Gay activist, Harry Knox, who serves on Obama's "faith based advisory counsel", attacks the Pope and spreads hurtful lies

According to Knox, the Pope is “hurting people in the name of Jesus,”. How is it possible that a man who Obama appointed to a position that is supposed to unify all faiths continues to attack the Pope with hurtful lies?

Here is an article and video about the false information that Knox continues to promote: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/60893

Here is an excerpt:

......According to Knox, the Pope is “hurting people in the name of Jesus,” because the Holy Father has suggested that promoting condom use in Africa will not end the suffering caused by the AIDS epidemic there and in fact increases the spread of HIV/AIDS. The problem with Knox’s position, despite his appeal to the ’science,’ is that the empirical evidence does not support his attack. It actually favors the Pope......

Here are some excerpts from an article that explains why Knox is wrong on the scientific evidence:

.....Almost one year ago, Edward Green, a senior research scientist at the Harvard School of Public Health who at one time supported condom distribution in Africa to fight AIDS, wrote an op. ed. piece in the Washington Post about the Pope’s comments. There he points out that numerous independent studies have reached the same conclusion as the Pope. He writes, “In 2003, Norman Hearst and Sanny Chen of the University of California conducted a condom effectiveness study for the United Nations’ AIDS program and found no evidence of condoms working as a primary HIV-prevention measure in Africa.......

.......How does one explain these results? In scientific terms, Dr.Green calls it a phenomena known as “Risk Compensation”. In laymans terms it is simply the fact that when people feel safer while they participate in risky behavior they are more likely to increase the risky behavior. Add to that the failure rates of condoms due to human error, long shelf life, etc., and you have a recipe for disaster –..........

.....But this is only one half of the debate. The evidence clearly shows that increased condom use in Africa has increased infection rates, but does it also show that alternative prevention programs that focus on fidelity and abstinence are effective? Again, the answer is clear......

...........And now that we have examined the evidence, let’s listen once again to what the Pope actually said about the situation in Africa and see who sounds more in line with ‘the science.’

“I would say that this problem of AIDS cannot be overcome with advertising slogans. If the soul is lacking, if Africans do not help one another, the scourge cannot be resolved by distributing condoms; quite the contrary, we risk worsening the problem. The solution can only come through a twofold commitment: firstly, the humanization of sexuality, in other words a spiritual and human renewal bringing a new way of behaving towards one another; and secondly, true friendship, above all with those who are suffering, a readiness — even through personal sacrifice — to be present with those who suffer. And these are the factors that help and bring visible progress.”.......

Here is the link to the entire article: http://stmichaelsociety.com/2010/02/05/harry-knox-pope-benedict-and-the-debate-on-condoms-in-africa/

Here is an excerpt from an article that shows exactly who Harry Knox is:

.......Harry Knox, who is a member of Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, is the director of the religion and faith program at the Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual activist group......

......According to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Web site, the religion and faith program run by Knox has created “a weekly preaching resource that provides scriptural commentary to ministers and lay people interested in an ecumenical gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender perspective on the Bible.".....

.....In addition to his remarks about the Pope, Knox also criticized the Catholic Knights of Columbus as being “foot soldiers of a discredited army of oppression” because of the Knights’ support of Proposition 8. The latter was a ballot initiative that amended California’s state constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, and passed in November 2008........

Here is the link to the entire article: http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46192

I have no objection to Obama appointing gay people. Of course they can do the job just like anyone else. However, Obama has appointed two gay activists with radical agendas. They are Kevin Jennings and Harry Knox. I fear that the MSM will keep these stories quiet because it is not politically correct to criticize gays, even if they are intolerant, hateful, bigoted and perverted. This harmful form of political correctness is a direct result of the fear of intimidation and retribution that critics of gays face from the gay activists.

It is a clear sign that our society is in decline because we are being bullied by a bunch of sissies.

Is hate and intolerance on the part of liberal activists justifiable?

Some people on the far left take the issue of homosexual marriage, and the liberal agenda, very personally. However, IMHO, the ends do not justify the means. Hate and intolerance will not beget love and acceptance. All I ask is that we have a civil discussion. Am I asking too much?

Here are three recent examples of hate and intolerance from gay and liberal activists:







Both sides feel that they have the moral high-ground. Many people on the right feel just as passionately about this issue as those on the left do. However, I do not see them behaving baldy. There may be exceptions, but the bad behavior on the left, far outweighs the bad behavior on the right.

Homosexual activists and some on the left are convinced that redefining marriage to include homosexual unions, is a God given right and thus guaranteed by our constitution. IMHO it is neither. IMHO gay marriage is an oxymoron. It is true that some activists and sympathizers on the left get their feelings hurt when others present a contrary opinion on this issue. That does not give them the right to publicly insult, blacklist, and harm the businesses and careers of others.

There are no laws on the books that restrict a persons right to life, liberty and property due to homosexual behavior. Only the laws of nature and God restrict the lives and liberties of homosexual behavior. Gods laws prevents children from resulting from homosexual unions. Gods laws makes those who practice homosexual behavior more susceptible to disease and early death. [Some think that universal health care is a right (which it is not) because it might help equalize the lifespans between the rich and the poor.] Natural law and/or Gods law, allows the innate characteristics of men and women to complement and restrain each other's positive and negative tendencies. Redefining marriage to include homosexual unions does not change these universal laws of God and nature.

However, US laws defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman does not restrict homosexual freedom under the law. If those who practice homosexual behavior would like to have a legally recognized union, very few people are opposed to that. However, most people resent the redefinition of the institution of marriage to include homosexual behavior. People on the right feel that they have a legitimate argument, just as much as people on the left feel that their argument is moral, just and fair.

Why is it that one side gives themselves permission to behave badly and intentionally hurt the, feelings, jobs, careers and businesses of those that they have a politically different opinion from? Both sides feel they justifiably have the moral high ground.

This issue can not be compared to race, because race is an innate human characteristic. Homosexual behavior is just that, a behavior. Many people may have overwhelming compulsions and desires to practice this behavior, however, it is still a behavior. Homosexual behavior is not compatible with the values that most of us assign to the institution of marriage. Most of us consider marriage to be the ideal situation to raise our children. There are other situations where children are raised, such as foster care, orphanages, single parents, and blended families However, the intact family that is encouraged through traditional marriage, combines the feminine characteristics of the natural mother and the masculine characteristics of the natural father to provide the best environment for a growing family and society. This has proved to be the ideal way to raise children and to move our society in a positive direction. IMHO, anything that diminishes this institution will lead to the weakening and eventual collapse of our society. Single parents, divorce and marital infidelity should also be discouraged for the same reason.

In California, gay rights activists have gone so far as to demand that the state eliminate marriage altogether and replace it with civil unions for everyone if homosexual marriage does not become the law of the land. This is the clearest example of gay activists' desire to diminish the importance and sanctity of the institution of marriage as we know it.

It is a sign of a declining society when one groups demonizes and intimidates another group for their deep seated beliefs. No one has the right to, intimidate, and bully good people with different opinions into silence. Yet homosexual activists are doing just that with their hateful and intolerant attacks against anyone who publicly states opposing opinions.

I do not object to a civil discussion on this matter, however, I am offended by callous, illegal, immoral and unacceptable behavior by many gay activists and their sympathizers. People opposed to gay marriage feel just as strongly about this issue, yet they restrain their behavior to civil discourse. It seems to me that activists on the left feel that all restraints on human behavior are wrong. This is not true, self restraint and legal restraint is what keeps us free, prosperous and strong.

Lets have a discussion where both sides are equally restrained in their rhetoric. Their may be some exceptions but,the only "hate speech" that I hear in this discussion comes from the left. The ends does not justify the means. Hate and intolerance will not beget love and acceptance. All I ask is that we have a civil discussion. Am I asking too much?

eHarmony Was Bullied Into Submission By Homosexual Activists.

As I have written repeatedly, "when you accept and celebrate something that is abnormal and unhealthy, as if it were normal and positive, you turn reason and common sense on its head". An excellent example of this is a recent lawsuit and settlement by eHarmony.com . eHarmony, is an on-line Christian owned dating service, that was bullied into providing services for homosexual singles.

Michelle Malkin wrote in a recent article: "The company never refused to do business with anyone. Their great “sin” was not providing a specialized service that litigious gay people demanded they provide. This case is akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a ribeye or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services. Sadly, eHarmony has settled . I wish they hadn’t, but I understand the decision given the chilling antics of the anti-Prop. 8 mob. The company agreed not only to offer same-sex dating services on a new site, but also to offer six-month subscriptions for free to 10,000 gay users".

E-Harmony obviously caved in due to the intimidation and bullying tactics that the gay activists have been using to influence businesses nationwide. As I have written in my previous article,"My Views on Homosexuality", this same tactic was used on the psychiatric profession, 40 years ago, in order to force them to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.

The following is a comment on Malkin's article from a Prop. 8 supporter and an excellent rebuttal from a clear thinker.

eaglehaslanded said:
'This case is akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a ribeye or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services.'
No, actually it’s like a lunch counter in Mississippi refusing to serve a Black person.

On November 20th, 2008 at 9:07 am, NJ-Aviator said:
NO. You could not be MORE WRONG. You really need a review of logic.
This person was not refused a service that the business offered. This person demanded a service the business DID NOT OFFER.
Michelle’s analogy was spot on. Yours was off in space.
And that’s the problem with the left. No logic.

Here is the link to Malkin's entire article and comments page. http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/20/eharmony-forced-to-offer-same-sex-dating-services/

Proposition 8 passes, Homosexuals Raise a Ruckus

As I predicted, the homosexual activists are raising a ruckus because Proposition 8 in California passed. Similar propositions that ban gay marriage, also passed in Florida and Arizona. Also, Arkansas banned unmarried couples from adopting children. Wherever the issue of homosexual marriage has been put to a vote, it has been defeated. The states where homosexual marriage is legal, is due to courts that have overturned ballot propositions, in opposition to the will of the people. In my opinion, these judges are using convoluted-logic in order to promote a liberal agenda. Click on this link for a good article about this by Orson Scott Card called "Upholding the Constitution".

Diane Feinstein's argument that proposition 8 is tantamount to discrimination, is also convoluted logic. First of all, homosexual behavior is exactly that, a behavior. All of our laws regulate human behavior. To say that a law is discriminatory because it regulates behavior, is to say that all of our laws are discriminatory. Secondly, homosexuals are not discriminated against because they have always been free to marry. In the American culture, marriage has always been defined as the union between one man and one woman. The homosexual activists are trying to re-define marriage in order to promote their agenda. Proposition 8, merely defines marriage as it has always been defined traditionally. Homosexuals are free to marry, as currently defined, just like anyone else, therefore, they are not being discriminated against.

Homosexual activists are always claiming that homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue, just like segregation was. They compare their movement to the civil rights movement and often use the same rhetoric. . However, most blacks strongly disagree with that. Did you know that exit polling on California's Proposition 8, showed that 70% percent of blacks voted for Proposition 8, banning gay marriage? Most blacks are insulted when homosexual issues are compared to civil rights issues. The black civil rights movement gave blacks the right to an equal vote, an end to segregation, the right for equal opportunity in education and employment and the right to live, eat and travel where they wanted. All of these things were denied to blacks prior to the civil rights movement. None of these things are denied to homosexuals. Civil rights laws assure equal opportunity based on race, religion, sex, and national origin. Homosexuality is none of those things, it is a sexual behavior.

It is clear, and statistics prove, that the ideal environment for children to raised in, is with their natural mother and father. This relationship, not only raises happier, better adjusted and more productive children, but the parents also are far better off than those in any other type of family relationship that does not include an intact family unit. "Intact nuclear families" are the "bricks" that all healthy societies are built with. To celebrate and encourage blended (step) families, single moms, Mr. moms, un-wed parents and homosexual families, is to discourage that which strengthens individuals, families, communities and our nation. Of course the "ideal family" is not always possible, but it should be encouraged wherever possible, and less healthy alternatives should be tolerated only as a last resort.

To present homosexuality as a normal human behavior, and something to be proud of, is to turn reason and common sense on its head. I believe that homosexuality is obviously an abnormal behavior. Today's popular culture has lost the ability to distinguish between normal and abnormal, right and wrong, healthy and unhealthy, considerate and inconsiderate, masculine and feminine, positive and negative, fact and fiction, noble and shameful and good and bad.

Other prominent examples of convoluted reasoning are: celebrating the gangster culture, teaching that men and women are essentially the same with interchangeable roles in family and career, teaching that diversity, in and of itself, is a virtue, portraying racism as a major obstacle for minorities in Today's America and portraying radical Islam as a religion of peace.

Once we become accustomed to accepting all forms diversity, moral equivalencies and convoluted-reasoning, our moral compasses become "out of whack". It is wrongly taught that all forms of diverse human behavior should be accepted and celebrated. It is also taught that judging certain diverse forms of human behavior is cruel and represents bigotry. I believe that it is healthy and necessary to judge people based on their behavior. To demonize this aspect of our thoughts, words and actions, is to deny the essence of a society that strives to become healthier, freer, stronger and more prosperous. Healthy normal people and families, are obliged to reject that which brings weakness, decay and misery, to their community and nation.

Even the most obviously bizarre and negative behavior becomes acceptable and on par with healthy normal behavior. The public display of homosexuality, S&M and sexual fetishes at " gay pride parades" and San Francisco's "Folsum Street Fair" is glaring example of celebrating, accepting and putting negative behavior on public display.

As I have said many times before, the "global warming myth" is the most obvious example of turning reason and common sense on its head. Man-made global warming is only a theory, yet it is being taught as a cold, hard fact in our public schools and universities. Meteorologists are unable to accurately predict next week's weather, yet global warming proponents predict what the Earth's climate will be like in 50 years with absolute certainty. Al Gore said: "Global warming is the greatest moral issue of our time". I disagree, it is only a scientific theory. Once again, convoluted-logic is being used to turn reason on its head, and it has become widely accepted.

Another example is that many university professors, choose to share their anti-American, anti-Israeli, anti-Christian, anti-family and Marxist views with their young, naive and impressionable students. They are not only allowed to teach at American universities and influence our youth, but they are held in high regard by the faculty and considered extremely cool by the students. Three examples are William Ayres ,Ward Churchill and Rashid Khalidi. This kind of subversive manipulation of today's students, will only lead to less freedom, less wealth and less strength in tomorrow's America.

The mood on today's universities is becoming increasingly hostile toward America and many of the institutions that keep us strong, free and prosperous. Institutions that are frequently ridiculed and attacked on today's college campuses include, The Church, the intact nuclear family, the military, and the police.

The video below, is a recent protest that took place in downtown Santa Barbara. The UC Santa Barbara College Republicans decided to stop by and see what it was all about. Can anyone deny that these people hate the military and the country?


There is nothing wrong or discriminatory about encouraging that which is healthy, normal and positive. It is also the obligation of our teachers, political leaders and religious leaders to discourage negative, destructive, amoral behavior. Doing anything less, will lead to the diminishment of our families, communities and our nation as a whole. Encouraging "less than positive behavior", will also adversely affect homosexuals. Homosexuals are also a part of our society, and also benefit from that which keeps our people and nation, free, strong, prosperous and healthy.