Most people don’t know that men who sexually desire only male children are not homosexual. How can that be, a rational person may ask. The reason is that the “mental health” community, or the segment of it that controls the ever-shifting and highly politicized ground of mental health, has declared that if an adult sexually desires only children they don’t have a “sexual orientation” at all. That is to say, one has a sexual orientation if and only if one enjoys sex with adults. If a man desires sex with only female children, he is not a heterosexual pedophile. He is just a pedophile. If a man desires sex with either female or male children, he is not a “bisexual” pedophile. He is just a pedophile. And if a man desires sex with only male children, he is not homosexual at all. He’s just a pedophile (or pederast depending on how young he likes his prey).

This is why you continue to hear that the priest sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church and the more recently revealed sex abuse scandal in the Boy Scouts had nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality even when the sexual acts were between males and younger males. According to the evil powers that be, these scandals had nothing to do with homosexuality because homosexuality is one of the three “sexual orientations” (i.e., heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual) which one does not have unless one enjoys sex with adults.

While this is a useful stratagem for the Left, those with common sense see it for what it is: a way to distance homosexuality from pedophilia and pederasty (sex between adult males and adolescent boys, which is the most common form of homosexual practice throughout history). It’s a way to retain the belief that pedophilia and pederasty are disorders—both psychological and moral disorders—while jettisoning the notion that homosexuality is either a psychological or moral disorder (Just wait a few years, the normalization of pederasty is just around the ever darkening corner).

And it’s a way of attempting to conceal the fact that these sex scandals were disproportionately homosexual—I mean, they were disproportionately abuses perpetrated by men on boys, which clearly has nothing to do with homosexuality.

This brings me to the Boy Scouts’ new plan for cultivating moral straightness and honor for God: allowing boys who publicly affirm homosexuality as central to their identity to join the Scouts. No, this new policy does not allow openly homosexual adult leaders—yet. But just wait another couple of years for that too.* The prohibition of openly homosexual scout leaders doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of remaining in place. What possible justification can there be for retaining a prohibition of homosexual leaders when the Scouts have necessarily declared homosexuality normative and good?

And that’s precisely what’s happened. This is not a neutral policy. Adopting a policy that permits boys who openly affirm a homosexual identity to become members means that the Boy Scouts Council had to have come to a prior conclusion that homosexual acts are inherently moral. They couldn’t rationally conclude that homosexual acts are immoral and then allow boys who publicly affirm a homosexual identity to become members.

Further, this non-neutral position contradicts the will of God. The Boy Scouts of America now violate their own oath to honor God and cultivate “moral straightness,” all in the service of currying favor with homosexual activists and corporate donors who follow the edicts of homosexual activists like loyal lapdogs.

For those of you who are absolutely certain that sexual encounters between boys will not increase once the Boy Scouts allow openly homosexual boys to share tents with boys to whom they may be sexually attracted, and for those of you who are absolutely certain that early homosexual experiences do not contribute to later same-sex attraction, remember this: The Boy Scouts are implicitly now (and soon likely explicitly) teaching your sons that homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality. And remember, this teaching is not an isolated cultural experience. It compounds and confirms what boys are hearing in the films and television shows they watch, in the “anti-bullying” and sex ed disinformation they receive at school, in the biased mainstream press reporting, and in the public statements of foolish politicians who never read or think deeply on subjects related to homosexuality.

Parents, speak with your words and your deeds. Remove your sons from the Boy Scouts. Send letters to your local chapter leaders and the Boy Scouts Board explaining the reasons for your decision. Actively support and participate in one of the various alternatives that currently exist (see below) or are in the planning stages. Former Scouts, stop contributing. Send your donations instead to one of the following organizations:

Southern Baptist Convention’s Royal Ambassadors 

Assembly of God’s Royal Rangers 

Calvinist Cadet Corps 

CSB Ministries

My father, my husband, and my son were Boy Scouts. My grandsons will not be. These are small sacrifices to make in order to truly honor God.

*Here’s what infamous homosexual activist Wayne Besen, Founding Executive Director of the ironically named Truth Wins Out (TWO), thinks about the new policy:

TWO Condemns Boy Scouts Decision As Cowardly, Incoherent, And Mean-Spirited

Today’s Boy Scout’s decision was insulting and pandered to ignorance and bigotry at the expense of gay people and their families. Allowing gay scouts but not adult scout leaders was a compromise – only in the sense that BSA compromised its integrity and decency. Let’s be clear – this was not a step forward, but a step backward, because it reinforced the most vile stereotypes and misconceptions deliberately peddled by anti-gay activists.

