Posts Tagged As: Scott Lively
May 24th, 2010
After laying low for a while amid news reports that Ugandan leaders may quietly drop the draconian Anti-Homosexuality BIll, it appears that Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively has decided become a pitchman for the bill’s passage, albeit in a slightly altered form.
Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton discovered via an email sent to supporters that Scott Lively has decided to “get off defense and counter-attack the false witnesses with hard facts about Uganda.” Toward that aim, Lively yesterday posted a letter on his web site dated March, 2010, addressed to Edward Ssekandi, the speaker of Uganda’s Parliament. In that letter, Lively urges the prompt passage of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill with some minor modifications. Lively suggests that the death penalty be dropped from the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, but as Dr. Throckmorton notes, Lively’s position “sound(s) pragmatic rather than principled.” Lively writes:
First and foremost, the inclusion of capital punishment for what you have classed as “aggravated homosexuality” is, in my view, a disproportionately harsh penalty. You may not be aware that capital punishment has been banned in numerous countries, even for the most extreme cases of aggravated murder. This is held as such an important policy that these nations will often refuse to extradite criminals to their home countries (including the United States) if there is any possibility that they will be subject to capital punishment there. Advocating the “death penalty” for “mere” sexual crimes evokes such a severe negative reaction in most Western nations that all other aspects of the law, and the rationale for drafting it is ignored, and very “gay” movement we seek to oppose is strengthened by public sympathy they would not otherwise enjoy.
Conversely, if the “death penalty” provision were removed, it would take the wind out of the sails of their current campaign against the bill. With so much of the international opposition rooted in the idea that this is a “Kill the Gays” law, the removal of this provision would represent enough of a concession on your part that a great many of the people who are now siding with the homosexual movement out of sympathy would consider the matter resolved. The “gay” activists and their political allies will, of course, continue to attack the bill, but from a much weaker position.
Lively also argues that the provision requiring individuals to report gay people to police should be dropped as well. “it is too vague,” he writes, “and because it targets people who may live as homosexuals in their private lives, but who do not seek to recruit others or legitimize their lifestyle in the larger society.” He argues instead that they should enact a “provision along the lines of child abuse reporting requirements in the U.S.”, but with the cut-off age for reporting being extended to the age of twenty-five, which is well into adulthood:
I believe you could easily adapt this model to your purposes by imposing this same reporting requirement on anyone with knowledge of homosexuals who involve themselves with anyone under a certain age. If, for example, you encompassed all youths under the age of twenty-five within this shield of protection, you would stop virtually all “gay” recruitment in your country, since normal young men and women are usually firmly set in their heterosexual identity by their mid-twenties.
Lively also argues that the bill should encourage “rehabilitation,” which, given the already draconian lifetime imprisonment penalties under current Ugandan law for homosexuality, would amount to coercing LGBT people into unproven and harmful conversion therapies.
Individual leaders at Exodus International, North America’s largest ex-gay organization whose board member, Don Schmierer, spoke the March 5-7, 2010 conference in Kampala alongside Scott Lively prior to the introduction of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, have come out against forced therapy schemes, although to date we are still unable to find an official Exodus International position statement on its web site.
Officials with The National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), the so-called “secular” arm of the ex-gay movement, have also come out against coerced therapy schemes, although at this time I also cannot find a position to that effect on NARTH’s web site either. Because Lively refers to both organizations as “experts” in ex-gay matters, I believe, once again, that it is essential for Exodus and NARTH to place such statements on their web sites, since this is most certainly not the first time this issue has arisen.
Lively’s letter to Speaker Ssekandi does not appear to have reached the speaker directly, and the only reply that Lively posts on his web site comes from MP Charles Tuhaise, who received a copy of Lively’s letter via Ugandan pentecostal pastor Martin Ssempa. Tuhaise says that dropping the death penalty may be considered, but rejects Lively’s other suggestions, labelling them as part of the same failed strategy which allowed pornography to “[break] barriers in Western society and became insidious.” Tuhaise continues, “It’s like the proverbial ‘Camel and herdsman story’. Today it is a foot in the hut, tomorrow it is a leg in the hut, next day its the head in the hut; before long, the herdsman is tossed out of the hut.”
Tuhaise says, “Ultimately, I see no way out in taking a stand and paying the price,” and comments Luively for having “stood up to homosexual intimidation for so long as a lone voice.”
January 10th, 2010
Scott Lively issued a statement dated today saying that he now supports the “revised” Anti-Homosexuality Bill. We have no idea what the revisions might be. Media reports indicate that it’s merely an elimination of the death-penalty provision, leaving the life imprisonment aspect intact, which is hardly an improvement given the prospect of spending the rest of one’s life rotting away in a Ugandan prison. Lively indicates that there is a forced conversion option, which would please him to no end. Of course, without knowing what the text of the “revised” bill might be, we have no way of verifying any of his claims which must be taken with a grain of salt.
In the lead-in to his statement, Lively says:
“I can\’t say that I necessarily agree with every element of the revised bill, but I believe this revision is an acceptable compromise under the circumstances and well within the prerogative of a civilized sovereign nation”
The bill, as currently written, has the following provisions:
Since Lively has lent his endorsement to a revised version of this bill apparently sight unseen. Assuming the death penalty is stricken and the alternative to rotting away the rest of one’s life in a dank Ugandan prison is the false “choice” of forced conversion, it is incumbent upon him to answer which of these provisions he thinks are “well within the prerogative of a civilized sovereign nation”?
Let’s face it, Scott Lively is irredeemably evil, fully earning his three spots on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of anti-gay hate groups. But what about the others? Exodus International board member Don Schmierer and International Healing Foundation’s Caleb Lee Brundidge cast their lot with Lively when they agreed to speak on the same platform with him. They haven’t fully condemned his continuing agitation in Uganda for a bill that he calls “a step in the right direction.” And, more importantly, they haven’t condemned Scott Lively’s hate-filled vendetta itself.
In fact, when Exodus International removed their link to Lively’s online condensed version of The Pink Swastika (which blames gays for Nazism and the Holocaust), they kept the tantalizing title “Homosexuality and the Nazi Party” which a quick Internet search lands the unsuspecting searcher onto Lively’s exercise in Holocaust revisionism. As for the link, Exodus now explains, “This opinion article by Scott Lively from 1995 is no longer offered by Exodus International.” Why not? Is it because they suddenly found Lively’s article objectionably after having provided that link since at least 2005? Or is it just because the “research” is out of date or that it’s no longer hosted on LeadershipU’s web site? Nobody knows and Exodus appears satisfied with that ambiguity. As of tonight, it’s still there. International Healing Foundation’s Richard Cohen hasn’t denounced Lively either for that matter.
Since they have not unambiguously disentangled themselves from Lively himself, their reputations remain entangled in his ongoing meddling in Uganda’s legislative process. And with that entanglement, they need to answer these questions: Do they agree than any part of this bill is a step in the right direction? If so, which parts?
Now more than ever, it is incumbent on Exodus president Alan Chambers, Cohen, Brundidge and Schmierer to fully and resolutely condemn Scott Lively and the other provisions of this bill, and issue a full apology to the LGBT citizens of Uganda who are suffering from the public vigilante campaigns which their conference sparked. They need to do this now before the idea of a “revised” bill being acceptable gains any further ground. It is long past time for them to call out evil by name.
But as I said, I doubt they will. To date, none of them have shown the integrity, the guts, nor the authentic witness of the Christian faith that they claim to hold so dear. Unless they separate themselves completely, forcefully, and without reservation from this unconscionable mess, Uganda will forever be their legacy and their cowardly silence will become the indelible image of Christ seen by LGBT people the world over. And thousands of Ugandans — and many more thousands of Americans — will never forget it.
January 6th, 2010
Scott Lively was one of three American activists to speak at an anti-gay conference in Kampala, Uganda on March 5-7, 2009. The other two participants were Exodus International board member Don Schmierer and International Healing Foundation’s Caleb Lee Brundidge. Two weeks after the conference, Lively bragged that he had delivered a “nuclear bomb against the gay agenda in Uganda.” Ex-Gay Watch and Box Turtle Bulletin have obtained some videos of that conference, and for the first time we get to see what that “nuclear bomb” looks like.
This first video explores that “nuclear bomb” and its repercussions. In this video, you will see:
Of the three videos we are debuting today, this is the most important as it puts Lively’s presentation in context with existing homophobia in Uganda.
Is it any wonder Ugandans want to kill gay people?
By the way, notice how Lively considers himself as one who “knows more than almost anyone else in the world” about homosexuality. In this second video, we show more clips of him pumping up his credentials and expertise. He then goes on to completely mangle the American Psychiatric Association’s definition of “sexual orientation,” conflating it with an entirely different and unrelated category of sexual paraphilias. (Ex-Gay Watch’s longer unedited video segment is here.)
In the last video, we see Lively explaining his three causes of homosexuality. Yes, just three of them. Unfortunately, none of his theoretical causes are supported by peer-reviewed scientific literature. (Ex-Gay Watch’s unedited video segment is here.)
January 4th, 2010
Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively, one of three Americans who put on an anti-gay conference in Kampala last March which served as a catalyst for the Anti-Homosexuality Bill that is now before Uganda’s Parliament, appeared on Alan Colmes radio program to discuss the proposal. He called the bill “a step on the right direction” because “they want to actively discourage the mainstreaming of homosexuality.” But Lively said that the bill “goes way over the line in punishment.”
For quite a long time, Lively was unwilling to say what an appropriate level of punishment would be. After several minutes of hemming and hawing, Colmes finally pinned Lively down. With seconds left in the segment, Lively conceded that they should be no imprisonment.
Update: Here is the last part of the segment, in which Lively tries to defend Uganda’s bill being “a step in the right direction”:
Here is the entire interview:
December 29th, 2009
Getting the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) to say specifically whether coercing people into conversion therapy is unethical or not appears to have been extraordinarily difficult, but Grove City College professor has managed to get them to do just that.
The issue has arisen again lately in Uganda, where the Parliament is currently taking up the draconian Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which would provide for the death sentence for LGBT people under certain circumstances. While the entire bill is wide-ranging and dangerous for straight people as well as gays, the death sentence has garnered particular scrutiny. Now backers of the bill say that they may drop the death penalty and add a clause to provide forced conversion therapy for those convicted. It is unknown whether the forced therapy would be as an alternative to the lifetime prison sentence, or an adjunct to it.
The idea of forced conversions appears to have come from Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively, one of three American anti-gay extremists who led a conference in Kampala last March. The other two Americans, Exodus International board member Don Schmierer and International Healing Foundation’s Caleb Lee Brundidge, were there as conversion therapy “experts,” but they remained completely silent as the idea was allowed to fester for the succeeding nine months. NARTH also remained silent, even though Scott Lively touted NARTH as the leading experts on conversion therapy during the conference.
Finally, Warren Throckmorton was able to get a statement from NARTH. The group’s past president, A. Dean Byrd, wrote this reply to Throckmorton:
Dear Dr. Throckmorton,
As you are aware, NARTH\’s Governing Board has accepted the Leona Tyler Principle which states that NARTH, as a scientific organization, takes no position on any scientific issue without the requisite science or professional experience. NARTH members, as individuals, are free to speak on any issue.
NARTH values the inherent worth of all individuals and respects individual right of autonomy and self determination.
NARTH\’s position on homosexuality was clearly articulated by Dr. Julie Harren Hamiliton in a recent edition of the APA Monitor: homosexuality is not invariably fixed in all people – some people can and do change. And psychological care should be available to those who seek such care.
NARTH encourages its members to abide the Code of Ethics of their respective organizations and such codes proscribe the coercive efforts. It goes without saying that NARTH would support the humane treatment of ALL individuals.
We are aware of the situation in Uganda but thank you for bringing this to our attention. I am sure that you are aware that as a scientific organization, NARTH does not take political positions; however, we are happy to provide a summary of what science can and cannot say about homosexuality for those who do.
Dr. Throckmorton, if history is a good indicator, you will likely not be happy with this response. However, I hope such responses will help you understand NARTH\’s mission as a scientific organization.
With warm regards,
A. Dean Byrd, PhD, MBA, MPH
The line about NARTH not taking political positions is utterly laughable. You don’t even have to go beyond the front page on NARTH’s web site before you find links decrying the supposed “dangers” of same-sex marriage.
That aside, it was difficult to find the denunciation of forced conversion therapy. If you blinked, you might have missed it. But here it is again, with my emphasis:
NARTH encourages its members to abide the Code of Ethics of their respective organizations and such codes proscribe the coercive efforts.
After further inquiries from Throckmorton, Byrd clarified:
Research tells us that forced therapy is almost always a failure. It is unethical and unworkable.
Scott Lively specifically recommended NARTH to his Ugandan audience, saying, “After my web site, this is the one I consider the most important.” But if Ugandans go to NARTH, they will not find a single statement anywhere which provides guidance on coercive therapy. Exodus also continues to refrain from placing a statement on their web site as well, although Exodus President Alan Chambers did say in a Facebook posting, “I am NOT for forced therapy for gay and lesbian people.”
It’s good that NARTH and Exodus leadership has now come out against forced therapy. But since this is not the first time this issue has come up — and it certainly won’t be the last time either — isn’t it time these two organizations finally made these statements official and accessible? What reason could they possibly have for keeping them hard to find and off of their own web sites?
December 18th, 2009
NPR’s East Africa Correspondent Gwen Tompkins reports on NPR today:
Scott Lively’s philosophies have been deeply internalized here among those who are proponents of the law, and for people who are listening to these public dialogues on homosexuality, they’re hearing Scott Lively’s words reiterated by Ugandan Evangelicals and others who are proponents of the bill. And they believe it to be Gospel. They believe it to be scientific fact, what they’re listening to.
NPR’s Michel Martin then spoke to Scott Lively about the March conference, in which he defends his role in the events in Uganda. Lively acknowledges being “a consultant” on the law before it was drafted. Here is the audio:
As you can hear, this is a typical soft-ball NPR interview. There’s no mentioning of the fact that Scott Lively has played a leading role in three of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s ten anti-gay hate groups. There’s no examination of Lively’s Holocaust revisionism aside from an oblique reference to his “controversial” book at the beginning. In fact, none of his controversial beliefs surrounding Nazi Germany and the Holocaust came up. Instead, Lively pretends that he was simply asked for his opinion and he gave it. Whatever happens after that is none of his concern.
But here’s the kicker (at the 4:47 mark), when Lively said:
“It’s racist to suggest that Africans have no will of their own to produce public policy to suit their own values, and that three little-known, not very influential figures from American could come in and basically dominate this process. That’s pretty racist. We don’t have that kind of influence. We gave our opinion. And if it was true that our opinion was so weighty, then they would have backed off immediately, hearing all of us saying that we don’t agree with what they did.
The problem with that is that he’s constructed a very easily defeated strawman, as he is wont to do. First, we have long reported that Uganda’s violent hatred of its LGBT citizens had already provided fertile ground for the March anti-homosexuality conference to take root. It was that awareness of Uganda’s recent violent history that made the conference by Lively, Exodus International board member Don Schmierer and International Healing Foundation’s Caleb Brundidge so alarming. Lively’s rhetoric — which Gwen Tompkins reported had been repeated and accepted “as Gospel” among influential religious leaders in Uganda — included blaming gays for a “pedophilia” problem in the country, blaming gays for Fascism and the Holocaust in Nazi Germany, and blaming gays for the Rwandan genocide of 1994. And we know through video evidence that Lively’s historical revisionism has played a role in this year’s anti-gay hysteria.
But not only does he discount his own inflammatory rhetoric he also ignores the repeated assertions by Ugandan politicians that “homosexuality is a learned behavior” (which comes straight out of Schmierer’s and Brundidge’s talks in March). He also he also ignores the very real influence his pronouncements continue to have in Uganda. Uganda’s political and religious leaders are now talking about including Livey’s forced conversion therapy option as a possible amendment to the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. That was his idea, which he proudly owns.
December 11th, 2009
As discussed earlier, I believe that the Manhattan Declaration is an attempt to divide the Christian community into two camps and give a platform for which conservatives can appear to be the voice of Christendom. Further, it appears in many ways that the sole differentiation between those who signed on to this movement and those who did not is the degree to which they are opposed to inclusion of gay Christians into the body of believers.
Now the Manhattan Declaration is posting “additional signatories“, those who were not part of the original collection but whom they believe have significant stature in the Christian community. Two of the new signers are worth note.
16. Andrea Lafferty
Traditional Values Coalition
17. Dr. Scott Lively
Abiding Truth Ministries
There are at present only ten groups identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as “anti-gay hate groups“. Two of them are the Traditional Values Coalition and Abiding Truth Ministries.
Scott Lively is also one of the American participants at the conference in Uganda that is tied to the proposed “kill gays” bill.
Andrea Lafferty joins her father, Lou Sheldon, who was an original signatory and is the founder of the Traditional Values Coalition.
(hat tip GoodAsYou)
December 11th, 2009
Today, Scott Lively, one of three American anti-gay activists who participated in an anti-gay conference last March in Kampala, decided to drop his two cents’ worth on the Uganda debacle that he helped to create. In a statement posted on his Defend The Family web site, Lively says that he’s against the death penalty. But he also supports the rationale and hatred that is driving that proposal, while excusing his own actions and repeating his earlier suggestion that Uganda institute forced conversion therapy instead.
Lively begins his piece by recounting the story behind Uganda’s Martyrs Day, an official holiday which marks the deaths of 22 young men who refused to submit to rape by King Mwanga II of Buganda between 1885 and 1887. Lively is not to first to equate predatory rape with consensual relationships of affection between people of the same gender, and he won’t be the last. But he uses this canard to claim that “By official count 22 young men were executed under Uganda\’s law on homosexuality.”
Such is the state of bigotry in Uganda that conflating homosexuality with rape is so commonplace that it has become a part of the national lore, and such is Lively’s eagerness to exploit that hatred to justify his actions. Lively’s statement builds on the image of all gays being predatory by spreading the oft-repeated rumors circulating in Uganda that wealthy foreigners are “converting” Uganda’s youth to a lifetime of homosexuality through the influence of wealth. And what does he think should be done about it?
Let me be absolutely clear. I do not support the proposed anti-homosexuality law as written. It does not emphasize rehabilitation over punishment and the punishment that it calls for is unacceptably harsh. However, if the offending sections were sufficiently modified, the proposed law would represent an encouraging step in the right direction. As one of the first laws of this century to recognize that the destructiveness of the “gay” agenda warrants opposition by government, it would deserve support from Christian believers and other advocates of marriage-based culture around the world.
Saddleback Pastor Rick Warren is now on record as saying that Christian leaders have a moral responsibility to oppose Uganda’s proposed Anti-Homosexuality Act. Warren goes further, saying, “I oppose the criminalization of homosexuality. The freedom to make moral choices is endowed by God.” This sets Lively in direct opposition to the most respected Evangelical pastor in the nation, and it leaves Uganda with a very clear choice. They can either do the Christian thing and drop the Anti-Homosexuality Act, or they can remove some of the most outrageous provisions and still be aligned with one of the world’s most venomous anti-gay Holocaust revisionists. That’s quite a position to be in.
November 28th, 2009
LifeSiteNews was originally launched in 1997 by Campaign Life Coalition, a Canadian national pro-life organization, as a news source for those opposed to legal abortion. Since that time it has broadened its interests to include euthanasia, cloning, homosexuality, and other social issues and currently its readership is primarily in the United States.
LifeSiteNews is generally well written (though biased) and informative and often will have stories that have not caught the attention of mainstream media, especially those which are international in scope. But it must be read with the understanding that it has a strong sectarian slant and is perhaps best viewed as an unofficial lay voice of the Roman Catholic Church.
Today, LifeSiteNews published an article that was unexpected. The Editor, John-Henry Westen, interviewed Scott Lively and echoed without question his statements about homosexuality in Uganda and the current effort underway to pass legislation to execute HIV positive gay people, incarcerate other gay people for life, and jail those family, friends, or acquaintances who do not report suspected gay people to the government. While Westen’s biases make him ready to believe the worst about gay people, however irrational, it was surprising the extent to which Lively’s word was taken as unvarnished truth.
Scott Lively is an unusual anti-gay activist. He does not stop at moral concern, cultural discomfort, or objection based in ignorance, stereotype, or unfamiliarity. Rather, Lively travels the world marketing in anti-gay lies and myths and seeking to inflame hatred and instigate outrage and social oppression of gay people on an international scale.
Lively is the author of The Pink Swastika, a book whose premise is that the Nazis were primarily a homosexual organization and that gays were responsible for the Holocaust. While this is a laughable assertion dismissed by historians and holocaust groups, it is read, believed, and treasured in countries where animus against gay people is strong and an excuse to hate gay people is welcomed without question.
Lively was also, along with Exodus International board member Don Schmierer and Caleb Lee Brundidge of Richard Cohen\’s International Healing Foundation, one of the three American speakers at the conference in February which led to the current proposed legislation in Uganda.
According to the reported interview in LifeSiteNews, Lively is spinning a peculiar message. Lively says that laws against homosexuality should be on the books but only sporadically enforced. This keeps gays oppressed and support for their social inclusion forbidden.
He testified to lawmakers in the Ugandan Assembly Hall that having legislation against homosexuality on the books is important since it protects against those who would advocate in public and in schools that homosexuality is positive.
While Lively makes sure to say that the bill as proposed is “too harsh”, his primary objective in the interview was to lay the blame for any excesses in the bill on reasonable reaction to “the heavy-handed pressure from international gay-activist politicians on Uganda to accept homosexuality as normal.”
In fact, as Dr. Scott Lively, the President of Defend the Family pointed out, the preamble to the bill, and the bill itself contain numerous references to stopping international pressure on Uganda to accept Western sexual values that are abhorrent to Ugandan culture.
The bill states explicitly that it aims “at providing a comprehensive and enhanced legislation to protect the cherished culture of the people of Uganda.” The goal is to protect the “legal, religious, and traditional family values of the people of Uganda against the attempts of sexual rights activists seeking to impose their values of sexual promiscuity on the people of Uganda.”
Dr. Lively, a pro-family activist and attorney based in California was in Uganda in March to testify before Ugandan legislators now considering the legislation. In an interview with LifeSiteNews (LSN), Dr. Lively explained that the impetus for the bill was “a lot of external interference from European and American gay activists attempting to do in Uganda what they’ve done around the world – homosexualize that society.” One of their main concerns, explained Lively, “are the many male homosexuals coming in to the country and abusing boys who are on the streets.”
The Catholic Church’s position on the “Kill Gays” bill is less clearly defined. However, as LifeSiteNews summarizes, they too are taking a “blame it on the foreign gays” approach:
While the Catholic leadership in the nation has not yet responded publicly to the proposed bill, they have consistently expressed outrage at the attempts of the West to impose acceptance of homosexuality on the country. Last month at the Synod for Africa at the Vatican, bishops from all over the continent noted their grave concerns over the international anti-family pressure.
Summing up the discussions, the Cardinal Archbishop of Cape Coast, Ghana, Peter Turkson, said that the Synod had “described in various ways a ferocious onslaught on the family and the related fundamental institution of marriage from outside Africa and attributed it to diverse sources.” The bishops, he said, “vigorously denounced the ideology and international programs which are imposed on African countries under false pretexts or as conditions for development assistance.”
This may not be a conclusive endorsement of the bill by the Catholic Church – and indeed the death penalty goes in opposition to the position of the Vatican. However, it would appear that the Catholic Church is, in at least some venues, indicating that it will not speak out in opposition to this draconian piece of legislation.
Scott Lively has illustrated that he has no use for civil freedoms such as the right to speech or assembly, and his gross distortion of the murder of a gay man has long since revealed a lack or any moral center. One expects nothing but the most extreme and hateful from him.
But it is sad when an institution as old and influential as the Catholic Church, and one that is charged with doing good, seems to be siding with evil.
November 17th, 2009
Is that Scott Lively in the background of the picture?
Why yes, it is Scott Lively, second to the left, standing next to Gary Cass.The full picture is below. Click on it to enlarge and see for yourself.
Scott Lively is the author of the Pink Swastika, in which he charges that the Nazi movement was, at its core, a homosexual movement, and that gays were responsible for the Holocaust. While speaking at the anti-gay conference in Kampala, he blamed the Rwandan genocide on “butch” gay men.
And that’s barely the tip of the iceberg. He is associated with not just one, not two, but three of just eleven organizations identified by the SPLC as a hate group (He co-founded Watchmen on the Walls, founded Abiding Truth Ministries, and he is now the leader of the School of Christian Activism). If that weren’t enough, he spoke at a banquet last winter for a fourth SPLC hate group, MassResistance. This man knows hate speech backwards and forwards. And if he can’t get arrested in Washington for violating a non-existent hate speech law, nobody can.
November 17th, 2009
Yesterday a collection of the nation’s most obnoxious anti-gay activists showed up in Washington DC to have a showdown with the government. They were there to defy the new law criminalizing preaching against homosexuality and to be arrested for preaching the gospel. (Christian Post)
Conservative pastors rallied outside the Justice Department on Monday to test the limits of the newly expanded hate crimes law.
Calling the new law – which broadens the definition of federal hate crimes to include attacks based on sexual orientation and gender identity – a clear threat to religious liberty, the group sought to defend their freedom to proclaim biblical truths.
They were certain that preaching against homosexuality is now illegal. And they were there to be martyrs for their faith.
But there were no arrests. No one had to join the Apostle Paul and Martin Luther King by writing from the jail cell to proclaim God’s glorious truth.
Police were present, just as they are at all such public demonstrations. But, as Dana Milbank of the Washington Post noted they had better things to do:
Anything other than sex “between a male and his wedded wife,” announced the Rev. Paul Blair, “is a perversion, and the Bible says that homosexuality is in fact an abomination.”
No arrest was made.
The Rev. Rick Scarborough, quoting Scripture, listed “homosexual offenders” along with thieves, drunkards, swindlers and idolators as those unwelcome in the kingdom of God. “To fail to call homosexuals to repent of their sin and come to Jesus is the highest form of cowardice and sin,” he said.
No charges were filed.
“Had people listened to our plea, there would be tens of thousands of people who had not died of a dreaded disease,” contributed the Rev. Jim Garlow. “This breaks our heart to see people die of AIDS.”
No hands were cuffed. In fact, the few cops in attendance were paying no attention to the speakers, instead talking among themselves and checking their BlackBerrys.
And, indeed, the cops were not interested because no crime was being committed. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act does not infringe on religious liberty or ban preaching against homosexuality or anything else they fear. The only time a minister need fear the law is if he is actively instigating violent attacks on gay people.
But this reality is wasted on these activists. Even though their bait drew no bite, they remain convinced that Christianity is being criminalized. (Citizenlink)
Gary Cass, president and CEO of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, said pastors who preach from the Bible could be held accountable if someone hears their sermon and then commits a crime against a gay-identified individual.
“It puts the burden on the minister to have to read the minds of the people that are listening to him and be able to predict the future,” he said. “It has a very chilling effect on the minister’s speech, because the safest thing is to just say nothing.”
And Janet Folger trumpeted her warning on WorldNetDaily
Unfortunately, it’s too late for our freedom of speech, as so-called “hate crimes” legislation already passed Congress and was signed by Barack Obama into law as a part of the defense budget. That is why I stood with pastors like Rick Scarborough of Vision America, Mat Staver and Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel, Oklahoma Pastor Paul Blair, San Diego Pastor Jim Garlow, Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, Bishop Earl Jackson of Stand America, and others on the steps of the Department of Justice yesterday afternoon speaking out against the law that has already laid the foundation for the Criminalization of Christianity, as I warned about in my book by that same title.
It can be difficult to understand exactly why these activists ignore the opinions of legal scholars who assure them that no such arrests will be made. It is odd that Christian voices calling for reason are ignored. It seems incomprehensible that a simple reading of the Constitution and the language of the law itself (which specifically excludes anti-gay preaching and teaching) would not assuage their fears.
But then something began to seem familiar.
You see, I’ve tried to have a conversation with a crystal methamphetamine addict who hadn’t slept in days. He explained why there was tinfoil over the windows and even the shower vent. He was worried that there might be a man hiding behind the stereo which was flush with the wall. Even though on a conscious level he knew and could sheepishly admit that his fears were baseless, the meth in his system compelled a paranoia which he simply could not ignore.
With him, there was a logical reason to explain his irrational thinking. It was chemically induced.
But why are these anti-gay activists convinced, against all evidence to the contrary, that preaching against homosexuality is now illegal? How do we explain their irrational thinking and baseless paranoia?
Surely they aren’t all meth-heads.
October 19th, 2009
The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission has issued an Action Alert, asking everyone to write to the Ugandan authorities to express your concern about their latest attempts to criminalize homosexuality and institute the death sentence in certain circumstances.
According to the text of the bill introduced in the Ugandan Parliament last week, the new law would:
According to the IGLHRC, the bill’s impacts are wide-ranging:
The bill effectively bans any kind of community or political organizing around non-heteronormative sexuality. It will lend itself to misapplication and abuse, and implicitly encourages persecution of LGBT people by private actors. HIV prevention activities in Uganda, which rely on an ability to talk frankly about sexuality and provide condoms and other safer-sex materials, will be seriously compromised. Women, sex workers, people living with AIDS, and other marginalized groups may also find their activities tracked and criminalized through this bill.
The IGLHRC provides contact information (email and phone numbers, where available) and a sample letter. You can also send a letter to Exodus, the International Healing Foundation, and Abiding Truth Ministries, as well as and demand that they speak out on the latest outrage which stems from their representatives’ participation in a three-day anti-gay conference in Kampala. The currently proposed anti-homosexuality bill is a direct result of that conference put on by Exodus International board member Don Schmierer, Abiding Truth Ministry’s Scott Lively, and International Healing Foundation’s Caleb Lee Brundidge. For more information on the role their activists played in this latest outrage, please see the links to our coverage at the end of this post.
Please send your letter to:
President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni
State House Nakasero
Prime Minister Apollo Nsibambi
Speaker of the Parliament
Edward Ssekandi Kiwanuka
Minister of Gender, Labour, and Social Affairs
Honorable Opio Gabriel
Chair of the Uganda Human Rights Commission
Directorate for Ethics and Integrity
Chair of the Uganda Diplomatic Human Rights Working Groups
Please also send a copy to:
Ambassador to the Republic of Uganda Embassy of the United States of America
Jerry P. Lanier
Send an email and fax to:
Ambassador to the US
Perezi K. Kamunanwire
Dr. Ruhakana Rugunda
Permanent Representative of the Republic of Uganda to the United Nations
336 East 45 Street
New York, NY 10017
I am writing to express concern about legislation that would severely restrict the rights of Ugandan citizens, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people and their defenders, in direct contravention of domestic and international law. The Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009 would not only reaffirm penalties for homosexuality, but would criminalize the “promotion of homosexuality,” including funding and sponsoring LGBT organizations and broadcasting, publishing, or marketing materials on homosexuality. Any person in authority who fails to report known violations of the law within 24 hours will also be subject to a significant fine and up to 3 years in prison – even when this means turning in their colleagues, family, or friends.
The negative repercussions of the bill in Uganda will be immediate and severe. It effectively bans the free association and expression that are necessary for a flourishing civil society, and creates a climate of fear and hostility that undermines the citizenship and solidarity of all Ugandans. It will lend itself to misapplication and abuse, and implicitly encourages persecution of LGBT people by private actors. Effective HIV prevention activities in Uganda, which rely on an ability to talk frankly about sexuality and provide condoms and other safer-sex materials, will be difficult, if not impossible.
The Anti-Homosexuality Bill violates National Objective 5(2) of the Ugandan Constitution, which provides that “the State shall guarantee and respect the independence of non-governmental organizations which protect and promote human rights.” Moreover, it directly violates the right to equality and freedom from discrimination (Article 21), the right to privacy (Article 27), the right to freedoms of speech, expression, association, and assembly (Article 29), the protection of minorities (Article 36), and the protection of civic rights and activities (Article 38) to which all Ugandans are entitled. It also violates the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and other international human rights treaties to which Uganda is a party. This bill undermines Uganda’s commitment to the international human rights regime and threatens the basic human rights of all its citizens.
The Bill’s revocation of fundamental rights would also seriously undermine the country’s reputation and credibility in the international arena. Because it claims jurisdiction over Ugandans who violate its provisions while outside of the country, the Bill will strain Uganda’s relations with regional and international partners.
While people may hold differing opinions about sexual orientation and gender identity, the legislation before Parliament is an ineffective and fundamentally illegal way to express opposition to a minority group. In recognition of the importance of a diverse, dynamic civil society and the domestic and international commitments that Uganda has made, I urge you to swiftly dismiss the Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009 and reaffirm the rights and responsibilities of all Ugandans.
September 15th, 2009
Uganda appears to be inching closer to “strengthening” its already draconian anti-gay laws which already provide for a possible life sentence for those convicted of homosexuality. A draft of the proposed bill obtained by Box Turtle Bulletin indicates that Ugandan lawmakers intend to go much further.
In a draft dated April 20, 2009 and being circulated surreptitiously, the proposed bill creates an offense of “aggravated homosexuality” and provides for the death penalty under specific circumstances. It also provides for at least five years imprisonment (and no apparent maximum) for advocating on behalf of LGBT people. This extends not just to activists and organizations, but to individuals as well, including bloggers or anyone else using the internet or mobile phones — as well as anyone who makes a donation or offers a safe refuge for LGBT people. Furthermore, if anyone is “aware of the commission of any offense under this Act” and fails to report it to the police, they will be liable of up to six months imprisonment.
The draft also extends jurisdiction to people who are Uganda citizens or permanent residents but who commit offenses outside the country. This could mean that LGBT Ugandans abroad who engage in advocacy work could find themselves in danger of being imprisoned should they return to Uganda. LGBT Ugandans fleeing the country could also face extradition should they find themselves in a similarly hostile country.
The accompanying memorandum calls on the Uganda government to withdraw from any international obligations or treaties which the government interprets as running counter to the country’s anti-gay policies.
It is unclear at this time whether the proposed bill has undergone any modifications since April. There is no word yet on when the bill will be formally introduced into Parliament. It is believed that under current conditions when accusations of homosexuality have become a potent political tool, that few if any lawmakers will vote against the bill. It will be passed into law upon its third reading.
This drafting of this bill appears to have coincided with intense lobbying efforts by anti-gay activists following a conference held in Kampala which featured American Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively and Exodus International board member Don Schmierer. Exodus International released a statement “appauding” Don Schierer’s participation in the conference which ended with calls to strengthen Uganda’s homosexuality laws with a proposal to force LGBT people into ex-gay therapy upon conviction. That proposal does not appear in this draft.
That anti-gay conference quickly spawned other anti-gay meetings and rallies, including a march on Parliament on April 24, about the time this draft was written. By then, rumors were already circulating that anti-gay politicians sought to criminalize LGBT advocacy, which this draft appears to confirm. In July, Uganda’s Minister of State for Ethics and Integrity James Nsaba Buturo confirmed their intention to eliminate free speech for and on behalf of LGBT people. Meanwhile, a full-fledged public vigilante campaign was released on Uganda’s gay community, leading to several reports of arrests and reports.
The following is the full text of the draft that we received.
APRIL 20, 2009
THE ANTI – HOMOSEXUALITY BILL, 2009
1. The Principle
The object of this Bill is to establish a comprehensive legislation to protect the traditional family by prohibiting (i) any form of sexual relations between people of the same sex; and (ii) the promotion or recognition of such sexual relations in public institutions as healthy, normal or an acceptable lifestyle, including in the public schools, through or with the support of any government entity in Uganda or any non- governmental organization inside or outside the country. Research indicates that the homosexuality has a variety of negative consequences including higher incidences of violence, sexually transmitted diseases, and use of drugs. The higher incidence of separation and break-up in homosexual relationships also creates a highly unstable environment for children raised by homosexuals through adoption or otherwise, and can have profound psychological consequences on those children. In addition, the promotion of homosexual behavior undermines our traditional family values.
Given Uganda\’s historical, legal, cultural and religious values which maintain that the family, based on marriage between a man and a woman is the basic unit of society. This Bill aims at strengthening the nation\’s capacity to deal with emerging internal and external threats to the traditional heterosexual family. These threats include: redefining human rights to elevate homosexual and transgender behavior as legally protected categories of people.
This legislation is aimed at halting the advance of the “sexual rights” agenda, which seeks to establish additional legally protected classes based on sexual preferences and behaviors, as well as claims that people have rights based on these preferences and behaviors. Sexual rights activists have created new euphemisms to promote this agenda such as “sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” “sexual minorities” and “sexual rights.”
This legislation further recognizes the fact that same sex attraction is not an innate and immutable characteristic and that people who experience this mental disorder can and have changed to a heterosexual orientation. It also recognizes that because homosexuals are not born that way, but develop this disorder based on experiences and environmental conditions, it is preventable, especially among young people who are most vulnerable to recruitment into the homosexual lifestyle.
The Republic of Uganda needs comprehensive and enhanced legislation to protect our cultural, legal, religious, and traditional family values against the attempts of sexual rights activists seeking to impose their values of sexual promiscuity on Uganda.
There is also need to protect our children and youths who are made vulnerable to sexual abuse and deviation as a result of cultural changes, uncensored information technologies, parentless child developmental settings and increasing attempts by homosexuals to raise children in homosexual relationships through adoption, foster care, or otherwise.
2. Defects in the existing law.
This legislation is designed to fill the gaps in the provisions of the constitution of Uganda and the penal code Act by establishing that, in Uganda, marriage is only between a man and a woman and that no other sexual unions or relationships will be recognized by the government.
The Penal Code Act (Cap 20) does not directly address this issue of homosexuality. It instead talks about unnatural offenses under section 145. This section does not specifically talk about homosexuality as an offense. It does not even have any reference to homosexuality. Not surprisingly the Act does not have a definition for homosexuality in the definition section.
The Penal Code Act does not explicitly address the issue of same sex unions and gender identity disorders which are damaging the social fabric of our nation at an alarming rate. There are no provisions in the Penal Code Act panelizing the procurement, promotion, disseminating literature and other forms of report for the offenses of homosexuality hence the need for legislation to provide for charging, investigating, prosecuting, convicting and sentencing of offenders on the above law. There is need for equal treatment of man and woman before the law in regard to homosexual offenses.
This legislation comes to complement and supplement the provisions of the Constitution of Uganda and the Penal Code Act by not only criminalizing same sex marriages but same -sex sexual acts and other related acts.
3.1. The objectives of the Bill
The objectives of the Bill are:
(a) To protect marriage as that only between a man and a woman in Uganda;
(b) To prohibit homosexual behavior and related practices in Uganda as they constitute a threat to the traditional family;
(c) To safeguard the health of Ugandan citizens from the negative effects of homosexuality and related practices;
(d) To establish progressive legislation protective of the traditional family that can serve as a model for other countries;
(e) To prohibit ratification of any international treaties, conventions, protocols and declarations which are contrary or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act;
(f) To ensure that no international instruments to which Uganda is already a party can be interpreted or applied in Uganda in a way that was never intended at the time the document was created;
(e) To withdraw from any international agreements to which Uganda already is a party, or file reservations to them, which are re-interpreted to include protection for homosexual behavior, or that promote same-sex marriage, or that call for the promotion or teaching about homosexuality as being healthy, normal, or an acceptable lifestyle choice, or that seek to establish sexual behavior, sexual orientation, or gender identity, or sexual minorities as legally protected categories of people; and
(f) To prohibit Uganda from becoming a party to any new international instruments that expressly include protection for homosexual behavior; promote same-sex marriage; call for the promotion or teaching about homosexuality or homosexual relations as being healthy, normal, or an acceptable lifestyle choice; and/or seek to establish sexual behavior, sexual orientation, gender identity or sexual minorities as legally protected categories of people
3.2. Part 1 of the Bill incorporating clauses 1 and 2 provides for Preliminary matters relating to commencement and Interpretation of the words and phrases used in the Bill
3.3. Part II of the Bill incorporating clause 3 to clause 6 prohibits homosexuality and related practices by introducing the offences of engaging in homosexuality, and the penalties of imprisonment upon conviction. This part also creates offences and penalties for acts that promote homosexuality, failure to report the offence and impose a duty on the Community to report Suspected Cases of homosexuality.
3.4. Part III of the Bill incorporating of clause 7 to clauses 9 provides for the jurisdiction of Ugandan Courts in Case of Homosexuality, including extra territorial Jurisdiction.
3.5. Part IV of the Bill incorporating clauses 10 and 11 provides for miscellaneous provisions on International Treaties, Protocols, Declarations and Conventions and the Minister to make regulations to give effect to the Act.
4. Schedule 1 of the Bill gives the value of the currency.
Hon. David Bahati
MP, Ndorwa County West
ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES
PART I -PRELIMINARY
PART II – PROHIBITION OF HOMOSEXUALITY
3. Offence of Homosexuality
4. Aggravated Homosexuality
5. Promoting Homosexuality
6. Failure to report offence
PART III – JURISDICTION
8. Extra – territorial Jurisdiction
PARTIV – MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
10. International treaties
PART I – PRELIMINARY
1 – Commencement
This Act shall come into force upon publication in the Gazette.
2 – Interpretation
In this Act, unless the Context otherwise requires –
“Gender” means male or female;
“Homosexuality” means same gender or same sex sexual acts;
“Homosexual” means a person who engages or attempts to engage in same gender sexual activity.
“Minister” means the Minister responsible for Ethics and Integrity.
“Sexual act” means –
(a) Stimulation or penetration of a vagina or mouth or anus or any part of the body, however slight of any person by a sexual organ;
(b) The use of any object or organ by a person on another person\’s sexual organ or anus or mouth;
“Sexual organ” means-a vagina or penis.
PART II: PROHIBITION OF HOMOSEXUALITY AND RELATED PRACTICES
3. Prohibition of homosexuality
(1) Homosexuality is prohibited.
(2) Any person who engages in homosexuality contrary to sub-section (1) commits an offense and on conviction is liable to a fine not exceeding 500 currency points or imprisonment not exceeding 10 years or both.
4. Aggravated homosexuality
(1) Any person who commits the offense mentioned in section 3 above with another person who is below the age of 18 years in any of the circumstances specified in sub-section (2) of this section commits the offense and on conviction is liable to suffer death.
(2) The circumstances referred to in sub-section (1) are as follows: –
(a) Where the person against whom the offense is committed is below the age of 14;
(b) Where the offender is infected with HIV;
(c) Where the offender is a parent or guardian or a person in authority over, the person against whom the offense is committed;
(d) Where the victim of the offense is a person with disability; or
(e) Where the offender is a serial offender.
(3) Any person who attempts to commit the offense of homosexuality with another person below 18 years in any of the circumstances specifies in sub-section (2), commits an offense and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for life.
(4) Where a person is charged with the offense under this section, that person shall undergo a medical examination to ascertain his or her HIV status.
(5) Any person who without the consent of an adult victim being under their authority or not commits the offense mentioned in this section
5. Promotion of homosexuality
(1) Any person who,
(a) Participates in production, trafficking, procuring, marketing, broadcasting, disseminating, publishing homosexual materials;
(b) Funds or sponsors homosexuality and related activities
(c) Offers premises and other fixed or movable assets
(d) Uses electronic devices which include internet, films, mobile phone and
(f) Who acts as an accomplice or attempts to legitimize or in any way abets homosexuality and related practices
Commits an offense and on conviction is liable to a fine of five thousand currency points or imprisonment of at least five years or both.
(2) Where the offender is a corporate body or a business or an association or a Non-governmental organization conviction its Certificate of Registration shall be cancelled and the Director(s) or proprietors or promoter(s) shall be criminally liable.
6. Failure to report the offense
Any person who being aware of the commission of any offense under this Act omits to report the offense to the relevant authorities within 24 hours commits an offense and on conviction is liable to a fine not exceeding five hundred currency points or imprisonment not exceeding six months year.
PART IV -JURISDICTION
Save for aggravated homosexuality which shall be tried by the High Court, other offenses under this Act shall be tried by the Magistrates Court.
8. Extra – Territorial Jurisdiction.
This Act shall apply to offences Committed outside Uganda Where-
(1) A person who, while being a citizen of, or permanently residing in Uganda, Commits an act Outside Uganda, which act would Constitute an offence had it been Committed in Uganda.
(2) The offence was committed partly outside and or partly in Uganda.
A person charged with offence under this Act shall be liable to extradition under the existing Extradition laws.
10. Nullification of inconsistent International treaties, protocols, declarations and conventions.
(1). Any international legal instrument whose provisions are contradictory to the spirit and provisions enshrined in this Act, are null and void to the extent of their inconsistency.
