Americans for Truth about Homosexuality

Dr. Kenneth Howell, Adjunct Associate Professor of Religion, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, was fired after a liberal student complained about an e-mail he sent to his students explaining Natural Moral Law.

By Peter LaBarbera

The University of Illinois has fired Dr. Kenneth Howell, a Catholic adjunct religion professor who was doing his job of teaching a class on Catholicism — after a liberal student complained to the university about an e-mail Howell sent to his students explaining Natural Moral Law. (The professor’s instructive e-mail and the student’s complaint e-mail are reproduced below.)

TAKE ACTION: Contact Michael Hogan, the University of Illinois’s new president, and urge him to reinstate Prof. Howell immediately: phone: (217) 333-6400; Fax: (217) 333-5733. Tell President Hogan that Howell’s firing is a nationwide advertisement that the University of Illinois is bigoted toward and intolerant of people of faith — giving lie to U-I’s mission statement to be “inclusive” and to ”treat each other with dignity and respect.” Board of Trustees: contact the U. of Illinois Bd. of Trustees at 217-333-1920 or write: UIBOT@uillinois.edu.]

The U. of Illinois’ “religion department’s website says Howell was recognized for excellent teaching in the spring and fall semesters of 2008 and 2009,” the Champaign News-Gazette reports.

Howell’s terminatioin draws attention to the emerging, cold reality of modern, politically correct America: in cosmopolitan areas and certainly in academia, you are more likely to be terminated, punished or persecuted on the job for opposing homosexuality than for “being gay.”

Here we are — on the verge, with our Democrat-controlled Congress, of creating federal employment “rights” based on homosexuality (and transgenderism), and people are being fired merely for expressing their sincere religious beliefs — which, in Howell’s case, was his job. Even as homosexual activists falsely claim that thousands of homosexuals face job losses because of “who they are,” the number of anti-Christian firings is piling up: remember the Allstate firing of Matt Barber? Crystal Dixon?

As you can see from below, Dr. Howell is a clear thinker who was doing what he was paid to do – teaching Catholic morality to his students. The complaint e-mail that got him terminated dismissses Howell’s e-mail as “absurd…It sickens me to know that hard-working Illinoisans are funding the salary of a man who does nothing but try to indoctrinate students and perpetuate stereotypes.”

If you want to know about the homo-fascist impulse that dominates so many institutions of “higher learning” (hah!) today, here are the key paragraphs from the News-Gazette story:

In a series of e-mail exchanges between [Robert McKim, head of the U-I religion department] and UI administrators about how to proceed regarding Howell’s teaching and his appointment as an adjunct professor, McKim states he will send a note to Howell’s students and others who were forwarded his e-mail to students, “disassociating our department, College, and university from the view expressed therein.”

In another e-mail, Ann Mester, associate dean for the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, wrote that she believes “the e-mails sent by Dr. Howell violate university standards of inclusivity, which would then entitle us to have him discontinue his teaching arrangement with us.”

Inclusivity? What about U. of Illinois’ “inclusion” of traditional Catholic students and students who adhere to historic Judeo-Christian morality? ‘Diversity” has become a code-word for punishing those who dissent from liberal, pro-homosexuality groupthink. Please read the excellent e-letter below on Natural Moral Law by Prof. Howell. And  take action to urge the University of Illinois to correct this injustice. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

______________________________________________

Dr. Kenneth Howell’s Teaching E-mail to Students:

The following is the e-mail to students that U. of Illinois religion professor Ken Howell sent to his students, as reported by the Champaign News-Gazette:

From: Kenneth J. Howell

Date: Tue, May 4, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Subject: Utilitarianism and Sexuality (for those in 447 FYI)

Dear Students:

Since there is a question on the final exam about utilitarianism (see the review sheet), I thought I would help with an example. I realized after my lectures on moral theory that even though I talked about the substance of utilitarianism, I did not identify it as such and so you may not have been able to see it.

It turns out that our discussion of homosexuality brings up the issue of utilitarianism. In class, our discussion of the morality of homosexual acts was very incomplete because any moral issue about which people disagree ALWAYS raises a more fundamental issue about criteria. In other words, by what criteria should we judge whether a given act is right or wrong?