 Today’s decision was degrading, dehumanizing, and disgraceful. It stigmatized LGBT people and their families and sends the dangerous message that they are inferior and a threat to society.

The new policy continues to tarnish the organization’s image and TWO urges increased pressure on the BSA.

Homosexuality is not a moral issue, but a natural expression of who some people are. However, bigotry is a moral issue – one which places the BSA on the wrong side of history.

TWO does applaud those who fought and victoriously ended the cruel ban on gay scouts. Now is the time to begin the next phase of this fight and bring down the final wall of BSA discrimination.

I agree with Besen on two points: The new policy is cowardly and incoherent.

Earlier this week, the presidential inaugural committee announced that President Obama has chosen Richard Blanco to be the 2013 inaugural poet. Blanco, it just so happens, is Hispanic and homosexual. Liberals would label a choice like this “tokenism” if made by a conservative, but let’s  just call it fealty to two of Obama’s critical constituencies.

But that’s not all Obama did this week to pay obeisance to the all-powerful homosexual lobby. He also pressured the evangelical pastor whom he had invited to give the benediction at his inauguration to withdraw.

By now many are aware of what Dr. Al Mohler has colorfully deemed the “Giglio imbroglio.” Rev. Louie Giglio was asked to give the benediction at President Obama’s inauguration as a result of his work to end human trafficking. But yesterday homosexual activists apoplectic over his invitation exposed Giglio’s dark secret, which led the White House to compel him to withdraw from participating in the inaugural ceremony.

And what was Giglio’s sin? His “sin” was preaching a sermon fifteen years ago that expressed theologically orthodox views of homosexuality (gasp). (The more serious issue to the theologically orthodox faith community is why Rev. Giglio has not preached about such an important scriptural issue for  almost two decades, particularly when biblical truth about homosexuality is under sustained assault from virtually every quarter of American public life. And why is he distancing himself now from the words he spoke fifteen years ago?)

Giglio’s compulsory withdrawal wasn’t enough, however, to soothe the savage breasts of homosexual activists—you know, those lovers of tolerance and diversity. The White House had to perform some public penance by tacitly apologizing for ever having invited such a morally flawed man.

Not only has the White House in effect disinvited Giglio, but infamous and unpleasant homosexual activist Wayne Besen has arrogantly demanded that Giglio reveal whether he has “evolved on gay rights.” Dr. Mohler warns us to see to writing on the wall:

The Presidential Inaugural Committee and the White House have now declared historic, biblical Christianity to be out of bounds, casting it off the inaugural program as an embarrassment….[A]nyone who has ever believed that homosexuality is morally problematic in any way must now offer public repentance and evidence of having “evolved” on the question…This is what is now openly demanded of Christians today. If you want to avoid being thrown off the program, you had better learn to evolve fast, and repent in public.

Dr. Russell Moore, Dean of the School of Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, addresses  the serious constitutional issues that this inaugural dust-up reveals:

The statement Giglio made that was so controversial is essentially a near-direct quotation from the Christian Scriptures. Unrepentant homosexuals, Giglio said (as with unrepentant sinners of all kinds) “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” That’s 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Giglio said, “it’s not easy to change, but it is possible to change.” The Bible says God “commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30), the same gospel, Giglio says, “that I say to you and that you would say to me.”…

When it is now impossible for one who holds to the catholic Christian view of marriage and the gospel to pray at a public event, we have a de facto established state church.  Just as the pre-constitutional Anglican and congregational churches required a license to preach in order to exclude Baptists, the new state church requires a “license” of embracing sexual liberation in all its forms….

Notice that the problem is not that this evangelical wants to “impose his religion” on the rest of society.  The problem is not that he wants to exclude homosexuals or others from the public square or of their civil rights. The problem is that he won’t say that they can go to heaven without repentance. That’s not a civil issue, but a religious test of orthodoxy….

We don’t have a natural right to pray at anyone’s inauguration. But when one is pressured out from a previous invitation because he is too “toxic” for simply mentioning once something universal in the Christian faith, we ought to see what we’re looking at: a state church.

Obama’s unflappably cool demeanor and “can’t we all just get along” rhetoric are exposed for the deceits they are by his relentless in-your-face assault on conservative values and religious liberty. He’s not liberal; he’s radical. And he’s not an irenic unifier; he’s a presumptuous and aggressive divider. He’s now using the ceremonial occasion of his inauguration, which should be a moment of national unity, to slap conservatives in the face—no, make that stomp on their faces with mud-encrusted jack boots.

“Woe to those who call evil good
    and good evil,
who put darkness for light
    and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
    and sweet for bitter!”
~Isaiah 5:20

The Public Inauguration of a New Moral McCarthyism

A new chapter in America’s moral revolution came today as Atlanta pastor Louie Giglio withdrew from giving the benediction at President Obama’s second inaugural ceremony. In a statement released to the White House and the Presidential Inaugural Committee, Giglio said that he withdrew because of the furor that emerged yesterday after a liberal watchdog group revealed that almost twenty years ago he had preached a sermon in which he had stated that homosexuality is a sin and that the “only way out of a homosexual lifestyle … is through the healing power of Jesus.”

In other words, a Christian pastor has been effectively dis-invited from delivering an inaugural prayer because he believes and teaches Christian truth.

The fact that Giglio was actually dis-invited was made clear in a statement from Addie Whisenant of the Presidential Inaugural Committee:

“We were not aware of Pastor Giglio’s past comments at the time of his selection, and they don’t reflect our desire to celebrate the strength and diversity of our country at this inaugural. Pastor Giglio was asked to deliver the benediction in large part because of his leadership in combating human trafficking around the world. As we now work to select someone to deliver the benediction, we will ensure their beliefs reflect this administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans.”

That statement is, in effect, an embarrassed apology for having invited Louie Giglio in the first place. Whisenant’s statement apologizes for the Presidential Inaugural Committee’s failure to make certain that their selection had never, at any time, for any reason, believed that homosexuality is less than a perfectly acceptable lifestyle. The committee then promised to repent and learn from their failure, committing to select a replacement who would “reflect this administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance.”

The imbroglio over Louie Giglio is the clearest evidence of the new Moral McCarthyism of our sexually “tolerant” age. During the infamous McCarthy hearings, witnesses would be asked, “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?”

In the version now to be employed by the Presidential Inaugural Committee, the question will be: “Are you now or have you ever been one who believes that homosexuality (or bisexuality, or transsexualism, etc.) is anything less than morally acceptable and worthy of celebration?”

Louie Giglio, pastor of Atlanta’s Passion City Church, is also founder of the Passion movement that brings tens of thousands of Christian young people together to hear Giglio, along with speakers such as John Piper. They urge a rising generation of young Christians to make a passionate commitment to Christ. In recent years, the movement has also sought to raise awareness and activism among young Christians on the issue of sex trafficking. It was that activism that caught the attention of both President Obama and the Presidential Inaugural Committee.

Note carefully that both the White House and the committee were ready to celebrate Giglio’s activism on sex trafficking, but all that was swept away by the Moral McCarthyism on the question of homosexuality.

Two other dimensions of this story also demand attention. First, we should note that Louie Giglio has not been known lately for taking any stand on the issue of homosexuality. To the contrary, Giglio’s own statement withdrawing from the invitation made this clear:

“Due to a message of mine that has surfaced from 15-20 years ago, it is likely that my participation, and the prayer I would offer, will be dwarfed by those seeking to make their agenda the focal point of the inauguration. Clearly, speaking on this issue has not been in the range of my priorities in the past fifteen years. Instead, my aim has been to call people to ultimate significance as we make much of Jesus Christ.”

A fair-minded reading of that statement indicates that Pastor Giglio has strategically avoided any confrontation with the issue of homosexuality for at least fifteen years. The issue “has not been in the range of my priorities,” he said. Given the Bible’s insistance that sexual morality is inseparable from our “ultimate significance as we make much of Jesus Christ,” this must have been a difficult strategy. It is also a strategy that is very attractive to those who want to avoid being castigated as intolerant or homophobic. As this controversy makes abundantly clear, it is a failed strategy. Louie Giglio was cast out of the circle of the acceptable simply because a liberal watchdog group found one sermon he preached almost twenty years ago. If a preacher has ever taken a stand on biblical conviction, he risks being exposed decades after the fact. Anyone who teaches at any time, to any degree, that homosexual behavior is a sin is now to be cast out.

Second, we should note that Pastor Giglio’s sermon was, as we would expect and hope, filled with grace and the promise of the Gospel. Giglio did not just state that homosexuals are sinners — he made clear that every single human being is a sinner, in need of the redemption that is found only in Jesus Christ. “We’ve got to say to the homosexuals, the same thing that I say to you and that you would say to me … It’s not easy to change, but it’s possible to change,” he preached. He pointed his congregation, gay and straight, to “the healing power of Jesus.” He called his entire congregation to repent and come to Christ by faith.

That is the quintessential Christian Gospel. That is undiluted biblical truth. Those words are the consensus of the Church for over 2,000 years, and the firm belief held by the vast majority of Christians around the world today.

The Presidential Inaugural Committee and the White House have now declared historic, biblical Christianity to be out of bounds, casting it off the inaugural program as an embarrassment. By its newly articulated standard, any preacher who holds to the faith of the church for the last 2,000 years is persona non grata. By this standard, no Roman Catholic prelate or priest can participate in the ceremony. No Evangelical who holds to biblical orthodoxy is welcome. The vast majority of Christians around the world have been disinvited. Mormons, and the rabbis of Orthodox Judaism are out. Any Muslim imam who could walk freely in Cairo would be denied a place on the inaugural program. Billy Graham, who participated in at least ten presidential inaugurations is welcome no more. Rick Warren, who incited a similar controversy when he prayed at President Obama’s first inauguration, is way out of bounds. In the span of just four years, the rules are fully changed.

The gauntlet was thrown down yesterday, and the axe fell today. Wayne Besen, founder of the activist group Truth Wins Out, told The New York Times yesterday: “It is imperative that Giglio clarify his remarks and explain whether he has evolved on gay rights, like so many other faith and political leaders. It would be a shame to select a preacher with backward views on LBGT people at a moment when the nation is rapidly moving forward on our issues.”

And there you have it — anyone who has ever believed that homosexuality is morally problematic in any way must now offer public repentance and evidence of having “evolved” on the question. This is the language that President Obama used of his own “evolving” position on same-sex marriage. This is what is now openly demanded of Christians today. If you want to avoid being thrown off the program, you had better learn to evolve fast, and repent in public.

This is precisely what biblical Christians cannot do. While seeking to be gentle in spirit and ruthlessly Gospel-centered in speaking of any sin, we cannot cease to speak of sin as sin. To do so is not only to deny the authority of Scripture, not only to reject the moral consensus of the saints, but it undermines the Gospel itself. The Gospel makes no sense, and is robbed of its saving power, if sin is denied as sin.

An imbroglio is a painful and embarrassing conflict. The imbroglio surrounding Louie Giglio is not only painful, it is revealing. We now see the new Moral McCarthyism in its undisguised and unvarnished reality. If you are a Christian, get ready for the question you will now undoubtedly face: “Do you now or have you ever believed that homosexuality is a sin?” There is nowhere to hide.

In light of the recent attempted murder of employees at the Family Research Council (FRC), several pro-family organizations, including IFI, and private citizens are asking Fox News to discontinue guest appearances by homosexual agitator Wayne Besen on the popular O’Reilly Factor TV show. 

Besen has a long history of slandering conservative groups and the ex-gay community in language that foments hatred and undermines civil discourse.  

Last week Fox News reported that Tony Perkins, FRC’s president, blamed the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and its rhetoric of hateful lies against FRC for helping to create a climate that led to shooter Floyd Corkins’ actions, (attempting to kill conservative Christians at FRC for opposing ‘gay’ marriage).
 
The SPLC and Wayne Besen are united in demonizing conservative organizations and individuals.  Despite repeated complaints about Besen’s appearances, producers of the O’Reilly Factor continue to feature Besen, a radical homosexual activist aligned with the SPLC, as a guest commentator.

SELECT HERE TO READ A FULL LIST OF PRO-FAMILY LEADERS SIGNING THIS PETITION.

Last year the controversial Besen and the SPLC ally jointly staged a protest  outside of FRC’s Values Voters conference, falsely accusing FRC and the American Family Association of hatred and lies.  Besen publicly labeled FRC’s conservative speakers as “certifiable lunatics with dangerous agendas.”  Both Besen and the SPLC took out an ad in the Washington Post falsely blaming FRC for gays being more likely “to be victimized by violent hate crimes” and “driven to suicide by relentless bullying.” 

Besen and the SPLC also target the ex-gay community, claiming that former homosexuals are a ” “ and that ex-gays are not entitled to the same rights and respect that gays currently enjoy.  In a bizarre move, Besen and SPLC are now filing complaints against therapists who counsel homosexuals with unwanted same-sex attractions, thereby denying gays the right of therapeutic self-determination.  (Read more HERE.)
 
Condemnation of the SPLC’s — and by extension Wayne Besen’s — designation of pro-family groups as “hate groups” comes from both the political Right and Left. Rich Lowry of National Review wrote, “The SPLC’s promiscuous labeling of organizations it disagrees with as ‘hate groups’ came to the fore last week when someone tried to shoot up one of its targets.” 
 
And liberal journalist Dana Milbank echoed Lowry’s criticism: “[T]he Southern Poverty Law Center should stop listing a mainstream Christian advocacy group alongside neo-Nazis and Klansmen.”
 
It is time that the O’Reilly Factor cease using Besen as a guest commentator. Providing Besen with a forum lends credibility to his pernicious tactics and enables Besen to exploit his appearances for fundraising purposes.
 
When Fox News provides a forum to a radical homosexual activist known for employing inflammatory and hateful language in the service of promoting lies, the network becomes complicit in the damage done to the victims of Wayne Besen’s and the SPLC’s smear campaigns.
 
We ask the News Corporation, Fox News, and Bill O’Reilly to find more ethical spokespersons for the liberal view of sexuality.  In their infamous Washington Post ad accusing FRC of hateful values, Besen and the SPLC claim that “words have consequences.”  Yes, they do.  And Besen’s may lead to violence.

TAKE ACTION FOUR WAYS:

1) Click HERE to sign our free petition now, write a free comment, and we will deliver your first name, state, and comments to FOX NEWS and Bill O’Reilly.

2) Send Bill O’Reilly an email (oreilly@foxnews.com) and ask him to “Stop Inviting Wayne Besen and Stop Helping Anti-Christian SPLC.”

3) Tweet these words to your friends:  “Tell Bill O’Reilly to STOP giving airtime to SPLC anti-Christian haters. Sign the Petition: http://dld.bz/bKfu3 “

4) After you sign below, please share our petition widely on facebook, twitter, and email. 

LET’S STOP THE VIOLENCE AGAINST CHRISTIANS WHO DEFEND MARRIAGE = 1 MAN + 1 WOMAN.

Organizers of Chicago’s annual celebration of sexual deviancy, oxymoronically named the Chicago “Gay Pride” Parade, decided to change the parade route and time for the 2012 parade. This change would have resulted in the disruption or cancellation of the 10:00 a.m. mass at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church.

On FOX Chicago Sunday, Mike Flannery and Dane Plancko asked Cardinal Francis George how he felt about this. Cardinal George expressed his hope that the “gay liberation movement” would not “morph into something like the Ku Klux Klan, demonstrating in the streets against Catholicism.” Dane Plancko followed up by suggesting that such an analogy might be “a little strong,” to which Cardinal George agreed, adding that we should “look at the rhetoric of the Ku Klux Klan and the rhetoric of some of the gay liberation people.” Cardinal George explained that in the rhetoric of both groups, the enemy is the Catholic Church.

In the face of silly demands by homosexual activists that he resign or apologize, Cardinal George instead offered the following clarification:

“Organizers [of the parade] invited an obvious comparison to other groups who have historically attempted to stifle the religious freedom of the Catholic Church…One such organization is the Ku Klux Klan which, well into the 1940s, paraded through American cities not only to interfere with Catholic worship but also to demonstrate that Catholics stand outside of the American consensus. It is not a precedent anyone should want to emulate.”

As is their wont to do, homosexual activists — ever the embodiment of tolerance and freedom — became livid over Cardinal George’s analogy. As too is customary for homosexual activists, they seem to believe their indignation and “hurt feelings” serve just as well as an actual argument.

Here are some of the responses of prominent homosexual activists to Cardinal George’s comments:

He has crossed so far over the line of basic decency that he couldn’t see it with a pair of binoculars…This outrageous comparison of the LGBT community to the Ku Klux Klan was so degrading… that apologizing will not be sufficient….If he has a shred of dignity and a shard of class he will immediately step down. (Homosexual activist Wayne Besen, Founder of Truth Wins Out)

As a lay Catholic, I am profoundly saddened that Cardinal Francis George defiles his office by comparing our LGBT family, friends and fellow Catholics to the Ku Klux Klan. (Catholics for Marriage Equality)

This is a sacred time of year for many people of faith, a time when we should be creating and cherishing unity in our communities-not casting about dangerous and divisive rhetoric. (Human Rights Campaign)

How ironic that those who defend a parade that celebrates sexual perversion and violates public indecency laws would describe Cardinal George’s rhetoric as indecent, degrading, undignified, and defiling. It is homosexual acts that are indecent, degrading, undignified, and defiling. We would do well to remember the words of Isaiah: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” In reality, homosexuality is a sin so serious that Scripture warns that those who engage in it will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

As such, affirmation of homosexuality would be a desacralizing act. Unity and peace are goods to be sought but never at the expense of truth and never with the “unfruitful works of darkness.” Jesus says, “Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division.” If we truly love those who experience same-sex attraction, we will speak the truth about homosexuality, offer them the hope that is found in Christ alone, and come alongside them as they seek to pursue holiness.

Cardinal George’s analogy is fair and apt. Many homosexual activists harbor unconcealed hatred for not only the Catholic Church but also for all Protestant denominations that hold orthodox views of homosexuality. And these homosexual activists openly express their hatred in vile and vitriolic rhetoric. If Fox Sunday Chicago reporter Dane Plancko is unaware of this, he needs to do more research.

Was Cardinal George comparing the celebration of sexual deviance to the racism and violence of the KKK? Of course not. He was comparing the anti-Catholic rhetoric and actions (i.e., parades) of the KKK to the anti-Catholic rhetoric and actions (i.e., parades) of homosexual activists. But once again, petulant homosexual activists, desperate for the ideological high ground, are demonstrating either their obtuseness in dealing with analogies or their deceitfulness.

Homosexual activists become enraged — or feign indignation — at any analogy that compares any aspect of homosexuality or the homosexuality-affirmation movement to anything immoral, unethical, or sinful because they don’t believe homosexual attraction and acts are immoral, unethical, or sinful. But the rest of the world is under no obligation to accept the ontological or moral assumptions of homosexual activists.

The salient question for conservatives is, “Does the analogy work?” In other words, are there points of correspondence between the two ideas or phenomena being compared, and are the points of correspondence relevant to the issue or issues being debated? Whether it offends the sensibilities of those who choose to make their unchosen homosexual attractions central to their identity is irrelevant.

If every Catholic parish and every Protestant church had a leader who would speak the truth about homosexuality with the clarity, conviction, and courage that Cardinal George did, perhaps we could end the sorry spectacle of the Chicago “gay pride” parade for good.

To read more on the attitudes and actions of homosexual activists to Christian orthodoxy, please click on the following links:

Homosexual Rainbow Sash Movement Threatens to Disrupt Pentecost Mass, Confront Cardinal George (Catholic Online)

‘Jesus is a homo’ Homosexuals Disrupt Church Service (Catholic Online)

Anti-Christian Activists Seek to Intimidate and Censor Church Doctrine (Illinois Family Institute)

‘Safe schools’ chief was member of radical Act Up (WorldNetDaily.com)

‘Hunky Jesus’ Contest in San Francisco Mocks Christianity on Easter Sunday, but Don’t Look for ‘Hunky Muhammad’ Contest Anytime Soon (Americans For Truth About Homosexuality)

Imagine if this Scenario Were Reversed: One might suppose that homosexual militant Wayne Besen would be the last fellow to question the idea that “gay” activism threatens religious freedom in America. At right, Besen is photographed harassing a Boston church hosting an ex-“gay” conference – by yelling through a bullhorn into the window of the church during the conference. (Click HERE for MassResistance’s full story on the homosexual protest, and HERE for a report on a much larger and more violent pro-homosexual protest against another Boston church in 2005.) What if a bunch of Christian activists terrorized a meeting at a homosexual church in a similar manner? We suspect that Besen and fellow “gay” advocates might accuse them of using fascist tactics, and rightly so. Besen also wrote a hate-filled screed against Christian activist Michael Brown and his “God Has a Better Way” Gospel outreach at the Charlotte, NC “gay pride” festival.

Homosexual activist Wayne Besen of the oddly named Truth Wins Out described Dr. Michael Brown’s group of evangelists (the “God Has a Better Way” campaign responding to the Charlotte, N.C. “gay pride” parade) as “uninvited locusts” descending on Charlotte. With that description in mind, I wonder how conservatives should describe the thousands of participants in “pride” parades and “fairs” who pollute our streets with illegal nudity and public sex acts to which law enforcement agents, who are paid by the public to enforce laws, turn a blind eye.

When Besen said that “the notion that gay people in conservative North Carolina needed Brown to educate them about religious fundamentalism was farcical,” he revealed his ignorance about Biblical and Historical Theology. Although the belief that homosexual acts violate God’s will is a belief held by “fundamentalists,” it also integral to all orthodox theological traditions and has been since the beginnings of the church. His ignorance is not surprising, however, since Besen is a member of the homosexual activist movement that regularly makes numerous ludicrous exegetical claims, including the claims that Ruth and Naomi and David and Jonathan had homosexual relationships.

Then Besen makes a patently false assertion when he states that homosexual activists are “falsely accused of working to undermine freedom of religion.” He may want to read the words of Georgetown University lesbian law professor, Chai Feldblum who writes that when same-sex “marriage” is legalized, conservative people of faith will lose religious rights.

Besen’s clouded vision is manifest in this description of a group of Christians engaged in evangelism: “Most alarming are these charlatans’ deliberate perpetuation of paranoia by trumpeting alleged religious persecution that exists only in their warped minds.” Perhaps Besen should talk to the Christian infertility doctors in California whom a lesbian sued when their religious convictions prevented them from inseminating a lesbian. Or perhaps he should talk to the Christian owners of a New Mexico photography studio who were sued and fined for “discrimination” when their religious beliefs prevented them from photographing the commitment ceremony of two homosexuals.

Perhaps Besen (left) should talk to the Christian mother in Alameda, Cal., whose public school is introducing pro-homosexual resources to first-graders next year. The school is refusing to notify parents prior to the presentation of these resources and is refusing to allow parents to opt out. Or perhaps he should talk to me about the efforts of change.org to get a hotel to break a legal contract with Illinois Family Institute because of our religious conviction that homosexual acts are immoral. Sounds remarkably like religious persecution to me.

What is confusing in Besen’s diatribe are these two seemingly contradictory claims: first, he said, “Brown tries to cover his tracks by sprinkling his apocalyptic rhetoric with calls for non-violence. Good orators, however, understand the principle of ‘layering’ messages. If in one sentence you speak of violence and in the next of non-violence, the listener will almost always embrace the words that support his or her belief system.” This clearly implies that Dr. Brown “spoke of violence in one sentence.”

But shortly thereafter, Besen said, “Brown, of course, doesn’t actually have to make an overt pitch for mayhem,” which seems to imply that Dr. Brown did not, in fact, “speak of violence.”

Besen takes issue with the proposition that the movement to normalize homosexuality tampers “with the foundations of human society.” Surely, he knows that this belief is not unique to Dr. Brown. It is widely held by theologians from most denominational traditions and by many legal scholars, philosophers, political commentators, sociologists, psychologists, and ordinary people of all educational backgrounds and walks of life. Many, many people view heterosexual marriage between one man and one woman who together produce and nurture future generations of children to be the foundational institution of any healthy society. Once society divorces marriage from children and marriage from gender, the institution becomes meaningless and the culture dies.

Besen goes on to say in his apoplectic way that “It is time for Brown and his comrades to abort their increasingly hostile and combative tactics before it leads to more wanton death.” This tactic of misrepresenting any public opposition to the ideologies and political actions of homosexual activists and their supporters as hate mongers, fomenters of violence, and bigots is the stock-in-trade of the “LGBT” movement. The logical implication of the argument that the expression of opposition to one group’s moral claims represents hatred, bigotry, and incitement to violence, however, would be that Besen’s words represent hatred, bigotry, and incitement to violence against Christians, and Orthodox Jews, and Muslims, and secular conservatives.

Besen’s screed is laden with overheated, inflammatory, intolerant rhetoric. Kudos to Dr. Brown for doing what faith leaders should have done decades ago. Let’s hope more brave men step forward.

One last point on another topic: I noticed that Besen (shown with the bullhorn at right) refers to Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth as “Porno Pete” which I also find ironic in light of the homosexual community’s purported opposition to name-calling. It’s not just ironic; it’s hypocritical. It’s just one more revelatory sign of the intellectual and ethical vacuity of the homosexual movement.