Things get ugly in Illinois

According to a World Net Daily report, a couple of bricks were thrown through the window of the Christian Liberty Academy which hosted the Americans for Truth About Homosexuality banquet earlier this evening. The vandalism was conducted in the early morning hours today with an email sent to a Chicago area news source.

No organization has taken responsibility for the incident which may mean that the attack was conducted by someone acting independently.

The email focused on Scott Lively, who was the recipient of an award at the AFTAH banquet.

This is an ugly episode and I hope those responsible for the vandalism are caught and prosecuted.

Reaction from WND readers to the attack reveals ugliness of another kind. One reader John Acord said gays should be confined to mental institutions (see comment below):

And then there is this comment from John Mccord:

Actually, Scott Lively and Mr. Acord are more on the same wavelength since Lively says he advised the Ugandan government to set up national gay rehab programs. He told WND this as well:

My advice to the MPs regarding the law they were contemplating but had not yet drafted was to focus on rehabilitation and not punishment. I urged them to become the first government in the world to develop a state-sponsored recovery system for homosexuality on the model we have in the United States for alcoholism.

I wonder why that suggestion would upset gays?

In any case, there is plenty of ugly to go around.

UPDATE: The comments I posted above have been removed from the thread at WND. However, if you look down the list, you can find more like them.

Chicago Tribune has a blurb out this morning in their “Breaking News” section. Since the story had already been reported several places, I assume they have a section for news about broken things.

Print Friendly

  • Jayhuck

    Plenty! This is only one of many reasons I don’t read WND. I have to wonder if, like NARTH, WND is really taken seriously by anyone who matters?

  • David Farrell

    Wow! this is the love of Christ? One more reason why I have written off the church as an utter failure. I know people say well this is a small group don’t view them all like these. However, the rest of the church doesn’t come out and contradict them. Silence = agreement or cowardice. Take your pick.

  • Jayhuck

    Honestly, it would be incredibly irresponsible of me to suggest that it is people like this that give so much ammunition and power to the anti-Christian or Atheist communities, but still… I’ve just come into contact with so many non-believers of late and they all seem to have a great deal of anger towards religion and Christianity in general, and the anger seems to stem from comments like these. I have a hard time anymore telling them that they are wrong

  • Lynn David

    I would wurely hope the FBI gets involved and investigates this incidence for the hate crime that it was.

  • Richard Willmer

    David Farrell has an important point: we Christians do need to ‘get our house in order’ when it comes the kind of vicious nonsense pumped out by these heretics (for that, in my view, is what they are) ‘in the name of Christianity’. People like Warren are working hard to do just that.

    The Ugandan debacle has deeply shocked many Christians. The Catholic Church, shortly after the Bahati Bill broke cover, did issue a measured but powerful statement opposing the kind of behaviour that Lively supports. Many of you will have seen it; here it is again: http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=a9849daa-dd60-4028-adc0-2dfa024cb3a9

    Of course people should not throw bricks through windows (property is damaged; people could be injured … or worse); by the same token (and for similar reasons) people should not engage in provocative hate speech of the kind indulged in by Lively and Co..

  • StraightGrandmother

    I am thinking about the person(s) who threw the brick. What is their life like? Obviously they are filled with rage. Did they grow up in one of the 31 states where it is perfectly legal to say,

    “Sorry we don’t rent to fags here”

    “Sorry we don’t serve dykes here”

    Did they grow up in an area where the cops seek out and torture sexual minorities.

    Was the brick thrower unmercifully bullied without ceasing in school while his teachers did nothing?

    Did his or her Evangelical parents throw them out on the streets when they were a teenager simply because of their sexual orientation? Did they have to perform survival sex with strangers out on the streets in order to earn enough money to eat and sleep in a warm bed instead of under a cold bridge?

    The brick throwing was wrong, but I do understand it. I don’t condone it but I understand it. I do understand how a sexual minority in our society can become this filled with rage. If caught and tried I hope the judge will listen to the whole story of the perpetrator before handing down a sentence. One thing I am sure of, the oppressed will always fight their oppressors.

  • Richard Willmer

    Yes, SGM, I too find it ‘understandable’: the violence of Lively and his ilk will promote violence in others.

  • Bernie

    The poor flat-earthers at WND will just lap this up. If they believe the tripe that Joseph Ferrar writes, then they are prime impressionable targets for the delusions of Scott Lively.

    However, an act like this should be condemned. Though I can appreciate the frustration behind it.

    A more effective foray would be to continually expose the lies of of the hateful like Scott Lively, and Peter LaBarbera.

  • Richard Willmer

    Might it have been an ‘inside job’ for propanganda purposes? Just wondering …

    (Violence is not something usually associated with LGBT/human rights campaigners.)

  • Joe

    This is certainly a confusing post with even more confusing comments.

    Actually,

    Scott Lively and Mr. Acord are more on the same wavelength…..”A SNIPER PICKING OFF QUEERS”……same wavelengh? as…

    “I am a Bible-believing Christian who abhors violence against anyone, and has never advocated violence or hatred against homosexuals,” Lively asserts. “During my 2009 trip [to Uganda] I also addressed members of the Ugandan Parliament in their national assembly hall. My advice to the MPs regarding the law they were contemplating but had not yet drafted was to focus on rehabilitation and not punishment. I urged them to become the first government in the world to develop a state-sponsored recovery system for homosexuality on the model we have in the United States for alcoholism.

    “In contradiction to my advice, a few months after the seminar an MP introduced a bill to criminalize homosexuality,” he continues. “The terms of the bill were harsh, as is very common in African countries, including capital punishment. … I do not support capital punishment for any sex crimes, let alone simple homosexuality, which I view as a treatable behavioral disorder, and so I opposed the bill. I was nevertheless accused in the international media of not only endorsing the bill, but of advocating for it.”

    As for the murder of David Kato Kisule, Lively points out there’s no cause to blame him for the crime.

    “Not once, but twice, when supposed homosexual activists in Uganda were killed, it was implied by the liberal Western media that I was responsible,” Lively asserts. “In both cases the deaths were later proved to be unrelated to the passions surrounding the Ugandan bill. The first turned out to be the work of pagan witch doctors involved in some bizarre ritual. The second, involving the grisly murder of Ugandan homosexual activist David Kato [Kisule], turned out to be a crime of passion by a male prostitute whom Kato had bailed out of jail and taken to be his houseboy.”

    He concludes, “I must, however, exhort my fellow Christians not to allow themselves to be influenced by the propaganda nor intimidated by the harassment tactics. It has always been the case that the cause of Christ is advanced only through selfless courage in the face of determined opposition.”

    Same Wavelengh? I don’t think so…

    My advice to the MPs regarding the law they were contemplating but had not yet drafted…. was to focus on rehabilitation and Not Punishment. I urged them to become the first government in the world to develop a state-sponsored recovery system for homosexuality on the model we have in the United States for alcoholism.

    I wonder why that suggestion would upset gays?

    So do I.

    Wouldn’t this…”state-sponsored recovery system for homosexuality on the model we have in the United States for alcoholism”…be similar to the CONGRUENCE model that you advocate?

    In any case, there is plenty of ugly to go around.

    NO doubt!

    ——————————————————————————–

  • Richard Willmer

    Joe

    Lively’s track record on the anti-gay vitriol front (e.g. blaming Nazism on gays – how ironic, given what actually happened in Nazi Germany!) leads most reasonable people to regard his ‘I’m-a-sweet-kind-caring-man-really’ act with complete incredulity.

    I don’t believe his (sudden?) claim not to be in favour of criminalizing gays. If he were, he would have joined the likes of Warren Throckmorton in ‘root-and-branch’ opposition not only to the Bahati Bill but also to current laws criminalizing consensual relationships in Uganda. He hasn’t.

    It’s just sophistry, Joe; don’t be deceived by it.

    One last thing: is Scott Lively the judge and jury in the David Kato case suddenly? (Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you’ll find that no conclusion has yet been reached in this matter.)

  • Richard Willmer

    Anyway, here’s what Lively is reported to have said about ‘therapy’:

    I was arrested for drunk driving in Oregon. I had the option presented to me of going to jail or going through therapy.

    Time for a ‘flashback’: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/africa/04uganda.html

  • Richard Willmer

    If Lively really has moderated his views, the first word he should say is:

    S O R R Y !

    Very loudly!

  • Teresa

    I’m taken aback with Scott Lively’s attribution of addiction for homosexuality. I’m, also, rather astounded at his remark that “homosexuality is treatable”.

    Since when is homosexuality an “addiction”? Perhaps, he should listen to John Smid’s apology concerning using 12-Step Addiction Recovery Programs for ‘homosexuality’. I suspect his ‘treatable’ remark is more of the “pray away the gay” approach.

    Some of these remarks may not be as ugly as Bryan Fischer’s, we should be imprisoned … but, they are ugly in the sense of damaging others’ emotional and spiritual well-being.

  • Richard Willmer

    Actually, Teresa, Scott Lively does favour gays being thrown into jail – if they do not accept enforced ‘therapy’, that is. In his own words:-

    What I actually said is that the law against homosexuality should be liberalized to give arrestees the choice of therapy instead of imprisonment, similar to the therapy option I chose after being arrested for drunk driving in 1985 (during which time I accepted the Lord and was healed and transformed into a Christian activist).

    http://www.defendthefamily.com/pfrc/archives.php?id=2345952

    What we may now be witnessing is Lively ‘on the back foot’ …

  • Richard Willmer

    Oh, and being put into a Ugandan prison as a ‘convicted gay’ might well amount to an ‘unofficial’ death sentence. And one can imagine what the ‘therapy’ (a.k.a. protective custody?) might entail.

  • Teresa

    What we may now be witnessing is Lively ‘on the back foot’ …

    Richard, I like that way of phrasing Lively’s soft-pedaling what Lively actually believes.