(2). The foreign definitions of “sexual orientation”, “sexual rights”, “sexual minorities”, “gender identity” shall not be used in anyway to legitimize homosexuality, gender identity disorders and related practices in Uganda.
The Minister may by statutory instrument make regulations to effect implementation of the provisions of this Act, and Promote the objects of this Act.
One currency point is equivalent to twenty thousand Shillings.
July 16th, 2009
In an amateur video posted this week on YouTube, Scott Lively talked about his work in “re-Christianizing America,” which is threatened by an “infrastructure collapse” brought on by that dreaded gay agenda:
Frankly, I see things simply disintegrating very rapidly and I believe that we’re going to suffer some kind of infrastructure collapse in this society because of the failure of moral culture, and that Christians have a responsibility to continue to oppose this disintegration.”
Scott Lively is famous for his book, The Pink Swastika, which claims that the Nazi party was, at it’s core, a murderous homosexual movement, and that fascism is the inevitable result of any expansion of gay rights. Last spring, he appeared at an anti-gay conference in Kampala, Uganda with Exodus board member Don Schmierer. That conference called for a strengthening of that country’s already draconian law against homosexuality which already provides for a lifetime imprisonment for those convicted. That conference kicked off a long-running public anti-gay vigilante campaign which is still reverberating through the country. A bill has been announced before Uganda’s parliament to rescind free-speech protections for LGBT people and place an outright ban on all advocacy on their behalf.
In this latest video, Lively sees himself as a missionary to Massachusetts, saying he moved to Springfield from Temecula, California, because “Massachusetts is the most morally corrupt state in the union.” He offered his latest brain-droppings while preparing to speak before a committee of the Massachusetts House against a bill which would provide hate crime and non-discrimination protections on the basis of sexual identity and expression. Lively identified that bill as one of “two hundred other bills that’s being heard today” which he thinks are just as bad, so he has to pick and choose his battles. “We don’t have time to deal with them all,” he shrugs. You can guess which one he chose:
The only solution we have to this kind of a problem is for good people, godly, god-fearing people who hold to the truth of the Bible to be sitting in those seats and making the decisions. Lacking that, we have to scramble to try to come and testify on the ones that are the most critical, like this transgender hate crimes bill, and sort of live with the frustration that our efforts are not sufficient to stop the trend.
Lively is optimistic though. He’s convinced that things will get so bad that people will eventually turn back to his particular version of God:
…[A]s it has always happened in the past, people are going to cry out to God, and they’re going to repent. They’re going to look for a way out of that problem, out of that crisis, just like happened right after 9/11. You remember it lasted three weeks or so after 9/11 you saw a little glimpse of that. But I think that’s going to happen again, and if those of us who are true to His Word are preparing ourselves for that day, then we will be able to begin to rebuild on a more Biblical and more logical and more family-friendly footing.”
Scott Lively’s Abiding Truth Ministries is one of only twelve groups on the Southern Poverty Law Center\’s list of anti-gay hate groups. His is also co-founder of Watchmen On the Walls, another international group that is listed by the SPLC as an anti-gay hate group. Last January, he was a featured speaker at the MassResistance fundraiser, and appears to be forming links with that group. That would be a third SPLC anti-gay hate group he has ties to. The man certainly gets around.
Earlier this month, Lively announced that he would “no longer be monitoring the day-to-day developments of the culture war regarding homosexuality as closely.” I was skeptical. He’s not going away anytime soon.
July 2nd, 2009
Not exactly. He’s made a career out of homophobia for nearly two decades now, but he now claims that he’s turning his attention to other matters:
With the June 17th publication of my final book on the homosexual issue, “Redeeming the Rainbow: A Christian Response to the ‘Gay’ Agenda,” I have completed 20 years of service as a front-lines opponent of the homosexual movement. “Redeeming the Rainbow,” which I have published as a free book in pdf format, encompasses all that I have learned through this long tour of duty and I believe there is little more that I could add on the issue.
As of now I am turning my attention to other interests and needs of the pro-family movement and will no longer be monitoring the day-to-day developments of the culture war regarding homosexuality as closely, nor posting stories about it to this site.
I somehow suspect that he’s not going very far. It’s only two paragraphs later when he reveals another update to his book, The Pink Swastika:
I have one last major project to complete on the homosexual issue, the publication of a 5th Edition of my book (co-authored with Jewish researcher Kevin E. Abrams) “The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party.” It will be published in a web-based, documentation-emphasized format. That project will begin soon and a link to it will be available on this page from the early stages, so that readers can follow its ongoing progress and make use of the facts and documentation in their own pro-family advocacy.
The Pink Swastika is Lively’s primary claim to fame. In it, he claims that Nazism was, at its core, a homosexual movement, and that the gay rights movement today is a barely-disguised update of Nazi ideology. He cites the Holocaust as but one example of the inevitable consequences of homosexuality gaining public prominence. His blatant historical revisionism has earned his Abiding Truth ministries a spot in one of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of twelve anti-gay hate groups.
So no, he’s not giving up his holocaust revisionism anytime soon. And since we will all get to see his “ongoing progress” with his online edition, I doubt he’ll leave it alone when he’s done.
Lively says he will continue to be available for conferences, seminars and the like, and I’m sure The Pink Swastika will continue to be the centerpiece of his talks. More recently, he took his Holocaust revisionism abroad with a three-day conference in Kampala, Uganda, where he peddled his wares alongside Exodus board member Don Schmierer. That conference called for the strengthening of Uganda’s anti-homosexuality law by adding the “option” of forced conversion therapy. Uganda’s law already provides for a life sentence. Lively’s book is now being used by Ugandan religious leaders to fuel an ongoing public campaign of vigilantism and police detentions and torture.
Meanwhile, Dr. Warren Throckmorton, an associate professor at the Christian-based Grove City College, has continued to add to his online series debunking The Pink Swastika. His latest installment is probably the most devastating, where Throckmorton catches Lively lying about his source information virtually red-handed. Throckmorton was joined in this endeavor by associate professor of history, Dr. Jon David Wyneken, whose Ph.D. is in modern German history with a focus on the period between 1933 and 1955. Together, they have undertaken a methodical exposé of Lively’s shoddy scholarship.
Throckmorton’s efforts seem to be having some effect. Leadership University, an online ministry affiliated with Campus Crusade for Christ, once proudly hosted a condensed outline of his Pink Swastika thesis. That article, “Homosexuality and the Nazi Party,” has recently been removed.
[Hat tip: Ex-gay Watch]
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
The 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.