Demand O'Reilly, Fox not silence Stephen Bennett

As if Bill O'Reilly's on-air bludgeoning of Stephen Bennett wasn't enough, Fox News now is threatening a lawsuit to silence the truth and scuttle a much-needed ministry that helps homosexuals.

Bennett, a former homosexual, was ambushed and verbally battered by the host of "The O'Reilly Factor" on September 3, 2002, in a nationally televised interview. The fiery host called Bennett an "idiot" and a "religious fanatic" on that day's radio and TV broadcasts. O'Reilly then compared the Christian recording artist to the "Islamic militants who blew up the World Trade Center" on the following night's broadcast.

In doing so, O'Reilly insulted not just Bennett but millions of Americans who believe the Bible and have an honest and sincere love for Jesus Christ. Are you an idiot, like O'Reilly says, for believing the Bible? Are you a religious fanatic for having faith that God can transform people? Then sign the petition to O'Reilly and Fox in support of Bennett continuing to speak the truth. Ask O'Reilly to stop mocking God, His word and His people.

Stephen Bennett did not ask for this effort on his behalf, but his ministry and God's honor are worthy of it. Here's your opportunity to take a righteous stand and help God influence a man who influences America.

Stephen Bennett Ministries released a one-hour audio tape program, called "The O'Reilly Shocker," to defend the Gospel of Jesus Christ and confront O'Reilly's distorted theological remarks, his public support of homosexual special rights and his disparaging comments against the Bible and Christians worldwide. The sound bites allow listeners to hear for themselves the contempt and hate used. The clips are essential for Bennett to properly respond to O'Reilly's claim that those who take the Bible literally are "holy rollers" and "fanatics" who want homosexuals to go to hell.

Obviously seeking to add financial injury to insult, Fox claims Bennett's use of the excerpts is a copyright infringement, despite the fact O'Reilly on Jan. 7 used several minutes of copyrighted audio clips from Phil Donohue's show on MSNBC, for commercial purposes, only to mock Donahue. Fox's law firm has warned Bennett not only to stop distributing the tape but to turn over all remaining copies. If Bennett does not comply, Fox will file a lawsuit seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief.

But the lawsuit isn't the key to this issue. It's O'Reilly's continuing efforts to silence the truth. Bennett, a former homosexual, seeks to help, not hurt, homosexuals. From his experience and that of thousands of others, Bennett offers great hope that NO ONE is born homosexual and that complete change is entirely possible.

He became a Christian in 1992 and completely abandoned his homosexual past. Today, happily married more than nine years to his wife Irene, he advocates the traditional family and takes a vocal stand against the promotion of homosexuality to America and our children.

Calling the threat "retaliation against Steve for exposing O'Reilly's unwavering support for the homosexual agenda," Senior Litigation Counsel Michael DePrimo promises the American Family Association's Center for Law & Policy will "vigorously defend Bennett against any lawsuit brought by Fox News or O'Reilly."

But your help still is needed: Don't let Fox and O'Reilly continue to mistakenly call anyone a "fanatic" who knows God can and will rescue men and women from homosexuality. We must make a special effort to help O'Reilly and others realize Bennett is speaking the truth, backed by successful results. A flood of petitions may not change obstinate minds or hardened hearts, but it will let Fox and O'Reilly know Bennett represents not a fringe few but the mainstream of American Christianity on this crucial issue.

O'Reilly has stated he has "problems with the Old Testament," doesn't believe the Epistles "because they are not the Gospel" and sees much of the Bible as allegorical. Yet if O'Reilly has made himself an enemy of God and Bible-believing Christians, then we must love him and pray for him as Jesus instructs in Matthew 5:44. To correct O'Reilly's mistaken impression, we must let him know we are praying for -- not against -- homosexuals. Though the petition below chides O'Reilly and his network, after signing you'll learn more about how your prayers can bless Bill and the homosexuals he so viciously champions.

There is something different, deeper about this issue. O'Reilly's success springs from his opinionated views and his willingness to allow those on the other side of an issue to present their arguments. When it comes to homosexuality, however, O'Reilly strangely becomes a hypocrite unwilling to engage in rational discussion.

And now he is reaching for his lawyers to keep the facts of his attack on Bennett and the truth about homosexuality silenced. Don't let him or the network get away with such unprofessional and disrespectful conduct. Forgive him, yes, but let him know his disparaging, derogatory remarks are an insult to all Bible-believing Christians. Stand up for Bennett and be counted! Together, Lord willing, we can make a difference in American society.

Phil Sheldon
ConservativePetitions.com

PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION!
Then email everyone you know!

sneakypete, no one is born/oriented to eat feces.

Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do FECAL SEX About 80% of gays (see Table) admit to licking and/or inserting their tongues into the anus of partners and thus ingesting medically significant amounts of feces. Those who eat or wallow in it are probably at even greater risk. In the diary study,5 70% of the gays had engaged in this activity--half regularly over 6 months. Result? --the "annual incidence of hepatitis A in...homosexual men was 22 percent, whereas no heterosexual men acquired hepatitis A." In 1992,26 it was noted that the proportion of London gays engaging in oral/anal sex had not declined since 1984.

Homosexual behavior increases risk of AIDS - Dr. Brian J. Kopp, ...

Public health records demonstrate that homosexuals, representing 2 percent of America's population, suffer vastly disproportionate percentages of several of America's most serious STDs, with incidences among homosexuals of diseases like gonorrhea, syphilis, hepatitis A and B, cytomegalovirus, shigellosis, giardiasis, amoebic bowel disease and herpes far exceeding their presence in the general population. These are due to common homosexual practices that include fellatio, anilingus, digital stimulation of the rectum and ingestion of urine and feces.

An exhaustive study in The New England Journal of Medicine, medical literature's only study reporting on homosexuals who kept sexual "diaries," indicated the average homosexual ingests the fecal material of 23 different men each year. The same study indicated the number of annual sexual partners averaged nearly 100. Homosexuals averaged, per year, fellating 106 different men and swallowing 50 of their seminal ejaculations, and 72 penile penetrations of the anus. (Corey, L, and Holmes, K.K., "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men," New England Journal of Medicine, 1980, vol 302: 435-438; as quoted in "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992).

A study by McKusick, et al., of 655 San Francisco homosexuals reported that only 24 percent of the sample claimed to have been "monogamous" during the past year, and of this 24 percent, 5 percent drank urine, 7 percent engag-ed in sex involving insertion of a fist in their rectums, 33 percent ingested feces, 53 percent swallowed semen and 59 percent received semen in their rectums in the month just previous to the survey ("AIDS and Sexual Behavior Reported by Homosexual Men in San Francisco," American Journal of Public Health, December 1985, 75: 493-496; quoted in "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992).

Lesbians show similar patterns of high venereal disease incidence relative to the general population. They are 19 times more likely to have had syphilis, twice as likely to have had genital warts, four times as likely to have had scabies, seven times more likely to have had infection from vaginal contact, 29 times more likely to have had oral infection from vaginal contact and 12 times more likely to have had an oral infection from penile contact ("Medical Aspects of Homosexuality," Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality, 1985, Jaffe and Keewhan, et al.; quoted in "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992).

AIDS research by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported that the typical homosexual interviewed claimed to have had more than 500 different sexual partners in a lifetime. Considered by themselves, the AIDS victims in this study averaged more than 1,100 lifetime sexual partners. Some reported as many as 20,000. Studies reported by A-P. Bell, M.S. Weinberg and S.K. Hammersmith in the book "Sexual Preference" (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1981) indicated that only 3 percent of homosexuals had fewer than 10 lifetime sexual partners. Only about 2 percent could be classified as either monogamous or semi-monogamous (from "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992).

BURGER, C.J., Concurring Opinion

As the Court notes, ante at 192 , the proscriptions against sodomy have very "ancient roots." Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization. Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards. Homosexual sodomy was a capital crime under Roman law. See Code Theod. 9.7.6; Code Just. 9.9.31. See also D. Bailey, Homosexuality [p*197] and the Western Christian Tradition 70-81 (1975). During the English Reformation, when powers of the ecclesiastical courts were transferred to the King's Courts, the first English statute criminalizing sodomy was passed. 25 Hen. VIII, ch. 6. Blackstone described "the infamous crime against nature" as an offense of "deeper malignity" than rape, a heinous act "the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature," and "a crime not fit to be named." 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *215. The common law of England, including its prohibition of sodomy, became the received law of Georgia and the other Colonies. In 1816, the Georgia Legislature passed the statute at issue here, and that statute has been continuously in force in one form or another since that time. To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.

This is essentially not a question of personal "preferences," but rather of the legislative authority of the State. I find nothing in the Constitution depriving a State of the power to enact the statute challenged here.

I'm with you. I'm no copyright attorney, but if you're making money off of someone else's intellectual property, then there's going to be a problem. Mr. Bennett is not giving this stuff away; he is selling it.

I don't agree with O'Reilly most of the time, but I think he's right about adoptions and unions. From a pragmatic standpoint, is it better for a child to exist in an unemotional foster system, or to be truely loved by another human being? In a "perfect" world, every kid would grow up in a married heterosexual two parent home. Sans that utopia, what are we left to deal with? And as to unions, I see no legitimate reason to stop two adults from entering into a binding contract where they share their "stuff" (ie. money, house, cars, etc.).

With that said, I can understand your concerns about Mr. Bennett and the possible negative consequences to the gay community. However, I do not believe the "gay-lifestyle" is in accordance with Christian teaching, and I also believe that through the power of God people can switch their sexual orientations. I sincerely believe Mr. Bennett offers a service that people can actually benefit from.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.