What’s Really Behind the Attack on Our Religious Freedoms

[Download MP3]

Dr. Brown discusses the common thread that united the new atheism, the radical left, and gay activism, also interacting with critics, taking your calls, and weighing in on the latest news at home and abroad. Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.


Hour 1:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Now is the time to stand and be bold. If we’re compromised and cowardly in this day of ease, what’s going to happen when real persecution breaks?

Hour 2:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Friends, while we have the freedoms we have, let’s take advantage of them and be bold, strong, courageous, and fearless.


For a limited time, Dr. Brown is offering the recently released DVD from Jonathan Cahn, The Mystery of the Shemitah Unlocked, along with his CD interview with Jonathan Cahn, for the special price of just $20, postage paid! Order Online Here!

Other Resources:

Dr. Brown Speaks with Dr. Frank Turek About His New Book “Stealing from God”

Comments on World News, the Real Purpose of Religious Liberty Laws, and Much More

Some Honest Questions for Pastor Andy Stanley, and Updates on Campus Morality and on Broadcasting Freedom

1 Comment
  1. Why has religious freedom taken such a hit recently? Is it just a result of the attacks of militant atheism or the radical left?
    I have a different take on this issue of who is to blame for this rapid decline. Read ahead.


    Have you wondered why the judicial pathway has been so easy for “gay marriage,” even when the judges are negating state constitutional amendments passed by large majorities of citizens?

    Ongoing judicial training is required for every judge: local, state, and federal. Did you know that for at least 27 years, gay lawyers and law professors have gained access to local, state, and federal judicial training programs and have taught these judges that religious morality is hatred and homophobia, as evil as racism?

    How did America get to such a terrible place?


    The late Charles W. Socarides, M.D., was clinical professor of psychiatry at Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Montefiore Medical Center in New York. He comments on the dramatic change in attitude toward homosexuality and about the book—After the Ball.

    “My wife, Clare, who has an unerring aptitude for getting to the heart of things, said one day recently in passing, ‘I think everybody’s being brainwashed.’ [all emphases mine] That gave me a start. I know ‘brainwashing’ is a term that has been used and overused. But my wife’s casual observation only reminded me of a brilliant tract I had read several years ago and then forgotten. It was called “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990’s,” by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen.

    That book turned out to be the blueprint gay activists would use in their campaign to normalize the abnormal through a variety of brainwashing techniques once cataloged by Robert Jay Lifton in his seminal work, ‘Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of Brainwashing in China.'”



    Hearing words like “racism,” “hatred,” and “homophobia” evokes a strong, negative emotion in everyone. Associating these negative emotions with “religious morality” (to make religious morality seem evil) is called “transference” or “associative conditioning”. The bad feelings about one are transferred to the other.

    This is the principal brainwashing technique recommended by the gay propaganda manual, “After the Ball”:

    “…makes use of the rules of Associative Conditioning (the psychological process whereby, when two things are repeatedly juxtaposed, one’s feelings about one thing are transferred to the other)…”

    “We mean conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.”

    They add:

    “…our ads are lies… But it makes no difference that the ads are lies…”

    We must always remember that gay propaganda is made of LIES!



    In 1987, these two gay men–Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen–trained in psychology and public persuasion techniques at Harvard, published and promoted a pamphlet called, “The Overhauling of Straight America”. This document outlined their propaganda/brainwashing program to create a new mentality in the public that was favorable to homosexuals and unfavorable to religious people and their Biblical morality:

    “[We] intend to make the antigays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types.”

    The term “demonization” is a common, and apt, way to describe this negative association technique.


    Instantly, national gay leaders took notice and invited these two authors to a “War Conference” of gay leaders in Warrenton, Virginia, in 1988. The letter of invitation reads, in part:

    “You are asked to attend a meeting of gay and lesbian leaders the weekend of February 26-28th at the Airlie House conference center in Virginia.

    A select group of lesbian and gay leaders [including Kirk and Madsen] nationwide are being invited to this conference…”


    The “Final Statement of the War Conference” contains the following ideas, taken mostly from Kirk and Madsen’s propaganda/brainwashing approach.

    “We must better reward our friends and punish our enemies…”

    “We must fight for accurate and affirming treatment of lesbians and gay men in the press, on television, on radio, and in the movies, and not settle for anything less…”

    “First, we recommend a nation-wide media campaign to promote a positive image of gays and lesbians. Every organization—national, state, and local—must accept the responsibility.

    We must consider the media in every project we undertake.

    We must, in addition, take every advantage we can to include public service announcements and paid advertisements, and to cultivate [i.e., brainwash] reporters and editors of newspapers, radio, and television.

    To help facilitate this we need national media workshops to train our leaders…Our media efforts are fundamental to the full acceptance of us in American life.”

    Finally, we must have a national coming-out day, or week, to be held in the fall. We recognize that coming out is a process, not a single event.

    Perhaps the most important statement of all was this:

    “We must pressure law enforcement agencies and the judiciary to provide better protection to our community…”


    Flooding the media, complete with the demonization of religious morality, has been the radical gay propagandists’ tool for brainwashing all Americans and judges in particular.

    From this time on, judges have been brainwashed to internalize gay demonizations about religious morality and to feel about religious objections to homosexuality being as bad as hatred, homophobia [a mental illness/condition], and racism.


    Lesbian law professor, Nancy Polikoff, wrote a report in a gay law journal, “Law & Sexuality” (in 1991), on a judicial training event (in 1988) for all Washington D.C. judges, in which Polikoff participated. The article was entitled “Educating Judges”.

    Judges are aware that the “Model Code of Judicial Conduct…bars bias or prejudice on the basis of sexual orientation”. [all emphases mine] (Law and Sexuality, page 176) This training was a “simulation” or a mock trail about a divorced, Christian man who wanted custody of his children because his former wife was engaging in a lesbian relationship. See this report at:


    Polikoff lays out the foundation for her efforts: the demonizing gay propaganda message about how “Irrational fear and hatred of lesbians and gay men and moral pronouncements derived from the beliefs of some religions pervade society…” (Law and Sexuality, page 191) It her goal that judges accept her demonization of religious morality, internalize that, and act with this “demonization attitude” in court.

    Therefore, as Polikoff admits, the point of these pro-gay training sessions of judges is “the need for continuing education to change [judges’] values and beliefs…” (Law& Sexuality, page 198) to internalize and share Ms. Polikoff’s views. “[It] has been understood that judges laboring under ignorance, prejudice, homophobia, and heterosexism would need to be educated, both to dispel widely held myths and to recognize and overcome prejudice. (Law & Sexuality, page 174)

    Ms. Polikoff admits she scripted her fake “defense” of this man to shoot down all potential arguments against granting the lesbian mother custody. (Law & Sexuality, pages 179, 181, 185, 186, 188-193)

    Here is some of the transcript as written in Law & Sexuality, Vol. 1: 173, pages 173-237 (as they appear at the heading of each page), or pages 53-117 (as tallied at the bottom of the entire document).

    Below, “Ms. Dolkart” is playing the part of the attorney for the lesbian mother and “Dr. Haller” is a psychiatrist ‘expert’ helping to establish certain facts about this issue.

    “Ms. Dolkart: Dr. Haller in making your recommendation did you take into account the father’s attitude toward the mother’s lesbianism?

    Dr. Haller: Yes. He believes his former wife is unfit to raise the children because of her homosexuality, which he finds to be immoral…” (Law and Sexuality, Page 224)”

    “The family [originally] attended church regularly, and the children were active in Sunday School.” (Law and Sexuality, page 199)

    “It is his [Dr. Haller’s] contention that such a situation [with a father opposing his wife’s lesbianism] cannot be conducive to the upbringing of these children, from either a mental health or a religious prospective [sic]. (Law & Sexuality, page 204)

    During this training “[an] attorney in the audience noted the absence from the program of a judge, lawyer, or psychiatrist who felt that homosexuality was a substantial negative factor…”

    “One of the lawyer-commentators [involved in the training] then noted:

    ‘There are people who are still quite openly racist, and I don’t think they would add to the dialogue on racism…’ (Law & Sexuality, pages 196-197)”

    See how judges are deliberately brainwashed to associate the evil of racism with Christian/religious morality and feel negative about both (transference), to the point of disqualifying religious ideas from being heard!


    “The message conveyed by the program and the vote that followed was reinforced in the wrap-up speech for the entire Judicial Conference…

    ‘Homophobia [in this case, religious morality] is brought to the hollow log of the legal system as are racism and sexism.’” (Law and Sexuality, 196)

    So Christian/Biblical morality is nothing but irrational, homophobic, and hatred which are as evil as racism and sexism.


    Are you familiar with the Williams Institute which is involved with “training” even federal judges to look at cases from a gay and lesbian point of view? “The Williams Institute’s Judicial Training Program provides state and federal judges with substantive training on legal issues impacting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.” (my emphases)


    This organization has “trained thousands of…judges”.


    “Examples of Institute education programs include:

    • Judicial Training: Over 2,500 judges in 15 states – including in Colorado, Nevada, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin – have attended Williams Institute judicial training sessions on topics including: LGBT Youth in the Juvenile Justice System, Domestic Violence in Same-Sex Relationships, and Bias in the Courts.”


    More recently, a Williams Institute video claims:

    [1:53] “To date, the Williams Institute has directly trained over 3000 judges across the nation on LGBT issues, testified before Congress about the need for a federal law to protect LGBT workers, and produced key research that helped determine the outcome of the Supreme Court ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act. “


    Psychological Manipulation?

    Some of the titles and descriptions of their “training” infer that they go beyond legal issues to the psychological manipulation (‘brainwashing”) of the feelings of the judges themselves.

    October 22 – 23, 2008

    “Building a Bias-Free Environment in Your Court

    National Judicial College Program
    Reno, Nevada

    “The purpose of this course, which is designed for all judges and judicial educators, is to help judges understand and overcome biases to make reasoned, fair and just decisions. As with other skills-based courses, participatory and interactive exercises are used to build skills and practice techniques…” “Biases,” of course, are any negative attitudes toward homosexuality.



    Williams Institute’s “participatory and interactive exercises” are generally known as “role playing,” a well-known technique of psychological manipulation used for changing attitudes.

    Lesbian law professor, Suzanna B. Goldberg (Columbia Law School), supports this fact in an article for the UCLA Law Review:

    “Some debiasing efforts have been made in connection with judicial trainings, which not only supply up-to-date information regarding doctrine and relevant data related to sexual orientation but also, in some settings, encourage judges to engage in role-taking activities designed to broaden perspectives on the interaction of lesbians, gay men, and the law. See, e.g., The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, Judicial Training Program. http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/Judicial/index.html (last visited June 4, 2010) (‘provid[ing] state and federal judges with substantive training on legal issues impacting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people,’ page 1375)”


    “Handbook of Psychology, Personality and Social Psychology” (page 366) says, “Early research on role playing in persuasion found it to be an effective tool to increase persuasion…actively generating arguments in favor of a given position leads to the active retrieval of supportive information that is uniquely persuasive to the individual and to the inhibition of nonsupporting information.”


    Role-playing a pro-homosexual position manipulates the judge into feeling good about and accepting pro-gay arguments and feeling bad about and rejecting opposing ideas–deliberately mislabeled as “biases”. The judge ends up being biased against those who favor traditional marriage! Several of these “bias” seminars have been done in the past; the most recent was scheduled for October 20-23, 2014.



    Another Williams Institute course reveals collusion with the American Bar Association.

    “April 19, 2012″

    “Presented in partnership with the ABA Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Committee and ABA Judicial Division. ‘New Relationships in Court: Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions Inside and Outside Your Jurisdiction,’ American Bar Association”


    The American Bar Association gives the Williams Institute special commendation for sponsoring such training under the ABA auspices.

    “This series is made possible through the generous support of the Williams Institute, a national think tank dedicated to producing high-quality research on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy.”



    In the recent onslaught of negative decisions about state amendments (standing up for traditional marriage), the gay-trained/brainwashed judges who made these decisions should have recused themselves–refused to judge the cases!

    The Code of Conduct for Federal Judges contains the following points:


    C) Disqualification.(1) A judge shall disqualify [recuse] himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:

    (a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding…”


    Canon 3A (3). The duty to hear all proceedings fairly and with patience is not inconsistent with the duty to dispose promptly of the business of the court. Courts can be efficient and businesslike while being patient and deliberate. The duty under Canon 2 to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary applies to all the judge’s activities, including the discharge of the judge’s adjudicative and administrative responsibilities. The duty to be respectful includes the responsibility to avoid comment or behavior that could reasonably be interpreted as harassment, prejudice or bias.”


    When judges rule against religious morality—as irrational, bias, bigotry, or hatred–they are creating precedent which other judges can use against religious citizens in other cases involving religious freedom. This is an attack upon religious freedom–as it was originally secured in the First Amendment.


    Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has long been recognized as a gay rights supporter. The Advocate, the leading gay news magazine, had the following information in a May 12, 1998 article (page 30, or click on the link below and scroll down to the end of the last column on page 30).

    “When he was confirmed there was a lot of talk that because Kennedy had gay friends, he was a conservative but not a homophobe,” says Arthur S. Leonard, a New York Law School professor and author of Sexuality and the Law: An Encyclopedia of Major Legal Cases. “There is little question that he is a more open-minded justice than Bork would have been.”

    “Not a homophobe” means that Kennedy has been thoroughly indoctrinated in gay rights propaganda. Even the slightest deviation from that program and one is called a “homophobe,” “bigot,” or “hater”.



    Is it hatred to consider gay behavior and desires immoral?

    Is it hatred to consider incest immoral?

    Is it hatred to consider adultery immoral?

    Is it hatred to consider heterosexual sex outside of marriage as immoral?

    Of course not, none of the above involves hatred. To say gay sex is immoral is NOT hatred; to claim that it is hatred is a GAY LIE!

Comments are closed.