Fact or Fiction

1. The Constitution calls for "strict separation of church and state."
2. There is no "homosexual legal agenda" - all that activists desire is "tolerance" and "equality".
3. Churches and other religious organizations should have no access to public facilities.
4. The ACLU is not against religious liberty; on the contrary, they defend religious freedom for people of all faiths.

1. The Constitution calls for "strict separation of church and state."
   America was founded on the pursuit of religious liberty, including the liberty to acknowledge God and to pray in the public square.
   
   This liberty originates in higher law, or “the laws of nature and of nature’s God,” as the Declaration of Independence puts it. In the words of Rabbi Daniel Lapin, the founders modeled themselves “upon God’s ancient people” and “wrote what they considered to be a modern-day interpretation of the basic biblical principles of government.”
   
   Those principles demand a place for religious expression in the public square. Unfortunately, radical advocates have long been trying to re-write the Constitution by making the First Amendment say something it doesn’t. The First Amendment plainly forbids the creation of a national denomination, because that would be an “establishment of religion.” It says nothing about the so-called “separation of church and state.”
   
   The Declaration of Independence contains four references to God: God as the Creator and the source of liberty (“all men are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights”), God the law giver (“law of nature and of nature’s God”), God the ultimate judge (“the Supreme Judge of the World”), and God as the king above all earthly rulers, as the Sovereign (“Divine Providence”).
   
   For more on this subject, read "Why Religion has a place in the public square.”

   back to top

   
   
2. There is no "homosexual legal agenda" - all that activists desire is "tolerance" and "equality".
   These terms often mean different things to activists than to ordinary Americans. The homosexual agenda was outlined by activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in a 1987 article titled “The Overhauling of Straight America,” and a 1989 book titled After the Ball.
   
   These publications outlined a six-point strategy to dramatically change America’s perception of homosexual behavior.¹ The six points were:
   
   
   1. Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and often as possible.
   2. Portray gays as victims, not aggressive challengers.
   3. Give homosexual protectors a “just” cause.
   4. Make gays look good.
   5. Make the victimizers look bad.
   6. Solicit funds: the buck stops here (i.e., get corporate America and major foundations to financially support the homosexual cause).
   
   And this strategic campaign is not concerned with truth. As Kirk and Madsen said, "It makes no difference [if portrayals of homosexuals] are lies, not to us...not to bigots. We're talking about propaganda."
   
   

   "Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and often as possible"

   In “The Overhauling of Straight America,” Kirk and Madsen noted, “The principle behind this advice is simple: almost all behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances.”
   
   The media has been a willing participant in this strategy. Conservative media critic Michael Medved remarked, “A Martian gathering evidence about American society, simply by monitoring our television, would certainly assume that there were more gay people in America than there are evangelical Christians."
   
   Episodes of Will & Grace, and recently, Law & Order: SVU, have mocked those who have overcome homosexual behavior. Far from neutral, these shows attempted to discredit the effectiveness of counseling men and women who desire to leave the homosexual lifestyle.
   
   After one particularly disturbing episode of Will & Grace, Mike Haley, a former homosexual who works with Focus on the Family, sent a letter to Jon Kinnally, the executive story editor of the show. In his response, Kinnally said:

   “…come on, Mike, even you’ve got to admit that fags trying to pretend they’re straight is pretty funny. In response to your request for a meeting, well, I think I can read between the lines on that one. I’m about 6’1”, brown hair, green eyes, and I’m into rollerblading, baking cookies, and cleaning up afterwards. My dislikes include game-playing, negative attitudes, and condoms.”²

   "Portray gays as victims, not aggressive challengers"

   Despite demographic statistics to the contrary, homosexual activists have skillfully portrayed themselves as a victimized class in need of special protections. Closer examination shows just the opposite. According to The Human Rights Campaign, 82 percent of the Fortune 50 offer sex-partner benefits. What's more, a Comm Group/G Society study released in October 2001 shows that the median household income of homosexual households is $65,000 - compared to the national average of $40,800. Also, 47 percent of homosexual men and 40 percent of lesbians hold professional or managerial jobs - more than twice the figure for the general population.
   
   

   "Give homosexual protectors a 'just' cause"

   Activists have repeatedly turned tragedies into opportunities to advance the homosexual agenda. Matthew Shepard's murder was horrible: two nonreligious thugs shamefully and brutally killed this young homosexual man by hanging him on a fence to die. However, homosexual activists blamed this senseless crime on conservative Christian organizations such as Focus on the Family .³ Appropriately, the media expressed outrage over this horrible killing.
   
   Yet, the same media was virtually silent when 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising was raped and murdered by homosexuals. Dirkhising's attackers drugged him, strapped him to a bed, gagged him with his own underwear, sodomized him repeatedly, and tortured and strangled him. This gruesome crime received coverage totaling 46 stories. In contrast, the Shepard murder saw more than 3,000 stories published.⁴
   
   

   "Make gays look good"

   Kirk and Madsen were well aware of the potential problems inherent in revealing too much, too soon, saying, “In the early stages of the campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible.” They added, “First let the camel get his nose inside the tent – and only later his unsightly derriere!”
   
   Homosexual activists are subtle in their public demands as well, insisting that they want only "equality." This statement is heard the loudest in their demands for homosexual "marriage." Yet their plans for the institution of marriage are much bigger, and much more ominous. Activist William Eskridge admits he hopes gay marriage "will dethrone the traditional family based on blood relationships in favor of families we choose."⁵ Michelangelo Signorile has told activists "to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely...to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.... The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake...is to transform the notion of 'family' entirely."⁶ Others tell us the goal is the abolition of marriage entirely.
   
   

   "Make the victimizers look bad"

   Perhaps most alarming is the growing trend of intolerance toward any individual who does not express complete and unconditional support for homosexual behavior. Betty Sabatino, an employee for a San Antonio bank experienced this animosity first hand. During a mandatory session of "fair employment practices," Betty participated in the question-and-answer portion (billed as a "safe zone") by asking why the company provided special considerations for employees based on sexual behavior. Her boss expressed "concern" about her question following the session, and within a few weeks, Betty was fired due to "management's loss of confidence" in her. ⁷
   
   The Boy Scouts have faced unrelenting pressure and attack for refusing to admit homosexual scoutmasters to help lead and form the character of young boys. Columnist Mike Thomas of the Orlando Sentinel offered this opinion to the world:

   "If I were the United Way, and all the agencies that depend on it, I'd build a big pile of wood with a pole stuck in the middle of it. Then I'd tie the leaders of the Boy Scouts of America to the pole, using only the most secure half-hitches and square knots. Then I'd rub two sticks together and work on that campfire merit badge."⁸

   So much for tolerance.
   
   

   "Solicit funds: the buck stops here"

   The Gill Foundation reports that donations to gay and lesbian groups have grown to $100 million.⁹ In stark contrast, many organizations lobbying for family values are constantly seeking cash just to keep the doors open.
   
   For more on this subject, contact us about receiving a copy of The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today.
   
   

   Footnotes

   ¹ Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill, "The Overhauling of Straight America," Guide, November 1987.
   ² Correspondence between Mike Haley of Focus on the Family and Jon Kinnally
   ³ Julia Duin, "NBC Flooded with Calls after Couric's Remarks: Family Groups Irked at Links to Death of Gay Man," Washington Times, October 16, 1998
   ⁴ Toby Harnden, "Liberal Media Ignores Rape-Killing of Boy, 13," The London Telegraph, March 30, 2001
   ⁵ William N. Eskridge, "The Case for Same-Sex Marriage," 1996.
   ⁶ Michaelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT, December-January 1994.
   ⁷ Robert Knight and Kenneth L. Ervin II, "Can I question Homosexuality? Don't Bank on It," from The Other Side of Tolerance: Victims of Homosexual Activism, Family Research Council, 1997,8.
   ⁸ Mike Thomas, "United Way Makes Giving Not Easy," Orlando Sentinel, July 23, 2001
   ⁹ Jim Hopkins, "Gay Entrepreneurs Pour Tech Cash into Causes," GFN.com, June 19, 2001.

   back to top

   
   
3. Churches and other religious organizations should have no access to public facilities.
   There is simply no support for the claim that religious organizations and churches should not have equal access to public facilities. Equal access means just that – religious organizations have the same access to public facilities and funding as all other groups have.
   
   Generally, if the government confers benefits on to a broad group of people, it cannot discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs of speech. There are three main sources that serve as the foundation for equal access.
   
   First and foremost, the United States Constitution specifically puts forth several provisions for equal access in the Free Speech and Free Exercise of Religion clauses of the First Amendment, as well as the Equal Protection Clause found in the Fourteenth Amendment.
   
