Dundee Education Ethics News reports Sex and sexuality Uncategorized

‘Community Hits Back’ – The Pride Intimidation Begins…

That didn’t take long.  It’s not unexpected but nonetheless disappointing that the reaction to my comments about Perth Pride  from the LGBT propaganda machine have been so vitriolic.   One example is this article from Pink Saltire.  Of course given the source I was hardly expecting it to be unbiased or a fair analysis but what it reveals is depressing.  Note the methodology used that has now become the standard response to anyone who dares to question the philosophy and ethics of the LGBTQ movement.

Step 1 –  accuse anyone who disagrees with you of hatred…..

It doesn’t matter whether they have said anything hateful, or encouraged any hateful acts – the mere fact that they have disagreed with you is hate speech.  After all you have said ‘love is love’.  They disagree with you- therefore they must be against love.  Simples! It’s not very rational and it’s not very intelligent – but in todays dumbed down culture it works.

His hatred is claimed in the name of God yet any scripture denounces hate of anyone. There are definitely more bible verses on hypocrisy than anything relating to LGBT+”.  Perthshire Pride

I’m not sure that Perthshire Pride understand what either hypocrisy or love is.  It would be hypocritical of me as a Christian minister not to teach what Christ teaches.  And the premise of their accusation is false.  I don’t hate anyone.    In fact it’s precisely because I love people that I want to save them from a philosophy which only causes harm.

Many Christians back off at this stage, quite simply because they genuinely don’t want to be considered unloving or speak hatred or encourage hatred.   They don’t stop to think whether it is true or not!  This is also true of step two.

Step 2 – accuse those who disagree with you of harm….

The harm or hurt card gets played all the time.  Its a form of emotional bullying.  If you don’t agree with us then you are responsible for every hurt and harm we experience.  They demand that we be ‘welcoming and accepting’ which of course means that we have to be welcoming and accepting to their views.  There is an hypocrisy here – because the LBGT activists are not of course going to welcome or accept anyone who dares to disagree with them.  (witness their reaction to my article).

“The Pride celebrations aim to build bridges with all people and welcomes people of all faiths and people with none. We stand with all people who have experienced oppression and intolerance.”

This is real hypocrisy.   They don’t welcome people who have the faith of Jesus Christ and follow his teaching (nor incidentally do they welcome people who follow the Muslim or Jewish faith – which both teach that homosexual practice is wrong).  They will only welcome those who still claim the name Christian/Muslim/Jewish but ignore its teaching.  They will not tolerate and they will oppress any who dare to question their ideology.  Which leads on to step 3

Step 3 – Seek to intimidate those who disagree with you

“We’re unhappy with David Roberston for being blatantly homophobic, ‘sad and tragic’ is not how a culture should be described. Religion is no excuse, there are many examples of other religious persons & churches in the Dundee area who are more than supportive of one of the many things we stand for, love is love. We trust our University to do the right thing.”  Dundee University LGBT society

The Pink Saltire helpfully reminds its readers of the Catholic priest who was removed from his role as a University Chaplain in Glasgow and suggest that the same thing should happen to me.  “We trust our University to do the right thing”. These are chilling, menacing and threatening words. Such tolerance for diverse views!

Those Christians who are left are often easily intimidated.  We don’t like hassle.  We don’t like trouble and we don’t like threats.  Especially as they don’t just affect us but our loved ones.   Keep the heid and keep the heid down tends to be the motto.  But again I ask if we give into intimidation on this – what comes next?  And what if they come for those whose livelihoods depend on having the correct political opinion?  Who is going to speak out?

Step 4 – Silence those who disagree with you

That banning of course does not just go with official posts, or jobs, it also goes with the media.  Stuart Duffy, the author of the article, is a gay activist journalist and business owner.  The aim of groups like Pink Saltire is to ensure that only their voice is heard and anyone who disagrees is silenced.   If we can’t be emotionally bullied or threatened into silence, then they will try to sideline through ridicule and intimidation.   They have the power, they have the zeitgeist, they have the money and the corporates (Amazon, Arnold Clark, the AA and others are sponsors).  Who will stand up to them?

I wonder what they are scared of?  Why won’t they dialogue ( a dialogue is where there are different points of view – but they insist on only one)?   Why do they lie, bully and blackmail?  I suspect it is because they know that they can.  Very few are prepared to stand up to that kind of intimidation – certainly not Politicians, companies or Universities (we will see how long Dundee grant me freedom to express the traditional Christian teaching on marriage).   Churches cave in too quickly as well.   (for what its worth I’ve heard from sources deep within ‘121’ that they are very unhappy with Scott Burton for ‘outing’ them – but of course they won’t do anything about it!).

