Video

Back in April, we posted a video of Jerry Boykin warning of the dangers of so-called "Chrislam," claiming there could be no hope of creating dialogue between Christians and Muslims and warning Christian not to allows Muslims to use their facilities for worship. 

One of the leaders Boykin cited as falling into this "Chrislam" trap was Rick Warren ... and it appears that Boykin was not alone as Michigan televangelist Jack Van Impe has now broken with Trinity Broadcasting Network claiming TBN censored him by refusing to air a program accusing Warren and others of undermining Christianity:  

Michigan televangelist Jack Van Impe ended his decades-long relationship with Trinity Broadcast Network late last week after becoming embroiled in a controversy with pastors Rick Warren and Robert H. Schuller ... Officials for TBN, based in Tustin, Calif., said they had to censor a Van Impe show set to run June 6 because he accused Warren and Schuller of trying to combine Christian and Muslim beliefs into a new movement called "Chrislam."

...

The head of TBN said he was not going to allow Van Impe to use his station to attack other religious leaders.

"It has been my position for TBN's 38 years of ministry that TBN preach(es) Christ only and that it does not become a bully pulpit for endless debate and/or criticism on/of various doctrinal issues among denominations," said Paul Crouch, president and founder of churches, ministries or individuals.

"Specifically, it has been TBN's policy not to allow its broadcast air time to be utilized for personal attacks by one Christian brother against another or to call them out by name," added Crouch in a statement.

A spokesman for Van Impe said "after much time in prayer" the Van Impes decided to part ways with TBN.

"We would not be able to minister effectively if we had to look over our shoulder wondering if a program was going to be censored because of mentioning a name," said Ken Vancil, executive director of the Jack Van Impe Ministries.

Last week, we released a new report on the unrelenting torrent of bigotry that is spread by the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer on a daily basis and an accompanying video chronicling some of his "highlights," while our colleague Peter Montgomery discussed Fisher and the AFA in the context of Gov. Rick Perry's prayer rally with Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC.

Fischer has already made it clear that he does not particularly appreciate all of the attention we have devoted to covering him here, so it was not surprising that he spent nearly a half-hour of his program on Monday discussing the new report and the O'Donnell segment and accusing us of waging "jihad" against him and committing a "slow motion hate crime":

Ladies and gentlemen, right now out on the left wing there is a jihad that has been launched against me and against Focal Point and against the AFA. It is holy war. This is, in spiritual terms, a jihad. They are trying to destroy me, destroy Focal Point, to destroy AFA.

Now People For the American Way, and I've mentioned this before, I've played some soundbites of what they've done, they have been cyberstalking me for I don't know how long. It's just like a creepy obsession, they same kind of creepy obsession that the left has had with Sarah Palin. I mean, it's just weird, it's just bizarre. And so they have been monitoring everything I write, everything I say, everything we do here on Focal Point, keeping a list and checking it twice.

Here is a piece on Right Wing Watch referring to me as "The GOP's Favorite Hate-Monger: How the Republican Party Came to Embrace Bryan Fischer." And this puppy is seventeen pages long!

Remember, we are watching the unfolding of a hate crime against yours truly. You are watching a slow motion hate crime being engineered against yours truly.

Now, if we managed to put together a report chronicling Fischer's bigotry and that reported ended up being seventeen pages long, that probably means Fischer has a absurdly long record of engaging in insane bigotry. But to Fischer, it means we are cyberstalking him while waging jihad and committing a hate crime.

For those that are interested, here is the nearly half-hour segment Fischer dedicated to discussing our report and O'Donnell segment:

On a radio broadcast dedicated to the evils of Gay Pride month, Linda Harvey set aside time to express her disapproval of the It Gets Better Project. After demonizing Dan Savage, the creator of the project, Harvey condemns the It Gets Better Project calling it “wrong,” “evil,” and “dark.”  Harvey, who blamed “demonic manipulation” for making kids gay, attacked the It Gets Better Project for supporting LGBT youth and slammed Savage as a “vicious, vulgar, profane” activist.

I’ll say that again, It Gets Better. It’s a video campaign organized by a radical and vicious, vicious, vulgar, profane, anti-Christian, I can’t say enough things along that line about him. Dan Savage. He’s an activist, been around for years. This It Gets Better campaign is a video campaign that a lot of the leftist politicians including our president have jumped on board, so have some celebrities. It’s supposed to encourage kids, that’s great. Encourage kids, say, you know if you’re having trouble, you’re getting bullied, you feel despaired, don’t give up. That would be a worthy goal if they stop there. But no they tag on to it approval of homosexuality and the implication that anybody who objects is just like those bullies out there and they’re leading you or others into suicide. That’s just wrong, it’s evil, it’s dark, this Dan Savage has already come out attacking my friend Peter [LaBarbera].

When Don Lemon, an openly gay anchor on CNN, revealed that he had been molested as a child he knew that some people would believe that the molestation and his sexual identity were related. Despite the fact that Lemon (and science) has dismissed such claims, Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Sexuality continues to believe that homosexuality can be caused by childhood molestation.

In the 2010 CNN video below about the alleged pederastic activity of Atlanta mega-pastor Bishop Eddie Long…Lemon reveals that he was molested as a boy. What is perplexing is that Lemon, like so many self-styled “gay” men, apparently oes not view his molestation as a major causative factor in his homosexual identity and behavior. “People are going to say: ‘Oh, he was molested as a kid and now he is coming out [as homosexual].’ I get it,” Lemon told the New York Times dismissively, in discussing his new book. “Transparent,” in which he reveals his homosexuality. To me, there is no greater proof of the perverse self-deception of homosexuality than to behold how sexually confused adults incorporate their victimization at the hands of pedophiles into their out-and-proud “gay” identity. Which is to say — even before reading his book: ”Don, you are not ‘gay,’ but the victim of a homosexual child molester, who corrupted your mind, body and soul — and innocence — at a tender young age!”

Calvin Beisner of the Cornwall Alliance spoke to Bryan Fischer yesterday on American Family Radio about the evil plans that environmentalists have in store for humanity. Beisner, who has his PhD in Scottish History and whose group is tied to energy companies, previously worked with Fischer and other Religious Right leaders on the “Resisting The Green Dragon” miniseries which attacked the supposedly anti-Christian, anti-human environmentalist movement.

Last time Beisner was on Fischer’s program, Beisner said that the deadly tornadoes in the American South were “little tastes” of God’s judgment. Yesterday, the two discussed how they believe environmentalists are earth-worshippers who are deliberately destroying the economy and that climate change is a myth, lauding Rick Santorum for calling global warming a “patently absurd,” liberal plot.

Fischer asked Beisner if the environmental movement wanted a return “into dark paganism” and Beisner agreed, saying that the end-game of environmentalism “would require the disappearance of about 95% of the human race.”

Watch:

(cross posted to the People For Blog)

Mat Staver of the ironically named Liberty Counsel has a new video up where he takes credit for the shameful filibuster of Goodwin Liu. That clears up so much.

Was it Mat Staver who "exposed" the "extremism" of this extremely qualified nominee? Was it Mat Staver who convinced every Republican senator but one to ignore Liu's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, his detailed written submissions, and his many articles, all of which disproved the lies being told about him? Was it Mat Staver whose keen legal arguments completely discredited conservative legal figures like Ken Starr, Clint Bolick, Richard Painter, and John Yoo, all of whom were part of the vast network of support Liu received from the nation's legal community across the ideological spectrum?

Yeah, right.

No, it was naked partisan politics at its worst and not Mat Staver that sank Goodwin Liu's nomination.

But the video does raise an interesting question: If Staver knows so much about Goodwin Liu, why does he repeatedly call him "Godwin"? Don't you think he would know the man's name after all of his exhaustive research and outreach to senators?

Christian Anti-Defamation Commission president Gary Cass is unsurprisingly outraged that Old Navy is selling pride shirts during June, LGBT Pride month, which would send some proceeds to the anti-suicide, anti-bullying It Gets Better Project. Cass recently released a staunchly anti-gay video telling gay and lesbian teens that “it doesn’t get better” and calling on them to “resist temptations.” Cass voiced support for a boycott of Old Navy in an interview with the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow over the pride shirt, and criticized the company for engaging in “a very immoral and very deadly topic”:

Gary Cass of DefendChristians.org says Old Navy is promoting a lifestyle that is in "complete rebellion against God."

"Rather just focusing on giving good products to their customers, they want to use their products now to advocate for a very controversial topic, much less a very immoral and very deadly topic," notes Cass.

The T-shirt designs include a white shirt with "Love Proudly" written in the colors of the rainbow, and a black shirt with rainbow-colored stripes. Cass tells OneNewsNow that an economic dent in the company's profits may be the only way to change things.

"Unfortunately we have to do the hard work of communicating our outrage, our frustration -- and then following that up with some kind of practical expression such as taking your business elsewhere," he suggests.

During the Eagle Forum Collegians 2011 Summit with Phyllis Schlafly, Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler (R-MO) delivered a speech on why young conservatives should oppose marriage equality, claiming that legalizing gay marriage is akin to legalizing pedophilia, incest, and letting three-year olds drive a car. We attended the conference and posted the video:

Hartzler: Some people say, why does it matter to you as a government official? I care about someone else, I’m committed, I should be able to marry. Well, think about it. That starts you down the road to opening up licensure to basically meaning that the license would mean nothing if you let everybody with that standard. For instance, if you just care about somebody and you have a committed relationship, why not allow one man and two women, or three women to marry? There are a lot of people in this country that support polygamy. Why not? If they’re committed to each other, why should you care?

Why not allow group marriage? There are people out there who want that. I think it’s called polyamory, it’s got some big name. But anyway, group marriage, I understand. Well, is that the best policy? Why not allow an uncle to marry his niece? Why not allow a 50-year-old man to marry a 12-year-old girl if they love each other and they’re committed? So, pretty soon, if you don’t set parameters, you don’t have any parameters at all, the license means nothing — the marriage means nothing.

…

It’s their right to marry whoever they want, but we’re saying marriage is between a man and a woman. So, there’s a difference there. But it’s not a right in the Constitution as far as that goes either. It’s not a right of anybody — of a 3-year-old to be able to drive a car. You know, the government has set some parameters that they think is correct.

After the video was posted, Hartzler reiterated her argument while also suggesting that her comments were “misconstrued.” The Congresswoman told PoliticsMO.com that she stands by her ‘slippery slope’ analogy, adding that she only meant to say that gay people getting married is like thirteen year olds driving cars:

Speaking to PoliticMo Monday, Hartzler clarified, saying she said – or meant to say – 13 year old, not three year old.

“I was saying that if you change the standard in the country to having marriage be, which is what they want, that just anybody that has a loving and committed relationship, then you set yourself on a slippery slope legally in courts to having other people come forward with similar arguments that would be objectionable to almost everyone,” she said. “So, that’s another reason why it makes sense to just keep the traditional definition of a man and a woman and that it’s my main point there is that it’s wide public policy.

“So, obviously those comments are just being misconstrued by those,” she said.

Last week we posted a clip from "The 700 Club" in which Pat Robertson and co-host Terry Meeuwsen compared being criticized for attacking Muslims to being called a bigot for standing up against Hitler and the Nazis.

Now Chris Roslan, a spokesperson for Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network, has issued a press release claiming that Robertson never compared the fight against Islam to the fight against the Nazis: 

Pat Robertson Never Stated That "Fighting Islam Is Like Fighting Nazis" As Is Being Reported Erroneously On Some Websites

Recently, CBN reported on the global expansion of Islam. To put the report into historical context, CBN cited a story in the Koran on Mohammad’s prophecy that Muslims are to conquer the two great Christian capitals of Constantinople and Rome.

Following the report, Dr. Robertson broadcast a commentary, a long-standing segment in The 700 Club newscast that offers Dr. Robertson a forum for his opinion and criticism on a wide-range of topics.

In this particular commentary, Dr. Robertson provided an example of criticism, asking whether those who criticized the Fascists, Communists and Nazis of the 30’s and 40’s would be labeled bigots today. He was raising a legitimate issue on the right of Americans to question and even criticize without being attacked or labeled.

Dr. Robertson never stated, “Fighting Muslims is just like fighting Nazis,” as was erroneously and egregiously posted on certain political Websites.

Here is the video - judge for yourself:

Robertson: I was thinking, you know, if you oppose Muslims, what is said? Well, you're a bigot, right? Terrible bigotry. I wonder what were people who opposed the Nazis. Were they bigots?

Meeuwsen: Well, in that day I think they were looked down upon and frowned upon.

Robertson: Why can't we speak out against an institution that is intent on dominating us and imposing Sharia law and making us all part of a universal caliphate? That's the goal of some of these people. Why is that bigoted? Why is it bigoted to resist Adolf Hitler and the Nazis and to say we don't want to live under Nazi Germany?  We didn't hesitate to say the truth, tell the truth about the Nazis, tell the truth about Hitler, tell the truth about fascism, tell the truth, if you will, about communism. But, oh, it's bigoted if you speak out against a force that is slowly but surely trying to exercise domination over the world.