Americans for Truth about Homosexuality
| Home | About | Issues | Resources | Join Our Email List | Become a Truth Team Member | Store | Donate | Contact |
20 Most Recent Articles
Truth Academy vs. ‘Gay’ Thought Police – LifeSiteNews Coverage
July 29th, 2010
Prof. Robert Gagnon, the world's leading authority on the Bible and homosexuality, will be giving three lectures at the Truth Academy.
The ‘Truth Academy: Chicago 2010′ begins in one week, Thurs., Aug. 5 – Sat., Aug. 7, at the Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights, IL. See complete Academy info and speakers schedule HERE. RSVP at americansfortruth@gmail.com. Sign up and pay online at www.americansfortruth.com/donate.
_________________________________________
From the wonderful, must-read pro-family news site, LifeSiteNews [click HERE to subscribe to their daily e-mails]:
How to Fight the Gay Agenda: Pro-Family Group Organizes Three-Day Conference
By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman
July 27, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The pro-family organization Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) has scheduled a three-day conference on fighting the homosexual political agenda in the United States.
The Americans for Truth Academy will be “probably one of the most comprehensive pro-family conferences on homosexuality ever to occur in the United States,” according to Peter LaBarbera, the organization’s founder and president.
LaBarbera told LifeSiteNews (LSN) that he decided to organize the conference to counteract the large number of similar events held by homosexualist activists.
“I have a little Irish blood but I’m also Italian, and when political correctness and the thought police tell you what not to do it only makes me want to do more of it, and so in this case the gay thought police are basically saying the issue is over and there is no other side, and so I thought we have to start educating people on the agenda,” said LaBarbera.
“The gay movement has made significant headway through personal instruction and firsthand training. They’ve got the Creating Change Conference from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, which trains thousands of people per year. We’re completely outgunned on this issue,” said LaBarbera. “We face a variety of homosexual activist groups that have set specific purposes whereas we try to deal with the issue with our generalized pro-family groups, which do good work on homosexual issues but don’t do enough.”
Noting that the pro-life movement has been successful in communicating its message to younger generations, LaBarbera says that the same has to be done regarding homosexuality.
“Clearly what the pro-life movement has accomplished is they’ve changed the paradigm, and they’ve gotten people thinking about the life of the unborn child, about the human rights issues at stake, about the innocent victims of abortion on demand, and I think what has not happened on the homosexual issue is the basic talking points of the pro-gay movement have not been addressed adequately,” LaBarbera told LSN.
Lamenting that young people have been “brainwashed” by homosexualist propaganda, LaBarbara says he intends to “reach them with some in-depth training because they’re completely ignorant … The polls show that young people are more pro-life and more pro-gay at the same time. And I think that speaks volumes about the problem that we’re in and the long term debt that we face on this issue unless we educate people on what’s really at stake with the debate.”
The Academy will run from August 5 through August 7 at the Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Speakers will include Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel, who was famously fired from his job with an insurance company for opposing homosexual activism on his own time, and Professor Rena Lindevaldsen, a law professor at Liberty University and defender of ex-lesbian Lisa Miller against her former lover’s attempts to take custody of her daughter. Professor Robert Gagnon of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, an expert on the Biblical teaching on homosexuality, will also speak.
Homosexual groups schedule protest
Homosexual activists have already scheduled a protest for the event, claiming that AFTAH is teaching “hate,” a charge repeated by the ultra-leftist People for the American Way, and strongly denied by LaBarbera.
“We’re not haters, we’re people who simply disagree with homosexuality, profoundly, we believe it is immoral, that it’s changeable, that it’s unnatural, that it’s against God,” he said. “We don’t shrink from those beliefs. But to equate the advocacy of those beliefs with hatred is itself an act of bigotry and hatred against people of faith and against people of moral persuasion.”
LaBarbera says he is aware of the preparations to protest his event, and will have security on hand to prevent the disruptive tactics historically used by gay activists to intimidate those opposed to their agenda.
“We already know the Gay Liberation Network, which is a radical homosexual hate group, has announced that they’re going to protest us. … we expected that,” LaBarbera told LSN. “The reason that we did not open this event up to gay activists who want to attend … is that there is a history of homosexuals using direct action to disrupt and intimidate people. We’re not going to tolerate that here.”
“We are taking some precautions, there is be security. If anybody does try to disrupt this they will be ushered out,” he said.
Related links:
Americans for Truth Academy conference information
ADF to Appeal Ruling that Allows Eastern Michigan U. to Expel Julea Ward for Believing Homosexuality Is Wrong
July 29th, 2010
Julea Ward
From the Alliance Defense Fund website:
ADF to appeal ruling that allows Eastern Michigan U. to expel Christian students for holding to beliefs
University banished graduate counseling student for not affirming homosexual behavior
DETROIT — Alliance Defense Fund attorneys will appeal a problematic federal court decision issued Monday in a lawsuit filed on behalf of student Julea Ward against Eastern Michigan University after it kicked out the Christian student for holding to her beliefs. EMU dismissed Ward from its graduate counseling program in March 2009 for not affirming homosexual behavior as morally acceptable. Ward would not agree to change her religious beliefs about homosexual behavior or express a message contrary to them during counseling sessions as a condition to receiving a degree.
“Christian students shouldn’t be expelled for holding to and abiding by their beliefs,” said ADF Senior Counsel David French, who argued before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan last month. “To reach its decision, the court had to do something that’s never been done in federal court: uphold an extremely broad and vague university speech code.”
EMU initiated its disciplinary process against Ward shortly after she enrolled in a counseling practicum course in January 2009, when she was assigned a potential client seeking assistance regarding a homosexual relationship. Recognizing the potential conscience issue with the client, and knowing she could not affirm the client’s homosexual relationship without violating her religious beliefs, Ward asked her supervisor how to handle the matter. Ward was advised to reassign the potential client to a different counselor. EMU then informed Ward that she could only stay in the counseling program if she agreed to undergo a “remediation” program. Its purpose was to help her “see the error of her ways” and change her “belief system” as it relates to counseling about homosexual relationships.
At a subsequent formal review meeting, EMU faculty denigrated Ward’s Christian views and asked several inappropriate and intrusive questions about her religious beliefs. A faculty committee then dismissed her from the counseling program. Ward appealed, but the dean of EMU College of Education upheld the dismissal.
“Julea merely followed her supervising professor’s advice by referring a potential client to a counselor who had no conscience issue with the particular matter to be discussed,” said French. “She would have gladly counseled the client herself had the topic focused on any other matter. We trust the 6th Circuit will understand the constitutional issues involved in this case.”
The EMU speech codes enabling the university’s actions were challenged as part of the ADF lawsuit, Ward v. Wilbanks. One policy prohibiting “discrimination based on…sexual orientation” adds that counselors cannot “condone” what the university defines as discrimination. Another problematic policy states that EMU’s counseling department may discipline a student who shows a “failure to tolerate different points of view.”
Steven M. Jentzen, one of nearly 1,800 attorneys in the ADF alliance, is local counsel in the case. ADF is currently litigating a similar case involving a counseling student at Augusta State University in Georgia.
ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.
Augusta State to Christian Jennifer Keeton: Re-educate Yourself or Leave Counseling Program
July 29th, 2010
Jennifer Keeton
Here’s the latest victim of the Pro-Gay Thought Police (PGTP): Jennifer Keeton. Her predicament is further evidence of the “zero-sum game” in the Culture War between pro-”gay” policies/laws and religious liberty. It’s incredible that this public institution, Augusta State U,, is requiring this principled young woman to alter her beliefs and even attend a “gay pride” parade as a condition for completing the program. (Imagine the outcry if a public university required a committed, secular ”gay” student to go to a Bible-believing church as part of a remediation plan.)
Will authentic Bible-believing Christians (as opposed to the compromised, homosexuality-affirming variety) be boxed out of the counseling profession? If so, faithful Christians will have to support alternative counseling institutions, because unrepentant homosexuality will never be compatible with Christianity. And there are way too many happy ex-gays and ex-lesbians out there for sexually struggling people not to be given this healthy option.
Modern “diversity” is to genuine diversity as Marxist-Leninist “People’s Democratic Republics” are to true democracy. Wouldn’t true “diversity” allow people to exercise their own choice to see either a pro-homosexual counselor or one that adheres to traditional moral views? I guess that’s asking too much of left-wing academics and the pro-”GLBTQ” movement. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
P.S. Check out this Queety blog post on the Keeton case. It contains a video of Keeton giving her side of the story. Note the nasty and irrational pro-homosexual comments that follow the Queerty post, including this one:
Imagine if a KKK member became a firefighter and said “If a black person is in a fire I’m not going to save their life. It’s against my beliefs.” Rubbish.
_______________________________________
LifeSiteNews reports [Click HERE to subscribe to LifeSite's daily e-mails.]:
Augusta State Univ. to Counseling Student: Change Beliefs or Get Out
AUGUSTA, Georgia, July 22, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) filed suit against Augusta State University Wednesday on behalf of a counseling student who was allegedly told that her Christian beliefs are unethical and incompatible with the prevailing views of the counseling profession. The student, Jennifer Keeton, says she has been told to stop communicating her beliefs and that she must undergo “training” to accept homosexuality in order to graduate from the counseling program.
Augusta State ordered Keeton to undergo a re-education plan, in which she must attend “diversity sensitivity training,” complete additional remedial reading, and write papers to describe their impact on her beliefs. If she does not change her beliefs or agree to the plan, the university says it will expel her from the Counselor Education Program.
“A public university student shouldn’t be threatened with expulsion for being a Christian and refusing to publicly renounce her faith, but that’s exactly what’s happening here. Simply put, the university is imposing thought reform,” said ADF Senior Counsel David French.
“Abandoning one’s own religious beliefs should not be a precondition at a public university for obtaining a degree. This type of leftist zero-tolerance policy is in place at far too many universities, and it must stop.”
Keeton, 24, is pursuing her master’s degree in counseling at Augusta State. Lawyers say that after her professors learned of her biblical beliefs, specifically her views on homosexual conduct, the school imposed the re-education plan. Keeton says she never denigrated anyone in communicating her beliefs but merely stated factually what they were in appropriate contexts.
The plan, according to ADF lawyers, assails Keeton’s beliefs as inconsistent with the counseling profession and expresses suspicion over “Jen’s ability to be a multiculturally competent counselor, particularly with regard to working with gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (GLBTQ) populations.” They say the plan requires her to take steps to change her beliefs through additional assignments and additional “diversity sensitivity training” and to “work to increase exposure and interactions with gay populations. One such activity could be attending the Gay Pride Parade in Augusta.”
Each month, Keeton is allegedly required to complete a report on how the “remediation” assignments have influenced her beliefs so that faculty can “decide the appropriateness of her continuation in the counseling program.” Lawyers say the plan concludes by noting that “failure to complete all elements of the remediation plan will result in dismissal from the Counselor Education Program.”
In an ADF video, Keeton said that, “While I want to stay in the school counseling program, I know that I can’t honestly complete the remediation plan knowing that I would have to alter my beliefs.” “I’m not willing to, and I know I can’t, change my Biblical views,” she said.
ADF attorneys filed the complaint and a motion for preliminary injunction in Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley with the U.S. District Court for the District of Georgia.
ADF is currently litigating a similar case involving a counseling student at Eastern Michigan University and successfully resolved a case at Missouri State University. Also in litigation is a case involving a Georgia counselor fired by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention because she would not agree to affirm homosexual behavior as morally acceptable.
LISTEN: Part Two – AFTAH Interview with Wayne Lela & John McCartney
July 29th, 2010Here is Part Two of our interview with Wayne Lela (founder of H.O.M.E.) and John McCartney, two Chicago men who for years have reached out to college youth in the Chicagoland area with facts about homosexuality that the liberal media and pop-culture ignore. This interview aired July 24, 2010. (Listen to Part One HERE.) In this interview they discuss the four themes they stress in their interaction with students, including the severe health risks of male homosexuality. Both Lela and McCartney will be attending our Truth Academy: Chicago 2010 next week (Aug. 5-7) at the Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights, IL. You can access the archive of Americans For Truth interviews HERE.
HOW TO LISTEN: This is an mp3 file. Left click once on the link below to play. (Please be patient, depending upon the speed of your internet connection it may take a moment or two to load.) OR right click the link then “save target as” to download the whole show.
7-24-10, Wayne Lela & John McCartney, All
Homosexual Hate Group to Protest AFTAH ‘Truth Academy’
July 27th, 2010
The Gay Liberation Network's Bob Schwartz celebrated U. of Illinois' firing of Catholic professor Kenneth Howell (above) -- strange behavior for a group that crusades against "discrimination."
The homosexual hate group Gay Liberation Network (GLN) — whose co-leader Bob Schwartz celebrated the University of Illinois’ recent firing of Catholic professor Kenneth Howell — has announced that it will protest the AFTAH Truth Academy, which will be held Aug. 5-7 at the Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights, Illinois.
GLN is a Marxist-oriented street protest group that attempts to equate Judeo-Christian opposition to homosexuality with “hate” — and which uses its protests to intimidate businesses from hosting pro-family events. For its extreme anti–Christian bigotry and hateful rhetoric — including vicious ad hominem attacks against pro-family critics (e.g., calling AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera “Satan’s Lover”) – we label GLN a homosexual hate organization.
GLN, formerly the Chicago Anti-Bashing Network, once smeared the historic Moody Church in Chicago as a “House of Hate” because Moody’s revered pastor, Erwin Lutzer, wrote a book critical of “same-sex marriage.” GLN has repeatedly pilloried Chicago’s Catholic leaker Cardinal Francis George with similar accusations because George defends Catholic teachings on sex and marriage.
Beyond that, Schwartz once told LaBarbera — who was protesting a “gay youth” rally in downtown Chicago as then-executive director of Illinois Family Institute – that if it weren’t for the police standing nearby, he would push him into the busy street. (Schwartz has never denied making this comment after it was reported by IFI.) LaBarbera maintains that had such a veiled violent threat been made against a homosexual by a conservative or Christian, it could have been the basis for a criminal charge under Chicago’s ”hate crime” law.
Thus it is a great irony that the nasty GLN played a proud role in lobbying the leftist Southern Poverty Law Center to label AFTAH a “hate site.”
Here is an excerpt of GLN’s ludicrous attempt to distort the Truth Academny’s true purpose:
Youth should not be taught to hate their peers and thus fuel the cycle of self-loathing, depression and suicide which too many LGBTQ youth experience. Bigotry must be vocally and publicly opposed, especially when haters try to recruit young people.
Gay Liberation Network activists specialize in name-calling. Ironically, the Marxist-oriented, Christian-bashing hate group played a role in lobbying the Southern Poverty Law Center to label AFTAH a "hate" website.
Defending historic Judeo-Christian moral truths and the natural family is not “hate.” Teaching young people to revere biblical teachings and God’s natural design for the family — and how to answer GLBT misinformation in the public sphere – is not “bigotry.” However, GLN’s vicious name-calling and ugly condemnations of traditionalists as “haters” — and its regular lies about religious leaders who oppose homosexual practice – is a form of secular, anti-Christian bigotry. This neo-intolerance must be resisted at every turn by the avid participation of pro-family Americans at events like the Truth Academy.
VIDEO: Boycott McDonald’s for Promoting Youth Homosexuality
July 25th, 2010Should Christians take solace in fact that pro-”gay” ad will only run in France and not USA?
Teenage boy in McDonald's-France TV ad pines after another boy in his all-boys school. McDonald's COO Don Thompson says the ad will not run in the USA. But as a Christian he should be concerned that the corporation is promoting sinful, unhealthy sexual lifestyles to young men in any country.
TAKE ACTION: You can write McDonald’s HERE or call 1-800-244-6227; or write: McDonald’s Corporation, Attn: Jim Skinner and Don Thompson, 2111 McDonald’s Dr., Oak Brook, IL 60523.
By Peter LaBarbera
Folks, perhaps you’ve seen the YouTube of this wicked McDonald’s TV commercial in France, featuring a homosexual teenage boy in love with another member of his all-boys school. (His out-of-touch, hopelessly ‘heterosexist’ father still thinks of his son as a potential lady’s man.) Since I saw the ad a while ago, I have stopped eating at McDonalds — which has had the added bonus of helping to keep my already protruding gut from officially being designated as “super-sized.”
To a significant degree, McDonald’s with its high-calorie fare has always been in the business of promoting unhealthy lifestyles; now it has added unhealthy sexual lifestyles to the mix. To be sure, McDonald’s does not include promoting wholesomeness and time-tested Judeo-Christian morality among its “core values.” In a contorted defense of the fast food giant’s marketing practices, McDonald’s Chief Operation Officer Don Thompson told the Chicago Tribune in March that the French ad will not be running in the USA. But the “Come as You Are” commercial has received wide publicity and gotten over two million hits on YouTube, so that’s a small comfort to Americans who have no interest in promoting youth homosexuality when they buy a Big Mac, or a Happy Meal for their young children.
Here’s FOX’s Bill O’Reilly segment on the French commercial — note how O’Reilly repeats the old homosexual-activist myth that “gays are ten percent of the population” — followed by more commentary and a McDonald’s-France letter defending it:
As you can read in the Tribune interview, excerpted below, Thompson is a very public Christian, which is a good thing. But I find it deeply disturbing and hypocritical that he apparently is not troubled by McDonald’s’ promotion of sinful and deviant behavior to young people — as long as it occurs in France where homosexuality is much less controversial than in the United States.
Of course, Thompson is a company man, so he has to toe the line in his public statements. But Christianity is not divided by national borders and he must know that promoting wrong and unhealthy sexual lifestyles to French teenage boys is every bit as evil and reckless as promoting sinful lifestyles to American boys. (Are you getting a feel for how post-modern, pro-homosexual Corporate America is corrupting the souls of its devoted employees?)
[TAKE ACTION: You can write McDonald's HERE or call 1-800-244-6227; or write: McDonald's Corporation, Attn: Jim Skinner and Don Thompson, 2111 McDonald's Dr., Oak Brook, IL 60523.]
McDonald's COO Don Thompson
Changeable, male homosexuality is not “who you are” but is more rightly understood as a high-risk perversion – as evidenced by its disproportionately high linkage to various sexually transmitted diseases including HIV. (The “rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men,” the CDC reported in March. “The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men,” it reported.) Getting by on the technicality that this youth-corrupting ad is only running in another (more decadent, less religious) country is the coward’s way out of a shameful PR disaster for the fast-food behemoth. And that defense has only alienated both sides of the debate: pro-”gay” advocates are upset that the McDonald’s-France commercial is not running in the U.S.
McDonald’s and its CEO, Jim Skinner (and COO Don Thompson) owe an apology to French moms and dads — and French young people — for promoting the unnatural, disease-producing homosexual lifestyle to French boys as some kind of innocuous, natural — and “cool” — identity. Until that apology comes, I am avoiding the famed Golden Arches. If you join me, it will be one of the healthiest corporate boycotts you ever engage in — but please make sure that you pay a visit to your local McDonald’s manager and franchise owner — to personally inform them of the reason that you are not eating there anymore. (Show them the YouTube ad.) Then they can relay your message of concern up the corporate ladder.
Thanks for standing up for moral sanity and truth against Corporate America’s increasingly brazen promotion of sexual immorality, in the name of that modern, Orwellian euphemism, ”diversity.” – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
P.S. Memo to pro-homosexuality activists: if you want to negate our boycott: have at it! The Big Macs, fries and Quarter-Pounders, dripping with grease and loaded with fat-producing calories, are there to be eaten. Here’s a caloric rundown of some popular McDonald’s menu items, courtesy of Shapefit.com:
Big Mac: 570 calories
Quarter Pounder: 430 (w/cheese: 530 c.)
Large French Fries: 540 c.
Crispy Chicken Deluxe Sandwich: 500 c.
File-O-Fish Sandwich: 470 c.
Big Xtra! Hamburger: 710 c. (w/ cheese 810 c.)
Oreo McFlurry: 570 c.
Sausage McMuffin w/ Egg Sandwich: 440 c.
Chicken McNuggets 9-piece: 430 c.
_______________________________________________________
Here is a clearer YouTube version of the McDonald’s ad (after it starts playing, you may need to close the “Google Ads” box so you can better view the English subtitles):
_______________________________________________________
Tribune Interview with McDonald’s COO Don Thompson:
Excerpt from Chicago Tribune reporter Michael Oneal’s June 13, 2010 interview with McDonald’s COO Don Thompson. Note that Thompson’s response begs the question: just what are McDonald’s “core values” if they include promoting the acceptance of youth homosexuality to the wider culture? (Emphasis added below:)
Tribune: A French TV ad featuring a gay teen and his father has stirred some controversy — not there, but here. Can you talk about that?
Thompson: It is an example that markets, cultures are very different around the world. (For instance), I’ve never shied away from the fact that I’m a Christian. I have my own personal beliefs and I don’t impose those on anybody else. I’ve been in countries where the majority of the people in the country don’t believe in a deity or they may be atheist. Or the majority of the country is Muslim. Or it may be the majority is much younger skewed. So when you look at all these differences, it’s not that I’m to be the judge or the jury relative to right or wrong. Having said that, at McDonald’s, there are core values we stand for and the world is getting much closer. So we have a lot of conversations. We’re going to make some mistakes at times. (We talk) about things that may have an implication in one part of the world and may be the cultural norm in another part of the world. And those are things that, yes, we’re going to learn from. But, you’re right, that commercial won’t show in the United States.
Tribune: How has it done in France?
Thompson: Interestingly enough, there have been no negatives coming out of France. The brand is a local brand and different things will occur in different parts of the world. We just have to make sure that we understand the impact one action may make on another part of the world.
_________________________________________________
[TAKE ACTION: You can write McDonald's HERE or call 1-800-244-6227; or write: McDonald's Corporation, Attn: Jim Skinner and Don Thompson, 2111 McDonald's Dr., Oak Brook, IL 60523.]
_________________________________________________
McDonald’s-France Reply to American Customer Concerned over Pro-Homosexual Ad
The following letter was sent by McDonald’s France in response to an American customer who wrote to express his concern over the corporation’s homosexuality-affirming TV ad:
July 5, 2010
Mr. ________________,
I have received your letter regarding our advertising film “Come as You Are.”
The ad you’re referencing is one of a series of ads called “Come as You Are” which recognizes the diversity of McDonald’s customers in France.
The campaign was designed to communicate the true McDonald’s experience in France: a place where you can be yourself, whatever your state of mine, your background; a place where you can feel free of constraints, a place where you can ‘Come as You Are.’ Since its launch, the campaign has acheived high awareness and it has been received positively by the majority of the French public.
The goal with this new phase of the campaign is to continue to build on the emotional connection created between the brand and the French [public. By] going beyond a simple description of our customers we actually tell their stories, capturing their personality and their emotions.
Through these films McDonald’s pays tribute to the diversity of its customers and the richness of their stories.
I hope you’ll better understand the aim of your [sic] “Come as You Are” communications campaign.
Your [sic] sincerely,
Nathalie Febvre
Customer Services Department
McDonald’s France Services
LISTEN: Part One – AFTAH Interview with John McCartney and Wayne Lela
July 23rd, 2010Two men share truth about homosexuality with Chicago college students
HOW TO LISTEN: This is an mp3 file. Left click once on this link to play (more instructions at bottom) : 7-17-10, John McCartney & Wayne Lela, All
In this interview (Part One of two), which aired Saturday, July 17, 2010, AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera talks in studio with John McCartney and Wayne Lela – two Chicago men who have a unique “ministry” of going to local Chicago colleges and universities and educating students about homosexuality and “gay” activism. They do this from a pro-natural-family perspective that most young people rarely hear. For that they have been harassed by liberal professors — among other trials — but they persevered and have now gained entry on to all the Chicago-area public colleges, which cannot legally engage in viewpoint discrimination.
In the interview, McCartney discusses the way “brainwashing” works on this issue — censoring negative information about homosexuality while demonizing opponents of the “gay” agenda. Lela (who as an agnostic is not a member of the so-called “Religious Right”) formed a group called HOME, Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment. McCartney is a retired English teacher and committed Catholic living in Chicago who has long served both the pro-life and pro-family causes. Both men will be attending AFTAH’s upcoming Truth Academy Aug 5-7, to be held at the Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights, IL.
In this (Part One) interview, the two discuss the reactions of students to their work — and how Chicagoland newspapers seem to be cutting back on printing letters-to-the-editor that are critical of homosexuality — which would be consistent with the increasingly censorious posture of Chicago’s major media, which generally are very pro-”gay.” Lela and McCartney deserve our commendation. There are millions upon millions of people who affirm the truth that homosexual behavior is wrong, destructive, unnatural and changeable. But there are precious few like these two men who actually contend for this truth in the public square — and especially with students who, as they say, are “brainwashed” by the non-stop pro-homosexual propaganda in the media and popular culture.
HOW TO LISTEN: This is an mp3 file. Left click once on the link below to play. (Please be patient, depending upon the speed of your internet connection it may take a moment or two to load.) OR right click the link then “save target as” to download the whole show.
7-17-10, John McCartney & Wayne Lela, All
‘People For the American Way’ Calls AFTAH Truth Academy ‘Hatefest’
July 22nd, 2010
Oftentimes when activists on the Left have no evidence that something they disagree with is actually ”hateful,” they just label as such anyway, and then repeat themselves ad nauseam so that we’ll all get the message that said conservative activity is, well, “hateful.” Here is People for the American Way (PFAW) “Senior Fellow” Kyle Mantyla’s trenchant analysis of AFTAH’s Truth Academy curriculum:
“Peter LaBarbera has unveiled the instructor list and official curriculum for his upcoming three day anti-gay hatefest/”truth academy” … and it is pretty much going to be the gay-hatingest thing you have ever seen.”
Wow. “Gay-hatingest.” Reactionary liberals are expanding their smear-term lexicon. Seriously, though, most people on the Left are not quite willing, yet, to define anyone who disagrees with homosexuality as “hateful” — although they might call them “homophobic” (an artificial construct whose elastic definition has evolved to meet the needs of pro-”gay” liberals). I’m sure there are exceptions, but I suspect that most “gay”-affirming people would not automatically label anyone who believes that homosexuality is immoral — or that homosexual sex is unnatural – as “haters.”
However, if you reflect that moral opposition in the public square — if you defend the age-old position that homosexuality is wrong – then suddenly you become, yes, “hateful.” Hard to win that argument: ME: pro-gay, loving and tolerant. YOU: anti-gay, hateful and intolerant. Is this what now passes for discourse in dumbed-down America? Give me the old-fashioned liberals who might disagree with AFTAH’s beliefs forcefully but who at least understand that name-calliing is no substitute for an argument.
Morality is not “hate” and defending the historic Judeo-Christian sexual ethic is not “bigotry.” Homosexuality is wrong, and a controversial moral and religious issue involving behavior. It is wholly unlike race: there are no “ex-Blacks” or “ex-Asians”; there are thousands of former homosexuals — people like our Truth Academy instructor Greg Quinlan, who once considered himself “gay” before leaving the lifestyle. The evidence is overwhelming that homosexual practice — especially among men — is a big factor in the spread of diseases like HIV. In a free society, we debate moral issues, and we discuss public health issues arising from dangerous behaviors. Does PFAW hold that it is OK to crusade for acceptance of homosexuality, but “un-American” and ”hateful” to oppose it civilly?
Maybe “Senior Fellow” Kyle, who edits PFAW’s “Right-Wing Watch” blog, and his pro-homosexual allies can explain it for us: Is every American who opposes homosexuality hateful — or just those who defend that position in public? When does moral disagreement become “hate”? (I know, I’m a fool for trying to reason with the Left….)
Meanwhile, below are the Truth Academy curriculum and speakers, not one of whom has a hateful bone in his or her body. Please spread the word on this wonderful opportunity to educate citizens about an activist movment that reveals its own brand of hatred and bigotry – and intellectual bankruptcy — by castigating its critics and Judeo-Christian morality itself as “hateful.” – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
P.S. We’ve just learned that the “loving and tolerant” folks over at (Marxist) Gay Liberation Network — whose intemperate rhetoric might make even PFAW blush (see GLN applauding the firing of a Catholic professor HERE) – are planning to picket the Truth Academy.
___________________________________________
Americans For Truth Academy
Tentative Speakers Schedule
Thursday, August 5 – Saturday, August 7, 2010
Location: Christian Liberty Academy, 502 W. Euclid Ave., Arlington Heights, IL 60004;
Cost: Adults: $149 for 3-day conference; Single day rate: $50/day; Married couples discount: $199 for full conference; Youth: $99 (scholarships available to attendees ages 14-25)
Contact info/queries/RSVP: E-mail americansfortruth@gmail.com ; phone: 630-717-7631; more background information HERE.
________________________________________________
THURSDAY
Welcoming Remarks, Peter LaBarbera, President, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality: “From gay pride to gay tyranny”
10:10 – 11:10 – Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty University School of Law: “History of modern ‘gay’ activism and the courts”
11:20-12:20 – Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel; Board Member, AFTAH: “Masculine Christianity: a non-defensive approach to the Culture War over homosexuality”
1:20-2:20 – Ryan Sorba, Young Conservatives of California: “The ‘born gay hoax”
2:30 – 3:30 – Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute: “Using reason and logic in answering pro-homosexuality arguments”
3:40-4:40 – Arthur Goldberg, JONAH (Jews Offering Healthy Alternatives to Homosexuality), author, Light in the Closet: Torah, Homosexuality, and the Power to Change: “Can gays change? Is gay parenting good for kids? Presenting the research on homosexuality”
4:50-6:00 – PANEL DISCUSSION and Q & A:
Theme: “Can the effort to ‘mainstream’ homosexuality in American culture be stopped?”
Panelists: Rena Lindevaldsen, Matt Barber, Laurie Higgins, Ryan Sorba, Arthur Goldberg, and Greg Quinlan, Cliff Kincaid; Moderator: Peter LaBarbera
7:45 – 9:15 – Greg Quinlan, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX); Pro-Family Network: “An Ex-Gay Christian Discusses Love, Truth and Homosexuality”
FRIDAY
9:00 – 10:00 – Cliff Kincaid, America’s Survival, Accuracy in Media: “The battle over blood: ‘gay’ health risks and public policy”
10:10 – 11:10 – Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty University School of Law: “The zero-sum game: homosexuality-based ‘rights’ vs. religious and First Amendment freedoms”
11:20-12:20 – Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute: “Corrupting children, politicizing schools: the homosexual youth agenda”
1:20-2:20 – Arthur Goldberg, JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality: “The gender confusion agenda: ‘transgender rights’”
2:30 – 3:30 – Prof. Robert Gagnon, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary: “From abomination to ‘gay’: answering ‘queer theology’ — Old Testament”
3:40-4:40 – Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty U. School of Law: “The legal strategy to stop homosexual ‘marriage’: triumphs and pitfalls”
5:00-6:00 – PANEL DISCUSSION and Q & A:
Theme: “Returning the debate to behavior – getting off the ‘GLBT’ playing field”
Panelists: Rena Lindevaldsen, Matt Barber, Laurie Higgins, Ryan Sorba, Arthur Goldberg, Cliff Kincaid, Robert Knight, Robert Gagnon, Gregg Quinlan; Moderator: Peter LaBarbera
7:45 – 9:15 – Robert Knight, Coral Ridge Ministries; author, Radical Rulers: The White House Elites Who Are Pushing America Towards Socialism: “From destroying DOMA to homosexualizing the military: Obama’s radical homosexual/transsexual agenda for America”
SATURDAY
9:00 – 10:00 – Prof. Robert Gagnon, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary: “’Jesus never said anything about homosexuality’”: answering ‘Queer Theology’ — New Testament”
10:10 – 11:10 – Robert Knight, Coral Ridge Ministries: “Destructive legacy: Alfred Kinsey and the (Homo)Sexual Revolution”
11:20-12:20 – Greg Quinlan, PFOX, Pro-Family Network: “The big, pink plan for a lavender culture”/”How to lobby effectively”
1:20-2:20 – Cliff Kincaid, America’s Survival; Accuracy in Media: “Combating pro-homosexual media bias, confronting pro-gay ‘conservatives’”
2:30-3:40 – Prof. Robert Gagnon, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary: “Agreeing with God: a truly biblical approach toward ‘out and proud’ homosexuality”
3:50-4:50 – Ryan Sorba, Young Conservatives of California: “Confronting the zeitgeist: new strategies to turn around younger Americans on ‘gay rights’”
5:00-6:00 – Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel, AFTAH Board Member: “Don’t Ask, Don’t Bleed: stopping Obama’s campaign to homosexualize the U.S. military”
6:00-6:20 – Closing remarks, Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth
AFTAH ‘Truth Academy’ Curriculum and Speakers Schedule Aug. 5-7
July 21st, 2010Americans For Truth Academy
Tentative Speakers Schedule
Thursday, August 5 – Saturday, August 7, 2010
Location: Christian Liberty Academy, 502 W. Euclid Ave., Arlington Heights, IL 60004;
Cost: Adults: $149 for 3-day conference; Single day rate: $50/day; Married couples discount: $199 for full conference; Youth: $99 (scholarships available to attendees ages 14-25)
Contact info/queries/RSVP: E-mail americansfortruth@gmail.com ; phone: 630-717-7631; more background information HERE.
Truth Academy Instructors:
- Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel ; Board Member, AFTAH
- Cliff Kincaid, America’s Survival; Accuracy in Media
- Prof. Robert Gagnon, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, author, The Bible and Homosexual Practice
- Arthur Goldberg, Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality (JONAH), author, Light in the Closet: Torah, Homosexuality, and the Power to Change
- Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute
- Robert Knight, Coral Ridge Ministries; author, Radical Rulers: The White House Elites Who Are Pushing America Towards Socialism, keynote presenter
- Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
- Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty University School of Law
- Greg Quinlan, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX); Pro-Family Network
- Ryan Sorba, Young Conservatives of California
_______________________________________________________
THURSDAY, AUGUST 5 (Day One)
All presentations are 45 minutes followed by 15 minutes of Q & A. There will be a panel discussion and Q & A on Thursday and Friday, and a special evening presentation each of those evenings.
8-9:30 – Light breakfast; Registration
9:30 – 10:00 – Opening Prayer, Calvin Lindstrom, pastor, Church of Christian Liberty;
Welcoming Remarks, Peter LaBarbera, President, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality:
“From gay pride to gay tyranny”
10:10 – 11:10 – Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty University School of Law:
“History of modern ‘gay’ activism and the courts”
11:20-12:20 – Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel; Board Member, AFTAH:
“Masculine Christianity: a non-defensive approach to the Culture War over homosexuality”
12:20-1:20 – Lunch Break; light lunch provided
1:20-2:20 – Ryan Sorba, Young Conservatives of California:
“The ‘born gay hoax”
2:30 – 3:30 – Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute:
“Using reason and logic in answering pro-homosexuality arguments”
3:40-4:40 – Arthur Goldberg, JONAH (Jews Offering Healthy Alternatives to Homosexuality), author, Light in the Closet: Torah, Homosexuality, and the Power to Change:
“Can gays change? Is gay parenting good for kids? Presenting the research on homosexuality”
4:50-6:00 – PANEL DISCUSSION and Q & A:
Theme: “Can the effort to ‘mainstream’ homosexuality in American culture be stopped?”
Panelists: Rena Lindevaldsen, Matt Barber, Laurie Higgins, Ryan Sorba, Arthur Goldberg, and Greg Quinlan, Cliff Kincaid; Moderator: Peter LaBarbera
Special Thursday evening presentation (Q & A will follow talk):
7:45 – 9:15 – Greg Quinlan, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX); Pro-Family Network:
“An Ex-Gay Christian Discusses Love, Truth and Homosexuality”
__________________________________________________________________________
FRIDAY, AUGUST 6 (Day Two)
8:00-9:00 – Light breakfast; Registration
9:00 – 10:00 – Cliff Kincaid, America’s Survival, Accuracy in Media:
“The battle over blood: ‘gay’ health risks and public policy”
10:10 – 11:10 – Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty University School of Law:
“The zero-sum game: homosexuality-based ‘rights’ vs. religious and First Amendment freedoms”
11:20-12:20 – Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute:
“Corrupting children, politicizing schools: the homosexual youth agenda”
12 :20-1:20 – Lunch Break; light lunch provided
1:20-2:20 – Arthur Goldberg, JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality:
“The gender confusion agenda: ‘transgender rights’”
2:30 – 3:30 – Prof. Robert Gagnon, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary:
“From abomination to ‘gay’: answering ‘queer theology’ — Old Testament”
3:40-4:40 – Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty U. School of Law:
“The legal strategy to stop homosexual ‘marriage’: triumphs and pitfalls”
5:00-6:00 – PANEL DISCUSSION and Q & A:
Theme: “Returning the debate to behavior – getting off the ‘GLBT’ playing field”
Panelists: Rena Lindevaldsen, Matt Barber, Laurie Higgins, Ryan Sorba, Arthur Goldberg, Cliff Kincaid, Robert Knight, Robert Gagnon, Gregg Quinlan; Moderator: Peter LaBarbera
Special Friday evening keynote presentation (Q & A will follow talk):
7:45 – 9:15 – Robert Knight, Coral Ridge Ministries; author, Radical Rulers: The White House Elites Who Are Pushing America Towards Socialism:
“From destroying DOMA to homosexualizing the military: Obama’s radical homosexual/transsexual agenda for America”
__________________________________________________________
SATURDAY, AUGUST 7 (Day Three)
8:00-9:00 – Light breakfast; Registration
9:00 – 10:00 – Prof. Robert Gagnon, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary:
“’But Jesus never said anything about homosexuality’”: Answering ‘Queer Theology’ — New Testament”
10:10 – 11:10 – Robert Knight, Coral Ridge Ministries:
“Destructive legacy: Alfred Kinsey and the (Homo)Sexual Revolution”
11:20-12:20 – Greg Quinlan, PFOX, Pro-Family Network:
“The big, pink plan for a lavender culture”/”How to lobby effectively”
12:20-1:20 – Lunch Break; light lunch provided
1:20-2:20 – Cliff Kincaid, America’s Survival; Accuracy in Media:
“Combating pro-homosexual media bias, confronting pro-gay ‘conservatives’”
2:30-3:40 – Prof. Robert Gagnon, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary:
“Agreeing with God: a truly biblical approach toward ‘out and proud’ homosexuality”
3:50-4:50 – Ryan Sorba, Young Conservatives of California:
“Confronting the zeitgeist: new strategies to turn around younger Americans on ‘gay rights’”
5:00-6:00 – Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel, AFTAH Board Member:
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Bleed: stopping Obama’s campaign to homosexualize the U.S. military”
6:00-6:20 – Closing remarks, Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth
Will Elena Kagan Be a Social ‘Leftist-for-Life’ on Supreme Court?
July 20th, 2010
- The judicial confirmation process has become a spectacle almost as comical as one of Al Franken’s (D-MN) jokes. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was not grilled on whether she believes Americans have a First Amendment right to oppose homosexuality — i.e., whether their religious and moral liberties are overridden by “sexual orientation” laws.
“Kagan did not deny that her application of Harvard’s ['sexual orientation' nondiscrimination] policy would have excluded the Catholic Church.” –CNSNews.com, reporting on Kagan’s confirmation hearing
By Peter LaBarbera
Solicitor General Elena Kagan has been confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 13-6 vote — after hypocritically dodging and weaving her way through the farce that now masquerades as the judicial confirmation process. Sen. Lindsey Graham (SC) was the lone Republican to vote for her — despite the fact that South Carolina is conservative while Kagan is the ideological cousin of our elitist, far-left president. (Click HERE for the MassResistance report on Kagan’s pro-homosexual record at Harvard.)
Kagan’s future now rests with the Democrat-dominated Senate — where most pundits (betting on listless GOP opposition) expect her to win confirmation; the vote is expected to come in early August.
Americans now face the prospect of a radically pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality social Leftist-for-Life sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court, potentially for 30 or more years. In just 105 days, on Election Day (Nov. 2), U.S. citizens will be able to cripple Barack Obama’s power — a day anticipated by millions of citizens outraged over his arrogant and reckless presidency. In two more years, Obama could be voted out of office a la Jimmy Carter.
Not so with Kagan. Unless Republicans summon up the guts to actually block her via filibuster (don’t bet on it), she likely will soon become Justice Kagan until she retires at an old age. There, if her past is any indication, one day she will vote to create a new “fundamental right” of “same-sex marriage” out of an “evolving” Constitution – all the while protecting that old make-believe “constitutional right,” sacrosanct to liberals, of abortion-on-demand. (See this Omaha World-Herald story on Kagan’s manipulation of expert testimony in the Clinton administration to fight legislative attempts to ban the gruesome practice of partial-birth abortion.)
And why not? The same Supreme Court that upheld anti-sodomy laws as constitutional in Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986 struck them down as unconstitutional just 17 years later in Lawrence v. Texas. Will the same fate befall laws and state amendments banning “same-sex marriage”? Could a Justice Kagan be in the minority in a Court decision that rejects homosexual “marriage” (in its current conservative-vs.-liberal composition) — and then be in a majority that later overturns that decision, as happened with homosexual sodomy laws?
There hasn’t been ”rule of law” in America for decades, at least as it was understood by our Founding Fathers, and they knew a thing or two. The best evidence of that — and, indeed, of the folly of the U.S. legal system – is our national difficulty in banning what is essentially legalized infanticide (partial-birth abortion; see description of this killing procedure HERE). How appropriate that Kagan herself played a central role in that — essentially the legal preservation of infant murder. (Perhaps she will find her ideological soulmate in current Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who strayed off the “pro-choice” talking points in a racist interview comment about Roe v. Wade: ”I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”)
Rule of Law?
Without a foundation in transcendent moral truth and biblically-based (Judeo-Christian) justice, “constitutional law” becomes whatever liberals (or libertarians) interpret it to be, according to the whims of the age and as long as they can muster a one-vote majority. Remember the Boy Scouts of America — who came within a single vote of being forced to allow homosexuals as Scoutmasters despite the Scouts’ “morally straight” oath? These are the sorts of cases Kagan could be deciding for decades — subjectively applying her liberal “empathy” standard per Obama’s mandate.
(Whenever I hear a liberal like Obama talk about “empathy,” I wonder where it disappeared to regarding the protection of the unborn – who are slaughtered in the womb in the name of adult “choice” because it would be inconvenient for them to be born. Never allow yourself to be intimidated by liberals pontificating on ”compassion” — they generally show greater “empathy” for the lives of death-row inmates guilty of committing heinous crimes than unwanted innocent babies in the womb. On the homosexuality issue, liberals are quite willing to encourage homosexual sex, which leads to “gay” men dying young, so great is their compassion.)
Solicitor General Elena Kagan
Given her long record of social radicalism — including harassing the U.S. military as Harvard dean because the latter would not allow homosexuals to serve — it’s not too difficult to predict how a Justice Kagan would behave on the Court. As Sen. Grassley states below, Kagan even wants to incorporate “international law” into America’s jurisprudence — and we know the result of ”sexual orientation” laws in countries like Britain and Canada. Both nations are becoming pro-homosexuality police states — arresting Christians for preaching publicly against sexual sin — even merely for expressing “anti-gay” ideas. Will America follow those laws? Will we honor and respect the European Union’s legal precedents? (See this European Parliament press release on “transgender” rights.)
The following is Sen. Charles Grassley’s (R-IA) statement of opposition to Kagan, followed by an article reprinted from CNSNews.com. The latter item illustrates the perils of pro-homosexuality “nondiscrimination” law. We wish Senators had demanded more answers from Elena Kagan on the “zero-sum” game between religious and First Amendment liberties and “gay rights” — because if she is confirmed she could become a leader on the court of Justices willing to impose their version of morality on Christians and others who refuse to lend legitimacy to homosexual practice.
Lastly, why is that Republicans so often fail to pull out all the stops in opposing a dangerous left-wing ideologue like Kagan. As Randy Thomasson writes HERE, the GOP could have upped the ante and refused to vote out Kagan — using a little-known provision that requires at least one minority member vote to approve a nominee out of committee after a member moves to block the vote. Maybe it would have only stalled the nomination further — but that’s what the Left would try to do were this a Republican-appointed nominee with a history of right-wing activism at a major university!
The Republican Party could do the nation a big favor by using the Kagan nomination to educate the nation on Obama’s extremist policies and goals. That way, even if she wins confirmation, they would undermine Obama’s potential to do further damage. But as is typical in these situations, the Democrats play hardball while the Republicans play wiffle ball. And unless they grow a backbone and quick, they’re about to strike out again by not doing everything possible to stop Kagan’s undeserved assent to the highest court in the land. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
____________________________________________
Sen. Grassley’s Opposition Statement on Kagan:
Senator Chuck Grassley released the following statement regarding his vote on Elena Kagan to be an Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court:
“Since the nomination hearing for Solicitor General Kagan ended, I have spent time reviewing the hearing record. Thorough consideration has led me to conclude that I cannot vote for Solicitor General Kagan to be the next Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court.
“In her hearing testimony, Solicitor General Kagan failed to answer directly many of the questions posed to her. This was extremely disappointing, especially since she previously took the position that Supreme Court nominees should be forthcoming in their answers on substantive issues. Because she has no previous judicial experience, candid answers were essential for us to ascertain whether she has the appropriate judicial philosophy.
“Solicitor General Kagan’s record shows that she allows her politics and personal views to steer her legal thinking and takes an outcome-based approach when analyzing cases. She also has praised jurists who endorse an activist judicial philosophy. At the hearing, she declined to fully commit to upholding the constitution when it came to the Second Amendment. She appeared reluctant to recognize any constitutional limits on federal power, and also indicated that she would use international law for ‘good ideas’ when making decisions on the bench.
“Solicitor General Kagan is an accomplished political lawyer, but my vote must be based on the nominee’s ability to be an impartial jurist who would exercise judicial restraint and strictly adhere to the Constitution. Based on the record and the nomination hearing, I am not convinced that Solicitor General Kagan will be able to shed her deeply held personal ideological beliefs, political views and experiences, and check those biases at the door of the Supreme Court. Therefore, I must vote against her nomination.”
____________________________________________
CNSNews story:
Kagan Dodges Question On Whether Catholic Recruiters Would Be Banned from Harvard
Friday, July 02, 2010
By Matt Cover, Staff Writer
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/68904
(CNSNews.com) – Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, who banned military recruiters from Harvard Law School’s career services office when she was dean of the school, declined to say whether she would have also banned the Catholic Church from recruiting on campus….
While testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week, Kagan was questioned several times about her decision to ban the U.S. military from Harvard Law School’s Office of Career Services. Kagan maintained that she was merely applying the school’s non-discrimination policy and was not targeting the U.S. military recruiters.
While at Harvard, Kagan prohibited the U.S. military from using school resources because she claimed the military’s ban against open homosexuals – the “don’t ask, don’t tell policy” — violated the school’s policy. The policy says that prospective employers who would recruit on campus cannot discriminate based upon sexual orientation, among other criteria.
On Wednesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asked Kagan whether she would have applied the same policy to the Catholic Church, if it were looking to recruit and hire lawyers on Harvard’s campus.
The Catholic Church does not allow women to become priests, Graham noted. Catholic teaching, incidentally, also says that homosexuality is a moral disorder and the practice thereof cannot be condoned.
Kagan did not deny that her application of Harvard’s policy would have excluded the Catholic Church. The exchange between Sen. Graham and Kagan occurred as follows:
Sen. Graham: “Would it [the Harvard policy] apply to the Catholic Church, if they wanted to come and recruit lawyers from the law school because they don’t have women priests?”
Kagan: “Well, the way we enforced this policy is if an employer comes, we give the employer a form, and the form basically says, ‘I comply with the following policy’ that says, ‘I will not discriminate on the basis of.’ And then it says something like race and creed and gender and sexual orientation and actually veterans’ status as well. And if the employer signs the form, the employer can get the services of the Office of Career Services. And if not, not [get them].”
The Office of Career Services is the office that coordinates between students and prospective employers, and was the office from which Kagan banned the U.S. military and its recruiters.
VIDEO: Will American Christians Learn from Britain’s ‘Gay’ War on Christians?
July 18th, 2010Will Obama, like U.K.’s Tony Blair, usher in ‘gay’ tyranny in the United States?
Former British P.M. Tony Blair used state power to promote the acceptance of homosexuality in the U.K. He is now working to make Christianity "gay"-affirming.
By Peter LaBarbera
I was sent this must-watch CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network) video by my friend Gary Glenn, head of the American Family Association of Michigan. Glenn is backing a civil rights lawsuit by the Thomas More Law Center against Attorney Gen. Eric Holder over the new homosexuality/transsexuality–inclusive “hate crimes” law. This video deserves wide circulation as a warning to America.
The Homosexual Activist Movement, aided and abetted by liberal straights, currently is the greatest threat to religious freedom in the United States. This is because homosexual radicals like lesbian Chai Feldblum (appointed by President Obama as a Commissioner on the E.E.O.C.) believe “gay rights” supersede Americans’ freedom to oppose homosexuality and gender confusion. To quote Feldblum, “Gays win, Christians lose” when the “zero-sum” game of “gay rights” versus religious freedom hits the courts.
More commentary follows the video below:
Already, we in the USA are seeing the same sort of persecution for opposing homosexuality as is occurring in Great Britain, only on a lesser scale. (See University of Illinois story over dismissed Catholic professor Kenneth Howell HERE.) It will only get worse if homosexuality- and transsexuality-based special “rights” are federalized under the proposed “Employment Non-Discrimination Act.”
(A Note on “Islamophobia”: the effort to push for acceptance of Islam — insofar as it becomes official government policy — is also a threat to liberty; however, unlike in the U.K., state punishment of “Islamophobia” in the United States has not reached a fever pitch. But isn’t it interesting how activist Muslims, who reject homosexuality as sinful and bemoan Western promotion of homosexuality, have nevertheless copied the manipulative “gay” tactic of accusing opponents of possessing an irrational “phobia”?)
Willow Creek “Leadership”?
Another key difference between the USA and Britain is that biblical Christianity is much more vibrant and common here, although of course its strength varies geographically. That is why homosexual activists are struggling to “re-interpret” the Word of God and turn it into a “gay”-affirming text. Given the crucial role that churches and pastors (should) have in maintaining our religious freedom, I have another question regarding the CBN video:
Are American churches up to the challenge of defending our precious liberty and their freedom to preach the truth about any sin, including homosexuality, uninhibited by the state?
I wonder, because here in Illinois, one very influential, trend-setting mega-church — Willow Creek Community Church, which holds annual “Leadership Summits” for pastors and Christian leaders — honored former British Prime Minister Tony Blair last year — the very same Tony Blair credited in this CBN video with ushering in a sweeping “gay rights” to the U.K. with its attendant anti-religious persecution.
Not only did Mr. Blair make Britain safe for same-sex immorality, as it were, but he helped establish a legal “anti-discrimination” system that led inexorably to Christians and moral-minded British citizens being investigated and even jailed for “anti-gay” discrimination. See this recent case of a Dale McAlpine, a British evangelist who was arrested for preaching against the sin of homosexuality (the charge against him was ultimately dropped).
As he revealed to British homosexual writer Johann Hari, Blair counts his pro-”gay rights” work as one of his singular achievements. This excerpt of Blair’s 2009 interview with Hari (in the British gay magazine Attitude) is telling:
Hari: You are a very rare example of a person who is publicly very religious, and very pro-gay. Did you ever see a conflict between the two?
Blair: No. Not for me. Because I came to a religious faith through people who were themselves very much open and liberal on all these issues, and who would have regarded it as bizarre to have attitudes of hostility to gay people. I think it would have been, actually, the other way around. If in the end I’d felt that my religious faith was pulling me in an opposite direction, I’d have had real difficulties with it. I think that for all religions, the challenge is how do you extract the essential values of the faith from a vast accumulation of doctrine and practice? For many people, the reason for their religious faith is less to do with the doctrine and practice, and more to do with the values like love of God and love of your neighbour. And one of the things I do through my Foundation, through trying to bring different religious faiths together, to show how, actually, there is a huge common space around these values between the different religious faiths.
Like Obama, Blair conveniently ignores or dismisses biblical texts that might interfere with the noble sense of good that he associates with affirming homosexuality and “equal rights” based on same. Blair, a Catholic convert, once even lectured the pope on the latter’s “entrenched” attitudes about homosexuality.
Tony Blair was a featured speaker (by video) at Willow Creek's 2009 "Leadership Summit." Click on graphic to enlarge. The above is the cover of a DVD of the Summit (see Blair photo at bottom) available on Amazon.com.
Is this the kind of “leadership” that Willow Creek and its charismatic pastor Bill Hybels hope to spread throughout American Christendom, and the world? Blair with his New Age-ish brand of (c)hristianity certainly has “led” on homosexual rights — but doesn’t that mean that he utterly failed to model godly, biblical leadership? Would Hybels agree? Once again it’s that pesky homosexual issue — if we publicly agree with the God of the Bible on this issue, there is a price to pay in worldly fame — one apparently too great for many who still claim the mantle of moral leadership. Just ask Rick Warren, or Dr. Laura Schlessinger, or Tony Blair.
I have not seen Hybels’ 2009 Willow Creek “Leadership Summit” interview with Blair, but I would be surprised if there were any queries about Blair’s enthusiastic state promotion of homosexuality-based “rights” (the very opposite of God-given liberties) — or his campaign to synthesize his socially liberal views on sex and marriage with the historic Christian faith. Clearly, Blair was honored by Willow Creek, and Christians and lovers of religious and moral freedom everywhere have the right to ask: why?
As AFTAH readers know, in 2008 this writer and another pro-family advocate picketed Willow Creek church after its leadership agreed to meet with the homosexual activist group Soulforce. (Would WCCC also meet with pro-pornography activists demanding a meeting?) At issue is the nature of Willow Creek’s and Hybels’ “leadership” in Christian circles. It should be remembered that Willow Creek rejected numerous high-level requests to actively assist the 2006 “Protect Marriage Illinois” campaign to place a statewide referendum affirming traditional marriage on the Illinois ballot .
We will be doing more examinations into just what kind of leadership WCCC is exerting — as well as that of the larger evangelical Church — in the cultural sphere of sexual sin and marriage.
______________________________
CBN YouTube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UZVlh3U-kc
Gay Liberation Network Leader Bob Schwartz Applauds U-I’s Firing of Catholic Professor
July 14th, 2010
Gay Liberation Network's Bob Schwartz supports the University of Illinois' firing of Catholic professor Kenneth Howell. Imagine how different his reaction would be if it were a "gay" professor fired for explaining "gay rights" to his students.
I received the following note yesterday from Bob Schwartz, a leader of the Gay Liberation Network in Chicago. Schwartz is a self-described Trotskyite (communist) and is the fellow who bragged that he worked to get AFTAH’s website labeled as a “hate site” by the Southern Poverty Law Center:
From: [Bob Schwartz, Gay Liberation Network]
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 20:55:16 -0400
To: <americansfortruth@comcast.net>
Subject: Kenneth Howell
Here are AFTAH’s two stories on Howell’s firing:Just a note to advise you that I asked the new U of I president to support the termination of antigay bigot “natural law” [Prof. Kenneth] Howell.
Bob Schwartz
Here is my reply to Schwartz:
From: [Peter LaBarbera} americansfortruth@comcast.net to [Schwartz]
Date: July 13, 2010
Subject: Re: Kenneth HowellBob…If this happened to a homosexual prof who affirmed gay rights to his students (in a class about the GLBT Movement), you and GLN would be crying “discrimination!” to the media and holding protest vigils at U of I. But I’ve come to expect such hypocrisy from you guys. “Tolerance for me but not for thee.”…
Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
Here are two AFTAH articles on the University of Illinois-Howell termination scandal:
- U. of Illinois’ President Hogan Says Kenneth Howell Firing Under Review
- The E-Mail that Got Dr. Kenneth Howell Fired at U. of Illinois
U. of Illinois’ President Hogan Says Kenneth Howell Firing Under Review
July 13th, 2010
New University of Illinois President Michael Hogan
We have heard from several readers who received the form letter below from University of Illinois President Michael Hogan after writing or calling the University concerning Catholic professor Dr. Kenneth Howell being terminated after explicating Natural Moral Law opposed to homosexuality. Call him at (217)333-6400; or go HERE for more U-I contact info and action steps. Thanks to all of you who took action against this injustice — which we hope will be corrected soon. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
______________________________________________________
—– Forwarded Message —-
From: President Hogan <uipres@uillinois.edu>
To: [---------]
Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 11:45:16 PM
Subject: RE: Sham “Inclusivity” Policy
Dear [--------],
Let me begin by thanking you for expressing your concerns. Academic freedom is at the core of our teaching and research missions. It’s vital to our ability to explore new ideas, educate our students, and promote the civil and free exchange of alternative viewpoints in a democracy.
I learned of this action on the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) campus late last week and immediately asked Chancellor Robert Easter, who oversees the campus, to provide me with a briefing on the matter. I want to assure you that the University administration shares my commitment to the principles of academic freedom. At the same time, we do believe it’s important to fully investigate all of the details related to this situation. As I’m sure you’re aware, it is sometimes the case that public reports may convey only part of the story. I think it important to reserve judgment until I have all of the facts and I hope you’ll agree.
We have asked the UIUC Senate’s standing Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure to immediately review this action. This is the mechanism on the campus through which these matters should be vetted. We expect this review to be completed very soon. By using our channels of shared governance and review, we are in the best position to make informed decisions that afford a fair process for all.
Again, I’m grateful to have heard from you and others about this and I’m grateful for the opportunity to respond. It reaffirms the deep commitment that so many have to the University and public higher education and to ensuring that the University of Illinois continues to be a beacon of excellence, as it should be for the state, the nation, and the world.
Sincerely,
Mike
Michael J. Hogan
President
University of Illinois
The E-Mail that Got Dr. Kenneth Howell Fired at U. of Illinois
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).
LISTEN: Part Two of AFTAH Interview with Ex-Lesbian Linda Jernigan — and Ex-’Gay’ Pastor Roger Ford
July 11th, 2010Homosexual pedophilia leads a man and a woman into homosexuality
Linda Jernigan
Here is Part Two of our interview with Linda Jernigan, which aired July 10, 2010. [see Part One of the interiew HERE.] In the interview, Jernigan, a former lesbian, is joined on air by Pastor Roger Ford, a former homosexual. Their discussion with AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera is fascinating on many levels — not least of which is the fact that both Jernigan and Ford were seduced into homosexuality as underage kids. (Gay activists denounce and ridicule any linkage between pedophilia and homosexuality.)
Jernigan’s real life parallels the awful “Vagina Monologues” play by radical feminist Eve Ensler in which a 13-year-old girl was seduced into lesbianism by a woman who was supposed to be a role model in the community. (In a later version of the play, Ensler changed the victim’s age to 16.) Jernigan tells AFTAH how when she was just 12 years old, a woman who was supposed to be her “mentor” began exposing Jernigan to sexual banter and discussions, and then started asking Jernigan about her sexual feelings. This led to the woman seducing Jernigan into sex and the lesbian lifestyle.
In the case of Pastor Ford, he was “manipulated” into homosexuality by an older teenage boy (age 18) when Ford was 12 or 13. The young man began by complimenting Ford, whose effeminacy made him a social reject. Ford’s father died when he was very young, which he says contributed to him being drawn into homosexuality. Ford and Jernigan (www.RescuingHomosexuals.net) both reach out with the Gospel to people trapped in the homosexual lifesyle, and help them find freedom in Christ.
HOW TO LISTEN: This is an mp3 file. Left click once on the link below to play. (Please be patient, depending upon the speed of your internet connection it may take a moment or two to load.) OR right click the link then “save target as” to download the whole show.
7-10-10, Linda Jernigan & Pastor Roger Ford, All
Why Is Dr. Laura Schlessinger Promoting Homosexuality and PFLAG?
July 9th, 2010Dr. Laura needs to “do the right thing” and support PFOX instead
“[A blog article] supposes that I ever quoted Leviticus that homosexuality is an abomination. That never happened. I repeat: that never happened. I never said that. I don’t believe that….
“In fact, I was one of the earliest radio hosts to support organizations such as PFLAG (you know, Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) and other efforts to encourage openness and acceptance of gays in their own families, much less society.” – Dr. Laura Schlessinger, “Setting My Record Straight about Gays,” June 22, 2010, Schlessinger’s blog
The famous radio host, "Dr. Laura" Schlessinger, now praises the radical homosexual group PFLAG (Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays). In 2000, homosexual militants targeted Schlessinger with a cyber-boycott because she said (correctly) that homosexuality is a "biological error."
TAKE ACTION: Write Dr. Laura Schlessinger through her blog and urge her to stop promoting the homosexual activist group PFLAG. Respectfully ask her to instead support PFOX, a pro-family support group for parents and friends of ex-gays (and gays). Also urge her to refrain from sanctioning homosexual relationships, which are always wrong, and to instead use her powerful voice to support the ex-gay movement. Another way to contact Schlessinger is through her website, DrLaura.com, but you have to join first to e-mail her this way. Or you can write: webmaster@drlaura.com.
The call-in line for Dr. Laura’s radio show is 1-800-DR-LAURA (800-375-2872). (Calls must come between 11:30 and 3:00 PM Pacific Time Monday-Friday.)
______________________________________
By Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
I’m sad to report that Dr. Laura Schlessinger – the “Dr. Laura” of radio moralist fame — has chosen to sell out the truth about homosexuality because she either: 1) stopped believing it; or 2) couldn’t take the pressure or the potential loss of income and prestige resulting from hostile “gay” activism.
Note that I did not say that Schlessinger has sold out on opposing “gay marriage.” She hasn’t, and still publicly defends traditional marriage. But she has reversed course on homosexuality, which is by far the more politically incorrect battle these days. Let’s face it, “protecting marriage” in our “gay”-saturated culture is a much easier task than opposing the extremist homosexual agenda — which Dr. Laura knows better than anyone because she herself was savaged by ’GLBT’ cultural bullies ten years ago for describing homosexuality as unnatural.
(I want to stress that Schlessinger’s retreat on homosexuality does not negate her immense contributions to the culture in teaching people to take responsibility for their own lives, and in helping to build healthy marriages and families. For example, I know just from conversations with friends and family that her book, The Proper Care & Feeding of Husbands, has blessed many women and, by extension, their husbands and marriages.)
‘Gay’ Cyberwar Target
A decade ago, Schlessinger was the target of a “gay” activist cyber-campaign after she referred on her show to homosexuality — not “gay people,” as was widely misreported — as a “biological error.” Of course, Dr. Laura was right: as we’ve noted, Nature itself clearly discriminates against homosexuality; just look at the skyrockeing sexual diseases including HIV among “men who have sex with men.” Or observe the simple biological fact that any child can understand: that two men or two women alone cannot produce a child without borrowing from heterosexuality, as it were.
Indeed, homosexual “equality” can never be more than a mere political slogan.
Because Schlessinger reasonably asserted on radio that homosexual practice is deviant, she and her new TV show were targeted by a vicious homosexual boycott campaign that ultimately led to the TV show being canceled. To get an idea of the massive cyber-boycott unleashed against her, visit the the archive of the website “StopDrLaura.com,” created by homosexual militant and blogger John Aravosis. Going down the list of the StopDrLaura actions and “victories” on their home page is a valuable lesson in the dedication and fanaticism (and cruelty) of homosexual activists. One item even approvingly cites a column by feminist lawyer Gloria Allred speculating on whether the demonized Dr. Laura could have been sued for “discrimination” under California’s “sexual orientation” law for making her remarks critical of homosexuality (see 9/27 item “Could Dr. Laura Be Sued?”).
Homosexaul activists mocked Dr. Laura and took her comments about homosexuality being a "biological error" out of context to demonize the talk show host. Their boycott of Dr. Laura's advertisers led to her TV show being cancelled -- a campaign that surely has had a chilling effect on other radio talk show hosts. This photo -- note the message, "Are you a BIOLOGICAL ERROR?" -- is taken from the "StopDrLaura.com" archive website.
The cyber-boycott worked to perfection, but Schlessinger made it worse by proceeding to take out not one but two full-page ads in the Hollywood newspaper Variety to apologize (as a then-Orthodox Jew) to the “gay community.” If life were fair, it should have been the intolerant ”queer” activists like Aravosis apologizing to Dr. Laura, but unfortunately, politics and cultural warfare often reward bullies. The Variety ads were a pathetic capitulation — especially coming from a tough-talker like Dr. Laura who did nothing wrong. It was sort of like the abused schoolboy paying and praising his tormenters for not stealing his lunch on Friday after they did so every other day of the week.
Chilling effect from rewarding bullies
The StopDrLaura web campaign was the first of its kind targeting a radio talk show host and its success certainly had a chilling effect on other talk shows. As we have often bemoaned, these days even most “conservative” talkers carefullly avoid taking on the homosexual activist movement, and some, like self-described “Happy Conservative Warrior” Mike Gallagher, have thrown up the white flag of surrender on the homosexuality debate. (Curously, Gallagher complains when “conservatives” sell out on issues that he cares about.)
I can almost hear Dr. Laura telling one of her callers: “You never reward bullies.” But that’s exactly what she has done, and she continues the appeasement with her sporadic attempts to disprove a false claim arrising from the cyber-boycott: that she “hates gays and lesbians.” (Memo to Dr. Laura: why even bother to answer this straw-man smear? When you chastise your callers who are practicing adultery or fornication, does that mean you “hate” adulterers and fornicators?)
Promoting PFLAG, promoting homosexuality
As part of her perverse penance, Schlessinger — who once was a convert to Orthodox Judaism but left that religion in 2003 — now champions the radical homosexual organization PFLAG (Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays). PFLAG supports “gay marriage” and promotes the anti-biblical notion that homosexual practice is not sinful; in fact, it expends a lot of resources undermining Scriptural truth about homosexuality and marriage.
PFOX President Greg Quinlan, a former homosexual and one-time “gay” activist, recently outlined some of PFLAG’s anti-Christian activities in his speech to PepsiCo’s shareholders meeting highlighting PepsiCo’s financial support of PFLAG:
PepsiCo, Inc. is the leading corporate sponsor of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, known as PFLAG. PFLAG’s latest publication, a religious guidebook, instructs its members to protest against religious conferences which feature ex-gay speakers like me. PFLAG’s religious guidebook even directs members on how to create picket signs for these protests. It also urges members to hold press conferences and issue press releases against ex-gay religious events “to remind people that there is more than one faith message.”
My church welcomes the ex-gay community. Why does Pepsi fund groups like PFLAG that disrupt Christian events which support former homosexuals like me? Why does PepsiCo fund an organization like PFLAG which issues religious publications urging readers to undermine other religions with which PFLAG disagrees? Why does Pepsi fund hate? Why?
We must ask: why is Dr. Laura giving free publicity to a group that encourages hostility against Bible-believing Christians and wars against God’s wonderful, created order for sex and marriage? In leaving Orthodox Judaism, why did Schlessinger also throw out biblical truths, such as the Old Testament’s prohibition of homosexual acts as an abomination (detestible)? Is Dr. Laura smarter than God?
I have not listened to Schlessinger’s show in a while (she’s not on a major network in Chicago), but I’m concerned with what her 2008 blog post below says about her apparent countenancing of homosexual relationships:
“When I helped a young male caller with his ‘boyfriend’ problems — which are no different in their content from ‘girlfriend’ problems: common sense, fears, communication, I got a spate of letters….”
So it doesn’t matter if a man has a boyfriend or a girlfriend? Really, Dr. Laura? A moralist who purports to defend absolute Bible morality cannot treat homosexual relationships as if they are OK because they are deeply immoral. Instead, she should tell such a homosexual: “You need to get out of that relationship and seek help in abandoning homosexual practice, which is wrong. There are plenty of places to get help, whatever your religious persuasion is, or even if you are not religious.” [See these ex-gay or change-oriented websites: NARTH; First Stone Min.; Exodus International; Regeneration Min.; Charlene Cothran's Evidence Ministries; Linda Jernigan's RescuingHomosexuals.net; and JONAH.]
PFLAG vs. PFOX
PFLAG relentlessly attacks pro-family groups, especially the one that Dr. Laura should be promoting: PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays). PFOX correctly believes that you can love your child without approving of his or her homosexual, bisexual, or “transgender” lifestyle. My friend, PFOX President Regina Griggs, has a homosexual son and she loves him as any mother would her son – I know, because I’ve had many conversations with Regina. She understands — as Dr. Laura surely would agree – that loving your child does not mean accepting everything he or she does. Regina loves her son but will never accept his homosexuality as part of “who he is.” She prays he will join the tens of thousands of “ex-gays” who have left this dead-end lifestyle behind. (Listen to my interview with ex-lesbian Linda Jernigan HERE.)
It’s called “tough love, “and Dr. Laura of all people should understand this concept – which makes it all the more galling that she now promotes the homosexualist group PFLAG with its artificial brand of homosexuality-affirming “love.”
Now that I think of it, I challenge you, Dr. Laura, to invite Regina Griggs to your home and learn a few things about true love, and then give her an on-air interview to compensate for your radio promotion of PFLAG.
PFLAG promotes gender confusion in kids
I wonder if Dr. Laura has an any clue how extreme PFLAG is. In addition to propagandizing for homosexuality, PFLAG recklessly promotes “transgender” identities in children; see their booklet “Our Trans Children” HERE. (“A trans child can be treated with puberty blockers to suppress development of the secondary sexual characteristics of the birth sex.” — p. 5.) Here’s more from PFLAG’s “Our Trans Children” booklet:
“If your child has come out to you [as transgender] before or at the beginning of puberty, you may consider puberty blockers. …They are completely reversible, so if the blockers are withdrawn, puberty begins. This allows your child to mature with their affirmed gender identity or revert back to their birth sex if they desire.If your child is ready for irreversible treatment (usually at 16 years or older) the absence of those unwanted secondary sex characteristics will make their full transition much easier and less expensive. ”
How sad that a woman like Dr. Laura who claims to defend biblical morality, and who has done so much good in urging men and women to stop feeling sorry for themselves and to face their problems head-on, now boasts that she recommends a homosexual organization like PFLAG, which urges parents to “block” their child’s puberty as a way to help the child “transition” into a deviant, unnatural identity.
Who knows how many desperate parents with gender-confused children PFLAG has led astray!
Dr. Laura needs to “do the right thing” (to quote her mantra) and stop pretending that homosexuality is OK and shilling for misguided ‘GLBT’ groups like PFLAG. It will take courage — of the sort she constantly encourages in her callers — but she should switch from supporting PFLAG to supporting PFOX and other groups that affirm God’s natural created design for men and women.
Dr. Laura needs to take personal responsibility for defecting away from truth on the homosexual issue. Pandering to an organized sin movement — however aggressive and skilled it is at intimidating and bullying good people – is not befitting a moralist like Schlessinger who counsels others to obey God and take the tough road toward living right.
Sen. Lugar to Blade: Won’t Oppose Homosexuals in the Military
July 8th, 2010Aide to veteran Republican says he has not issued statement on issue
UPDATE/Note to Readers: I have just called Sen. Lugar’s D.C. office (July 7, 2010) and an aide said that he has NOT issued a statement on the congressional effort to repeal the ban on homosexuals in the military – despite the Washington Blade report cited below. Now is the time for all conservatives — but especially those in Indiana — to contact Lugar and urge him to stay true to conservative principles on this issue. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH.org
___________________________________
TAKE ACTION: Contact Sen. Dick Lugar [202-224-4814; e-mail him HERE] and urge him to oppose the homosexualization of the U.S. military, in a time of war — and to STOP pandering to the Homosexual Lobby. Lugar’s statewide office contact information is at the bottom of this email. Urge Sen. Lugar to support a filibuster of the Defense spending bill, with its provision to repeal the Armed Forces’ sensible homosexuality ban. Please pass this alert on to your friends and family living in Indiana.
A repeal measure passed by the House and contained in the Senate Defense spending bill would inject open homosexuality into the military without even waiting to hear from a (biased) review of the policy by Defense Sec. Robert Gates, which is slated for completion in December. Respectfully urge Sen. Lugar to respect the military by resisting the reckless experimentation with the Armed Forces. For the best information on this issue, go to the Center for Military Readiness website.
__________________________________________
By Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
Well, it appears veteran Sen. Dick Lugar [(202) 224-4814; e-mail him HERE; see statewide office contact info at bottom] is another Republican who has “grown” on homosexual issues — leaving wholesome, conservative Indiana values far behind. If the Washington Blade is to be believed, Lugar is not even willing to wait for Defense Sec. Robert Gates’ biased review on how (not whether) to implement President Obama’s homosexuals-in-the-military plan.
The Blade, a newspaper for homosexuals, reports that Lugar will not support a motion to strike language repealing the ban on homosexuals in the military (“Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell”). Here is an excerpt from the Blade (emphasis added), followed by statewide contact info for Sen. Lugar:
U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) told the Blade last week that he isn’t concerned about the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language in the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill and wouldn’t support an effort to rid the legislation of the provision.
Asked whether he would support a substitute amendment or a motion to strike, Lugar replied, “No. I would just leave it as it is.”
Lugar said he would “presume” that he would vote against any filibuster of the defense bill as a whole, but expressed concern about the legislation being used as a vehicle for other costly programs unrelated to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“The defense bill, as it stands, seems to me to be a good piece of legislation, but I think the issue was the additions that were not paid for in various other ways,” Lugar said.
Often regarded on Capitol Hill as a centrist Republican, Lugar voted in favor of hate crimes protections legislation after twice backing the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said Lugar’s comments on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are “good news.”
“That is consistent with what we have been hearing from his staff,” Sarvis said. “My view is that Sen. Lugar’s response is very encouraging.”
Lugar’s support for allowing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language to stay in the defense bill could be a sign the provision would survive the legislative process once it reaches the Senate floor.
On May 27, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted to attach language leading to repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to the defense bill. But while the repeal language has been attached to the defense bill, a number of obstacles remain that could prevent the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” language from passing in the Senate.
One such obstacle is a filibuster of the defense bill as whole. Additionally, a substitute amendment or a motion to strike could strip the legislation of repeal language.
Mounting a filibuster of the defense bill would take 41 votes in the Senate. Such an effort would be politically challenging because pay for troops and defense programs are included in the larger bill….
_____________________________________
Statewide Offices of Sen. Dick Lugar
Southern Indiana
101 NW Martin Luther King Boulevard
Room 122
Evansville, Indiana 47708
(812) 465-6313 p
(812) 421-1883 f
Northeast Indiana
6384 A West Jefferson Boulevard
Covington Plaza
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46804
(260) 422-1505 p
(260) 424-1342 f
Central Indiana
1180 Market Tower
10 West Market Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
(317) 226-5555 p
(317) 226-5508 f
Northwest Indiana
175 West Lincolnway
Suite G-1
Valparaiso, Indiana 46383
(219) 548-8035 p
(219) 548-7506 f
Washington, D.C.
306 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-1401
(202) 224-4814 p
(202) 228-0360 f
LISTEN: AFTAH Interview with Amy Contrada of MassResistance, Author of Elena Kagan Report
July 6th, 2010
Amy Contrada of MassResistance has exposed the radical pro-homosexual agenda of Elena Kagan (shown above) as Dean of Harvard Law School. Kagan is President Obama's second nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Here is AFTAH’s July 3, 2010 interview with Amy Contrada, Research Director for MassResistance and main author of the MR report, “How Elena Kagan Helped ‘Queer’ Harvard Law School.” Contrada — who has degrees from Tufts and Brown Universities and who once worked as an administrator at Harvard — writes for the MassResistance blog. Working with MR founder Brian Camenker (see AFTAH Camenker interviews Part One HERE and Part Two HERE), Contrada has written extensively on the “gay” activist movement in Boston and has authored an extensive report on radical transsexual rights bill under consideration in Massachusetts. Both Amy and Brian have joined the faculty of the ongoing Americans For Truth Academy.
