Protected speech v. illegal religious discrimination: Viki Knox: homosexuality "perverted" "sin" "breeds like cancer"

The US Constitution guarantees that the government cannot discriminate against you for your religious beliefs. It is forbidden from making any laws establishing religion or infringing upon anyone's free exercise of religion. Of course, there are limits.

Amendment I [all links will open a new window or tab so you won't lose your place here]

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.

Do you see that? Freedom of religion is enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America. Homosex does not trump it!

A New Jersey high school teacher, Viki Knox, posted on her Facebook Wall that homosexuality is "a perverted spirit that has existed from the beginning of creation" and a "sin" that "breeds like cancer."

Now, the terms "sin" and "creation" suggest to me that she's likely a Christian. Even if she isn't though, this post will still make the case for Freedom of Religion and truth over making homosexuals comfortable and to feel good about themselves and their behavior.

Before I go much further here, let me make the observation that the "news" that a teacher calls homosexuality fine is not covered by much if any of the mainstream news.

Some attorney named John Paragano says he saw the Facebook Wall post(s) before they were removed. For one, I wonder who removed them. If Viki Knox removed them, that's one thing. If they were removed by Facebook after receiving some complaint, that's entirely different. I suspect she removed them. We will have to wait to learn what her thinking was at the time. Was she fearful of the very bullying the homosexuals complain about in reverse. They are now loudly threatening her job for voicing her apparent sincere religious beliefs and not even in the classroom.

If I were in charge of that school district, I'd be very careful about dismissing her over this. There may have been parents who complained against her, but doubtless, there are parents who agree with her whole-heartedly and for good reason.

Here's the deal. In the US, you can't fire someone for being anti-homosexuality and for voicing it openly, especially it that anti-homosexuality is a religious position fundamental to the person's faith (and it is in the case of real Christianity).

Lately, I've had some homosexuals trolling against me on Twitter where I have put it to them pointblank: "Do penises belong in anuses?" They have refused to answer even though one in particular continues raising his issues, twisting the subject, and using the same terms ("penises" and "anuses") and in the singular as well — so it's not as if the terms are offensive but that the issue is with the act itself and the fact that those homosexuals can't bring themselves to admit it openly and that anal intercourse is wrong. It's wrong to let the children grow up thinking there's nothing wrong with it. It causes problems that would not otherwise exist.

You can attempt to change the issue in your own mind as well by raising heterosexual anal intercourse, but that's irrelevant to my question. I asked a blanket question regardless of female involvement.

If homosexuality is fine, then the thing (anal intercourse) that most attracts the vast, vast majority of the males must be fine; but it's not.

This is something the children are not being told before they are systematically indoctrinated into the "homosexuality is okay/there's nothing wrong with it" culture. Young children know instinctively that putting a penis up an anus is incorrect behavior. The subject is avoided under the pretense that it isn't something to be discussed with children so young.

Well, when the birds and bees are first discussed, if homosexuality is being promoted and condoned now in the schools (and obviously it is) then the homosexuality act of anal intercourse could be, and probably should be, described in a deadpan manner and the child or children asked whether it is proper or not. This is though as telling a child not to stick his fingers in the fan. It's temptation. It would not arise were it not for the homosexuals going about whining that what they do is just fine.

That though is not the way it is handled. First the children are bombarded "with homosexuality is fine." Only later are the children made aware of the actual behavior and even then, they are simultaneously told that they will be punished if they don't agree that such behavior is fine, even though it is not fine but clearly a mistake (a sin in Christianity).

A boy was not bullying anyone but simply said he doesn't agree that homosex is okay. It made the "news" several months ago as to whether he should be expelled from school over it. I never saw anything more on the particular case. (NOTE: This is one of the rare things I'll cite here concerning which I won't supply a link before posting. It is a true statement though. If I locate the link, I'll update this post. Unfortunately, many news links die on major news portals such as Yahoo and such. They do that for mammon's sake — so publishers may charge for archived stories.)

Think about it. Homosexuals have whined and whined and whined to be allowed to be openly sodomites and complained and complained about their lack of "freedom" to be iniquitous. People have over time (just the last two generations) relaxed the moral standards to at least "tolerate" homosexuality. That line though was crossed long ago relative to the speed at which immorality has been approaching. Now the homosexuals are demanding that no one who isn't going to say that homosex is fine shouldn't be allowed to teach children in a public school. Frankly, the homosexuals are turning into fascists — have been for over a decade. Johann Hari entitled his article "The Strange, Strange Story of the Gay Fascists," but I don't see anything strange about it. It fits perfectly.

Look, the anus was not designed for the penis. There are endless health problems associated with anal intercourse. It's well documented.

Yes, there are health issues associated with vaginal intercourse; but all other things being equal, vaginal intercourse results in natural birth of humans and women can do it everyday without complications. Homosex is not even for that basic end of procreation/creation, and a person's rear nearly falls out (sometimes does) if homosex is practiced as if it's just as okay or fine as normal sex.

Also, most male homosexuals are in it for sexual release only. The more partners the better. Even the so-called married ones mostly practice what they call open marriage — meaning multiple partners with their "spouse's" approval. This is documented on the NARTH site, which contrary to the naysayers, does a pretty good job at the research and publishing after rigorous methodology. In fact, I've seen where they have systematically dismantled the arguments against them and done so in a very clear, logical manner. In a head-to-head debate against the homosexual psychologists, I stake my soul on it that the NARTH people would win. I'm positive of it.

What a mess! What a twisting of the meaning of marriage — a sacred thing in Christianity — becoming one flesh: unbreakable, faithful, monogamous.

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Matthew 19:4-6)

That does not apply to homosexuals! He clearly said "male and female" and "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife," not his homosexual "friends." However, homosexuals twist that so as to no longer be even recognizable as Jesus's teaching.

There are many other things I could write here showing that Jesus was anti-homosexuality that are even clearer or less able to be twisted — less able to the extent that the buggers/sodomites give up because they can't defeat it. They turn to changing the subject or running away and hoping to censor the truth. Satan has a short time so he's in a hurry as the homosexuals are in a hurry to create "facts on the ground" so to speak, as if those won't be overturned. They will be. I don't know how many blog posts there are on the subject on this blog. There are many.

The lawyer, Paragano, said Vicki Knox objected to a school display celebrating Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender History Month. Well, teachers object to plenty of things. In this case, she's objecting to giving the children half-truths about homosex. She objects to misleading the children into falsely imagining that there is nothing wrong with anal intercourse as practiced by the vast, vast majority of homosexuals who are also vastly practicing that act with multiple people.

Also frankly, Viki Knox would be within her legal rights to sue the lawyer and the parent(s) making formal complaints against her for her religious beliefs and for attempting to ruin her teaching career, to deprive her of the ability to make a living doing what she was trained to do and may be very good at.

In the interest of transparency for one, is this John Paragano openly homosexual?

The Associated Press reported:

Officials from gay rights groups said that although Knox's alleged anti-gay views are protected by the Constitution, she has a responsibility as a teacher to be a role model for students.

Yes she does, and many of us feel that her statements made on Facebook are true and correct and that children should be taught as such and not that anal intercourse is healthy or that sexual libertinism trumps Freedom of Religion, which is protected by the Bill of Rights, whereas homosex is not (except in the wild imaginations of homosexuals and those they've twisted to the homosexual way of thinking if one may rightly even call it that: "thinking"). I find it wholly unreasoned.

[Here's a link that may last longer than the AP on Yahoo or AP's site itself.]

Educators have a responsibility to nurture their students as they develop into young adults — and that includes making sure they feel supported and know that there is nothing wrong with being LGBT. Her alleged public rant is irresponsible and sends a dangerous message to her students. — Joe Solmonese, president, human rights campaign

Well, there you see it stated: "nothing wrong with being LGBT." He saying there's nothing wrong with taking it up the anus and/or giving it up the anus. Would he be willing to say that multiple sex "partners" is just fine too?

Exactly where would he be willing to draw the moral line that has been steadily eroding such that there have been homosexual campaigners who've been lauded even by Barack Obama who've said there's nothing wrong with having sex with animals ("if the animal doesn't mind"). Really, what kind of role model is that?

I wouldn't be a bit surprise if the person in question, Harry Hay" is written up and held up to the children as a person to admire and celebrate during this "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender History Month."

By the way, do you claim to profess God and Christ, or are you willing to admit that you are here as an atheist/agnostic anti-Christ? Perhaps you're a fan of Harry Hay, whom Barack Obama lauded even though Harry Hay openly said having sex with animals is fine if the animals don't mind. He also supported NAMBLA (the North American Man Boy Love [sex] Association). Is that you too? How far are you willing to go down into the cess, Will Byrd? If you are anti-bestiality and anti-pedophilia, why do they deserve fewer "rights" and "tolerance" than do homosexuals? Aren't they born that way too? Their genetics obviously allows them to slip into such behavior. Of course, as Jesus said, the flesh is weak. How are your spirits, Harry and Will? [What Likudnik- and self-styled Christian-Zionists have in common with misleading homosexual proselytizers]

I refuse to go along with all of this utter nonsense. I'm tired of all the lies and liars. I can't count the number of times I've heard that Jesus was a homosexual and other such ridiculous dung. That's what it is, and it's not even fit for fertilizer it's so loaded with artificial toxics.

Ah, then there's the "anti-bullying law." What is being done to Viki Knox right now if it isn't bullying — bullying by and for homosexuals who not too long ago cried out not to be fired for being perverted and bad role models, which they still are, since the children are left confused about anal intercourse, for only one thing.

Finally, the AP wrote:

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey defended Knox's First Amendment right to make the comments but said the school system also has the right to investigate whether she is performing her job in accordance with school policies and anti-bias laws.

Now look! You can't fire anyone from a public job for doing what is legal under the Constitution. That was the argument of the homosexuals when they wanted to gain an "equal" position with non-heterosexuals. You can fire someone for doing what is illegal under the Constitution. Otherwise, the Constitution doesn't mean anything. Well, now that the homosexuals think they've reach "equality," they aren't satisfied with that. They want people fired for not being pro-homosex.

Frankly for the last time here in this post, it's time the heterosexuals wake up to the fact that they've been duped by people who were lying when they were whining for "understanding" and "compassion" and who really milked what they could and are out for blood in many respects.

Don't think I'm overstating it. I've been told directly by a homosexual that he will be glad when they (the homosexuals) have power so they can literally and physically torture me (perhaps to death) for disagreeing that homosex is fine. How do you like that coming from people who wanted to be treated "equally."

I call it vengeance against someone who stated openly that he was for "tolerance." Little did I know back then that tolerance would turn into getting Viki Knox fired for not celebrating homosexuality.

How long before the bestiality boys come out of the woodwork demanding to marry their dog pack? Do you think I'm kidding? The pedophiles have been demanding that they be allowed to openly march in the so-called Gay Pride parades. That's a fact! It's a fact that many homosexuals don't want you to know.

In 1980 a group called the "Lesbian Caucus – Lesbian & Gay Pride March Committee" distributed a hand-out urging women to split from the annual New York City Gay Pride March because the organizing committee had supposedly been dominated by NAMBLA and its supporters.[22] The next year, after some lesbians threatened to picket, the Cornell University gay group Gay PAC (Gay People at Cornell) rescinded its invitation to NAMBLA founder David Thorstad to be the keynote speaker at the annual May Gay Festival.[22] In the following years, gay rights groups attempted to block NAMBLA's participation in gay pride parades, prompting leading gay rights figure Harry Hay to wear a sign proclaiming "NAMBLA walks with me" as he participated in a 1986 gay pride march in Los Angeles.[23] [Relations with LGBT organizations]

Everything I've written in this post has been documented on this blog. It's all been substantiated.

I've been at this for years now, ever since I woke up about their lies. I know all of their tricks and all about their twisting tactics.

God allows all kinds to live in the flesh, but Satan gets the iniquitous.

Just because homosexuals exist doesn't mean homosex is a good thing. Most homosexuals exist as a result of perversion done on them at an early age or because they have been confused about their relationships vis-a-vis their parents and especially their fathers. It differs for males and females. See the NARTH site for stats and findings on those aspects.

Donate


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.
    • I've done quite a bit more searching around on this story, and very few people are so far writing in her defense. Those who do are being inundated by pro-homosexuality types. In addition, even many of those writing in her defense at least somewhat are calling her words disgusting, etc.

      After thinking about it a bit, I thought I bet I know a site that will go into detail on it; but it hasn't gotten there yet. It does have a good list of laws that have been passed in CA to allow for all sorts of strange things to be done to the children's minds long before they are able to know to question it though.

      http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=355509

      In the comments on that page (FB comment driven), which must be expanded several times to see them all, there's a comment that starts:

      "Christopher Nelson · Top Commenter
      Nick Montana Thomas Jefferson was hardly a christian , but he authored a bill in his state that punished sodomy with castration. George Washington kicked a sodomite out of the military. You know, those religious crazies, The founding fathers. The founding fathers were anti homosexual.Homosexuality was treated as a criminal offense in all the 13 colonies. Then eventually in EVERY state. Did the founders set up a theocracy? Sodomy was a crime under british common law."

      I thought that was interesting because of the level of detail and the solid point that Jefferson was no Christian for sure.

      File that. You may need to pull it out when confronted as a "Christian" (and only Christians are baddddd....).

      Thanks for reading my post and for the encouraging words.

      I don't agree with everything on WND, but I don't agree 100% on any site that I know of. I like to read on both ends of the spectrum and then up and down too. Ha!