Alan Chambers, President of Exodus International said:
In Philadelphia, eleven Christians were jailed for sharing a message from the Bible to a crowd of people attending a public pro-gay event.
Was this “sharing a message from the Bible” Alan? Or was it an attempt to disrupt a licensed, lawful event until someone was arrested and a spectacle could be made?
For the record, this is the incident described here by the two “grandmothers” from Repent America. Watch their video and compare it to the actual record above and see if you detect any dishonesty in their depiction of events.
A video of an earlier point in the event shows that the OutFest participants were perfectly willing to tolerate the signs and taunting of the “Eleven.” But the self proclaimed street preachers were not content with this, and pushed their way into the event until it was disrupted and law enforcement had no choice but to remove them.
Michael Marcavage and those he sponsors are not new to Philadelphia law enforcement. He seems to know just how far he can push to get arrested, but not so far that this country’s formidable First Amendment rights will not gain his release – local hate crime laws and all.
Yet most every time that Alan Chambers mentions hate crime laws, he uses this as the sole US example of the horrible stifling of Christian witness that adding sexual orientation would bring down on us all.
Religious beliefs have been covered under those laws since the late 1960’s, and I don’t see any limits on speech against this or that faith. Neo-Nazis certainly have their say against African Americans and Jewish citizens, though I don’t believe they are allowed to physically interject themselves into another lawful event such as the Eleven did above.
It doesn’t add up Alan.
I’ve noticed that Randy Thomas has been repeating this series of lies endlessly lately.
Of course changing the language to call these laws “thought crime laws” as well.
Do you think they all have a conference call on their talking points or do they do it by fax?
The muddying of the debate by all of these “independant” (read Dobson funded) groups isn’t exactly transparent. Anyone paying attention can see that they obviously pick a line of reasoning (however untrue) and stick to it.
It is obvious that this issue comes down to free speech and religious expression; the above posting clearly evidences this as this being the issue, not “licensed, lawful events”, which is what the author would like to make it about. Events that are open to the public cannot shut down the First Amendment rights of others. As for the remarks, the Bible does show Jesus and His disciples using harsh words to speak against evil and evildoers. There is more to this situation then the video above shows, as evidenced at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9i_XEjxY2RQ
I find openly gay City Solicitor Romulo L. Diaz Jr. comments to the Philadelphia Gay News about the matter quite interesting. He said: “Police won’t ban or remove protesters from permitted gay events simply because organizers don’t want a contrary message included.”
Mr. Chambers is going to Washington to agitate against hate crimes legislation.
Exodus has officially been political for a long time.
This is one of those times, along with taking the ex gay message to schools, where Chambers crosses the line.
No one, with a brain, could possibly believe that Exodus is a benevolent entity that’s simply there to give support to those who ‘choose’ to walk away from homosexuality.
He mght as well say, one can safely walk away from a freight train no matter if it jumps the tracks.
Chambers is making sure you’re tied down as he drives the engine right over you.
His words sure say one thing, but his actions….much more.
Jason R. said:
This is not obvious at all. The other video to which you linked was made by a camera crew at the request and cooperation of Marcavage. His actions during the time that camera is on him are quite different, which is telling. He suddenly becomes a demure little sheep being pounced upon by the state. In reality, he is a constant pain for Philadelphia law enforcement, not because of what he preaches, but because of how uncivil he is doing it.
The section of street was blocked off and not public during that event. It was a legal, permitted event. If Marcavage had wanted to speak, he could have kept doing so even with the megaphone and 10 foot signs. He wanted to physically disrupt the event and, ultimately, force an arrest. If you read over the many court cases you can clearly tell that this is his MO.
We have requested a large amount of evidence video which even more clearly shows what he is all about. And might I add once again, that even through his abuse of the public forum, the charges were still dropped because the 1st Amendment is alive and well and charges involving free speech require a heavy burden of proof.
If you truly see Jesus yelling things like “she-man” and “the mirror lied to you this morning, your still a man” and other things which I don’t feel like repeating, then I submit that you need some more time in the Gospels.
Let’s go ahead and provide the complete quote, shall we?
You are proving my point Jason.
I guess after todays’s statements from Alan Chambers, he is going to invitie both ACT-UP and Fred Phelps to attend his next Love Won Out conference and let them make as much noise and disruption as they would like. After all, he is such a fan of people expressing their religious and political beliefs regardless of the situation.
To be fair, I was under the impression that Alan Chambers is against all hate crime legislation, not merely the addition of sexual orientation to the legislation that already exists. Actually, I’m almost positive he’s said so before on his blog. It’s a pretty radically conservative view, and it’s not likely to catch on with the majority fo the American people (red or blue), but at least it’s consistent.
As for Repent America, did they take their own cameras to the protest? It looks like it, and that’s never a good sign. Screams “begging for attention” to me.
I know that this is only “sort of” related, but did you guys know that the reformed church of america is doing a survey on homosexuality? Its online…what do you guys think about it?(that is, if you have seen it?) I wasn’t sure if it made me really really sad…or just sort of annoyed.
I realize that “diologue” is important. But it was hard to read it and think about the responses that some people will have. I can’t wait for the day when people stop asking if homosexuality is a choice…even if just on a survey.
I personally don’t have a problem with a consistent, public, and official opposition to all hate-crime laws.
But Exodus has not officially stated its position on existing laws covering race and religion. Instead, Exodus seems to be banking on support from African-American conservatives who favor a hate-crime-laws-for-me-and-not-for-thee approach.
And Exodus persists in misreporting the content of the federal legislation while pretending that the U.S. First Amendment does not exist.
Chambers also said: “The freedom to live our lives in a manner consistent with our faith-based beliefs is precious and so is the ability to share truth with others,”
Forgive me, but I really feel like slapping him. There is a difference between SHARING and IMPOSING.
I wonder if he had seen for himself how the Philadelphia Eleven, as seen in the youtube video, shared truth with others, with these kind of statements:
“It’s wrong. Turn from your sins.”
That is a weird statement indeed, especially when it is said in the bible that ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God… including these eleven.
“Believe the gospel”
That is forcing people to accept Christianity. So accepting Christianity is also a choice and not a conviction in faith?
“Ask God to forgive you for the sin of homosexuality.”
That is yet again the implication of homosexuality as a sin and that it needs forgiveness. As if heterosexuality is sinless.
“It’s not normal. It’s not right.”
That is already judging. Do they know that if they judge, they too will be judged?
“No flag waving in hell. Only weeping and wailing. Only gnashing of teeth.”
This is a statement of condemnation. And only God can decide who goes to hell or heaven. He is the one who judges who is holy and who is not.
Repent America shares their thoughts on the gay community so vividly ridiculous that it is disgusting.
Preventing the legislation will lead to more of these organized religious bullying.
“He mght as well say, one can safely walk away from a freight train no matter if it jumps the tracks.
Chambers is making sure you’re tied down as he drives the engine right over you.
His words sure say one thing, but his actions….much more.”
Regan, you just hit the jackpot there. There is no way that he do not know what is going on.
He is already a pawn of Big Christian Gangstas. This snake has so many heads he makes Medussa looks like a flower.
Jay wrote: “To be fair, I was under the impression that Alan Chambers is against all hate crime legislation, not merely the addition of sexual orientation to the legislation that already exists.”
Jay is correct. Alan made this very clear to me in a telephone conversation we had some months ago. EXODUS wants ALL Hate Crime Laws abolished because they are “a tool to crush Christian evangelism.”
Mike Bussee wrote: Alan made this very clear to me in a telephone conversation we had some months ago. EXODUS wants ALL Hate Crime Laws abolished because they are “a tool to crush Christian evangelism.”