Screen Shot 2018-08-16 at 13.43.53

Pink Saltire seem to think I do this because I like controversy…that is apparently my track record.  They could not be more wrong (not that that will stop them attributing motive – they already think they can see my heart!).  I hate this.  Even as I write I have a sick feeling in my stomach.    Yes I plead guilty to what they accuse me of – in that I do think marriage is between a man and a woman and I do think our children should not be indoctrinated with transgender Queer theory propaganda.  But that does not make me a homophobic hater seeking publicity.  The fact that Pink Saltire and others have to resort to such hate speech in the name of love, says it all.

So why do I bother?  Because I love Jesus and his word.  And I love people whatever their sexuality.  I want only the best for all people.   I have received a number of communications from those who experience same-sex attraction (they generally don’t want to take their identity from sexuality so I respect that and won’t call them gay, or ex-gay) who express gratitude for what I have written.  None more so than this comment..

I don’t like “as a” statements very much, but I thought I’d give a word of encouragement to you Mr Robertson.

As a man who was consumed by LGBT identitarianism for some time at university, who genuinely thought I was gay, and then came to Christ more fully (I kinda had a gnostic-ish belief in what I thought to be the triune Christian God before) through the witness of a specific Church, and who now is engaged (to a kind, Godly and beautiful woman) , I can say that the gospel you preach is far better, kind and loving than any of the Beeching and affirmation crowds.

For me, it angers me deeply when I hear LGBT affirmation from professing Christians, as to me it feels like they want me to shove my face back in my vomit so to speak. Their gospel is one of slavery to ones sel-made identity (read idol), where yours is one of freedom in Christ. I originally wanted for the affirmation arguments to be true, but now I consider them utterly appalling. They effectively deny Christ’s power to save us, and create a clean heart in us. A “clean heart” needing to be created after all requires the current heart to be filthy.

And no; I’m not some individual that has been brainwashed by “gay-cure” therapy, which is just the other side of the coin of the heresy that dominates LGBT identitarianism (Pelagianism). I also don’t think my experience is universal, the struggle is life-long for most, nor do I think I’m somehow a special Christian, merely one who has been changed by the awesome power and love of God.

The call from Christ is a love that preaches self-denial (Mark, Luke and Matthew all have Jesus telling people to “deny” themselves in order to “follow” Him Matthew 16:24, Luke 9:23, Mark8:34) not of self acceptance as Beeching espouses. Jesus destroyed the false God in my heart and changed my nature. I’m not perfect by any means (there is still sin in my heart in thought, word and deed that pops up), but I know God can change anyone, for He did change and is changing me.

So Mr Robertson, I bless you my dear brother. Your blog is a blessing to me and your posts on this issue are expressing the true love, rather than those that say peace, peace where there is no peace. Keep it up, and may God bless you continually, keep you steadfast in the Spirit!

.I just wonder how Pink Saltire would respond…but maybe I shouldn’t..

Meanwhile I posted this comment on their article (since they didn’t have the courtesy to ask me what I thought! –

“Whilst of course everyone is entitled to their views (except apparently people like me!) and is therefore entitled to disagree with me – what they are not entitled to do is make up my views. I have never expressed hatred of anyone, I have not made a single homophobic comment. And gay people are as welcome in my church as anyone else. The trouble is that disagreeing with anyone is immediately denounced as hatred. It is also incredibly intolerant for you to seek to have me removed as a University chaplain just because I don’t accept your philosophy. The only hatred here is from those who seek to demonise, ban and remove those who disagree with them.”


  1. The problem is of course that you claim your authority for much of your actions and words derive from the bible/Jesus of Nazareth.

    As you cannot demonstrate a shred of veracity for any claims pertaining to such, then ultimately all you have is personal opinion.

    And let’s be honest here, David, based on the reaction you regularly receive when you deign to offer your personal opinion a great many people ( including believers) flat out disagree.

    If ever you actually do receive this form of Ultimate Authority, then perhaps your words may carry some weight?
    However, if there were any such authority behind such views then why they hell would He need someone like you to convey them?