  • http://www.putafaceonit.blogspot.com MamaKath

    Wow…how Christian…gun down the f**s. And not even face-to-face. Be really ~brave and use snipers. Poor queer never saw it coming. All for a rock through a window…that no one knows if it was even thrown by an LGBT person. Could have been some street thugs looking for a few laughs that night. “Let’s shake up the dinner party and huck this in there.”.

    I love how “christians” are the biggest bullies today. And you know what bullies are? A bunch of entitled, self-centered, chickens. To afraid to stand up to their own insecurities. It’s all ok if “God says so”. Here’s the thing. J.C. preached kindness, tolerance and compassion. He told us that we had more important things to worry about than what we do in the bedroom. Instead of raising millions to lobby against equal rights, you’re supposed to use that money to cloth the naked, feed the hunger and minister to the sick. Hey, hey, Jesus was a liberal Democrat. But not really cuz he didn’t have a lot of tolerance for politicians or the clergy.

    These people are preaching more than an eye for an eye. A rock through a window = the unsuspecting lives of innocent gays? I don’t think so. Second, you better come forth with evidence before passing judgement and issuing this death sentence. My money is on the bored teenagers who could really use a jobs program right now and some help with paying for their college educations. Use all that “money for baby Jesus” to provide opportunities for youth to be more productive.

  • Jayhuck

    Very loudly!

    And very often!

  • Richard Willmer

    Peddling backwards, perhaps?! In ever-decreasing circles??!! Maybe he’ll complete the trick by disappearing up his own cross-bar???!!!

    Why can’t he just say: “You know folks, I’ve made a really terrible mistake and will now get on with my ministry to the poor and dispossessed.” Others have. He can.

  • Marcus

    If it even happened, the brick was more likely thrown through the window by radical anti-gay activists in order to have an excuse to defame and revile gay Americans. The immoral anti-gay lobby seeks to eradicate gay people; it’s no surprise then that they would slip up and call for shooting gay American taxpayers. So much for their only concern to be “protecting” “traditional” marriage.

  • carole

    “I am thinking about the person(s) who threw the brick. What is their life like? Obviously they are filled with rage.”

    You’d be correct applying this statement to millions of the incarcerated throughout the world from time immemorial. You’d be correct applying it to millions of the same who escaped punishment for their behavior. You’d be correct in applying it to those whose rage is the result of biological determinants, or from what I assume you would term socially determined behavior, or a combination of both.

    The brick throwing was wrong, but I do understand it. I don’t condone it but I understand it. I do understand how a sexual minority in our society can become this filled with rage. If caught and tried I hope the judge will listen to the whole story of the perpetrator before handing down a sentence. One thing I am sure of, the oppressed will always fight their oppressors.

    The 33 year old man who burglarized homes in the neighborhood years ago had been raised by a single mother. His father never married his mother and he saw that father only intermittently in his life. Stats show that anti-social behaviors in males is much higher in males from a one-parent family than a two-parent family. Of course, stats also show that violent behaviors are highly heritable, much of which is likely due to genetic influence.

    My neighbors and I are very glad the judge didn’t take into consideration that he was raised by a single mother before sentencing him.

    After all, rage is frequently the underlining emotion resulting in violent behavior. (There are others–the sociopath, for instance, need not be motivated by anger although he might be on occasion. Some people do violent things for fun, for a temporary high, for power, etc. Perhaps rage is related to the need for these highs, maybe not, however.)

    We expect people to control their rage. We expect them to be held accountable for their actions so as not to find ourselves living in chaos since it’s the very rare person who hasn’t experienced hurts, discrimination, injustice, back luck, bitter disappointment, etc.

    I really don’t want the judge who sentences the drunk driver to discriminate between the drunk driver who was raised in an alcohol-dominated house versus one who wasn’t. I don’t want the judge to discriminate between the law-breaker who had no dad versus one who did, the rapist who came from a violent childhood versus one who didn’t.

    Judges are required by law to take into consideration the nature of the crime. In addition, in varying degrees, they may consider the violator’s remorse or lack of remorse (subjective and hard to determine), their previous behavior as a citizen (fairly objective) and yes, mitigating circumstances (was the brick thrown in in reaction to an act that he perceived as placing him in immediate physical danger?)

    I don’t think the judge will consider that societal oppression should play a part in the this particular’s perpetrator’s crime, nor do I think he should consider that. Do do so means all of us get a freebee to do something like that, a circumstance that would undermine a free society with domestic tranquility. We saw what happens when people claim societal oppression for their violence. Remember Watts? That’s the logical conclusion of such an argument.

    If a society doesn’t really hold people responsible for their actions, if they offer excuses, they are indeed “condoning” that behavior, I submit.

    Than again, that’s me.

  • Richard Willmer

    Of course: noone here is excusing this violent behaviour; some of us are merely seeking to ‘explain’ it.

    Violence can take many forms. In its own way, the verbal and psychological violence of those who engage in naked homophobia can be every bit as damaging as that of those who throw bricks through windows at the dead of night.

    (I gather my ‘inside job’ theory has been suggested to this bunch – and they went bananas.)

  • Richard Willmer

    How dare you suggest we did it to ourselves to defame you!” is what they said when someone suggested the ‘inside job’ possibility.

    Defaming LGB people is quite unheard of in these circles, isn’t it? No mention of child abuse or bestiality or wanting to bring about the collapse of society generally or anything like that … ever!

  • StraightGrandmother

    Carole,

    The 33 year old man who burglarized homes in the neighborhood years ago had been raised by a single mother. His father never married his mother and he saw that father only intermittently in his life. Stats show that anti-social behaviors in males is much higher in males from a one-parent family than a two-parent family. Of course, stats also show that violent behaviors are highly heritable, much of which is likely due to genetic influence.

    Carole,

    What if there were Civil Laws that Prevented the Single mother and father from Marrying??? State sponsored Discrimination laws? Now how do you feel? Was the burglar at a disadvantage in life because laws prevented his parents from marrying and raising him together?

    The oppressed, especially those suffering oppression at the hands of their government, will always resist their oppressors.

  • http://www.wthrockmorton.com Warren

    Joe – You are not reading correctly. I said Lively’s ideas were similar to Accord’s ideas, not Mccords.

    And no, Lively’s suggestions are nothing at all like the congruence model.

    Please read before you type.

  • Richard Willmer

    Has Lively made clear his preferred context and/or methods for delivering ‘therapy’ (to those who decided to opt for that instead of jail)?

    I think I once remember Martin Ssempa suggesting that prison and ‘therapy’ might be combined? Did Lively ever comment on this notion?

    ‘Congruence’ models worthy of the description are based on consent – always. Freedom of choice is at their heart – always.

  • Richard Willmer
  • Richard Willmer

    Back to Lively: according to Joe, he says this:

    In contradiction to my advice, a few months after the seminar an MP introduced a bill to criminalize homosexuality. The terms of the bill were harsh, as is very common in African countries, including capital punishment …

    (The emphasis is mine, by the way.)

    Think about it! It’s tantamount to an ‘admission’ on his part, isn’t it?! (If I were in his shoes, I’d choose my words much more carefully!)

  • carole

    Straight G,

    Carole,

    What if there were Civil Laws that Prevented the Single mother and father from Marrying??? State sponsored Discrimination laws? Now how do you feel? Was the burglar at a disadvantage in life because laws prevented his parents from marrying and raising him together?

    How do I feel? You haven’t understood my position–it wouldn’t matter about their being allowed to marry or not. I’d feel the same.

    Once again, my point–all of us can point to injustices, bitter hurts, unfair treatment but that can’t be justification for illegal and/or violent behavior. A nation of laws can’t say, “Well, we understand why you did what you did” because if we believe that, then we have to allow that behavior or condone it or make light of it and make excuses for violence or disregard of all laws. We’d have to allow every person to achieve “justice” for grievances by any means possible. Yes, even the boy/man in your hypothetical, the mother who had not been allowed to marry the boy’s father, has to account for his behavior. And why not?

    I can’t begin to conceive of how a society that you seem to perceive in your mind’s eye would work. Disadvantage? Can you think of how, in the face of every judge or jury every human being could claim a disadvantage? “Your honor–I am told my intelligence falls below the average. That disadvantage has put me at a disadvantage.” Or “Your honor, I had rotten parents. I have always been at a disadvantage.” Or, “Your honor, I am a sociopath. I have unusual neuronal connections in my brain and unusual brain development -I never asked for them- that make me incapable of feeling empathy and as a result, I do things society prohibits with its laws.” Maybe “Your honor, I am a compulsive liar– I have a brain that has more highly developed white matter than other people and the connections in that matter make for very quick verbal connections that often lead to lies I never plan. I can’t help what I said and what I did.”

    Or how about a women in pre-sufferage USA ? “I am oppressed. That’s why I threw the brick and why I can do illegal things and expect you to understand.”

    The nice thing about this country over other many others is that there are avenues to correct oppression and what we see as injustices. We passed an amendment. The lawful system we have provided for a lawful and peaceful means of achieving justice. I suppose there may have been women among those suffragettes who did violent things, but I’d guess they were few and far between and that their actions weren’t condoned by “We understand.”

    I don’t know who threw the brick, do you? When it comes to apprehending that person(s) and then trying and sentencing him or her, should it matter if it was a gay person or someone who wanted to make gays look bad? I don’t think it should. The act is illegal and dangerous and lawlessness that is ignored or minimized always leads to more lawlessness from others who think, “Why can’t I do that too?”

  • Jayhuck

    When it comes to apprehending that person(s) and then trying and sentencing him or her, should it matter if it was a gay person or someone who wanted to make gays look bad? I don’t think it should. The act is illegal and dangerous and lawlessness that is ignored or minimized always leads to more lawlessness from others who think, “Why can’t I do that too?”

