Freedom of Speech

ACLJ: Blasphemy Laws For Me, But Not For Thee?

Yesterday, Miranda reported on the seemingly contradictory views of the American Center for Law and Justice’s European and Slavic affiliates when it comes to blasphemy laws. The ECLJ has been vocal in opposing blasphemy laws in Muslim-majority countries, but the SCLJ supported passage of a new anti-blasphemy law in Russia. The law provides for fines, “correctional labor” and up to three years behind bars for “public actions expressing obvious disrespect toward society and committed to abuse the religious feelings of believers.” SCLJ’s co-chairman Vladimir Rehyakovsky expressed some reservations about the final form of the law, but said it was “very important” to have such a law in place.

So, where does the ACLJ stand on blasphemy laws?  On one hand, it is proud of its opposition in international forums like the United Nations to blasphemy laws that are used by Islamist governments to restrict religious expression.  In 2011, the ACLJ said the UN’s Human Rights Committee endorsed an ECLJ-backed position that “no right exists to protect the reputation of an ideology, rather human rights belongs to individuals.”

But more than a decade ago, in response to an “Ask Jay” question posted on the ACLJ’s website, the group’s chief counsel, Jay Sekulow, said it was “an unfortunate situation” that states no longer have laws against blasphemy, something he blamed on “the ACLU and those who trumpet the First Amendment as a license to really degrade people.”  Sekulow bemoaned the fact that “religion lacks protection in the law.”

Joe from Rhode Island asks: In Black’s classic law dictionary, blasphemy is illegal. When did it become legal to mock a person’s faith in God?

Jay answers: Black’s is the standard of legal definitions that law students are given around the country and Black’s is still cited in Supreme Court decisions. Not only in English common law but also in most states in the USA, blasphemy was prohibited speech. Clearly, the ACLU and those who trumpet the First Amendment as a license to really degrade people have changed that and that’s an unfortunate situation. But you’re absolutely correct, Black’s Law Dictionary is right. There are many definitions like that in Black’s, but religion lacks protection in the law. Not only is religion seen as irrelevant, but religion is trivialized and even mocked. This behavior has become an accepted part of who we are as a people and in some cases the Supreme Court hasn’t been particularly helpful in that context. The composition of the Supreme Court is obviously something we’re always watching because we know that with the more conservative court obviously some of our values will be more protected. Things have changed drastically if you look at our history, and it’s not even old history. Our country is still very young, but things are very different since our founding. We’re continuing to hope here at the American Center for Law and Justice that history will continue to change in a way that protects the rights of religious people across America. This is what we’re working toward. Selection of Supreme Court Justices is critical in the interpretation of these kinds of cases.

So it appears that the ACLJ is ready to champion free speech when it comes to opposing blasphemy laws in Muslim-majority countries, but supports restrictions on blasphemy in place where Christians are in the majority.  Perhaps that double standard is not much of a surprise, given that the ACLJ, which portrays itself as a champion of religious liberty, helped lead opposition to the construction of a Muslim community center in New York that critics inaccurately called the “Ground Zero Mosque.”

The ACLJ is a legal group founded by televangelist Pat Robertson and run by Jay Sekulow and his son Jordan in a manner that is very lucrative for the Sekulow family.

Benham Brothers Reveal What Love And Liberty Mean To The Religious Right

Benham Brothers Reveal What Love and Liberty Mean To the Religious Right

Sowell: LGBT Anti-Bullying Efforts Are "Propaganda"

Conservative commentator Thomas Sowell writes today in his weekly column that efforts to combat the bullying of LGBT youth are meant to “advance the agenda of homosexual organizations and can turn homosexuality into yet another of the subjects on which words on only one side are permitted.” According to Sowell, anti-bullying efforts are merely a ruse to promulgate “propaganda for politically correct causes that are in vogue”:

Most of the stories about the bullying of gays in schools are about words directed against them, not about their suffering the violence that has long been directed against Asian youngsters or about the failure of the authorities to do anything serious to stop black kids from beating up Asian kids.

Where youngsters are victims of violence, whether for being gay or whatever, that is where the authorities need to step in. No decent person wants to see kids hounded, whether by words or deeds, and whether the kids are gay, Asian or whatever.

But there is still a difference between words and deeds -- and it is a difference we do not need to let ourselves be stampeded into ignoring. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees freedom of speech -- and, like any other freedom, it can be abused.

If we are going to take away every Constitutional right that has been abused by somebody, we are going to end up with no Constitutional rights.



Meanwhile, a law has been passed in California that mandates teaching about the achievements of gays in the public schools. Whether this will do anything to stop either verbal or physical abuse of gay kids is very doubtful.

But it will advance the agenda of homosexual organizations and can turn homosexuality into yet another of the subjects on which words on only one side are permitted. Our schools are already too lacking in the basics of education to squander even more time on propaganda for politically correct causes that are in vogue. We do not need to create special privileges in the name of equal rights.

Harvey Warns Of Gays Rights Activism, "This Is How Fascists Behave"

Earlier this week Mission America’s Linda Harvey said that parents should refuse to let gay and lesbian doctors or nurses treat their children, and today she is coming out strongly in defense of a New Jersey teacher who called homosexuality “a perverted spirit” that “breeds like cancer.” Harvey, who has said that gays and lesbians should be banned from teaching, is livid that groups like Garden State Equality have protested the teacher, Viki Knox.

Harvey said on her radio show today:

Harvey: Friends this is a full-on harassment and bullying campaign over essentially nothing except a person’s private opinion. The publicity is meant to send a big signal, it’s meant to make people really hesitant in objecting to homosexuality and offending the homosexual cause. It’s meant to intimidate people into being respectful of one thing: their power. These are underhanded tactics totally contrary to American freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, but this is how fascists behave.

