Kincaid: Republicans should take after the English Defence League

Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy In Media has some words of advice for the defeated GOP: follow the English Defence League. The EDL is a radical UK-based group strongly linked with violent actions and whose members terrorize Muslims and often espouse Nazism. But for Kincaid, they are a model for the Republican Party, which he fears is gradually becoming more supportive of gay rights and ignoring the increasing “persecution of social conservatives.”

As American conservatives contemplate the future of the Republican Party in the face of President Obama’s Marxist onslaught and reelection, the rapid deterioration of the British Conservative Party stands as proof that the situation could get far worse. British conservatives lead the British government as members of a coalition and are pushing legislation for what they euphemistically dub “Equal Civil Marriage”—gay marriage. They think this is the key to being politically relevant and winning elections.

Here in the U.S., former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman took to the pages of The Wall Street Journal on November 21 to make the “conservative case” for backing gay marriage. But there can be no “conservative case” for gay marriage, unless the term “conservative” is redefined as the British Conservative leaders are trying to do.

Mehlman, a former lieutenant to Karl Rove, came out of the closet and announced that he was a homosexual in August of 2010. He has since launched a “Project Right Side” to make the “conservative” case for gay marriage. He points to Jennifer Rubin, a conservative blogger at The Washington Post, who has declared that social conservatives have “lost” the battle over gay marriage and should just “move on.” Rubin has also attacked conservative Senator Jim DeMint, who is resigning to take over the Heritage Foundation, in a column headlined, “Good riddance, Mr. DeMint.”

Another conservative in the liberal media, George Will, said on ABC’s “This Week” show, “the opposition to gay marriage is dying. It’s all old people.” He had previously endorsed gays in the military and had smeared supporters of the Pentagon’s homosexual exclusion policy as unintelligent.

The same “strategy” would also mandate that Republicans should “move on” by abandoning the pro-life cause and opposition to legalization of drugs. That would leave the GOP in the position of running purely on economic issues, in order to draw a contrast with the Democrats. Romney’s stunning defeat is an example of what happens when that strategy is followed.



According to this logic, American conservatives should applaud the fact that, on December 1, the first same-sex couple was “married” in the West Point Cadet Chapel of our nation’s military academy. This is a consequence of Obama’s gays-in-the-military policy.

The real lesson from what is happening in Britain is that if the Republicans go down this road, conservatives will revolt and the GOP will suffer an even more significant decline than we saw on November 6, when a number of social conservatives sat out the election. Surrender could also lead to more persecution of social conservatives.



This British Conservative Party has watered down traditional conservatism to such an extent that some conservatives have formed an alternative, the English Defense League (EDL), which has spawned the British Freedom Party.

This group has been strongly attacked in the media, here and abroad, as “far-right” or worse. But I had the opportunity to meet their leaders, Kevin Carroll and Tommy Robinson, at the 9/11 conference in New York City sponsored by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer which was designed in part to organize resistance to global Islam and safeguard our right of free speech against the advance of Sharia, or Islamic law. You can watch the speeches by Carroll and Robinson and draw your own conclusions. Carroll and Robinson want a patriotic alternative to the British Conservative Party that will promote traditional values.

American conservatives and their media should take a hard look at what is really happening in Britain. We had to turn to a relatively new conservative channel in Canada, Sun TV, for important news and information about how Carroll and Robinson and their supporters are being targeted by the “conservative” government there. Carroll was actually imprisoned for exercising his political rights. Robinson is still in prison on charges that he entered the United States illegally and has sent Pamela Geller a letter about his plight, which is published on her website.

MacArthur: Obama is 'Evidence of God's Judgment'

Pastor John MacArthur, who before Election Day warned that the Democrats are an “anti-God party” that has “made the sins of Romans 1 their agenda,” delivered a post-election sermon in which he declared that President Obama himself is a judgment of God. “We have the President, we have as a judgment from God, that is a judgment from God, he is an evidence of God’s judgment,” MacArthur said, and went on to doubt Obama's Christian faith and reiterate his claim that God is abandoning America to “sexual sin.”

We have the President we have as a judgment from God, that is a judgment from God, he is an evidence of God’s judgment. Because of Romans 1, God has given us over, ‘when those who know God glorify him not as God and do not like to retain God in their knowledge,’ which is what the Democratic platform said originally, get God out. By the way that’s a big change, four years ago McCain and Obama interviewed at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, both affirmed to be Christians, both affirmed to believe in Jesus Christ, that all went by the board and God was removed four years later because that wasn’t going to be popular this time around. So that kind of an accommodating religion has been unmasked. But the bottom line is Romans 1 says that if you do not retain God in your knowledge, if you do not glorify him, his wrath is unleashed. It’s talking about the cycle of history, Acts 14: God allows all the nations to go their own way. We’re going our own way; we’re going the way of our own choices. When the wrath of God is in motion, God gives them over—this is his wrath in motion—to sexual sin, that’s what we’ve got, sexual sin which is rampant. Over fifty percent of adult women are single and men as well, this kind of single life with promiscuous behavior everywhere is what this generation wants. That’s an evidence of wrath: the smashing and crushing of the family. Then the next one, verse 26, he gave them over to homosexuality. Now we are not only tolerant but advocates of that. Then he gave them over to a reprobate mind and that includes murder and all kinds of other crimes, which would include abortion.

He also argued that gay marriage and abortion rights will grow the size of government and persecute the church.

I wouldn’t be surprised if in the future there are less and less and less freedoms that people in America enjoy, right now they are willing to make that exchange for two reasons: they are willing to make it number one for the sake of money in their pocket and number two for the sake of immorality. If the government will let them have free sex, homosexual marriage and abortion, they are fine, they are okay with that. As we pointed out to you before the election when you have a platform of a party being remove God, affirm free sex and government provided contraception, homosexual marriage and abortion, when that’s the platform you know how far that nation has gone into immorality. And when the people vote it into power again, that either means they advocate that kind of life or they are indifferent to it as long as you keep giving them what they want. So there is a real tipping point I think that’s happened in our country. I don’t mind the darkness getting darker, I don’t mind the illusion of morality going away, I don’t mind the darker environment in the sense ‘that darker the night the brighter the light.’ But the church has to step up and be the church and proclaim the Gospel and confront the culture, that’s what we have to do. And when we do that what’s going to happen is persecution. They are already talking about hate speech and the categories of hate speech are going to escalate as the immoral country begins to try to defend itself and isolate itself and not face the reality of its immorality.

Glenn Beck on Gay Marriage: 'I Don't Care'

Today on his radio program, Glenn Beck declared that he is not opposed to gay marriage, provided that nobody tries to destroy his marriage or his church.  But, Beck claimed, that is exactly what "the Left" is always trying to do, which is why the issue of marriage equality is so controversial:

Bachmann: Obama wants to 'Lift up the Islamists' and Impose Sharia Law

Earlier this year, Rep. Michele Bachmann said that Muslim Brotherhood agents had penetrated the Obama administration, which she claimed was attempting to “enforce Islamic speech codes.” While Bachmann was roundly mocked and criticized for the baseless remarks, they were a hit in conspiratorial right-wing circles. Bachmann took her crusade against the supposed Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the government to Jan Markell’s radio show this weekend, where she again claimed that Obama is “aiding and abetting” radical Islamist groups.

Markell is an End Times broadcaster and a close ally of Bachmann, who attended her “Understanding the Times” conference this year. She has previously claimed that Mattel’s Little Mommy Cuddle ‘n Coo doll is promoting Islam to children, demanded the government begin monitoring mosques and in 2007 predicted a terrorist attack as a result of a Hindu prayer in the U.S. Senate. Markell has also suggested that a tornado in Minnesota was a “warning from God” meant to punish the Lutheran Church for affirming gay pastors and alleged that the deadly 2011 earthquake in Japan was divine judgment.

Markell charged Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, and Eric Barger said that the supposed rise of Sharia law in the U.S. is proof that the Antichrist is coming.

Markell: Hillary, she’s a woman from Arkansas who used to be an attorney and rose to the White House, why would somebody like Hillary Clinton let herself get embroiled in things that are so Islamic? I’ve done entire programs on her assistant Huma Abedin connected to the Muslim Brotherhood. Why do you think someone like Hillary is getting so enmeshed in all things Muslim Brotherhood that this is absolutely a danger to the nation at this point because of the intricate nature of Muslim Brotherhood, Washington D.C., homeland security, national security, the State Department and the rabbit trails just keep going, and everybody is wondering who has looked into these kinds of issues, what is in the mind of somebody like Hillary Clinton that she is willing to sacrifice the safety of the nation by getting so embroiled in Muslim Brotherhood?

Barger: Jan, it is simply baffling to me. To be honest with you, I’ve thought about that so much and I’ve been living with this research now for several weeks that we’re using on the air. Somebody has her ear, obviously; maybe she is convinced that she can be a catalyst for world peace. You know, if you understand Islam at all you understand that the goal is not world peace, this is world domination, they have said it over and over; it’s in the Koran.



Barger: Can you imagine Sunday sermons across our land soon being scrutinized by a panel by religious examiners to see if the words used pass the left-wing litmus test or the Muslim litmus test or however it’s viewed, to see if they become hate crimes or to see who would be called a renegade preacher is really just inciting his people? That’s where we’re going and eventually that’s the case Antichrist will make against people who disagree with him and who would stand against him and stand against everything that he will stand for. The thought police have now moved to the mouth and I think we need to see that and understand it. How soon will our legal ability to witness and defend the faith and preach the unadulterated Gospel be hampered or stopped? This is the important question, you see.

During the interview, Bachmann warned that Israel and the American people are in grave danger due to President Obama’s purported support of radical Islamists: “President Obama, if you look at nearly every decision he has made about this issue, it is to lift up the Islamists and to take down Israel.”

She also claimed that the Obama administration’s supposed “Islamic speech codes” could be “deadly for the American people.”

Bachmann also told Barger that everyone who is not an Islamist will “lose their right of speech and expression” as there is “no tolerance for dissent or disagreeing in any way with the goals or the beliefs of the Islamists.”

Bachmann: Not just verbal speech, but written, a cartoon, a painting, whatever it is, if it is in any way construed as being against Islam that is where the confrontation comes from the Islamist world and they want to stop anyone in the world from saying anything negative about Islam. Which means there is only one free speech right and that would belong to the Islamists. Everyone else would lose their right of speech and expression.

The reason why this is important is because this is the whole game, it is game over if we who are in the non-Islamist world lose the right to criticize what the Islamist does, because the Islamist tries to advocate Islamic Sharia law and so anything that we would say in the future, once you criminalized anti-Islamic speech, anything that we would say that would be critical in any way of anything Islam does would be considered criminalized. That’s why I say it is game over; the Islamists will have won everything. That’s why they are willing to put ten years into achieving this objective of silencing any form of dissent to Islam.

Barger: That goes right along with the idea that in Islam you are either a member of the house of peace or the house of war, there is no live and let live or peaceful coexistence.

Bachmann: There is no tolerance. There is no tolerance for dissent or disagreeing in any way with the goals or the beliefs of the Islamists, there is only one way.



Bachmann: Once you take away people’s ability to be able to speak, this is not a small right, this is everything, it is game over because then all of the power and authority has been given over to the Islamist. The Islamist is the only one who gets to dictate what we can say and what we can do, and what we can print and what we not print, and who can assembly and how they can assemble, because at that point Sharia Islamic law in effect becomes the law of the land because the Islamist gets to have the authority, not anyone who opposes Islam. This is a very, very important issue.

She accused the Obama administration of supporting the Organization of the Islamic Conference’s advocacy of blasphemy laws, which the U.S. unambiguously opposed. Bachmann said that Americans must study Islamic materials in the same way people studied Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf during WWII and alleged that a letter from Muslim-American groups [PDF] regarding anti-Muslim instructional material is “proof positive” that the Obama administration wants to introduce Sharia law to the U.S.

Bachmann: That’s what I spent my whole year doing was talking about this issue of what the OIC was trying to do with their ten year plan and all of these efforts in the Obama administration. The only conclusion you could make is that they are embracing the ten year plan and are supporting it and that’s why this October 19 document is so important because that is proof positive that every piece that is put into place is leading to one direction, this isn’t deviating it’s leading to one direction, and that ultimate goal it seems to be is to allow for mandating, following, every demand of the Islamist and we know what their ultimate demand is.

Barger: Sharia law.

Bachmann: That’s right. That’s why we need to know what their belief system is; we need to know what they truly believe. That’s why the most important thing a person could do in WWII was to read the book that the leader of Germany wrote.

Barger: Mein Kampf.

Bachmann: Because he laid out very clearly what his intention was, he wasn’t hiding it, the Islamist does the same thing. They do not hide it, they lay it out very clearly. But what we’ve never seen before is the United States aiding and abetting that goal.

Bachmann concluded by making the absurd claim that Obama and Clinton are going to do away with people’s First Amendment rights and “take away the free speech rights of the American people.”

Barger: We know that our Constitution certainly doesn’t match what the OIC and the Muslim Brotherhood want, nor what the United Nations seems to be doing with Resolution 16/18 and with some other things that are going on there. How much should we worry about executive orders and how they might become, instead of the legislation that should be passed through Congress, might become the law of the land that way?

Bachmann: We’ve already seen that President Obama has given himself a very free hand at writing any executive order that he wants because he said it himself that if the United States Congress won’t agree with him, he’ll just take matters into his own hand and he’ll become his own Congress and he’ll sign his own executive order and thereby put into practical effect a law that he wants to see passed. This is completely against our Constitution.

But even more importantly, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton she helped to formulate and write and pass UN Resolution 16/18, which calls for the criminalization—anti-free speech measures. This is very concerning that she went down that road. It doesn’t specifically say Islam, it talks about religious speech, but let’s face it there is only one religion that the OIC—the Organization of Islamic Cooperative [sic]—cares about and that’s Islam. Hillary Clinton was involved from the very beginning in writing this resolution. She’s already signed this. While a UN resolution doesn’t bind United States law, how in the world could the President allow the Secretary of State to sign a resolution that indicates that we are willing to take away the free speech rights of the American people?

This is game over, as I’ve said before, because when you limit the right to dissent from the American people, the Founders made this the First Amendment because they understood this is our most sacred right, our right to speak, our right to practice our faith the way that we want to, the right to publish what we want to publish, the right to assemble and talk about whatever we want to talk about. That’s freedom, that’s the essence of freedom, that’s the First Amendment, and that is what UN Resolution 16/18 which Hillary Clinton signed, presumably with the affirmation of President Obama, and that’s the first step in a big step for taking away from you and me and all of your listeners our right of free speech and expression, religious practice, freedom of assembly, freedom of the printing press but even more importantly, it will empower the Islamist to use that against us.

Either Bachmann never read UN Resolution 16/18 or is simply misrepresenting it, as the resolution [PDF] actually defends the freedom of religion while at the same time expressing “deep concern” over religious intolerance, discrimination and violence.

Human Rights First also debunks the assertion that the resolution somehow curtails freedom of speech:

Myth 1: The U.N. resolution opens the door to limiting freedom of speech.

Wrong. The resolution acknowledges the language of article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), notably that “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” It calls on states to take measures “consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such incidents.”

The United States has a reservation to that provision, to the extent that it violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, so it is not bound by the obligation. In fact, the U.S. has the highest threshold of free speech in the world, and the U.S. government has expressed no intention of lowering those standards. However, that does not exempt all other states from their legal obligations to fight “incitement, hostility or violence” according to article 20 of the ICCPR. After all, that is what they signed up to, so they have an obligation by law to honor their commitment.

In all respects though, the implementation of Article 20 must not infringe Article 19, which reasserts everyone’s right to freedom of expression. Rather than imposing new restrictions on freedom of speech, which it does not, the new consensus resolution opens the door to an action-oriented approach to fighting religious intolerance. That is very consistent with the U.S. policies and practices – combat violence, discrimination and hatred without restricting freedom of speech. Resolution 16/18 urges states to train government officials to address religious tensions, to harmonize actions at local and national level, to raise awareness of negative stereotyping of persons, to promote interfaith and intercultural dialogue, to foster religious freedom and to speak out against intolerance (among other recommendations. The only limitation on speech that is in the operative part of the resolution is incitement to “imminent violence”, which is in accordance with US law.

No, Linda Harvey, Marriage Equality Will Not Make Jesus Get Gay Married

Linda Harvey is not happy with the recent vote in Washington state in favor of marriage equality and she is even less happy with the decision by the state to revise its marriage licenses to add an option for "spouse," in addition to "bride" and "groom," allowing those who are getting married to choose which they prefer. 

In Harvey's eyes, this change undermines the "legitimacy of man-woman marriage" and, even worse, creates confusion about the Christian imagery in which Jesus one day returns to earth to marry his "bride": the church.

Well now, even though truth has not changed; marriage is still, in reality, one man and one woman, the voters' decision prompted health department officials to propose a change in language until enough people objected.  The words "bride" and "groom" were going to be replaced with "spouse A" and "spouse B" or "person A" and "person B" on marriage licenses, according to the original proposal.

That's right; on official marriage documents, the words "bride" and "groom" were going to disappear.  When advocates of homosexual marriage say how would two men or two women being allowed to marry change your marriage, here's one way.  Nonsense like this starts showing up and the legitimacy of man-woman marriage is automatically on defense against pretenders to the throne.

...

Homosexuality, far from being marriage, is always a grave sin in Scripture.

Then, speaking of brides and grooms, there's another Christian concept that illustrates the unchanging standard of man and woman as the model for marriage: in the New Testament, Jesus is referred to several times as the "bridegroom." And when he returns, he will return as a bridegroom seeking his bride: the church, which is the body of all believers, also called the Bride of Christ.  It's a beautiful analogy.

What happens to such a concept in a same-sex marriage?  Does Jesus as bridegroom seek another groom?  No, that would be a twisted and frankly offensive spin on a profound and marvelous concept.

As Christians, we must never accept the idea of same-sex marriage.  It certainly doesn't work as sound Christian doctrine and it will be shown before long not to work as revolutionary secular law either.

Justice Scalia’s 7 Worst Anti-Gay Statements

On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear two landmark cases on marriage equality. Yesterday, Justice Antonin Scalia reminded us again why gay rights advocates, to put it mildly, aren’t counting on his vote.

Scalia is the Supreme Court’s most outspoken opponent of gay rights. He led the dissent to the two major gay rights decisions of his tenure on the Court, the decisions to strike down Texas’ criminal sodomy law and to overturn Colorado’s ban on local anti-discrimination measures. And in his spare time, he minces no words about his uncompromising opposition to gay rights. Here are seven of his most egregious anti-gay statements:

  • Compares bans on homosexuality to bans on murder: Yesterday, Scalia asked a gay law student, “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”
  •  …and to bans on polygamy and animal cruelty: In his dissent to the Colorado case, Romer v. Evans, Scalia wrote, “But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible--murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals--and could exhibit even 'animus' toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of ‘animus’ at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct, the same sort of moral disapproval that produced the centuries old criminal laws that we held constitutional in Bowers.”
  • Defends employment and housing discrimination: In his dissent to Lawrence, the decision that overturned Texas’ criminal sodomy law, Scalia went even further, justifying all kinds of discrimination against gays and lesbians: “Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive. The Court views it as ‘discrimination’ which it is the function of our judgments to deter.”
  • Says decision on “homosexual sodomy” was “easy” because it's justified by long history of anti-gay discrimination: In a talk at the American Enterprise Institute earlier this year, Scalia dismissed decisions on abortion, the death penalty and “homosexual sodomy” as “easy”: “The death penalty? Give me a break. It’s easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion,” he said. “Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state.”
  • Says domestic partners have no more rights than “long time roommates”:  In his dissent in Romer, Scalia dismissed the idea that a law banning benefits for same-sex domestic partners would be discriminatory, saying the law “would prevent the State or any municipality from making death benefit payments to the ‘life partner’ of a homosexual when it does not make such payments to the long time roommate of a nonhomosexual employee.”
  • Says gay rights are a concern of “the elite”: In his Romer dissent, Scalia lashes out at the majority that has upheld gay rights: “This Court has no business imposing upon all Americans the resolution favored by the elite class from which the Members of this institution are selected, pronouncing that 'animosity' toward homosexuality is evil. “
  • Accuses those who disagree with him of supporting the “homosexual agenda”: Lifting a talking point straight from the far right, Scalia accused the majority in Lawrence of being in the thrall of the “homosexual agenda”: “Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.”

Cross-posted from PFAW Blog

Justice Scalia’s 7 Worst Anti-Gay Statements

On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear two landmark cases on marriage equality. Yesterday, Justice Antonin Scalia reminded us again why gay rights advocates, to put it mildly, aren’t counting on his vote.

Scalia is the Supreme Court’s most outspoken opponent of gay rights. He led the dissent to the two major gay rights decisions of his tenure on the Court, the decisions to strike down Texas’ criminal sodomy law and to overturn Colorado’s ban on local anti-discrimination measures. And in his spare time, he minces no words about his uncompromising opposition to gay rights. Here are seven of his most egregious anti-gay statements:

  • Compares bans on homosexuality to bans on murder: Yesterday, Scalia asked a gay law student, “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”
     
  •  …and to bans on polygamy and animal cruelty: In his dissent to the Colorado case, Romer v. Evans, Scalia wrote, “But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible--murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals--and could exhibit even 'animus' toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of ‘animus’ at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct, the same sort of moral disapproval that produced the centuries old criminal laws that we held constitutional in Bowers.”
     
