Michael Brown is not a pastor

Timothy Kincaid

June 11th, 2015


On May 27th I wrote an article in which I said that it appears to me that Charlotte anti-gay activist Michael Brown has taken the step from truth-spinner and fact-bender to blatant liar for repeating the false claim that the Yes Campaign supporting marriage in Ireland was funded by an American billionaire.

There is a difference between funding organizations with an ideological bent and who seek a social position, and funding an actual campaign for a referendum. This is a clear distinction and one that Michael Brown knows well.

On June 3rd, World Net Daily presented a commentary by Brown in which he attempts to set the record straight.

He spends several paragraphs patting himself on the back for conducting “the gold standard” of anti-gay activism and attempting to place the label of dishonesty on me instead of himself. For example, I describe his pack of annual protesters as “a red shirt mob” but he assures the readers at WND that they are “fine Christian men, women and children, including grandmas and grandpas”. Ya know, that sort of thing.

As for the meat of my argument, I predicted Brown’s response well.

Now Brown and others may say that this is splitting hairs, a mere technicality. They might argue that because Mr. Feeney funded organizations that advocate for marriage equality, he is funding the campaign in a more general sense. He’s not actually funding buttons and flyers and posters, maybe, but he’s helping fund groups that are pro-gay so it’s all the same really.

Which was exactly how Brown responded.

Not only is this hair-splitting, but it has been clearly documented that the push to redefine marriage in Ireland goes back more than a decade, with much of the groundwork laid by Atlantic Philanthropies, through which Feeney donated millions.

In other words, Brown claims that back when same-sex couples could marry only in the Netherland, Belgium, Ontario, and Massachusetts, a billionaire in New Jersey concocted a decade long scheme in which he would bring about marriage equality not in his own state or country, but in what was possibly the most Catholic nation on the planet, Ireland. I’ll let you decide if you think that is likely.

Oh I suppose that if your worldview is such that efforts to protect children from bullying equals “the homosexual indoctrination of your kids” or if you believe that casting demons out of a gay person can turn them straight then you can convince yourself of anything.

Now it is true that marriage equality is part of the overall drive for equality and inclusion. And though I think that no one, Feeney included, dared to dream that in 2015 two dozen countries would have marriage equality, full equality and inclusion of LGBT people into the fabric of daily life has always been the long goal. And Feeney has, for many years, given to groups in Ireland who support the goals of the community.

But the claim Brown repeated is flatly false. It’s an assertion that illegal contributions paid for a vote in which those who support his exclusionary and rejecting view of society lost and lost badly. In telling “what really happened in Ireland” he insisted that “Ireland was not ready for the massive influx of gay activist funding from America”. In other words, the only reason they lost is because the Yes Campaign broke the law and accepted a American gay money.

And it is interesting (and telling) that no where in Brown’s rebuttal does he admit that this accusation is untrue, choosing instead to double-down by implying, suggesting, hinting that what he really meant was based in fact.

Without this decade-long effort (which Kincaid cannot possibly believe was not part of a larger plan, leading up to the “Yes” campaign), it is almost certain that Ireland would not have voted 62 to 38 percent to redefine marriage.

This is what my Irish supporter was trying to convey when she wrote, “We tried so hard to prevent it, but were up against every political party and up against millions of U.S. dollars that were being poured into the yes campaign. American billionaire, Chuck Feeney alone contributed over $24 million.”

Again, without massive American funding over a period of more than 10 years, the campaign would likely have failed.

Which isn’t quite the same thing as that unexpected “massive influx of gay activist funding from America”, is it? So I guess there was no sneaky influx of foreign gay activist money that “Ireland was not ready for”, was there? But that doesn’t much matter to Brown.

Repeat the lie, imply it was true in what was ‘trying to be conveyed’, conflate the timeline, and the average WND reader will walk away believing that Feeney dumped $24 into the Yes Campaign. End result: the desired deception.

Meh. Liars will lie. Prevaricators will be truth-benders.

But as for me, I will readily admit that one part of my commentary is not correct. And for that I apologize.

I called Michael Brown a pastor. He insists that he is not a pastor. And let the record so state.


June 11th, 2015

This sounds like a conspiracy theory – a “Gay Agenda,” as it were. A decade of ‘sneaky’ funding to create an outcome that could not possibly have been predicted even five years ago. Hell, the “Yes” campaign admitted they were not guaranteed a win, even with polls showing a landslide, simply because voter turnout, rather than randomized polling, determines election results.

