Whatcott responds: Sodomites and the Supreme Court of Canada

Get togethers, protests, pickets, activism, discuss it here!

Will you help Bill Whatcott get this truthful flyer out?

Yes, God has called us to witness to what is true, and I believe it is my duty to help Bill speak the truth
3
100%
Yes, I disagree with Bill, but I will help out in the name of free speech
0
No votes
No, I would love to help out Bill but I can't
0
No votes
No, I agree with Bill but I am afraid of the consequences, should I help him out
0
No votes
No, I agree with the Supreme Court of Canada
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 3

Whatcott responds: Sodomites and the Supreme Court of Canada

Postby Bill Whatcott » Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:04 pm

Here is my newest flyer:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sodomites and the Supreme Court of Canada
Image
Chief Justice McLachlin (bum left) of the Supreme Court of Canada vigorously defended free speech for Nazis in the 1990s, but sided with disingenuous censorship in the Whatcott case on Feb 27, 2013. Justice Marshall Rothstein (bum right) wrote the ungodly Whatcott decision.

Dear Friends,

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that my fact based and Biblically redemptive flyers distributed throughout Saskatoon in 2001 meet Canada’s “objective” definition of “hate speech.” Of course there is nothing “objective” about the Supreme Court’s definition of so-called “hate speech.” North American Christians from various denominations and walks of life who are not hateful at all like my flyers enough to support them. Three Saskatchewan Court of Appeal Justices looked at my flyers and decided they did not meet the definition of “hate speech.” Six Supreme Court justices, one who previously defended free speech rights for Nazis, have decided my flyers constitute “hate speech” and should be censored.

The reasoning for ruling that two of my four flyers should be deemed “hate speech” is specious and fantastical at best, or dishonest and totalitarian at worst. My two flyers deemed “legal” by the “learned ones” were photocopies from a homosexual magazine’s classified section of a “28 year old man seeking boys.... exchanging videos, pics and more....age not so relevant.” The probable homosexual pedophile has never been investigated as far as I know,. I got prosecuted for exposing this ad, but at least our Supremes have decided that showing verbatim photocopies of men seeking boy ads is legal for the time being.

My two flyers deemed “hate speech” were arguments against the promotion of homosexuality in Saskatchewan public schools. The Supremes didn’t like that I used the Biblical word “sodomite” to describe folks who commit sodomy and they thought using statistics showing the down side of homosexual behaviour, even if backed up with peer reviewed studies, should be censored if it could cause someone to get a negative impression of homosexual behaviour. I described some disturbing events that actually happened in American public schools, such as the “Fistgate” scandal where homosexual “educators” had children exposed to graphic instruction and vulgar language. The homosexual educators were taped promoting anal sex, oral sex, sadomasochism, fisting and a host of other high risk perversions to school children.

The Supremes did not like my facts, as truth about sexually deviant behaviour gets in the way of imposing a politically correct take on homosexuality, so they came up with this excuse for censorship in their Whatcott ruling.

Rothstein writes, “Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction.”

There you got it. Label truthful statements you don’t like “hate speech” and therein lies your excuse for censoring the statements you don’t like.

Christian activists like myself point to high disease rates endemic to the homosexual lifestyle as a vindication of God’s word that homosexual sex is contrary to His will and a violation of natural law.

“For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.”
Romans 1:26-28

I don’t have to make up statistics to make my point homosexual sex is a bad idea, the Centre for Disease control, as pro-homosexual as they are, can’t escape publishing the obvious:

For gay and bisexual men, HIV, hepatitis, and other STDs are of particular concern. For example, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM is more than 44 times that of other men, while the rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men.http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/for-your-health.htm

Well facts are facts, so the Supremes have simply ruled in their Whatcott decision that if facts meet the “Hallmarks of Hate” they are illegal and liable to prosecution. In addition to disregarding facts about homosexuality’s downside, the Supreme Court decided to engage in politically correct fantasy to justify shutting down my flyer ministry.

