Following the Money: Arcus Foundation Funding Gay Activism in Episcopal Church

You left out the bit about gorillas. The Arcus foundation has two areas of focus. One is promoting the gay agenda. The other is protecting, preserving and studying apes.

You really can not make this stuff up.

Matthew,
Yes, apparently rather than go to the trouble of creating two separate foundations, Jon Stryker has created a foundation with two distinct wings, and a correspondingly bifurcated mission statement.
When it comes to the Arcus Foundation’s work in Africa, however, these two disparate objectives have at times found common purpose . 

As has happened with other environmental organizations, the emphasis upon a particular species (in this case protecting gorillas) quickly leads to engagement with the larger social/economic environment that threatens the species.  The Jane Goodall Institute, for instance, is engaged in economic development in Africa because they recognize that such development needs to occur if their long-range goal of protecting gorillas is to be realistic.

Similarly, the Arcus Foundation is engaging in economic development in Africa for two reasons beyond mere humanitarianism:

1)  Economic development creates an environment in which protecting the apes is more probable (and incentivized)

2)  Economic development projects (particularly in the area of healthcare and education) are a useful cover for the GLBT agenda.  As Jon Stryker put it, “In Africa, a little bit of money can go a long way.”

The Arcus Foundation has been actively working on partnerships targeting Africa with much larger foundations such as the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation.  Our African brethren in the Anglican Communion have chosen to turn down large sums of money from TEC, Trinity Wall Street, and others because the money for “economic development” came packaged with a revisionist agenda.  Those moneys will pale in comparison to the “economic development” initiatives that Arcus and the Rockefeller Foundation are working on, and the Africans charged with accepting or denying the money are more likely to be secular politicians, rather than Archbishops and Bishops.

Gay apes, or just regualar apes?

Thanks for the excellent and thorough spade work, Fr. Andrew.  I’ll freely admit that I’d never heard of the Arcus Foundation before.  This kind of detective work is valuable.

It reminds me of the biblical injunction in Ephesians 5:11,

“Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead EXPOSE them.”

Keep up the good work.

David Handy+

David,
It was no burden, as I really enjoy this kind of ‘spade work’ and found the trail to be fascinating. 

That said, my time these days is quite limited, and the amount of material that could be sifted through is enormous.  I feel like this post only scratches the surface. 

I encourage other SF readers with an interest to click on the link to the Arcus Annual Reports (and newsletters), follow some of the other “trails,” and report back on this thread what interesting connections they have found.

Millions spent on this tripe and I can’t get $1500 for a digital projector, smart board or maybe some maps. It is really hard teaching social studies without maps.

Father Andrew,

I see you’ve been even busier than I thought you were.

I’m shocked, shocked I say to discover that Political Action Committees have more input into the polity of TEC than do conservative dioceses.

Well, OK, so I knew this had to be going on all along.  But thank you for the time and effort to connect the dots.

Good Lord willing, I’ll see you soon.

TJ

Now we have ironclad proof that the LBGT lobby is well-funded, and is behind the seizure of the Episcopal Church, the systematized insinuation of our public school systems, and most other aspects of our society.

Wasn’t it the GLBTXYZ zelotes decrying the “deep pockets” of the vast right wing conspiracy some time back?  Well, well.  So, maybe it isn’t those vast numbers of new inclusive church members who have been shelling out for the social justice agenda.  Well hey, Soros likes to dabble in the secular world and Arcus (Stryker) has picked the religous right to destroy. 
The objectives are similar; force their warpped views of the world on everyone using their capitalistically obtained wealth and destroy tradition and orthodoxy in the Christian world and in the United States.  What a great bunch we have there.

Great expose`, Fr. Andrew! I have read some of this information from prior posts on SF, but this article is incredibly comprehensive and very well written. Bless you for spending the time doing this research!

I am going to send a link to our daughter and husband, believing that they will pass it on to their pastor and elders. Our son-in-law is a deacon at Fifth Reformed Church, Grand Rapids. While visiting there a year or so ago, after service I had opportunity to commend the professor from Calvin College who had delivered the sermon that day. He had urged “standing firm” against this coming onslaught and other wiles of the devil. The leadership there knows that this battle is brewing in their denomination. My prayer is that they will have the wisdom to avoid the snares which have entrapped TEC, ELCA, etc.

See you soon,
Merlena

So where do we get our Arcus checks?  The IRD thing didn’t pan out so well.  Someone is getting rich off the VRWC but it sure isn’t us poor commenters slogging away in the Internet trenches.  So maybe ARCUS will pay better.  Perhaps it’s time to try free agency.

carl

Vast Left wing conspiracy!  Perhaps the ABC should know whose playing the tune he’s danced the jig to thus far - if he doesn’t know already and enjoy the dance.  It is at least liturgical in appearance.

And the “Progressives” have the nerve to complain about the IRD!

When progressives work together, seek to talk with leaders, and write resolutions for convention, it is simply good politics.  When conservatives do the same thing, it is a conspiracy!

This answers “what” and “how” but not the important question of “why?”  Why did Arcus target ELCA and TGC?  My theory is that these two organizations (I refuse to call them churches) had already been hollowed out by several decades of leftist infiltration and the attendant rot.  Anyone with the slightest sense of the political could see that TGC, in particular, had failed to defend itself from the like of Pike, Spong and Righter.  To use a medical metaphor, TGC’s immune system had collapsed, and it was ripe to adopt Arcus’ vector in its weakened state.  The virus took, multiplied and now we see the result.

Even many orthodox don’t realize what happened.  So many that are outraged over active homosexual bishops were insouciant about openly gay deacons and priests.  They don’t understand that you cannot accept the premise and expect to prevail on the details.  Groups like Arcus are the thin edge of the wedge.

Acts 8:20 (New Living Translation)
But Peter replied, “May your money be destroyed with you for thinking God’s gift can be bought!

This is something I have been confused about for years.  Does changing church tradition and teaching through expensive lobbying constitute simony or not?

TJ,
I agree.  Not a total shocker, and yet…

In retrospect, discovering the funding behind the Chicago Consultation has changed my perception of their productivity.  Before, when I saw their website and ‘documentary,’ I thought, “Propagandist content aside, it’s a fairly polished product, and a decent effort for a group of volunteers.” 

After finding out they were given $300,000 from the Arcus Foundation my reaction has shifted to , “They had $300,000 and that is the best they could come up with?”

Sometimes, perhaps we overestimate our opponents.

Merlena,

Of particular interest to this Calvin grad, the Arcus Foundation Annual report cleared up where the funding came for the “Seven Passages” production.  Sadly, the work was directed by a Calvin professor, and got a favorable review in their student newspaper.

Wealthy benefactors have blessed the church from the beginning.  My reservation regards the church’s acceptance of money from a secular organization, rather than an individual or religious organization.  Are we not to be in the world, rather than of the world? 
This would be applicable to the Satcher Institute grant to the AC for the “Continuing Indaba,” as well.  I don’t know if the AAC money came from an individual or a religious organization or a secular organization.

Jeffersonian,

The question of ‘why’ is an important one.  My sense is that the Arcus Foundation is interested in moving the GLBT agenda forward at any and every opportunity.  In some cases their funding has gone to organizations that were clearly on the cusp of victory (Integrity).  In other cases their funding has gone to organizations that were just getting started or, to use a baseball analogy (it is October after all), in the middle innings. 

In looking over the last 6 years worth of Arcus Foundation annual reports and newsletters, I can’t say that any pattern in particular jumped out at me, except that they intended to sprinkle the money around and hoped to touch every facet of a community. 

Here in my fairly quiet little town of South Haven (we’re about 45 minutes from Kalamazoo) they poured $30,000 into a GLBT awareness program at the Michigan Maritime Museum.  Of course, GLBT awareness doesn’t fit with the charter, goals, and initiatives of the museum at all, but apparently this was no obstacle.  I took it as evidence that the Arcus Foundation is essentially opportunist;  looking for short-term gains, willing to work on longer-term projects, and in the case of South Haven, happy to find a willing museum director to help ‘the cause.’

Jill,

In Acts 8, Simon the sorcerer recognized the power of God, and then sought to buy it like any other commodity.

I don’t see this passage as parralleling the advocacy of the Arcus Foundation.  The Arcus Foundation has not recognized God’s power, nor sought to buy what can only come through faith.  They simply have noticed that there are other GLBT advocates in influential religious groups, and decided that those advocates are politically useful.

Thanks, Fr Gross.  Good point about the Arcus Foundation not recognizing the power of God nor seeking to buy what can only come through faith.
The question of simony had come to mind in 2003.  A coalition of GLBT activists announced an effort to raise over $200,000 for advertising in GC03.  The editor of The Living Church was dumfounded at the amount, which was unprecendented.  The name of the group was “Claim the Blessing.”

Here in my fairly quiet little town of South Haven (we’re about 45 minutes from Kalamazoo) they poured $30,000 into a GLBT awareness program at the Michigan Maritime Museum.

Did the museum lecture patrons? $30,000 is a lot of money for an awareness program at a museum.

All that money is being spent to kill the people Stryker and Arcus propose to help, temporally and eternally.
They are actually leaving them in bondage to feelings that are symptoms of pain and distress, disoriented and imcomplete identities, and that lead to more pain from addictions, compulsions, unstable emotions and relationships, harmful and deadly behaviors. 
They can foment propaganda, reinvent words, cover up the truth, change laws and change minds, but they cannot change reality.
They cannot change research, health and police statistics.
They can change some people’s beliefs and theologies, but they cannot change GOD’s eternal Word and Truth. 
Whatever they do, they cannot make homosex healthy, happy or holy.

What a waste of money and a loss of human souls.

oscewicee,

I’m not sure how the money was spent, but perhaps we’ll know in the future as people begin asking the Maritime Museum to explain.

The $30,000 was earmarked for “… a GLBT Initiative Project to integrate GLBT
awareness into the culture of the organization, and work with regional nonprofit organizations and the museum field on issues of diversity.” 

This sounds to me like it was primarily for “educating” employees and patrons of the museum, and networking with other local organizations to share that “education.”

Also of interest, in the year prior (2005), the Arcus Foundation gave $50,000 to the same museum “toward the capital campaign for the Great Lakes tall ship replica Friends Good Will, and the development of a series of workshops focusing on cultural inclusiveness to be presented throughout the South Haven region.”

The tall ship was purchased, and docked beside the museum with funds raised from around our community.  According to the description above, however, the Arcus Foundation money was only partly toward the tall ship.  The rest of the money went towards “workshops focusing on cultural inclusiveness.”  Now “cultural inclusiveness” could mean recognizing the heritage of our local Jewish community, or Native American community, but given that the money came from Arcus, it could mean “LGBT”.

In any event, it’s worth recognizing the development here:

First, in 2005, Arcus gave to a ‘feel good’ community project (the tall ship), thus gaining credibility in the community, and among the museum’s staff and patrons. 

Second, in that same year, they designated other funds to go to a series of nebulously described “cultural inclusivity” workshops.

Third, in 2006, they gave again, but this time confidently proclaimed that the agenda was specifically about “LGBT awareness.”

Reading through their Annual Reports I did see this pattern more than once:  They make inroads into a community by pouring big sums of money into projects that everyone can agree upon, and then a year or so later, monies follow for ‘workshops.’

That’s an interesting insight into their tactics, Fr. Andrew. I am reminded of a Mark Twain story. Show up with enough money and you can buy most anything.

Andrew, and others, you might have noticed the news recently in the Grand Rapids Press about the flap over Calvin professors advocating active homosexuality in the classroom. It’s caused a bit of a stir, and the play you mentioned Andrew was in the article as well. The Christian Reformed Church, which owns Calvin, is theologically against the gay rights agenda, and this is not the first time the issue has come up. (Another time had to do with gay alumni wanting to start an official Calvin gay alumni organization. The college wouldn’t allow it.)
  Thanks for the research Andrew! Dave

This does make the liberals’ complaints about the IRD and Ahmanson money look both pathetic and hypocritical—if they were aware of this funding, and given where the money’s been spread, many of them must have been.

Dear ALL,
Thank you ALL so much for sharing your opinion and giving ARCUS publicity and visibility… It is great to read your comments that reflect a lot of confusion and incoherence. It is interesting that you do not realize that MORE your speak (even negatively about ARCUS, you make people curious about it, they do the research about it, go to they web site, read the ARCUS annual report and actually find out that it ALL makes total sense and change their opinion any sometimes start supporting it… Well, THANK YOU for that. You are instrumental and, remember… RESISTANCE IS FUTILE! GLBT movement will win… so… you better NOT waste your time fighting against it…sorry!
Best to ALL!

foot soldier, if you’re going to gloat, it looks a lot better if you polish those sentences up a bit. I guess you were so excited you didn’t have time, huh?

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!

Look footsoldier, some people here were fighting Borg long before Jean Luc Picard.  You’re going to have to come up with something much better than that if you are going to intimidate us.

I wonder how many things in TEC are being funded by outsider secular organizations like this?

RE: “RESISTANCE IS FUTILE! GLBT movement will win… so… you better NOT waste your time fighting against it . . . “

Tee hee—then why bother coming over here to tell us to stop fighting against it?

If it’s all so futile, you didn’t need to tell us to stop fighting.

Which tells me that you’re just . . . scared . . . and bitter . . . and lying, and that’s why you took the time to truck on over to a conservative blog and submit your little . . . fantasy . . .

Toodle—ooo,

Sarah

I can’t wait until fair and balanced communication guy, Jim Naughton updates his follow the money article with this interesting info.

It should be quite easy, as The Lead has reported about the Arcus Foundation’s support of the radical, prog Political Research Associates - which is dedicated to resisting “oppressive” movements, such as traditional Christianity.  Not afraid of hypocrisy, Arcus gave PRA cash to report on the ‘shocking’ activities of the IRD. 

Helpfully, the PRA website notes the association of former ENS executive editor for digital communications: Jan Nunley.  I’m sure fair and balanced Jan could help Jim out with the detail he might need for his sequel.

[32] Sarah

[T]hen why bother coming over here to tell us to stop fighting against it?

To be fair, the most likely motivation is Schadenfreude.  People enjoy pronouncing defeat to their ideological enemies.  They take pleasure in the despair they think such a pronouncement engenders.  Liberals aren’t afraid.  They believe they have won this fight.  Largely, they have. 

The question is “What have they won?”  People aren’t any more accepting of homosexuality in the particular now then they were before.  Fathers still dont wan’t homosexual sons, and that isn’t going to change.  Ever.  Instead we as a collective people have established the principle that sexual morality is determined soley by consent.  In other words, we aren’t defending the legitimacy of homosexuality per se.  We are denying the legitimacy of any public restrictions on consensual sexual behavior.  The legitimization of homosexuality just comes along for the ride. 

We now have only to wait for the privatization of sexual morality to accrue its inevitable consequences.  And then we will all have to live with those consequences.

carl

Sheesh. Call me a liberal but why can’t anyone on any side of this debate fund projects promoting their objectives? We have Focus on the Family and lots of other organizations on the right, as well, which promote their agenda.

subscribe

When you sit down to eat with a ruler,
  observe carefully what is before you,
and put a knife to your throat
  if you are given to appetite.
Do not desire his delicacies,
  for they are deceptive food.
- Prov 23:1-3 (ESV)

RE: “To be fair, the most likely motivation is Schadenfreude.  People enjoy pronouncing defeat to their ideological enemies.  They take pleasure in the despair they think such a pronouncement engenders.  Liberals aren’t afraid.  They believe they have won this fight.  Largely, they have.”

Now see . . . almost all six of these sentences are disparate and unconnected and they cannot all be true at once.

Schadenfreude is the experience of delight and gloating at the failure of one’s enemies.  And it is possible that the commenter was experiencing a mistaken schadenfreude.  But I simply don’t buy it.  In fact, schadenfreude is often experience silently and inwardly without expressing it.  Children are the more likely *public expressors* of schadenfreude, adults are the more likely to be private.  But this particular commenter—an adult surely—has the smell of anger, fear, and bitterness—and people don’t generally feel those things when delighting at the failure of another.

Further, it’s true that the gay activist progressives delight in *pronouncing* defeat—but that is more of an ongoing tactic in their agenda.  The promotion of their ideas as *inevitably successful* is a key tactic—but I simply don’t take it at face value.  And further, engaging in a known tactic of *pronouncing* defeat is not the same thing as schadenfreude, which is looking at the past failure rather than anticipating and promoting a future failure.

Finally, I don’t believe that Liberals believe that they have won the fight.  Otherwise, they would still need to be *pronouncing* defeat as a tactic.  Winners generally “move on” serenely and quietly confident.  Their victory quickly passes from their mind, as they consider other mountains to climb.

Obviously, gay activist progressives have not “moved on” nor are they serenely and quietly confident.  They were dealt a stunning defeat in California of all places, and that set back both their agenda, but more importantly that all-important illusion of success and inevitability.

For the record, I don’t believe their victory to be inevitable nor complete at all.  Not by a long shot.

In fact, I think it possible—not probable, but still possible—that we will be able to look back at the early 21st century as a high water mark of their efforts, with a gradual decline and subsidance of the fad that they have been riding.

Consider this possible alternative scenario.

1) Gay people don’t reproduce—they can’t, and even when they adopt, they cannot with surety create fellow gay activists.  In fact, it is often the case that the “conservative” nature of man [and I don’t mean by that “not fallen” but simply pragmatism and dullness] wins out even in their children. 

2) Gay people are around 2-4% of the population—with 4% being a potentially massively inflated number.  It will be *extraordinarily hard* for that 2-4% to inflict *lasting and permanent* victories on a population.  The math simply does not add up.  Were people good and sweet and self-sacrificing naturally, perhaps.  But people are not generally good and sweet and self-sacrificing enough to institutionalize something that is deadly and harmful to their own children.  Other people’s children perhaps—but not their own.

3) I expect scattered victories by the gay activist progressives.  Those will certainly be milked for all they are worth, and various pronouncements will be made about the “inevitability” of their agenda, with the stunning defeats quickly swept under various rugs and “forgotten” at least in public.  There may even be a period of seeming victory within society.  But I think it will be very very impermanent and tenuous, as dysfunction and unhealth simply do not last.  They cannot, because ultimately those two things kill the host.

At that point, society reverts back to what is pragmatic and helpful.  And homosexuality most certainly is not.

All of my knowledge of organizations tells me that ultimately hosts die when they are taken over by disease and unhealth.  Even in a fallen world, that is the way God made things [after the Fall obviously].  And even the most oppressive, and totalitarian, and corrupt, and fascist systems [which is what would be necessary to force a populace to pretend and act as if the gay activist progressives vision is true, correct, and good]—Soviet Russia—eventually fall, despite holding near complete control over its populace.

Obviously, what would take that system’s place is of interest, too . . . remembering always that people are not good, and sweet, and self-sacrificing.  And that’s where Christianity comes in.  Christians don’t believe on the one hand in acting as if or pretending as if something that is deeply dysfunctional and unhealthy is good and healthy and functional.  But Christians also don’t believe in abusing those persons which have bought into a deeply dysfunctional and unhealthy life, either.

I think that latter issue is of more concern in the long run within society than the maintenance of a fascist society in the long run.

To recap—I don’t at all believe that gay activist progressives are confident in their own heart of victory.  And yes, I think they are angry, and scared, and bitter—precisely because of what I pointed out above.  And I think they do attempt to promote an illusion—of their agenda’s inevitable success.  But as I said . . . having to do that, means it’s not inevitable at all.

Senior Priest, I don’t get your point at all. Are you saying funding should be less discreet, rather than more?

Sarah, your comments sound right to me. It is interesting to note how in the culture at large (run largely by “elites” of some sort, though I hesitate to use that term) gay rights seems largely accepted, but that in the political culture, when put to a vote, gay rights (i.e. marriage and its definition) are shot down, as seen by the more than 30 states that currently have laws, if not constitutional amendments, restricting marriage to its traditional state. Thus we see where the true opinion of “the people” is.

Senior Priest,

RE: “..why can’t anyone on any side of this debate fund projects promoting their objectives?”

This post isn’t debating that topic, but it’s something you might ask of revisionists as they have been the one’s squawking in the most self-righteous tones on the topic. 

For years now the revisionists have been painting themselves as the poor little grass-roots populists who have been unfairly pitted against a few wealthy donors. 

A part of what this post shows is that the revisionists said all of this, while taking large sums of money from wealthy donors.  That is to say, they were being knowingly disingenuous and hypocritical.

Revisionist hypocrisy (my apologies for the redundancy) isn’t exactly news to most of us, and highlighting that hypocrisy wasn’t the purpose for the post; it’s just one of the byproducts of the main story.

As ‘Tired’ posted above, Jim Naughton was one of the chief revisionists complaining about “wealthy donors.”

Therefore you’d expect him to be concerned, for the Arcus Foundation was not the only wealthy donor to give money to the Chicago Consultation. There were several.  Among them was the E. Rhodes and Leona B. Carpenter Foundation, which gave an additional $60,000. 

How do we know this?  Jim Naughton wrote the press release:

http://www.chicagoconsultation.org/article.php?id=30

Sarah, your post #38 seems to me to be right on. Thanks for your insights and your sharing them with us.

so sad that all this time and money is spent on the “gay cause” and not on the “Jesus Cause”...had it been directed properly millions would experience eternal life instead of producing those who search out conservative blogs and smear and gloat…neither very admirable traits.

Canon Jim Naughton of the Dio of Wash: Brother where art thou? we really would like to hesr your response to this reckless reporting of truth.

I can’t see what the fuss is about here. The Arcus Foundation is free to support whatever it wants to support - just like Ahmanson is free to support conservative Anglicans. After all, they are very upfront about this - and it is all in line with what they say they want to do. So as far as I can see this is not a story. But I am pleased to find out about the Arcus Foundation - thanks for the publicity!!

#46 jezzapezza,
A little bit of background for you. You see it was the leading leftist dio of washington who ran an inflamatory article “Following the Money” for several months on the diocesan website written by then editor Jim Naughton. The article attacked conservative individuals for providing financial support to the traditionalist groups. I served as Chair on the Board of the AAC-Washington Chapter, and we strongly protested the posting of the inflamatory article on the diocesan website in writing to Bishop Chane.  My point there was I really didn’t care what Naughton’s personal views were, but he was a salaried communications officer of the diocese and he was using his position to proclaim his personal investigative vendetta against conservative groups-even researching personal IRS records of individuals and organizations and posting same on a diocesan newsletter.  The article remained on the dio website for several weeks, but eventually Mr. Naughton saw the light and toned down his rhetoric and redid the entire format of the dio of wash web blog.
Thanks to Fr. Andrew for researching and posting.

Yes, the point here is the revisionistas have been bleating about sinister outsider organizations like the IRD supposedly pouring money into conservative Anglican coffers in order to influence church politics.  Yet all this time they’ve been secretly accepting money themselves from secular groups to fund their activist agenda. A tad bit hypocritical, no?

A lot of us here have wondered how Integrity gets the dough to fly their members to all those international church conferences.  I guess we have our answer.

It is more than heartening to see that you all posted this additional article.

As I previously stated at another website that had posted an article about the relationship of V.G. Robinson and the Tides Foundation, and yet another that had mentioned the Dunn/Maoist angle in the White House, one should seriously consider watching Glenn Beck on FOX cable at 5pm EDT weekdays as well as click on the following to review previous informative shows on video.

http://www.foxnews.com/glennbeck/

It appears responsible researchers’ serious questions about Tides and Soros and relationships with Acorn, Apollo, etc. and the Obama White House and numerous appointees with far left socialist and acknowledged Marxist backgrounds are more than disturbing.

Are there any possible ties into some of the curious national and international relationships The Episcopal Church appears to support, the personalities they appear to promote, and the activities they appear to engage in?

Is there more to all of this religious “warfare” and blatant attacks upon scripturally based conservatives in all Christian denominations than the mere takeover of once fine and respected organizations for putative theological reasons?

Are there very serious national and international political ramifications to TEC’s acts and failures to act ?

Could any of this have something to do with the fact that governmental systems and law in many free world nations are based upon sound traditional Judeo-Christian principles?

Is it possible there are those who would like to supplant those systems and laws with Marxist or Islamofascist ideologies?

Is it time we looked at all of this from more than just the obvious religious ramifications?

Good research.  And is there an issue here?  A wealthy gay man has a foundation to make life easier for other gay people and fight for their rights.  Is there a story here?  Wealthy people from all groups help others in their group.  Some here call it the “LGBT agenda.”  I call it helping, and it’s fine with me.

I see it as a heads up. Often times we accept money for a project without knowing exactly who the giver is and what strings are attached. And there are always strings attached….

From the actual post:
“...Chicago Conslutation’s…”
A felicitious typo?

#50 eli,
Oh please! Liberal reporters of the LGBT movement attacking Conservative individuals and organizations for their sources of funding when the LGBT were doing the same thing and not a mention of it?

All this rhetoric is not surprising. Thanks for the info now I shall research for myself and see if this is an orgasanization that is worthy of my tithes and vows. I would rather support the apes than the idiots i have placed money into the plates of on Sunday mornins past.

#54 Calhoun,
Yes, please do the research. It will be an eye opener for anyone reviewing factual evidence, and how biased and slanted the press can be in reporting any homosexual matter.