By Chuck Colson, a Breakpoint Commentary

For further resources on this issue, go to the Breakpoint website. We encourage you to sign up for these excellent daily commentaries by e-mail.

In George Orwell’s classic novel 1984, the government Thought Police constantly spies on citizens to make sure they are not thinking rebellious thoughts. Thought crimes are severely punished by Big Brother.

1984 was intended as a warning against totalitarian governments that enslave and control their citizens. Never have we needed this warning more urgently than now, because America’s Thought Police are knocking on your door.

Last week the House Judiciary Committee, egged on by radical homosexual groups, passed what can only be called a Thought Crimes bill. It’s called the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. But this bill is not about hate. It’s not even about crime. It’s about outlawing peaceful speech—speech that asserts that homosexual behavior is morally wrong.

Some say we need this law to prevent attacks on homosexuals. But we already have laws against assaults on people and property. Moreover, according to the FBI, crimes against homosexuals in the United States have dropped dramatically in recent years. In 2005, out of 863,000 cases of aggravated assault, just 177 cases were crimes of bias against homosexuals—far less than even 1 percent.

Another problem is that in places where hate crimes laws have been passed, hate crimes have been defined to include verbal attacks—and even peaceful speech. The Thought Police have already prosecuted Christians under hate crimes laws in England, Sweden, Canada, and even in some places in the United States.

If this dangerous law passes, pastors who preach sermons giving the biblical view of homosexuality could be prosecuted. Christian businessmen who refuse to print pro-gay literature could be prosecuted. Groups like Exodus International, which offer therapy to those with unwanted same-sex attraction, could be shut down.

In classic 1984 fashion, peaceful speech will be redefined as a violent attack worthy of punishment.

This is the unspoken goal of activist groups. We know this because during the debate over the bill last week, Congressman Mike Pence (R) of Indiana offered a Freedom of Religion amendment to this hate crimes bill. It asked that nothing in this law limit the religious freedom of any person or group under the Constitution. The committee refused to adopt it. It also refused to adopt amendments protecting other groups from hate crimes—like members of the military, who are often targets of verbal attacks and spitting. They also shot down amendments that would protect the homeless and senior citizens, also often targeted by criminals. Nothing doing, the committee said—the only group they wanted to protect: homosexuals.

Clearly, the intent of this law is not to prevent crime, but to shut down freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of thought. Its passage would strike at the very heart of our democracy.

The full Congress may vote on this bill as early as this week. Unless you want Big Brother telling you what to say, what to think, and what to believe, I urge you to contact your congressman immediately, urging him or her to vote against this bill. If you visit the BreakPoint website, you’ll find more information about this radical law.

If we do nothing, 1984 will no longer be fiction, and Big Brother will be watching you and me—ready to punish the “wrong” thoughts.

Scottish Christian Party to make Holyrood election a referendum on the Sexual Orientation Regulation

GLASGOW, Scotland, April 30 /Christian Newswire/ — With the Sexual Orientation Regulations becoming law at midnight last night the Scottish Christian Party has mailed 2 million anti- Sexual Orientation Regulation leaflets to voters in Scotland.

In the Glasgow and the Central region of Scotland ¾ million leaflets have been sent in personally addressed envelopes with a covering letter.

Reverend George Hargreaves, leader of the Scottish Christian Party said, “We intend to high-jack the political agenda as far Christians are concerned. The SOR’s are a far more urgent matter to many Scottish Christians than independence or any other current political issue. It is an assault on their faith and conscience.

Thursday is their chance to say ‘No!’ to the SORs.”

In the party’s election broadcast, aired on BBC and STV last Tuesday, the SORs were compared to anti- Semitic laws passed by the Nazis in the early 1930’s. The broadcast featured footage of Hitler addressing a rally in 1933.

Reverend Hargreaves noted, “We are turning the Holyrood elections into a de-facto referendum on the Sexual Orientation Regulations.”

Note to Editors: In 2000 Brian Souter’s Keep the Clause campaign gained the support of over 1 million Scots. The Scottish Christian Party are fielding 72 candidates across Scotland on the Regional List; more than any other political party.

