| July 9, 2010 Below is just the latest proof that homosexual activists’ political agenda
is the single greatest threat to religious freedom in America today. With your continued support, we will continue to stand against it in Michigan. “The University of Illinois has fired an adjunct professor who taught courses on Catholicism after a student accused the instructor of engaging in hate speech by saying he agrees with the church’s teaching that homosexual sex is immoral. The professor, Ken Howell of Champaign…says he was fired at the end of the spring semester after sending an e-mail explaining some Catholic beliefs to his students preparing for an exam. ‘Natural moral law says that morality must be a response to reality,’ he wrote in the e-mail. ‘In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same.’ An unidentified student sent an e-mail to religion department head Robert McKim on May 13, calling Howell’s e-mail ‘hate speech.’ …In an e-mail to other school staff, Ann Mester, an associate dean at the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, said Howell’s e-mail justified his firing. ‘The e-mails sent by Dr. Howell violate university standards of inclusivity, which would then entitle us to have him discontinue his teaching arrangement with us,’ Mester wrote. …Howell has taught at the university for nine years, and was recognized by his department in 2008 and 2009 for being rated an excellent teacher by students.” ————————————- PEORIA JOURNAL STAR
Peoria, Illinois
July 9, 2010 University of Illinois fires Catholicism professor
Ken Howell dismissed after being accused of engaging in hate speech by the Associated Press URBANA — The University of Illinois has fired an adjunct professor who taught courses on Catholicism after a student accused the instructor of engaging in hate speech by saying he agrees with the church’s teaching that homosexual sex is immoral. The professor, Ken Howell of Champaign, said his firing violates his academic freedom. He also lost his job at an on-campus Catholic center. Howell, who taught Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought, says he was fired at the end of the spring semester after sending an e-mail explaining some Catholic beliefs to his students preparing for an exam. “Natural Moral Law says that Morality must be a response to REALITY,” he wrote in the e-mail. “In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same.” An unidentified student sent an e-mail to religion department head Robert McKim on May 13, calling Howell’s e-mail “hate speech.” The student claimed to be a friend of the offended student. The writer said in the e-mail that his friend wanted to remain anonymous. “Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing,” the student wrote. “Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another.” Howell said he was teaching his students about the Catholic understanding of natural moral law. “My responsibility on teaching a class on Catholicism is to teach what the Catholic Church teaches,” Howell said in an interview with The News-Gazette in Champaign. “I have always made it very, very clear to my students they are never required to believe what I’m teaching and they’ll never be judged on that.” Howell also said he makes clear to his students that he’s Catholic and that he believes the church views that he teaches. McKim referred questions to university spokeswoman Robin Kaler, who said she couldn’t comment on Howell or his firing because it’s a personnel issue. According to the university’s Academic Staff Handbook, faculty “are entitled to freedom in the classroom in developing and discussing according to their areas of competence the subjects that they are assigned.” In an e-mail to other school staff, Ann Mester, an associate dean at the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, said Howell’s e-mail justified his firing. “The e-mails sent by Dr. Howell violate university standards of inclusivity, which would then entitle us to have him discontinue his teaching arrangement with us,” Mester wrote. Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors, said professors should be able to tell students their own views and even argue in favor of them, provided students can disagree without being penalized. “It’s part of intellectual life to advocate for points of view,” said Nelson, an emeritus English professor at the University of Illinois. “Hopefully, when they go out in the world, they can emulate that. They can argue a case, and do it in a well-informed and articulate way, and can make a more productive contribution to our democracy that way.” Howell has taught at the university for nine years, and was recognized by his department in 2008 and 2009 for being rated an excellent teacher by students. He said he and McKim disagree on religious views and believes he lost his job over “just a very, very deep disagreement about the nature of what should be taught and what should not be taught.” After he lost his teaching job, Howell also was fired as director of the St. John’s Catholic Newman Center’s Institute of Catholic Thought. The on-campus center directed questions to the Diocese of Peoria, which had paid for his position. Patricia Gibson, an attorney and chancellor of the diocese, said Howell was let go because he could no longer teach at the university. “We are very concerned and very distressed by what we understand is the situation from Dr. Howell,” she said. The diocese hopes to discuss the situation with someone at the university, she said. A Christian legal defense group, The Alliance Defense Fund, said it is considering helping Howell. http://www.pjstar.com/news/x1143354411/Uof-I-instructor-fired-over-Catholic-beliefs
__________________________________________________ June 28, 2010 | “‘That anyone dares suggest lifting this policy and intentionally exposing Americans to a dramatically increased risk of potentially fatal disease is evidence of a politically correct insanity that borders on criminal negligence,’ said Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan. Glenn cited statistics that affirm that sexually active male homosexuals have HIV infection rates far higher than the general population. According to the Centers for Disease control, the rate of new HIV diagnosis among gay males is more than 44 times that of other men. ‘We strongly support the (Department of Health and Human Services advisory committee) vote to maintain the ban and marvel only that there were any votes at all to lift it and knowingly expose Americans to greater risk of infection,’ Glenn said.” See the Obama Administration’s Food & Drug Administration citation of the statistics above: http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/QuestionsaboutBlood/ucm108186.htm
————————————- GRAND RAPIDS PRESS
Grand Rapids, Michigan
June 28, 2010 Red Cross, blood centers lobby to
end ban on gay men donating blood by Ted Roelofs 
Tim Heacock, 24, stands outside the Michigan Blood donor center at 1036 Fuller
Ave. NE. He wants to be a blood donor but can’t, because current policy bans him
for life because he is gay.
Back in high school, Tim Heacock was proud to give blood. “I think it’s something a good citizen would want to do,” Heacock said. But that was before Heacock, who is gay, became sexually active. And as such, he is now banned for life from giving blood. Heacock, the American Red Cross and other blood organizations think it’s time to change that policy. “I am deeply angered by it,” said Heacock, 24, a graduate student at Grand Valley State University. “It is something I want to do for my fellow countrymen. I want to help, but I am being told I can’t for very archaic reasons.” Despite the urgings of the American Red Cross, America’s Blood Centers and politicians including Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, a government health committee voted earlier this month to keep the lifetime ban in place. Cheryl Bremer, CEO of the American Red Cross of Greater Grand Rapids is “not happy” about that decision. “Our stand is that we will continue to fight for impartiality while striving to maintain a good safe blood supply for us. We don’t have to have that fear. There is probably a whole lot more education that has to happen around what makes the blood supply safe.” Proponents of the ban disagree. They assert the issue is not fear — but safety. “That anyone dares suggest lifting this policy and intentionally exposing Americans to a dramatically increased risk of potentially fatal disease is evidence of a politically correct insanity that borders on criminal negligence,” said Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan. Glenn cited statistics that affirm that sexually active male homosexuals have HIV infection rates far higher than the general population. According to the Centers for Disease control, the rate of new HIV diagnosis among gay males is more than 44 times that of other men. “We strongly support the (committee) vote to maintain the ban and marvel only that there were any votes at all to lift it and knowingly expose Americans to greater risk of infection,” Glenn said. After two days of testimony, an advisory committee to the Department of Health and Human Services voted 9 to 6 to retain a ban that has been in place more than 20 years. The guidelines were put in place before HIV/AIDS screening tests were available, and were designed to target subgroups deemed to pose the greatest risk for the spread of AIDs. But today’s improved testing techniques have led more experts to question the lifetime ban. The American Red Cross and America’s Blood Centers, in a joint statement, called the ban for gay men “medically and scientifically unwarranted.” The two organizations account for about 90 percent of the nation’s blood supply. | FACT SHEET | | The American Red Cross estimates that every two seconds someone in the U.S. needs blood. Other statistics: • More than 38,000 blood donations are needed every day • One out of every 10 people admitted in a hospital needs blood • The blood type most often requested by hospitals is Type O • A single car accident victim can require as many as 100 units of blood. • Replacing the lifetime ban on gay blood donations would yield 89,000 pints a year, according to a study by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law. |
According to the Red Cross, the current “window period” from the time an individual is infected and the time screening tests detect infection ranges from nine days for HIV, seven days for hepatitis C and up to 38 days for hepatitis B. But a statement by Food and Drug Administration, which regulates the nation’s blood supply, questions the absolute reliability of such tests. “HIV tests currently in use are highly accurate, but still cannot detect HIV 100 percent of the time,” it stated. “It is estimated that the HIV risk from a unit of blood has been reduced to about 1 per 2 million in the USA, almost exclusively from so called “window period” donations. “During this time, a person is infected with HIV, but may not have made enough virus or developed enough antibodies to be detected by available tests. For this reason, a person could test negative, even when they are actually HIV positive and infectious,” it stated. Replacement of the lifetime ban by a one-year deferral would yield an additional 89,000 additional pints annually, according to a study by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law. The policy dates back to the 1980s, when fear about HIV and the AIDS epidemic was peaking. It states that a man who had sex with another man even once since 1977 is permanently barred from donating blood. Critics call the lifetime ban hypocritical. They note there is only a one-year ban for a heterosexual man who had sex with an HIV-positive woman, sex with a prostitute or sex with multiple partners. “Our stance is that it is not fair to the gay community that wants to donate blood,” said Monica Stoneking, communications director for the Great Lakes Region of the American Red Cross. “We are basing everything on research and potential risk.” http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/06/red_cross_blood_centers_lobby.html
__________________________________________________ |
June 3, 2010 | “Imagine if we swapped out ‘LGBT’ for ‘left-handed white people’ in (President Obama’s) proclamation: ‘Left-handed white Americans have enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life. From business leaders and professors to athletes and first responders, left-handed white individuals have achieved success and prominence in every discipline. They are our mothers and fathers, our sons and daughters, and our friends and neighbors. Across my Administration, openly left-handed, white employees are serving at every level.’ Now if Obama has said this you’d probably say it was a bit silly, even a tad bit racist. Why in the world would we need to praise people for traits that have no bearing on either their achievements or their worth as individuals?” ————————————————— ILLINOIS FAMILY INSTITUTE
Carol Stream, Illinois
June 2, 2010 Obama proclaims June LGBT Pride Month
by Laurie Higgins, Director
IFI Division of School Advocacy Once again, Barack Obama has affirmed his commitment to radical, subversive change; his sycophancy to the homosexual lobby; and, implicitly, his embrace of heresy. He has already signed into law the dangerously flawed “Hate Crimes” bill, declared his intent to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the Defense of Marriage Act, and committed to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Then on May 28, 2010 Obama issued the following proclamation: (Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender) Americans have enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life. From business leaders and professors to athletes and first responders, LGBT individuals have achieved success and prominence in every discipline. They are our mothers and fathers, our sons and daughters, and our friends and neighbors. Across my Administration, openly LGBT employees are serving at every level…. I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2010 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. Joe Carter writing on the First Things blog seeks further clarity from Obama: Perhaps he could explain how bisexuals-because of their bisexuality-have enriched America and how transgendered-because or their transgendered orientation-have have strengthened the “fabric of our national life.” In other words, maybe he could explain why alternative forms of “gender identity or sexual orientation” are something we should celebrate at the national level. Also, I’d really love to see a few names of the transgendered folks-people who may identify as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, polysexual, or asexual-who are “serving at every level” of his administration. By my count he has exactly one example. Obama wants all Americans to “recognize the immeasurable contributions of LGBT Americans,” insisting that “LGBT Americans have enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life.” No sane person would ever argue that homosexuals have contributed nothing to society. That’s as absurd as claiming that adulterers, porn users, or gossips have contributed nothing to society. But the sexual impulses and sexual behavior of homosexuals and cross-dressers are irrelevant to their contributions. Therefore, making irrelevant characteristics the central focus of “Pride” month as Obama did is absurd. More important, the particular irrelevant characteristics that Obama has chosen to highlight are, in the view of many, disordered and immoral. Those who experience, for example, selfish, vain, greedy, gluttonous, deceitful, promiscuous, incestuous, sadistic, pederastic, gossipy, philandering, or polyamorous impulses and engage in behaviors impelled by such impulses have also contributed to society. How would Americans respond if the president were to proclaim June “Polyamory Pride Month”? Substituting another irrelevant and morally questionable characteristic for homosexuality brings into sharper relief the dubious nature of Obama’s proclamation. Joe Carter emphasizes this point: Presumably all of these Americans who have “enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life” have other characteristics besides their sexual orientation. They are men and women, black and Asian, right-handed and left-handed, etc. So what is the purpose of using their sexual identification as a marker if it has no bearing on their accomplishments? Imagine if we swapped out “LGBT” for “left-handed white people” in his proclamation: “Left-handed white Americans have enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life. From business leaders and professors to athletes and first responders, left-handed white individuals have achieved success and prominence in every discipline. They are our mothers and fathers, our sons and daughters, and our friends and neighbors. Across my Administration, openly left-handed, white employees are serving at every level.” Now if Obama has said this you’d probably say it was a bit silly, even a tad bit racist. Why in the world would we need to praise people for traits that have no bearing on either their achievements or their worth as individuals? All mature people understand that fallen, sinful humans also do good acts and make positive contributions to society because fallen, sinful people are all that the world has. There exists nothing but fallen, sinful people who experience disordered impulses and engage in immoral behaviors. We don’t honor our fellow men and women for those impulses and behaviors; we honor them for their good deeds. It is justifiable to single out for special attention the accomplishments of a group defined by characteristics that carry no behavioral implications open to moral assessment and whose contributions are overlooked because of society’s ignorance or bigotry, like African Americans or the disabled. But homosexuality is not ontologically equivalent to race or disability, and volitional homosexual conduct is a legitimate object of moral assessment. Obama is using his power, his position, and this proclamation to make a fallacious association between good deeds and homosexuality. It is an exploitative stratagem to normalize homosexuality. Associate homosexuality with something positive like creativity, compassion, or self-sacrifice, and eventually the good feelings society has for creativity, compassion, or self- sacrifice will be (irrationally) transferred to homosexuality or cross-dressing. It’s critical to understand the fallacious assumptions embedded in Obama’s declaration because these assumptions are promoted in many societal contexts, including public education. Homosexuals are not a category of humans in the same sense that racial minorities are a category of humans. Homosexuality is a sin disposition–not a morally neutral condition like skin color. When homosexuals have contributed something of value to society, those contributions should be noted. Their sexual predilections, however, are worthy of neither honor nor mention. My sense and the sense of those who are similarly engaged in the cultural debate about homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder is that far too many conservatives refuse to participate in this critical debate for a number of reasons, including an unbiblical and selfish unwillingness to experience persecution (aka cowardice); an unbiblical unwillingness to experience righteous anger; and a (perhaps willful) ignorance of the cultural implications of their indefensible passivity even as perversion is promoted as righteousness through our public schools, courts, legislatures, news media, entertainment industry–and even the highest elective office in the United States. http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=34903
__________________________________________________ |
May 28, 2010 | Dear AFA-Michigan supporter, Please note that despite the opposition of top military leaders, every Democratic member of Michigan’s Congressional delegation voted in favor of changing federal law to force the U.S. military to enlist individuals openly involved in homosexual behavior, while every Republican congressman from Michigan voted against the bill. Michigan’s two Democratic U.S. senators and President Obama also support the bill. This Memorial Day, please join AFA-Michigan in praying that the Lord will intervene to stop this assault on the integrity, morale, and combat readiness of our armed forces in a time of war, and thus on our national security itself.
We deeply appreciate your support. Salute!
_____________  “Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan, who also served in the Army, …says, ‘Serving our nation in the military is not a right. It is a privilege, and it is simply outrageous that these politicians, many who have never worn the uniform, would vote to force the brave men and women who are willing to put their lives on the line to defend our country, to integrate and live and share showers and living facilities with people who are involved openly in homosexual behavior.’
Glenn says there are health risks that heterosexual service members should not be subjected to. ‘We think it should return to a situation in which homosexual conduct prohibits service in the U.S. military out of respect for the men and women willing to put their lives on the line for us.’” Watch video: http://www.connectmidmichigan.com/news/story.aspx?id=463696 —————————————————————- WEYI-TV
NBC Channel 25
Flint, Michigan
May 28, 2010 House votes to repeal ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’
by Dan Armstrong The U.S. House of Representatives approves a measure to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military. The effort to repeal the policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is being spearheaded by Michigan Senator Carl Levin. NBC25 spoke with those who support it and those who oppose it. Michigan Senator Carl Levin says, “The policy should end.” Levin says the current policy discriminates. Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays in Genesee County, also known as PFLAG, supports the House’s decision. The president of Genesee County PFLAG, Terri Dinsmore, says “This is a good first step into repealing that act.” However, Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan, who served in the army, disagrees. Glenn says, “Serving our nation in the military is not a right. It is a privilege, and it is simply outrageous that these politicians, many who have never worn a uniform, would vote to force the brave men and women who are willing to put their lives on the line to defend our country, to integrate, and live, and share showers and living facilities with people who are involved openly in homosexual behavior.” Glenn says there are health risks that heterosexual service members should not be subjected to. “We think it should return to a situation in which homosexual conduct prohibits service in the U.S. military out of respect for the men and women who willing to put their lives on the line for us.” Supporters say, it’s an issue of fair treatment. Dinsmore says, “It is an equal rights thing. Nobody should have to hide who they are.” To become law, the senate would have to pass a measure and have presidential approval. Those who support the measure would also have to show there would be no adverse effects.
Opponents say, it would affect the military’s cohesiveness, readiness, and recruitment procedures. http://www.connectmidmichigan.com/news/story.aspx?id=463696
__________________________________________________ |
May 22, 2010 | Check out this report of a Congressional debate published by the Iowa Republican, which reveals the Trojan Horse agenda behind homosexual activists’ so-called “bullying” bills, that being to create a legal precedent of special “protected class” status under law based on homosexual behavior: “Funk also attacked Brad Zaun for his vote in favor of the anti-bullying bill while in the (Iowa) State Senate. The bullying bill specifically protected gays, lesbians, and transgendered people from being bullied in school. Most Republicans didn’t support the bill because it carved out special rights for people based on behavior. The bullying bill that Zaun supported was cited by the Iowa Supreme Court when it issued its ruling in Varnum vs. Brien, which allowed gay marriages to occur in Iowa.” http://theiowarepublican.com/home/2010/05/18/funk-gets-aggressive-in-tea-party-debate
__________________________________________________ |
May 22, 2010 | “Only eight of the 39 states that have laws to address bullying enumerate — or specifically identify — bullying based on sexual orientation and gender identity as prohibited conduct. …In the past several weeks, Massachusetts, Mississippi, and Wisconsin have each enacted non-enumerated anti-bullying laws, even though Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender advocates had been pushing for enumerated versions. …A bill that sought to address bullying in Michigan died in 2008 in the state Senate because senators could not agree on whether to enumerate the categories of victims. A new, non-enumerated version of the bill this year passed the state House on May 12, and now heads back to the Senate. The right-wing American Family Association (AFA) has been actively opposing language that defines bullying as ‘reasonably perceived to be motivated by animus or by an actual or perceived characteristic.’ In an action alert to supporters in early May, the AFA said the Michigan bill would make bullying a ‘thought crime’ and would still define it as ‘motivated by a student’s ’characteristics,’ including homosexual behavior and cross-dressing.’ …But one of the most high-profile national groups pushing for laws to address the problem of bullying, ‘Bully Police,’ is also one of the key opponents of enumeration. Brenda High, founder of Bully Police, told the New York Daily News in March that she believes that state’s legislature has repeatedly failed to pass an anti-bullying law because the bill includes language that gives ’special protection’ to gay children and those with special needs. On its Web site (bullypolice.org), Bully Police explains, ‘Defining victims will slow the process of lawmaking, dividing political parties who will argue over which victims get special rights over other victims. …All children who are bullied are victimized and they ALL need to be protected.’ High founded the group after she lost her son Jared to a bullying-related suicide in 1998. …(High said,) ‘We must teach our children Christian values and ask our schools to teach ’do unto others’ values so that all of our children can have a safe and bully-free environment to learn.’” ————————————————————————— BAY WINDOWS
“New England’s largest GLBT newspaper”
(homosexual activist newsweekly)
Boston, Massachusetts
May 20, 2010 Anti-bullying measures advance against obstacles
Pressure to include LGBT students builds
by Dana Rudolph http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=105946
__________________________________________________ |
May 22, 2010 | UPDATE In response to our statement below, AFA-Michigan received a call Thursday evening from Brenda High, founder of BullyPolice.org, the national organization which lists Michigan anti-bullying activist Kevin Epling as (along with Brenda) one if its two national co-directors. http://www.bullypolice.org/ Brenda told us that we may report that as founder of BullyPolice.org, she agrees with AFA-Michigan’s position that the language in House Bill 4580 which defines bullying as being “motivated by animus or by a (student’s) actual or perceived characteristic(s)” should be removed from the legislation, since it attempts to define victims rather than simply prohibiting all bullying against all students for all reasons, regardless of the motivation in any given instance. HB 4580 passed the Michigan House last week but is unlikely to be supported as written by the state Senate. Gary Glenn, President
American Family Association of Michigan AMERICAN FAMILY
ASSOCIATION OF
MICHIGAN FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Thursday, May 20, 2010 Gary Glenn, Midland, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, issued the following statement in response to a Boston newspaper’s report Thursday on anti-bullying legislation, including the revelation that a major national anti-bullying organization — which lists anti-bullying activist Kevin Epling as one of two co-directors — agrees with AFA-Michigan’s longstanding opposition to wording in Michigan anti-bullying bills that attempts to “define victims” based on “characteristics.” (See Bay Windows article: http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=105946) —— For years, Kevin Epling has endorsed homosexual activists’ Trojan Horse legislative strategy regarding state anti-bullying legislation, despite being an officer of a national anti-bullying organization that we now learn agrees with AFA-Michigan, specifically urging parents not to support legislation that attempts to define victims based on their looks or other characteristics such as engaging in homosexual behavior or cross-dressing. Specifically, Mr. Epling has long lent his name and tragic personal experience in support of homosexual activists’ demand that anti-bullying legislation must segregate students into enumerated “protected class” categories based on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” despite being listed as an officer of a national organization which a homosexual activist newspaper in Boston Thursday identified as “one of the most high-profile national groups pushing for (such) laws” but also “one of the key opponents of enumeration.” (Notably, only eight states have anti-bullying laws that include the “enumeration” endorsed by Mr. Epling here in Michigan.) http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=105946 BullyPolice.org, which on its home page identifies Mr. Epling as one of its two national co-directors, warns: “There should not be any major emphasis on defining victims. This addition into an anti-bullying law will cause several problems for lawmakers: …The way a bully’s target or victim acts or physically looks is not the victim’s problem… Defining victims will slow the process of lawmaking, dividing political parties who will argue over which victims get special rights over other victims. All children deserve the ’special right’ not to be bullied. All children who are bullied need to be protected.” (See full statement by BullyPolice.org founder, co-director, and executive director Brenda High below) Having rejected the position of his own national organization, and done exactly the opposite of what BullyPolice.org counsels, Mr. Epling’s efforts in the Michigan legislature have produced precisely the results the organization predicts. Yet he continues to lend his name and support to legislation — recently passed by the state House of Representatives — which despite retreating on the issue of specifically enumerating “protected classes,” still insists on attempting to define victims based on a victim’s “actual or perceived characteristic(s).” We’re told by reliable sources that such language, as in past years, will not be supported by the state Senate. When Mr. Epling decides to take a position consistent with the organization he co-directs, rather than continue to endorse language demanded by homosexual activists and their political allies, he will find a major obstacle to passage of an anti-bullying bill — the very obstacle his own organization warns against — removed. (Other obstacles may remain; for example, the Lansing State Journal and Grand Rapids Press have both editorialized against such legislation, calling it an unnecessary legislative intrusion into an issue better handled by local parents, teachers, school boards, and law enforcement.) Nonetheless, we urge Mr. Epling to join AFA-Michigan — and, more to the point, his own organization, BullyPolice.org — in opposing legislative language that attempts to “define victims,” in the current case based on the victim’s “actual or perceived characteristic(s).” If that single line is removed from the House-passed bill, AFA-Michigan will, as we’ve long said, no longer oppose it. As a parent of three teenagers, I greatly sympathize with Mr. Epling’s unimaginable loss of his son. In years past, I’ve discussed with him my belief that his endorsement alone would legitimize anti-bullying legislation that might actually pass, by simply protecting all students from all bullying without regard to personal characteristics, even if homosexual activists don’t like it. He refused. And as long as Mr. Epling continues to reject his own organization’s position and counsel, he himself will remain a prominent part of the reason no such legislation has reached the governor’s desk. ———————————————————————————- BULLYPOLICE.ORG
Co-Directors: Brenda High, Kevin Epling MAKING THE GRADE
How states are “graded” on their anti-bullying laws by Brenda High, Executive Director …3. There must be definitions of bullying and harassment. Defining the problem is the key to solving the problem. There should not be any major emphasis on defining victims. This addition into an anti-bullying law will cause several problems for lawmakers: * Any child can be victimized by a bully. Remember that bullies bully because they can, and because they can get away with it. * The way a bully’s target or victim acts or physically looks is not the victim’s problem but the bully’s own psychological problem. The bully is the root of the problem. * Defining victims will slow the process of lawmaking, dividing political parties who will argue over which victims get special rights over other victims. All children deserve the “special right” not to be bullied. ALL children who are bullied need to be protected. http://www.bullypolice.org/grade.html
__________________________________________________ |
May 22, 2010 | Brenda High, founder of BullyPolice.org, a prominent national anti-bullying organization, Thursday called and e-mailed to inform us that she agrees with AFA-Michigan’s position that lawmakers should remove from state anti-bullying legislation the thought-crime language demanded by homosexual activists that would define bullying as “motivated by animus or by (a student’s) actual or perceived characteristic(s).” If all bullying against all students for all reasons is prohibited, what difference does it make what a bully was thinking, feeling, or motivated by in any particular instance of bullying? Please read today’s Associated Press story below, then please contact your state senator — http://senate.michigan.gov/SenatorInfo/find-your-senator.htm — and urge him to join AFA-Michigan and BullyPolice.org in opposing the thought-crime language in House Bill 4580. Thanks as always for your support!
————– “Michigan’s (anti-bullying) legislation remains unfinished, tangled in a web of competing interests — including both sides of the gay rights debate…partly because of a single line in the three-page bill that some interpret as opening the door for gay rights activists to try and carve out special protections. The bill…says that bullying includes but is not limited to conduct that is ‘reasonably perceived to be motivated by animus or by an actual or perceived characteristic.’ Even anti-bullying groups have internal disagreements over whether that line should be included in the legislation. …Alicia Skillman of (the homosexual activist group) Equality Michigan said the legislation’s goal is to protect all Michigan students from bullying. If that’s the case, conservatives say, lawmakers should drop the line about animus and perceived characteristics. ‘We’ve said from the beginning we will not oppose a bill that simply prohibits all bullying against all students for all reasons,” said Gary Glenn, president of the Midland-based American Family Association of Michigan.” —————————————— CHICAGO TRIBUNE
Chicago, Illinois
May 22, 2010 Anti-bullying plan delayed by competing interests by Tim Martin, The Associated Press LANSING, Mich. — Since Kevin Epling’s 14-year-old son killed himself after a hazing incident, he has been trying to get schools to take bullying more seriously. As part of that effort, he’s pushing Michigan lawmakers to pass a law requiring schools to have anti-bullying policies. While legislation has been introduced often in the past decade, it’s still not law — frustrating Epling and others who say it’s needed to send a strong message about changing a culture that too often permits students to harass each other. Forty-three states have adopted anti-bullying laws, many of them in the past decade. But Michigan’s legislation remains unfinished, tangled in a web of competing interests — including both sides of the gay rights debate and politicians with both liberal and conservative leanings. “Our biggest problem with anti-bullying in our schools is not our kids. It’s our adults,” said Epling, an East Lansing resident and a co-director of BullyPolice USA. “Our biggest problem is our adults who don’t want to tackle this issue because it’s hard work.” Michigan’s law would be named after Matt Epling, who died in 2002. The Democrat-run state House passed a version of the anti-bullying bill earlier this month by a 76-29 vote, the broadest support yet for the legislation. A similar bill has been introduced in the Republican-led state Senate, with the backing of some GOP members. But the measure also has opposition in the Senate and its future is uncertain — partly because of a single line in the three-page bill that some interpret as opening the door for gay rights activists to try and carve out special protections. The bill defines bullying or harassment as abuse of one student by another in any form. It also says that bullying includes but is not limited to conduct that is “reasonably perceived to be motivated by animus or by an actual or perceived characteristic.” Even anti-bullying groups have internal disagreements over whether that line should be included in the legislation. Gay rights groups see the latest Michigan proposal as a compromise. Some previous Michigan anti-bullying proposals had included language to prohibit harassment of students with specific characteristics — including sexual orientation, weight, religion and race. That language has been dropped in the current version, despite the objections of some Democrats. Equality Michigan, a gay rights group, would prefer stronger language but supports the House-passed version with the “perceived characteristic” wording. The bill would allow local school districts to craft their own policies, and gay rights groups — along with other organizations and parents — could work at the local level to get language in those policies more specifically addressing their concerns. Alicia Skillman of Equality Michigan said the legislation’s goal is to protect all Michigan students from bullying. If that’s the case, conservatives say, lawmakers should drop the line about animus and perceived characteristics. “We’ve said from the beginning we will not oppose a bill that simply prohibits all bullying against all students for all reasons,” said Gary Glenn, president of the Midland-based American Family Association of Michigan. Republican Sen. Alan Cropsey of DeWitt said he has concerns about the “perceived characteristic” language, but said that’s not his primary problem with the bill. He questions whether a state mandate, as it’s now proposed, would make any difference in the fight against bullying. Parents in states with anti-bullying laws still have concerns that schools don’t do enough to address harassment. Critics of the legislation say most Michigan school districts already have some sort of policy related to bullying, some following a model policy established by the State Board of Education in 2006. The House-passed bill mandates policies but lacks requirements for what they must contain. The bill “encourages” schools to include provisions for investigating reports of bullying, along with education and intervention measures. “Passing a piece of paper and calling it a law does not do anything,” Cropsey said. Other lawmakers have said the bills would be another unfunded mandate for cash-strapped schools, forcing them to come up with policies and investigate bullying complaints with no additional money for the work. Some say the state should not meddle in a situation best handled by local schools. Supporters say lawmakers should stop making excuses and pass a law that would provide a renewed emphasis on anti-bullying policies in schools. “I’d like to see a little more in it,” said Democratic Rep. Pam Byrnes of Washtenaw County’s Lyndon Township, sponsor of the House legislation. “But there are too many different competing interests here, so we have to move something forward. We are one of seven states without legislation, and it’s embarrassing.” http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-mi-schoolbullying,0,2706701.story ———————————————————————– LENGTHY EFFORT: Michigan lawmakers have introduced bills to mandate anti-bullying policies in public schools for the better part of a decade, but none of them has become law. Most states already have similar laws. STATUS REPORT: Anti-bullying legislation passed the Democrat-run state House this month. It’s pending in the Republican-run Senate with an uncertain future. PRO AND CON: Supporters say Michigan needs the law to force schools to do more to combat bullying of students. Some opponents say the bill won’t be effective. Others argue it’s an attempt by gay rights activists and others to carve out special protections. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-mi-schoolbullying-su,0,5420212.story
__________________________________________________ |
May 3, 2010 | Commentary DNA determines the truth of our identity
by Gerald E. Evans Scientists are proving the theory of a design of all things by including the use of Quantum Algebra to theorize the age of our universe and earth to be six to ten thousand years old, using the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics. Every living thing known to man contains DNA that is the instruction book used to form all known forms of life. DNA in mammals determines size, color of eyes, skin and hair, the number, size and location of appendages such as fingers, toes, ears and other organs that determine sex. Law enforcement uses DNA to determine the ethnicity and sex of decomposed bodies during identification and can even determine lineage, or family connection, as witnessed when the World War II Unknown Soldier — buried in Arlington Cemetery — was identified and his remains returned to his family. Psychiatry claims that Gender Confusion Syndrome is a mental illness that can be treated, and in some cases cured, but regardless of what we think our gender is, it is our DNA that is the final determinate that decides if we are male or female. It is not a culture, a body mutilation, a defective mind, or a desire to be what we want no matter who we offend, inconvenience, or how we negatively affect the lives and livelihoods of others. In a free society, we all enjoy our liberties as long as our liberties don’t interfere with or restrict the liberties of those around us by ignoring or refusing to accept responsibility for our actions. Gerald E. Evans of Ellsworth is a long-time supporter of the American Family Association of Michigan.
__________________________________________________ |
May 2, 2010 | “McAlpine was handing out leaflets explaining the Ten Commandments…when a woman came up and engaged him in a debate about his faith. During the exchange, he says he quietly listed homosexuality among a number of sins referred to in 1 Corinthians, including blasphemy, fornication, adultery and drunkenness. After the woman walked away, she was approached by a (police officer) who spoke with her briefly and then walked over to Mr. McAlpine and told him a complaint had been made, and that he could be arrested for using racist or homophobic language. …The Public Order Act, which outlaws the unreasonable use of abusive language likely to cause distress, has been used to arrest religious people in a number of similar cases. Harry Hammond, a pensioner, was convicted under Section 5 of the Act in 2002 for holding up a sign saying ‘Stop immorality. Stop Homosexuality. Stop Lesbianism. Jesus is Lord.’ while preaching in Bournemouth. Stephen Green, a Christian campaigner, was arrested and charged in 2006 for handing out religious leaflets at a Gay Pride festival in Cardiff.” ————————————- DAILY TELEGRAPH
London, England
May 2, 2010 Christian preacher arrested for saying homosexuality is a sin A Christian street preacher was arrested and locked in a cell for
telling a passer-by that homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God. by Heidi Blake Dale McAlpine was charged with causing “harassment, alarm or distress” after a homosexual police community support officer (PCSO) overheard him reciting a number of “sins” referred to in the Bible, including blasphemy, drunkenness and same sex relationships. The 42-year-old Baptist, who has preached Christianity in Wokington, Cumbria for years, said he did not mention homosexuality while delivering a sermon from the top of a stepladder, but admitted telling a passing shopper that he believed it went against the word of God.
Police officers are alleging that he made the remark in a voice loud enough to be overheard by others and have charged him with using abusive or insulting language, contrary to the Public Order Act. Mr McAlpine, who was taken to the police station in the back of a marked van and locked in a cell for seven hours on April 20, said the incident was among the worst experiences of his life. “I felt deeply shocked and humiliated that I had been arrested in my own town and treated like a common criminal in front of people I know,” he said. “My freedom was taken away on the hearsay of someone who disliked what I said, and I was charged under a law that doesn’t apply.” Christian campaigners have expressed alarm that the Public Order Act, introduced in 1986 to tackle violent rioters and football hooligans, is being used to curb religious free speech. Sam Webster, a solicitor-advocate for the Christian Institute, which is supporting Mr McAlpine, said it is not a crime to express the belief that homosexual conduct is a sin. “The police have a duty to maintain public order but they also have a duty to defend the lawful free speech of citizens,” he said. “Case law has ruled that the orthodox Christian belief that homosexual conduct is sinful is a belief worthy of respect in a democratic society.” Mr McAlpine was handing out leaflets explaining the Ten Commandments or offering a “ticket to heaven” with a church colleague on April 20, when a woman came up and engaged him in a debate about his faith. During the exchange, he says he quietly listed homosexuality among a number of sins referred to in 1 Corinthians, including blasphemy, fornication, adultery and drunkenness. After the woman walked away, she was approached by a PCSO who spoke with her briefly and then walked over to Mr McAlpine and told him a complaint had been made, and that he could be arrested for using racist or homophobic language. The street preacher said he told the PCSO: “I am not homophobic but sometimes I do say that the Bible says homosexuality is a crime against the Creator”. He claims that the PCSO then said he was homosexual and identified himself as the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender liaison officer for Cumbria police. Mr McAlpine replied: “It’s still a sin.” The preacher then began a 20 minute sermon, in which he says he mentioned drunkenness and adultery, but not homosexuality. Three regular uniformed police officers arrived during the address, arrested Mr McAlpine and put him in the back of a police van. At the station, he was told to empty his pockets and his mobile telephone, belt and shoes were confiscated. Police took fingerprints, a palm print, a retina scan and a DNA swab. He was later interviewed, charged under Sections 5 (1) and (6) of the Public Order Act and released on bail on the condition that he did not preach in public. Mr McAlpine pleaded not guilty at a preliminary hearing on Friday at Wokingham magistrates court and is now awaiting a trial date. The Public Order Act, which outlaws the unreasonable use of abusive language likely to cause distress, has been used to arrest religious people in a number of similar cases. Harry Hammond, a pensioner, was convicted under Section 5 of the Act in 2002 for holding up a sign saying “Stop immorality. Stop Homosexuality. Stop Lesbianism. Jesus is Lord” while preaching in Bournemouth. Stephen Green, a Christian campaigner, was arrested and charged in 2006 for handing out religious leaflets at a Gay Pride festival in Cardiff. The case against him was later dropped. Cumbria police said last night that no one was available to comment on Mr McAlpine’s case.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html
__________________________________________________ |
April 26, 2010 | “‘We’re gratified to receive Congressman King’s letter,’ (AFA-Michigan President Gary) Glenn comments. ‘He’s known across the nation as a stalwart defender of religious freedom, of Judeo-Christian values, and so to have someone of his stature commend us for taking a stand against this so-called ‘hate crimes’ law is certainly gratifying. …If you talk to homosexual activists, they are very clear and very plain about their intent for the use of hate crimes laws,’ Glenn notes. ‘It is to be used against individuals who merely speak out, who dare oppose their public policy agenda.’” ———————————- ONE NEWS NOW
Tupelo, Mississippi
April 26, 2010 Rep’s kind words encourage family advocate
by Charlie Butts A congressman has extended encouraging words to initiators of a federal lawsuit against the hate crimes” law. Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, tells OneNewsNow the letter came from Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa). “We’re gratified to receive Congressman King’s letter,” Glenn comments. “He’s known across the nation as a stalwart defender of religious freedom, of Judeo-Christian values, and so to have someone of his stature commend us for taking a stand against this so-called ‘hate crimes’ law is certainly gratifying.” The letter was unsolicited, and the AFA-Michigan president goes on to say that the hate crimes law is dangerous to the nation and to people of faith because it forces the courts to become thought police. “If you talk to homosexual activists, they are very clear [and] very plain about their intent for the use of hate crimes laws,” Glenn notes. “It is to be used against individuals who merely speak out, who dare oppose their public policy agenda.” Although the U.S. has constitutional protections for speech, Canada’s hate crimes law offers an example of the possible outcome. Several people there have been taken before a human rights commission for speaking against the homosexual lifestyle, one being a youth pastor who was just commenting on what the Bible says about it. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=986382
__________________________________________________ |
April 21, 2010 | “The (‘anti-bullying’) legislation has been working its way through the legislature for the better part of a decade… the sticking point was whether or not to enumerate, or list, protected categories. Conservative lawmakers had opposed the enumeration because it included sexual orientation and gender identity and/or expression. Rallied by Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan, conservatives argued the inclusion of those categories would result in forwarding the so-called ‘homosexual agenda.’” ————————————- MICHIGAN MESSENGER
Lansing, Michigan
April 19, 2010 Kuipers: Anti-bullying legislation stalled by lack of definition
Lawmaker wants local schools to define bullying instead of state by Todd A. Heywood LANSING — The chair of the Senate Education Committee says efforts to pass anti-bullying legislation in the state are stalled because lawmakers can’t define what bullying is — yet he expects local school districts to do a better job than state legislators can. Activists who favor the law scoffed at this argument. “Sen. Kuipers has no idea of a definition? Perhaps is it because the full definition was stripped from the legislation by his counterparts,” says Kevin Epling, co-director of BullyPolice USA and an anti-bullying legislation advocate. He has been an advocate for tough new bullying standards since his son, Matt, committed suicide after being bullied during the summer between his 8th grade and 9th grade years in the East Lansing Public Schools. The legislation that been working its way through the legislature for the better part of a decade has regularly been called Matt’s Law, and if either of the two bills currently introduced in the state Senate passes, the laws they would become would be named after Matt. Epling said that earlier versions of the bill had meticulous definitions of bullying developed by experts in both the substance and the law and he accused legislators of offering empty excuses for not getting the bill approved. “Each time this issue has come up, we get a different answer why it shouldn’t be passed,” says Epling. “It’s not being dishonest, but it’s not being completely honest either. Instead of giving roundabout answers we need our elected officials to clearly state what will and will not work and what they will and will not vote for. But they won’t do that, because they are afraid of the backlash, the comments, the looks of their peers, the emails — you know, the bullying they will endure to change their position.” Indeed, until the wee hours of the last day of the 2008 legislative session, the sticking point was whether or not to enumerate, or list, protected categories. Conservative lawmakers had opposed the enumeration because it included sexual orientation and gender identity and/or expression. Rallied by Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan, conservatives argued the inclusion of those categories would result in forwarding the so-called “homosexual agenda.” During that lame duck session, senators came the closest to passing anti-bullying legislation they have ever come. That was accomplished when advocates agreed to strike the enumeration from the bill. But even that legislation died when Sen. Alan Cropsey (R-DeWitt), the Majority Floor Leader in the Michigan Senate, refused to let the bill have an up or down vote. Faced with state inaction, Kuipers said that school districts needed to stop waiting for the state to act. “I think [school districts] have to pay attention to what is going on. You can’t turn your head and assume the problem doesn’t exist or is going to go away on its own. I think the solution to the problem though is not necessarily in a state policy but it is in a recognition in school districts that the problem exists and that they’re dealing with it,” says Kuipers. “Not just by expelling students that are getting rough, but by having classes informing kids of what bullying is, that it exists, the consequences of that — because I think, in most cases, the kids that are bullying don’t want it to end up the way it’s ending up. They just don’t know when to stop.” “Schools have to stop it,” he continued. “That doesn’t take a policy on the state level to deal with the issue. I think the solution goes beyond a stated policy, it gets at the heart of the district, and what the sense of community is, and are people looking out for each others best interests and those kinds of things. You don’t get that from a policy. In fact you create a statewide policy you probably absolve some districts from doing the stuff that really needs to be done. That’s education, talking, working through the issue. The schools can do that without us.” Epling says the state has already tried Kuipers’ solution. And it failed. “Asking schools to ‘take the lead’ without a law is where we started in 2001 when the State Board of Education asked schools to draft policies on bullying. Schools did not respond, and that is why children have been hurt, respect between schools and parents has been tested and — yes — eight children have died,” Epling says. “Schools are actually looking for guidance and help. The law is not punitive, it helps set a standard for all schools to follow and leaves room for individual application. Apparently Sen. Kuipers wants to take us back to 2001 rather than being a bold leader and moving our state forward.” Most recently the suicide of a 12-year-old upper peninsula girl has lead Gov. Jennifer Granholm to renew her calls for swift action on anti-bullying legislation. “This issue has been around for a long time and the unfortunate thing is that kids are committing suicide as a result — or at least we think it is a result of the bullying,” says Kuipers. “And that is very unfortunate. and my heart goes out to the families who find themselves in that position. But we have to make sure we come up with a workable solution that doesn’t overexpose districts and school boards — that’s what were working for.” Overexposure, for Kuipers, means not opening the door to litigation for anyone “seeking a payday” from schools. When asked specifically about the bullying case out of Hudson which resulted in an $800,000 verdict from a jury, and has lawyers seeking an additional $400,000 in fees, Kuipers says there will always be “some exposure.” Experts say that Kuipers’ solution of local control, however, will result in even more exposure to lawsuits because of the wide variety of definitions that would inevitably be created by those local school districts. If the state can’t come up with what Kuipers considers a “clear and meaningful” definition that would solve the problem without inviting lawsuits, they say, having hundreds of school districts struggle to come up with their own definitions is far more likely to put those districts at risk of lawsuits than if they were merely complying with state law. “By telling schools to work on their own Sen. Kuipers and others are ‘off the hook’ when he and others have been holding the hook for years,” Epling says. And Epling is not alone in his criticism of Kuipers. Alicia Skillman, executive director of Triangle Foundation/Michigan Equality, a political organization which represents the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, issued the following statement in relation to Kuipers’ statements: “When legislators of a state take action and create a law, it shapes the conversation and gives guidance to communities on how to treat people. It appears that some of our legislators are shirking their responsibilities to school districts and to the children of our state. I bet the children of this state can easily define bullying and the legislators could do the same if they were really interested in protecting our kids. Triangle Foundation/Michigan Equality believes the Senate should act now and pass an anti-bullying law.” Epling bluntly asks, “So how many children will it take to actually make this a reality? Bullying has contributed to deaths in Michigan, there is no speculating. Speculating is thinking that our Senate will finally act for our children.” http://michiganmessenger.com/36885/kuipers-state-cant-define-bullying __________________________________________________ |
April 20, 2010 | “U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, sent an unsolicited letter to a group of Christian activists and pastors to support their efforts in suing Attorney General Eric Holder over the ‘hate crimes’ law that President Obama signed into law late last year. …King sent the letter to Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, who joined Pastors Levon Yuille, Rene Ouellette and James Combs in filing a lawsuit with the help of the Thomas More Law Center… Glenn told WND, ‘We’re gratified to receive Congressman King’s letter commending our civil rights lawsuit to overturn a law that — if used like similar ‘hate crime’ laws at the state level and abroad — will eventually threaten religious free speech rights by persecuting pastors and others who merely express disapproval of homosexual behavior and the political agenda that aggressively seeks to legitimize and promote it to our children.’” ——————————
WORLD NET DAILY
Washington, D.C.
April 20, 2010 U.S. congressman backs ‘hate crimes’ lawsuit
Tells pastors law is ‘unprecedented move to criminalize our thoughts’ By Drew Zahn
U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa |
DES MOINES, Iowa – U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, sent an unsolicited letter to a group of Christian activists and pastors to support their efforts in suing Attorney General Eric Holder over the “hate crimes” law that President Obama signed into law late last year. “As a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, I worked hard to stop this legislation,” King writes. “Like you, I believe this ‘Hate Crimes’ Act is unconstitutional and marks an unprecedented move to regulate and criminalize our thoughts.” King sent the letter to Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, who joined Pastors Levon Yuille, Rene Ouellette and James Combs in filing a lawsuit with the help of the Thomas More Law Center in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan earlier this year. The complaint contends that the “hate crimes” law violates the plaintiffs’ civil rights, since it opens Christians to being the target of federal investigations, grand juries and even charges for opposing or publicly criticizing the homosexual lifestyle and ‘gay’ activism. “On account of … the Hate Crimes Act, plaintiffs are targets for government scrutiny, questioning, investigation, surveillance, and other adverse law enforcement actions and thus seek judicial reassurance that they can freely participate in their speech and related religious activities without being investigated or prosecuted by the government or becoming part of official records because of their Christian beliefs,” the lawsuit explains. “In the complaint, you raise several constitutional and moral questions,” King writes. “Not only will this Act create a class of people that are ‘more equal than others,’ it will hinder your ability to preach the gospel and openly teach biblical principles. “As a Christian first and a congressman second, I know the conviction that brought you to institute this lawsuit,” King concludes. “I would like to commend you for your courage to challenge the constitutionality of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.” Glenn told WND, “We’re gratified to receive Congressman King’s letter commending our civil rights lawsuit to overturn a law that — if used like similar ‘hate crime’ laws at the state level and abroad — will eventually threaten religious free speech rights by persecuting pastors and others who merely express disapproval of homosexual behavior and the political agenda that aggressively seeks to legitimize and promote it to our children.” The plaintiffs in the lawsuit include individuals who already have faced accusations by homosexual advocates that they bear responsibility for the actions of others for no other reason than their agreement with biblical condemnations of homosexuality. The lawsuit cited the death of Andrew Anthos, a 72-year-old Detroit man allegedly the victim of a “hate crime” because of his “sexual orientation.” In that case, the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force “blamed … Plaintiff Glenn’s ‘homophobic rants’ for causing his death.” According to the lawsuit, the homosexual activist said, “It is appalling hypocrisy for these forces to pretend that their venomous words and organizing have no connection to the plague of hate violence against gay people, including the murder of Mr. Anthos.” Anthos also was cited by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., as evidence of the need to extend federal “hate crimes” legislation to include “sexual orientation” as a protected classification. But the lawsuit said police and a medical examiner determined that Anthos died of natural causes. The complaint also said, “The former director of policy for the Triangle Foundation, a Michigan-based homosexual lobby group that supported the Hate Crimes Act, publicly stated, ‘We personally believe that the AFA may support the murder of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people.’” Such statements, combined with the “hate crimes” law that now exists, provide a “tool” of intimidation for federal officials, including Holder, “to abuse their positions of power to stifle political opinion and opposition to the homosexual agenda.” “It also provides political adversaries with a basis for making official criminal complaints and allegations against opponents of the homosexual agenda, such as plaintiffs, thereby deterring, inhibiting, and chilling the exercise of plaintiffs’ rights to freedom of speech, expressive association, and the free exercise of religion,” the complaint said. “By preaching God’s Word on homosexuality, plaintiffs and others are engaging in conduct that subjects them to federal questioning, investigation, and prosecution as principals pursuant to [the law] for counseling, commanding, or inducing a federal offense under … the Hate Crimes Act.” “There is no legitimate law enforcement need for this federal law,” said Richard Thompson, president of the Law Center. “Of the 1.38 million violent crimes reported in the U.S. by the FBI in 2008, only 243 were considered as motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation. “Moreover, Eric Holder himself testified at a Senate hearing that the states are doing a fine job in this area,” he said. “This is part of the list of political payoffs to homosexual advocacy groups for support of Barack Obama in the last presidential election. The sole purpose of this law is to criminalize the Bible and use the threat of federal prosecutions and long jail sentences to silence Christians from expressing their biblically-based religious belief that homosexual conduct is a sin. It elevates those persons who engage in deviant sexual behaviors, including pedophiles, to a special protected class of persons as a matter of federal law and policy,” he said. The Hate Crimes Act was dubbed by its critics as the “Pedophile Protection Act,” after an amendment to explicitly prohibit pedophiles from being protected by the act was defeated by majority Democrats. In fact, during congressional debate, supporters argued that all “philias,” or alternative sexual lifestyles, should be protected. Robert Muise, the lead attorney on the case, told WND the law also elevates people who “engaged in a certain class of deviant behavior to a protected class as a matter of federal law and policy.” With some classes of people given more “rights,” others naturally have “fewer,” he said. And that’s where Christians are targeted. He noted that in an earlier version of what eventually became law under Obama was a proposed amendment referring to reading or citing biblical passages “In 2007, when Congress was considering similar hate crimes legislation, a motion was made before the Committee on Rules in the House of Representatives to clarify that the printing, distribution, or public reading of the Bible was not prohibited by any provision of the proposed bill. The motion was defeated.” Contacted by WND, Holder’s office declined to comment on the case. The law was promoted by its advocates as cracking down on “bias” crimes motivated by a person’s “actual or perceived” “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” Yiulle is the pastor of The Bible Church in Michigan and national director of the National Black Pro-Life Congress. He hosts a radio program and “is often warned by his Canadian listeners that he will prosecuted under the new U.S. hate crimes law for his public ministry.” Ouellette is pastor of First Baptist in Bridgeport, Mich., with about 7,000 members, and the author of five books. Combs is lead pastor of Faith Church, The Point Church, The Rock Church and The River Church, with about 10,000 members. The civil rights violations created by the “hate crimes” law involve freedom of speech, expressive association, free exercise of religion, the equal protection guarantee and other provisions of the First, Fifth and 10th Amendments as well as Commerce Clause, the case said. “This new federal law promotes two Orwellian concepts. It creates a special class of persons who are ‘more equal than others’ based on nothing more than deviant, sexual behavior. And it creates ‘thought crimes’ by criminalizing certain ideas, beliefs, and opinions, and the involvement of such ideas, beliefs, and opinions in a crime will make it deserving of federal prosecution,” Muise said. “Consequently, government officials are claiming the power to decide which thoughts are criminal under federal law and which are not.” Obama signed the “Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act” in October 2009 after Democrats strategically attached it to a “must-pass” $680 billion defense-appropriations bill. The law cracks down on any acts that could be linked to criticism of homosexuality or even the “perception” of homosexuality. As Congress debated it, there were assurances it would not be used to crack down on speech. Days after Obama signed it, in response, pastors and other Christian leaders gathered to read from the Bible at a rally organized with the help of Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Coalition. Former Navy Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt of PrayInJesusName.org read from Romans: “And they that commit such things are worthy of death.” “The government has to invade my thoughts to decide what my motive was in quoting the Bible,” Klingenschmitt explained. “I can be prosecuted if the government thinks my motive was wrong.” The rally took place in front of the Holder’s offices. He supported the bill although he explained it does not protect all people equally. He is charged with enforcing the law. Obama boasted of the “hate crimes” bill when he signed it into law. “After more than a decade, we’ve passed inclusive hate-crimes legislation to help protect our citizens from violence based on what they look like, who they love, how they pray or who they are,” he said. Some of the rally in opposition to the law was captured by Christian Broadcasting Network on video: “If this law is used to silence me or any of these preachers for speaking the truth, then we will be forced to conscientiously defy it,” Rick Scarborough, president of Vision America, declared. “That is my calling as a Christian and my right as an American citizen.” Janet Porter of Faith2Action called it a “sad day for America.” “While a small minority of homosexual activists are celebrating, thousands of pastors, priests and rabbis are lamenting their loss of First Amendment freedoms. I for one refuse to bow before this unjust and unconstitutional law, and I intend to continue to preach the whole counsel of God as revealed in the Scriptures,” she wrote. “But this law doesn’t just affect pastors; it will criminalize the beliefs of millions of ordinary people who may now be afraid to speak even their pro-marriage positions lest it spark a federal ‘hate crime’ investigation,” Porter wrote. Cass noted in the U.K., a senior citizen was accused of “hate crimes” for writing a letter objecting to a pro-homosexual festival: “This is the way it gets implemented in all the other countries,” Cass said. “Christians are singled out for prosecution, with threats, imprisonment and fines simply for refusing to stop doing what Christ commands: proclaiming the truth.” “[These cases] are a good precursor of where this goes,” he warned. The bill signed by Obama was opposed by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which called it a “menace” to civil liberties. The commission argued the law allows federal authorities to bring charges against individuals even if they’ve already been cleared in a state court. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=143513
__________________________________________________ |
|
| |
