Following is my posting of Feb 20 2009 at Defend the Family.  I am reposting it here today because of the attack on the Family Research Council.  You will note that I did my very best to reason with this organization that I now recognize as evil, and warned them in the Nov 1 2007 letter that their irresponsible accusations of “hate” would lead to violence.  The introduction discusses a project that I have been compiling data for since 2009 but have never implemented.  Perhaps it is time for that.

Help Expose the Southern Poverty Law Center

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has published its annual list of “hate groups” and for the second year in a row, it includes my organization, Abiding Truth Ministries. I know this because I recently received a call from a reporter at The Californian newspaper Riverside County California asking for my comment on this designation. I spent nearly an hour on the phone attempting to defend our reputation as a civilized and reasonable advocate of the pro-family agenda for society, rooted in the Bible. I am not the violent hatemonger they portray me as, which you may confirm for yourself at my website www.defendthefamily.com. Nearly everything I have written in my career as a Christian activist is published there.

I am well used to fending off the accusation of hate, since that tactical rhetorical weapon is leveled by the “gay” movement and its allies against everyone, however mild-mannered or benign, who dares to assert the self-evident truth that homosexuality is wrong and harmful. However, to be labeled as such by the SPLC is a whole different story. This is an organization which purports to be the national authority on hate groups, a claim which carries substantial credibility due to its past high-profile campaigns against racist groups (which I supported). In fact, the SPLC conducts training seminars on hate groups for law enforcement agencies.

After being placed on the hate list the first time, I tried diligently over the course of a year to persuade the SPLC to remove us on the grounds that we really don�t belong there. My letters to the SPLC are posted in our resource section at http://www.defendthefamily.com/pfrc/archives.php?PHPSESSID=f39909a337a62f112a6b458fb6e217a1 for your review (and included below). Finally, I sent a letter to SPLC staffer Mark Potok asking specifically why we had been placed on the list and what we would need to do to be removed. I never received an answer to my letter (nor to my prior phone call), but when the reporter posed that same question to him he replied that we were added because I am the co-author of The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party and I would need to repudiate the claims of the book to be removed from the list.

Obviously, I have no intention of distancing myself from my accurate, factual documentation of the homosexual roots of the Nazi regime. As I stated to the reporter, I stand ready (as I have since the publication of our first edition in 1995) to debate the facts and implications of The Pink Swastika anywhere and with any competent opponent. A portion of The Pink Swastika is published online at http://www.defendthefamily.com/pfrc/showproducts.php and I encourage everyone to read it for themselves.

However, having now exhausted diplomatic options for resolving this problem I am left with the choice of giving up or taking more aggressive measures. Frankly, if the attacks against me were limited to the SPLC”s own website, I would probably just drop the issue, even though one polemic by SPLC writer Casey Sanchez is by far the most vicious piece of libel I have suffered in 20 years of being smeared by “gay” apologists. I”m not really concerned with the opinions of the loonies at SPLC and their followers, and I am ever mindful of (and grateful for) the Biblical promises related to suffering for being a faithful Christian. But the SPLC”s articles on me and ATM are now being cited as documentation of my bad character all over the web, and growing more and more outrageous in their claims, including the absolutely false and beyond-the-pale accusation that I defend murder of homosexuals.

I have decided that I will not, by my silence, embolden the SPLC to widen its attack on the pro-family movement beyond the several groups already on their “hate” list (most of which as undeserving as ATM of this designation).

How then to respond? One avenue would be litigation, since I am an attorney and I believe some of what they have published on their site is legally actionable. But I believe the more effective response would be to give them a taste of their own medicine and expose the SPLC as the blindly partisan, anti-Christian hate group which it has become. Certainly, SPLC leaders have every right to their bigoted views, but they do not have the right, at the same time, to claim the status of independent, neutral arbiters of the homosexual issue.

The SPLC and its personnel are, in most cases, more deserving of public scrutiny and disapproval than their targets. Their overarching theme seems to be the demonization of the “Christian Right” as a fundraising strategy (see my November 2007 letter to the SPLC below for an analysis of how Christians are treated on their website). It appears to me that the SPLC is, more than anything else, a fundraising machine, and that it has run out of racist threats with which to scare its donor base. Therefore it has turned to the most convenient alternative target, Christians, because the “gays” have already spent years and vast resources publicly painting us as “haters” comparable to racists.

However, the SPLC has not yet learned that Christians are not the easy targets that racists were. No reasonable person endorses racism, and few Americans are willing to defend racists when they are attacked. But Christians are a different story. We”re not racists. We”re not like racists in our actions or beliefs (despite what the “gays” say). And we have a large, powerful and growing army of social activists at work in the so-called culture war. These Kingdom-minded believers are already angry with the “hate-mongering” smear campaigns that the pro-“gay” media has been waging against us for years, and that the SPLC has only recently begun to mimic.

What”s lacking is someone to turn the attention of the pro-family movement as a whole on the SPLC as a worthy target of its scrutiny and activism. This prior sentence is exactly the sort of statement that the SPLC would like to twist in it”s own fear-mongering fundraising letters, so let me be absolutely clear what I mean about “targeting” the SPLC:

I mean examining every aspect of their organizational life and history — which we already know is filled with hypocrisy, double-standards, misrepresentations of good people, and other bad stuff — and exposing the facts to the light of public scrutiny through pro-family and neutral media. No dirty tricks. No violence. No threats. No unethical conduct. Just good old-fashioned truth-telling.

As a victim of the SPLC hate machine I am willing to be that person, but I cannot succeed in this without help. I will need money (one cannot take on a fundraising “Goliath” without at least a few “smooth stones” worth of financial support). Donate at

http://www.defendthefamily.com/help/donate.php

I will assume that all donations made over the next few days are for this project.

I will also need help gathering information. As of today, consider Abiding Truth Ministries a repository and clearinghouse for all research and documentation related to the Southern Poverty Law Center. If you are one of those whose skill and interest lean toward the gift of research and investigation consider this a request for legally-obtained data about the SPLC. If you are one of those whose gift is the dissemination of information, whether as a private party or part of a media organization, please introduce yourself to me at sdllaw@gmail.com.

Phase I is about gathering information and processing it into useable forms.

Phase II will involve disseminating the information.

Stay tuned. If you are not already on my e-mail list, but received this because of forwarding, please contact me directly to be added so you don”t miss our future updates.

Your Fellow Servant in Christ,

Dr. Scott Lively
President, Abiding Truth Ministries

The following are my letters to the SPLC:
The first was actually in my capacity as co-founder of Watchmen on the Walls, but applies equally to ATM.

Letter #1

LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT DOUGLAS LIVELY
PO BOX 891023, TEMECULA, CA 92589

November 1, 2007

Attorney Morris Dees
Southern Poverty Law Center
400 Washington Avenue
Montgomery, AL 36104

Dear Mr. Dees,

I have long held a favorable opinion of your organization for its work against racism and violent extremist groups. We differ on issues related to sexual morality because my opinions conform to the long-standing conclusions of Christianity, based on the Bible. Nevertheless, I respect your right to disagree, and to advocate your opinions, as you do so eloquently and so zealously.

When a respected organization such as yours ventures into the business of evaluating the behavior and motives of others (called “judging” when Christians do it), the organization bears a special responsibility to be accurate and fair-minded. An erroneous representation of a person or a group as “hateful” can destroy a reputation and cause great harm. Indeed, given the current extreme Left/Right polarization of our society, identifying someone as “hateful,” in the manner in which your organization uses the term, exposes that person to potential violence at the hands of people who perceive themselves, or other members of their group, as potential victims of his or her “hate.” Such people, relying on your characterization, may feel justified in striking preemptively against the “hater.”

I believe this is similar to the logic that you use in suggesting that public disapproval of homosexuality leads to violence against homosexuals. However, Christian disapproval, if it is legitimately rooted in the teachings of Jesus, forbids violence and in fact requires Christians to “love their enemies.” This is a doctrine I cite continually, though I have never seen the corollary on the Left.

I was more than a little dismayed, therefore, when I found myself the subject of your recent reporting in association with Watchmen on the Walls, for which I am a consultant and founding member. The following was published by a leading local newspaper in the Seattle media market prior to our recent WOW conference.

[Watchmen on the Walls] is building a reputation for being an “unbelievably virulent anti-gay organization,” said Mark Potok, a spokesman for the Southern Poverty Law Center, based in Montgomery, Ala. The center is known for promoting tolerance, tracking hate groups and fighting legal battles against white supremacists, including the Klan and Aryan Nations.

This led me to a search of your own website, where I found myself mentioned in several articles, primarily in connection with my book The Pink Swastika. I also found an outrageously irresponsible and inflammatory article by Casey Sanchez linking Watchmen on the Walls to the murder of Satender Singh in Sacramento, without the least shred of evidence to support the association except that the alleged perpetrator is Russian, as is the founder of Watchmen on the Walls. I believe you once called that type of rhetoric racism.

Another article by Sanchez, posted on October 19th, 2007, accused me of stating that “gays orchestrated the Holocaust.” I refer you to your own website where previously your writer Bob Moser quoted my Orthodox Jewish co-author and I accurately as stating “we cannot say that homosexuals caused the Holocaust.” I respectfully request a retraction of that falsehood.

I”d also like the opportunity to correspond with whomever in your organization reviewed my book and concluded it”s assertions were baseless. I”d be interested to know how your researcher evaluated the specific facts I cited from my nearly 200 mainstream and “gay” sources. Perhaps this person, or anyone you care to designate, would also consent to debate these assertions publicly with Kevin Abrams and me.

The same Sanchez article also featured an excerpt from my recent speech in Novosibirsk, Siberia in which several local men cheered during my recounting of how the death of Singh was used by the Sacramento media to tarnish all Russians. These men did not represent the spirit of the conference, nor the beliefs and goals of the Watchmen on the Walls. The meeting was open to the public and in Russia there are, unfortunately, some people who do hate homosexuals.

Most disappointing, however, especially given your stated mission to promote tolerance, was that your article failed to mention that I spent most of the remainder of my speech articulating the genuine Christian approach to homosexuality as one of compassion for self-identified homosexual people even while we oppose their lifestyle and political goals. I believe that my speech helped change the attitude of those men who had previously held only hatred for homosexuals, and allowed them to see homosexuals as people who need and deserve the love of Jesus, just as much as they do. This is, after all, what my religion teaches: love, not hate. The article therefore casts me in a false light and damages your claim to be an arbiter of civil rights conflicts.

This brings me to the issue of “hate.” I found it very surprising that on your website, which is dominated by the theme of hatred, I couldn”t find a definition of the term, as you use it, anywhere. This is especially odd, since I know you are a law center, and clear definition of terms is indispensable in the practice of law. If I am mistaken, please advise me where I can find this information on your site, because I do not want make the same mistake toward you that you have made toward me.

I will not impugn your motives, but I know that others on the Left refuse to define hatred because that would establish a standard by which they, and the organizations that share their views, could be measured. For example, if one uses the dictionary.com definition “intense dislike; extreme aversion or hostility,” then much of the content of your own website, as it relates to groups on your list could reasonably to be considered “hate.” I don”t have a problem with that. Frankly, I hate what most of those groups do also. I hate racism, extremism that leads to violence, and irrational bigotry as much as I disapprove of homosexuality. But I don”t hate racists, bigots or homosexuals: they all need and deserve the love of Jesus just as much as I do.

I urge you to take leadership on this question and clearly set forth the definitions and criteria that you believe we should all use to judge these matters. Frankly, I don”t know how you can offer to teach law enforcement about “hate” groups without such objective standards. Perhaps they are included in your teaching materials not accessible on the website. If so, please extend me the courtesy of sending me a copy of the relevant passages or telling me where I can find them.

Your website has one additional deficiency in that it does not include any references whatsoever to hate-based attacks on Christians. I searched “attacks against Christians,” “against Christians,” “Christian victim,” “victim was a Christian,” “church-burnings,” and a number of other intuitive phrases. I didn”t find a single item in which a Christian was identified as a victims of hate or discrimination. However, these search terms pulled up numerous items in which hate-groups and individual perpetrators were identified as Christian. Surely you are not ignorant of the many hate-motivated incidents in recent years in which Christians were the targets?

Once again, if I”m wrong, and this information is published on your website, please direct me to it. Assuming I”m right, however, this begs the question “why is it omitted?”.

I decline to draw any conclusions here, and give you the benefit of the doubt that the concerns I”ve raised are simple errors and/or oversights on the part of your staff. However, I would hope that, as a leading, indeed legendary, figure in the field of civil rights, you would take immediate action to correct these mistakes.

This is not a demand letter and I have no desire or intention to file suit against you. I am relying on your reputation as a man of integrity to set these matters straight simply because its the right thing to do.

I agree with you that there are some hate-filled people who operate under the name “Christian.” This does nearly as much damage to the community of genuine Christians as it does to the victims of these misguided men and women. I urge you reach out to leaders of my community to find common ground against racism and violence, so that you do not make the mistake, even unintentionally, of painting all Bible-believing Christians as hateful bigots. We will probably not agree on matters of sexual morality, but surely there is room for civil dialogue even on these issues. I stand ready to cooperate with you personally toward this goal if you are willing.

Finally, I ask you to take a second look at Watchmen on the Walls. You will find that it is as racially and culturally diverse as any organization in America, and does not advocate or condone violence. Yes, it is strongly against homosexuality, but that alone shouldn”t qualify anyone as “hateful.” I am sending for your perusal a copy of the “Watchmen on the Walls Statement of Beliefs and Goals,” and a copy of WOW”s first public document, the “Riga Declaration on Religious Freedom, Family Values and Human Rights.” I am also sending a copy of The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, and my recent essay “Is Hating “Haters” Hateful.” I ask you to give each of these a fair reading before commenting upon them.

Hoping to reach a place of mutual respect, I am

Most Sincerely,
Scott Douglas Lively, J.D., Th.D.

Letter #2

LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT DOUGLAS LIVELY
PO BOX 2373, SPRINGFIELD, MA 01101

October 1, 2008
Attorney J. Richard Cohen
Southern Poverty Law Center
400 Washington Avenue
Montgomery, AL 36104

Dear Mr. Cohen,

I am an attorney and President of Abiding Truth Ministries, based in Temecula, California. On November 1, 2007 I sent a letter to your organization on behalf of the pro-family organization Watchmen on the Walls, respectfully asking you to reconsider your decision to list that organization as a hate group. You did not respond to the substantive points of my argument except to correct a factual error on your website regarding my book The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party. I thank you for the correction. However, you maintained your posture relative to the Watchmen group, and, to my great disappointment, added my own organization, Abiding Truth Ministries, to your list of “hate” groups in your 2008 report.

In my November 1st letter, addressed to Mr. Dees, I wrote:

I found it very surprising that on your website, which is dominated by the theme of hatred, I couldn”t find a definition of the term, as you use it, anywhere. This is especially odd, since I know you are a law center, and clear definition of terms is indispensable in the practice of law. If I am mistaken, please advise me where I can find this information on your site, because I do not want make the same mistake toward you that you have made toward me.

I will not impugn your motives, but I know that others on the Left refuse to define hatred because that would establish a standard by which they, and the organizations that share their views, could be measured. For example, if one uses the dictionary.com definition “intense dislike; extreme aversion or hostility,” then much of the content of your own website, as it relates to groups on your list could reasonably to be considered “hate.” I don”t have a problem with that. Frankly, I hate what most of those groups do also. I hate racism, extremism that leads to violence, and irrational bigotry as much as I disapprove of homosexuality. But I don”t hate racists, bigots or homosexuals: they all need and deserve the love of Jesus just as much as I do.

I urge you to take leadership on this question and clearly set forth the definitions and criteria that you believe we should all use to judge these matters. Frankly, I don”t know how you can offer to teach law enforcement about “hate” groups without such objective standards. Perhaps they are included in your teaching materials not accessible on the website. If so, please extend me the courtesy of sending me a copy of the relevant passages or telling me where I can find them.

Your website has one additional deficiency in that it does not include any references whatsoever to hate-based attacks on Christians. I searched “attacks against Christians,” “against Christians,” “Christian victim,” “victim was a Christian,” “church-burnings,” and a number of other intuitive phrases. I didn”t find a single item in which a Christian was identified as a victims of hate or discrimination. However, these search terms pulled up numerous items in which hate-groups and individual perpetrators were identified as Christian. Surely you are not ignorant of the many hate-motivated incidents in recent years in which Christians were the targets?

Once again, if I”m wrong, and this information is published on your website, please direct me to it. Assuming I”m right, however, this begs the question “why is it omitted?”.

I decline to draw any conclusions here, and give you the benefit of the doubt that the concerns I”ve raised are simple errors and/or oversights on the part of your staff. However, I would hope that, as a leading, indeed legendary, figure in the field of civil rights, you would take immediate action to correct these mistakes.

As I stated above, your organization did not respond to these issues. Neither, in the eleven months since I notified you, have you done anything to address them on your website. I must therefore conclude that the glaring anti-Christian bias in your materials accurately reflects your perspective and ideology, and that the lack of clear, objective criteria for determining who is a “hater” is intentional. This, of course, by any reasonable standard disqualifies you as an moral arbiter on issues, such as homosexuality, where Christian beliefs or values are in conflict with those of other groups.
Irrespective of the above, my organization does not meet even the vague basis by which you categorize “anti-gay” hate groups: “organizations that go beyond mere disagreement with homosexuality by subjecting gays and lesbians to campaigns of personal vilification.” However, even if you can stretch these term to include us, the same must certainly be true of virtually every “gay rights” group in the public sphere as they address Bible-believing Christians, negating any justification for singling out my organization.
Therefore, this letter is to ask you to immediately remove Abiding Truth Ministries from your list of “hate” groups.
Please note that this is not an open letter. I am not holding you up to public scorn or scrutiny on the issues herein. My only goal is to protect my organization from being falsely characterized as a hate group. If you immediately remove ATM from your list I will consider the matter closed and will not seek to cause you any embarrassment by publicizing your action outside of reporting it to my subscribers. You have my word.
However, if you choose not to accede to my request within a reasonable time, I will take the liberty of making the contents of this letter public, and may take further action as appropriate.
Frankly, I submit that you would provide a much more valuable service to our society if you were to promote a more balanced and objective approach to the homosexual issue that accommodates instead of condemns the views of Bible-believing Christians. I would be pleased to discuss such an objective with you at your convenience.

Respectfully,
Dr. Scott Lively
President, Abiding Truth Ministries

Letter #3

LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT DOUGLAS LIVELY
PO BOX 2373, SPRINGFIELD, MA 01101

October 18, 2008
Mr. Mark Potok
Southern Poverty Law Center
400 Washington Avenue
Montgomery, AL 36104

Dear Mr. Potok,

Thank you for your reply to my letter of October 1.

With inflammatory “hate crime” rhetoric and legislation advancing across the nation, and your organization being perceived by many to be the leading “independent” source of information about so-called anti-“gay” hate groups, your refusal to remove my organization from your list of these groups is exposing my organization and me personally to increasing harm.

So far, to my knowledge, we have suffered only damage to our reputations. I want to be removed from this list before we suffer something more serious.

Please tell me why you listed us in the first place and what specifically we must do to be removed from the list.

Respectfully,
Dr. Scott Lively
President, Abiding Truth Ministries

Just got back from Oklahoma City where I was the main speaker for opening night of the Reclaiming America for Christ conference.  http://reclaimamericaforchrist.org/

I also performed my 20 minute edited version of Jonathan Edward’s 1741 sermon Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God on Friday evening, the final night.  I gave a talk at the High Noon Club, a conservative politically-oriented lunch group that meets at a gun club, and on Sunday morning preached at Olivet Baptist Church in the inner-city.  Spent some time with pro-family hero Sally Kern, a state rep there, talking strategy and tactics.  It was a good trip. 

While in OKC the Chick fil A controversy broke out and I penned this essay which was published on World Net Daily.  I submitted it also to Salon magazine, but of course they did not print it. 

Classic Liberals Discover Homo-Fascism

The brouhaha over Chick Fil A CEO Dan Cathy’s defense of authentic marriage has caused a fender-bender on the political left. Classic free speech liberalism has apparently met for the first time the new generation of homo-fascists. Heady with empowerment by President Obama and a long string of political and legal victories, the “gay” activist movement and its homosexualist allies are flexing their muscles like never before. Two such allies, Mayors Tom Merino of Boston and Rahm Emanuel of Chicago announced plans to use the powers of their respective offices to prevent Chick Fil A from expanding its business in these two cities. Their blatant disregard for the First Amendment was so egregious that it apparently shocked a number of classic liberals into action.

Salon Magazine’s Glenn Greenwald chided his fellow-travelers on the left in a column titled “Rahm Emanuel‘s Dangerous Free Speech Attack,” remarking “You can’t cheer when political officials punish the expression of views you dislike and then expect to be taken seriously when you wrap yourself in the banner of free speech in order to protest state punishment of views you like and share.” He listed a number of other liberal journalists and groups like the ACLU who had also gone public with their criticism.

Welcome to the brave new world of homo-fascism, Mr. Greenwald, but watch your back. You’re now officially a “homophobe” because you have dared to oppose something that is favorable to the “gay” cause. Sure, you tried to cover your backside by tossing in a couple of cheap shots at the “chicken CEO” but that won’t save you from the Brownshirts. They don’t really care about free speech. They care about power. Indeed, if you had been paying attention over the past few years, you would have noticed that their official position is that “anti-gay bigots” don‘t deserve free speech at all.

Perhaps you are unaware of the “Commentator Accountability Project” of the powerful Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLADD). It was launched earlier this year to hold media outlets (not commentators) accountable for allowing traditional marriage advocates (including this writer) to have a voice in the public debate.

One of its key concepts for twisting the arms of journalists is the slogan “bias is not balance.” How’s that for simply redefining pro-family opinion out of existence in the newsroom? See http://www.glaad.org/cap. I personally recall a leader of the Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association years ago state that allowing pro-family people to comment in news stories related to homosexuality was equivalent to letting the Ku Klux Klan have equal time in stories about race.

But surely, Mr. Greenwald, you are not unaware of the many incidents of “gay” bullying of Christians in recent years, from the celebrity-level character assassination of beauty queen Carrie Prejean (for saying nothing more than that marriage should be between a man and a woman), to the recent bashing of Brad Pitt’s Mom for giving her opinion that homosexuality is wrong in a letter to her local newspaper. Reportedly, death threats have since intimidated her into silence. Last year just outside of Rahm’s Chicago in Arlington Heights, a church school which hosted me for a talk on the biblical view of homosexuality was vandalized when a chunk of pavement was thrown through a window. On it was written the message “Shut Down Lively” and a note was attached threatening future violence. Come to mention it, though, you wouldn’t have known about this hate crime because it got almost no press coverage, even locally. I wonder why?

True, these examples are not precisely equivalent to the case of public officials abusing their offices to punish pro-family speech, but they do share in common an implicit belief that all disapproval of homosexuality must be suppressed. And that the urgency of this goal trumps all other considerations.

Unfortunately for all of us, there will be many more examples of homo-fascism in our future, because the “gay” movement is finally within reach at a national level of the power that it needs to punish its most vocal detractors and intimidate everyone else into silence. This will include “classic liberals” like yourself, Mr. Greenwald, a fact which you will discover the hard way if you dare to continue as a defender of “repellant” pro-family speech. I pray you have the backbone to match your principles. And while you’re at it, being also a civil rights lawyer, perhaps you might weigh in on the ethics of lesbian judicial activist Sophia Hall sitting as presiding judge in the Illinois “gay marriage” case. Rahm Emanuel’s power to unconstitutionally impose his “morality” on the people of that state pales in comparison to hers.

Don’t get me wrong, I genuinely appreciate that some of you classic liberals have jumped to the defense of Dan Cathy’s free speech rights. Forgive me for my skepticism of your motives, however, in light of all the other examples of “gay” bullying that have largely gone unchallenged by you all. One can’t help but wonder if the “danger” you sense is not actually to the First Amendment, but to the “gay” agenda itself, by the prospect of a too-early awakening of the sleeping giant of American public opinion. The frog must not be prompted to jump out of the pot by a too-sudden rise in heat.

So, along with the rest of the pro-family movement I will wait to see whether you and your colleagues continue to stand up to the “gay” bullies, in which case we will know you’re for real, or whether you step aside and let them goosestep on toward their glorious vision of a society purged of Judeo-Christian sexual morality.

This week Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG) and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed an Amended Complaint in their U.S. federal lawsuit against me for “Crimes Against Humanity.” It is better written than the original but still boils down to nothing more than an attempt to define my Biblical views against homosexuality as a crime. You can read it here:

Amended Complaint – against Scott Lively as dated 071312

Clearly, this lawsuit is intended not only to silence me as an effective voice of opposition to the “gay” agenda, it is also to intimidate everyone else who would dare to follow my example.

But I am not intimidated, and I intend to use whatever notoriety these bullies create for me to advance the cause of Christ. Such an opportunity was my trip to Springfield MO last week to oppose the anti-discrimination “Gay Fascism” bill now before their city council. Because I got involved there was controversy, which brought public attention to an ordinance the city council wanted to sneak under the radar. Citizens are now activated. We might just kill that bill.

Jesus set the example of courage under persecution, just as He set the rules for family and sexuality that I am striving imperfectly to defend. The entire culture war is about the Biblical World View. Cowards and man-pleasers in the so-called “emergent” church shrink from defending it in the face of homo-fascism. The remnant refuse to yield to the bullies, and are taking our lumps — the first wave of a coming tsunami of persecution of true Christians.

The sheep and goats are being divided, and the Lord is using the issue of homosexuality as the divider — just as it was the “final straw” for Him regarding the Great Flood and at Sodom.

This lawsuit epitomizes the ongoing rise of homo-fascism in America, meaning the authoritarian abuse of power to suppress all opposition to “gay“ ideology. At this stage it is still mostly limited to abuses of the processes available (supposedly) to all Americans in our systems of courts, media, schools and colleges, etc because they don’t yet have full control of the seats of power themselves. Soon, if the trend of growing “gay” power continues, these systems will simply embrace “gay” ideology as the new norm and the current pretense of respect for the equality of opposing views will end.

All of the liberals rhetoric about freedom of speech is already ringing hollow in the face of their support of “anti-discrimination” laws that trump the First Amendment in court rulings, and in the complicity of “mainstream” media and academia in “gay” misrepresentations of every aspect of their lifestyle and agenda.

This lawsuit represents a direct assault on the First Amendment and there is no guarantee in the current climate that they will not win.

But by His grace, win or lose, at any cost, I will continue to speak the truth of God.

CHRISTIAN RED ALERT  (click here for downloadable PDF)

Image of Gay Militants Bash Back members, who disrupted a Michigan church service by flinging condoms around the sanctuary.  “Gay” Fascism is on the rise in America.

SPRINGFIELD IS NOT SAN FRANCISCO.  STOP THE “GAY FASCISM” BILL

Friends,

The City of Springfield Missouri has announced it’s intention to “consider”** an ordinance to give homosexuals extraordinary new powers to silence and punish Christian landlords and businesses through civil rights lawsuits.

Framed as an “anti-discrimination” measure it is in reality a “Gay Fascism” Bill that will make disapproval of homosexuality illegal in the City of Springfield and grant gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders (GLBTs) legal standing to sue their opponents, primarily Christians.

Starting in the 1980s in cities like San Francisco, homosexuals have forced many U.S. cities and numerous states to adopt similar “Gay Fascism” laws with disastrous effects on Christian landlords and businesses.  Empowered by recent successes, they are now pushing into conservative cities.

As soon as a city criminalizes discrimination against homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism through one of these bills, GLBT activists backed by anti-Christian law firms begin targeting people of strong religious faith and traditional values with civil rights lawsuits.

Under Vermont’s anti-discrimination law two lesbians sued the Wildflower Inn in 2011 for refusing to host a lesbian “wedding.”  Now over a year later the case is still in litigation at great personal and emotional cost to the owners of this family friendly resort.

In March of this year a Lexington Kentucky T-Shirt printing company called Hands On Originals was fined $6,600 for refusing to print shirts for a local homosexual festival, despite (more likely because of) stating prominently on its home page that it is a “Christian Outfitter,” reserving a “right of refusal” to decline business in conflict with its beliefs.

E-Harmony, the online Christian dating site was sued in 2008 under one of these “Gay Fascism” laws in New Jersey and “forced” to create a dating site for homosexuals at enormous expense and in a severe compromise of its values.

At Augusta State University in Georgia, Christian student Jennifer Keeton was expelled in 2010 from the graduate counseling program over her disapproval of homosexuality.  In June of 2012 a court ruled that the college’s anti-discrimination policy trumped Keeton’s 1st Amendment religious rights.

These and many other examples of “homo-fascism” are only possible because of anti-discrimination laws based on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

What is worse, much worse, in a strategic political sense is that an “anti-discrimination policy” based on “sexual orientation” is the seed that contains the entire homosexual agenda with all of its poisonous fruit, including “gay” marriage, “gay” adoption, and heavy taxpayer funding of “gay” programs and projects.  Wherever the seed takes root, “gay” power and control just keeps growing until it supplants traditional family values with San Francisco-style sexual anarchy in every social and political sphere.

SPRINGFIELD IS NOT SAN FRANCISCO.  STOP THE “GAY FASCISM” BILL

Last year in the conservative country of Moldova, I led a successful campaign to kill an “anti-discrimination” bill very much like this one.  I believe the same strategy can work in a conservative city like Springfield MO.  The key is to give up trying to appear “nice” and “reasonable” to the media and get aggressive (not violent) in our posture and rhetoric.

If this agenda is as bad as we say it is, AND IT IS, we should start letting our words and actions match the threat!!

It’s time to PUSH BACK.

In Jesus, the Lord of Hosts,

Dr. Scott Lively

PS.  I’ll be in Springfield from July 12 thru 15th for meetings, training seminars and street activism.  Contact me at sdllaw@gmail.com if you would like to join me there.

** “Consider?”  In my experience, the homosexuals never bring forth one of these bills unless that think they already have the votes to pass it.  The public comment period is all for show.  Our side has grown weary of losing all of these battles (and many have given up and gone home long ago) after great effort to work “within the system” by getting people to the city council meetings.

Yes, we need to be at those meetings but these battles are not won in the hearing room, they are won on the street!  We need a public outcry against this bill and put real fear in the hearts of these representatives that they will hurt their political careers by going down this road.

SPRINGFIELD IS NOT SAN FRANCISCO.  STOP THE “GAY FASCISM” BILL

After the radio show we (a van load of friends who took me to the station and listened to the show out in the van) all drove to Pittsfield where about a hundred brave souls gathered in the cold and light drizzle for the National Day of Prayer.  There were several great speakers and historical re-enactors.  I performed an 18 minute version of Jonathan Edward’s “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” in costume.  Hopefully a video of that will soon be available to add as a link in this post.

Did a radio show yesterday with Bill Newman on WHMP in Northampton, MA.  Bill is an ACLU lawyer who went instantly on the attack as if I were on the witness stand in one of his cases.  But I’m also a lawyer and not easily bullied — even when Bill and his liberal co-host added two strongly pro-“gay” clergymen to the mix: the “Reverend and the Rabbi” (who apparently have a regular segment in the final quarter hour of the show).  I had fun, in any case.

But you can judge for yourself who came off better in the exchange.  Listen to the podcast at http://whmp.com/pages/8875192.php  The date of the show was 5 3 12

Today I gave a three hour seminar in Oklahoma City based on my 2009 textbook Redeeming the Rainbow: A Christian Response to the “Gay” Agenda.  This is the book I wrote to equip Christians to understand and effectively respond to the homosexual agenda.  It may be downloaded in PDF form without charge at http://www.defendthefamily.com/rtr/.  The file is small enough to send as an e-mail attachment and I encourage people to send it to all of their pro-family friends.

This is the book I was finalizing during my 2009 Uganda conference (and the basis of my lectures there) which subsequently brought the wrath of the radical left upon me and has led to the outrageous SMUG lawsuit filed against me (for “Crimes Against Humanity” no less) last month in federal court in Springfield, MA where I now live.  I will address that lawsuit in a separate post at a later date.

My seminar today was attended by none other than Wayne Besen of Truth Will Out, a prominent “gay” blogger.  He was civil and polite for the most part, but visibly quite agitated and finally left the seminar after being criticized by another man for interrupting me.  There were two women in the audience as well whom I suspect, based upon their questions, were lesbians. 

I do not vary my presentations based on the presence of opponents.  I seek always to teach forthrightly what I know and believe to whomever wants to listen.  

Redeeming the Rainbow is the only book of its kind, filled with straightforward explanations of the the history, methods, strategies and goals of the homosexual movement, and practical, user-friendly guidelines on how to respond to it.  If every Christian in America were to read this book it would, I believe, dramatically change the national debate in our favor.