    I agree Carole!

  • StraightGrandmother

    Carol,

    Apparently we simply have a difference of opinion. I believe a person’s circumstance and background matter during sentencing. A 16 year old who steals from the grocery store because there is no food in the house and he is literally starving should get a different sentence than the man who stuffed 10LB of Black Angus tenderloin down his pants and tried to walk out. Isn’t this kind of the object of having Judges determine a sentence whereby they look at all the facts, including the background and circumstances of the guilty party? Otherwise we could simply codify sentencing an write a computer algorithm to spit out the sentence.

    I guess you are in favor of handing down the same punishment to the 10LBS of Black Angus tenderloin down the pants as the starving teenager. I am not in favor of equal punishment, both stole from the grocery store, but the why they did it is different. The starving teenager should be punished but the punishment should not be as harsh as for 10LBS of Black Angus tenderloin down the pants.

  • carole

    Straight G,

    Yes, a big difference of opinion. Yes, judges have discretion over many things (addressed in my first post).

  • Frank

    Dear Sainted Straight Grandmother writes:

    “…10LBS of Black Angus tenderloin down the pants.”

    That image probably set back someone’s reparative therapy. ;-)

  • StraightGrandmother

    Frank, ha-ha-ha, you ticklrd my funny bone.

  • StraightGrandmother

    er make that – you tickled my funny bone.

  • Patrocles

    On the whole, the brick was hardly thrown by a member of a LGBT organization. LGBT persons seemingly prefer to apply state violence instead of personal violence (so does Lively).

    But it may well have been a member of a leftist organization acting in the name of LGBT or “minorities or “anti-hate”.

    The “inside job” idea is always a possibility. There are such things on different levels, e.g. in high politics. We also know a bunch of cases in which isolated individuals faked attacks on themselves (like, blacks faking racist smears). But at the moment I cant’ remember any “inside job” on this level, in which a little conference threw bricks into their own windows.

    May I politely remind you that

    (a) Lively is no Ugandan lawmaker and

    (b) it’s not very probable that Ugandan lawmakers can be simply manipulated by outward (American evangelical) propaganda and are acting without endogenous reasons. So it would be nice, for a change to think about those endogenous reasons (experiences with American gays in Uganda??). So

    (c) Lively is possibly right when he represents himself as a moderating, not inciting force.

    The “Pink Swastika” book is no proof against that. Warren himself has shown that the book’s origins lie in the Oregon discourse of that time and that it’s aim was to play the ball of “nazism” into the opponent’s field. (Relying on contemporary anti-nazi propaganda which of course not wanted to smear gays as nazis but to smear nazis as gays- and which was taken very seriously by prominent scholars like the late Theodor W. Adorno).

  • http://aebrain.blogspot.com Zoe Brain

    Might it have been an ‘inside job’ for propanganda purposes? Just wondering …

    The thought had occurred to me to. Strongly.

    But one should be very, very careful about even raising this possibility without sufficient evidence. There’s plenty of crazies around on any political position, and it’s all too easy to believe that “no-one on our side would do anything like that”, when if you were really honest, you know that some would.

    Regardless of the side you’re on, and regardless of the issue in question.

    While “false flag” operations do happen, the record shows that they’re outnumbered by genuine incidents the other side calls “false flag” ops.

    Yes, it’s awfully convenient. But without some additional evidence, we should treat it on its face, lest we be guilty of “bearing false witness.”

    And I’m not even Christian, remember?

    I’ll leave the false witnessing to FotF, NARTH etc. They’re better at it, through extensive experience.

  • http://madikazemi.blogspot.com/ paul canning

    At this point I’m inclined to think it was a leftist group given the accompanying message was posted on Indymedia. It wouldn’t have been an act by Gay Liberation in Chicago I think.

    It could have been an inside job but the message doesn’t read right for that and that would be very odd appearing on Indymedia.

    The context I set this in when I wrote it up was the growing Xstian martyrdom cult, see of late Sally Kern and Rick Perry’s wife.

  • Lynn David

    paul canning….. At this point I’m inclined to think it was a leftist group given the accompanying message was posted on Indymedia. It wouldn’t have been an act by Gay Liberation in Chicago I think.

    LaBarbera and Lively are claiming it was done by a “Marxist” gay group.

  • stephen

    LD: Don’t you mean a Marxist Muslim gay group?

    A large part of the trouble is that the news came via WND. I’ve never read anything there I could believe. It’s possible someone threw a couple of rocks through the window but till I hear about it from a more reliable source I’ll hold off on making a decision.

    I think some of us are getting a bit carried away with the idea of gay people living in a constant state of rage. That’s not my experience. Most of us tend to be either impatient or contemptuous of the lies spread about by people like Lively or LaBarbera (what IS it about leather that obsesses him so?) Stone-throwing is very uncharacteristic. But anything’s possible, I suppose.

  • StraightGrandmother

    Here is a link to where the alleged stone throwers allegedly wrote about it.

    It can go either way, a False Flag or a sexual minority filled with rage.

    http://chicago.indymedia.org/newswire/display/95060/index.php

  • Richard Willmer

    I think it’s perfectly legitimate to ‘raise possibilities’. Yes, for me it would be ‘convenient’ if it were to transpire that it was an ‘inside job’ – with an added advantage that, in the event of another similar attack, it would be unlikely that anyone would actually be injured. (I’m very glad noone was hurt in the attack, by the way.)

    Marxist-Muslim-Gay group? That’s a new one on me! Did ‘they’ really suggest this?

    Scott Lively a ‘moderating force’? That really doesn’t work for me, given his many immoderate public pronouncements … unless he’s playing some kind of ‘double-game’ of superhuman subtlety. (Noone has suggested that Lively is a Ugandan lawmaker, by the way … merely that he helped to ‘fan the flames’ during the formation of the Bahati Bill.)

    LGBT persons engage in state violence? What a curious generalization! And what does this mean anyway?

  • Richard Willmer

    ‘Marzist-Muslim-Gay’ … yes, it brings together all those ‘they’ dislike the most.

    Rather too ‘pat’ for my liking …

  • stephen

    Just a little joke. If the thought of a Marxist gay group isn’t already funny enough.

  • Richard Willmer

    I see. ‘Marxist-Muslim-Gay group’ would be ‘overplaying one’s hand’ rather, wouldn’t it?!

    Have ‘they’ actually suggested a possible identity for the group they claim might be responsible, is it just some vague ‘Marxist-Gay’ label that is being waved about? (I can find only the original report on WDN.)

  • stephen

    One thought as to why this could become important: a federal court in Washington has ordered that the names of the referendum 71 that sought to block the legalizing of civil unions must be released. The anti-gay organizers tried to make the case that if the names were released the signers would be subjected to intimidation and perhaps outright violence. This fable has been used extensively by NOM as a rationale for them to refuse to release their donors’ name. They stand in contempt of several state courts. It would seem to me that an incident like this could be very useful to demonstrate the malice of the Marxist-Muslim-Socialist-Nazi gays and provide ‘proof’ that they can’t be trusted not to terrorize those who work to strip them of their civil rights.

  • Richard Willmer

    Obviously, Stephen, this whole situation is a ‘multi-layered’ one. Whilst I do understand Zoe’s reservations about ‘floating theories’, I (like you?) am not inclined to ‘rule out’ an ‘inside job’ (and, whilst I entirely accept that there is currently no hard evidence pointing to this, don’t think it unreasonable to float the possibility).

    Just so you know where I’m coming from: I am a member of the Church of England and am well used to getting along with people with whom I have considerable ‘differences of opinion’ … and indeed want to see maintained a unified and diverse C of E – a place where people can, if necessary, ‘disagree in peace’. I’m not really a ‘radical liberal’; I do however find the ‘take’ of people like Lively deeply distressing, and am deeply suspicious of their methods and motives.

  • StraightGrandmother

    Yes, Richard W. your English Reserve comes through. ;)

  • stephen

    Richard, I’m C of E too. Full disclosure, I’m a gay atheist born of irreligious parents who attended C of E churches, sang in the choir (got thrown out for dropping things out of the loft), was educated at a public school before ending up here. You have no idea of the poison being spread about by the for-profit religious here. From Lively through Joel Osteen (can we talk about gayface?). I don’t want to denigrate anyone’s faith but the anti-gay industry is big business here. Mind you, I don’t consider any of it to be remotely Christian. I was taught about the Bible by our Reverend Doctor and I have a better grasp of it than most of the proof-text quoting ‘culture-warriors’ I come across in the States. I too prefer to get along. But we’re in a war here. We are under constant attack. Some of us don’t handle it well.

    As to the rock-throwing incident: I have no clue. I wasn’t there. I didn’t see. But as before noted as it came from WND I don’t believe a word of it. Which is not to say that some overheated youngster, driven mad by moral indignation, didn’t chuck a chunk of concrete through the window but all I know is that it’s very convenient to our enemy who will stop at nothing to defame and hurt us.

  • Richard Willmer

    Stephen

    So you think the whole thing might have been be staged or faked? Has there been no report of this incident in, say, the IL press?

    SGM

    There’s an Arab saying: “When the English strangle, they do it with cotton!

  • http://www.comingout4christians.net Dave

    Sadly.. I wouldn’t put it past these groups to fake the whole thing. Years ago .. I would have never conceived of such a possibility .. .. now however .. it wouldn’t surprise me. Unless a real news source covers this I doubt we will ever know what really happened … if anything.

