Homosexual Activists Mull ‘Organized Terrorism’ Against Christians

BadThingDATE: November 9, 2009

Lynchburg, VA – In the wake of the horrific act of Islamic domestic terrorism at Fort Hood Texas, it has been learned that militant homosexual activists recently made similar online postings to those of Nidal Malik Hasan, threatening additional acts of terrorism against Christians.

In response to Maine’s natural marriage victory last Tuesday, “gay” activists have directly threatened to retaliate with “terrorism” and the “killing” of Christians on the popular homosexual activist “JoeMyGod” Weblog. Liberty Counsel notified the FBI which is investigating the matter. As of this morning, the offending blog entry had been removed. (captured version of post will be available at www.americansfortruth.com).

Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel’s Director of Cultural Affairs, issued a statement shortly after Maine’s marriage victory (posted with additional commentary at AmericansForTruth.com). In reaction to that statement, blog poster “ColdCountry” wrote: “Will someone please give me a gun?” Poster “Fritz” warned: “What I fear is that once gay and lesbian people give up hope of achieving equality through nonviolent means, there will be radicals who will begin to hunt down haters… All it will take is a small group of radical zealots who are willing to kill for their cause.”

In reply to Fritz, “tex” posted: “Fritz….you say this like it’s a bad thing? Maybe a bit of well organized terrorism is just what we need.”

“This happens in all cases where people are oppressed and lack representation,” continued Fritz. “We will have gay and lesbian people strapping bombs to their chests and blowing up churches. All it will take is one or two more losses like this. If marriage equality is taken away in one of the landmark states, we will see domestic terrorism arise very quickly. … In 1991, I witnessed gay and lesbian activists setting fire to buildings and beating people with baseball bats in Los Angeles.”

“tex” reiterated: “Still not seeing this as a bad thing Fritz … [African gay activists] didn’t gain their civil rights through being passive.”

In addition to Barber, pro-family leaders Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth and Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage were specifically named targets.

Meanwhile, Michael Heath, former director of the Christian Civic League of Maine, was targeted by a direct death threat shortly after the passage of Question 1 last week. An anonymous caller telephoned the League, warning: “I am calling about Mr. Mike Heath, the Executive of your Christian Civic League of Maine. He thinks that gay people should have our rights revoked that we already have. Well I can tell him this – I’m a gay guy who owns guns, and he’s my next target.” Law enforcement was immediately notified.

Matt Barber commented: “All potential threats of terrorism and murder are very serious business. As we learned just last week, there are ideologically driven terrorists who walk among us. After passage of Proposition 8 in California we saw that many homosexual activists are capable of threats, vandalism and even violence. Those who either threaten or attempt to incite terrorism must be immediately brought to justice. Churches and Christian leaders around the country need to be on high alert. These threats of homosexual activist terrorism must be taken very seriously.”

16 Responses to “Homosexual Activists Mull ‘Organized Terrorism’ Against Christians”

  1. The pain and anger felt by homosexuals is real, and goes far beyond what could be caused by any genuine injustice they may have encountered. That pain largely comes from the inner conflict between what they're driven to do and their inner knowledge, which cannot be silenced, of how grievously wrong it is. And that pain will still be there no matter how much they may manage to get their way. That fact must help remind the rest of us not to give in to their demands, while also not giving them any legitimate reason to feel victimized.

  2. There are crazy people in all walks of life who are potentially dangerous, gay AND straight.

  3. Of course, but the “gay” community, considering how small it is, appears to have more than its share. Dealing with a life-controlling dysfunction, trying to convince yourself it's perfectly OK (instead of taking the difficult but right road of addressing it healthily), and then demanding that the rest of the world agree with you — all that is not exactly a recipe for clear thinking.

  4. Another disturbing attribute is how the radical gay agenda “converts/subverts” impressionable heterosexual youth to fight their wrongheaded cause for them in the name of “equality.” Despite the upbringing of many of these young people, the gay agenda takes advantage of their respectable inner desire (which is in most of us) to stand up for the oppressed. Same-sex “marriage” advocates are aware of this and will lie and do anything to subvert youth…because after all, youth are the future.

    I, however, believe there is a growing underground of youth who are returning to virtue and respect, and away from the destructive trends of the “anything goes” world. This is not reported in the media but look all around you at the goodness and optimism of young people. They are becoming stronger and wiser. I am optimistic!

    Another falsehood is the idea that gay “marriage” will someday be accepted because youth accept of it. From my personal vantage point, this is false. It's true that youth start out as idealistic, many (if not most) of them become quite conservative and self-protective after liberalism shakes their core foundational principles. After all, weren't we all headstrong idealistic kids before we matured? Today's youth will be much stronger than kids of the 80s-90s (my generation) because they will prevail over bigger tests and trials than me. And above it all, they rock!

  5. LGBT people are not asking individual people to agree with us – what we are asking for is for our government not to treat us different from our heterosexual counter-parts – The church is free to say whatever they want about us since they are protected by our Constitution. True our anger is directed at the church because it keeps getting in the way of us being treated as equels in our society.

    P.S. I take serious offense to someone who doesn't even know me (and mostly don't actual know any gay people) and labeling us dysfunctional.

  6. You already are treated as equals in society. If you behave in a proper and responsible manner with regard to sexuality, you are treated like anyone else who behaves in a proper and responsible manner. You are also free to marry the opposite sex, just as anyone else is.

    What you do not have the right to do, however, is to demand that people accept your sexual behavior as normal, natural or healthy. It is simply none of those things.

    You also have no right to counterfeit the invaluable institution of marriage. For a detailed explanation of why the state has a compelling interest in not allowing marriage to be counterfeited (as it does to prohibit the counterfeiting of our currency), read this: http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/05/society-and-

    When people act in a moral, healthy manner, they should and can expect to be treated like everyone else who acts in a moral, healthy manner. When people choose to act in immoral and unhealthy ways, they cannot reasonably expect to be viewed and treated the same as someone acting in a moral and healthy fashion.

    The correct response, therefore, would be to act in a moral and healthy manner–something with which homosexual behavior is incompatible.

    If you insist on engaging in homosexual sex, no one is trying to stop you. But society is under no obligation whatsoever to coddle, mollify, appease or humor you in the deception that homosexual behavior is natural, moral or healthy.

  7. My homosexuality isn't a “behavior” it is a part of who I am!

    If two heterosexual atheist who choose not to have children are allowed a “CIVIL” marriage there is no reason why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry. Gays getting married won't change what your Bibles, Korans or Torah say about homosexuality and most LGBT people are fine with that and some of us couldn't care less.

  8. Just like my former drunkenness was a part of who I am? Hardly. It is a behavior, one that can be changed. Don't allow yourself to remain enslaved to your impulses. People have been rejecting homosexual temptations for thousands of years, just as many of us have rejected impulses to be drunks.

    It takes a man and a woman to comprise a marriage. You can try building a bathroom with all male plumbing parts or all female plumbing parts, but I guarantee you that you won't have a bathroom–just a mass of non-functioning parts that are no good to anyone. That's all you have when you put two male or two female sex organs together–a couple of misplaced parts that don't accomplish anything useful.

    If you insist on engaging in homosexual behavior, no one is likely to stop you regardless of how unhealthy and immoral it is. But marriage is far too important (http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/05/society-and-…) to allow homosexuals to counterfeit it just so they can feel better about this unnatural behavior.

  9. I'm not going to change you opinion with regards to homosexual behavior as clearly that would be pointless.

    Again I ask if two heterosexual atheist who choose not to have children are allowed a “CIVIL” marriage in the USA why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to marry?

  10. (Sigh) Because without a man and a woman, you do not have the required elements to create a marriage.

    You can call a stack of pine needles a stack of $20 bills, but that won't make it so. You can make a copy of a $20 on your scanner and printer, but you won't be allowed to pass them off as the genuine article.

    Marriage–like our currency–is too valuable to allow it to be counterfeited by something which does not meet the criteria of the genuine article.

  11. Look I agree in the eyes of the followers of Abrahamic religions – a real marriage is one man – and one woman (even though that equation has changed and been redefined several different times) that's fine and I support your right to believe that.

    However we're talking about “CIVIL” marriage and your version of morality shouldn't have anything to do that.

  12. Marriage requires a man and a woman. It cannot be more plain–or more simple–than that.

  13. More people who need professional help.

  14. More people who need professional help.