Media Release, Concerned Women for America (202-488-7000):

“Hate crimes” bill H.R. 1592, which is on the fast track to passage in Congress, will officially give homosexuals and cross dressers special elevated status in society based upon their chosen sexual behaviors and/or wardrobe.  Under H.R. 1592, the victims at Virginia Tech would officially be considered less valuable to society than homosexuals and cross dressers who are the targets of insults, intimidation, simple assault or other “violent acts.”

The 14^th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees “equal protection under the law” for all citizens — regardless of their sexual preference.  “Hate crimes” legislation flies in the face of the 14^th Amendment.  Such legislation would require the government to invest more resources in the investigation and prosecution of crimes against homosexuals than it would the victims at Virginia Tech.  It is an irrefutable fact that H.R. 1592 would treat certain citizens unequally from others.

Concerned Women for America (CWA) asks Congress to grant equal government resources, concern and respect to the victims at Virginia Tech and their families as they do to the demands of liberal homosexual activists by reaffirming the precepts of the 14^th Amendment and voting NO on this dangerous and discriminatory piece of legislation.

“If Seung-Hui Cho’s horrific actions were not an act of ‘hate,’ then what where they?” asked Matt Barber, Policy Director for Cultural Issues with CWA. “All violent crimes are ‘hate crimes.’ By H.R. 1592’s definition, Cho’s actions would have constituted a ‘hate crime’ except for the fact that he targeted his victims with the wrong kind of bias.  In this case, Cho ‘perceived’ his victims to be ‘rich kids.’  However, under H.R. 1592, ‘rich kids’ are not a specially protected class like homosexuals, so Cho’s crime is second tier and would be considered less egregious.

“The FBI’s latest statistics show that there were zero ‘hate crimes’ murders committed against homosexuals or those perceived to be homosexual in 2005; yet we already know of thirty-two so-called ‘hate crimes’ murders committed against perceived ‘rich kids’ in a single day.  But under H.R. 1592, those ‘rich kids’ would be denied the same protections and justice as homosexuals.  The whole ‘hate crimes’ concept really places logic and reason on its head,” concluded Barber.

Concerned Women for America is the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization.

By Chuck Colson, Breakpoint, Prison Fellowship 

The Gay Agenda and Schoolkids

Once upon a time there was a handsome young prince. When he grew up, he began searching for a wife, but could not find a princess he wanted to marry. One day, he met another prince—and fell in love. The two men married and lived happily ever after.

They must have been the only ones who did. When the fairy tale—which ended with the newly married “couple” kissing—was read to Massachusetts first graders, Christian parents were outraged.

Two sets of parents sued the Lexington school district, claiming that district officials violated both state law and their civil rights by allowing a teacher to read to their 6-year-olds a book that normalizes homosexual love and marriage.

Not surprisingly—this is Massachusetts, after all—federal judge Mark Wolf dismissed the lawsuit. Public schools, he wrote, are “entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy.”

I guess it is not possible to become a productive citizen without embracing the teachings of radical gays.

Incredibly, the judge said parents did not even have a right to pull their kids from classes that discuss and depict homosexual behavior. Allowing kids to leave, the judge said, “could send the message that gays, lesbians, and the children of same-sex parents are inferior and, therefore, have a damaging effect on those students.”

This decision is so ghastly it is hard to know where to begin. Since when did parents not have the right to control what their children are exposed to when it comes to matters of sexuality? And what about the damaging effect on kids who are taught ideas that conflict with their parents’ teachings?

If the school district is really committed to teaching about all kinds of families, then why not give children a story about a prince who longs for another prince, realizes his longings are disordered, undergoes reparative therapy, and lives happily ever after—with a princess?

The real goal, of course, is normalizing homosexuality. The judge tipped his hand on this when he said that children should be taught to “respect” differences in sexual orientation.

The two families are appealing Judge Wolf’s decision, and we ought to be praying for their ultimate success. But we must also realize what is really going on here.

