Distortion and misrepresentation of my writings by Birkey opened door to national audience.

The liberal bias of the mainstream media is well documented. Whenever I'm interviewed, the story is usually slanted in a liberal direction. I've come to expect that.

What I've generally found though is the writer or reporter usually fairly quotes or represents what I said even if the overall story has a liberal slant. But such was not the case recently with Andy Birkey of Minnesota Independent, a left/liberal, pro-gay, alternative media newsblog and his reporting of the bullying controversy in the Anoka Hennepin school district.

In this instance, Birkety distorted and misrepresented what I had actually wrote in a blog post.

First, Birkey wrote that I said, "... the students are dead because they adopted an 'unhealthy lifestyle.'" If you look my blog post, I said no such thing about the tragic teen suicides in Anoka Hennepin.

Second, Birkey wrote: "Prichard asserts that the suicide death of 15-year-old Justin Aaberg was not due to anti-LGBT bullying." Again, I never wrote or asserted that. What I did say, which he actually quoted later in his article, was “Whatever the exact reason for Justin’s suicide it’s an enormous tragedy..."

And finally, he quoted me as saying, " that “homosexual activists” share in the blame when LGBT students commit suicide because “they’ve embraced an unhealthy sexual identity and lifestyle.”"Again, I never said that in my blog post.

Certainly Andy is free to vehemently disagree with me and write the kind of news story he wants, but he crosses an ethical line and damages his own credibility as a reporter when he distorts and misrepresents what a person actually says or writes.

I remember dealing with a reporter from the now defunct homosexual newspaper "Equal Times". Though the reporter, I'm sure, disagreed with me on most things, I found her a fair journalist. She quoted me accurately and I respected her for that.

An interesting side note to Andy's distortion of my blog post comments was it ironically opened the door for me get my views out on the bullying controversy nationally on CNN's Anderson Cooper's 360 program.

Liberal news blog article highlights mindset of liberals who support marginalizing and privatizing religious liberties over homosexual marriage.

Andy Birkey with the Minnesota Independent a left/liberal news blog, takes issue with my assertion that religious liberties will invariably be attacked once homosexual marriage is legalized. He takes issue specifically with my recent blog post analogizing attacks to come from legalizing homosexual marriage with a recent New Jersey state discrimination ruling against a Methodist church group which refused to allow it's facility to be used for a homosexual civil union ceremony.

Rather than rebutting my concerns Birkey actually confirms them and provides an excellent example of the liberal mindset regarding privatization of religious faith and belief.

He begins by saying that these doomsday scenarios don't jive with the facts and the issue with the Methodist group in New Jersey is simply about getting tax breaks and benefits from the state not religious freedom.

But what’s missing from the story is that the church in question, Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, got tax breaks from the state of New Jersey because it has for years allowed the public to use its Boardwalk Pavilion for secular and religious events. The church also received state funding to improve the infrastructure around the pavilion. Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster requested to have their civil union ceremony at that pavilion and paid taxes that went to the church to pay for the pavilion.

In other words, if the public endorses recognition of homosexual relationships, religious groups which operate in the public should recognize and endorse such relationships through the use of their facilities which are made available to the public. Yet that's the point concerning threats to religious liberties -- religious groups which operate in the public must sacrifice their religious beliefs and convictions in order to continue operating in the public.

He points to the decision by the New Jersey civil rights division which ruled that if a religious group wants to operate in public it has to sacrifice it's publicly expressed, religiously based convictions to do so.

But the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights was pretty clear when it handed down its ruling against the church on Dec. 29: “When it invites the public at large to use it, the Association is subject to the Law Against Discrimination, and enforcement of that law in this context does not affect the Association’s constitutionally protected right to free exercise of religion.”

Birkey concludes by saying:

It’s another case of the religious right’s wanting its cake (taxpayer funds) and eating it too (denying rights to gays and lesbians).

So if religious groups want to operate in public they should expect to sacrifice their religious convictions or accept being treated as second class citizens, e.g. don't expect to participate as a tax exempt organization. But that's an example of the loss of religious liberties I'm talking about. The choice is either shut up about your religious convictions and be involved publicly or withdraw from public life. And of course, one can expect to face punitive fines under discrimination laws to insure you toe the line.

A good analogy for what will happen if marriage is redefined can be drawn from the treatment of organizations which opposed inter-racial marriage. (It's a faulty comparison because both practices are in fact anti-marriage -- the interracial marriage ban because it artificially kept some men and women from marrying due to their skin color and homosexual marriage because it eliminated the need for a man and a woman. But just the same homosexual marriage advocates love to make.) In the 1980s the US Supreme Court revoked the tax exempt status of a group which banned interracial marriage because the practice violated public policy. Well, if homosexual marriage is recognized as the law of the land then we should similarly expect churches refusing to recognize homosexual marriages to lose their tax exempt status.

I suspect Mr. Birkey would say churches should lose their tax exemption, because they're taking part in a public tax benefit. However, the founders viewed the power to tax as the power to destroy and the impetus for tax exemption was in part to encourage the public benefit churches and other religious groups provide, but also because they didn't want the state encroaching upon or controlling religious groups through the power to tax. Under Birkey's line of thinking it would seem reasonable to also limit a religious groups use of police, fire, sewer, water and other public services if they oppose homosexual marriage. Aren't these public benefits going to organizations which discriminate against homosexuals? And most churches welcome all of the public to attend their religious services.

Thus religious groups will be forced to sacrifice their religious convictions if they want to stay clear of governmental control through taxation, being fined or ultimately having their activities completely shut down.

Mr. Birkey's thinking logically reflects the privatized view of religious exemplified by the former Soviet Union. They had a clause in Soviet Constitution guaranteeing the separation of church and state and thus ostensibly guaranteeing religious freedom. Russians were free to practice their faith as long as it was totally privatized -- religious services and praying in their heads. But if they dared to act on their religious beliefs then they were in trouble with the state.

So too, today, in Mr. Birkey's world, you can practice your religious beliefs as long as it's done in private. But if you seek to practice your faith by helping the public through building a Boardwalk pavilion which can be of service for not only religious events but for the broader public then you will likely run into trouble with the state for acting on your beliefs.

In essence, if you step outside your private, cloistered religious world, be sure to leave your religious beliefs about public issues behind. Of course, that's impossible for the Christian believer to do. Faith without works is dead. The believer knows there is a higher authority than the state to which he or she owes allegiance. Martin Luther King articulated this view in his letter written in his Birmingham, Alabama jail cell during the battle for black civil rights.

Four of Andy's "moderates" are strong supporters of pro-family legislation

A recent Minnesota Monitor post by Andy Birkey states "Six moderates out, six conservatives in: GOP changes leadership in wake of override vote."

MFC's 2007 Legislative Scorecard (See "Legislative Issues" 2007 Legislative Scorecard) reveals that four of the six moderates were strong supporters of pro-family issues, scoring 81% or better. Two of the four moderates had 100% voting records.

Rep. Jim Abeler, R-Anoka scored 86% on pro-family legislation. He was replaced by Rep. Matt Dean, R-Dellwood with a 96%. Abeler and Dean voted differently on one issue - mental health screening for children.

Another moderate, Rep. Todd Hamilton, R-Mountain Lake scored 100% on pro-family legislation. Rep. Hamilton was replaced by Rep. Dean Urdahl with an identical 100% pro-family voting record.

Rep. Kathy Tingelstad, R-Andover scored a strong 81%. Tingelstad was replaced by Rep. Larry Howes, R-Walker with a score of 93%. Tingelstad and Howes voted differently on two issues - State funding of Interhational Baccalaureate and mental health screening for children.

Rep. Bud Heidgerken, R-Freeport scored a moderate 100%. He was replaced by Rep. Sondra Erickson, R-Princeton with the exact same 100% voting record.

Defenders of Kinky sex materials at UM have a novel defense: It will save lives!

Andy Birkey of Minnesota Monitor has come up with a novel defense of disseminators of "kinky sex" how materials promoted by the University of Minnesota's student group "Kinky U": It will save lives. He points to a Rev. Gary Aldridge who died of from suffocation while engaging in bizarre sex practices. His "hands and feet were bound together behind his back, and they were attached to a nylon cord fastened around his neck...The body was dressed in a face mask with a single breathing vent, two wetsuits and was bound with cords and a belt, according to the report."

If only he'd been told how to do it "safely." Birkey says that " What killed him was a lack of understanding about the safety of the activities he enjoyed engaging in, a lack of information on kinky sex. That's all the students at the university are trying to do: make not-so-vanilla sex safer and "educate those interested about the risks involved."

This mindset is widespread among those who maintain a more libertine view of sexuality. The ultimate goal is human pleasure whatever form that takes. That's the high human value. So we should do all we can to reduce the risks of the inherently dangerous and harmful behavior. In fact, the government should do all it can to help facilitate whatever people want to do. (See massive government spending on contraceptive programs.) The only problem is it makes the problem worse because it sends the message that the underlying behavior is fine, so you have more folks engaging in it.

Compare this to the message communicated on smoking. It's bad for you. Don't do it. We don't encourage people to engage in efforts to merely minimize the dangerous side effects; we tell them to stop. The reason? You're more likely to reduce the number of people smoking if the message is clear, unequivocal and directed at the underlying behavior.

But when it comes to sexual behaviors that's a whole other story. Many people's lives and identities are tied up in their sexual behaviors and practices. To tell them to stop the underlying sexual behaviors or restrict them to a marriage relationship means they'll have to deny who they think they are and/or their passions. The result? Merely try and mitigate the damaging consequences of the behaviors. On the other hand, if we really wanted to protect more people we'd send a clear message discouraging the underlying behaviors. In the long run, more people would be saved.

So if the goal is to prevent dangerous consequences of dangerous behaviors, the most effective solution is discouraging the underlying activity. But that's where proponents of various bizarre sexual practices are not willing to go. They insist it's their right to engage in these activities and have other people subsidize them.

One last comment. Birkey accuses opponents of Kinky U of being "judgmental". It sounds like Mr. Birkey is being a bit judgmental in his assertion of judgmentalism. In their minds, the cultural Left is never judgmental; it's only those on the Right except of course when Mr. Birkey "judges" those on the Right.