Rothstein writes, "Hate speech lays the groundwork for later, broad attacks on vulnerable groups that can range from discrimination, to ostracism, segregation, deportation, violence and, in the most extreme cases, to genocide.”

Keep in mind we are talking about flyers disagreeing with homosexuality being taught in public schools in my decision, not a call to genocide. In the past dozen years, I have put out more than a hundred thousand flyers on various troubling aspects of the homosexual lifestyle and agenda. Of course I want to persuade people homosexuality is a bad idea, for obvious reasons! In the absence of any evidence of violence (except the occasional angry homosexual or sympathizer threatening and assaulting me) the Supremes simply create a fantasy that my flyers could potentially lead to genocide!

Rothstein further writes, “Hate speech can also distort or limit the robust and free exchange of ideas by its tendency to silence the voice of its target group.” Anyone living in Canada during the last dozen years of my flyer campaign know the homosexual activists have not had their speech or ideas limited. This is another Supreme Court fantasy devoid of supporting evidence. We know homosexuals get to show off their bums while marching in “Gay Pride” parades, their “Gay Straight Alliances” are not only implemented in public schools in every province, they are now being forced on private Christian schools in some provinces. Homosexuals have favourable and frequent coverage in all major media, while pro-family Christians are either ignored or maligned. The idea my flyers are preventing the free exchange of ideas is simply rubbish. It is the Human Rights Tribunals and Supreme Court that is preventing debate and the free exchange of information.

Rothstein falsely writes in the Whatcott judgement I compare all homosexuals to pedophiles. I did no such thing, I have simply stated and continue to state pedophilia and its acceptance is more prevalent in the homosexual subculture than in mainstream culture. I’m not the only one who says this. Steve Baldwin, a former California Assemblyman cites sources similar to mine in this article written for the Regent University Law Review: http://mail.famguardian.org/Subjects/Se ... aldwin.pdf

Rothstein writes, “The prohibition on further distribution of Flyers D and E, are reinstated.” I guess it’s illegal for me to print my flyers and show them to you in my defense; none the less the Supreme Court put my flyers on its website and if you scroll to the bottom of my judgement, you can see them for yourself. You can decide if they equate homosexuality with pedophilia, are hateful, potentially genocidal, or something that should be illegal:
http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/sc ... 6/index.do

Rothstein writes, “Given that Mr. Whatcott was found in contravention of the Code, the Commission is awarded costs throughout, including costs of the application for leave to appeal in this Court.

In actual fact I had a partial victory. The two flyers exposing a homosexual magazine that allowed ads for “man...seeking boys...age not so relevant” were exonerated and the Human Rights Commission was found to be overzealous in its censorship.

Karen Selick writes in the Ottawa Citizen, “The final ugly blemish in this SCC decision is the order that William Whatcott pay the legal costs of his opponent,...The costs order departs so markedly from what would normally occur under circumstances of divided results that it appears purely spiteful. It was definitely unworthy of our highest court.”

The fine for the flyers you can see on the Supreme Court website is $7,500 and the court costs will be somewhere in the tens of thousands of dollars. Christian activists are generally not rich and having sacrificed my nursing career to fight for the unborn more than a decade ago, I am certainly considered poor as far as earthly possessions go. I have no way of paying such costs and my conscience would never allow me to submit to such an unjust order anyways. Christians who speak too strongly against the sin of homosexuality should take note the Canadian judicial system will use its power to destroy you.

Homosexual activists are historically not kind when they succeed in bringing one of their opponents down. My future is uncertain and I will ask that my fellow Christians who read this flyer to pray for me. I won’t stop speaking the truth and am prepared to lose my freedom and what few assets I have, rather than be silenced and reject the cross my Saviour has for me. The good news is God is still in control and truth which is rooted in Scripture and natural law has a way of prevailing, even when courts with supposedly learned men and women seek to suppress it.

In Christ’s Service
Bill Whatcott, Ph: 306-861-6140, e-mail: billwhatcott @gmail.com, website: http://www.freenorthamerica.ca

Contact Premier Brad Wall and demand he defund the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission!

Telephone: (306) 787-9433
Facsimile: (306) 787-0885
E-mail: premier@gov.sk.ca

You, O Lord reign forever, your throne endures to all generations.” Lamentations 5:19
User avatar
Bill Whatcott
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 6700
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:33 am
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Whatcott responds: Sodomites and the Supreme Court of Ca

Postby Bill Whatcott » Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:34 pm

Dear Friends, if you can help out with this literature drop please let me know.

I will be at the following campuses for the graphic abortion sign prophetic witnesses:

University of Regina, Regina, SK
Wascana Parkway and Kramer Blvd
Wednesday, March 6, 3:00 - 4:00 PM

University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK
North Side, College Dr and Bottemley Ave
Thursday, March 7, 3:00 - 4:00 PM

University of Alberta, Edmonton AB
In front of main entrance HUB Mall
Located in the eastern portion of the University of Alberta North Campus
West on 111 St on 90th Ave
Friday, March 8, 1:00 - 2:00 PM

MacEwan University (City Centre Campus)
104 Ave and 107 St (North Side)
Friday, March 8, 3:30 -4:30 PM

University of Calgary
24 Ave NW and University Drive
Saturday, March 9, 1:00 - 2:00 PM


Thanks to some recent donations I have a few hundred flyers exposing the anarchist group Pussy Riot which the left media is campaigning for, (see the flyer here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=9520) and my flyers are exposing the plight of Canada's pro-life political prisoners Linda Gibbonsand Mary Wagner in contrast. Due to my Supreme Court judgement, I would like to make a few thousand of this new flyer if possible. I need volunteers and money to make the wide distribution of this new flyer possible.

For those who can't leaflet, but would like to support my work financially, donations can be sent to:

Bill Whatcott
C/0 Weyburn Pro-life
423 Souris Ave, Weyburn, SK
Canada
S4H 0C9


Alternatively, if you can't help in one of the cities I am visiting this week, I would encourage you to print my flyer out and deliver it in your local neighbourhood. Brave Christians belonging to a movement known as the "White Rose" sacrificed their lives and defied German censorship by distributing flyers to bring the atrocities of Hitler to the attention of the German people during the Second World War. No one in Canada will face death for speaking out, but thanks to apathy and cowardliness we are definitely losing our freedom and the homosexual attack on religious liberty and free speech will not stop with the Supreme Court's Whatcott decision.

"If you faint in the day of adversity, Your strength is small." Proverbs 24:10
User avatar
Bill Whatcott
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 6700
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:33 am
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Whatcott responds: Sodomites and the Supreme Court of Ca

Postby Doc Notgay » Mon Mar 04, 2013 9:23 am

It looks like most of the professional organizations are stuck with their share of liberal cowards. Unfortunately the Supreme Court is one of them and has demonstrated this for all to see. Shameful! nono2
Doc Notgay
FNA Disciple
FNA Disciple
 
Posts: 439
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 10:42 pm

Re: Whatcott responds: Sodomites and the Supreme Court of Ca

Postby Bill Whatcott » Mon Mar 04, 2013 6:01 pm

I had a rather intense interview today on Toronto's most listened to talk radio show CFRB 1010. We discussed my new flyer "Sodomites and the Supreme Court of Canada." I believe I made some very good points in exposing the Supreme Court of Canada's disingenuous and illogical reasoning in outlawing my so-called "hate speech." There are legitimate reasons to debate the moral concerns and social concerns related to the homosexual agenda.
User avatar
Bill Whatcott
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 6700
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:33 am
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Whatcott responds: Sodomites and the Supreme Court of Ca

Postby Bill Whatcott » Mon Mar 04, 2013 7:34 pm

Well, I am pleased to get this in my e-mail. My flyers have not hit the street yet, and already one letter hit the Premier's desk asking for the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission to be defunded...... :happy:

From Renata Ostertag

to premier
Attn: Brad Wall, Saskatchewan Premier

Sir, we herewith demand that you defund immediately the above commission.
SHRC do not stand for human rights, but for the opposite - namely, the violation
of human rights in an Orwellian manner.
User avatar
Bill Whatcott
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 6700
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:33 am
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Whatcott responds: Sodomites and the Supreme Court of Ca

Postby Bill Whatcott » Mon Mar 04, 2013 8:29 pm

An excellent letter from Mr. E. Khalil !!!! blessyou



To Premier

Subject: Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission

and Freedom of Speech

The Right Hon. Brad Wall, Premier of Saskatchewan

Sir,
it has come to our family's attention that the SHRC forbids Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech is absolute and a God-given right.
We are by nature endowed to love, hate, dislike and whatever, and distribute written material about our likes and dislikes and nobody must attempt to take this away from us.

As a matter of fact the Moslems freely distribute such literature (we know - we are born Moslems and raised as such), and the SHRC has not forbidden us this.
The SHRC and the SCC have violated these rights as we all have read, heard, witnessed .... a few days ago in the Bill Whatcott case.

Since then, we feel we are all Bill Whatcott. It must be the first time since the Dark Ages that somebody was forbidden to speak the truth! Galileo (!) - as just one name!
What Mr. Whatcott says is true and thus has nothing to do with 'hate speech'.

What must be forbidden is the SHRC and other 'commissions' like them. Not Bill Whatcott ! We taxpayers are tired of funding these rights violating organisations.

In short - please DEFUND the SHRC immediately ! Thank you Mr. Wall.

Sincerely yours,

E. Khalil and extended family
User avatar
Bill Whatcott
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 6700
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:33 am
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Whatcott responds: Sodomites and the Supreme Court of Ca

Postby evolution8 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 9:42 pm

Very well said Renata and Khalil! respect001
Thank you for your support! blessyou
evolution8
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 9291
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:08 am
Location: Philippines

Re: Whatcott responds: Sodomites and the Supreme Court of Ca

Postby Bill Whatcott » Tue Mar 05, 2013 7:22 pm

Whatcott: Supreme Court labelled truth ‘hate speech’ in homosexuality case
BY PETER BAKLINSKI
Mon Mar 04, 2013 18:23 ESTComments (21)
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/whatco ... dium=email

WEYBURN, Saskatchewan, 4 March, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Not finding vindication in Canada’s highest court, the country’s most controversial self-styled Christian evangelist has taken to the blogosphere to defend his innocence and exonerate himself from the judges’ unanimous pronouncement that he is guilty of “hate speech”.

“The reasoning for ruling that two of my four flyers should be deemed ‘hate speech’ is specious and fantastical at best, or dishonest and totalitarian at worst,” wrote Bill Whatcott today on his blog FreeNorthAmerica.

Whatcott said that two of his flyers deemed hate speech by the Court contained only facts about the dangers of the homosexual lifestyle and the biblical word for men who have sex with men.

“The Supremes didn’t like that I used the Biblical word ‘sodomite’ to describe folks who commit sodomy and they thought using statistics showing the down side of homosexual behaviour, even if backed up with peer reviewed studies, should be censored if it could cause someone to get a negative impression of homosexual behaviour.”

“The Supremes did not like my facts,” he said.

While many object to Whatcott’s use of strident language and tone to convey his points in his flyers, many of the same have also condemned the Court’s decision as an unprecedented infringement of freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

In a statement that has practically received universal condemnation from both left and right, the Supreme Court Judge Rothstein wrote that “truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction.”

Critics across the spectrum have slammed the Court for ruling that truth is subject to restriction. Some lawyers have argued that what this means legally is that truth is no longer a defense.

“Even if something may be true, it’s not a defense at Human Rights Tribunals, and that is particularly scary,” said Chris Schafer, executive director of Canadian Constitution Foundation, to Sun News.

“The court didn’t just ban hateful religious views,” wrote Ezra Levant, lawyer, political activist, and broadcaster for Sun News. “It banned hateful speech that was objectively, scientifically true. As in, indisputable facts, if they might cause someone to hate someone else.”

Whatcott called the judges’ restriction of truth an “excuse for censoring.”

“There you got it. Label truthful statements you don’t like ‘hate speech’ and therein lies your excuse for censoring the statements you don’t like.”

Whatcott said that medical studies vindicate his warnings about the dangers of the homosexual lifestyle. He pointed to the secular U.S. Centre for Disease Control (CDC), which found that the “rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM (men who have sex with men) is more than 44 times that of other men, while the rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men.” For this reason, the CDC called HIV, hepatitis, and other STDs “of particular concern” for gay and bisexual men.

“Well facts are facts, so the Supremes have simply ruled in their Whatcott decision that if facts meet the ‘Hallmarks of Hate’ they are illegal and liable to prosecution,” said Whatcott.

Despite the ruling, Whatcott has decided to continue publicly witnessing against homosexuality with plans to hand out more flyers this week.

“I won’t stop speaking the truth and am prepared to lose my freedom and what few assets I have, rather than be silenced and reject the cross my Saviour has for me,” he said.

“The good news is God is still in control and truth which is rooted in Scripture and natural law has a way of prevailing, even when courts with supposedly learned men and women seek to suppress it.”
User avatar
Bill Whatcott
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 6700
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:33 am
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Whatcott responds: Sodomites and the Supreme Court of Ca

Postby Doc Notgay » Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:28 pm

God will never disappoint us. :angelwithbell:
Doc Notgay
FNA Disciple
FNA Disciple
 
Posts: 439
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 10:42 pm

Re: Whatcott responds: Sodomites and the Supreme Court of Ca

Postby evolution8 » Tue Mar 05, 2013 11:30 pm

When free speech died in Canada
Tue Mar 05, 2013 18:42 EST
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/when-f ... dium=email


BY JOE CARTER

March 5, 2013
(ActonInstitute) - When future historians attempt to narrow down the exact point at which the concept of free speech died in Canada, they’ll likely point to Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, specifically this sentence:

Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction.

Jesus might have claimed that “the truth will set you free” but in Canada speaking the same truths proclaimed in God’s Word could potentially land you in jail.

“The ruling and the reasoning [behind it] is terrible,” defendant Bill Whatcott told LifeSiteNews.com. “They actually used the concept that truth is not a defense.”

The court ruled that making claims which could be construed as “detesting or vilifying” homosexual behavior is enough to classify speech as “hate speech”:

Courts have recognized a strong connection between sexual orientation and sexual conduct and where the conduct targeted by speech is a crucial aspect of the identity of a vulnerable group, attacks on this conduct stand as proxy for attacks on the group itself. If expression targeting certain sexual behaviour is framed in such a way as to expose persons of an identifiable sexual orientation to what is objectively viewed as detestation and vilification, it cannot be said that such speech only targets the behaviour. It quite clearly targets the vulnerable group.

The ruling also states that suppression of “hate speech”—such as claiming that homosexual behavior is immoral—is so important that it justifies infringing on religious freedom and provides a basis for a “reasonable limit on freedom of religion and is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

This standard is then used to justify a draconian standard of censorship:

If, despite the context of the entire publication, even one phrase or sentence is found to bring the publication, as a whole, in contravention of the Code, this precludes its publication in its current form.

The court used the preceding standard to scrutinize flyers that Mr. Whatcott distributed in 2001 and 2002. The language Whatcott uses is admittedly harsh and uncivil, but it does not rise to any reasonable standard of “hate speech.” In fact, the Court even considered whether a quotation of Matthew 18:6 can be characterized as “hate speech.” The court determined that it was not and added:

While use of the Bible as a credible authority for a hateful proposition has been considered a hallmark of hatred, it would only be unusual circumstances and context that could transform a simple reading or publication of a religion’s holy text into what could objectively be viewed as hate speech.

This is, of course, utter nonsense. By the court’s own ruling the presence of Leviticus 18:22 (“Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.”) would warrant classifying the Bible as a hate speech document. The court clearly states that,

If expression targeting certain sexual behaviour is framed in such a way as to expose persons of an identifiable sexual orientation to what is objectively viewed as detestation and vilification, it cannot be said that such speech only targets the behaviour. It quite clearly targets the vulnerable group. [emphasis added]

If criticism of homosexual behavior is construed as criticism of homosexuals then a “simple reading” of the Lev. 18 and context clearly shows that the passage “could objectively be viewed as hate speech.”

Not surprisingly, many religious groups find the ruling and its implications disconcerting. According to LifeSiteNews, the Catholic Civil Rights League is concerned over the court’s equating homosexual activity with homosexual persons such that it turns criticism of sexual behaviour into “hate-speech” of an identifiable minority.

“A key teaching of Christianity is to hate the sin, but love the sinner,” said CCRL president Phil Horgan, pointing out that as a society, “we incarcerate convicted persons for their crimes, not out of hate for the individual.”

“But with Whatcott, the SCC has stated that criticism of behaviour(s) can be treated as potentially hateful speech against the minority. Will criticism of activities at gay pride parades be treated similarly? Will criticism of certain homosexual sexual activities be now conflated as an example of hate speech of an individual or minority? This conflation of behaviour with the person or group, is a proposition at odds with most religious teachings, and of concern coming from our highest court.”

Where speech can be punished as “hate” and truth ceases to be a defense, free speech cannot exist. As Donald R. McClarey says, “Canada no longer has freedom of speech. The Supreme Court of Canada killed it.”
evolution8
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 9291
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:08 am
Location: Philippines

Re: Whatcott responds: Sodomites and the Supreme Court of Ca

Postby Bill Whatcott » Wed Mar 06, 2013 9:12 am

200 flyers hitting University of Regina in 2 hours please pray for God to work through this truth assault....... pray1

"To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice." Proverbs 21:3
User avatar
Bill Whatcott
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 6700
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:33 am
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Whatcott responds: Sodomites and the Supreme Court of Ca

Postby evolution8 » Wed Mar 06, 2013 9:22 am

May the Holy Trinity be with you today honey. You take care! pray1 blessyou
evolution8
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 9291
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:08 am
Location: Philippines

Re: Whatcott responds: Sodomites and the Supreme Court of Ca

Postby Ebedmelech » Wed Mar 06, 2013 9:24 am

Image
No matter how hard the unrepentant sodomites and their enablers try to silence those who tell the absolute truth they will fail.
"If he turn not, he will whet his sword; he hath bent his bow and made it ready."—Psalm 7:12.
(From: REV. C. H. Spurgeon Turn or Burn Sermon 106 Spurgeon Archive)
IF THE SINNER turn not, God will whet his sword." So, then, God has a sword, and he will punish man on account of his iniquity. This evil generation hath laboured to take away from God the sword of his justice; they have endeavoured to prove themselves that God will "clear the guilty," and will by no means "punish iniquity, transgression and sin."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Image
Image
From website: Sodom, Gomorrah and the Cities of the Plain-Ron Wyatt

The Discovery
The Genesis Narrative

And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered every where, before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, even as the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar.

(Genesis 13:10 KJV)
But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.
(Genesis 13:13 KJV)
Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; (Genesis 19:24 KJV)
And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace
(Genesis 19:28 KJV)
The Warning of Sodom and Gomorrah

And that the whole land thereof is brimstone, and salt, and burning, that it is not sown, nor beareth, nor any grass groweth therein, like the overthrow of Sodom, and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim, which the LORD overthrew in his anger, and in his wrath: (Deu 29:23 KJV)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jude 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
User avatar
Ebedmelech
FNA Disciple
FNA Disciple
 
Posts: 382
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:46 am
Location: Southern Ontario

Re: Whatcott responds: Sodomites and the Supreme Court of Ca

Postby evolution8 » Wed Mar 06, 2013 5:34 pm

Bill will be interviewed on AM770 tonight at 10 (Regina time) about his flyer distribution at the University of Regina.

http://player.qr77.com/
evolution8
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 9291
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:08 am
Location: Philippines


Return to Gatherings and Activism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron