment) were Alds. Cindy Thomas, 20th District; Jed Sanborn, 1st District; Judy Compton, 16th District; and Noel Radomski, 19th District.

In the words of a university blogger:

You gotta love Howard Schweber. He says exactly what I expect him to in regards to this ridiculous proposal. Madison wants to allow office-holders to basically say they aren’t really going to uphold the constitution when they take their oath of office because of the gay marriage ban…

There’s something entirely disingenuous about swearing to uphold the Constitution of the United States and Wisconsin…except for that one part. And that one, I don’t really like that one either.

And:

…Only a few alders seem to understand what upholding the constitution means, what their oath of office entails. Most other alders displayed a complete lack of knowledge about even basic things, like the difference between state and federal constitutions, their role as elected officials, and the role of an oath. Although I shouldn’t be surprised, I’m still incredibly disappointed.

The other thing I noticed tonight was the incredibly disrespect and open resentment towards Cindy Thomas. It is one thing to disagree with what she says, but to smirk and make snide remarks while she addresses the council is completely out of line. Kudos to her for putting up with it for all these years, and still having the courage to speak up.

Excerpted from Queer Eye for the Ballot Box, by Natalie Hope McDonald, published Jan 17, 2007, by Philadelphia CityPaper:

They’re Out — A list of [Philadelphia] LGBT officials

Ann Butchart
Judge, Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia

William Caldwell
City Council, Norristown

Geraldine Delevich
Borough Council, New Hope

Kevin Lee
Borough Council, Lansdowne

Lori Schreiber
Township Commissioner, Abington

Paul Thomas
Judge of Election, Philadelphia

Continue reading at Philadelphia CityPaper…