Staver: Gay Rights Will Destroy Western Civilization

While speaking on the American Family Association's American Family Radio about his upcoming appearance at the Values Voter Summit, where he will be introducing Rick Santorum, Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel said that gay rights and marriage equality is one of the gravest threats to the future of Western civilization and freedom itself.

Watch:

Staver: We are facing the survival of western values, western civilization. And I think those survival, whether they win or lose, what will the future of America be will be determined in our lifetime.... One of the most significant threats to our freedom is in the area of sexual anarchy with the agenda of the homosexual movement, the so-called LGBT movement. It does several things, first of all it undermines family and the very first building block of our society, but secondly, it's a zero sum game as well and it's a direct assault on our religious freedom and freedom of speech.

FRC Prepares For The Military's Imminent Collapse

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins condemned the certification of the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a message to FRC members yesterday, warning that the consequences will be disastrous. Perkins, who during the debate over the policy’s future claimed that elected officials who voted for repeal had blood on their hands, said that his group will be committed monitoring what he called the repeal’s devastating effects.

He writes that they will highlight supposedly suppressed stories of “the new victims of sexual harassment or assault, the soldiers exposed to HIV-tainted blood, the thousands of servicemembers who choose not to reenlist rather than forfeit their freedom of speech and religion, and the untold number of citizens who choose never to join the military,” concluding, “It’s clear this President is more interested in appeasing sexual revolutionaries than in fighting America's enemies”:

President Obama may not have created a lot of jobs for America--but he's creating plenty for his homosexual base. At 12:01 a.m. this morning, the radical Left celebrated one of President Obama's signature legislative accomplishments: the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," a 1993 law that codified the longstanding prohibition of homosexual conduct in the military. With the completion of the training and "certification" process, today became the day when political correctness officially trumps military effectiveness, and servicemembers actively engaged in homosexual conduct are now free to proclaim that preference.

FRC will continue to monitor the consequences of this reversal of 236 years of American military policy, limit the damage--and demand that the Defense Department do the same. Expect to see celebrations from homosexual groups and fawning stories in the media about how "the sky has not fallen." That's only because there will be no press releases from the new victims of sexual harassment or assault, the soldiers exposed to HIV-tainted blood, the thousands of servicemembers who choose not to reenlist rather than forfeit their freedom of speech and religion, and the untold number of citizens who choose never to join the military. It's clear this President is more interested in appeasing sexual revolutionaries than in fighting America's enemies.

Spencer Suggests The Media Are "Getting Some Money" To Positively Portray Muslims

Robert Spencer joined Janet Mefferd on Friday to discuss a new pamphlet he co-authored with David Horowitz called Islamophobia: Thought Crime of the Totalitarian Future [pdf], which claims that “‘Islamophobia’ is a hoax comparable to The Protocols of The Elders of Zion.” While speaking with Mefferd, Spencer alleged that the term “Islamophobia” was created in order to criminalize any criticism of Muslims, and maintained that “the media is getting some money” to represent Muslims in a positive light and smear anti-Muslim activists like himself. Spencer’s ally Pamela Geller made a similar case to Mefferd last week, ranting that groups monitoring anti-Muslim activists are trying to make her into “a big ole cow.”

He also stressed that freedom of religion shouldn’t be “considered absolute,” arguing that Islam is both a religion and “a political ideology” and “the political ideology is what is dangerous to Americans.”

Listen:

So I don’t know why nowadays freedom of religion is considered absolute especially since, as you point out Janet, we’re talking about a political ideology here and the political ideology is what is dangerous to Americans because it impinges upon our freedoms, our freedom of speech, our freedom of conscience, the idea of equality of rights of all people before the law and so on. That is the only reason why anybody is concerned about Islamic law. So if those political aspects were restricted then there would be no problem. And I don’t think it would restrict the freedom of religion to restrict the political aspects of Islam.



See they had a big public relations disaster on 9/11. They’ve turned it around with amazing skill and I can’t help but think that maybe media is getting some money for this, maybe there’s some other explanation for why everyone is in the tank and has accepted this manipulation.

Fischer Says Only Those Without Reason, Logic or Arguments Call People Nazis

And now for a post from our we-couldn't-make-it-up-if-we-tried department.

In our last post, we noted how Bryan Fischer had taken his "gays = Nazis" allegations to their logical conclusion by declaring that Adolf Hitler himself was gay.

But in the segment directly preceding that, Fischer kicked off the program by stating that somewhere on the internet, someone had referred to him as a "Nazi gas bag" ... and claimed that when people start calling you a Nazi, it is proof that they do not have any legitimate arguments to make:

And by the way, ladies and gentlemen, this is a clear indication that the Left has lost the argument and the debate in public policy. Because name-calling is the first refuge of a man who does not have an argument. As soon as someone starts calling you names, then realize they're out of ammunition, they're out of arguments. They can't reason with you any longer, they don't have facts on their side, they don't have reason on their side, they don't have logic on their side, they don't have history on their side, they don't have research on their side, they don't have science on their side so they start calling you things like a "Nazi gas bag."

Here, ladies and gentlemen, is Bryan Fischer saying just two months ago that gays are Nazis:

The homosexual agenda is just like Islam: there is no room for dissent, there is no room to leave, once you're in, you can't leave. Muslims won't let you leave, homosexuals won't let you leave - if you leave, they claim you're faking it, so there's no way out. There's no freedom of choice, there's no freedom of religion - if you have religious views about homosexual behavior, you are squashed.

I mean, ladies and gentlemen, they are Nazis. Homosexual activists, when it comes to freedom of speech, are Nazis. When it comes to freedom of religion, they are Nazis. There is no room in their world dissent, there is no room in their world for disagreement, there is no room in their world for criticism. You criticize homosexual behavior, they tag you as a bigot and a homophobe and then they got to work to silence you just like the Roman Catholic Church did in the days of Galileo - it's no different; it's the Spanish Inquisition all over again.

Ladies and gentlemen, they are Nazis. Do not be under any illusions about what homosexual activists will do with your freedoms and your religion if they have the opportunity. They'll do the same thing to you that the Nazis did to their opponents in Nazi Germany.

Bryan Fischer is a lot of things ... but self-aware is not one of them.

Bryan Fischer's Two Modes Of Operation: Bigotry and Denial

The AFA's resident spokesbigot Bryan Fischer operates on a very consistent pattern:  he spends months saying and writing outrageously bigoted things but when some pressure starts to mount over all of the bigoted things he says, he lashes out and accuses his detractors of lying about what he said.

He has done it several times before, and now that Gov. Rick Perry is getting some heat for associating with Fischer and the AFA, he has done it again, taking issue with this Tim Murphy piece in Mother Jones.  Fischer claims that Murphy "strung together a litany of lies and distortions" and then proceeds to try and set the record straight.

In three instances Fischer fully admits to the views attributed to him - gays should be banned from public office and Muslims should be banned from the military and from building mosques:

- "gays should be banned from holding public office" — This is accurate. I do believe this, for the same reason that I believe Anthony Weiner should resign, as did Larry Craig, John Ensign and Mark Foley and numerous other Republicans caught in sexual misconduct. Aberrant sexuality morally disqualifies a practitioner from public office, and whatever else homosexual behavior is, it is aberrant sexual behavior.

- "there should be a permanent ban on mosque construction in the United States" — Partly true. What I have recommended is that local planning and zoning boards no longer issue permits — what about the word "permit" do people not understand? — for the building of mosques. This is because 81% of the mosques in America distribute literature that supports violent jihad and the imposition of sharia law by force, and 95% of Muslims who attend prayers regularly attend one of these mosques. I have suggested our policies toward Islam should be the same as our policies toward the KKK and white supremacist groups, since they are equally and violently antisemitic. Whatever the NAACP thinks ought to be done to halt the spread of the KKK and white supremacists I'll be happy to adopt as our policy against the spread of Islam.

- "Muslims should be prohibited from serving in the armed forces" — True. Serving in the United States military is a privilege not a right, and we should have no room in our military for those whose religion teaches them to "slay the idolaters wherever you find them" (Surah 9:5). If you don't think this policy suggestion makes sense, ask the families of Major Nidal Malik Hasan's homicidal rampage at Ft. Hood, done in the name of Allah.

But Fischer takes issue with several other assertions ... and, in typical Fischer fashion, attempts to clarify the record by more or less reiterating the very thing he claims he never said in the first place:

1. "gays caused the Holocaust." False. What I spoke is the simple truth: the Nazi Party was responsible for the Holocaust. If the question is then further asked, who was responsible for the Nazi Party, the answer, as a matter of simple historical truth: homosexual thugs. The Nazi Party was actually formed in a gay bar in Munich, and virtually all of Hitler's early enforcers in his rise to power were homosexuals.

Here is what I wrote in my column on what Nazi Germany teaches us about the wisdom of allowing open homosexuals in the military:

"Homosexuality gave us Adolph Hitler, and homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine and six million dead Jews. Gays in the military is an experiment that has been tried and found disastrously and tragically wanting. Maybe it's time for Congress to learn a lesson from history."

So I clearly lay the blame for the Holocaust on the Nazi Party, but attribute the rise of the Nazi Party to homosexual brutes. That's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of historical fact, as inconvenient as that fact may be to the mavens of political correctness on the left.

2. "gays...are planning on doing it (the Holocaust) again." False.

Here is the transcript of my remarks:

"Homosexual activists, when it comes to freedom of speech, are Nazis. When it comes to freedom of religion, they are Nazis. There is no room in their world for dissent, there is no room in their world for disagreement, there is no room in their world for criticism. You criticize homosexual behavior, they tag you as a bigot and a homophobe and then they go to work to silence you just like the Roman Catholic Church did in the days of Galileo — it's no different; it's the Spanish Inquisition all over again.

"Ladies and gentlemen, they are Nazis. Do not be under any illusions about what homosexual activists will do with your freedoms and your religion if they have the opportunity. They'll do the same thing to you that the Nazis did to their opponents in Nazi Germany."

Clearly the parallel I was drawing here is that homosexuals are out to suppress freedom of speech, religion, and dissent just as the Nazis did. This is indisputable.

So Fischer never said that gays caused the Holocaust and they are going to commit another one against Christians - he simply said that the Holocaust was the fault of the Nazis (who were all gay) and that, if given the chance, gays would do the same thing again today.

So you can see that that is totally different. 

Fischer also claims he never called for the forced conversion of Muslims or their deportation from America:

5. "foreign Muslims should either be exterminated or forced to convert to Christianity" — Horrendous distortion. What I said was that, if we are attacked from or by a Muslim nation, we should go in with military force and neutralize the threat. Then I suggest we bring missionaries in, since it is Christianity that has made the United States the freest, strongest, and most prosperous nation on earth. If they don't want to listen to our missionaries, fine. We'll bring them and our soldiers home. But we let them know that if you attack us again and we have to come back, this time we'll come back not with missionaries but with overwhelming lethal force.

6. "American Muslims should be deported" — Wrong again. What I have written is that American Muslims who have been naturalized of course should remain, as well as American citizens who convert to Islam. But I do believe we should not extend citizenship any longer to immigrant Muslims, even the ones who are here legally. When their legal immigration provisions expire, we should happily bear the cost of repatriating them to their homelands. Immigration is a privilege, not a right, and the god of Islam teaches his followers to kill Americans. It's simply bad policy to extend citizenship to people who have a solemn, sacred, religious obligation to exterminate us.

Fischer was quite clear when he said that when the US goes into a Muslim nation, it must try to convert them to Christianity but if the Muslims refuse to convert, then the next time the US returns, it will be to kill them. 

Likewise, Fischer has asserted that simply by virtue of being a Muslim, they are guilty of treason and that Muslims living in the US ought to be deported.

Yet, somehow Fischer thinks it is an unfair distortion of his views to claim that he supports forced conversion and the deportation of Muslims.

Fischer has a long history of saying openly bigoted things on an almost daily basis ... and he has just as long a history of claiming that all of the bigoted things he said were taken out of context or misrepresented.

As I have said before, it is utterly pointless to try and have any sort of rational debate with Fischer ... and this is further evidence of just why that is the case. 

Fischer: Gays Are Nazis

There is no more openly bigoted Religious Right leader active today than the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer ... and yet that doesn't stop Republican members of Congress and presidential hopefuls from appearing on his radio program on a regular basis.

Last year, Fischer made news when he asserted that Adolf Hitler surrounded himself with gay soldiers because "he could not get straight soldiers to be savage and brutal and vicious enough to carry out his orders." 

Yesterday, he went even further (if such a thing is possible) and asserted that gays are literally Nazis and that they will "do the same thing to you that the Nazis did to their opponents in Nazi Germany":

The homosexual agenda is just like Islam: there is no room for dissent, there is no room to leave, once you're in, you can't leave. Muslims won't let you leave, homosexuals won't let you leave - if you leave, they claim you're faking it, so there's no way out. There's no freedom of choice, there's no freedom of religion - if you have religious views about homosexual behavior, you are squashed.

I mean, ladies and gentlemen, they are Nazis. Homosexual activists, when it comes to freedom of speech, are Nazis. When it comes to freedom of religion, they are Nazis. There is no room in their world for dissent, there is no room in their world for disagreement, there is no room in their world for criticism. You criticize homosexual behavior, they tag you as a bigot and a homophobe and then they got to work to silence you just like the Roman Catholic Church did in the days of Galileo - it's no different; it's the Spanish Inquisition all over again.

Ladies and gentlemen, they are Nazis. Do not be under any illusions about what homosexual activists will do with your freedoms and your religion if they have the opportunity. They'll do the same thing to you that the Nazis did to their opponents in Nazi Germany.

Why Is A Republican Congressman Working With A Group Linked To Neo-Fascists?

Earlier this year at the Conservative Political Action Conference the group Youth for Western Civilization hosted a panel on immigration with Congressman Lou Barletta (R-PA), former Congressmen Tom Tancredo (R-CO) and Virgil Goode (R-VA), and political activist Bay Buchanan. The panel featured inflammatory and biting anti-immigrant rhetoric, along with warnings about the imminent destruction of America.

But the most startling question was why a sitting Republican congressman, Rep. Barletta, would meet with a far-right group of Confederate sympathizers with White Nationalist ties?

The head of YWC's Liberty University chapter proudly took part in an anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim conference with Neo-Fascist European groups:

In the march though the streets of Cologne, despite threats, attacks and futile attempts by radical German anarchists, socialists and communists, YWC, Pro-Cologne, Vlaams Belang, the Freedom Party of Austria, Die Republikaner and Bloc Identitaire of France marched in solidarity with other European patriots from Italy and against the Islaminization of Europe and for the support of freedom of speech.

A recent MSNBC report also looked into its ties to white nationalism, and said that Germany’s National Democratic Party also participated in the rally.

While these groups may be unknown to an American audience, they are far-right Neo-Fascist organizations:

• Die Republikaner, or The Republicans, is a German political party founded by a former Waffen-SS officer Franz Schönhuber that trumpets “right-wing extremism.” According to the Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism and Racism, the party’s “main agitation is directed against foreigners and against what they refer to as the africanization and islamization of German society.”

• The National Democratic Party was founded by former members of the Neo-Nazi Socialist Reich Party and uses the “practice of mobilizing skinheads and neo-Nazis.” The party also has close ties to Neo-Nazi groups in America and Europe and Holocaust-deniers. After President Obama’s election, the group said his victory represents “the American alliance of Jews and Negroes,” “a declaration of war,” and an “African tropical disease” under a statement entitled “Africa conquers the White House.”

• Vlaams Belang, or Flemish Interest, is a Belgian separatist party which The Economist says “holds extreme right wing positions on many political issues.” In fact, it is the immediate successor of Vlaams Blok, which was shut down by authorities for violating the country’s Anti-Racism law.

• The Freedom Party of Austria as founded by Joerg Haider, a group with such a deep anti-Semitic past that when it entered government Austria faced sanctions from the European Union. The Anti-Defamation League found that Haider “has consistently parried accusations of anti-Semitism” has a history of “utilizing Holocaust terminology and legitimizing Nazi policy and activities.”

• Bloc Identitaire, or Identity Block, is considered a “neo-fascist organisation” that is best known for its opposition to miscegenation and including pork in soup for the poor to exclude Muslims.

• Pro-Cologne has been “watched with suspicion by the domestic intelligence agency” for its links to Neo-Nazis, according to Der Spiegel. The party was based on its opposition to the construction of mosques and is staunchly anti-Muslim.

While Rep. Bartetta is an anti-immigrant leader in his own right, should he really be working with a group that is in a coalition with Neo-Fascist political parties?

The Right's Freedom of Speech vs The Left's Campaign of Intimidation

As Brian noted yesterday, the Religious Right was unified in its support of Paul Clement for resigning from his position at King & Spalding after the law firm backed out of defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court.

To hear the Religious Right tell it, this decision by King & Spalding was the result of a campaign of intimidation by gay rights groups - in fact, that is pretty much what the Family Research Council said:

Looking for attorneys that won't buckle under pressure? Don't bother contacting King & Spalding. In a stunning announcement, the Atlanta-based firm just dropped the most high-profile client on its books: the U.S. House of Representatives. Barely a week ago, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) hired King & Spalding to go to bat for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) when the Obama administration refused. Within hours, the homosexual community was up in arms. Led by the so-called Human Rights Campaign, activists promised to target the firm until its attorneys dropped the case. Five days later, they did. Unable -- and unwilling -- to take the heat, King and Spalding took the cowardly way out.

...

Once again we see how the activists who are trying to redefine marriage want to shut down any and all public debate. King & Spalding have proven that they are not advocates for the law -- but for a small but influential cabal that want to undermine policy and society.

Amazing, isn't it, how when gay rights groups dare to speak up, the FRC sees it as a campaign of intimidation ... but when Religious Right groups do it, FRC hails them for simply exercising their rights:

The Big Mac attack on family values is finally over! After a five-month boycott, Americans finally got what they ordered-McDonald's agreement to stop financing the homosexual agenda. Back in May, the fast food giant joined the Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce to the dismay of millions of customers who did not feel served. At the time, company Vice President Richard Ellis refused to back down, even calling conservatives "haters" in a public statement. The American Family Association launched a national campaign to force McDonald's to eat its words. And eat them, they did! This week, McDonald's announced that Ellis had resigned from the GLCC. In an email to franchises, the company said, "It is our policy not to be involved in political and social issues. McDonald's remains neutral on same-sex marriage [and the] 'homosexual agenda...'" We thank McDonald's -- and those of you who used your buying power to encourage values on the menu and in company policy.

Just last year, Tony Perkins was part of a group called Citizens Against Religious Bigotry that was formed solely protest a proposed Comedy Central program about Jesus Christ called "JC." The group preemptively targeted potential advertisers and warned them that if they did not promise never to advertise on the show, they'd be labeled as anti-Christian bigots ... and the group quickly declared victory:

Members of the coalition wrote to more than 300 potential advertisers for this show. The letters explained the nature of the program and stated how offensive the "JC" project would be, not only to the 83 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Christians, but also to many non-Christians including those who signed the petition. Coalition members then followed up with phone calls to the advertisers, speaking directly with representatives from most of the corporations that received the original letter.

Not one single sponsor indicated their intention to buy advertising time on the "JC" program if the program ever made it to Comedy Central's air.

"With literally zero advertiser support for this program, the only reason Comedy Central would put it on their broadcast schedule is in an effort to offend Christianity and Christians. There is no valid business reason for airing 'JC.'

"In light of this demonstration of overwhelming success, the Coalition's advertiser outreach will stand down. In the event that any advertiser changes its mind, that advertiser and its executives will be publicly called to account for supporting anti-Christian bigotry."

This group have the support of dozens of Religious Right organizations ... the very same organizations who are now complaining about a campaign of "intimidation" against King and Spalding.

Fischer: Only Difference Between Liberals and Terrorists Is That "So Far [Liberals] Haven't Taken to Killing People"

On his radio program yesterday, Bryan Fischer explained that the only real difference between liberals and Islamic radicals was that "so far [liberals] haven't taken to killing people."  But other than that, they are pretty much the same because both groups hate America, freedom, and God:

There's this odd collaboration between liberals in America and Muslims. Liberals reject the Judeo-Christian tradition just like Islam does and that's where, I think, the linkage is. I mean, you look at Islam, they're going to behead homosexuals; liberals want them coronated; we want them helped. So these are poles apart, so why is it that liberals in America are so fond of and go to bat for Muslims all the time? It makes no sense in any kind of rational world.

But there isn't any rationality in liberalism. It's not rational. It's not logical. It violates everything we know about history, everything we know about logic, everything we know about morality. All of those are violated by a liberal worldview. So what is that they share in common? Well, I think what they share in common, the reason that they bond together, you know the enemy of my enemy is my friend, they both have in common one enemy: the Judge-Christian system of values, the Judge-Christian system of truth claims and values. They both hate the Judge-Christian tradition with equal passion and so that's what bonds them together.

And they hate America with equal passion. And they hate democracy. They hate freedom of speech, they hate freedom of association. So what Muslims and liberals share together is this hatred of the United States, this hatred of classical American values, this hatred of the Judeo-Christian values system.

And the illustration of the way in which Muslims hate democracy just as much as "regressives" do ... I'm not saying "as much" because Muslims are willing to go much further in their opposition to democracy than Democrats are. They'll try to shut you down, they'll try to engage in electoral fraud, they will try to use intimidation, they will try to use the courts, they will try to shout you down, but so far they haven't taken to killing people.

Right Wing Leftovers

  • Tim Pawlenty undertakes the mandatory task required of all Republican presidential hopefuls: apologizing for once having cared about the environment.
  • Rep. Michele Bachamnn will speak at Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom Summit.
  • Finally, anti-Islam activist Robert Spencer says examining anti-Muslim sentiment is nothing more than "demonizing freedom fighters, people who are trying to fight to defend the freedom of speech and the freedom of conscience and the equality of rights of all people before the law."

Focus on the Family: Anti-Bullying “Radicalism” Coming To Sports Teams

Candi Cushman of Focus on the Family’s True Tolerance campaign has been an outspoken opponent of anti-bullying policies, and now she is warning parents that the safe-schools group GLSEN wants to make school sports teams a friendlier and less hostile environment for gay and lesbian athletes. While the National Education Policy Center found that 85% of LGBT students “report being harassed because of their sexual or gender identity” at school, anti-gay groups like Focus on the Family militantly oppose any efforts to tackle the bullying problem and claim “pro-homosexual” anti-bullying programs “promote homosexuality in kids.” Today, Cushman demonizes GLSEN for designing ways for coaches and athletes to prevent the harassment of LGBT players:

Parents should be aware of how this radicalism could be introduced to their children through school sports programs.

Called “Changing the Game: The GLSEN Sports Project,” the new initiative is “focused on addressing LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] issues in K-12 school-based athletic and physical education programs.”

The director of the new GLSEN sports program is Pat Griffin, who has a history of promoting homosexual and transgender activism and is the author of a book entitled Strong Women, Deep Closets: Lesbians and Homophobia in Sport. The book has chapters with titles like, “We Prey, They Pray? Lesbians and Evangelical Christians in Sport.”

In a “Chalk Talk” series for coaches, Griffin has advised on “What is Unacceptable in an Athletic Setting,” including “Teammates proselytizing other team members who are not interested in discussing religion.”

Does this mean that GLSEN’s new sports project director would prefer to ban athletes using their freedom of speech to voluntarily share the Gospel with those who disagree with their viewpoint?



It’s clear we can expect GLSEN’s sport project to become yet another venue for pressuring schools to implement radical policies and teachings that fall in line with homosexual and transgender political activist goals.

ACLJ: Looking To Outlaw Islam? Let Us Help!

Today, CBN ran a report on efforts around the country to ban Sharia law, including legislation in Tennessee that would, in essence, make it a felony to be a practicing Muslim ... and Jordan Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice, which is "specifically dedicated to the ideal that religious freedom and freedom of speech are inalienable, God-given rights" was there to urge legislators who are serious about trying to outlaw Sharia to give them a call so that they can help:

We we've said at the American Center for Law and Justice is if you're a state legislator and you're serious about writing a law from stopping judges from being able to use Sharia law in court, come to us and let us walk you through this because, as you see now, the American Bar Association, the ACLU, they've got their sights set on these anti-Sharia laws and they are going to look for any holes in them to try to hold them unconstitutional.

What we've encouraged people is come to use early, let us work with the law, through the law with you, to make sure there's no holes for the ALCU and other outside groups to attack.

You know, the ACLJ really ought to change it's "about us" page to reflect the fact that its belief that "religious freedom and freedom of speech are inalienable, God-given rights" only applies to Christians.

FRC Losing It Over DADT

In yesterday's Washington Update from the Family Research Council, Tony Perkins writes that Senators will have "the blood of innocent soldiers on their hands" if they vote to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell and allow gays to serve openly in the military:

How many brave men and women are liberals willing to sacrifice so that homosexuals can flaunt their lifestyle? The only reason for changing the present policy is if it would help the military accomplish its mission. So far, no one has produced a single reason how it would. Until then, the Senate has to ask itself: Do they want the blood of innocent soldiers on their hands just to appease the political base of Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)? If they can live with that, then they're unlike any human beings I've ever met.

And FRC also sent out a desperate alert to its prayer warriors asking for them to pray that the "evil plans ... to foist ungodly laws upon our nation" will be thwarted:

Our nation is threatened today, within and without, by those who oppose Biblical truth, Biblical moral standards and freedom of speech among Bible believers. We who pray must invoke the supernatural intervention of God so that those who seek to foist ungodly laws upon our nation will be confused, divided, and prevented from achieving their evil plans.

...

These people are obsessed because they are spiritually blind. They are driven (Eph 6:12). Obviously they either do not know, do not believe or do not care what God has said about the consequences that will come upon a people who approve what He calls an "abomination." There should be an uprising from among our churches, but alas, there has not been to date. As for the advocates of open homosexual practice, they know that breaking down the barrier to homosexuality in the military is to capture the last remaining institution in America that maintains conservative moral standards, such as prohibiting the practice of adultery, homosexuality and other aberrant sexual behaviors that are harmful to good order and discipline in the ranks.

  • May God's people awaken, cry out to God, and by the power they have been given to impact their nation through believing prayer - stop this effort to bring open homosexuality into our military forces. May the Senators mentioned above and other who have intended to support this measure have a change of mind. May God OPEN THEIR EYES. May God send CONFUSION to those laboring to push this measure! May He protect our troops and require our elected men and women to do their duty to do right! May our champions in the Senate filibuster; may cloture fail, and may the effort to overturn DADT be stopped once and for all! Have mercy upon our nation, O God!

For the record, Ephesians 6:12 reads: "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."

So, in essence, FRC is saying that DADT repeal is a plot by the Devil.

Gohmert: Without DADT, Military Stands to Lose Thousands and US Will Reach the “End of its Existence as a Great Nation”

While debating the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), of “terror-baby” fame, claimed that the policy’s repeal may doom the military and the nation as a whole. Gohmert blasted the recent Pentagon study, which showed that an overwhelming number of military service members do not oppose repealing DADT, and said that the military could potentially lose “many thousands, or tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands” if the policy is repealed. Gohmert uses no scientific evidence of his own to back up his claim that “hundreds of thousands” of troops could leave, even though the Pentagon’s own polling found that the vast majority of troops do not have problems serving alongside gays and lesbians, and 92 percent of those who believe they have already served alongside gays did not believe that their “units functioned poorly as a result.”

Gohmert went on to suggest that the House, which today voted to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell 250-175, is opening up the floodgates to a disorganized and ineffective military. According to the Congressman, “when militaries throughout history of the greatest nations in the world have adopted the policy that it’s fine for homosexuality to be overt…they’re toward the end of its existence as a great nation.”

You want an accurate poll? Take one where military members can answer privately with no ability of the commanders to figure out who answered where. And then let’s find out how many thousands, or tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands we can lose with this activity. That’s important.

Now we were told Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is inconsistent with American values, I would submit the military is inconsistent with American values. It does not have freedom of speech, it does not have freedom of assembly, it does not have the freedom to express its love to those in the military the way you can out here because it’s an impediment to the military mission. You can’t do that. Can you imagine military members being able to tell their commander what they think of him using freedom of speech or assembling where they wish? It doesn’t work. This is one of those issues that is so personal to the military; we need to have an accurate poll.

And to my friend who said history would judge us poorly, I would submit if you look thoroughly at history, and I’m not saying its cause and effect, but when militaries throughout history of the greatest nations in the world have adopted the policy that it’s fine for homosexuality to be overt, you can keep it private it’s fine if you can’t that’s fine too, they’re toward the end of its existence as a great nation.

Such remarks channel those made by Family Research Council head Tony Perkins. He argued that the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell would make enough soldiers “not enlist in our all-volunteer force” that “President Obama will be driven to the place he does not want to go: the military draft.” At the Values Voter Summit, Perkins maintained that countries who allow gays to serve openly are “the ones that participate in parades, they don't fight wars to keep the nation and the world free.”

Of course, major US allies, including Great Britain, Israel, Canada, Germany, Australia, France, Italy, Spain and France, just to name a few, permit gay and lesbians to serve openly and their militaries have yet to collapse as a result of soldiers leaving en masse.

Focus On the Family Takes Over Anti-Gay "Day of Truth"

Last month, Exodus International announced that it was dropping it annual anti-gay "Day of Truth" event because "all the recent attention to bullying helped us realize that we need to equip kids to live out biblical tolerance and grace while treating their neighbors as they'd like to be treated, whether they agree with them or not."

So it is no surprise that Focus on the Family, which is vehemently opposed to any effort to implement anti-bullying plans that include protections for LGBT students, would step in that take over the effort:

A major Christian group will take over an annual event that challenges homosexuality, weeks after the event's main Christian sponsor pulled support for the student-focused program, saying it had become too divisive and confrontational.

Focus on the Family, an influential evangelical organization, will begin sponsoring the event known as the Day of Truth but will change the name of the happening to the Day of Dialogue, the group is set to announce Thursday.

...

Focus on the Family said that the Day of Dialogue "will boast a new name while maintaining the same goal it's had since its 2005 inception: encouraging honest and respectful conversation among students about God's design for sexuality," in a press release that is scheduled to go out Thursday.

...

"We're trying to raise awareness that more than one side needs to be heard on the issue of homosexuality, and we're helping to ensure Christian students have the chance to express their viewpoint," said Candi Cushman, a Focus on the Family education analyst, in the release. "What is freedom of speech, after all, but a guarantee of the right to have dialogue?"

We Rest Our Case: Bryan Fischer Tries to Defend His Bigoted Record

Today, People For the American Way issued a statement calling out all those conservative leaders who will attending the upcoming Values Voter Summit and sharing the stage with notorious bigot Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association and chronicled the myriad of outrageously offensive things Fischer has said about gays and Muslims and others.

Needless to say, Fischer is not particularly pleased with our statement and dedicated a portion of his radio program today to "defending" himself ... and in doing so, only helped to make our point even clearer.

Fischer took particular exception to our point that "any candidate thinking seriously of running for president in 2012 should think twice about standing alongside a man who has called for the deportation of all Muslims in America," by claiming that he did no such thing (but, of course, he did when he claimed that Muslim citizens were, simply by being virtue of being Muslim, guilty of treason against the US.)

Fischer's "defense" is that he simply wants to deny entry to all Muslims because we are doing them a favor since they could not possibly handle or tolerate our freedoms:

"Any candidate thinking seriously of running for president in 2012 should think twice about standing alongside a man who has called for the deportation of all Muslims in America."

That, as a matter of fact is not true. What I has said is that if Muslims are here and they have citizenship status, we shouldn't do anything to them. They have citizenship status, it might have been a mistake to give it to them, but they have it and we need to respect it because we uphold the rule of law.

What I was talking about is when you have Muslims who are applying for permanent residency, for permanent legal residency, or applying for citizenship, my recommendation is that instead of granting them citizenship, we help them return to their homeland, to their native country, we help repatriate them to their country of origin where they can have the freedom to be Muslims without having to chafe against our religious liberty and our freedom of speech and first-class citizenship status for wives and for women.

This has got to be awkward for them, it's got to be painful for them, it's got to be uncomfortable for them to see so many people enjoying the fruit of Christianity, its liberty and its freedom, its respect for the individual, its respect for the freedom of individuals to think and make decisions for themselves, its got to chew them up because it is so the polar opposite of what Islam is all about.

So I say we are doing them a favor by repatriating them to their homeland where an entire nation shares their values.

