A gay teenager who sought sanctuary in Britain when his boyfriend was executed by the Iranian authorities now faces the same fate after losing his legal battle for asylum.

Mehdi Kazemi, 19, came to London to study English in 2004 but later discovered that his boyfriend had been arrested by the Iranian police, charged with sodomy and hanged.

In a telephone conversation with his father in Tehran, Mr Kazemi was told that before the execution in April 2006, his boyfriend had been questioned about sexual relations he had with other men and under interrogation had named Mr Kazemi as his partner.

Fearing for his own life if he returned to Iran, Mr Kazemi claimed asylum in Britain. But late in 2007 his case was refused. Terror-stricken at the prospect of deportation the young Iranian made a desperate attempt to evade deportation and fled Britain for Holland where he is now being detained amid a growing outcry from campaigners.

He appeared before a Dutch court yesterday to plead with the authorities not to return him to Britain where he is almost certain to be sent back to Iran.

In a letter to the British Government, Mr Kazemi has told the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith: "I wish to inform the Secretary of State that I did not come to the UK to claim asylum. I came here to study and return to my country. But in the past few months my situation back home has changed. The Iranian authorities have found out that I am a homosexual and they are looking for me." He added: "I cannot stop my attraction towards men. This is something that I will have to live with the rest of my life. I was born with the feeling and cannot change this fact but it is unfortunate that I cannot express my feeling in Iran. If I return to Iran I will be arrested and executed like my former boyfriend." ...

[RLCC: "I cannot stop my attraction towards men. This is something that I will have to live with the rest of my life. I was born with the feeling and cannot change this fact but it is unfortunate that I cannot express my feeling in Iran." This is pure false propaganda even if he does face execution in Iran. If it is true that he would be executed if returned, then he should not be returned. However, this news story is written and emphasized with the view of promoting the falsehood that homosexuals can not choose to change. If homosexuals can not choose to change, then no one can choose to change behavior. The mind is capable of changing the flesh of itself and the rest of the body. It isn't something that people find easy or readily grasp concerning how to do it, but it can be done. People do it everyday all the time. To say otherwise is to offer nothing but excuses for bad behavior. By bad, we mean harmful. Homosexuality is certainly that.

Blogging from Digg as I am, I can't include any HTML code. I can't create a link to our posts on homosexuality. I will though edit this post once it's posted to the RLCC site by the Digg system. It's that important. It's important for people to know that homosexual behavior is far from harmless. It matters to all real Christians, because Jesus told his followers (we are his followers) to be as harmless as doves. One can not be as harmless as a dove while knowingly and avoidably doing harm to anyone, and Homosexual behavior is always avoidable.

Here's the link: "Homosexuals: What they ignore."

No one can use homosexuality as an excuse to do harm to others. It doesn't matter that it is a sexual urge. So what? People can go without sex. Sexual urges are not something that can not be overcome.

Iran is wrong to execute anyone for anything. It is anti-God to do so. It is selfish. It is putting the flesh above the higher good that is setting the right example. Homosexuality won't be ended by coercion. It will be freely chosen away. When everyone finally has it in his or her heart not to be harmful and selfish, then there will be no homosexuality. Then Heaven and Earth will conflate and all evil of all kinds will disappear. There will be no more greed, violence (capital punishment included), or depravity. All will be righteous.]

read more | digg the already submitted story upon which this post is based

and/or please

Digg or submit this post from

if you believe it contains sufficient original content or commentary.
Just change the title if the title of this post has already been used on Digg.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • Bryan 2

      Iran and many other countries like it are medieval in their thinking. They have allowed their religion and culture to be hijacked in the worst possible way.

    • @Bryan 2 -

      Which nation on Earth is acting in an enlightened manner? I say none is.

      I'm not defending Iran (far from it), but if you're defending the official acts of Israel, you're defending evil.

      If you're defending homosexuality, you are also defending evil.

      That said, it is also evil to kill in the name of righteousness. Christ (the Messiah) doesn't do it and never will. Only false Messiahs advocate killing people.

      May God bless you with the whole truth.

      Tom Usher