    Dave

  • http://madikazemi.blogspot.com/ paul canning
  • Pingback: Ugandan 'kill gays' bill reaches back into US politics | Care2 Causes

  • Richard Willmer

    From the TRIB report:

    Hernandez [the local police spokesperson] said the incident is not being treated as a hate crime because Lively was apparently targeted for his views, not for any of the characteristics cited in the Illinois hate crime law, such as race, color, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

    This raises an interesting legal point re. ‘protected characteristics’. Lively might say that he expresses his views because he is a Christian. The problem – for him – with that line is that there are millions of Christians who do not share his views.

    The Huffpost seems to be saying that ‘they’ are accusing the GLN,

    Well, I don’t want to ‘accuse’ anyone, but have no qualms about keeping some kind of ‘inside job’ theory on the table. It’s surely a possibility that fits with what we currently know. Perhaps it will be able to be discounted when we know more …

  • sam

    Warren,

    If you ignore what some radical ignoramus said on WND, I’m wondering why are you avoiding the real issue: there is evidence that political homosexual activists not only want to silence those who disagree with their lifestyle but they also resort to violence and fearmongering? Like it just happened to Illinois.

  • Richard Willmer

    I’ve not aware of any ‘Anti-Christianity Bill’ proposed/supported by any ‘political homosexual activist’.

    As for attitudes to ‘homosexuality’ generally: I suspect that the majority of people in western societies now see it as ‘a fact of life’, rather than a ‘moral issue’. (The ‘moral issue’ in people’s minds these days is much less ‘sexuality’, and much more ‘how one behaves’ in the field of human relationships: e.g. someone in a loving same-sex relationship is ‘behaving well’.)

  • sam

    Richard,

    In Western Europe and Canada, Christians could be threatened with fines and jailtimes for making speeches condemning same-sex relationships, thanks to the massive influence of political homosexual activists. Just to give you a heads up.

    But even if Scott Lively did something that many homosexuals find so offensive, why do members of the gay community need to resort to physical violence? And why the society need to turn a blind eye to it? When was the last time evangelical Christians threw bricks at gay pride parades?

  • stephen

    Richard, I don’t know. It’s awfully convenient for them, that much is true. We are now moving into a new phase in which the anti-gay forces are claiming victimhood, oppressed by the evil tyrannical gays. It seems we can’t be trusted not to attack innocent church-going folk. So this fits nicely into that fable.

    BTB has an interesting piece about it, looking at the language of the email and finding it suspicious. It does seem like very atypical behavior. Though gay Americans currently suffer the highest incidence of violent attacks compared to other minorities I can’t think offhand of any other attacks carried out by gay activists.

    The police are working on it and I hope they can find out who did it.

  • Richard Willmer

    @ Sam

    We don’t know that ‘a member of the gay community’ was responsible for the vandalism. This is, for now, simply a claim being made by LeBarbara. I for one don’t believe this claim (but I might be mistaken, of course – we’ll see …).

    It is not true that people can be jailed for simply ‘not approving’ of same-sex relationships. What can result in criminal liability are things like material discrimination (e.g. an employer firing someone simply because he/she is gay) and speech/behaviour likely to promote violence or public disorder.

    @ Stephen

    It is true that gay people still suffer a disproportionately high level of abuse (and that abuse can of course be ‘low level’ and insidious, as well as being manifested in outright violence and/or unjust material discrimination), but it is also true that there has, over the last 40 years, been a huge change for the better in public perception of gay people. Here is Britain, when our Conservative Prime Minister pops up and says ‘maybe it’s time for legal provision for (civil) gay marriage’, very few people bat an eyelid. Even the Catholic Church in this country did not oppose the introduction of Civil Partnerships (though they do oppose the use of the term ‘marriage’ – and I would defend their right to express their reservations in an appropriate manner).

    Yes, it does seem that ‘anti-gay activists’ are presenting themselves as ‘victims’, doesn’t it? Is it a case of “I’m a victim” = “I’m not getting everything my own way”, I wonder?

  • Richard Willmer

    @ Sam again

    I am a ‘Western European’, by the way – and I do know what constitutes a criminal act when it comes to expressing views on same-sex relationships.

  • Lynn David

    BTB has its questions about the attribution of the press release to anyone gay. I do too.

    http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/10/19/37986

  • Richard Willmer

    @ Lynn David

    You mean that there are really two issues here:-

    1. Who threw the bricks?

    2. Who sent the press release?

    (It puzzles me that the press release followed the bricks, rather than preceding them as a kind of ‘warning’.)

  • http://www.comingout4christians.net Dave

    @ Sam … The reports of succesful legal attempts to silence pastors are greatly exaggerated if not totally contrived falsehoods. The cases I have seen or heard of had been resolved in favor of the pastors. (But you would never know this by the way the cases were represented to fellow Chrisians by groups such as WND). To come to this realization you would need to go beyond the spin and outright lies put out by folks such as the WND and actually look at the specifics of the individual cases. When I did this .. it amazed me that the cases they were touting as something to be feared were either actually resolved in favor of those pastors .. or involved some actions by Christians that were clearly over the top (actions that were conveniently left out by the liars and spinners in this culture war).

    Dave

  • Richard Willmer

    There was a case in the UK of a ‘pastor’ who help up a sign in public saying that homosexuality was wrong. He was prosecuted and subsequently acquitted. Who was the ‘star witness’ for the defence? None other than the well-known gay rights activist Peter Tatchell! Tatchell testified that the ‘pastor’ had the right to express his opinion as long as he did not act in way that promoted hatred.

    This case served as an important ‘test case’ in the field of hate speech.

    Meanwhile: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23922083-huge-rise-in-anti-gay-attacks-sparks-call-to-fight-hate-crime.do

  • Richard Willmer

    Here’s a more recent example of Tatchell expressing his views with regard to freedom of expression: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1262310/Gay-rights-campaigner-condemns-1-000-fine-preacher-said-homosexuality-sin.html

    (This time the ‘preacher’ in question was convicted and fined.)

    Sorry that I cannot find a citation to back my earlier claim.

  • StraightGrandmother

    Thanks for that link to Box Turtle Bulletin. Really informative article. Hmmm I am leaning more toward false flag than true attack. BTB really analyzed this incident well.

  • http://www.comingout4christians.net Dave

    @ Richard Wilmer .. Thanks for sharing those cases … I think it is worth noting that in the second cae the preacher said that ALL homosexuals were going to hell. Although I am not familiar with the intricacies of the law on this one .. I think there is a marked difference between saying that a particular people group is going to hell .. versus people that comitt certain actions will be judged. Granted .. Its still free speech .. but it really borders on bigotry becaue it condemns people for who they are rather than what they do.

    Dave

  • Lynn David

    Got me, Richard. One of those!

    But the wording of that press release was strange. And I would have listed the actual problems with Lively – were it from me. But since those problems are real I can see why someone would not want to include them in the PR if they were from the other side.

  • sam

    Richard,

    I understand that in the UK, there is a different attitude regarding what is considered a free speech and hate speech than it is here in America. Of course, your laws are different from ours. I was just sharing my perspective on things from an American mindset, which, of course, you and I won’t always agree.

    Dave,

    I think you’re missing my point. Even though, you’re right: so far, all the cases where free speech and conscience of Christians in America over the issue of homosexuality were under attack, have eventually won in their favor, the movement of potlitcal gay lobby wanting to silence the Christians is still going on. The reason why this movement hasn’t won yet, because we still have First Amendment and because evangelical activists, who you mostly see as spinners and liars, still keep on talking. I think their activism is the reason why we stil have First Amendment in place. That’s my point.

    Now, let’s get back to the issue at hand. Scott Lively and AFTAH were holding a meeting, and members of Gay Libernation Network have assaulted them by throwing bricks in their windows. Btw, GLN has a repuation for being extremist, not a representaive of all gay community. GLN has claimed responsibility for that, not only per WND account. Scott Lively has pointed out some truth in his book that offended may people, during the early development of the Nazi Party, many homosexuals were in it. For example, Hitler’s best friend and cofounder of the Nazi German Army, Ernst Rohm was avowed homosexual. But, even if Lively is lying and spinning, what does violence and intimidation towards him going to accomplish? Also, why is it wrong to call upon those attackers? Perhaps, because of PC. Well, in my book, being PC is lousy political spin.

  • http://wthrockmorton.com Warren

    Sam – How do you know that the GLN threw the bricks? I have seen nothing where they take responsibility for it, and in fact denied it.

    Lively is spinning and distorting and this has been pointed out to him. Nothing changes.

    The vandalism was wrong. No one here disputes that. They should be prosecuted and they will be when they are caught.

  • Ken

    sam# ~ Oct 20, 2011 at 2:03 am

    “why do members of the gay community need to resort to physical violence?”

    How do you know the person (or people) responsible for the vandalism are gay?

    “And why the society need to turn a blind eye to it?”

    Who is turning a blind eye to this incident? While I do think gay rights orgs should condemn this violence, and I’m disappointed I haven’t seen more of them do so (although many people on this blog have done that, as do I), I have heard nothing about the police treating this any differently than any other vandalism.

    “When was the last time evangelical Christians threw bricks at gay pride parades?”

    How about last Tues. 10/18:

    Not at parade, but I think this qualifies:

    http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/10/18/1577764/vandals-deface-ncsus-gay-lesbian.html

    Or perhaps this one:

    http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=12078413

    And it wouldn’t be hard to come up with other examples as well. Now granted there is no proof that it was “evangelical christians”, but then there is no proof it was gay activists who broke the window at Christian Liberty Academy either. But it is likely that the perpetrators were christians, given the high percentage of them in the US. Although in the 2nd case they were more likely mormon, which some people don’t consider christian.

  • sam

    I look at this website: http://americansfortruth.com/2011/10/15/breaking-brick-throwing-vandals-attack-aftah-banquet-host-christian-liberty-academy/ and I realized that I have misread their statement. They said that the email they’ve received sounded SIMILAR to the rhetoric of GLN, but I initially thought they said GLN claimed responsibility. As of now, it is still uncertain who did it. To me, it appears that the attackers even though migh not be gay themselves, but supporters of various political advancements of LBGT people.

    Like I said before, I don’t agree with everything Lively, AFTAH, and WND say and do, but this recent attack is not going to change them their ways. I’m afraid it is only going to intensify their disdain for the homosexual community.

  • http://wthrockmorton.com Warren

    sam wrote:

    Like I said before, I don’t agree with everything Lively, AFTAH, and WND say and do, but this recent attack is not going to change them their ways. I’m afraid it is only going to intensify their disdain for the homosexual community.

    I know of no one here who thinks the vandalism is right or that it will change them. I honestly don’t know how their disdain could get much worse.

  • StraightGrandmother

    I wonder if… if, if if, this is a false flag, if this isn’t a ploy to get a video on Maggie Gallagher’s new, “I’m a Christian Victim” website (I am not going to link if you want to see it you will have to look it up yourself grrrr). That BoxTurtleBulletin article is making more and more sense to me, I have been percolating it for a several hours.

  • http://www.exgaywatch.com Emily K

    I don’t get how anyone could agree with ANYTHING Scott Lively and Peter LaBabs do or say. The hatred they spew is almost the stuff of science fiction.

    Nobody believes you sam, nobody here is going to be convinced that evangelicals are “saving the first amendment” (meaning gays are destroying it? Helloooo, Bryan Fischer…)

    I mean come on.

  • sam

    Emily,

    Don’t like the message so you attack the messenger, huh? You see, I’m an educated person, I did some research and found out that there were gay individuals who contributed to the formation of the Nazi Party, especially the formation of its stormtroopers. The head of stormtroopers was Ernst Rohm, who was openly gay. He was Hitler’s right hand until the emergence of SS in 1934 when the SS convinced Hitler to execute him. Pretty much the Nazis were comprised of the stormtroopers and the SS. The former had gays in it and was relatively gay-friendly, the latter was venomously anti-gay, but Hitler tried to be friends with both factions. So, Lively was correct when he wrote that gays have played an instrumental role in forming the Nazi Party. The only thing I disagree with him when he stated that the cruelty the stormtroopers practiced was influenced by their apparent homosexuality.

    As far as Christians and all those who refuse to affirm homosexual relationships losing their First Amendment rights, there is plenty of evidence of that. I wouldn’t necessarily say that Scott Lively and Peter LaBarbera are helping the victims defend their liberties, but many other evangelical organizations do, like Allianse Defense Fund. Just, please, take a look at the recent case, currently on on appeal:

    http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/10/04/6th-circuit-weighs-grad-students-free-speech-claim/

    I hope, the appeal court decision will eventually rule in her favor, which would send a message: you can be gay but you can’t force others to affirm your sexual behavior choices.

    • http://wthrockmorton.com Warren

      sam – there is a big difference between saying that gays played an instrumental part in forming the Nazi party and the fact that some Nazis were gay. The latter is true but the former leaves the impression that there were gays who conspired to create a party to further their ends as a group. That is not true.

      By this logic, since most of the early Nazis were straight, you would have to agree that straights played an instrumental role in forming the Nazi party.

  • http://www.exgaywatch.com Emily K

    you can be gay but you can’t force others to affirm your sexual behavior choices.

    Which is why she should attend Liberty University or Oral Roberts (or even Ave Maria University, if it’s still around) to get her degree and not Michigan.

    See, Michigan adheres to standards set by the APA and other medical organizations. If she wants to adhere to pseudo-scientific garbage that NARTH tries to peddle, she should attend a university whose curriculum allows such. Michigan doesn’t.

    You can refuse to council gay people but you can’t force the school you’re attending to change their standards for you.

    Don’t like the message so you attack the messenger, huh?

    Careful, your laurel crown is showing. But hey, if feeling like a martyr is what justifies your beliefs in your own brain, be my guest. Though, the owner of this blog might have a thing or two to say about the whole “Nazis were largely gay” canard.

  • StraightGrandmother

    I read the article and I see no evidence of Julea Ward beoiing denied her First Amendment rights of Freedom of Religion. She is a grad student, the Michigan school has standards, and she is not meeting the standards.

    From the article,

    “This case is about what is in the best interest of a client who is in need of counseling, and following the curricular requirements of our highly-respected and nationally-accredited counseling program, which adheres to the Code of Ethics of the American Counseling Association and the Ethical Standards of the American School Counselor Association. Those Ethical Standards require that counselors are not to allow their personal values to intrude into their professional work.”

    She is pursuing a counseling degree in order to be a high school counselor. Does she think there are any high schools in America, secular or non-secular that have no sexual minority students, or students who are dealing with sexual minority issues with their family or friends? If she was a truthful person she would need to disclose this in a job interview, “Oh by the way, you should know that do to my religious beliefs I won’t be available to help any child who is a sexual minority or having issues with sexual minorities in their lives” Why did she go to Eastern Michigan, she should have gone to a non-secular school where she could meet their standards.

    We all have freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech in our Private Lives and in the Public Square (can’t yell fire though), but once we step onto a school campus, or inside a classroom, or in the office building, or factory floor we have to abide by the rules and regulations of our employer or school. Those rules and regulations, employment conditions/school standards may also extend to your speech outside the workplace sometimes. Don’t like the deal? Don’t take the job or go to school there.

    It is the same scenario as when a sexual minority takes a job at a Religious Organization whose work rules require the employee to live their life in alignment with the organizations religious values. In this case the sexual minority looses they should not have accepted the job. I draw the line at employment at religious organizations, and businesses owned by religious people, when the people want to enforce their religion into their private business. Religious Organizations, okay, Private Business not okay, we must have strong non discriminatory Public Accommodations and Employment Laws.

    Sam, I decline to get into a debate with you, I offer you this one time feedback on the article, so you will have the last word on this from my end, as I am sure you will reply. Holding my nose, I am not even going to discuss Nazis & sexual minorities, nope not going there.

  • sam

    there is a big difference between saying that gays played an instrumental part in forming the Nazi party and the fact that some Nazis were gay. The latter is true but the former leaves the impression that there were gays who conspired to create a party to further their ends as a group. That is not true.

    By this logic, since most of the early Nazis were straight, you would have to agree that straights played an instrumental role in forming the Nazi party.

    Warren, I don’t disagree with you, at all. While it’s true, that majority of the early Nazis were straight (just like in the rest of the world’s population) , there were also Nazis who were gay. The key issue is that those Nazis who were gay, like Ernst Rohm, became able to acquire powerful leadership positions within the party. Like I said before, Lively went on to blame the Nazis’s overall brutal militarism on homosexuality too much, and this is where I find him to be spinning. FYI, he wrote his book, as a rebuttal to Richard Plant’s “Pink Triangle,” depicting the persecution of gays by the SS. Perhaps, Lively was intentionally trying to be satyrical, but I don’t consider it to be a smart action.

    As for Julea Ward, I look at both sides of this case, and I found that she didn’t object to counseling gays per se, she only recused herself from helping a gay client who wanted to affirm his relationship, so she referred him to another counselor. If my memory serves me correctly, both APA and ACA ethical codes allow counselors to refer clients due to values conflicts, especially over issues such as abortion and homosexuality. There is no blanket rule in ethical codes stating that counselors and counseling students MUST affirm homosexual relationships, thus it looks like EMU got it wrong. The key issue here is not whether they have a right to set their curricular standards, but whether they have a right to set them in a public university, where all students, both gays in relationships and Christians disapproving such relationships are protected by the First Amendment.

  • Richad Willmer

    @ Sam

    Yes, there is a difference between the American and European approach the freedom of speech and, yes, you and I see things in different ways. But I think we must surely agree that freedom of speech is not the only ‘freedom’ that must be defended: freedom to personal honour and freedom from persecution are just as important, and, IMHO, Lively’s rantings endanger those freedoms with regard to homosexual persons.

    Yes, Roehm was gay, and this was probably used as one of the excuses to kill him in 1934 (the real reason was Hitler wanted to keep the German Army on his side). It is also true that the was, in Nazi Germany, systematic and brutal persecution of homosexual persons. Roehm was indeed a thug, but, as the saying goes, ‘one swallow does not make a summer’ … i.e. just because because one can cite one thug who is/was gay does not permit the making of the kind of generalizations that Lively makes. Overall, did Nazism further any kind of recognizable ‘gay agenda’? History seems to give a clear answer to that question – and the answer is surely ‘no’. Warren’s point on Nazi aims with regard to homosexuality is well made.

    Yes, Scott Lively has the right to express his opinions. Those of us who are his Christian antagonists are not pointing the finger at him simply because he expresses certain views, but because he is doing in ways and contexts that, in our opinion, undermine core Christian values that we hold dear.

  • http://www.comingout4christians.net Dave

    @Sam… The ability to recuse one’s self from a case is an acceptable part of proffessional counseling. I am a bit puzzled as to why she is not being allowed to do that. Perhaps Dr. Throckmorton could enlighten us here.

    Other than that I find most of your claims here to be really off. God helps us all if lying evangelicals are the only thing keeping the first amendment in place .. Quite frankly .. just about every group whines about their free speech being infringed when they think they are not getting it. So no one wants to see it come to an end. Honestly .. the biggest bullies against free speech and equal rights are often Christians. Lively would be happy to see gay folks jailed in Uganda and forced into reparative therapy. The mere act of publishing or saying anything affirming could get you jail time. (Where is their free speech?) Christian groups such as the AFA and FRC are opposed to ENDA which would protect gay folks from being fired because they are gay. Ironically .. if a gay group put forth the idea that people should be able to fire you because you are a Christian (which is truly a choice) these same groups would cry foul and be screaming unfair all over the place .. Your Julea Ward case is similar to this. Likewise these same groups cry first amendment rights when they invade other people’s events with bullhorns and signs. (I bet they wouldn’t cry first amendment rights if another group disrupted their prayer rally) All of this makes their alleged position of savior of the first amendment, as you have implied, rather dubious.

    Dave

  • http://wthrockmorton.com Warren

    I have been involved in the Ward case and so until it is decided, I can’t say much about it.

    I can say that the court ruled against Ward initially, not because counselors, in theory, can’t refer but because the school reserved the right to provide her with a diversity of experiences with all clients. The school is saying that they should be able to require students to see all kinds of clients in training. What they do in practice is another matter, but they want them to see gay clients, even if it disturbs their religious beliefs because that is what training for diverse populations is all about.

    My view is that she should have been allowed to refer that client but she should have another chance to encounter GLB people in another way. I don’t think it is educationally or ethically sound to learn on real clients when she has that much problem with conscience. There are other ways to work up to being able to handle such situations rationally. Referral, even if it is because of the value issue of the counselor, is usually in the best interest of the client because clients deserve the most engaged and helpful counselor they can get. A counselor wrestling with personal conscience doesn’t help a client.

  • Ken

    sam# ~ Oct 20, 2011 at 10:38 pm

    “As for Julea Ward, I look at both sides of this case, and I found that she didn’t object to counseling gays per se, she only recused herself from helping a gay client who wanted to affirm his relationship, so she referred him to another counselor. ”

    No, what she did was refuse to take participate in a part of the curriculum.

    “If my memory serves me correctly, both APA and ACA ethical codes allow counselors to refer clients due to values conflicts, especially over issues such as abortion and homosexuality. ”

    Except this is not the case of a licensed/accredited counselor. In Ward’s case she was an intern learning proper counseling methods. She is in essence demanding that the school change their curriculum (in her case) to satisfy her personal religious views. And I suspect (and hope) she will have no more success than if a student demanded that she not have to learn evolutionary theory because it conflicted with her creationist religious views. Or a medical student demanding she not have to learn how to do blood transfusions because she is a jehovah’s witness. If Ward wanted an education that conformed to her religious views, then she should have attended a religious school.

    EMU has a right to maintain a specific level of academic standards to maintain the integrity of their degree programs. I.e. To be able to say that any person graduating with a degree from their university has been properly educated and trained in a given manner. Basically, what Ward is saying is “I don’t want to meet those standards, but I still want your degree.” And that is why I don’t think (and certainly hope) she won’t win this case.

  • http://www.comingout4christians.net Dave

    Thank you Dr. Throckmorton and Ken..

    I had a feeling the issue was more one of following curriculum than professional ethics. This makes sense to me.

    In light of this .. it would appear that this is yet another case of political showboating by certain Christian organizations without disclosing all the facts involved. (Sigh)

    Dave

  • sam

    As far as I can see, Pink Swastika, was nothing but a political satire. With that being said, it should not be taken seriously. The purpose of all satires is to offend somebody and to twist facts, yet when liberals like Michael Moore write them, hardly anybody screams: “I’m offended!” Another person who comes to my mind is a gay writer named Michaelangelo Signorile. I’ve met him personally in New York City a long time ago. Back in the 1990s, he wrote an article entitled “I do! I do! I do!” In it, he denigraded straight marriages and argued superiority of gay relationships. Needless to say, it was a satire, but it probably offended many religious conservatives. So, I’m wondering, if liberals like Moore and Signorile can write political satire, why can’t conservatives?

    On Julea Ward, I’ve studied the necessary documents and briefs coming from both her and the school’s side. What I’ve learned, is the school was disrespectful to her Christian beliefs, they even suggested to her that if she wants to graduate she adopts the beliefs of churches that welcome same-sex relationships (wow!), but the school’s position that what they did they were teaching their curriculum, and it was their right. My position is: that kind of “curriculum” is acceptable per se but NOT in EMU, which is a public university. It should be not be acceptable, because public universities fall under the radar of the First Amendment rights, freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.

    Speaking of the First Amendment, I personally would like to keep it in place, that has to do with having my parents living in oppressive Communist society. A lot of people in America don’t understand it. That’s why I’m very critical of the groups who in my opinion, are challenging its existense. What I’m hearing here, is a suggestion that God might not want us to keep the First Amendment. You know, He always has plans we don’t understand. So, I’m wondering why wouldn’t God be okay with the First Amendment?

  • Richad Willmer

    As I see it, there is another very profound problem with Lively’s position.

    I have watched clips of Lively speaking in Uganda and he appears to suggest that gay people have – regardless of what they might or might not do – a deep-seated set of personality disorders (using terms such as ‘monster’). In other words, he seems to be judging people on the basis of who they are, and not on the basis of what they do and how they treat and/or affect others. It seems that he is saying something like “these people might do so-and-so and should therefore be treated such-and-such a way”. From a moral and philosophical viewpoint, this is surely definitively wrong and totally indefensible.

    Lively’s alleged ‘political satire’ (if that is what it is – which I doubt) is especially dangerous, particularly when aired in places like Uganda, because it feeds on bigotry that is already there. By making his gay-Nazi link, for example, he reinforces any violent tendencies that there might be in people who are already anti-gay. Again, this is surely indefensible from a moral perspective. Political satire against marriage is very unlikely to promote hatred against people who are married, and so – while some might find such satire distasteful – it cannot be deemed to pose the same kind of threat to human dignity.

  • sam

    I would say that many social conservatives fear that the institution of marriage, which in their mind is a vital part of humanity, will be destroyed whenever they hear political satires on marriage.

  • ken

    sam# ~ Oct 21, 2011 at 12:15 pm

    “As far as I can see, Pink Swastika, was nothing but a political satire. ”

    then I think you need a new eye glass prescription, or perhaps a new dictionary. Lively didn’t write “the Pink Swastika” as a political satire.

    “With that being said, it should not be taken seriously. ”

    It is taken seriously, by far to many people, and I have yet to hear Lively claim they are mis-interpreting his “political satire.”

    “So, I’m wondering, if liberals like Moore and Signorile can write political satire, why can’t conservatives?”

    No one is preventing them from doing so. However, you seem to be mistaking freedom of speech with freedom from the consequences of speech. You are free to say whatever you want (with certain limitations), but that doesn’t make you immune to consequences of what you say. It doesn’t mean that people who disagree with you can’t say they don’t like you, or call you names, or boycott your business, or boycott people you do business with.

    “What I’ve learned, is the school was disrespectful to her Christian beliefs, they even suggested to her that if she wants to graduate she adopts the beliefs of churches that welcome same-sex relationships (wow!),”

    Can you provide a reference for this claim?

    “that kind of “curriculum” is acceptable per se but NOT in EMU, which is a public university.”

    Just because EMU is a public university doesn’t mean it can’t set standards for it educational programs.

  • sam

    Both Lively and Moore presented their works “Pink Swastika” and “Fahrenheit 911″ as documentaries, but anybody who has common sense can tell it’s not the case.

    I suggest you look at the case of factual documents surrounding Julea Ward’s case: http://oldsite.alliancedefensefund.org/userdocs/WardComplaint.pdf

    This particular document records the hearing process which has lead to her dismissal. It appears like the professors were being very indoctrinational and not educational towards her.

  • stephen

    In the words of the authors at pinkswastika.com:

    Welcome to The Pink Swastika 5th (Internet) Edition.

    It has been several years since we published the fourth edition of this book. In that time we have accumulated a substantial amount of new documentation supporting our thesis that the Nazi Party was conceived, organized and controlled throughout its short history by masculine-oriented male homosexuals who hid their sexual proclivities from the public, in part by publicly persecuting one group of their political enemies: out-of-the-closet effeminate-oriented homosexuals aligned with the German Communist Party.

    During that same time, our detractors, mostly “gay” political activists, have increased their attacks on the book, primarily by ridiculing its premise, but occasionally by challenging certain facts or sources. They are rightly concerned that this book threatens their long-standing public-relations strategy of posing as victims to win public support for their political agenda.

    When the first edition of The Pink Swastika was published in 1995, the homosexual community was heavily invested in a campaign to equate homosexuals with Jews as Nazi victims in order to exploit the Holocaust for their political advantage. The primary symbol of their movement at that time was the inverted pink triangle, which had been used by the Nazis to identify homosexuals interned in German work camps during the Third Reich, and it was common to hear “gay” activists talk about “the Gay Holocaust.”

    The Pink Swastika was written to challenge that campaign. Because, while there certainly were some homosexual victims of the Nazi regime, and a record of harsh public condemnation of homosexuality by the Nazi Party, the true, complete story of homosexuality in Nazi and pre-Nazi Germany does not in the least help the “gay” cause.

    If The Pink Swastika were the “pack of lies” the homosexual movement claims it is, the book would not have influenced their “Gay Holocaust” strategy in the smallest degree. It would have been easy to discredit and disregard. Instead, how did the “gay” leaders respond to its challenge? They stopped talking about the Nazis almost entirely and changed their symbol from the pink triangle to the rainbow flag.

    We prevailed in our campaign. And our research was implicitly vindicated. However, the attacks continued and now various, ostensibly non-homosexual surrogates have taken up the “gay” effort to discredit the book.

    This edition of The Pink Swastika is designed to once-and-for-all silence the critics by emphasizing the strength of our documentation. The Internet is particularly helpful in this task because we can provide direct links to supporting documents and websites, pictures, graphics, video clips and other resources right alongside the text in an interactive format.

    We hope you find The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party 5th (Internet) Edition useful and informative.

    They don’t think it’s satire.

