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…

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…

Excerpted from European Transgender Groups Unite, published Jan 16, 2007, by the pro-homosexuality 247Gay:

A new coalition of European Transgender and Transsexual Groups, TransGender Europe, has received recognition by the Austrian authorities this week.

Hear Americans For Truth president Peter LaBarbera on Janet Folger’s “Faith2Action” radio show over the WVCY network. After Faith2Action founder Folger, author of “Criminalizing Christianity,” asks LaBarbera what he would say to Christians who want to drop out of the Culture Wars, he answers that in reality, many Christians want to “cop out” of the fight against the radical “gay” agenda, often employing bogus theological excuses. He urged listeners to “grow up” and defend their American freedom — including the freedom to disagree with the intolerant homosexual agenda — even if “it’s hard.”

Click HERE to listen to the program online. LaBarbera’s segment is in the second half of the hour-long program.

What the NEA (National Education Association) refuses to admit as it (again, below) recommends pro-homosexual “anti-harassment training” is that such training invariably undermines the firmly-held beliefs of Christian and other students who believe homosexual behavior is wrong. “Anti-bias” and “gay”-inclusive “bullying” programs rely on the very jaundiced work of groups like GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network), which have a long track record of assailing and distorting Christian and conservative teachings on homosexuality.

Why can’t schools simply ban all “bullying” or abuse of ANY students without getting into the homosexuality promotion business? — Peter LaBarbera

——————————

From NEA’s website:

Rights Watch

Teaching Tolerance or Attacking Religion?

How far can schools go in teaching tolerance for gays and lesbians? Two federal courts tackle this thorny question.

It’s the latest battleground in the culture wars. In the wake of several high-profile cases holding school districts liable for failing to protect gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered (GLBT) students from peer harassment, many schools have adopted training programs intended to reduce harassment and promote acceptance of GLBT students.

Some parents find these programs objectionable because they conflict with their deeply held religious belief that homosexuality is sinful, and they don’t want the schools to undermine their parental authority by teaching a contrary lesson.

Federal courts in Maryland and Kentucky recently struggled to resolve this conflict, with differing results.

In a dispute that is still ongoing, the Montgomery County (Maryland) Board of Education last year adopted a health education curriculum designed to teach tolerance of gays and lesbians. Among other things, course materials described as a “myth” the belief that “homosexuality is a sin” and characterized certain Christian religions as “intolerant and Biblically misguided” because they are “opposed to homosexuality.”

In a lawsuit filed in May 2005 by two groups of parents and citizens, a federal district court issued an injunction prohibiting the Maryland school district from implementing the curriculum. The court found that the course materials violate the Constitution by attacking the views of certain religions, while promoting the views of other religions that “are more friendly towards the homosexual lifestyle.”

The school district has agreed to revise the controversial curriculum. That process is still underway.

In the Kentucky case decided in February, a federal district court ruled that parents don’t have the right to have their children opt out of mandatory “student diversity training” designed to stop the harassment of GLBT students.

The program adopted by the Board of Education of Boyd County, Kentucky, consists of a one-hour video, followed by comments from an instructor and questions from students. Students who refuse to attend receive an unexcused absence.

A press release from Christian Civic League of Maine, published Jan 9, 2007:

Before the 2006 elections, Maine’s foremost civil and religious rights group, the Christian Civic League of Maine, filed suit in federal court to allow the League to run a grass-roots lobbying ad, urging Maine’s two Senators to vote for the federal marriage amendment. The suit was necessary because the League was prohibited by a law sponsored in Congress by Senator Olympia Snowe which prohibited citizens groups from running broadcast ads before an election which mention the name of a federal candidate.

The suit was ultimately dismissed by a federal court and is now on appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

However, this same law has now been declared unconstitutional by another federal court. In a case brought by Wisconsin Right to Life, a federal court has declared that Snowe’s law is unconstitutional as applied to grass- roots lobbying. The League’s attorney, James Bopp, Jr., is quoted in the Kennebec Journal saying that the ruling is a vindication for the League.

The League also defended free speech in the early 1990s. “Gay” activists wanted to keep their issue from being voted on. The result of that two year long legal ordeal was a strong affirmation of the League’s position. The judge even forced the state to pay the League’s legal fees.

This was just too entertaining to pass over (pardon the pun)…

Excerpted from Bleating Hearts, by Mark Steyn, by Jan 8, 2007, at Washington Times:

As part of this column’s ongoing commitment to in-depth coverage of the issues that matter, we’re pleased to present the first of a new series: Sheep In The News. Here are two headlines from the last week.

From The Wall Street Journal: “Ritual sacrifice? Not on my street, some Belgians say.” And from The Sunday Times of London: “Science told: Hands off gay sheep.”

The first story is about the 25,000 sheep in Brussels who a few days ago found themselves pointed toward Mecca and then slit through the throat and bled to death.

Muslims do this to celebrate Eid al-Adha, which commemorates Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son to God and God’s willingness to settle for a ram in lieu. The Belgian Muslim population has grown so fast that there aren’t enough places in the city to perform the ritual sacrifice, and come Eid it’s like sheep drivetime at every Brussels slaughterhouse, with rams backed up ram-to-ram as far as the eye can see.

As reported by the Journal, Mohamed Mimoun grabbed his sheep, took a number and realized he was in for a two-hour wait. Even worse, en route to the slaughterhouse, he was stopped by a cop and fined for having the sheep in the trunk of his Toyota. By law, the sheep is supposed to ride in the rear passenger seats. Baa, baa, back seat.

On which note, let us turn to the gay sheep. Apparently, researchers at Oregon Health and Science University and Oregon State University have been experimenting with ovine hormonal balances to persuade homosexual rams of the error of their ways. It seems they’ve had “considerable success” with injecting hormones into the rams’ brains. Suddenly the lads are playing the field and crooning a couple of choruses of “Embrace me, my sweet embraceable ewe.”

Gay groups (human gay groups, that is: Even America does not yet have a 24/7 gay sheep lobby group with offices on K Street) are not happy about this. Martina Navratilova, the nine-times Wimbledon champ, has called for the project to be abandoned and for scientists to respect, as the Sunday Times put it, “the right of sheep to be gay”…

Continue reading at Washington Times…