…at least that is what Tony Perkins, the racist who runs the Family Research Council, has branded me and other ‘homosexuals, lesbians, transvestites, and transsexuals.’ I guess that means we now have real power to change this country. That is what he is really worried about. Tony and his friends can see the writing on the wall—their hatred of homosexuals is about to become just as unpopular as thinking it was o.k. to have slaves or for husbands to beat their wives without punishment. Here is his latest letter:
I am writing to ask you to stand with Family Research Council today.
Our team needs your help now to expose and defeat a deceptive new effort by the Left to impose the entire homosexual agenda on America in a single legislative stroke!
You see, I must ask for your financial support now to fight this shockingly deceptive new assault on your religious liberty.
It’s the brainchild of a powerful homosexual-rights organization that channels money to liberal politicians, which calls its proposal the "Equality and Religious Freedom Act." Whether it is passed as one bill or piece by piece, it is a dangerous agenda.
It should be called the "InEquality and Religious Suppression Act."
Because if it gets to Congress and becomes law, it means . . .
Repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act . . . special rights for homosexuals, lesbians, transvestites, and transsexuals . . . ultimately silencing both pastors in their pulpits and Christian and conservative broadcasters.
Religious freedom? Not for you, if the Harvard International Law Journal is right:
"[S]cholars [are] now suggesting that even core religious practices . . .
can be regulated in the name of equality . . ."
"Regulate" your religious freedom? We can’t let that happen!
FRC is fighting to advance your freedom. And I need your financial partnership to succeed.
Your support will help our team rally moderates and conservatives in Congress to publicly unmask the Left’s deceptive strategies to realize the homosexual agenda-whether liberal lawmakers try to force it on America piece by piece or proceed with the dishonestly named "equality" bill.
I’m personally grateful for even a small gift to fund our efforts in the political struggle for your values. Together, we’re also struggling for America ‘s future.
Thankfully, we still have the freedom to voice our values.
Please share this e-mail with your friends to expand our impact.
And please remember to donate to FRC online now to help us stop liberal attacks on life, marriage, and your religious liberty.
Thank you and God bless you.
Isn’t it odd that the racist Tony Perkins didn’t give the full bibliographic data for the article he copied out? Well, I don’t find it surprising because Tony Perkins is not only a racist, but he is a liar. The article is titled:
“Between Religious Freedom and Equality: Complexity and Context” by: Carolyn Evans and Beth Gaze. You can read the entire article here (which clearly Tony Perkins did not). The authors are Australian. Here is the entire paragraph that Tony Perkins didn’t give you:
These questions about the intersections between equality and religion are complex ones which are all too often given simple answers. On one side, some religious groups and scholars make a case for strong autonomy: religions should be given a wide scope of freedom over the full range of their activities – whether publicly or privately funded and no matter how economically or socially significant their scope. On the other side, there is an increasingly powerful movement to subject religions to the full scope of discrimination laws, with some scholars now suggesting that even core religious practices (such as the ordination of clergy) can be regulated in the name of equality.[6)
Here is the footnote:
See Pru Goward, Address at the Ordination of Catholic Women Annual Conference, Melbourne: Women, Human Rights and Religion (Nov. 5-6, 2005), available at http://www.ocw.webcentral.com.au/articles.htm; Cass R. Sunstein, On the Tension between Sex Equality and Religious Freedom, Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper No. 167 (2007), available at http://www.ssrn.com/abstract_id=995325; Cf. Reid Mortensen, Rendering to God and Caesar: Religion in Australian Discrimination Law, 18U. Queensland L. J. 208, 219 (1994-1995).
Notice that Tony left out the fact that the authors are talking about women and ordination—look at the footnote. As usual, this side must resort to lies to get their point across. This entire article is not really about sexual orientation. Here is the conclusion (that Tony Perkins didn’t bother to read either):
Developing a better understanding of the conflict between freedom of religion and non-discrimination is an important challenge in liberal democratic states. This understanding must be one that can take account of the multiplicity and complexity of both individual and group experience. Neither the atomistic liberal individual who in theory exists in secular isolation, nor the religious believer whose beliefs and practices are entirely determined by the authorities within her religion provides a sure basis for advancing. The process of human development leads to contested interpretations from which different and newly developed perspectives form, and the change over time in authority both within and between different cultural groups cannot be ignored. Struggle for change can occur within as well as outside religions, and it cannot be taken for granted that one voice speaks for all.
At the same time, we must acknowledge the reality that individuals live within their own specific cultural context, including that of the seemingly neutral Christian west, and theories which fail to take this into account are unlikely to provide valuable answers. In the process of reconciling non-discrimination and freedom of religion it is important to hear the views both of those who seek to preserve traditions, and of those who bear the costs of such traditions and may seek protection. No general answer can be given to reconciling these principles in every context, but it is necessary to begin to articulate the principles that should guide decision-making in particular contexts. The principles briefly described in this article are not comprehensive and some will be controversial, but they provide a better starting point for reconciling religious freedom and non-discrimination than do the approaches that argue for the dominance of one or other of these values in all contexts.
I can see why Tony Perkins wouldn’t want to let his followers know about the conclusion of this article. He wouldn’t dare mention that the very authors whom he is using mention reconciliation. I think this is the time to contact these authors and let them know how Tony Perkins is selectively using their research to demonize the glbt community.
I just sent mine. I hope they will respond to these lies.