Harvard, Mother Jones and the ‘Gay’ Bullies
Recently I participated in a debate at Harvard Law School on the issue of criminal justice. It featured five candidates for Governor of Massachusetts, of which I am one. The event was marred by the infantile antics of Harvard’s homosexual student group, Lambda, whose members stood and turned their backs to the stage whenever it was my turn to speak, and laughed and sneered loudly at all of my comments throughout the evening. The topic of the debate was entirely unrelated to homosexuality or the LGBT sub-culture, yet these overgrown adolescents forced themselves on the crowd and their agenda into the debate. Their complaint against me echoed almost verbatim the slanderous rhetoric of last week’s Mother Jones article, “Meet the American Pastor Behind Uganda’s Anti-Gay Crackdown.”
I am the man being portrayed as a monster in that myth, writing not only as a candidate but as a pastor. I am greatly concerned about the decline of personal integrity and civility as American cultural values, which I attribute to the rise of cultural Marxism, exemplified in part by the cult of “gay“ bullies who now dominate our public discourse in virtually every sphere of society, but also by the parallel cult of pro-LGBT “advocacy journalists“ who routinely bear false witness to the public in furtherance of their shared ideology.
I value my integrity, and speak plainly and unapologetically about what I believe, without regard for political correctness or the opinions of my adversaries. I do not hesitate to define homosexuality as a behavioral disorder with serious, moral, sociological and public health consequences. I am proud to say that I advocated for the Russian ban on advocacy of LGBT propaganda to children and that I want other nations to follow suit. I declare frankly that my opposition to so-called “gay” marriage and “gay” adoption of children derives from my belief that homosexuality itself is wrong and harmful to the people who practice it and to society. Note carefully that I am not parsing my words or spinning euphemisms. I say what I believe and believe what I say. I say it without malice, or an intention to provoke malice in others. This is simply objective truth from a Biblical worldview, shared (largely in silence) by millions of good-hearted Americans.
Hate me for my views, if you must, but do not doubt my honesty. When I tell a reporter, such as Mother Jones’ Mariah Blake, that I do not support the Ugandan anti-homosexuality law as written, you can bank on it. She obviously did not believe me. I can forgive that, since leftist journalists who trade in spin and propaganda naturally assume everyone is a liar. What I cannot leave unchallenged is her omission of my many comments and observations which would have contradicted her premise that I am to blame for that law, and shown the law’s implications to be less draconian than appears at face value. A partial list of these follows:
First, it was not my idea to go to Uganda, I was invited by the government to educate key leaders on the strategies and tactics of the “gay” political movement. I was there to serve, not to lead.
Second, suggesting that my preaching overpowered the will and reason of an entire nation of Africans is breathtakingly racist. These people are not children, nor ignorant jungle savages. Most of the democratically elected government officials of Uganda whom I met are as or more intelligent and competent than Ms. Blake (whom I perceive as very bright and talented).
Third, Ugandans are far more familiar with the negative aspects of homosexual orientation than Americans are. Every June 3is Martyr’s Day, memorializing the brutal slaughter of 22 young men and boys by the homosexual King Mwanga in the late 1800s for refusing to submit to sodomy. It is one of the reasons why Uganda criminalized homosexuality many years before anyone there ever heard of Scott Lively.
Fourth, it was the Ugandans themselves who requested information about the homosexual recruitment of children, wanting to better understand this phenomenon that they had observed in their midst. Most of the complaints that I heard from average people in Uganda related to male homosexual sex tourism corrupting boys and young men. I probably would not have addressed the topic on my own. My lectures tend to emphasize the history of the “gay” movement and the socio-political ramifications of its agenda, not the sexual activities of the LGBT community.
Fifth, I did not participate in the drafting of the Ugandan law and opposed its harshness from the very beginning. The Ugandans did not adopt my suggestions to emphasize therapy and prevention rather than punishment. That having been said, the hysteria about the law in the West is dramatically overblown, since virtually all African criminal law is overly harsh in the letter, but lenient in the application. Poor countries rely on deterrence since they don’t have money for jails. It is highly unlikely that anyone will serve any more time in jail for breaking this law than under the anti-sodomy laws of our own country in the 1950s (was your grandmother a “vicious homophobe” for supporting those U.S. laws?).
Sixth and finally, the veiled implication that Uganda is a bloodthirsty nation bent on genocidal extermination of homosexuals is outrageous and absolutely false. There is greater violence committed by revelers in Chicago after a single Bulls game than a decade’s worth of “homophobic” persecution of “gays” in Uganda. Indeed, even the absurd lawsuit against me for “Crimes Against Humanity” lists only a handful of relatively minor civil rights abuses over a ten-year period. My inbox is filled with hate mail and death threats accusing me of complicity in torture and murder of “thousands” of homosexuals in Uganda, but the only homosexual activist murder that I know of is David Kato, whose “gay” lover is serving 30 years in prison for the crime.
Blake is entitled to her personal opinion. But neither she, nor any of her journalistic peers who have repeated the identical false narrative about me, are entitled to make the news fit their subjective opinions while posing as objective reporters. This deceptive ideological advocacy in place of objectivity is unfortunately what journalism has degenerated to in our increasing post-Christian society.
Americans once had a greater ability to tolerate opposing views. We didn’t accuse people of “hate” for disagreeing with us, or for pointing out the flaws in each others’ conduct or political philosophy. We didn’t break up public meetings and shout down speakers with opinions opposed to our own. That was what other, less civilized, societies did: the right-leaning Marxist Brownshirts of Germany, the left-leaning Marxist Bolsheviks of Russia. We believed in civility, and indeed, the tolerance for differences that we cherished was the very soil in which the “gay” sub-culture once thrived, when it’s stated (largely accomplished) goal was “the right to be left alone.”
But now our own version of Brownshirts and Bolsheviks run the show. Armies of “gay” bullies pummel anyone who disagrees with them on any point of LGBT doctrine, from Anita Bryant in the 1970s to Phil Robertson in 2013. (Try to name a single public figure in the past decade who has criticized homosexuality in the U.S. and not been targeted for destruction.) Careers are ruined, businesses bankrupted, reputations destroyed, families terrorized, sometimes merely for whispering that authentic marriage is one man and one woman. Anti-discrimination laws, passed on the promise that they would be a shield to protect innocent people from malicious prejudice, are transformed almost immediately into swords for LGBT activists to attack people of faith. Compromises by groups like the Boy Scouts, made to accommodate “gay” demands, do nothing but harden the implacable LGBT militancy.
In lock step, armies of ideologically unified pro-LGBT “journalists” routinely paint the bullies as victims and the victims as “homophobes.”
At the Harvard debate I was an invited guest, yet I was subjected to a humiliating two-hour barrage of mockery, invective and slander by a handful of childish boors, emboldened by Mother Jones’ assassination of my character. My hosts did not even ask them to behave. No one dared to applaud any of my comments, though my views on the restorative model of criminal justice were undoubtedly shared by many of the roughly 200 people in attendance (heads were nodding perceptibly in agreement). Everyone in that room, except me, was intimidated by the “gay” bullies.
At the root of all of this is a contest of ideas and ideals between Christians and Marxists. Our society is coming apart at the seams because the Marxists are winning, and replacing the Christian ideals of tolerance, mutual respect, self-restraint and personal responsibility with political correctness, factionalism, moral anarchy and statism. They’re invoking all of the terms associated with Christian culture, but redefining them to suit the Marxist model. Objective truth is the only remedy, so I will keep on speaking it despite the bullies at Harvard and their apologists at Mother Jones.
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read More