   Secondly, in 1984, the United States Congress passed the “Equal Access Act.” This act states that when a public school district allows secondary school students to form extracurricular clubs, it cannot deny Bible or Christian clubs the same opportunity or access to facilities.
   
   Thirdly, ADF-assisted and allied U.S. Supreme Court legal precedents have not only clarified equal access, but reinforced this right as well. One such victory came in 2001, in the case of Good News Club v. Milford Central School, in which the Supreme Court ruled that a “Good News” Bible club had the same access to school facilities for after-school programs as all other groups. This victory came on the heels of more than 20 years of Supreme Court decisions that affirmed equal access.
   
   Like many of the battles to preserve religious freedom, there are still many fronts to be waged in the battle for equal access, but with perseverance, it is a battle that can be won.
   
   

   Why are religious organizations still being denied their right to equal access?

   Leftist advocacy groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union and its allies, have waged a war of misunderstanding and confusion which has created an environment that denies religious organizations their constitutional right to equal access. These groups state that policies which lock religious organizations out of public facilities are constitutional because the establishment clause of the First Amendment requires that the government must discriminate against religious organizations. They argue that if the government does not deny religious organizations access to governmental benefits, such as use of facilities or receiving of public funds, then the government is showing preference for a particular religion.
   
   However, as stated earlier, this argument has been rejected numerous times by the United States Supreme Court. In addition, the most common argument for denying access – the so-called “separation of church and state” – appears no where in the United States Constitution. (Read more about this myth here.)
   
   Unfortunately, even with the growing number of U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have affirmed equal access for religious organizations, unconstitutional policies remain in place that exclude religious organizations and individuals. There are still hundreds of laws on the books of city and county governments that prohibit religious organizations from access to government buildings that are open to all other groups.
   
   The “Timothy Project” is an ongoing effort by ADF and its allies to research, discover, and pursue legal action against such discriminatory policies.
   
   For more on this subject, please contact ADF.

   back to top

   
   
4. The ACLU is not against religious liberty; on the contrary, they defend religious freedom for people of all faiths.
   The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and claims that, with the exception of the Justice Department, it has been involved in more cases before the Supreme Court than any other individual or organization. ¹
   
   The ACLU has consistently shown contempt for public expression of religion - especially America's Judeo-Christian legacy. They have promoted an inaccurate representation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment and regularly invoke the so-called "separation of church and state" to justify their anti-religious stance.
   
   For an example of the ACLU's hostility toward anything remotely touching on religion, please read the following article:
   
   

   "Please Don't Blaine Us Again" - ACLU opposes school choice
   Excerpt: An ACLU spokesman referred to school vouchers as a "money-laundering scheme" for religious people. By this ACLU logic, every artist who gets money from the National Endowment for the Arts (even for pornography) benefits from a government-sanctioned "money-laundering scheme." But that doesn't bother the ACLU. As long as it's not "money laundering" for solid American citizens who practice religion, but for "artists" who practice "free speech," it's okay.

The ACLU's own policy guide reveals much of their hostility toward religion. A quick glance through the 1992 edition of the guide reveals:

• The ACLU opposes equal tax treatment for religious bodies with other charities.
• The guide states, "The insertion of the words “under God” into the pledge of allegiance is a violation of the constitutional principle of separation of church and state." (This is not a new policy in light of the pending Supreme Court case. This refusal to acknowledge God is contained in board minutes from 1954!)
• The guide states, “Freedom of religion does not extend so far that parents may withdraw children from classes which they feel conflict with their religious principles, even when they cannot practically avail themselves of the right to send their children to private schools." (In other words, they oppose an "opt out" for people of faith.)
• While the ACLU states parents should be unable to remove their children from classes that are in direct conflict with their religious beliefs, they do believe anyone can "opt out" of patriotic displays: "Although a salute to the flag and oath of allegiance are commonly accepted practices in school assembly exercises, exemptions should be granted to a student whose religious scruples or other principled convictions lead him or her to refuse to participate in such exercises." (This double-standard reveals the ACLU's hostility toward religion.)
• In other cases the ACLU, which claims to be a great advocate of free speech, in reality advocates censorship of free, open, and public expression of America's heritage, faith traditions, and holidays.

¹ "ACLU Supreme Court Summary: Justices 'Skeptical of Federal Authority,'" ACLU web site: http://archive.aclu.org/news/n062797b.html

back to top