Federal Judge Declares Anti-Gay Sermon a “Crime Against Humanity”

World Sailing MapFederal Judge Declares Anti-Gay Sermon a “Crime Against Humanity”

We at The Contemplative Thinker owe a debt of sincere gratitude to the site, The Mad Jewess, for covering this before we got it and inscribed our opinions on it. For us, this is simply unconscionable. 

A federal judge ruled that a biblically based denunciation of homosexuality was a “crime against humanity.”

In his decision in the case of Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG) v. Lively, U.S. District Court Judge Michael Ponsor held that Scott Lively, an evangelical pastor, was “aiding and abetting a crime against humanity” when Lively spoke in Uganda and in America against homosexual behavior.

We are not sure what any of that means with the exception that a loose cannon federal judge is trying to enforce laws that have no standing here in the United States.

Ponsor wrote in his 79-page opinion that Lively’s message was “analogous to a terrorist designing and manufacturing a bomb in this country, which he then mails to Uganda with the intent that it explode there.”

That is a little too much of our understanding of the law (or any sane person’s.) This much we do know: One, it has become seriously questionable as to whether or not the federal judge has read or studied the U.S. Bill of Rights or simply if he understands what he is doing. Plain and simple – this Judge Michael Ponsor is attempting to legislate from the bench.

The plaintiff in the case is a consortium of groups based in Kampala, Uganda that fight for “fair and equal treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) people” in the East Africa region.                   scales

Ponsor says that Lively, by publishing tracts and delivering discourses condemning same-sex relationships, was acting as “an upper-level manager or leader of a criminal enterprise.”

Well then there you have it…this judge is not short on words or even his understanding of standard business protocol.

Ponsor, a 1994 Clinton appointee, calls Lively’s Ugandan hosts “co-conspirators” in Lively’s violations of “international norms.” Any person saying such things should be ready to list, identify, and make clear his dissension of them.
Beyond the de jure banning of biblical morality by a Bill Clinton appointee, there is another curious political connection in the persecution of Pastor Lively.

SMUG is represented in its suit against Lively by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR). CCR receives substantial financial support from George Soros’s Open Society Institute and the Ford Foundation.  It should come as no surprise that these groups would be the money behind an attack on the First Amendment, the Bible, the freedom to exercise religion, and the freedom to express those beliefs in the public forum.

There are serious First Amendment implications in Ponsor’s ruling, should it be upheld on appeal.

Continue reading…


About J.Paul

Academia, Constitution, Musicianship, all around Caucasian male, straight, and professes Jesus Christ as the Lord of my life. Guitars -- Classical, Acoustic, A/E, Strat, a real bassist at heart, Les Paul Standard bass.
This entry was posted in Political Correctness and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Federal Judge Declares Anti-Gay Sermon a “Crime Against Humanity”

  1. Why don’t you read the judgment? It merely states, now, that the pleadings of the claimants, if proved, would make a case against Lively, that his incitement to violence directly causes assaults on gay people.

    Do you think gay people should be executed for their second consensual sex act? Really? That would be the result of the Ugandan bill Lively promotes.


    • Jon-Paul says:

      Hello Clare and thank you again for commenting! I have read the judgment. However, it is the unsubstantiated rubbish alleged by SMUG that is discomforting me. I find it abhorrent for any judge or justice not doing their job, rather that of legislating.

      Then again to accuse a person of “crimes against humanity” for using their 1st Amendment rights is just a bit off. It is important to note that this judge found himself in a loftier position, regardless of the Bible in order to roast Lively more. “Aiding and abetting a crime against humanity” please tell me, where is the crime? How is Lively either aiding or abetting in the alleged crime?

      No I do not think that gay people should be executed. However, I am aware of what Ugandan law is with regards to gays. I don’t believe you will find anywhere in over 3,000+ articles where I’ve mentioned any consensual sex act. If you took the time to read the article, rather than bash it up vis-s-vie context, I feel as though you owe me an apology. This article is about a judge and a group of people in Uganda with their special interest groups trying to gain financially from punitive and other damages. For goodness sakes, I mention Lively three times only; the judge and Ugandans get far more recognition.

      Thanks again for your comment. Please do not infer anything about me; or infer a response such as “Really?”


      • We disagree. But we may do so courteously.

        Of course I read your article. I could take umbrage at you suggesting anyone could imagine I did not fully understand it.

        The Bill Lively promoted would execute gay people for a second consensual sex act.

        If you still want an apology, kindly explain on what grounds.


        • Jon-Paul says:

          Hello again Clare and thanks again for your comment! Naturally if one was not receiving any comment at all, well they probably are in the wrong business, especially for a writer. I, like you, feel that the notion of disagreeing is positive and healthy. And of course it should be done courteously. I would like to say that I think you have a preconceived notion with any article written or otherwise that concerns gay people. If one truthfully looks at your comments the onus is definitely on “second consensual sex acts,” perhaps with a little Bill Lively thrown in.

          As for us and in particular me, what people do with their lives is their business. This of course does not mean that I agree with that person’s beliefs; however, I do have a right to my opinions, etc.

          Furthermore, where would anyone imagine that you don’t fully understand the article? This has no basis in any comment and quite openly it is rude to suggest that I could have or would have written such a thing. That is discourteous. And finally, why don’t you comment in response to either the article or any further misunderstandings you may or may not have? For example, one could comment on special interest groups encouraging SMUG — an entity that already receives a substantial amount of money from the USA? The notion of judges legislating from the bench is not only a problem occurring in the USA, rather it is happening globally and I find it wrong. The majority of writing that comes from this site are normally associated with the US Constitution and people’s natural rights, as well as the notion of being politically correct.

          About your apology to me: just forget it. It is clearly evident from your comments that for you to apologize for anything whatsoever, is beneath you.


  2. genomega1 says:

    Reblogged this on News You May Have Missed and commented:
    Federal Judge Declares Anti-Gay Sermon a “Crime Against Humanity”


Comments are closed.