I am confused. When did assault, battery, vandalism, rape, kidnapping, murder, arson, lynching, mayhem, etc. become part of Christian evangelism?
“I am confused. When did assault, battery, vandalism, rape, kidnapping, murder, arson, lynching, mayhem, etc. become part of Christian evangelism?”
Good question. Perhaps ever since Christians think everything bad from paedophiles to HIV / AIDS has got to do with ‘homosexual lifestyle’ and ‘gender confusion’, and they want to be our sole moral guardians to correct us.
To be fair, I myself am against hate crime laws for libertarian reasons. I’m also against DADT, gay adoption ban, and laws that deny marriage benefits to same-sex couples for the same reasons. I believe in free speech, not just on principle, but because it allows Repent America to render it’s self obsolete though it’s own stupidity.
Audrey B. wrote: “I believe in free speech, not just on principle, but because it allows Repent America to render it’s self obsolete though it’s own stupidity.”
I’ll drink that that! 🙂
Ahem, I mean I’ll drink to that (looks like I’ve had a few too many already, though.)
Well, yes, but hate speech isn’t the same as hate crimes.
I too for libertarian reasons am opposed to hate crimes enhancement laws (though I do support hate crimes tracking). I think they are both impractical and chilling on freedoms in general.
However, if they are going to exist, there is no justification for the exclusion of sexual orientation as a protected category. This is, as best I can tell, the only subset of the population that is subject to class bias and targeted violence that is not included. And violence based on sexual orientation is far more prevalent than most classes that are protected.
It pretty much is like telling school children “you can’t pick on Billy, or Joey, or Sarah, or Susie. But Mikey, I’m not going to tell you that you can’t pick on him.” It gives implicit permission to be violent and hostile to those left off the list.
By excluding sexual orientation from the list of protected categories, there is a clear message: we don’t care if you attack gay people. When coupled with the “reasons” for excluding sexual orientation from the list (because of immorality or SIN) then the implied permission becomes almost an endorsement.
There is no doubt in my mind that those who seek to harm gay people see these efforts of Chambers and his allies as encouragement to be violent against gay men and women.
And I do believe that Alan is aware that his actions – his individual personal statements and activism – will DIRECTLY result in at least one gay person being physically harmed. Any rational person would know that this is the expected result.
Alan will have that gay person’s blood on his hands. He will have to explain his actions to God some day. I don’t envy that task.
Timothy: As a victim of a Hate Crime (I was stabbed and by best friend murdered simply because we were gay), I am surprised and curious as to why you “for libertarian reasons are opposed to hate crimes enhancement laws”. How are they “both impractical and chilling on freedoms in general?”
Hate Crimes are deliberate attempts to send a message to an entire group of people that they had better NOT try to exercise their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — or face death . They are terrorist acts and direct attacks on “freedoms in general”.
We have legal enhancements for targeting children, the elderly and other vulnerable groups — and these do not seem to put a “chill” on anyone’s freedom, except perhaps the “freedom” of the perpetrators to victimize, terrorize and intimidate. So, what are your objections?
Michael – Although I can’t speak for Timothy my perspective on hate crimes laws is also libertarian in nature. Simply put, hate crimes laws punish criminals for their thoughts in addition to their actions. You don’t need HCLs to punish a murderer with either life in prison or the death penalty, and it sets a terrible precedent when you start punishing people more harshly for bad thoughts. Murder is murder, violence against a person is violence, whether gay or straight, black or white, and no matter the reason.
I’m sorry you were stabbed, and I’m sorry your friend was murdered, but I don’t think that’s any worse than when someone is murdered by someone in a back alley because they don’t have any cash on hand. Nor do I think its any worse than say the horrific shooting at Virginia Tech.
I don’t oppose hate crimes legislation because I think minorities aren’t targetted (we are) but because I don’t consider violence against minorities to be more heinous than against non minorities or for non discriminatory reasons.
oh, I do agree with Timothy though that IF they exist they should protect sexual orientation as a category.
Jay said:
It would be consistent if he and Exodus had actually said that in Washington.
Alan Chambers:
He’s not asking that all these statutes be rescinded, but that sexual orientation (perceived or otherwise) not be included. And he is pulling out the race card to do it!
The bottom line as I see it; Exodus, et al, do not want sexual orientation codified into law as a legitimate class of people – for any purpose. The rest is just rationalized smoke.
And that, David, where I think most people would disagree with Mr. Chambers. My position on HCLs is very similar to my position on marriage equality actually. I think that same sex couples should be treated equally under the law and have all the same rights, benefits, and responsibilities as straight couples. I think we should have the same ability to have recognized social bonds (which society chooses to call marriage) at an equal level. With that said, I don’t think those bonds should be codified into law for anyone beyond a simple acknowledgment of marriage, power of attorney, etc. I don’t think marriage should be a tax benefit or hindrance, and I don’t believe society needs to recognize marriage at all. I think everyone should have civil unions.
But since THAT will never happen I think we shouldn’t be treated as second class citizens because of our sexual orientation.
I should have said “And that, David, IS where
Michael,
I do support tracking as it would allow trends to be analyzed. And I support federal support (e.g. FBI profiling, etc.).
However, I have seen problems with assigning hate crimes status to particular crimes. Take the classic example, Matthew Sheppard.
I personally believe – based on what information is available and the testimony of third parties – that Matthew was selected for this crime because he was gay. However, some are arguing that it was only a drug crime and robbery. And they are credible enough that it distracts from the greater story – that of the purely evil actions of the guilty.
The problem is that it is nearly impossible in many cases to distinguish as to what is or is not motivated by class hatred. The instance of the teen kidnapped in July 2006 and “beaten straight” in New Mexico – obviously. But the kid murdered in Florida last month – harder to determine.
I do not believe that most crimes against gays are intended to “send a message” or frighten a population. Most are opportunistic and an expression of hatred but the perpetrator wasn’t thinking beyond the moment. It really isn’t a “message”.
And also, I do not believe that it is any more criminal to hate me than to hate one’s ex-wife or her current boyfriend. Nor should penalties be harsher.
HOWEVER, you missed the rest of my comments. I support the current proposed law 100%. Not because I favor hate crimes laws, but because I believe leaving gays out of the equation invites, suggests, supports, and justifies attacks on gays.
All those wanting to keep gays from protections do so because they sympathize more with the attackers than they do with the victims. They are the types who say “well if you flaunt it, you’re gunna pay the punishment”.
They are evil. And anti-Christian. And defiant of God. And bloody-handed. And guilty of the damage that will result from the language they are spewing. And they don’t care. (Are you listening, Alan?)
As I said before, God will harshly judge those who give permission to attack gays. Christ was not ambiguous on this.
The fundamental question here is whether it is valid to say that hate crime statutes infringe upon First Amendment freedom of speech. According to Alan, he would prefer to deny inclusion of sexual orientation under these protections based on his view that it would, and he bases his view on a handful of incidents in countries where freedom of speech is held in far less regard legally than in the US, where it is guaranteed by no less than the first of all the amendments to our Constitution.
The only such incident in the US, the “Philadelphia Eleven,” proves to be a disgraceful ruse and, ultimately, served only to illustrate that even those who severely abuse their First Amendment right are given deference under our laws.
Again, it just doesn’t add up. To be part of this charade is, frankly, to be part of a grand deception at the expense of real people.
David Roberts,…
For Alan Chambers to agree with what black civil rights leaders believe is untenable, right there….enrages me.
I mean REALLY….what does Alan Chambers know about it?
Are the tears of Mamie Till more authentic than those of Judy Shepard?
Every black person, especially those experienced with the structure of Jim Crow, it’s perpetuation and how strongly that institution held on would know better.
Are they going to now deny that black males especially weren’t lynched based on the same URBAN MYTHS that gay men are labeled with?
Color was a way to find you….to pick you from the crowd.
The sexuality of blacks and what white people thought of it, is as legendary as what FOTF, TVC and FRC wants to spread now.
The target has changed, but the treatment was NEVER justified. There is no religion in this world that has a license to cause another group pain. But that’s never stopped them before.
I want to SCREAM at the mistake that these black people are making by getting in bed with the likes of Focus on the Family….there is no record of James Dobson being so supportive of civil rights for blacks either.
We see that Chambers and the rest AREN’T going to Washington to see all hate crimes legislation abolished.
And specifically, Christians do not and have not suffered nearly the calamity against them as a group as Jews and Muslims have.
Would it KILL them to NOT cram themselves into gay lives and NOT express themselves so often, so loudly or so politically?
Would it KILL them?
There’s a big difference in being taught once in a while to politely keep quiet when you’ve had diarrhea of the face already, as opposed to your expression clearly being a danger to someone else.
You might blink twice when you read this…but the Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff spoke in favor of this legislation:
Also, Mr. Shurtleff says:
And people wonder why gays live in Utah. Bravo to our AG!
David Roberts – I think that “hate speech” and “hate crimes” like that are unconstitutional and not covered by the First Amendment because the nature of the 1st amendment is that majority viewpoints don’t need protection, they have numbers that offer their protection.
At the same time, the problem with the “Philadelphia 11” should never have been a 1st amendment issue, it should be the disruption of a sanctioned event, disturbing the peace, malicious mischief, incitement to riot. Speech rights do not entitle people to drown out or silence another person’s perspective. I also have never heard of a case where a person was charged with a hate crime that would not otherwise be a crime without a perceived minority motive. We’re already protected under the law, so eventually I hope all HCLs are eliminated, but until then I hope we are not singled out as not having HCLs apply to us.
cowboy,
Unless I’m mistaken this bill is supported almost universally by police, sheriffs and attorney generals.
Which would mean Alan and Exodus are almost universally on the other side of police, sheriffs and attorneys general, no?
Yes, Mr. Kincaid, that is true. AG Shurtleff used this same logic when he worked with some of our more progressive Reps/Senators in the Utah Legislature for a re-wording of our hate-crimes bill. It was a compromise worked out to satiate those who felt uncomfortable with the wording: “sexual orientation” explicitly in the text of the bill.
And I agree, I believe Shurtleff was acting more in the interests for our police, sheriffs and other AGs than for the interests in LGBT hate crimes. But, he has supported the LGBT community on other issues.
See what I mean by the point of view when it comes to law enforcement, or any other first responder?
Anyone who has worked in law enforcement is better served by having the tools, the education and other support to make informed decisions about what criteria constitutes a hate crime, and how to involve the community targeted.
If a gay bar owner is afraid to speak out as a witness, not only is he targeted as an individual, but ALL of his patrons, as well as his property are in danger.
This is why hate crimes are bigger crimes than others of opportunity.
It also takes the group targeted to feel comfortable with COOPERATING with law enforcement too, to get dangerous people off the street.
Note how misogynistic and homophobic rage has triggered major mass killings in our nation’s history?
And federal expansion allows for funding that can be vital to dealing with such cases.
Chambers, Thomas and the anti gay are so busy trying to convince the public that gays and lesbians are a menace to society. That gay existence on any level is at the expense of whatever straight people want to do.
To distract law enforcers or the public from real dangers and actual reality when it comes to who most victimizes who, and who to be wary of, Chambers and the rest are doing no good for anyone and a disservice to proative, preventive solutions.
Clearly the gay community is invested in the latter, which will ultimately help more people in the larger sense.
Chambers, et al….are just busy bodies more intent on messing up gay lives. And their activity has such a narrow focus, as to be useless when it comes to the prevention of hate crimes, period.
Opponents of Hate Crime laws are fond of saying “murder is murder”. I wonder if they also believe that “arson is arson” and “vandalism is vandalism”?
Do you think the punishment should be the same for a person who lights a pile of leaves on fire on his neighbor’s lawn as for a person who burns a cross in the yard of the only Black family on the block?
Should the punsihment be the same for one who spray paints smiley faces on synagogue as for a person who writes “death to all Jews” and embellishes his work with swatikas?
Michael, my brother….the weight, the gravity, the motive and it’s expanse…those opponents are not thinking widely enough or far enough. Indeed, they are quite selfish.
Their lenses are microscopic. Small focus…small brained. At least too small to encompass the entirety of what a hate crime is.
It shouldn’t take being on the receiving in of one to know the difference.
But, then again…9/11 was the mutha of ALL hate crimes in America….and still, the small brains couldn’t grasp it.
Well, obviously the fertilizer the small brains are using…isn’t helping it grow.
Since Exodus and Alan Chambers are so opposed to Hate Crime statutes, perhaps they should start a defense fund for those who are charged with Hate Crimes. Exodus could defend the guy who writes “death to all Jews” on the synagogue wall and embelishes it with swastikas. They could also defend the guy lighting up the cross on the lawn of the only Black family in the neighborhood. They could even defend the guy who beats up gays with baseball bats just for fun.
After all, there is a principal at stake here, and that is the Exodus battle against “Thought” crimes. Rather than just shaming themselves by defending these criminals in Washington, DC, why don’t they defend these creeps in the courthouses where they are on trial?
Michael Macarvage is a sham Christian and so are his “Eleven”. They are trying to impose their view onto others who do not care to hear it. If their true concern about the salvation of souls was on their mind and vision for their “club” then they would focus on those who are willing to hear the gospel. Repent America does not speak on behalf of all Christians.
I may be wrong or niave but the message I get from Michaeal Macarvage is one of anti-homosexuals instead of helping gays change and one of discrimination – telling people over and over again that they are doomed for hell – as if he is the judge?? Has someone informed him of his judgment day?
On Randy Thomas’s blog today, he posts a press release from Exodus about African American’s and ex-gays opposing Hate Crimes.
Interestingly, they go out of the way in the press release not to question Hate Crime laws for African Americans. They just don’t want to extend them to gays and lesbians. This in spite of Alan Chambers claims that he opposes all Hate Crime laws. More examples of Alan’s lies and saying different things to different audiences.
Alan Chambers makes the peculiar statement that you “can’t change your skin color,” but you can change your sexual orientation. I don’t think that you can really change either, but it is an odd notion to suggest that if African Americans could change their skin color we wouldn’t have to worry about racism It seems to imply that if possible, everyone would just become white by default. I think that is an absurd notion and insulting to all people of color.
Perhaps you cannot change your skin color (well, actually some change is possible) but you can change your racial “identity”. You can decide that you find the “African-American lifestyle” to be “destructive” and decide to become ex-black. And if your physical appearance is sufficiently ambiguous, you can “pass”. Lena Horn wasn’t the only one who was encouraged to.
Hmmmm. Perhaps race is more like orientation than Alan is willing to admit.
Extra can of worms anyone?
–Timothy Kincaid
–Edward Byron Reuter
In fact, James Weldon Johnson wrote a novel about a black man who decides to pass as white and called it An Autobiography of an Ex-Colored Man.
And then there are people with vitiligo, who were touted as “proof” that blacks were sick and could be cured.
Ah yes “Negros by choice”.
Does that sound anything like Alan’s quote to ABC News this week:
https://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3067569&page=1
Funny how bigotry is all the same behind whatever mask it currently is wearing.
We’re standing for the truth that Negroes can change! (warning: PDF)
The really offensive part is how closely this mirrors the current ex-gay mantra.