When it comes to sin, humans have been playing the denial game ever since the Fall. In Romans, Paul says that even pagans know God’s moral law because it is “written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness.”

That’s why it is not enough for homosexuals to be tolerated; in order to live with their own consciences, homosexuals demand unanimous assent that homosexuality is a moral good. And that means silencing those who believe that homosexuality is a disorder, and that homosexual behavior is a moral sin.

You and I must fight back when homosexuals attempt to promote gay “marriage” in public schools. But we must also reach out with compassion to those ensnared by disordered sexual desires.

The Bible teaches that sin—and a guilty conscience—can be erased only by the grace of God through faith in Christ.

More links to resources on this story can be found on Breakpoint’s website.

By Peter LaBarbera

The following is the Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) online definition of “homophobia.” The ADL is the leading advocate for federal and state “hate crimes” laws that are inclusive of homosexuality and gender confusion (“sexual orientation” and “gender identity”). Note the bolded portions below and how the ADL seemingly gives no ground for acceptable religious and moral opposition to homosexual behavior. This is important because currently many governmental agencies and “hate crime” law advocates rely on the ADL for definitions of “hate,” “prejudice,” etc. To read an online ADL report on Hate Crime Laws, click HERE. To see the ADL’s recommendation of the pro-homosexual “Heather Has Two Mommies” as an “anti-bias book for children,” click HERE.

What does this Orwellian statement mean: “Many researchers claim that homosexuals still find themselves the target of bias within institutions like churches and professional organizations.” Yes, many Bible-believing churches — and orthodox Jewish synogogues, and Islamic mosques — believe homosexual behavior is sinful and harmful to body and soul, but they also believe that people practicing this lifestyle can change (as proven by the existence of many ex-“gays”). Redefining Biblical doctrine as “discrimination” — ie., classifying people practicing homosexuality as “targets of bias” in churches — is precisely the sort of bureaucratic thought-control-speak that must not be made “the law” in our free nation. To tell President Bush to oppose the “Hate Crimes” law moving through the Democrat-led Congress, call 202-456-1414; or go HERE to contact the White House via email.

The Anti-Defamation League on “Homophobia”

 

Homophobia 
 
Homophobia is the hatred or fear of homosexuals – that is, lesbians and gay men – sometimes leading to acts of violence and expressions of hostility. Homophobia is not confined to any one segment of society, and can be found in people from all walks of life. Organized hate groups have viciously attacked homosexuals and have used especially violent language in attempting to persecute and intimidate them.
 
Discrimination against homosexuals comes in many forms. At times homophobic beliefs lead people toward prejudiced actions at work, at schools, at clubs and in many other areas as well. Prejudiced views directed at homosexuals often stem from the perception that homosexual activity is immoral. Homophobia makes some people think that they are superior to homosexuals. In fact, studies show that anti-gay bias is far more accepted among large numbers of Americans than is bias against other minorities.

 

Many researchers claim that homosexuals still find themselves the target of bias within institutions like churches and professional organizations. Many church and religious groups maintain that homosexual behavior is a sin and runs counter to the will of God as expressed in certain Biblical passages. Up until 1980, many psychiatrists still looked upon homosexuality as a mental disorder. Today, medical professionals believe that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or emotional problem.

 

Homophobia is most dangerous when it serves as the justification for violent action against homosexuals. In recent years attacks on homosexuals have risen. While the violent crime rate in many areas continues to drop, anti-gay crime is moving in the other direction. What is most disturbing is the cruelty and viciousness of many of these attacks.

 

The severity of many of these crimes helps to show the strong hatred that homophobia can create.

 

Many conservative religious leaders have, at some point, spoken out against the gay community and warned of the danger they supposedly pose to America. 700 Club television host Pat Robertson said that, “Many of those people involved in Adolf Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals – the two things seem to go together.” Former Congressman William Dannemeyer also compared homosexuals to Nazis when he wrote that “the homosexual blitzkrieg has been better planned than Hitler’s…” Clearly, it is ridiculous to compare homosexuals in America to Germany’s Nazi government which believed in warfare and mass murder as a means for taking over the world.

 

Apart from these views, many violent extremist groups also hold homophobic beliefs. The neo-Nazi National Alliance has allegedly been involved in anti-gay violence, while racist skinheads around the country have attacked and beaten homosexuals.

How can students in the United States of America be allowed to promote the acceptance of homosexuality (e.g., the national Day of Silence) but not criticize it? Remember: many people of faith (and others) do not agree with the modern, trendy notion of “gayness” as personhood — i.e., that it is a part of a person’s intrinsic identity. Instead, they view homosexuality as changeable, unnatural and/or sinful behavior, as evidenced by the many men and women who once considered themselves “gay” but have since left their homosexual lifestyle behind.

Judge Hart’s decision creates classic viewpoint discrimination in a public, taxpayer-funded forum (schools) and we hope ultimately that it will be struck down in appeal. I trust that even some of our “gay” critics will see how this ruling is incompatible with the First Amendment.– Peter LaBarbera

Associate Press reports: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C266716%2C00.html

Judge Upholds Illinois School’s Ban on ‘Be Happy, Not Gay’ Shirt

Wednesday, April 18, 2007
CHICAGO — Two Neuqua Valley High School [in Naperville, Illinois] students won’t be able to wear T-shirts saying “Be Happy, Not Gay,” to school on Thursday following a judge’s ruling.

U.S. District Judge William T. Hart ruled in favor of the high school Tuesday in a preliminary injunction that would have allowed the students to wear the shirts the day after Wednesday’s National Day of Silence.

On the Day of Silence, students can refrain from speaking as an effort to protest discrimination against homosexuals.

The Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund is representing Heidi Zamecnik of Naperville and Alexander Nuxoll of Bolingbrook in a lawsuit that claims Zamecnik’s rights were violated last year when she wasn’t allowed to wear the shirt in school.

The Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian litigation group, will appeal the judge’s decision on the preliminary injunction to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, attorney Jonathan Scruggs said. The lawsuit is still pending.

Scruggs said the school is violating the students’ rights to free speech by banning the shirt.

“The school cannot silence speech merely because some people find it offensive,” Scruggs said. “We believe that’s the core of what the First Amendment protects.”

Jack Canna, an attorney for Indian Prairie Unit School District 204, said banning the shirt is part of a policy “to preserve the notion that kids shouldn’t make negative or derogatory comments about other students.”

Messages left by The Associated Press with the Indian Prairie Unit School District 204 and Neuqua Valley High School were not immediately returned Wednesday morning.

By Peter LaBarbera

At right is a facsimile of the “Day of Silence Card,” which Waubonsie Valley High School in Naperville, IL is urging students to pass out in school tomorrow (Wed., April 18th); to view a clear version in PDF, click HERE.

The following is excerpted from a letter I sent to school authorities at Waubonsie Valley High School (WVHS) in Naperville, Illinois, concerning their promotion and endorsement of the “Day of Silence,” an in-school pro-homosexual protest in which students go silent all day [to protest alleged anti-homosexual oppression]. My children attend public schools in Naperville.

To read Waubonsie’s online announcement about the Day of Silence (DOS), click HERE. To view a PDF of the “Day of Silence Card” that WVHS is promoting to students (to present to their teachers and fellow students), click HERE.  For more information on the parental/student boycott of schools promoting the Day of Silence, go to the NotOurKids.com website. And for information on Alliance Defense Fund’s “Day of Truth” designed to counter the DOS, click HERE.

___________________________

April 7, 2007

Re: Waubonsie Valley HS web announcement: “Second Annual Day of Silence”: http://www.ipsd.org/newsevents/news_item_detail.asp?id=14568

Dear District 204 Faculty & Waubonsie School Administrators and Teachers,

I was deeply distressed to read the web posting concerning Waubonsie High School’s outright promotion of GLSEN’s national Day of Silence (tomorrow). Because you have chosen to embrace and officially endorse this event — which clearly advances one side of the controversial moral issue of homosexuality and will disrupt the learning environment at WVHS — my wife and I will be pulling our son … from school tomorrow (Wed, April 18th), and will encourage other parents to do the same.

We will also work to advance a policy of strict neutrality [at WVHS] on the issue of homosexuality and other moral conscience issues at Waubonsie and District 204 in the months and years ahead….

We respectfully ask: how does it promote an environment that is conducive to learning to encourage students to present a card to their teachers informing them that they will “remain silent for the entire day, including class….” (emphasis added) on the Day of Silence, Wed., April 18th? What about the students who do not agree with homosexual behavior, for religious, moral or other reasons? Or what about students who come to school to learn, and are not interested in crusading for social causes during school hours? Doesn’t it concern you that these students will be unfairly subjected to this propaganda exercise — and that their right to be educated in a non-politicized atmosphere will be violated?

We are concerned because the “gay” student club at WVHS, Identity — alone among all the extra-curricular student clubs — deals with a highly controversial moral and social issue that has severe implications for students’ health and spiritual well-being. Nobody doubts the merit of the other student clubs. It is as dubious to portray Day of Silence as an innocuous event about tolerance as it is to say that Identity is like any other student club.

We do not view homosexuality as an issue of innate identity but changeable behavior which is immoral in the eyes of the Creator. Some common “gay” sexual behaviors are also very high risk (unsafe), as evidenced by this quotation — not by Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson — but by homosexual writer Jack Hart (pardon the graphic content):

Many sexual transmitted diseases (STDs) occur more often among gay men than in the general population. Several factors contribute to this difference: Gay men have the opportunity to engage in sex with more people than do most heterosexual men, and some practices common among gays — especially rimming [anal-oral intercourse] and anal intercourse — are highly efficient at transmitting disease. (Gay Sex: A Manual for Men Who Love Men, Allyson Books, 1998, pp. 212-213)

There are countless other credible resources I could cite documenting the health risks of homosexual behaviors. (See Dr. John Diggs’ paper, “The Health Risks of Gay Sex.”)  Are the GLBT and “questioning” students at WVHS made aware of these risks? Do parents know about them? (I was told by [a Waubonsie Valley HS official] that a student can attend Identity meetings without his or her parents’ knowledge or approval.) Moreover, because I have personally met or interviewed dozens of former homosexuals, I do not view this as an issue of “civil rights.” (There are no ex-African Americans or ex-Latinos.) In fact, I am concerned that homosexual activist groups like GLSEN — the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network, an acronym which you failed to define in your web posting about the Day of Silence — are strongly prejudiced against tradition-minded students and their parents.

Consider this highly “intolerant” and bigoted quote disparaging religious conservatives from GLSEN founder Kevin Jennings made in a church in 2000:

“Twenty percent of people are hard-core fair-minded [pro-homosexual] people. Twenty percent are hard-core [anti-homosexual] bigots. We need to ignore the hard-core bigots, get more of the hard-core fair-minded people to speak up, and we’ll pull that 60 percent [of people in the middle] … over to our side. That’s really what I think our strategy has to be. We have to quit being afraid of the religious right. We also have to quit — … I’m trying to find a way to say this. I’m trying not to say, ‘[F–k] ’em!’ which is what I want to say, because I don’t care what they think! [audience laughter] Drop dead!” (Source: audiotape from event, cited in a paper I wrote for Concerned Women for America, “When Silence Would Have Been Golden”)

When schools delve into the promotion of one side of a controversial moral issue like homosexuality, or join with controversial groups like GLSEN, it naturally discriminates against students on the other side.  Several weeks ago, I attended a District 204 Diversity meeting dealing with gay issues. I voiced concern about the biased nature of the presentation — which was reliant on information provided by GLSEN — hardly an objective source and in fact one that has a record of radical activism. Here are just two more black marks on GLSEN’s record (please forgive the graphic content, but this is what pre-teen children were exposed to):

1) GLSEN-backed 2000 “Fistgate” scandal in Massachusetts: (see http://massresistance.org/docs/issues/fistgate/massnews.html) At a GLSEN-sponsored conference at Tufts U., on March 25, 2000, three homosexual activists employed by the Massachusetts Departments of Health and Education led a youth workshop titled “What They Didn’t Tell You about Queer Sex & Sexuality in Health Class” — part of the annual Boston-GLSEN “Teach Out” conference held at Tufts University. The “Queer Sex” session, advertised to “youth only ages 14 to 21,” was attended by Massachusetts family advocate Scott Whitemen, who taped it while standing in the back of the room.

In the workshop, instructor Michael Gaucher, prompted by a teen’s question, verbally guided the students on the mechanics of “fisting” — a homosexual slang term for a sadistic sex act in which a man inserts his hand and arm into another person’s anal cavity. Another instructor, Margot Abels, said fisting “often gets a really bad rap,” and described it innocuously as “an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with.” Abels and Gaucher also guided the students on techniques of oral sodomy and lesbian sex.

[NOTE: I think I am correct that GLSEN never issued an apology to the public for sponsoring this heinous event that corrupted innocent children.]

2) At GLSEN’s conference in Arlington Heights, IL [a suburb of Chicago], in 2000, all participants, including dozens of high school-aged kids, could pick up a homosexual “Visitor’s Companion” — which advertised Chicago’s gay “leather” bars, a gay sex club and a homosexual bathhouse (where men go for anonymous sexual liaisons with other men) called “Steamworks,” which was advertised as a “24-hour men’s gym/sauna.”

If GLSEN were a conservative or Christian group and committed such reckless acts endangering youth, do you think they would still be promoted as a credible source by public schools? Were you aware of GLSEN’s scandals? Do you think Naperville and Aurora parents would countenance any WVHS involvement with GLSEN if they know of this organization’s reckless and radical track record? (For more information on GLSEN’s 2000 conference, click on this link: http://www.geocities.com/sirokai/shininglight/gradeschoolkids.htm.)

Frankly, I am stunned that after another concerned 204 parent and I voiced our objections to District 204’s bias on homosexual issues at the 204 Diversity meeting, you have chosen to so blatantly promote an activist pro-homosexual event like the DOS that has angered parents across the nation.

We regard your promotion of GLSEN’s Day of Silence event as educational malpractice and the misuse of your authority granted to you by tax-paying and voting parents (most of whom probably have no idea that Waubonsie VHS is being used for this pro-gay social protest tomorrow). By promoting this massive, in-school distraction, despite claims that this is merely about “tolerance,” you are harming the educational process and directly undermining parents’ rights to guide their own children’s understanding on this important moral question.

Please also consider this document by the Citizens for Community Values on the “Legal Liability Associated with Homosexuality Education in Public Schools.”

I would like to request a meeting to discuss this matter … Also, I would request any data you have on GLBT students being harassed at WVHS in this and the past few years. If there is truly a problem of WVHS administrators and teachers being unable to protect gay-identified kids, the public deserves to know about it.  For the record, our position is that no child should be abused or harassed, but that schools can safeguard all kids without reference to any special criteria such as “sexual orientation.”

Thank you for your urgent consideration of this matter. Needless to say, it is no small thing for us to intentionally pull our child from school, but we feel that you have given us no choice by endorsing this activist, pro-gay protest.

Sincerely,

Peter LaBarbera

Naperville, Illinois parent

By Peter LaBarbera 

Bob Schwartz of the leftist Chicago homosexual group Gay Liberation Network responded to my e-note asking if he favored laws censoring pro-family group’s speech critical of homosexuality. The following is Schwartz’s response (we’ve put his response at the top rather than following my note, as it was in the original).

I certainly doubt the accuracy of Schwartz’s claim about the Nigerian bishop, as he and his group typically lop all Christians who stand for traditional morality in with those who committed indefensible acts (e.g., violence or death threats) against homosexuals. Schwartz also engages in hyperbole typical of many leftists when he claims that Christian groups are a threat to democracy. Schwartz’s flagrant name-calling of committed Christians as “fascists” is a callous and hurtful shibboleth that has no basis in reality and is deeply offensive to all people and groups, like Americans For Truth, that abhor the Nazis’ genocidal record.

As to Schwartz’s claim about “hate speech,” many on our side of the debate regard GLN’s standard rhetoric — e.g., calling the historic Moody Bible Church in Chicago a “house of hate” — as hateful in the extreme.

Finally, regarding his note about socieities in decline, we commend the work of  the (anti-Christian) Edward Gibbons (The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire), historian Will Durant, Pitirim Sorokin, and others who have documented the role of sexual immorality in the demise of great civilizations.

All this said, we are pleasantly surprised that the GLN leader is not an outright advocate of censorship. Here is Schwartz’s reply to my question:

Is The Big House Peter LaBarbera’s future home?
 

_______________________________________________
 
Sure, its tempting to want to enact laws like those in Canada and across parts of Europe that restrict the very kind of hate speech you and others dole out to gays, all under cover of “religious freedom.” But, I do not favor governmental restrictions on hate speech.
 
I reach this conclusion, not because I care one iota about speech rights for people who would like to push me back into the closet, restrict my rights or see me dead, but because governmental regulation of speech–particularly in the United States–would likely be turned against people of the left, not of the right.  I’m not about to cut my own throat.
 
What I will do is keep portraying right-wing outfits like IFI and Americans for Truth, along with more effective hate groups like Focus on the Family, the John Hagee “ministries,” and the Coral Ridge fascist James Kennedy as dangerous to democracy. Dangerous because they include extremists who want to substitute the bible for the US Constitution. Dangerous because they are hate mongers who go after vulnerable gays today, but have an agenda that includes rolling back gains won thru struggle by workers, immigrants, women, and African Americans, as well as support to American/Israeli wars for empire.*
 
This summer, Gay Liberation Network will host a Nigerian gay man who has had to flee his native land following death threats from thugs spurred on by Christian leaders such as the Anglican archbishop, Peter Akinola, a man held to be a hero by some American gay haters.
 
Finally, as you will recall, we are prepared to take our ideas into the street.
 
You and others of your ilk deserve to be isolated, and ousted from respectable society.  The fate of Don Imus hopefully awaits antigay bigots as well.
 
BOB SCHWARTZ
Gay Liberation Network
 
[* See the book by Kevin Phillips entitled “American Theocracy.” Phillips points out that elites of societies in decline often appropriate religious fervor as they attempt to stabilize the sinking ship, branding policy opponents as enemies, demonizing religious and sexual minorities, scapegoating “foreigners,” calling upon the deity to bless military adventures, etc.]

….
 
I got the following response from Peter LaBarbera after I copied him on the message I posted regarding the IFI campaign to defeat federal hate crime legislation.  My response to LaBarbera follows his message. 
LaBarbera posted my original message and his response on his website: http://americansfortruth.org/
He can be reached at americansfortruth@comcast.net
 
 
…. You’d love to censor groups like IFI and Americans for Truth, wouldn’t you? If you had the power, you’d want to shut us down or ban certain aspects of our speech and conduct? For example, would you favor a federal “anti-hate” law that would have made our last email (“Satan’s Talking Points”) illegal? Or am I wrong and you actually support freedom of speech in the USA on the homosexual issue (which does not include direct harassing threats or advocating violence)? Would you favor using anti-discrimination hate speech laws to curb anti-gay speech? Which speech if any would you censor? Do you support anti-“hate speech” laws in Canada and England that are rapidly criminalizing (“discriminatory”) speech critical of homosexuality and are resulting in Christians being sued for discrimination or being jailed because they publicly oppose homosexual behavior? Did you support the jailing of the pastor in Sweden, Ake Green (www.akegreen.org), or do you think he should not have been prosecuted and what the government did to him was an injustice?  Since you’re charging us with being fascists, don’t we have a right to know? Would you use state power to restrict anti-gay speech, or not, and if so, under what circumstances?
 
Peter LaBarbera
Americans For Truth