  • ken

    sam# ~ Oct 21, 2011 at 3:55 pm

    “Both Lively and Moore presented their works “Pink Swastika” and “Fahrenheit 911? as documentaries, but anybody who has common sense can tell it’s not the case. ”

    Technically, they could both be classified as documentaries. It would be more accurate to call them propaganda pieces (and I do). However, there are no grounds for calling “The Pink Swastika” a political satire.

    “I suggest you look at the case of factual documents surrounding Julea Ward’s case:”

    I read that before I posted my query. No where in there was there anything suggesting the faculty or administration told her (or implied that she should) change her church or religion. And I know enough about the Alliance defend group to know if that was even suggested, it would have been in that court filings. So again, I ask, do you have a citation for the claim you made about the school asking her to change her church.

  • sam

    Okay,

    I’m willing to believe to “Pink swastika” is more likely to be classified as a political propaganda and I’m guessing the same should go for “Fahrenheit 911.” I guess it’s matter how different people perceive them.

    As for the link, if you please, scroll down to page 87, you will notice that during that hearing, one professor was showing examples that you can be a Christian and affirm same-sex relationships. Judging by the overall tone, the professor was asserting that only this kind of Christian beliefs are compatible for the counseling profession.

  • ken

    sam# ~ Oct 21, 2011 at 5:17 pm

    “As for the link, if you please, scroll down to page 87, you will notice that during that hearing, one professor was showing examples that you can be a Christian and affirm same-sex relationships. Judging by the overall tone, the professor was asserting that only this kind of Christian beliefs are compatible for the counseling profession.”

    I can’t find anywhere in that where a professor told or insinuated she should change her religious beliefs. Nor did I see anything where a professor essentially said “this is how a christian counselor could respond” (which by the way isn’t even close to suggesting she change her church/religion). All I found where hypothetical cases, and asking Ward how she would handle them. Perhaps you can post some of the text and the exact page number.

  • sam

    FRANCIS: OK, good, I… I wanted to make sure I understood that and that was clear for

    5 me.

    6 DUGGER: And is it my understanding, then, that if another person, another client who

    7 came in, who identified as Christian, didn’t observe Christianity in the same manner you do…

    8 WARD: Ahum.

    9 DUGGER: … for instance, Dr. Francis came to talk with you…

    10 WARD: OK.

    11 DUGGER: … and he identifies as Christian and you identify as Christian…

    12 WARD: OK.

    13 DUGGER: … that you would see your brand of Christianity as superior to his because

    14 you are not just a Christian in name only.

    15 AMETRANO: Wait a minute, I don’t… I don’t think that you’re allowed…to ask

    16 questions.

    17 DUGGER: Oh, sorry. I with… I, um, … I withdraw my question.

    18 AMETRANO: OK, yeah.

    19 FRANCIS: OK, and let me… let me take it another direction,

    20 DUGGER: … my apologies…

    21 FRANCIS: Let me take it another direction here because I … I’m going to get some

    22 other things and I’m gonna take it on a little bit of a theological bout.

    23 WARD: OK.

    Compl. Ex. 3 – 49

    Case 2:09-cv-11237-GCS-PJK Document 1-5 Filed 04/02/2009 Page 29 of 41

    29

    1 FRANCIS: OK. Um, is anyone more righteous than another before God?

    2 WARD: Is anyone more righteous than another before God?

    3 FRANCIS: Yeah.

    4 WARD: God says that we’re all the same.

    5 FRANCIS: Yeah.

    6 WARD: That’s what God says.

    7 FRANCIS: OK, so, if that’s your direction…

    8 WARD: Ahum.

    9 FRANCIS: … how does that then fit with your belief that … and I understand that

    10 you’re not, because the word you keep using is affirming, you’re not, which comes across as I’m

    11 not going to condone that behavior, I’m not going to affirm it, so I’m not going to go that way.

    12 WARD: OK.

    13 FRANCIS: If that’s true, then aren’t you on equal footing with these people? With, with

    14 everyone?

    15 WARD: Absolutely, Dr. Francis.

    16 FRANCIS: OK.

    17 Then doesn’t that mean that you’re all on the same boat and shouldn’t they be accorded

    18 the same respect and honor that God would give them?

    19 WARD: Well, what I want to say is, again, I’m not making a distinguishable difference

    20 with the person.

    21 FRANCIS: OK.

    22 WARD: I’m addressing the behavior.

    23 FRANCIS: OK, so it’s love the saint condemn the sinner, or condemn the sin – I’m sorry.

    Compl. Ex. 3 – 50

    Case 2:09-cv-11237-GCS-PJK Document 1-5 Filed 04/02/2009 Page 30 of 41

    30

    1 WARD: If that’s the wording you want to use.

    2 FRANCIS: What wording would you use?

    3 WARD: What I’ve just said. I’m not opposed to any person.

    4 FRANCIS: Uh huh.

    5 WARD: OK? I believe that we all are, um, God loves us all, is what I believe.

    6 FRANCIS: OK. Good. I … I just want to make sure I understand where you’re coming

    7 from.

    8 WARD: OK.

    This is part of the conversation, to me it looks like professor Francis is insinuating that only Christians who don’t see same-sex relationships as sinful, like Metropolitan Community Church, can become counselors. Those who do see it as sin, have a choice, either they allow professor Francis to remediate them, or get expelled from the counseling program.

  • http://www.exgaywatch.com Emily K

    Those who do see it as sin, have a choice, either they allow professor Francis to remediate them, or get expelled from the counseling program.

    Yes. Either they learn by the standards of the APA (and subsequently, the University) or they find another program. It’s very clear cut.

    She wouldn’t be a cause celebré among the right wing if she were an atheist trying to go through a divinity program at Liberty U. But the concept is exactly the same.

  • http://funfrotfacts.blogspot.com Throbert McGee

    Perhaps Lively was intentionally trying to be satyrical

    I doubt you’re the first person to suggest that Lively’s obsession with male homosexuality has an element of satyr in it.

    (Good taste forbids me from linking to a particularly hilarious 1st-century Roman sculpture of an excited satyr and a goat, from a home in Herculaneum that was buried along with Pompeii in 79 AD, but you can easily find it by Googling…)

  • sam

    Lively’s obsession with homosexuality has to do with him being a rightwing nutjob alarmist, a mirror opposition of a bunch of leftwing nutjob alarmists such as Michael Moore, Wayne Besen, and the Onion. I think that being an alarmist of any kind is very unproductive.

    I found Lively writing Pink Swastika to be satyrical, because he wrote it as a rebuttal to a book called Pink Triangle. It looks like he was satyrizing, or humiliating the content of the latter.

  • ken

    sam# ~ Oct 21, 2011 at 9:27 pm

    “This is part of the conversation, to me it looks like professor Francis is insinuating that only Christians who don’t see same-sex relationships as sinful, like Metropolitan Community Church, can become counselors. Those who do see it as sin, have a choice, either they allow professor Francis to remediate them, or get expelled from the counseling program.”

    1st of all, NO WHERE in this hearing, does any faculty member suggest to Ward that she should change her religious belief or church. Nor is any any other branch of christianity mentioned. This questioning is part of a line of questioning that is determining how much (and in what areas) Ward’s religious beliefs would effect her ability to counsel clients. And it also showed that Ward puts her religious beliefs ahead of scientific evidence

    ex:

    Compl. Ex. 3 -39 3-40 (pdf pages 77-78)

    23 FRANCIS: First, do you think that homosexuality is a choice?

    1 WARD: Do I think that homosexuality is a choice? Yes.

    the line of questioning was to determine how much her religious beliefs would interfere with her ability to complete the counseling program. Not an attempt to force her to change her religion.

    what if Ward’s stance were this: “My religion teaches me that blacks are inferior and evil and it is wrong to interact with them, therefore I would not be able to counsel blacks”? Would you still argue that the school would be wrong for dismissing her from the counseling program Sam?

  • sam

    Ken,

    There is no scientific evidence yet, stating that homosexuality is genetic, or that people are born gay. Also, in the whole context, she was addressing a homosexual behavior, which is a choice. I just can’t logically put any sexual behavior, in this case a homosexual one, on the same board with having a skin color.

    Also, I believe that an ideology stating that disapproval of gay relationships is exactly the same thing as being racist is nothing but a fear tactic designed to malign conservative Christians,

  • Richad Willmer

    @ Sam

    I agree that to denigrate the commitment that people make to each other when they marry is something that could indeed be damaging to society. However, where Lively’s alleged ‘satire’ is peculiarly dangerous is in its capacity to affirm unjust treatment of people who are, for whatever reason, ‘not the marrying kind’.

    It is not only ‘liberal’ Christians who are alarmed by behaviour that could reasonably be deemed to promote homophobia, by the way. The Pope himself has made clear his opposition to what he terms ‘violent malice in speech and action’ towards gay people, describing it as ‘deplorable’ and saying that such behaviour ‘undermines the most fundamental principles of a healthy society’. I would say that Lively’s utterances have included some very malicious ones.

    It could also be argued that those who campaign for societal recognition of committed same-sex relationships are, in a real sense, affirming, and not denigrating, important aspects of Marriage.

  • http://www.comingout4christians.net Dave

    @ Sam … Ward thinks homosexuality is a choice per the document…

    What does that mean? How do you know she means behavior? This is the classic problem with Christians (and yes I am one). They don’t distinquish between identity and action. This is incredibly evident when you look at Lively .. Narth, and even Exodus to name a few groups.

    Additionally your whole ‘born with’ argument is rather old news … I might add that there is no proof that people are born extroverts .. or born introverts .. or born with any other attribute on the Myers Briggs scale. That doesn’t make their personality attribute(s) changeable. In fact .. most wisdom would say personality attributes are not changeable.

    While I respect the fact that you are actually looking at the documents .. most of the conclusions you are coming to are not found in them .. she is not told to change churches .. nor her religion .. she is being asked to counsel .. as a student in a learning academic setting .. people whose beliefs are different then hers. That’s really part of the job of education .. to expose students to the world of thoughts and ideals that may differ then their own. … To prepare them for what they will face in the real world. It is certainly a reality she will face in the real world of counseling. If .. at that time … she wants to retreat into her own little Chrisian bubble and refuse all patients whose moral beliefs do not match hers then that’s her business … but I am not sure how you can line that up with Christ’s call to share the gospel with everyone… He certainly did not place such limitations on Himself and His ministry. He met people wherever they were at.

    I think this is why I find this so disturbing .. yes there may be times she will defer … but her boundaries here seem rather abrupt and ultimately very narrow .. I really do not see how .. as a counselor .. she is going to function in the real world and be an influence on anyone other than dyed in the wool Christians who share her particular moral belief system

    Dave

  • ken

    sam# ~ Oct 22, 2011 at 12:57 am

    “There is no scientific evidence yet, stating that homosexuality is genetic, or that people are born gay.”

    True, the exact factors that determine a person’s orientation are unknown. However, there is a lot of evidence that there are biological and pre-natal factors. Although, I don’t see how this is relevant to the current discussion.

    “Also, in the whole context, she was addressing a homosexual behavior, which is a choice. ”

    She certainly didn’t make any distinction when the question was asked. And when asked about other hypothetical clients who engaged in similar behavior (extra marital sex) she was not so adamant in her beliefs not to treat such people, even though that too was against her religious beliefs.

    “I just can’t logically put any sexual behavior, in this case a homosexual one, on the same board with having a skin color. ”

    So you are saying it is okay for a person to reject another person based on religious beliefs about the 2nd person’s behavior, but not okay to reject a person based on religious beliefs about the 2nd person’s skin color?

    “I believe that an ideology stating that disapproval of gay relationships is exactly the same thing as being racist is nothing but a fear tactic designed to malign conservative Christians,”

    I didn’t say it was “exactly the same thing”, but I would like to know why it is acceptable for some to discriminate based on religious beliefs in the 1st case, but not in the 2nd case?

  • http://www.exgaywatch.com Emily K

    There is no scientific evidence yet, stating that homosexuality is genetic, or that people are born gay.’

    This is actually patently false. Maybe the evidence presented is evidence you are unwilling to accept. But this is different from saying there is “no evidence.”

    It is also a red herring to say “homosexuality is not genetic.” Not every inborn trait is caused by pure genetics. In fact the field is rather complex. Right wingers like to say “THere is NO GAY GENE” as if this is the final say on the subject. There’s no left-handed gene, either. Genetics is more complicated than that.

    I just can’t logically put any sexual behavior, in this case a homosexual one, on the same board with having a skin color.

    That’s true, people can choose their sexual behavior. Straights can choose not to have sex with the person of the opposite sex they’re in love with. But nobody demands life-long celibacy the way they demand it of gays. Why? I have no idea. There simply is no logical, scientific reason to oppose this. People can make all the claims they want about it being “unhealthy” but actually, lesbian sex is the “safest” (and statistically, the most monogamous) of the sexual behaviors. But we’re talking about one’s sexual orientation, not their sexual behavior.

    Let’s put this into terms you can understand. Should the counselor be excused from counseling Jewish people because her religion says that Jews rejected Jesus and are leading errant moral and religious lives as a result?

    Sam, stop pretending you’re just right of center and come clean about your actual beliefs. Do you believe people with a homosexual orientation are broken and in need of treatment as Exodus and NARTH say, or do you agree that we’re human beings with equal standing as heterosexuals?

    THe humanity of gay people is not up for debate. My humanity is not up for debate.

  • http://jontrouten.blogspot.com/ Jon Trouten

    @Sam: Scott Lively in the political counter of *the Onion*? The Onion is a joke. Literally. Thanks for the early morning chuckle, BTW…

  • Joe

    “I believe that an ideology stating that disapproval of gay relationships is exactly the same thing as being racist is nothing but a fear tactic designed to malign conservative Christians,”

    I didn’t say it was “exactly the same thing”, but I would like to know why it is acceptable for some to discriminate based on religious beliefs in the 1st case, but not in the 2nd case?

    ” what makes a law “just” is that it “squares with the moral law or the law of God,” conversely “unjust” laws are those that are “out of harmony with the moral law.”

    Martin Luther King penned those famous words in his 1963 “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” Those words and the convictions that prompted them changed America. But today, they would cause the great civil rights leader to be labeled a “theocrat”, among other things.

    THe humanity of gay people is not up for debate. My humanity is not up for debate.

    You are correct-your humanity is not up for debate. The morality of homosexuality is.

  • StraightGrandmother

    Emily K =

    Straights can choose not to have sex with the person of the opposite sex they’re in love with. But nobody demands life-long celibacy the way they demand it of gays.

    StraightGrandmother= Great Point! If we are going to legally Discriminate against people why shouldn’t it be based on religion which truly is a choice. You are not born Methodist. There is no Lutheran gene, no Catholic DNA.

  • http://www.exgaywatch.com Emily K

    Dr. King supported gay civil equality, said his wife. His speechwriter was a gay man.

  • sam

    I believe that the Bible prohibits homosexual sex, but it’s not my job to make judgments for people how they want to live their lives, because God also gave us a free will and choice.

  • Richard Willmer

    @ Joe

    The issue for Christians is: what constitutes ‘the moral law or the law of God’?

    On this question there is genuine disagreement both within and between various parts of the Church. I for one do not believe that the earlier parts of the O.T. should be seen as the primary source when attempting to answer that question. It must be remembered that the writers of those early O.T. books had an understanding on God that was still ‘under development’ – just as we have today. It just won’t do for any of us glibly to use bits of the Bible to shirk our ongoing responsibility to consider deeply what ‘God’s law’ is really about, and how it might be worked out in practice in the day-to-day life of human society.

    It is immediately obvious to me and many other Christians that the kind of ‘set piece answers’ proposed by the likes of Lively will cause far far more problems than they might ever solve. And I very much doubt that MLK would have in any way approved of what is being peddled by Lively & Co.

  • sam

    I think I’ve mentioned this on another thread already, so I’ll say again: the OT law and penalities associated with it, have been fulfilled by the death of Jesus on the cross. Thus, people need to have faith that his death free them from all kinds of sin.

  • David

    @ Sam:

    Please explain what it means to have a statutory prohibition “fulfilled”. “Fulfilled” is a term that makes sense in the context of a law or regulation that requires an act or finite set of acts. Thus, you can say that you “fulfilled” your obligation to register for the draft when you fill out your registration card and drop it off at the Post Office. You can say that you “fulfilled” your obligation to the Army by completing the term of service to which you committed.

    But the ban on homosexual sex and the proscribed death penalty constitute an ongoing prohibition. There is no action or set of actions that one can take, either personally or vicariously through Jesus, that will “fulfill” this proscription.

    I wish you and your fellow Christians would stop obfuscating the issue. Either the prohibition and the penalty are in effect or they are not. They both arise from the same verse, so they stand or fall together. Your position- 1) the prohibition is in effect as to everyone, 2) the penalty is not in effect b/c it has somehow been “fulfilled” by Christ, and 3) the penalty is even inapplicable to those who have not accepted Christ and his “fulfillment” – is incoherent.

  • sam

    David,

    The best way to explain to you, the OT Levitical laws proscribed various death penalties, for homosexual sex, for children talking back to their parents, and for marital unfaithfulness. However, when Jesus came on earth, he has intentionally died on the cross, instead of all people who have been practicing those sins. Since Jesus is God, he decided that by his death, all people will be forgiven for all these sins but in exchange for people having have to believe in Him, that he died on the cross for our sins.

    Btw, do you remember the incident with Jesus and a woman caught in unfaithfulness to her husband? By law, she should have been stoned to death, but he intervened, forgave her and told to go and sin no more. That’s how Levitical law operates now. I think it’s more like number 2, you listed.

  • sam

    Also,

    Jesus said clearly that those who love his immediate family cannot be his disciples. Therefore, it’s plausible to think if Jesus would counsel people who’d disagree with his values, and try to argue back that his wife/girlfriend, husband/boyfriend, job, is the most important thing in the world, Jesus would scream: DEPART FROM ME TO HELL!

  • Richard Willmer

    @ Sam

    I think you’ve made some good theological points in your last few comments. The central theme of – especially – Saint Matthew’s Gospel account is that Jesus is the Fulfilment of the Law and Prophets and of all the hopes of God’s People.

    I don’t see him doing much screaming, however! He tended to reserve his fiercest words (and screaming?) for those who used religion to oppress people. Which perhaps brings us back to Scott Lively and his ilk?!

  • Richard Willmer

    @ David

    In response to your ‘challenge’: it is not for us to decide what God wants; rather we should try to listen to the many ways in which God speaks to us. Given the antics of people like Lively, and the situation in places like Uganda, it strikes me that one current priority for Christians is actively to defend the instrinsic dignity of all people, especially those who have been or are the object of unjust discrimination and/or unwarranted contempt.

    Basil Cardinal Hume (the then head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales) said this way beack in 1979: “The Church has a serious responsibility to work for the elimination of any injustices perpetrated on homosexual persons by society. As a group that has suffered more than its share of oppression and contempt, the homosexual community has particular claim upon the concern of the Church.

    This kind of statement is a practical expression of what it means to be living under the New Covenant.

  • sam

    Lively is a radical alarmist who likes to create sensations just for the sake of it. Jesus himself was an alarmist, that’s how he appeared to the majority of Jewish community, but his alarmism had a purpose: to bring out a new faith and save the world from sin. I’m not so sure what’s the purpose of Lively’s alarmism? To me, it appears like he just wants to get even with the people he doesn’t agree. Well, Jesus said he wouldn’t condone getting even.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X