Before looking at the issue of criteria, however, we have to remind ourselves of the ever-present tendency in all of us to judge morality by emotion. The most frequent reason I hear people supporting same-sex marriage is that they know some gay couples or individuals. Empathy is a noble human quality but right or wrong does not depend on who is doing the action or on how I feel about those people, just as judging an action wrong should not depend on disliking someone. This might seem obvious to a right thinking person but I have encountered many well-educated people who do not (or cannot?) make the distinction between persons and acts when engaging moral reasoning. I encourage you to read the final essay editorial I sent earlier to reflect on this. In short, to judge an action wrong is not to condemn a person. A person and his/her acts can be distinguished for the purposes of morality.

So, then, by what criterion should we judge whether sexual acts are right or wrong? This is where utilitarianism comes in. Utilitarianism in the popular sense is fundamentally a moral theory that judges right or wrong by its practical outcomes. It is somewhat akin to a cost/benefit analysis. So, when a woman is deciding whether it’s right to have an abortion, the utilitarian says it’s right or wrong based on what the best outcome is. Similarly, a man who is trying to decide whether he should cheat on his wife, if he is a utilitarian, will weigh the various consequences. If the cheating side of the ledger is better, he will conclude that it’s okay to cheat. If the faithful side is better, he will refrain from cheating.

I think it’s fair to say that many, maybe most Americans employ some type of utilitarianism in their moral decision making. But there are at least two problems. One is that to judge the best outcome can be very subjective. What may be judged good for the pregnant woman may not be good for the baby. What may be judged good for the about-to-cheat-husband may not good for his wife or his children. This problem of subjectivity is inherent in utilitarianism for a second reason. Utilitarianism counsels that moral decisions should NOT be based on the inherent meaning of acts. Acts are only good or bad relative to outcomes. The natural law theory that I expounded in class assumes that human acts have an inherent meaning (remember my fist vs. extended hand of friendship example).

One of the most common applications of utilitarianism to sexual morality is the criterion of mutual consent. It is said that any sexual act is okay if the two or more people involved agree. Now no one can (or should) deny that for a sexual act to be moral there must be consent. Certainly, this is one reason why rape is morally wrong. But the question is whether this is enough.

If two men consent to engage in sexual acts, according to utilitarianism, such an act would be morally okay. But notice too that if a ten year old agrees to a sexual act with a 40 year old, such an act would also be moral if even it is illegal under the current law. Notice too that our concern is with morality, not law. So by the consent criterion, we would have to admit certain cases as moral which we presently would not approve of. The case of the 10 and 40 year olds might be excluded by adding a modification like “informed consent.” Then as long as both parties agree with sufficient knowledge, the act would be morally okay. A little reflection would show, I think, that “informed consent” might be more difficult to apply in practice than in theory. But another problem would be where to draw the line between moral and immoral acts using only informed consent. For example, if a dog consents to engage in a sexual act with its human master, such an act would also be moral according to the consent criterion. If this impresses you as far-fetched, the point is not whether it might occur but by what criterion we could say that it is wrong. I don’t think that it would be wrong according to the consent criterion.

But the more significant problem has to do with the fact that the consent criterion is not related in any way to the NATURE of the act itself. This is where Natural Moral Law (NML) objects. NML says that Morality must be a response to REALITY. In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same. How do we know this? By looking at REALITY. Men and women are complementary in their anatomy, physiology, and psychology. Men and women are not interchangeable. So, a moral sexual act has to be between persons that are fitted for that act. Consent is important but there is more than consent needed.

One example applicable to homosexual acts illustrates the problem. To the best of my knowledge, in a sexual relationship between two men, one of them tends to act as the “woman” while the other acts as the “man.” In this scenario, homosexual men have been known to engage in certain types of actions for which their bodies are not fitted. I don’t want to be too graphic so I won’t go into details but a physician has told me that these acts are deleterious to the health of one or possibly both of the men. Yet, if the morality of the act is judged only by mutual consent, then there are clearly homosexual acts which are injurious to their health but which are consented to. Why are they injurious? Because they violate the meaning, structure, and (sometimes) health of the human body.

Now recall that I mentioned in class the importance of gaining wisdom from the past. One part of wisdom we gain from such knowledge is how people today came to think of their bodies. I won’t go into details here but a survey of the last few centuries reveals that we have gradually been separating our sexual natures (reality) from our moral decisions. Thus, people tend to think that we can use our bodies sexually in whatever ways we choose without regard to their actual structure and meaning. This is also what lies behind the idea of sex change operations. We can manipulate our bodies to be whatever we want them to be.

If what I just said is true, then this disassociation of morality and sexual reality did not begin with homosexuality. It began long ago. But it took a huge leap forward in the wide spread use of artificial contraceptives. What this use allowed was for people to disassociate procreation and children from sexual activity. So, for people who have grown up only in a time when there is no inherent connection between procreation and sex –- notice not natural but manipulated by humans –- it follows “logically” that sex can mean anything we want it to mean.

Natural Moral Theory says that if we are to have healthy sexual lives, we must return to a connection between procreation and sex. Why? Because that is what is REAL. It is based on human sexual anatomy and physiology. Human sexuality is inherently unitive and procreative. If we encourage sexual relations that violate this basic meaning, we will end up denying something essential about our humanity, about our feminine and masculine nature.

I know this doesn’t answer all the questions in many of your minds. All I ask as your teacher is that you approach these questions as a thinking adult. That implies questioning what you have heard around you. Unless you have done extensive research into homosexuality and are cognizant of the history of moral thought, you are not ready to make judgments about moral truth in this matter. All I encourage is to make informed decisions. As a final note, a perceptive reader will have noticed that none of what I have said here or in class depends upon religion. Catholics don’t arrive at their moral conclusions based on their religion. They do so based on a thorough understanding of natural reality.

Kenneth J. Howell Ph.D.

Director, St. John’s Institute of Catholic Thought

Adjunct Associate Professor of Religion, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

_________________________________________________

U of I Student’s Complaint E-mail about Religion Prof Ken Howell:

The following is the e-mail complaint from student about U-I religion instructor Ken Howell, as reported by the News-Gazette:

Prof. McKim,

This past semester, a friend of mine took RLST 127: Introduction to Catholicism. Throughout the semester, he would consistently tell me how the teacher [Ken Howell], who I believe is a priest at the Newman Center, would preach (not teach) his ideology to the class. Many times, my friend (whom I wish to remain anonymous) said the instructor would say things that were inflammatory and downright insensitive to those who were not of the Catholic faith–it should be noted that my friend and I were both brought up Catholic. Anyways, my friend informed me that things got especially provocative when discussing homosexuality. He sent me the following e-mail, which I believe you will agree is downright absurd once you read it.

I am in no way a gay rights activist, but allowing this hate speech at a public university is entirely unacceptable. It sickens me to know that hard-working Illinoisans are funding the salary of a man who does nothing but try to indoctrinate students and perpetuate stereotypes. Once again, this is a public university and should thus have no religious affiliation. Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing. Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another. The courses at this institution should be geared to contribute to the public discourse and promote independent thought; not limit one’s worldview and ostracize people of a certain sexual orientation.

I can only imagine how ashamed and uncomfortable a gay student would feel if he/she were to take this course. I am a heterosexual male and I found this completely appalling. Also, my friend also told me that the teacher allowed little room for any opposition to Catholic dogma. Once again, he is guilty of limiting the marketplace of ideas and acting out of accord with this institution’s mission and principles.

I have Cc’d Leslie Morrow, director of the LGBT Resource Center, on this e-mail as well as (name redacted), former features editor at the Daily Illini (I’m sure they’d like to hear about this), and Siobhan Somerville, a former teacher of mine and the founder of the queer studies major.

I didn’t go to Notre Dame for a reason,

(name redacted)

___________________________________________

Bio of Kenneth J. Howell, Ph.D. from the St. John’s Catholic Newman Center at the U. of Illinois

Kenneth J. Howell
Director & Senior Fellow, Institute of Catholic Thought
kenneth.howell@sjcnc.org

In addition to being the Director and a Senior Fellow of the Institute of Catholic Thought, Dr. Howell is also an Adjunct Associate Professor in the Program for the Study of Religion in the University of Illinois. Dr. Howell studied theology at Westminster Theological Seminary where he concentrated in biblical languages and systematic theology.

In 1978, he was ordained a Presbyterian minister and served parishes in Florida and Indiana. After completing his Ph.D. in linguistics at Indiana University, he taught Greek, Hebrew, and Latin at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi. His teaching duties involved theological research which led to his conversion to Catholicism in 1996. During this time, he obtained another Ph.D. in the history of Christianity and Science from the University of Lancaster (U.K).

Dr. Howell is the author of four books and numerous articles. God’s Two Books: Copernican Cosmology and Biblical Interpretation in Early Modern Science (University of Notre Dame Press, 2002), Mary of Nazareth: Sign and Instrument of Christian Unity (Queenship Press, 1998) is a scriptural study of Marian doctrine. Meeting Mary Our Mother in Faith (Catholic Answers Press, 2003), Questions College Students Ask…about God, Faith, and the Church (co-authored with Christine Pinheiro) (Champaign, IL: The St. John Institute of Catholic Thought, St. John’s Catholic Newman Center, 2006), The Eucharist for Beginners: Sacrament, Sacrifice, and Communion (San Diego: Catholic Answers, 2006).

Amy Contrada of MassResistance has exposed the radical pro-homosexual agenda of Elena Kagan (shown above) as Dean of Harvard Law School. Kagan is President Obama's second nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Here is AFTAH’s July 3, 2010 interview with Amy Contrada, Research Director for MassResistance and main author of the MR report, “How Elena Kagan Helped ‘Queer’ Harvard Law School.” Contrada — who has degrees from Tufts and Brown Universities and who once worked as an administrator at Harvard — writes for the MassResistance blog. Working with MR founder Brian Camenker (see AFTAH Camenker interviews Part One HERE and Part Two HERE), Contrada has written extensively on the “gay” activist movement in Boston and has authored an extensive report on radical transsexual rights bill under consideration in Massachusetts.  Both Amy and Brian have joined the faculty of the ongoing Americans For Truth Academy.

HOW TO LISTEN: This is an mp3 file.  Left click on the link below to play.  (Please be patient, depending upon the speed of your internet connection it may take a moment to load.) OR right click the link then “save target as” to download the whole show.

7-3-10, Amy Contrada, All

Homosexual male "couples" are notorious for tolerating outside sex in their disordered relationships. Dan Savage, a homosexual activist who adopted a baby boy (hence his book "The Kid"), recommends "nonmonogamy" as an alternative to marital fidelity. He writes that he and his "husband" twice engaged in sexual "three-ways" even after adopting the boy.

News Release

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality

June 21, 2010

Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 630-717-7631

_________________

CAROL STREAM, Illinois — Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) President Peter LaBarbera today condemned President Barack Obama for “gaying down” the noble institution of fatherhood by extolling “nurturing families” with “two fathers” in his Father’s Day proclamation yesterday.

Obama proclaimed:

Nurturing families come in many forms, and children may be raised by a father and mother, a single father, two fathers, a step father, a grandfather, or caring guardian.

“If an adult man chooses to embrace homosexuality, that’s one thing. But two men imposing their homosexual lifestyle on an innocent, impressionable child — thus intentionally denying that child a mother — is something quite different. Shame on Obama for ‘gaying down’ the noble institution of fatherhood to appease his homosexual activist supporters.”

Obama is the most pro-homosexual-agenda president in American history, and is currently working to subvert both the legal ban on open homosexuals serving in the military, and the Defense of Marriage Act, which affirms traditional marriage in federal law.

“Who can deny the notorious promiscuity that is rampant in the gay male subculture – and which often continues even after two homosexual men adopt a child,” LaBarbera said. “Witness gay parenting’s poster-boy, Dan Savage, a sex-advice columnist and author of The Kid: What Happened When My Boyfriend And I Decided to Go Get Pregnant. Savage promotes ‘non-monogamy’ as an alternative to marital fidelity — and admits that he and his ‘husband’ twice engaged in sexual ‘three-ways’ even after they adopted a baby boy. (One wonders who babysat ‘the kid’ during their homosexual sex romp.)”