HOW TO LISTEN: This is an mp3 file. Left click on the link below to play. (Please be patient, depending upon the speed of your internet connection it may take a moment to load.) OR right click the link then “save target as” to download the whole show.
SPECIAL REPORT: Elena Kagan’s Radically Pro-Homosexual, Pro-Transsexual Record at Harvard Law School
June 29th, 2010WARNING: Offensive Language
For the last few weeks I’ve been working with Mass Resistance’s Amy Contrada, who has pulled together a wealth of information about Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s time at Harvard University, where she served as Dean of the Law School. Many will be shocked at just how extreme Harvard has become — and the radical sexual/gender policies advanced by Kagan. Kudos to Contrada and our friends at Mass Resistance for doing the reporting that most in the liberal media refuse to do (because too many agree with Kagan’s left-wing social agenda). And thanks to Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt of the Pray in Jesus Name Project for supporting this work. Please read the full report, which ends with questions that members of the Senate Judiciary Committee should be asking Kagan.
TAKE ACTION: Fax and e-mail the Kagan report to Judiciary Committee members and request that they question Kagan on her full record at Harvard, which is way out of touch with the vast majority of Americans. Click on the names of the individual Committee members HERE and fax to their MULTIPLE offices (D.C. and local); request that the Senator ask Kagan the questions at the end of the report (reprinted below). Do the same to your own two U.S. Senators. (Congress switchboard: 202-224-3121.) – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
Read our Mass Resistance report, “How Elena Kagan Helped “Queer” Harvard Law School (Will she now help “queer” the US Supreme Court’s decisions?)”
- Kagan accelerated and legitimized the GLBT “rights” concept and law studies at Harvard Law School and in the larger university community.
- Kagan encouraged Harvard students to get involved in homosexual activist legal work. At a time when she as Dean pushed students to engage in “public interest law” and to get “clinical” legal experience, the Harvard Law School established the LGBT Law Clinic. How could a “Justice Kagan” on the Supreme Court be impartial involving cases brought by “gay” legal activists — when she so openly advocated for homosexual legal goals and integrating homosexuality into legal studies and practice at Harvard?
- Kagan recruited former ACLU lawyer (and former ACT-UP member) William Rubenstein to teach “queer” legal theory. Few Americans can comprehend the radical nature of “queer” academics. Rubenstein described one of his courses as the taking up of “newer identities (bisexuality, trans, gender[f**k]).” as well as involving “polygamy, S&M [sadomasochism], the sexuality of minors.”
- Kagan promoted and facilitated the “transgender” legal agenda during her tenure at Harvard. In 2007, HLS offered a Transgender Law course by “out lesbian” Professor Janet Halley and Dean Spade, a transsexual activist attorney, both of whom she recruited. (Halley’s extremism and contempt for natural gender boundaries is illustrated by her calling herself a “gay man.”) Kagan also brought in Cass Sunstein (currently Obama’s regulatory czar) who has written in support of polygamy and other free-for-all marriage relationships.
- Kagan engaged in ongoing, radical advocacy opposing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and demanding an end to the ban on homosexuals serving in the military. Her highly partisan actions are unbecoming of a future judge – especially one who would be called upon to adjudicate such weighty and divisive matters.
- Even after Kagan and Harvard lost their legal campaign to ban military recruiters and Harvard Law School was forced to let them back on campus, she encouraged ongoing student protests against them — deputizing the radical Lambda group to come up with ideas of how to harass the recruiters legally. Kagan’s actions blatantly disrespected our military and exposed her as the out-of-touch, socially leftist academic that she is.
- Kagan attended functions of radical homosexual (GLBT) groups at Harvard University, absorbing and apparently agreeing with their goals.
- Kagan followed the wishes of campus homosexual organizations — within a month of meeting with a Harvard GLBT student group, she was agreeing with their demand to ban military recruiters on campus.
- Radical “trans” activism at Harvard: Kagan’s active promotion of the GLBT agenda at Harvard likely accelerated the campus environment that was becoming so “tolerant” of homosexuality and gender confusion that there was even a campaign during her tenure to make the campus “trans inclusive” — using Harvard’s “gender identity” nondiscrimination policy (in place since 2006). This included discussions between GLBT student activists and the law school administration (i.e., Kagan) “to make our restrooms safe and accessible for people regardless of their gender identity or expression.” (Read: allow men who identify as “women” to use female restrooms and locker rooms, etc.)
- As a likely result of Kagan’s activism, Harvard has become so committed to radical transsexual activism that its health insurance policy now partially covers “sex-change” breast “treatment” for transsexuals – either men taking hormones to develop breasts, or women having their healthy breasts removed to become the “men” they believe they are. Where does Kagan stand on transgenderism and transsexuality and the law today?
From the report…
V. Specific questions Kagan should be asked
Involvement with GLBT groups
Kagan was involved with radical GLBT groups at Harvard Law School (HLS Lambda) and the larger university (Harvard Gay & Lesbian Caucus – HGLC).
- Did she then and does she now support their stated goals and viewpoints?
- Kagan said she “was committed to working with Lambda & others” on DADT, gays in military [Oct 2003 Harvard Law Record]. Which other groups was she referring to?
- Does she agree with the awards given by HGLC to Frank Kameny and Kevin Jennings?
- Is there an audio, video or transcript of her remarks at the various radical events she attended or moderated discussions at…?
- Sept, 2003 HLS GLBT reunion (HLS Lambda students voiced their demands there).
- Oct, 2003 HLS Lambda forum on DADT.
- HGLC 25th anniversary celebration. What “LGBT legal developments and trends” were discussed? Which achievements and goals did she agree with?
- 2007 HLS Lambda forum she moderated on gays in the military.
- Several Harvard news accounts refer to her working directly with HLS Lambda to oppose military recruiters on campus. To what extent was she working with them? How often did they meet? Etc.
- Did she attend any other Harvard U or HLS Lambda forums? If so, what was her role?
- Did she attend the Sept 2003 HLS-GLBT alumni dinner as a member of the group?
GLBT-specific law
- To what extent was she a proponent of the GLBT component in the curriculum? Did she approve the LGBT Law Clinic, the GLBT and (specifically) transgender law courses, the publication of the “LGBT Rights Law” career guide (2007)?
- Does she believe this is a legitimate area of the law? That GLBT rights are civil rights? Which rights exactly does this include? Who defines these rights?
- Does Kagan subscribe to Feldblum’s view that homosexuality-based “rights” take precedence over the liberty of people of faith to act on their belief that homosexual practice is wrong?
Transgenderism at Harvard
- Does she agree with Harvard University’s inclusion (2006) of “gender identity” as a protected class of persons? How does she define “gender identity”? What would comprise discrimination against one’s “gender identity”?
- To what extent did she work with transgender activist students and staff in the period from 2003-9? There are references to their working with administrators throughout the university, and specifically the “law school administration to make restrooms safe and accessible” for transgender people.
- Did she approve and/or attend the transgender conferences held by HLS Lambda in 2005 and 2008? Did she meet with the national transgender leaders who have taught at or visited the Law School? (Dean Spade; Mara Keisling)?
- Did she agree with Harvard University Health Services decision to provide hormone treatments (and other “transgender” health demands in 2006) – to be paid for by all members of the community through their insurance premiums? Does she agree with the Health Services 2010 decision to cover breast augmentation (for “male-to-females”) and mastectomies of healthy breasts (for “female-to-males”)? Does she think the Health Services should decide to cover “bottom surgeries” (now under study)?
- Did she know Atty. Noah Lewis (HLS Class of 2005) when she was Dean? Does she know if his current work with the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund? (He is currently pushing Harvard U. Health Services on these transgender health demands.)
- Did she agree with the transgender student demands to use whichever bathroom, locker room, or dorm room they choose (regardless of biological sex, but determined by their self-identified “gender”)?
- Should the military allow transgender and transsexuals to serve?
Read our Mass Resistance report, “How Elena Kagan Helped “Queer” Harvard Law School (Will she now help “queer” the US Supreme Court’s decisions?)”
Pro-Family Legal Groups See Limited Impact in Supreme Court’s Hastings College Ruling against Christian Legal Society
June 28th, 2010Conflict continues between First Amendment and nondiscrimination policies
The following is reprinted from the website of Alliance Defense Fund. Go HERE to read a Christian Legal Society information page on the Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (UC Hastings) case.
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5–4 Monday to uphold an unusual university policy that forces student groups to allow outsiders who disagree with their beliefs to become leaders and voting members. The court confined its opinion to the unique policy and did not address whether nondiscrimination policies in general, which are typical on public university campuses, may require this. The court concluded that public universities may override a religious student group’s right to determine its leadership only if it denies that right to all student groups.
Attorneys with the Christian Legal Society and Alliance Defense Fund represented a student chapter of CLS at California’s Hastings College of the Law in the lawsuit, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. The suit was filed in 2004 after the law school refused to recognize the chapter because the group requires all of its officers and voting members to agree with its basic Christian beliefs.
“All college students, including religious students, should have the right to form groups around shared beliefs without being banished from campus,” said Kim Colby, senior counsel at the CLS Center for Law & Religious Freedom. “Today’s ruling, however, will have limited impact. We are not aware of any other public university that has the exact same policy as Hastings.”
“The conflict still exists. This decision doesn’t settle the core constitutional issue of whether nondiscrimination policies in general can force religious student groups to allow non-believers to lead their groups,” explained ADF Senior Legal Counsel Gregory S. Baylor. “Long-term, the decision puts other student groups across the country at risk, and we will continue to fight for their constitutional rights. The Hastings policy actually requires CLS to allow atheists to lead its Bible studies and the College Democrats to accept the election of Republican officers in order for the groups to be recognized on campus. We agree with Justice Alito in his dissent that the court should have rejected this as absurd.”
The law school’s acting dean went so far as to state in a PBS interview in April that a black student organization must admit white supremacists.
“We believe we will ultimately prevail in this case,” McConnell said. “The record will show that Hastings law school applied its policy in a discriminatory way–excluding CLS from campus but not other groups who limit leadership and voting membership in a similar way. The Supreme Court did not rule that public universities can apply different rules to religious groups than they apply to political, cultural, or other student groups.”
In his dissent, Justice Samuel Alito wrote, “Brushing aside inconvenient precedent, the Court arms public educational institutions with a handy weapon for suppressing the speech of unpopular groups…. I can only hope that this decision will turn out to be an aberration.”
Twenty-two friend-of-the-court briefs from a broad and diverse array of nearly 100 parties were filed with the Supreme Court in support of the CLS chapter, including a brief filed by 14 state attorneys general. Lead counsel Michael W. McConnell, director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, argued before the court on April 19 on behalf of the CLS chapter.
- Christian Legal Society information page on the case
- CLS Senior Counsel Kim Colby: kcolby@clsnet.org or (703) 894-1087
The ADF Center for Academic Freedom defends religious freedom at America’s public universities. ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. The CLS Center for Law & Religious Freedom is the advocacy division of the Christian Legal Society, a nationwide association of Christian attorneys, law students, law professors, and judges.
Americans for Truth
P.O. Box 5522
Naperville, IL 60567-5522
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.