We also pointed out that Fischer demanded a ban on Muslims serving in the US military which he "defended" by saying that he was merely telling the truth about how all Muslims are required to kill Christians and Jews:

So if telling the truth about Muslim service-members is an insult, then truth is now the new insult, truth is now the new hate speech.

All I have said about Muslims in the military is that their god commands them to kill us and it does not make sense to me that we would allow people to enlist in the body that is designed to protect our security and enable us to sleep peacefully in our beds at night, we should not invite into our military - the very organization that is supposed to protect us - invite into our military those who have a solemn and sacred obligation to kill us and kill their fellow soldiers.

Finally, Fischer explains that he doesn't "hate" gays or Muslims - he just hates the horrible, empty, disease-filled lives they lead:

 I am pro-gay; I am anti-homosexuality. I am pro-Muslim; I am anti-Islam. 

I am for homosexuals because I want them to be delivered from the bondage and the death sentence of homosexual conduct. So I am against homosexual behavior, I am against homosexual expression, I am against homosexual conduct because I want to see the people that are trapped in that lifestyle, I want to see them set free.

And the same is true when it comes to Islam: I am for Muslims; I am against-Islam. And, as I mentioned before, the primary victims of Islam are Muslims. I mean, it's got to break your heart when you visualize the life that these people lead in Muslim-dominated countries.

There is darkness, there is tyranny, there is repression, there is hatred, there is a complete absence of freedom, a complete absence of liberty, women are second-class citizens, they're considered as property, as chattel who can be beaten by their husbands according to Allah, according to the Holy Quran, according to the Prophet.

I mean the poverty, and the disease, and the emptiness and the sterility of life in a Muslim-dominated land, it ought to break our hearts. And that is why I am against Islam because I see what it does to people, I see what it does to cultures, I see what it does to entire nations when it is allowed to take root and flourish.

So I am pro-Muslims, but anti-Islam. I am pro-homosexual, I am anti-homosexuality. 

Let me point out again that this is Fischer defense against charges of being an anti-gay and anti-Muslim bigot.

So let us ask again why conservative leaders like Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Mike Pence, Bob McDonnell, Newt Gingrich, and Michele Bachmann are so willing to share a stage with this man and attend an event being co-sponsored by the American Family Association, the group that has given Fischer a national platform?

Syndicate content

Freedom of Speech Posts Archive

Peter Montgomery, Tuesday 05/20/2014, 2:19pm
Yesterday, Miranda reported on the seemingly contradictory views of the American Center for Law and Justice’s European and Slavic affiliates when it comes to blasphemy laws. The ECLJ has been vocal in opposing blasphemy laws in Muslim-majority countries, but the SCLJ supported passage of a new anti-blasphemy law in Russia. The law provides for fines, “correctional labor” and up to three years behind bars for “public actions expressing obvious disrespect toward society and committed to abuse the religious feelings of believers.” SCLJ’s co-chairman Vladimir... MORE
Peter Montgomery, Thursday 05/15/2014, 10:36am
Benham Brothers Reveal What Love and Liberty Mean To the Religious Right MORE
Brian Tashman, Tuesday 10/25/2011, 1:45pm
Conservative commentator Thomas Sowell writes today in his weekly column that efforts to combat the bullying of LGBT youth are meant to “advance the agenda of homosexual organizations and can turn homosexuality into yet another of the subjects on which words on only one side are permitted.” According to Sowell, anti-bullying efforts are merely a ruse to promulgate “propaganda for politically correct causes that are in vogue”: Most of the stories about the bullying of gays in schools are about words directed against them, not about their suffering the violence that has... MORE
Brian Tashman, Thursday 10/20/2011, 4:19pm
Earlier this week Mission America’s Linda Harvey said that parents should refuse to let gay and lesbian doctors or nurses treat their children, and today she is coming out strongly in defense of a New Jersey teacher who called homosexuality “a perverted spirit” that “breeds like cancer.” Harvey, who has said that gays and lesbians should be banned from teaching, is livid that groups like Garden State Equality have protested the teacher, Viki Knox. Harvey said on her radio show today: Harvey: Friends this is a full-on harassment and bullying campaign over... MORE
Brian Tashman, Friday 10/07/2011, 11:10am
While speaking on the American Family Association's American Family Radio about his upcoming appearance at the Values Voter Summit, where he will be introducing Rick Santorum, Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel said that gay rights and marriage equality is one of the gravest threats to the future of Western civilization and freedom itself. Watch: Staver: We are facing the survival of western values, western civilization. And I think those survival, whether they win or lose, what will the future of America be will be determined in our lifetime.... One of the most significant threats to... MORE
Brian Tashman, Wednesday 09/21/2011, 9:30am
Family Research Council president Tony Perkins condemned the certification of the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a message to FRC members yesterday, warning that the consequences will be disastrous. Perkins, who during the debate over the policy’s future claimed that elected officials who voted for repeal had blood on their hands, said that his group will be committed monitoring what he called the repeal’s devastating effects. He writes that they will highlight supposedly suppressed stories of “the new victims of sexual harassment or assault, the soldiers... MORE
Brian Tashman, Monday 09/19/2011, 11:03am
Robert Spencer joined Janet Mefferd on Friday to discuss a new pamphlet he co-authored with David Horowitz called Islamophobia: Thought Crime of the Totalitarian Future [pdf], which claims that “‘Islamophobia’ is a hoax comparable to The Protocols of The Elders of Zion.” While speaking with Mefferd, Spencer alleged that the term “Islamophobia” was created in order to criminalize any criticism of Muslims, and maintained that “the media is getting some money” to represent Muslims in a positive light and smear anti-Muslim activists like himself.... MORE