North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) "tempest in a teapot"? Hardly!

My two reply comments on the WaPo are being republished here because I have been very heavily censored of late over the issue of homosexuality:

The Washington Post took down my original comment, replaced it with a truncated version, then emailed me a bad link to confirm my registration. Now, I see no login even in this commenting section; so I will see whether they will allow me to respond at length, as they did Steven B. Williams.

First of all, Steven, you called Peter's [Peter LaBarbera, President, Americans for Truth About Homosexuality] post erroneous where your notion of "support" is beyond suspect in my opinion. You stretch subjectivity to the extreme. Getting on a stage or wherever in front of a group of proselytizing pedophiles/pederasts and not denouncing the entire thrust of the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is in itself definitely supportive of that cause/practice.

Had Frank Kameny been exactly against pedophilia and/or pederasty, he had ample opportunity to denounce the practice after Peter published his piece on the matter. Did he do that or avoid it?

You said, "he probably did share a stage with those who were part of the NAMBLA group." It is my reading of Peter's article that he was a speaker at NAMBLA and not merely coincidentally on the same stage, as your wording appears to me to try to get others to conclude. I have not fact-checked Peter on his article, but I should think the WaPo would have included the controversy in its own article and in a neutral and balanced, professional journalistic manner with an eye at getting at the whole truth.

As for your statement that "NAMBLA was predominantly an organization that focused on pederasty not pedophilia," what does "predominantly" have to do with it when you know they accept and affirm pedophiles? On what do you base the statement anyway that they were predominantly focused on pederasty? How can you be sure of that? If they were trying to gain more acceptance in general, how do you know they didn't avoid putting pedophilia up front to avoid the greater wrath of parents, etc.? Also, what's okay with pederasty? How young does a child have to be before it becomes pedophilia? There are precocious children as young as 9 who would qualify under the term pederasty. I don't see much point in making the distinction. Perhaps you are one of those who feels there should be no age-of-consent restrictions at all and that statutory rape should be a quaint relic.

(cont.)

Finally, the Southern Poverty Law Center is contributing to the goal of censoring what otherwise should be considered free political speech. You want the NAMBLA men to be able to say how they feel. Do you also support people being able to openly disagree with those men as to whether or not pedophilia should be allowed? When is NAMBLA going to become a "protected" group under a broad interpretation of the "sexual orientation" classification or some other newly minted term for that purpose? When will it become illegal to stand against anything for which the Southern Poverty Law Center advocates? When will freedom of speech die? It is dying. I see it all the time where the playing field is being deliberately slanted and the standards being unequally applied and all for ideological reasons operating under the guise of science, etc.

I do not automatically put stock in the Southern Poverty Law Center's opinions. If they can show me where Peter has been shown real errors in his own reporting and not printed corrections, then I would be willing to take that up with Peter directly. I've read a number of his articles and not detected any playing fast and loose with the facts myself; however, I have not acted as an investigative reporter when reading his posts. Even the article in question though says that people could take Frank Kameny's speaking engagement as other than support, but Peter doesn't (and neither do I – and that's my right, or should be, in a non-fascistic society).

What are the "outright distortions" Peter "spreads regarding LGBTs and their rights"? Are these "distortions" just your subjective opinion or the Southern Poverty Law Center's or both?

Also see:
Frank Kameny Responds to AFTAH Report that He Spoke at NAMBLA Event in 1981
and
Asteroid between Mars, Jupiter named for pedophilia supporter Frank Kameny - The Washington Post
and
ThinkProgress: Unjustified, Inappropriate Censorship on Homosexuality

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.