  • Defends employment and housing discrimination: In his dissent to Lawrence, the decision that overturned Texas’ criminal sodomy law, Scalia went even further, justifying all kinds of discrimination against gays and lesbians: “Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive. The Court views it as ‘discrimination’ which it is the function of our judgments to deter.”
     
  • Says decision on “homosexual sodomy” was “easy” because it's justified by long history of anti-gay discrimination: In a talk at the American Enterprise Institute earlier this year, Scalia dismissed decisions on abortion, the death penalty and “homosexual sodomy” as “easy”: “The death penalty? Give me a break. It’s easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion,” he said. “Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state.”
     
  • Says domestic partners have no more rights than “long time roommates”:  In his dissent in Romer, Scalia dismissed the idea that a law banning benefits for same-sex domestic partners would be discriminatory, saying the law “would prevent the State or any municipality from making death benefit payments to the ‘life partner’ of a homosexual when it does not make such payments to the long time roommate of a nonhomosexual employee.”
     
  • Says gay rights are a concern of “the elite”: In his Romer dissent, Scalia lashes out at the majority that has upheld gay rights: “This Court has no business imposing upon all Americans the resolution favored by the elite class from which the Members of this institution are selected, pronouncing that "animosity" toward homosexuality is evil.“
     
  • Accuses those who disagree with him of supporting the “homosexual agenda”: Lifting a talking point straight from the far right, Scalia accused the majority in Lawrence of being in the thrall of the “homosexual agenda”: “Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.”
PFAW

Wilson Uses Bogus Story to Warn that Liberals Will Put Pastors in Jail

American Family Association’s Buster Wilson yesterday warned that gays and liberals are trying to “elevate hate speech [laws] above the freedoms of our precious first amendment,” citing a case in Canada where he says a “pastor spent 18 months in jail for a sermon he preached against homosexuality.”

As we think about the basics of Biblical morality, today we will discuss the issue of hate speech and the first amendment’s guarantee of freedom of Speech.

While most Americans refuse to believe anyone could ever be imprisoned simply for something they said, the examples of it actually happening are abundant.

In our neighbor to the north, Canada, a local pastor spent 18 months in jail for a sermon he preached about homosexuality. A member complained to the hate speech council and he was found guilty and jailed.

Now for certain, that’s in Canada. But the hate speecher’s in this country are modeling their efforts on those successful hate speech laws in Canada.

The left wants to control the speech of the right, and if left to themselves, they will find a way to elevate hate speech above the freedoms of our precious first amendment!

If a pastor was sentenced to jail for eighteen months in Canada, don’t you think there would be a single news story about it?

We couldn’t find a single one, but Wilson seems to be citing a decision by the Alberta Human Rights Commission which fined a pastor over an anti-gay letter to the editor which preceded an attack on a gay youth. But the ruling was overturned because it violated Canada’s constitutional protection of free speech. Even Canadian Baptist leaders have rebuffed claims that pastors in their country can go to jail over their stance on homosexuality.

So basically, a Canadian judge tosses out a fine against a pastor and reaffirms his free speech rights, but Wilson claims that he “spent 18 months in jail” and therefore hate speech laws are coming to the U.S.!

Barber: Almost Half of Gay Men Were Sexually Assaulted by Pedophiles as Children

When not fighting the "war on Christmas," Mat Staver and Matt Barber continue to fight the California law that bans the use of sexual orientation conversion therapy on minors, which they have now taken to calling "Jerry Sandusky laws" on the grounds that children who are sexually abused will now become gay because they will not be allowed to get therapy to help them deal with the abuse. 

In fact, Barber falsely claimed that almost half of all gay men "were sexually assaulted by a homosexual pedophile" and that abuse is what pushed them into a lifestyle filled with disease, depression, and alcoholism. 

For Staver, the basic goal of laws seeking to ban the use of conversion therapy is simply to force people to accept homosexuality "as good and normal, when it is not":

Right Wing Round-Up - 12/10/12

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious