Maybe you once thought that the left wanted tolerance and diversity, but in reality, tolerance and diversity have never been the goals of the left, especially the radical left. Instead, it wants to suppress and silence opposing views, and the further left you go, the more extreme the intolerance.

For those who have still not come to grips with this, let these recent examples jar you.

It is bad enough that states have been passing legislation banning counseling for minors struggling with same-sex attraction, even if they have their parents’ backing. But now, there are reports that some states are considering banning such counseling for people of any age. (I was informed of this last week by a Christian counselor in California.)

In other words, it could be illegal for a 30-year-old man with unwanted same-sex attractions to go for professional counseling that focuses on helping him deal with and even overcome these attractions. This is a monstrous violation of individual freedom, not to mention a serious misrepresentation of scientific data, as if all “conversion therapy” was harmful.

Taking things one step farther, “A church in Michigan has come under intense attack this month [meaning, February] after posting on Facebook that it was holding a workshop at the church for girls who are struggling with essentially LGBT thoughts.”

So, not even a church is allowed to help its young people who struggle with unwanted same-sex thoughts. I guess freedom of religion and, even more fundamentally, freedom of self-determination only goes so far. How dare a church do such a thing!

The pastor Jeremy Schossau, stated that, “‘It is hard to believe how much vile filth has been sent our way,’ adding that many of the emails contained gay pornography. ‘We’re talking 10,000 emails and posts and messages and phone calls. It’s just been virtually nonstop.’”

Ah, the sweet, gentle voice of tolerance and diversity!

On a very different front, Pamela Geller explained to Milo Yiannopoulos that, “Google has scrubbed all internet searches . . . of anything critical of jihad and Sharia. So, if you Google jihad and you Google Sharia and you Google Islam, you’re going to get Islamic apologetics, you’re going to get ‘religion of peace.’ Whereas my site used to come up top, page one for jihad and Sharia or Islam, or JihadWatch did, you can’t find it now. They scrubbed 40,000 Geller posts of Google.”

She continued, “You know what? It’s Stalinesque.”

Geller wasn’t exaggerating, and her example is just one of many.

But all you have to do is label something as “hate speech” these days, and you can get it removed from social media in a hurry.

A friend of mine had his Facebook page shut down for sharing Bible verses about homosexual practice – I mean verses without commentary.

Another friend had his Facebook page shut down for posting medical data about the health risks associated with homosexual practice.

These are just two examples out of many more, where colleagues have been warned, if not censured and then censored.

Even Joe Rogan, hardly a conservative activist, noted how “squirrely” things have become with “hate speech” labelling on social media. (The context of his comment was his interview with Douglas Murray, himself anything but a conservative activist, noting how Murray’s discussion with atheist Sam Harris was somehow labelled hate speech, thereby in violation of Twitter’s community guidelines.”)

Over at Harvard University, a Christian club has been penalized for daring to live by its biblically-based code for leaders. As reported by Todd Starnes, “A well-respected Christian student organization at Harvard University has been placed on probation after they allegedly forced a bisexual woman to resign from a leadership position for dating a woman.

“The Crimson reports that Harvard College Faith and Action was put on ‘administrative probation’ for a year. The group is largest Christian fellowship on campus.”

So, a Christian club cannot require its leaders (not its members) to live by Christian standards, which begs the question, Could the leader of a campus Islamic club be a professing Christian? Or could the leader of a campus PETA club be a meat-eater? Or could the leader of the campus atheist club be an Orthodox Jew?

By why ask logical questions? The left wants to enforce its intolerant groupthink on everyone else. Leftist tolerance is a myth.

Just consider the recent debate on gun control in the aftermath of the tragic shooting in Parkland, Florida. Regardless of which side of the debate you’re on, was any tolerance shown to Dana Loesch (representing the NRA) at a CNN-sponsored town hall? Not only was she called a murderer and bad mother, but Jake Tapper actually asked her if she and her husband had security to escort them out of the building.

Is it stretching things to imagine that there could have been physical violence against Loesch? We’ve already seen how violent the left can get at places like Berkeley, where “punch a Nazi” becomes the rallying cry.

This doesn’t mean that we respond with violence and anger. God forbid.

But it does mean that we start speaking up more loudly, clearly, fearlessly, and persistently. And in the appropriate ways, as with the new “Internet Freedom Watch” initiative announced by the NRB (National Religious Broadcasters), we fight back.

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org

*Caution: Reader Discretion Highly Advised*

The obscene, sodomy-celebrating, and nasty provocateur; rising GOP star; and Breitbart contributor Milo Yiannopoulos was recently invited to be the keynote speaker at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). Fortunately, his invitation was quickly rescinded when an interview with Joe Rogan from ten months ago came to light in which Yiannopoulos gleefully recounted performing a sex act on a Catholic priest when Yiannopoulos was 14 years old–a sexual act that Yiannopoulos insisted did not constitute pedophilia.

The CPAC invitation and dis-invitation to Yiannopoulos are signs of how corrupt and feckless the conservative movement is becoming. The fact that conservatives would invite Yiannopoulos in the first place is repugnant. His repeated perverse and scatological comments should have rendered him an unsuitable speaker no matter what conservative positions he espouses on issues. It’s dispiriting to know that it took his glib defense of sex between adults and adolescents to compel feckless CPAC leaders to rescind his invitation. This provides yet more evidence that appeasement of homosexuals and acceptance of Leftist positions on homosexuality will only corrupt conservatism.

Two days before he was forced to disinvite Yiannopoulos, Matt Schlapp, president of the American Conservative Union which sponsors CPAC, tried to defend the invitation tweeting, “We think free speech includes hearing Milo’s important perspective.” Seriously? Is Yiannopoulos’ perspective on policy issues so  unique? Surely there are some conservatives who can offer compelling defenses of religious liberty, the rights of the unborn, capitalism, a strong national defense, and free speech without hearty endorsements of homoeroticism and promiscuity.

Yiannopoulos is trying to clean up the mess he created (including losing a book contract) when he said that he doesn’t view his sexual encounter with an adult man as an incidence of pedophilia. He claims that he views molestation as a particularly heinous crime:

“I am a gay man, and a child abuse victim. I would like to restate my utter disgust at adults who sexually abuse minors. I am horrified by pedophilia and I have devoted large portions of my career as a journalist to exposing child abusers.”

Yiannopoulos’ wounds are evident, and we should grieve and pray for him as we should grieve and pray for all victims of childhood abuse, but his public words and actions are harmful to the cause of conservatism and merit criticism.

If his claim that he has exposed child abusers is true, kudos to him. But then why did he say this in his interview with Joe Rogan:

I lived in Hollywood a while ago. I went to… [parties of] people who I won’t name, of a similar stature [to Bryan Singer] in Hollywood. I went to their boat parties and their house parties….some of the things I have seen beggars belief….I don’t want to be indiscreet about specific people because I think it’s going to be dangerous. But I can tell you the truth without dropping anyone in it: Some of the boys there were very young, very young….There was a lot of drugs and a lot of twinks taking drugs and having unsafe sex with older men and some of these boys were very young.

Perhaps some intrepid journalist can ask Yiannopoulos if he reported this child sexual abuse to authorities.

This current Yiannopoulos dust-up confirms what I wrote months ago following his appearance at a  “Gays for Trump” event during which he spoke in front of photographs of hairless, shirtless, skinny young men who look like minors and repeatedly made sexually suggestive comments to off-camera men:

Those within the GOP who understandably seek a bigger tent should stop fawning over the indecent Yiannopoulos simply because he holds some conservative positions and attacks liberals and liberalism. A person who delights in sodomy cannot possibly strengthen a party committed to conservatism. Republicans need to stop being so desperate for the cool kids to like them. The enemy of our enemy is sometimes our enemy.

Exulting in promiscuous homosex is not a sign of conservatism. While Yiannopoulos may expand the Republican tent, he cannot and will not strengthen the Republican Party. He will corrupt it from within like a cancer.

Yiannopoulos is more dangerous to conservatism than is “progressivism.” He especially appeals to Millennials who have already drunk too deeply at the poisoned well that spews forth Leftist dogma on sexuality. Millennials who are becoming more pro-life are at the same time becoming more pro-homosexual. The witty, rebellious, promiscuous, flaming flame-thrower Yiannopoulos will make conservatism “safe” for Millennials who want to preserve their liberal beliefs about sexuality while embracing conservative positions on fiscal issues and defense.

The problem is that a country that no longer recognizes that children need and deserve mothers and fathers, that marriage has a nature central to which is sexual differentiation, and that sexual boundaries matter (including a social taboo against homoeroticism) is a society that cannot and will not long endure. We are a decaying culture, and the left sees our social decay as social justice and progress.

Do I agree with any cultural or political opinions of Yiannopoulos? Yes.

Are his conservative positions exculpatory with regard to the obscene and vicious comments he makes or his giddy endorsement of sodomy? Absolutely not.

Are his conservative sentiments sufficient to justify his invitation to speak at conservative events? Absolutely not.

Matt Schlapp and any other CPAC leaders who supported the invitation to Yiannopoulos should lose their positions within CPAC leadership.