    1. Arkenaten, would you mind telling us – Who – wrote all the books of the Old Testament? When – each of those books were written? Why – each of those books were written? What – can be learned from any of the books of the Old Testament? Can you also please provide a description distinguishing real events from fictitious events – and real places from fictitious places and real characters from fictitious characters – providing verified proof alongside your claims. Can you please include understanding of Hebrew in your response and an extensive understanding of Ancient Near Eastern history and culture.
      Can you then move on to the New Testament and explain why it was attached onto the Jewish Scriptures. Can you also explain to us why 2000 years later the Church described therein spread all over the world, still exists and is growing. Can you distinguish between real and fictitious characters described therein and back this up with verifiable contemporary evidence. Can you do the same with regard to real and fictitious first century events – including those people and events described by early Roman, Jewish and Christian historians – because those historians retrospectively need your help in distinguishing fiction from reality. Can you also please distinguish between reliable and unreliable ancient historians giving explanations for you choices. Can you prove the Holy Spirit does not exist. Can you suggest why perfectly intelligent, mentally sound people might believe they have a relationship with a person called Jesus of Nazareth who they believe is God. Can you give verifiable evidence for the non-existence of demons and Satan. Can you also let us know if you spend time ridiculing those who call themselves Satanists – and who believe in such a real spiritual entity and whether they have provided you with verifiable evidence. Hopefully all that you provide us with will be comprehensive and not disjointed.

  2. When good calls out evil, there is no response because they have no defense. They don’t believe in God now but one day EVERY knee will bow. Thank you for continuing to preach the truth and stand in the gap.

  3. David, I have a friend who works for RBS and their office has twice, in the space of 5 days, held ‘dress down days’ in support of LGBT and Pride causes. His Christian stand has led to him being ostracised and ridiculed at work. I wonder what would happen if he asked his employer for a dress down day in favour of Christian Institute of his local church!

  4. So many are thankful that you speak out David – God will speak to some that participated in Perth Pride through what you have bravely and lovingly said. I am actively praying for the LGBT community now at the request of those who posted on your blog – who have come out of that lifestyle. There will be a harvest from your work. I am also praying daily for you. I read this verse this morning and it was a good reminder for me as I seek to serve God more boldly – I felt I should share it with you :
    “The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid.
    What can mere mortals do to me?” Hebrews 13:6
    Interestingly that chapter, as you would know, commends the purity and honour that marriage is worthy of and the fact that Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever.

  5. Here is a poem I wrote some time ago called Hillsborough, (because Ian Price to whom it is dedicated, was there) It borrows its ideas and some of its words from Psalm 9.

    Because the LORD who sits enthroned is just
    the right cause of the just will be maintained;
    the enemy of justice is turned back;
    the story is repeatedly proclaimed.

    Because he sits enthroned eternally
    his justice reaches over all the lands;
    the overreaching nations are rebuked;
    memory of them erased if he commands.

    Because in Zion he has set his throne
    a refuge city stands for those who flee.
    So even valid claimants must beware
    of pressing charges when the Son makes free.

    Because the LORD is seen to be enthroned
    well wrapped-up persecutions come unwrapped;
    the lifted-from-the-gates-of-death is heard;
    entrappers of the saints find themselves trapped.

    Because the LORD stands up and leaves his throne
    the needy will be satisfied again;
    the fear of God’s own justice will prevail
    and men will be reminded that they’re men.


  6. We stand beside you brother for His glory, May God bless you and strengthen you as you stand firm for His name.
    You speak with such truth but such grace with it. Salt and light.

  7. no, it did not take long. We live in an age that George Orwell would recogonise. one is not allowed to disagree and I am starting to wonder if a time will come when ministers of the church and their congregations will not be allowed to read out Romans Chapter one in public.

  8. I had hoped that the headline, “Community hits back” might refer to an uprising on the part of the good citizens of Perth to the decision by their Council to use their (the good citizens of Perth) money to fund an event organised by a small group within the area to express their intolerance and lack of diversity. No such luck.

  9. David- We love and admire you for your boldness and your biblical stand. We pray on for the Lord to strengthen and uphold you and to give wisdom and perseverance.

    Ken Donald, Prestongrange Cof S.

  10. There’s no surprise in such a response.

    The only thing that struck me are that your ‘three step attack’ description also applies to the way ecumenists proceed. But they’ve now reached a fourth step, where they look pityingly at you for not joining in with their error, as if you’re short of brain cells.

    1. There are a good many continuing to faithfully teach the truth in their local situations. We need to continue to pray for more.

  11. Doing Good to All
    6 Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted. 2 Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. 3 If anyone thinks they are something when they are not, they deceive themselves. 4 Each one should test their own actions. Then they can take pride in themselves alone, without comparing themselves to someone else, 5 for each one should carry their own load. 6 Nevertheless, the one who receives instruction in the word should share all good things with their instructor.

    7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. 9 Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. 10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.

    David, You are a good and faithful servant of the Lord . I can and will pray for you at this time and the days ahead . I have written to three MSPs , with, as expected, mixed reply. Let me know if you have any specific points that we should bring before our Lord concerning your own well being.

  12. Except all these tactics have been used by the Church for two thousand years, the only difference now is that the Church no longer really holds much sway.

    1. Not quibbling about details, Frederick,
      but it would also be true to say that the churches stopped using such tactics many many times over hundreds of years. We ought also mention that it has never been a good thing for churches to be appropriated as an arm of the state; nor for churches to be the government; moreover, I fear that it won’t be the last time that a genuinely liberalising force will have used illiberal means to bring about freedom. As I say, the mitigating factor for many ill-advised, intemperate, an intolerant acts of Christians is that they stopped as soon as they realised they were wrong. I’m pretty sure you can produce counter-examples but that by the way.

      What I really want to ask is if we cannot learn from history instead of just repeating it? It seems to me that if the ‘Pride’ movement don’t start to distinguish principled disapproval from hate language, they will find people starting sentences like: ‘I’m not a homophobe, but …’ and going on to use the only language available to them simply because the movement have non-platformed the honest brokers like David from the public square. History would teach them a better way, if they were willing to listen.


      1. I don’t agree with the tactics and as an LGBT person and Christian I have always pushed for listening. Despite this, these tactics are very much alive and well in the evangelical church as I know from my own and my friends experience. To be against homosexuality is the shibboleth that gains you entry to the evangelical church and to be for it means ostracism.

      2. I have NEVER met an evangelical church which says you gain entry by being anti homosexuality – have you ? Really? You gain entry to the church by faith in Christ.

      3. But just as there are social shibboleths as you call them, there are Christian shibboleths. If you are pro-LGBT, even if you are straight and come by it honestly and academically, it is exclusion from committees, worship bands, leadership, etc. The amount of times I met evangelical Christians who secretly supported LGBT rights in private but didn’t say anything for fear of their positions in the church. I remember once meeting an evangelical pastor who told me in secret that he blessed gay weddings but didn’t tell anyone. Sure, entry into the Kingdom of God is through faith in Christ, entry into an evangelical community is faith and what’s your stance on gay marriage, abortion, evolution, etc.

      4. But that is not what you originally said – you keep moving the goalposts! No evangelical church would let you become a member just because you were anti-LGBT – which was your claim. But now you have shifted….saying that you are not allowed to be a leader in the church if you ignore the Bibles teaching on sex and sexuality. Yep – thats true. The ‘evangelical’ pastor you met is a lying hypocrite who will one day face his maker…

      5. It’s quite simple Frederick (I’m the author of the comment in support of David quoted in this article) , LGBT/homosexuality and endorsement thereof, are entirely incompatible with the Bible and therefore Christianity.

        I see self-professing “Christians” that endorse LGBT identities or see their identity through them (bar some who would acknowledge the sinfulness and consider themselves “gay/same-sex attracted but celibate”etc.) as nothing more than libertine gnostics that have been around since the ante-Nicene period. As such I will share no fellowship with pro-LGBT “Christians” as they are at best, decieved, at worst rank pelagian/gnostic heretics.

      6. I didn’t mean just the high up leadership. For me, to be part of a church community is to be active within that community, whether that’s as the tea person or the pastor. But to even question the current fashionable issues of the evangelical church is to be ostracized. As for my pastor friend, we are all lying hypocrites I think, trying to be compassionate.

        As for Thoshammer, I have gay friends who choose to remain abstinent who I love and respect and who love and respect me. While we don’t see eye to eye, we can still fellowship with each other. I don’t know much about Gnostics, but my impression were they saw the flesh as entirely evil, which seems like the complete opposite of pro-LGBT Christians.

      7. So you are not talking about the membership (as you first said), nor are you talking about he ‘high up leadership’ but instead you are talking about ‘being active within the community’. This has nothing to do with ‘the current fashionable issues of the evangelical church’ but rather simply following Christ and his teaching. Those who go along with the current fashionable issues of the culture against the teaching of Christ cannot expect to be regarded as faithful members of the church.

        And what a sad view you have of humanity. When it is pointed out that your pastor friend is a liar and a hypocrite your defence is that ‘we all are’. I don’t agree. Some of us believe what we preach and seek to practice it.

        You also misunderstand the Gnostics. It is BECAUSE they taught that the flesh was evil that they felt able to indulge it and do what they wanted to their own bodies…..

  13. Dear David,
    You say…..’Churches cave in too quickly as well. (for what its worth I’ve heard from sources deep within ‘121’ that they are very unhappy with Scott Burton for ‘outing’ them – but of course they won’t do anything about it!) (Sic)
    Can I make the point that the CofS posted the event on their official Facebook page, so this hardly seems like an ‘outing’.

    1. Thank you for that intelligent, loving and insightful comment. Apart from the fact that I am not sad, nor am I old and that there is plenty proof of God…your post is correct…you have at least got the ‘man’ bit right – although at any moment I could re-identify so you had better be careful and avoid being so binary!

  14. When the early church was emancipated from persecution and appointed as the official religion of the Roman Empire they responded in extraordinary way. St Augustine gave the church’ s authority for conversion by torture should the leaders of conquered nations reject the ‘Gospel’.
    Much of the inappropriate and hostile responses to any criticism of the LGBT community and its supporters might be seen in that light. After centuries of governmental and institutional abuse it is a nature though undesirable consequence.

    1. Stephen where do you get this extraordinary information about Augustine. I say this because I have read most of Augustine and have not come across this. Is this something you have read? Or are you just repeating gossip? I read the rest of your comment in that light…

      1. Perez Zagorin. His book “How the Idea of Religious Toleration Came to the West (2003)” covers this in Chapter 2. In that chapter Zagorin tells the story of how Augustine came to embrace the idea that coercion, including violence, is a valid method for dealing with heresy. Augustine decided to endorse coercion. In doing so, though, Augustine was simply acquiescing to the established practices of his fellow Christians, who were already using fines, beatings, imprisonment, torture, and execution against various heretical groups. Augustine, in turns, out, had been impressed by the results that had been obtained from these methods – although he personally continued to oppose execution of heretics.

        “Suppose two persons were living in a house which we knew most certainly was going to collapse, and they refused to believe us when
        we told them this, and insisted on remaining in it. If we were able to snatch them from there, even against their will… I think that if we did not do so, we would rightly be judged heartless.” (Augustine, Letter 185, par. 33)”

        Also – Augustine generally opposed the tendency in Christianity to reject the use of force – he develop an influential early statement of just war theory but experience persuaded Augustine that coercion could be effective – he saw Hippo converted from the Donatist heresy
        to orthodox Catholicism because of fear of imperial laws.

      2. But again you note that this is not what Stephen claimed. Augustine did not advocate torture in order to convert people. You may have read Zagorin (who was historian of the 16th and 17th Century and not an expert on Augustine) but I have read Augustine himself (and continue to read him every week) and studied early North African Christianity up to Augustine of Hippo at the University of Edinburgh under the acknowledged expert historian of the period, Professor David Wright. Augustine’s views did change – but he never taught that the Church should use force but rather that the emperor was entitled to use force against the ‘heretics’ – he may well have been wrong in this (I think he was), but it is just not accurate to portray this as advocating force in order to make people believe the Gospel. I think it is better to go to the primary sources and understand the context – especially in this Wiki age where Google makes everyone an expert!

  15. I am surprised that a man who leave Richard Dawkins quaking at the thought of debating with you face to face and who claims to have read ‘most of Augustine’ has not come across ‘City of God’ where he outlines his justification for a ‘just war’ and how subjected nations should be forced to comply with the requirements of the Empire which included adoption of Christianity, the State religion.

    Not ‘gossip’- documented fact – you should really be more careful before you adopt such a dismissive tone.

    1. Stephen – that is not what you claimed… You stated that Augustine supported advancing the Gospel through torture. He doesn’t. Just war is not torture. I have read the City of God several times and whilst it is clear that Augustine changed his mind and ended up supporting the Emperor using force against the Donatists (who were rioting and burning buildings) he never advocated spreading the Gospel through torture. I assume you have actually read the City of God and are not just citing what you have read on a website?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: