As stated previously, I refuse to engage in email exchanges with Peter LaBarbera because his correspondence is creepy and overly sexual. However, I still think it is necessary to respond to some of the bigoted things he says on his website. It would be immoral for me or anyone not to stand up to the advocacy of unequal treatment under the law. I am compelled by ethics to point out the distortions and logical inconsistencies in his advocacy.
“By the way, and for the record, AFTAH does not allow comments to be posted on our website precisely because of the sheer viciousness, vulgarity and ad hominem, hate-filled attacks that characterize so many messages against us from pro-homosexual activists.”
You advocate that people be treated unequally under the law because they do not follow your faith teachings. You say they should be fired from their jobs. You say their children aren’t their children but should be in orphanages. Their anger is understandable. They have every right to criticize you passionately even if their attacks are ad hominem.
“As veteran AFTAH readers know, one of the favorite, ongoing “queer” lies against me is that I am a secret homosexual or, worse, a covert aficionado of (unspeakably evil and revolting) homosexual S&M and pornography.”
Many people oppose legislation favoring gays and lesbians without the intense and repetitive focus on fringe pornography. I believe you deal with something internally that draws you to those images or you try to find the most shocking images to paint all people you dislike with the same brush. Either way, the tactic is repugnant.
“Yep, aside from the murderous Islamic jihadists, it seems nobody hates (or lies) like the Left, and nobody on the Left hates like the homosexual militants.”
There is no example that any gay person advocates unequal treatment under the law for anyone. Gay people do not advocate that you be fired from your job, denied insurance, housing or hospital visitation, or denied a marriage license because of you choice to identify as a Christian and your choice to live a Christian lifestyle. The same freedom of conscience that protects your faith practice protects the rights of those that do not follow your faith teachings.
“If you doubt me on this, take a detour into Loony Liberal Land for a few minutes and read the comments responding to one of Besen’s attacks on me and Americans For Truth.”
“Loony” is an example of an ad hominem attack you complained about above.
“In another piece, mean-spirited even by Besen-esque standards, the Professional Homosexual Agitator (PHA) goes after ex-homosexual Greg Quinlan for getting divorced — exploiting Quinlan’s family tragedy without knowing the facts of the situation, his personal hatred for Greg oozing from sentence after sentence.”
At no point in the entire article does the author advocate the Quinlan be treated unequally under the law. He criticizes the false notion that someone can change his biological sexual orientation through religious practice. He also challenges the false superiority of religious right families.
“Another of my favorite Homosexual Hate Sites — and a quick-and-easy resource for finding examples of nastiness and anti-Christian bigotry — is lesbian blogger Pam Spaulding’s Pam’s House Blend.”
Please provide one example of Pam’s House Blend advocating hate of anyone. At no time on her blog does anyone advocate Christians be treated unequally under the law for their chosen lifestyle. Criticizing your appearance, your advocacy, or your intense interest in pornography is not hatred.
“Keep in mind that you believe homosexuality is moral (or innocuous, not sure which) and I believe its practice is immoral, so obviously my side views it as a shame that a band centered around immoral conduct (and advocacy) would bump out an innocent, “nonpolitical” [high school] band.”
The point is not what you or anybody thinks is immoral. The point of government in a liberal democracy is not to dictate morality. The government’s job is to protect freedom of conscience.
Many Christians believe it is wrong to be Muslim. They believe that Muslims have made the wrong choice in faith and that they will someday answer for their rejection of Jesus Christ. But, it is illegal to fire, deny housing to, deny insurance to, deny a marriage license to, or discriminate in anyway for the choice to be Muslim, regardless of who finds Islam immoral.
Government neutrality toward faith practice is not an endorsement or condemnation of any faith.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” First Amendment, Unites States Constitution and the first ten words of the Bill of Rights.
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Fourteenth Amendment, United States Constitution
“By blasting Obama for choosing Rick Warren as an Inaugural speaker — and demonizing Warren as a “homophobe” because he supported Prop 8 — homosexual activists are showing the world just how empty their “tolerance” ideology really is.”
Democratic activist are not trying to have Warren’s political advocacy or “preaching” made illegal. They do not believe the bigotry Warren endorses concurs with the values Obama claims to represent.
“Poor Barack Obama: he’s promised the world to one of the most demanding and unreasonable special interest movements on the planet.”
On the planet? Again your hyperbole reveals your animus. Was the genocide in Rwanda
less demanding and more reasonable than advocacy for civil rights? You really do hate people don’t you?
“Imagine blasting the gregarious Warren as a “homophobe” because he supported Prop 8 in California. (Note the incredibly elastic, ever-expanding definition of homophobia.)”
The definition of homophobe remains the same as it always has. It includes those that oppose civil equality for others and Warren fits that description.
“Bizarrely, Salomese says that Warren has “repeated the Religious Right’s big lie that supporters of equality for gay Americans are out to silence pastors.” He appears blind to the obvious fact that that’s exactly what he is trying to do here - put a muzzle on one of America’s leading pastors, proving that it’s hardly a lie at all.”
He is not trying to silence pastors by making it illegal to preach against what they view as immorality. That is what most religious right advocates mean when they speak of silencing pastors. He is opposing Warren’s role in the inauguration because it contradicts the values of the president elect.
During the Civil Rights Movement many pastors used biblical scripture to support unequal treatment for African Americans. As civil equality was legally mandated these pastors were not silenced. It is still perfectly legal to preach against racial equality and many “churches” do just that. The fear mongering that civil equality for sexual minorities will lead to speech controls is unsupported by history or reason.
“People are finally waking up to the truth: that the homosexual activist lobby is to tolerance and diversity what Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich is to honest government.”
Who are these people that are "waking up"? Even the Pew Research Center shows a majority of Christians support civil equality for gay people even if they find homosexual conduct immoral. And what are these supposed people waking up to? No gay activist advocates unequal treatment under the law. Joe Salomese is tolerant in that he respects the right of Pastor Warren to preach a political message he finds abhorrent. He would be intolerant if he tried to get Warren legally silenced or if he advocated that Warren be denied a marriage license for his chosen Christian lifestyle.
Joe Salomese also does not label all people who self-identify as Christian “evil”. He disagrees with Christian teachings but he knows some Christians are nice, some are mean, some are generous, some are selfish, etc. He also knows that no one should be reduced to a single adjective. You label all gay people evil because of their choice to self-identify as gay. You do no know these people. You do not know how they treat their families, how hard they work, how much they give, how kind they are to strangers, or any other aspect of their lives. You reduce them to one single adjective that your despise, “gay”. They are “evil” because you have an animus toward the identity of gay. That, sir, is intolerance.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for the homosexuals
I said nothing;
I was not a homosexual.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak up.
Comments