J. Lee Grady's Crazy is Homosexual Activist Wayne Besen's Ethics

"If a young man came to me and admitted he was tempted to seduce women, I would not tell him: "You just have a strong sex drive. Go ahead and have sex with as many girls as you want! That's just who you are!" That would be crazy." Via: Once Gay, Always Gay?

In my reply to Wayne Besen, who is a homosexual activist with whom David Pickup just had a radio show debate, I addressed Wayne's attack on one of the plaintiffs suing to block California's new law, SB 1172.

Wayne wrote, "I fully hope that lawyers vigorously cross-examine Dr. Duk over his possible abuse and unethical use of pharmaceuticals to lower the sex drives of his clients."

I'm assuming it's obvious that Wayne might readily take exception to J. Lee Grady not telling a boy, "You just have a strong sex drive. Go ahead and have sex with as many girls [make that boys] as you want!"


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 just commented on the charismamag site: http://www.charismamag.com/blogs/fire-in-my-bones/15645-once-gay-always-gay#comment-679256536

      "...left many suffering from depression, attempted suicides because they could not get rid of their sexual orientation."

      First, were they already depressed and perhaps even suicidal?

      Second, how far did they go with the therapy?

      Third, what was the treatment? Was it up-to-date, authentic Reparative Therapy?

      Fourth, were those with depression afterwards people who had been coerced into the therapy? If so, it wasn't authentic RT, which never takes a coerced client. The child or adult has to want it for him or herself.

      Fully informed clients who want to understand the process and to work at the treatment and do not give up prematurely do not leave blaming the therapy for their continuing or future depression. Approximately 60% leave satisfied with the treatment. Most of those are very satisfied.

      The idea that the one and only course to help a child (who has been homosexually raped for instance and who never had same-sex attraction prior to but develop those because of the rape) is to tell the child to embrace same-sex sexual attraction, is to deceive that child, who will face all of the risks and damage associated with that course of action.

      The statistics for homosexuality are not good including where homosex has been accepted by the given society. Denmark is a prime example.