The money may have gone to helping the average Irish citizen understand the humanity of their LGBT neighbors, and that certainly may have helped ensure the “Yes” win, but that is no different than what many organizations around the world do on a daily basis. Take Christianity, for example. How much money are Christians funneling into China and Muslim countries in the hopes of converting citizens so that, some time down the line, Christianity may be legalized in those nations? How interesting would it be to see a vote for religious liberty be questioned on the basis of centuries of ‘political’ donations?

But here is the real problem for Brown: The Law is about splitting hairs. Specifics are necessary to ensure laws are applied evenhandedly, and to prevent excessive government intrusion into the daily lives of citizens. I am sure neither campaign would stand up to the sort of scrutiny Brown is calling for. Nor would any government wish to get bogged down in such a mire. How far back should investigations go? Which sorts of contributions and efforts would be considered aides to a campaign that was not even being run yet? It seems to me that Brown would consider any pro-LGBT activism throughout history in Ireland to be a contribution to the “Yes” campaign. If that is the case, then he has established a standard by which which “Yes” could not have possibly achieved a legitimate win. I suspect that is his real goal, since, if God is on the anti-gay side, then there is no way they could have legitimately lost (assuming, of course, God is incapable of stopping the filthy gays from cheating their way to victory).

Ben in Oakland

June 11th, 2015

““We tried so hard to prevent it, but were up against every political party and up against millions of U.S. dollars that were being poured into the yes campaign.”

Every time I read this type of comment about the Irish election– and I’ve seen a lot in the irish press over the past month or so– I have to laugh. This type of Christian is just so not into the reality staring them in the face.

Every political party was against you? Gee whiz, I wonder if that means that every interested party that governs Ireland was against your side of the matter. Not one party could you convince of the merits of your case.

And millions of dollars? where are all of those rich Irish conservative Catholics, who COULD have donated money to the campaign? Hell, where was the Church in all of this? They have millions, and if I understand the law properly, COULD have donated those millions.

But they didn’t.


And where was almighty GAWD in all of this? The god you claim is 100% on your side? As always, whenever his presence would seem to be required– 6 million jews worth of presence, for example– he seems to be missing in action.


June 11th, 2015

Couple of things here. First off, so what if the campaign was solely funded by one person. NOM is funded by about three people/organizations.

And, no matter how many people were or were not funding the Yes campaign in Ireland, the outcome still came down to a VOTE of the PEOPLE…and guess how that came out.

Sorry Mike…you just plain lost. I doesn’t matter what excuses you make for it. In the end, more people believed in equality that didn’t.

Regan DuCasse

June 11th, 2015

A total of 24 million dollars, over ten years time, I can see that if that came from a single donor, it’s considerable.
But here in CA, the anti gay, spent twice that much in a shorter time. Most of the money coming from Christian religious organizations.
Of course Brown’s inference is that Feeney is one of those very rich gays, that are using what sounds like ill gotten gains, to influence a political outcome elsewhere.
It’s not like reps from NOM, never showed up in foreign countries to try to do that.
And specifically try to do that where gay people happened to live.
Of course, Ireland has some specific laws about foreign money doing that. Just as they have laws that their citizens cannot vote, absentee.
The vote meant enough to Irish citizens living abroad, to come home to do so.
Brown’s PhD, isn’t in social science. And not in any with regard to gay people.
Yet, he uses that credential as if he were.
It’s in Eastern languages. He’s not teaching, or lecturing in that subject.
He’s pretty much focused on areas that aren’t his expertise.
Fraud, all the way around, then.


June 11th, 2015

I’m sure all the “Yes” activists in Ireland, who spent countless hours organizing and canvassing and creating probably the most effective social media campaign in history are thrilled to learn their efforts were all unnecessary, since the big rich gays had it all seen up. At the time the results were announced, the “No” side tried to be decent about it, clearly that’s a message that is lost on Brown.


June 12th, 2015

Keep in mind that your dealing with a mindset that can’t encompass the idea that no setback in their crusade is because of any lack in their message or their methods — they are doing the work of Almighty God (who can’t seem to manage the desired outcome on his own, for some reason), so any loss is because of a vast, long-term conspiracy by minions of the Devil to violate campaign finance laws. Or something.

Besides, like his fellow travelers, Brown is a liar.

Timothy Kincaid

June 12th, 2015


It does baffle me that people who say “Our God is a mighty God” also feel that they have to constantly defend or ‘stand up for’God, lest His enemies entirely defeat him and run Him out of town.


June 12th, 2015

Timothy: The reasoning (if you want to call it that) seems to be that God, being the “all-loving Father” that he is, will give us enough rope, then lower the boom if we don’t adhere assiduously to the cherry-picked 3,000 year-old tribal taboos of a bunch of Middle Eastern nomads. (See The Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.)

I leave it to you to figure out what kind of mind would think that sort of god is worthy of worship.

Richard Rush

June 12th, 2015

Phrases such as “worshiping God,” “praising God,” “standing up for God”, and “glorifying God” are all really just euphemisms for “kissing God’s ass” in the desperate hope that His legendary wrath can be avoided.



June 14th, 2015

Richard Rush: I’m reminded that early on, Christianity was known as the religion of slaves, because that was the demographic, if I can use the term, in which it found its followers. Looking at it from this vantage, the term fits more than some adherents might be comfortable with: it does demand complete subservience to God (or his spokesmen), which I personally find repellent: I’ve never been one to respond well to authority.


June 15th, 2015


They clearly get upset because as we all know Gods Need Prayer Badly. That’s why they constantly wail about needing to stand up for god.


Ben in oakland

June 16th, 2015

You just have to clap your hands,and “think lovely thoughts.” The dying God will come back to life.

Timothy Kincaid

June 16th, 2015

Aaaaand now were heading down the “lets just mock people of faith” road.

Ben in Oakland

June 16th, 2015

Normally, timothy, I’m in agreement with you about a great many things. But I have to disagree here.

We’re talking about MICHAEL BROWN here, in an article which begins with “Michael Brown is not a Pastor”.

He is representative of a certain class of so-called Christian– like FRC, NOM, and a host of others– who claims exactly what Brown claims. GOD needs your prayers to make SCOTUS decide the right way. GOD needs your prayers to defeat the Houston HRO. GOD needs your prayers to help him decide what to do.

And lets us not forget the other things that god always seems to need: money, bigger buildings, money, more powerful transmitters, money, political power, money, votes, money, republicans in office, and money.

I have stated on these very pages, on many occasions, that I have no objection to people believing whatever they want to believe, even though I don’t share those beliefs, and never will.

But we’re talking about Michael Brown here, and the host of his fellow travelers– Tony Perkins, Brian Brown, Pat Robertson, Scott Lively, and all of the rest of the antigay grifters who give Christianity a very, very bad name.

Not you, not the United Church of Christ, not the Episcopal Church, and not the rest of the people who try to live their lives in a Christ-like way, as in “Neither do I condemn you.”

Timothy Kincaid

June 16th, 2015


The four comments before mine did not appear to me to be limited to the “my god should control your life so gimme money” folks.

I understand that most non-religious or anti-religious people here are not hostile to faith entirely. But sometimes if we aren’t too careful, it can sound that way.

I want to keep this space welcoming and accepting for those whose faith is important and who are part of our community or allies.


June 16th, 2015


I wasn’t mocking religion. When I mock religious ideas it’s obvious. I was tossing out a completely absurd reason for why they feel they need to defend their particular deity and it just so happened to be from tv-tropes.

Timothy Kincaid

June 16th, 2015

Thanks guys. I may have been erring on the side of caution.

Eric Payne

June 17th, 2015

Timothy, you say:

It does baffle me that people who say “Our God is a mighty God” also feel that they have to constantly defend or ‘stand up for’God, lest His enemies entirely defeat him and run Him out of town.

May I add something to that sentiment?

These same people tend to say a variant of “everything that happens is part of God’s plan,” but when something happens they don’t like, they fight tooth-and-nail to change the outcome.

Timothy Kincaid

June 17th, 2015

Yes, Eric, it does seem contradictory.

Richard Rush

June 18th, 2015

I just had to share the Good News:

“Americans’ confidence in religion hits a new low”

Americans have less confidence in organized religion today than ever measured before — a sign that the church could be “losing its footing as a pillar of moral leadership in the nation’s culture,” a new Gallup survey finds. . . .


Timothy Kincaid

June 18th, 2015

Not surprising.

The Christian Church has, over centuries, very effectively pressed its central tenet into Western Civilization: treat people the way you want to be treated.

Too effectively, you might say.

Because now a culture that defines treating people decently as the basis of morality is unwilling to see the church’s cruelty, rejection of gays, protection of child molesters, flagrant materialism, and smug vanity as being “moral”.


July 5th, 2015

Can you address this?
“As stated in their report, “Catalysing LGBT Equality and Visibility in Ireland. A review of LGBT cluster grants, 2004-2013,” during this 10-year period, Atlantic Philanthropies gave $17 million to changing public perception about homosexuality in Ireland – and note again that this was only through 2013.”

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.


Latest Posts

The Things You Learn from the Internet

"The Intel On This Wasn't 100 Percent"

From Fake News To Real Bullets: This Is The New Normal

NC Gov McCrory Throws In The Towel

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.