Such is the extent of tolerated outside sex in male homosexual relationships that their “negotiated” rules for “nonexclusivity” are studied by academics. “The gay community’s normative acceptance of casual sex, anonymous sex and nonmonogamy in couple relationships represents a dramatic departure from heterocentric norms and values,” wrote researchers Johnson and Keren in 1996.

Read the rest of this article »

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality is proud to join the World Congress of Families as a “Partner” organization. World Congress is the undisputed leader of the international pro-family movement. It is a distinct honor to be part of their growing network, which actively assists and unites pro-family and pro-life advocates the world over who are struggling against social leftism. WCF’s stated purpose is “to affirm that the natural human family is established by the Creator and essential to good society.” To accomplish its mission, WCF holds biennial international pro-family Congresses as well as more frequent regional conferences in major cities worldwide. To contact WCF, go HERE; to donate to The Howard Center/WCF, go HERE.

World Congress was launched by The Howard Center, based in Rockford, Illinois, a leading conservative, pro-family research institute under the guidance of the esteemed Dr. Allan Carlson. (If you are not reading The Howard Center’s publication, “The Family in America,” you are missing out.) AFTAH greatly appreciates and benefits from the tremendous work that Dr. Carlson, The Howard Center’s able staff, and the World Congress of Families do, and we look forward to working with them for years and decades to come. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Read the rest of this article »

Matt Barber went from professional boxer to Culture Warrior who rose to national prominence after being fired by Allstate Insurance Co., following his publication of an online article critical of the homosexual agenda.

Here is Part One of our June 5, 2010 interview with Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel. Barber was fired by Allstate Insurance Co., in 2005 after publishing an online article (on his own time) critical of the homosexual agenda. (A staffer with the homosexual group Human Rights Campaign played a role in Barber’s firing — demonstrating that for the ‘Gay’ Lobby, some “discrimination” — the anti-Christian type — is OK.) In this interview, Barber talks about his young career as a professional boxer and how God used his employment crisis for expressing his politically incorrect beliefs to launch his new career as a pro-family advocate. Barber discusses sharing the truth about homosexuality in the love of Christ, and tells about a relative who embraced homosexuality only to be faced with a severe health crisis arising from practicing an unnatural and sinful lifestyle.

This is an mp3 file.  Left click on the link below to play.  (Please be patient, depending upon the speed of your internet connection it may take a moment to load.) OR right click the link then “save target as” to download the whole show.

6-5-10, Matt Barber, All

Obama calls for repeal of Defense of Marriage Act

President Barack Obama's promotion of a government-enforced homosexual and "transgender" agenda will lead to the loss of liberties for those who espouse and defend the natural, historic Judeo-Christian conception of marriage and family.

CORRECTION: Well folks, looks like we’re a year behind in covering President Obama’s declaration of “Pride” in that which is shameful. I accidentally published President Obama’s 2009 “Gay Pride Month” Proclamation instead of the current 2010 version. So below we have included both years’ proclamations so you can compare them. Note that in the 2010 version, Obama calls for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which he is now circumventing piecemeal through “domestic partner” executive orders for federal workers. I apologize for the mistake. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

_______________________________

Original AFTAH commentary:

America’s pro-homosexual Panderer-in-Chief is at it again….When President Obama proclaims [2009 "Gay Pride Month" statement], “As long as the promise of equality for all remains unfulfilled, all Americans are affected. If we can work together to advance the principles upon which our Nation was founded, every American will benefit,” I wonder if he’s ever heard of Matt Barber — who was fired by Allstate Insurance Co., after Obama’s “gay” allies over at the Human Wrongs Rights Campaign complained that Matt had written an online article critical of homosexuality (on his own time).

(I don’t recall Matt being comforted at the idea that it was for the cause of “gay equality” that he was cruelly and suddenly thrown into unemployment by Allstate….)

Or how about Elaine Huguenin, a Christian photographer who was fined by the courts under New Mexico’s “sexual orientation” law because she would not take pictures at a lesbian commitment ceremony? (Pro-gay-agenda Libertarians: take note; Huguenin is appealing the decision.)

Wasn’t religious liberty and freedom of conscience one of those “principles upon which our Nation was founded”?

Read the rest of this article »

“The liberal media might be expected to reject what God and common sense tell us about sexuality. But there is no excuse for the conservative brain trust to ignore this threat.” – Robert Knight

Talk show host Mike Gallagher has capitulated on most aspects of the homosexualist agenda, but still calls himself a "happy conservative." Gallagher supports repealing the ban on homosexuals in the military, and supports government benefits for same-sex "civil unions," but opposes homosexual "marriage."

Folks, our good friend Bob Knight of Coral Ridge Ministries is right. When “conservatives” like talker Mike Gallagher (right) stop being conservative on whatever issue is being debated, public policy disasters often result. In addition to contacting Congress on homosexuals-in-the-military, we need to be urging conservative media to get engaged in the fight to stop our Armed Forces from becoming the next “battlefield” for Sexual Correctness. More on AWOL “conservatives” later. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

____________________________________________

Conservative Media Fiddle While the Military Burns

By Robert Knight

Barney Frank and his friends are rolling their tanks through Congress while everyone is talking about something else.  As we reel from one crisis to the next, homosexual activists and their allies are muscling through their agenda, with nary a peep from the nation’s conservative talking heads.

This week, their target is the military. Soon, it will be passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would criminalize traditional morality in every workplace with 15 or more employees. After that, they will try to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. Finally, they aim to pass an “anti-bullying” law that will threaten schools with losing federal funds if they refuse to force kids to read Heather Has Two Mommies and Gloria Goes to Gay Pride.  The agenda is breathtakingly ambitious, and would be unimaginable to previous generations.

Read the rest of this article »

Solicitor General Elena Kagan

Here’s another terrific piece by our friend (and AFTAH Board Member) Matt Barber. We should note that (Solicitor General) Elena Kagan’s reported zealousness for the homosexual activist cause does not depend on her being a lesbian. In fact, these days some of the most vocal pro-homosexual activists are “straight” (e.g., actress Judith Light). Ideological bias is the most important factor in evaluating Kagan’s suitability for the nation’s highest court, but clearly a newly seated, suddenly “out of the closet” Justice Kagan–or even a Justice Kagan whose lesbianism is slowly revealed over a period of years–could have extraordinary sway in a “same-sex marriage” case or other homosexuality-related questions before the Court.

For that matter, an officially “closeted” Justice Kagan whose homosexuality nevertheless becomes an open secret on the Supreme Court (wink, wink) could also win sympathy among fellow justices and thus skew decisions in favor of “gay” activism. So Ms. Kagan herself, and not her surrogates, needs to speak directly to this issue. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

[See AFTAH news release: "If Elena Kagan Is a Lesbian, She Should Say So because Public Has a Right to Know."]

_________________________________________

Kagan a Lesbian? Why It Matters

Posted: May 20, 2010 by WorldNetDaily

By J. Matt Barber

I don’t see how liberal media-types can write, what with those uncalloused, milky-soft little digits all bundled in bulky kid gloves and all. Oh, when the target of their “reporting” is a conservative politico, or even Tea Party Joe, off come the gloves. But when it’s one of their own––when circumstances require that a fellow liberal undergo a modicum of journalistic scrutiny––its simpatico most sublime. Out with the inquiry; in with the Huggies and tushie powder.

Media, here’s your question: “Solicitor Kagan, do you identify as a lesbian?” Ms. Kagan, your answer is simpler still: “Yes” or “no.”

Pipe down, lefties. Yes, it is relevant. Most liberals would disagree, but despite “progressive” protestations to the contrary, character does, in fact, matter. A majority of Americans still consider sexual morality––or a lack thereof––a pertinent factor in contemplating one’s fitness for any public service––chiefly, perhaps, a lifetime appointment to our most supreme earthly court.

Read the rest of this article »