“A Homosexual Will Kill You, As Soon As Look At You.”
Death only closes a man’s reputation and determines it as good or bad.
-Joseph Addison
Jerry Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority, wager of relentless Kultar Kampf on gay and lesbian America, who once stood beside Anita Bryant and uttered the words above, has died. He had many things to say to us in his lifetime…
If you’re not a born-again Christian, you’re a failure as a human being.
God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve. (On the 9-11 terrorist attacks)
I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won’t have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!
The idea that religion and politics don’t mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country.
I do not believe the homosexual community deserves minority status. One’s misbehavior does not qualify him or her for minority status. Blacks, Hispanics, women, etc., are God-ordained minorities who do indeed deserve minority status.
We’re fighting against humanism, we’re fighting against liberalism … we are fighting against all the systems of Satan that are destroying our nation today … our battle is with Satan himself.
AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals; it is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.
[Vice President Gore] recently praised the lesbian actress who plays ‘Ellen’ on ABC Television…I believe he may even put children, young people, and adults in danger by his public endorsement of deviant homosexual behavior…Our elected leaders are attempting to glorify and legitimize perversion.
Someone must not be afraid to say, ‘moral perversion is wrong.’ If we do not act now, homosexuals will ‘own’ America!…If you and I do not speak up now, this homosexual steamroller will literally crush all decent men, women, and children who get in its way…and our nation will pay a terrible price!
Bloomberg news reports laconically that Falwell "had a history of heart trouble." No fooling. Over at Ex-Gay watch David Robers says,
The Rev. Mel White, founder of Soulforce, was once associated with Falwell as a ghost writer among other things. He has devoted a great deal of time and effort into convincing Falwell to change his anti-gay views, as he remembered Falwell changing his anti-civil rights stance for African Americans decades before. Now we will never know how far this change of heart may have gone.
And that’s nobody’s fault but his. I suppose he died thinking he was headed for that great reward in the sky. We know what he left behind. An America deeply divided, families torn apart where there should have only been love, and all the young gay people, who could have brought love and joyful laughter and smiles into someone’s life, and instead let Falwell’s bitter hate stick a knife into their own hearts, killing the lover they could have been. All the joy lost to this world now. All the quiet intimate moments of peace and contentment and fulfillment…gone. Never to be. Because of him. This world is poorer and meaner for his having walked on it. His name is written in a lot of empty places where there should have been joy. It didn’t have to be that way. But it was what he worked for, all his life.
And now, the reputation is closed. People need to think less about the hereafter they’re going to, then about what it is they will be leaving behind when they’re gone. If you seek this man’s legacy, here it is: This world is minus a lot of love, because of him. It’s a little colder, it’s a little meaner, for his having walked on it.
You Might Sample “The Death Cookie” Too, While You’re At It…
Andrew Sullivan discovers Jack Chick…
A 1984 evangelical Christian cartoon pamphlet, helpfully put online here. Don’t tell Hewitt. It could upset the Popular Front. (I think the racial stuff is out of date.)
They say, like a bunch of Johnny One Notes, that the "Gay Agenda" is an assault on families. They say it with the utmost sincerity, while driving their knives into the hearts of families of gay children.
On a recent road trip with my dad I asked him what it was like when he and my mom came to Memphis for the Family and Friends Weekend at LIA, a concentrated family encounter. Here is some of what he said.
We went to the meeting and had no idea of what we were going into. We met a lot of parents in the same category. Lots of kids had no parents there.
Everything seemed to be on the up and up at first. Yeah, but we found out these things aren’t so. I said to them, "You can’t change a zebra’s stripes." They didn’t go along with me, and they were very aggravated with me for saying so. Some people go through two colleges and they don’t have common sense. I hate when people keep things locked up.
They made me feel that I failed you. That’s how I felt after they got through with me. That’s how they made all the parents feel.
Years after I left LIA and I began to write my play, I interviewed my younger sister, Maria, about that time. What she told me broke my heart. She said that when our parents returned home from the Family and Friends Weekend, they were devastated. They didn’t eat right or look right. They acted sad and depressed. This went on for weeks. My sister felt so concerned that she actually called Love in Action and asked, "What did you do to my parents?!" She felt frustrated by the lack of concern or comprehension she encountered from the staff.
My parents were very disappointed and didn’t know what to do next, feeling that they had tried everything. My mom took it upon herself to somehow change me. This began with daily bouts of verbal abuse, her telling me how ashamed she was of me. After a few months of this, the verbal abuse escalated into small episodes of physical abuse, with her cornering me and slapping me, while telling me what an abomination I was.This type of behavior continued until I could no longer stand to live at home. One day I packed up all of my belongings into my car, and told my parents that I was moving out right that minute. My mother got so angry when I told her this that she exploded and beat me into a corner, ripping my shirt and giving me scratches and bruises in the process. My dad had to pull her off of me so that I could get to my car to leave.
Of course John Smid was nowhere to be seen while all this was going on in Lance’s family. It isn’t just the kids John is heart-wounding. He puts his little mark on the hearts of vulnerable parents too, and other family members, and leaves a wreckage strewn landscape behind he doesn’t even bother looking back on as he walks away from it. Perhaps he’s afraid of turning into a pillar of salt.
The aim of the Party was not merely to prevent men and women from forming loyalties which it might not be able to control. Its real, undeclared purpose was to remove all pleasure from the sexual act. Not love so much as eroticism was the enemy, inside marriage as well as outside it. All marriages between Party members had to be approved by a committee appointed for the purpose, and — though the principle was never clearly stated — permission was always refused if the couple concerned gave the impression of being physically attracted to one another. The only recognized purpose of marriage was to beget children for the service of the Party. Sexual intercourse was to be looked on as a slightly disgusting minor operation, like having an enema. This again was never put into plain words, but in an indirect way it was rubbed into every Party member from childhood onwards. There were even organizations such as the Junior Anti-Sex League, which advocated complete celibacy for both sexes. All children were to be begotten by artificial insemination (artsem, it was called in Newspeak) and brought up in public institutions. This, Winston was aware, was not meant altogether seriously, but somehow it fitted in with the general ideology of the Party. The Party was trying to kill the sex instinct, or, if it could not be killed, then to distort it and dirty it. He did not know why this was so, but it seemed natural that it should be so. And as far as the women were concerned, the Party’s efforts were largely successful.
He thought again of Katharine. It must be nine, ten — nearly eleven years since they had parted. It was curious how seldom he thought of her. For days at a time he was capable of forgetting that he had ever been married. They had only been together for about fifteen months. The Party did not permit divorce, but it rather encouraged separation in cases where there were no children.
Katharine was a tall, fair-haired girl, very straight, with splendid movements. She had a bold, aquiline face, a face that one might have called noble until one discovered that there was as nearly as possible nothing behind it. Very early in her married life he had decided — though perhaps it was only that he knew her more intimately than he knew most people — that she had without exception the most stupid, vulgar, empty mind that he had ever encountered. She had not a thought in her head that was not a slogan, and there was no imbecility, absolutely none that she was not capable of swallowing if the Party handed it out to her. ‘The human sound-track’ he nicknamed her in his own mind. Yet he could have endured living with her if it had not been for just one thing — sex.
As soon as he touched her she seemed to wince and stiffen. To embrace her was like embracing a jointed wooden image. And what was strange was that even when she was clasping him against her he had the feeling that she was simultaneously pushing him away with all her strength. The rigidlty of her muscles managed to convey that impression. She would lie there with shut eyes, neither resisting nor co-operating but submitting. It was extraordinarily embarrassing, and, after a while, horrible. But even then he could have borne living with her if it had been agreed that they should remain celibate. But curiously enough it was Katharine who refused this. They must, she said, produce a child if they could. So the performance continued to happen, once a week quite regulariy, whenever it was not impossible. She even used to remind him of it in the morning, as something which had to be done that evening and which must not be forgotten. She had two names for it. One was ‘making a baby’, and the other was ‘our duty to the Party’ (yes, she had actually used that phrase). Quite soon he grew to have a feeling of positive dread when the appointed day came round. But luckily no child appeared, and in the end she agreed to give up trying, and soon afterwards they parted.
…
He saw himself standing there in the dim lamplight, with the smell of bugs and cheap scent in his nostrils, and in his heart a feeling of defeat and resentment which even at that moment was mixed up with the thought of Katharine’s white body, frozen for ever by the hypnotic power of the Party. Why did it always have to be like this? Why could he not have a woman of his own instead of these filthy scuffles at intervals of years? But a real love affair was an almost unthinkable event. The women of the Party were all alike. Chastity was as deep ingrained in them as Party loyalty. By careful early conditioning, by games and cold water, by the rubbish that was dinned into them at school and in the Spies and the Youth League, by lectures, parades, songs, slogans, and martial music, the natural feeling had been driven out of them. His reason told him that there must be exceptions, but his heart did not believe it. They were all impregnable, as the Party intended that they should be. And what he wanted, more even than to be loved, was to break down that wall of virtue, even if it were only once in his whole life. The sexual act, successfully performed, was rebellion. Desire was thoughtcrime. Even to have awakened Katharine, if he could have achieved it, would have been like a seduction, although she was his wife.
"1984" – George Orwell
If the theocrats every take total control, this book will be one of the first to take the express ride straight in the bonfire, along with those of us who have taken it’s message about totalitarianism to heart. Never mind how Heather Has Two Mommies glorifies homosexuality…Orwell got it dead right about why totalitarians have waged war on that most elemental, essential part of the human experience: Desire…and especially desire which brings people together into a bond of human love. Reading it, you really see how theocracy is no different in kind from the Stalinism Orwell was warning against. For all their bellyaching about the primacy of the family, and so-called family values, the dirty truth is that the fundamentalism that animates the American Christianist movement hates the bond of human love that is the bedrock of family life, as much as any secular police state that ever existed. And there is no better place to see that hatred, ironically enough, then in the essential message of the ex-gay movement:
Sex is not about desire. It is not about love. Sex is about duty to God. Replace ‘God’ with, ‘The Party’ and you see it all, with sickening clarity.
There are many powerful stories out there about men and women whom God has delivered from the gay lifestyle. It touches the heart and certainly glorifies God when we see these people getting married and leading godly lives free of homosexuality.
But in all honesty, what about the rest of us who deal with this issue and haven’t come to our "happy ending" yet? What about those of us who continue to struggle with same-sex attraction (SSA), even after choosing to follow Christ? We’re caught in a sort of identity limbo, unsure whether we can or even should hope to experience heterosexual desire, get married and start a family someday.
Ensley has an answer for them…but first he has to slay a strawman…
"But, Mike," you might say, "they’re allowed to follow their feelings and urges, and marry whoever they want."
Um, no they’re not. Every man deals with feelings and urges that pull him away from God’s explicit will for our sexuality. Or did you think other Christian men’s sex drives always cooperate with them in abstaining until marriage, and then staying faithful? They too struggle with wandering and lustful eyes, curiosity about other people, the fleeting infatuations. They have to crucify the flesh daily, just like you and me.
But this is dishonest. The essential cruelty of the prison fundamentalism puts homosexuals into is that they are forbidden from having that intimate body and soul love that it seems to be willing to grant to heterosexuals. A heterosexual can at least marry and have sex with someone they are naturally attracted to sexually. Sure, they may be tempted to stray from the rigid boundaries imposed upon them by their church. But at least within those boundaries the possibility of intimate romantic love still exists…or seems to. But for homosexuals it is simply not a possibility.
In recent years, ex-gay rhetoric has seemingly come to a grudging acknowledgment of this fact. All the promises of change and healing via prayer just don’t work. Rather then continuing to beat these people over the head about their lack of faith, ex-gay rhetoric began to hold chastity (celibacy) as a virtue that gay people could aspire to, in lieu of the impossible change. But this is a barren promise. A life of struggle against ones inner nature, achieving nothing more noble then an empty desolate loneliness in exchange for, maybe, grudging acceptance in the pews.
Ensley wants gay youth to know that they’re not being singled out unfairly. The inner desolation they are experiencing is in fact, the price of admission that heterosexuals must pay too, for the glory of The Party God. Marriage is not about love…it is about duty. Go ahead and marry someone of the opposite sex Ensley tells them. The fact is that you shouldn’t expect to desire your mate.
Stop obsessing about how much you will (or won’t) enjoy heterosexual sex
You’ve thought about it, and so have I. What if I don’t enjoy sex with my spouse? What if I still want to have sex with other men (or women, if you’re a woman)? The skeptics certainly say all the time that we "ex-gays" only have sexually frustrated lives ahead of us.
We often say the opposite of homosexuality isn’t heterosexuality, it’s holiness. That means God is calling us away from a me-centered life, including a me-centered sexuality. We’ve spent a lot of time programming ourselves through fantasy, masturbation, pornography and encounters to be utterly selfish with our sexuality. Marriage is the absolute antithesis of that.
The Bible tells us that once we are married our body actually belongs to our spouse. If you haven’t lived with that attitude in singleness, it’s not going to come naturally once you say your vows. The best way to be ready is by following this other Biblical command: to offer your body as a living sacrifice to God, because it ultimately belongs to Him.
People often ask me if I have sexual fantasies about women now, because that’s what the world would consider change. But God wants me to change not into a man who still wraps himself up in self-absorbed fantasy, but one who’s ready to put my wife before myself — and put Him first.
Afraid you won’t enjoy the sex? Well, if your priority is your own satisfaction and the living out of your overly-developed obsessions, no, you won’t enjoy the intimacy of sex within marriage. You know what? Neither would an "ever-straight" with the same mindset. They might be able to marry according to their worldly desires, but it will never fulfill the endless hunger of selfishness. Real closeness grows out of commitment to a person, and following God’s will.
Don’t worry; sex God’s way will be the best.
Again…replace "God" with "The Party" there it is…in all its sickening, stomach churning human hating glory. The fundamentalist ideal of family life: two people having ritual sex for the sole purpose of making babies, without regard for the intimate needs of one another, or even their own feelings for the person they have in their arms. What does it mean to put your wife first, if the act of taking her into your arms is barren of any real desire for her? What does it mean for her to love you, if she’s supposed to regard your feelings as irrelevant? The grotesque answer is: the essential emptiness of the act is proof of their mutual devotion. But not to each other. By their willingness to fuck someone they have no desire for, or to be fucked by someone who has no desire for them, they are proving their devotion to The Party God. They are meat, enacting a few brief, barren orgasms utterly devoid of healthy human desire in a way that even the most random of sexual assignations in a gay bathhouse, or a highway rest stop, could not hope to sink to. The next time you hear a fundamentalist nutcase yap, yap, yapping about how homosexuality is barren, remember that this is what they consider righteous.
And this is the ideal, make no mistake, for heterosexuals too. Whether or not you actually desire the person in your arms does not matter. Time and again you hear this from the talking heads of the religious right. Marriage is not about love. It is not about desire. What matters is duty. To God. To the Party…
"I could have stood it if it hadn’t been for one thing," he said. He told her about the frigid little ceremony that Katharine had forced him to go through on the same night every week. "She hated it, but nothing would make her stop doing it. She used to call it — but you’ll never guess."
"Our duty to the Party," said Julia promptly.
"How did you know that?"
"I’ve been at school too, dear. Sex talks once a month for the over-sixteens. And in the Youth Movement. They rub it into you for years. I dare say it works in a lot of cases. But of course you can never tell; people are such hypocrites."
She began to enlarge upon the subject. With Julia, everything came back to her own sexuality. As soon as this was touched upon in any way she was capable of great acuteness. Unlike Winston, she had grasped the inner meaning of the Party’s sexual puritanism. It was not merely that the sex instinct created a world of its own which was outside the Party’s control and which therefore had to be destroyed if possible. What was more important was that sexual privation induced hysteria, which was desirable because it could be transformed into war-fever and leader-worship. The way she put it was:
"When you make love you’re using up energy; and afterwards you feel happy and don’t give a damn for anything. They can’t bear you to feel like that. They want you to be bursting with energy all the time. All this marching up and down and cheering and waving flags is simply sex gone sour. If you’re happy inside yourself, why should you get excited about Big Brother and the Three-Year Plans and the Two Minutes Hate and all the rest of their bloody rot?"
That was very true, he thought. There was a direct intimate connexion between chastity and political orthodoxy. For how could the fear, the hatred, and the lunatic credulity which the Party needed in its members be kept at the right pitch, except by bottling down some powerful instinct and using it as a driving force? The sex impulse was dangerous to the Party, and the Party had turned it to account.
I don’t know why so many people seem so surprised about this…
The Enemy At Home – Dinesh D’Souza
Publisher Comments:
Whenever Muslims charge that the war on terror is really a war against Islam, Americans hasten to assure them they are wrong. Yet as Dinesh D’Souza argues in this powerful and timely polemic, there really is a war against Islam. Only this war is not being waged by Christian conservatives bent on a moral crusade to impose democracy abroad but by the American cultural left, which for years has been vigorously exporting its domestic war against religion and traditional morality to the rest of the world.
D’Souza contends that the cultural left is responsible for 9/11 in two ways: by fostering a decadent and depraved American culture that angers and repulses other societies — especially traditional and religious ones — and by promoting, at home and abroad, an anti-American attitude that blames America for all the problems of the world.
Islamic anti-Americanism is not merely a reaction to U.S. foreign policy but is also rooted in a revulsion against what Muslims perceive to be the atheism and moral depravity of American popular culture. Muslims and other traditional people around the world allege that secular American values are being imposed on their societies and that these values undermine religious belief, weaken the traditional family, and corrupt the innocence of children. But it is not "America" that is doing this to them, it is the American cultural left. What traditional societies consider repulsive and immoral, the cultural left considers progressive and liberating.
Taking issue with those on the right who speak of a "clash of civilizations," D’Souza argues that the war on terror is really a war for the hearts and minds of traditional Muslims — and traditional peoples everywhere. The only way to win the struggle with radical Islam is to convince traditional Muslims that America is on their side.
(emphasis mine) Note the appeals to traditional cultures scattered throughout. There’s a glaring problem at the core of the book, and what’s remarkable to me is that so many people see it, and yet they don’t. D’Souza’s book, which places the blame for the 9-11 terrorist attacks squarely on Liberals and western liberal democracy, has been disturbing the comfortable clubhouse atmostphere on the right ever since it came out. That’s not surprising. Here’s Stanley Kurtz, dancing around it…
Not only does D’Souza downplay and deny the profound influence of Islam on our current dilemma, he ignores an array of non-religious, or only marginally religious, factors that his own explanation is (or ought to be) directly tied to.
With all the post-9/11 attention to Islam, for example, we’ve given short shrift to Middle Eastern kinship structures-like the Muslim preference for marriage to the father’s brother’s daughter (see “Root Causes”). These marriage and family patterns inhibit political and economic development, block immigrant assimilation, and are indeed directly threatened by the sort of cultural productions D’Souza decries. Yet, while Islamists may seize upon Hollywood films and international productions of the Vagina Monologues as symbols of their underlying objections to modernity, the more important sources of conflict are the distinctively Muslim social practices that generate such complaints to begin with.
In other words, if immigrant British Muslims weren’t secluding their daughters in hopes of preserving family honor and protecting an already promised marriage to a cousin back in Pakistan, they’d be far less upset with Western movies in the first place. What’s driving the distress is less the movies that a daughter sees at college than the fact that British daughters go off to college at all, freely meet men there, and freely choose their husbands from among those men. Other British immigrant communities, with less restrictive family practices, may occasionally grouse about cultural depravity. Yet the complaints are less frequent, less deeply felt, and far less deadly. It’s the marriage practice, not the movie, that counts.
To give us insight into the Jihadist loathing for American culture, D’Souza relies on the writings of the father of modern Radical Islam, Sayyid Qutb. Qutb spent two years in America and then returned to the Middle East thoroughly disgusted by American culture. He spent the rest of his life chronicling his hatred for America’s decadent society.
Here’s where D’Souza is dishonest or careless: He informs the reader that Qutb died in 1966. He fails to inform the reader that the time Qutb spent in America was between 1948 and 1950.
Since D’Souza blames our culture for much of the Islamic world’s animus towards America, this is no small matter. The culture of the 1940’s wasn’t what it is today. Perhaps Qutb was scandalized by pop culture products of the time like the overt raciness of “The Best Years of Our Lives” or the raw sexuality contained on the typical Bing Crosby record; the man was after all a lunatic. But the culture of the late 1940’s contained none of the things that D’Souza so obviously deplores and that he postulates are inflaming the Muslim world. The 1940’s had no filthy hippies, no gangsta rap, no gay weddings.
D’Souza may think it would be a swell thing for us to turn our cultural clock back to 1949. No big deal there – to each his own. The point is that even if D’Souza were able to wave a wand and pull off such a trick, the Jihadists wouldn’t care. Qutb briefly immersed himself in our late 1940’s incarnation and emerged full of hatred.
To his everlasting credit, Hewitt specifically denounces D’Souza’s central claim:
Second, and this is also no small thing, it’s not liberals’ fault. Radical Islam hates a respectable Church-going Presbyterian family man every bit as much as it hates a spoiled libertine like Paris Hilton. As far as radical Islam is concerned, the two are in the same basic class; they’re both infidels. Short of conversion or surrender, there is nothing our society can do to appease radical Islam.
This is all true…but the problem civilization faces today isn’t specific to radical Islam.
I think the best review of The Enemy At Home I’ve read so far is Bruce Bower’s over at The Stranger. But Bower, while conservative, isn’t a winger, and he is willing to name the nature of the betrayal that D’Souza’s book represents…
D’Souza (who says he is Catholic) invites us to “imagine how American culture looks and feels to someone who has been raised in a traditional society… where homosexuality is taboo and against the law…. One can only imagine the Muslim reaction to televised scenes of homosexual men exchanging marriage vows in San Francisco and Boston.” Let it be recalled that D’Souza is referring here to a “traditional society” in which girls of 13 or 14 are routinely forced to marry their cousins, and in which the groom, if his conjugal attentions are resisted on the wedding night, is encouraged by his new in-laws to take his bride by force. Such are the sensitivities that, D’Souza laments, are so deeply offended by the American left…
He’s quick to warn, moreover, that in discussing potentially troubling aspects of Muslim culture, “we should be on guard against the blinders of ethnocentrism.” In short, while inviting conservative Christians to buy the idea that Muslim family values are essentially equivalent to their own, he wants them to overlook the multitudinous—and profoundly disturbing—ways in which they aren’t. He labors consistently to minimize this value gap—and thereby reinforce his argument that today’s terrorism (far from perpetrating a centuries-long tradition of violent jihad) is, quite simply, a reaction to America’s post-’60s moral dissipation. He would have his readers believe that if only the U.S. returned to the values of the Eisenhower era, our Muslim adversaries would let us be. But he deliberately obscures the mountains of evidence that for “traditional Muslims,” even small-town 1940s America wouldn’t do.
The question is, would it even do for D’Souza and his neighbors in the kook pews. I’m not being melodramatic here.
For those who cherish freedom, 9/11 was intensely clarifying. Presumably it, and its aftermath, have been just as clarifying for D’Souza, whose book leaves no doubt whatsoever that he now unequivocally despises freedom—that open homosexuality and female “immodesty” are, in his estimation, so disgusting as to warrant throwing one’s lot in with religious totalitarians…the book he’s written is nothing less than a call for America’s destruction. He is the enemy at home. Treason is the only word for it.
Yes. Yes it is. And yet…how many times have we heard the pulpit thumpers of the religious right calling down God’s wrath on America for it’s sins? Didn’t Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwall state flatly, while the rubble that was once the World Trade Center was still smoldering, that America, specifically American immorality, was to blame for 9-11? Isn’t there a traveling preacher named Fred Phelps running around the nation hoisting signs at the funerals of dead American soldiers (like he did the funerals of gay people like Matthew Shepard), that praise the terrorists for killing them? The threat America, the threat civilization itself faces today, isn’t radical Islam, it’s religious fundamentalism. But you can appreciate why Kurtz and Hewitt are loath to say so…that’s a key part of the republican base nowadays after all isn’t it.
Critics on the right dance around one of the key distinguishing features of that fundamentalism, preferring to refer it delicately a reaction to "immodesty", but note that it isn’t the immodesty of males that’s the issue. Kurtz nearly says it when he talks about the culture of arranged marriages in Middle eastern cultures.
…for D’Souza, it’s enough to note that the virtues praised by most traditional cultures make up “pretty much the same list.” D’Souza goes so far as to equate “the traditional morality that holds sway in all traditional cultures” with the “virtual moral consensus in America prior to the 1960’s.”
That would certainly have surprised the 1878 Supreme Court, which unanimously rejected the practice of polygamy on the grounds of its incompatibility with democracy. (See “Polygamy Versus Democracy.”) Polygamy, the court said, embodies a “patriarchal principle” characteristic of societies in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa — a principle incompatible with the American system of government.
Now polygamous relationships where they’re entered into freely by both men and women don’t necessarily embody that patriarchal principal. But where it becomes an enforced polygyny that regards women as the property of men then it isn’t just incompatible with our system of government, it is anathema to the principals of individual liberty and equal justice that is its philosophical bedrock. You simply cannot sustain a democracy where people are literally regarded as property, as the United States found out during the horrors of our civil war. That includes women. And where you find this deeply entrenched religious fundamentalism, you inevitably find a bedrock of hatred toward sexual freedom. Fundamentalism hates all freedom, but in particular, it absolutely despises the sexual freedom of women.
After his 1983 graduation from Dartmouth College, D’Souza moved to Princeton, New Jersey, where he worked for Concerned Alumni of Princeton, a conservative organization strongly critical of coeducation, affirmative action, and campus access to birth control. As writer and editor-in-chief for Prospect, the organization’s magazine, D’Souza wrote a March 1984 cover story identifying a Freshman undergraduate who had begun a sexual relationship with another student against her mother’s wishes. D’Souza offered details of the woman’s sex life, and criticized Princeton University for paying the student’s tuition fees after the student’s mother withdrew financial support.
The ensuing scandal was reported in The New York Times. D’Souza claimed that the woman’s name had been published as the result of a "proofreading error" and that he "care[s] about the girl; that’s why [he] wrote the story."
No, no…I strongly doubt that was any kind of accident. What D’Souza was doing there was little different from what the Saudi morality police do every day when they see women who, in their considered opinion, are behaving immodestly and smack them upside the head if they’re feeling good, or cut it off altogether if they’re feeling…well…traditional.
If you want to know where someone stands in the war between civilization and fundamentalism, their attitudes toward the dignity and equality of women is a good place to start looking. The fundamentalist hatred of modernity points back, time and again, to its core contempt for women. And the republican base is just brimming with it.
A few days ago I posted this cartoon about Bill Donohue (he of of the Catholic League) bellyaching that the Edward’s campaign had hired two "trash talking" bloggers, who in his esteemed opinion were anti catholic bigots. What had apparently set him off was the writing of one of them, Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon, about the Catholic Church’s war on contraception and abortion. Well…you can see where this is going…right?
Because I had the nerve to be critical of the Catholic church’s stance on birth control and abortion—nevermind their political opposition to distributing condoms to fight HIV, a stance that has helped usher thousands and possibly millions to their untimely deaths—I’ve gotten a number of letters from people who call themselves “Christians”, as Bill Donohue also calls himself.
Bill managed to get his faithful up in arms over what this woman wrote. Here is a sampling of what they wrote back…
Andy Driggers from Dallas, TX was also so moved by my criticisms of religious anti-choicers, that he wrote:
Problem with women like you, you just need a good fucking from a real man! Living in Texas myself, I know you haven’t found that real Texan yet. But once your liberal pro feminist ass gets a real good fucking, you might see the light. Until then, enjoy your battery operated toys b/c most real men wouldn’t want to give you the fucking you deserve b/c the shit that would come out of you ears.
An example, from Paul Bernard of Scottsdale, AZ:
i like the way you trash talk i don’t particularly want to have sex with you but i would like a blow job.
Bud Phelps, another person who opposes "bigotry", as defined by right wing shill Bill Donohue.
It’s just too bad your mother didn’t abort you. You are nothing more than a filthy mouth slut. I bet a couple of years in Iraq being raped and beaten daily would help you appreciate America a little. Need a plane ticket ?
Romanco De Leone was also moved by Donohue’s poignant claims about insulating the Catholic church from legitimate criticisms.
YOU RACIST WHORE. FAT UGLY BITCH. SUCK MY LONG COCK ASSHOLE I HOPE YOU KIDS NEVER LIVE AND YOUR PARENTS DIE A TRAGIC DEATH YOU ASSHOLE BITCH!
I HOPE YOUR WOMB IS BARREN AND YOUR CAREER PLUMMETS TO HELL YOU BITCH
Whore. Bitch. Slut. You just need a good fucking from a real man. There’s the enemy civilization is facing today. There’s the enemy civilization has always faced. And there’s the burning core of hatred it feels for it. We’ve taken their wimmin away from them. And with that comes all the primitive instincts for survival and aggression of the cornered savage. They despise civilization, because it frees women from obedience to them; and with that goes the only way they know how to sire children, and acquire status.
You can argue that American fundamentalists aren’t as violent as Islamic radicals in the grand scheme of things, but I would argue that’s because they don’t feel quite so powerless against their own societies as the Islamists do against the west. A decisive victory in the culture wars by liberals and moderates against fundamentalism, particularly in the struggle against the independence of the courts, a decisive shift in power toward the democrats and against the republicans, and I believe we’ll all be singing a different tune about that.
And Hewitt, perhaps, is more right then he knows. The church-going Presbyterian family man, provided he has even a vaguely live and let live attitude, is hated every bit as much, and regarded as no different at all, from the spoiled libertine in the eyes of the Fundamentalist. He could be opposed to abortion, and yet if he does not object to contraception then he might as well be an abortionist. He could be opposed to same-sex marriage and if he is willing to grant gay couples Any kind of legal status, even merely hospital visitation rights, then he might as well be a homosexual himself. If he is willing to grant people any kind of sexual freedom, no matter how limited, then he is the enemy, and he must be destroyed.
You can argue that the entire religious right mindset is one of assumed priviledge and status over others. That, we are the people of God and the rest of you are the devil’s tools attitude. Nationalism. Racism. Homophobia. But I am convinced now that it all reaches its climax in its need to dominate women. Reading the rhetoric and watching all the flag waving going back and forth between the middle eastern radicals and our own home grown ones since 9-11, I am convinced now that at its core the war between civilization and fundamentalism is a fight who owns women’s bodies. Everything else about it springs from that one central obsession. The attacks on science, the attacks on liberal democracy, public education, science, contraception, sexual license, pop culture…anything that enables a world where women might even want to choose for themselves is the enemy, and must be destroyed.
Even I think, the war on homosexuality. Notice how it’s almost always male homosexuality that they bellyache the most about. People smirk that it’s because lesbians titulate them, but in the kook pews lesbians are thoroughly destested too, because they reject men. But with gay males the hatred seems to burn a tad hotter, and I think it’s more then their regarding us as traitors to our gender. We’re the ones whose sexuality demonstrates that males can take their lovers as equals, that a male doesn’t have to be dominant, that he can be taken and well as take, can give themselves wholeheartedly to their mate as well as recieve, can…well…be fucked after all…and still be gloriously, assertively male. How do you beat into a woman’s head that men were created by God to be the head of the household, to which they must Gracefully Submit, when that kind of thing is going on? We are males whose sexuality completely denies the theology of natural male dominance. The street punk may feel his brittle manhood threatened by the sight of two guys holding hands and lash out, but this is why the mullahs say we have to be stoned to death. We break the sexual pecking order.
At the core of its hatred, with all it’s higher principles stripped away, fundamentalism is about women, of that I am currently convinced. Western civilization and its liberal democracies have taken their wimmin away. For that they have to be destroyed.
Is it really so surprising that a man who plastered the intimate details of a female college student’s sex life across the pages of his magazine because she was defying her parents, that rails against birth control, co-habitation and women who find fulfillment outside of the home, would write a book essentially siding with terrorists from a "traditional culture" that views rape as a legitimate means of controlling its women? No. Not really. What’s surprising is that more of them don’t say so outright like he did. I’ve been waiting now, pretty much since 9-11, for someone on the far right to write the book D’Souza did. If I’m surprised about anything, it’s that it’s taken so long.
If one reads the news coverage following pretty much any Love Won Out conference it quickly becomes obvious they are attended primarily by family, friends and clergy rather than actual ex-gays or gays. As I’ve stood at the driveways to churches where Love Won Out is hosted I’ve seen too many cars pass by with children in the back seat, looks of sheer fear and dread on their faces, their parents unable to reconcile their faith with their child’s sexuality.
I’ve seen that horrific spectacle myself, while standing on a protest line outside of Love In Action. Last summer I watched while one car drove out of Love In Action with a very young, very miserable looking teenage boy in the back seat. He put a a spiral notebook up to his face to hide it as the car approached the picket line, his parents sat in the front seats with angry faces. Not five minutes before, I had been told by one of the protest organizers that an LIA staffer had assured him there were no underage kids attending Refuge that year. And as it turns out, John Smid, the child abusing leader of that little cult, is trolling the Exodus Love Won Out conferences for fresh blood…
“I go to every Love Won Out conference,” Smid said, “and 60% of those who attend are parents. It’s primarily a ministry to parents, that’s their goal.”
Which is just as a lot of us thought. Parents are really the only significant growth opportunity left to the ex-gay snakeoil salesmen. Especially fundamentalist parents who can be terrified into forcing their kids into undergoing ex-gay therapy. Which John insists really does work…
“The world is bombarding us with the lie that [homosexuals] should not change, cannot change, that it’s harmful to change,” said John Smid of Love in Action (LIA). “The media is bombarding people with those lies.”
The wall is yellow John.
He said parents want to know how to build a respectful relationship with their children, which is necessary before they can help their children escape the tentacles of a homosexual lifestyle.
Oh really? I was at the protest against the Love Won Out conference in Silver Spring last year, and a former "client" of John’s, Lance Carroll, was there on the protest line too. Lance was also at the Love In Action protest in Memphis last summer, and spoke to reporters there about his experience as an unwilling participant in John’s Refuge program for teens. Like other teens who have been through the "program", Lance was forced into it by his parents, a situation that John happily goes along with, I guess in the name of building respectful relationships. But what was really heartbreaking about Lance’s story, was what happened to him after he left LIA. His situation at home became even more abusive, to the point where the boy was being beaten up and he had to get the hell out of there. Now there’s a respectful relationship for you. And it only cost his parents $10,000.00.
Lance expressed the hope several times to me while standing on that picket line, that John would come out and talk to him. Of course he didn’t. If you don’t acknowledge the people in your life that you have failed, then you can say you have not failed anyone. And cash the checks with a somewhat clear conscience.
Smid says family involvement is crucial to give the client the best shot at restoration in his or her life. Many other ministries have used LIA’s materials to start their own outreach, notable among them Focus on the Family’s Love Won Out conferences. Not only did Focus on the Family adopt LIA materials and resources, but the ministry was pioneered by LIA graduates.
Materials let it be said, created by someone whose own family life is somewhat less then perfect, apparently. This is something I hadn’t heard before, but it’s strikingly unsurprising:
“Healing from the causes of homosexuality takes time,” Smid said. Again, his own experience brings a poignant focus on the needs he still faces in his restoration process. One of his deepest prayers is to reach reconciliation with his daughters. Those dysfunctional family relationships – consequences of his own poor choices – now fuel his passion for LIA to serve the whole family.
So to recap: he’s a self loathing gay man who spent his entire life running away from what he is, he’s on somewhat less then good terms with his own children, and he’s getting thousands of dollars from the parents to teach them, he claims, how to build respectful relationships with their gay children. Swell. Next time my roof needs fixing I think I’ll call a carpenter whose house has fallen apart. Sure…I can hold a hammer. Watch me hit myself in the head with this one. Watch me do it again…
You see this over and over again in this struggle…people who are thoroughly obsessed with fighting the homosexual demon, that turn out to have painful family lives. Maybe it’s a gay kid they loath. Maybe it’s a gay parent. Maybe it’s a failed marriage. Maybe it’s their own failure to be the parents their kids need them to be. But whatever it is in their own family lives they’re unhappy with, rather then accept responsibility for it they turn outward, looking for scapegoats. And for thousands of years, gay people have played the role of human scapegoats for the intimate failures of heterosexuals…and those who wish they were heterosexual. I wonder if John was having trouble with his daughters the day he told Tom Ottosen "I would rather you commit suicide than have you leave Love In Action wanting to return to the gay lifestyle." What I don’t wonder now is what John would have told Ottosen’s parents had he actually done that. Nothing. The man who could not so much as bring himself to walk over to Lance Carroll and acknowledge Lance felt so badly about how he was treated inside Love In Action…not even to apologize for it, just to acknowledge it…would have said nothing to Ottosen’s parents if their son had died as a result of John’s advice. Of that I am absolutely certain. The man who instructs his unwilling charges that they have to "be honest, authentic, and real", has a long familiarity with running away from his own issues.
"I’m looking at that wall and suddenly I say it’s blue," Smid said, pointing to a yellow wall. "Someone else comes along and says, ‘No, it’s gold.’ But I want to believe that wall is blue. Then God comes along and He says, ‘You’re right, John, [that yellow wall] is blue.’ That’s the help I need. God can help me make that [yellow] wall blue."
The wall is yellow John.
"Basically, their form of therapy is conditioning. It’s a negative reinforcement of shame. Anything that you connect to homosexuality, you connect to shame within yourself. You internalize this hatred toward yourself, this homophobia, this embarrassment…two months, every day, morning and evening, they would take turns. A person would get up and you would literally shame them for their feelings…"
-Lance Carroll
You don’t build respectful relationships on such a foundation as this. You can’t. When you rip apart someone from within like this, you aren’t doing it to make them a better person. You do it, to punish them for existing. You do it, so they will never rise above you, will never become the fully realized human beings that you never could yourself. The staringly obvious thing about this assault on gay teens is that it isn’t about healing them, let alone bringing their families together. Just look at the indifference toward them after they’ve left the "program". This is about destroying the person within. Nothing else. John Smid is doing nothing more noble and righteous then making himself a willing pawn in the big boy’s Kultar Kampf, so he can fill the void inside of him with the lost hopes and dreams of young adults and helpless teenagers. Probably, they remind him of himself the day he took his own hopes and dreams around behind the barn and killed them. The big boys, the rich and powerful of the American hard core right wing, do it out of a bottomless hatred of the human spirit, which does not willingly accept their whips and chains. But for the likes of John, it is more personal, more focused, more intimate. Every light he manages to snuff out within a young person’s heart, justifies the choices he made in life that left darkness inside his own. That’s why he does it. In a larger sense, that’s why they all do it. It matters not if it leaves a family in ruins. Just so long as it leaves the kid’s heart in ruins.
There is a new movie out that I absolutely cannot fathom ever watching; Alpha Dog. As I understand it, the film dramatizes the true life kidnapping and murder of a 15 year old boy. I glanced at a review of it, which gave a few details. The victim was the brother of an older teen who owed a drug debt. Murder was not the original intent, only to make the brother pay up. The kid was taken to a house where he eventually began to enjoy the drugs and the scene and party it up a bit himself, not taking too seriously the situation he was in because his kidnappers were other kids not much older then he was. He thinks he is making friends with them.
But then the kidnapper talks with his lawyer and realizes the magnitude of the crime he’s committed, and step-by-step, feels backed into a corner where actually killing the kid looks like the only thing he can do. The review I read remarked on how uneasy you feel watching the whole situation unfold, watching that kid in the company of his kidnappers, enjoying their company, not taking too seriously the situation he’s in, hoping that what what you just know is going to happen won’t And then it does. I can’t watch that. Just thinking about it now as I type this, is stressing me out. I feel an urgent need to get that kid the hell out of there, by any means necessary. And I can’t. It’s too late. It’s many years too late. I think about how I was blissfully enjoying my own life, while this fifteen year old was in the company of kids who would eventually murder him and it just stresses me out. No way am I going to watch that movie.
On June 26, 2006 I initially left voice messages for Alan Chambers of Exodus International and another national ex-gay leader about inappropriate incidents that affected youth at an Exodus member ministry. I will not go into the details at this time, but I shared three specific situations that happened within the previous year. The shocking details of the third situation compelled me to contact Alan and this other national leader. In my initial messages I said that I would rather discuss this privately, but if they did not wish to talk, then I would initiate a public discussion.
Peterson Toscano, after all he’s been through in his life, is one of the most inwardly calm and decent people I’ve ever met. His style is not to be confrontational, but to speak to a person’s conscience, to their better nature, and try to work together with them to resolve problems. He would not be making this matter public if there was any other way. But Exodus doesn’t seem to want to address the issue. For half a year, he has been trying to get Exodus to agree to some basic guidelines for protecting the kids in their "programs". Now it looks like he’s just getting the brush-off.
The non-violent work that I do involves attempting to connect with people to create a "win-win" situation if at all possible. Building relationships, shedding assumptions, believing the best in people are all part of my Christian testimony. Joe Brummer outlines some of these non-violent steps in his most recent post. I don’t hate Alan or Exodus. I have used much restraint in hopes of seeing real change.
Some of us who feel we have been wounded by the ex-gay ministries and the anti-gay church may have sometimes wish to do them harm and to think the worse, to malign them the way that we feel they malign the LGBT community. For me Jesus’ teachings is that I should seek to do good and speak out against injustice but not exact revenge.
Perhaps some people would love there to be a major Exodus scandal. I want to see one avoided.
Do I wish them harm? Here’s what I wish. In a just society anyone who participated in forcing a gay kid into one of these places would be in jail, along with the other child molesters. That’s my wish. But the possibility of a scandal of this nature disturbs me so deeply that I have to step back from this fight periodically, for the sake of my own sanity. I think that’s why a lot of people hold this fight at arm’s length. It’s just too emotionally stressfull. You want to get those kids the hell out of there and you can’t. The law is against you. There’s nothing you can do but watch in a kind of growing gut wrenching horror. Ever since the Memphis protests, ever since I read that Refuge Rule Book Zach Stark posted, I’ve felt like I was watching a situation unfold, watching gay kids being put into camps run by men with no training other then religious dogma, no understanding of human sexuality, and no respect for the sexual nature of these kids, hoping that what what you just know is going to happen won’t And when it does, I am not going to be happy, I am going to be sick.
Peterson Toscano is one of the most decent people I have ever met. I hope his way of conflict resolution has the desired effect. I trust, since he actually knows more about this environment from first-hand experience then I’ll ever know in a lifetime, that he knows what he’s dealing with. I hope I am wrong: He believes there is a better nature within these people that can be reached. I think they’re rotten to the core. I think they’ve taken their conscience around behind the barn and killed it. I hope I am wrong. I hope I won’t see happen, what I just know is going to happen. But I don’t think even a sex abuse scandal will cause these people to reconsider what they are doing to kids. They’re on a mission from God, and God is never wrong.
People already know there is a potential for abuse here. This isn’t rocket science. And yet nothing is done, and kids are still being shoveled into it. Perhaps the reason for that is because the people involved in running these places Don’t Care. Exodus is not about helping people out of homosexuality…it is about fighting against gay civil rights. It’s about enforcing the pariah status of homosexual people. That is what Exodus is about. You may disagree, but that’s the only scenario where this behavior, this practical if not rhetorical indifference to the welfare of the kids in it, Makes. Any. Sense.
You think that any sane parent, even one that was vehemently opposed to homosexuality (I know…I know… It’s like being vehemently opposed to left-handedness…), would be disturbed to learn that their kids where being tossed into a mix of adults that included men who admitted to being sexual addicts and compulsives. You’d think that even these parents would be appalled to learn that some of these "former" sexual compulsives were staff members themselves, who could at any time get their kid alone somewhere on campus for a little private counseling. You’d think.
But then you watch these parents come and go in and out of Exodus "Love Won Out" conferences, you see them taking part in the larger anti-gay political agenda, and you listen to them mouth the same filthy lies about gay people we’ve all heard over and over thousands of times like a mantra of hate, and you realize that…yes…they probably wouldn’t care anyway. For a lot of these parents, I am convinced, these ex-gay camps aren’t a last resort to changing their kid’s sexual orientation at all. They’re punishment, pure and simple. What the religious right likes to call "tough love" and what otherwise decent people call child abuse. They want the kid to suffer, so they’ll never forget how much their own parents hate them for turning out to be faggots. Not necessarily suffer actual physical sexual abuse…no. Of course not. But the environment they’re being tossed into is primed for just that kind of thing to happen. It cannot be defused without gutting them of their mission, which is not to cure, but to enable the social and political abuse of these kids, and the adults they will grow into. You cannot enable the one, without some degree of indifference for the other. And it is of a piece with the indifference of the religious right to anti-gay violence in general. Here is Randy Thomas of Exodus, in an ad campaign against hate crime laws:
Of course, yes, many parents, not vehement about homosexuality, are simply terrified into sending their kids into these camps. They’re afraid for their kids, afraid because of the lies they’ve been taught by the religious right about homosexuals and homosexuality, afraid for their immortal souls. The last thing in the world these parents want is for their kid to be sexually abused while in one of these things. They trust in the people who run these camps, being righteous men and women of God. But the horrible nature of these places is that sexual abuse is in fact, what these places do. It is what they are meant to do.
We know instinctively that sexual abuse isn’t simply a matter of the physical act alone. It is a dagger plunged into their heart of the one who suffers it. We know this. And yet, we loose sight of it when it comes to what the ex-gay ministries do. We think of the child abuser as a monster, acting in pure selfish contempt and greed. We picture them as evil, vicious, brutal thugs. But greed has many faces. Consider for a moment instead, the victim. What do we often see in the victims of sexual abuse, and in particular, in the kids who have suffered it. Withdrawal. Guilt. Shame. Alienation. Self destructiveness. Guilt. Shame. A fear of sex and sexual intimacy that can work against any intimate human relationship they might attempt throughout their lives. Shame. Guilt. Shame. Shame. And shame. And what do we see in gay kids who have been taught to fear and loath their sexuality? Exactly the same things.
To methodically teach a gay kid to fear and loath their sexual nature is to do to them essentially what a rapist does to their victims, but without the physical act. And worse: because the child molester is universally condemned in our society and in human societies all over the world, but the people running these camps are held in high esteem as doing the work of God. For gay kids who internalize the message these camps do their damnest to put into them, there is no refuge from shame, not even the slightest comfort that what was done to them was a profound and unforgivable crime. To the contrary, the sense that they were to blame for what happened to them, is brutally re-enforced by the culture around them, particularly if they come from fundamentalist families.
What kind of people do this? Monsters? Perhaps. But not necessarily. There is hate, and there is greed. Sometimes they dance together. Sometimes they dance alone. Sometimes greed wears a face that seems compassionate and loving, until you realize that it’s the face of a vampire. There is love that is selfless and giving, and rejoices in the happiness of the beloved. And there is that greed that is selfish and needy and possessive and wears love like a mask, to hide a bottomless indifference to the damage it does.
Peterson has been trying hard to raise awareness of the potential for something worse then what he’s already discovered happening in these camps, and he’s made little headway judging from his post. He would greatly disagree with me on this I’m sure, but the problem as I see it is they’d have to care first, and you can’t care about what happens to kids physically without caring about what happens to them spiritually too. And the problem with that is it raises too many uncomfortable questions. Questions that call into doubt the very existance of these camps. Better not to ask them.
This is all of a piece. Note that none of these places keep any follow-up statistics on their "clients". As Wayne Besen found out while investigating them for his book, Anything But Straight, they can’t tell you their success rate because they don’t know it themselves. They don’t know how many of their "clients" stay heterosexual. They don’t know how the bond between parent and child does after a kid is run through their "program". They don’t know anything at all about the sexual, let alone the emotional health of their "clients" one, two, three years or more after they’ve been in the "program". They don’t want to know. The anecdotal evidence after all, is bad enough. I’ve heard the stories first-hand, from kids who have lived it. And the recurring theme through all of it is that none of these places seemed to give a good goddamn what happened to them after they’d gone through their "program".
This isn’t rocket science. Following up should not only be easy, but for people who are acting out of love for the kids it should be imperative. They should be critically intent on knowing how well they are doing their job. Are the kids better for having been though the program, or not? Are we doing anything wrong? Could we do better? Yet, they don’t want to know.
This blindness to the sexual safety of the kids in their custody is telling, in precisely the same vein. You need to pay attention to this. The great crimes against humanity don’t happen because of people who shake their fists at God and hoist the Jolly Roger. They happen, because of indifference to the humanity of their victims. Elie Wiesel, who survived the extermination camps of the thousand year Reich, captures it perfectly here:
The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it’s indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it’s indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it’s indifference.
The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference. The claim of the ex-gay camps is that they do what they do to kids out of love. To that, Peterson Toscano says taking steps to protect young people from abuse while in these camps is not only good business, but shows a genuine love for them. But there’s the problem.
Via The Christian Science Monitor…this from Peter Akinola, who it’s a safe bet fancies himself the Archbishop of the new church he’s busy carving out of the Anglican one. It’s really entertaining when they don’t know enough to keep their goddamned mouths shut…
Best known for his vocal opposition to homosexuality, Akinola has found support among US Anglicans, or Episcopalians, who opposed the 2003 consecration of a gay bishop and the church’s move to allow dioceses to bless same-sex unions.
Last month, two of America’s oldest Episcopalian churches – both in Virginia – voted to break with the US branch of Anglicanism over the issue and concerns about church leaders’ adherence to biblical authority. These churches, and several other smaller churches, joined the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, which is connected to Akinola.
"Homosexuality seeks to destroy marriage as we know it, unity as we know it, family life as we know it, so how can we endorse that?" asks Akinola. "That is completely outside what God planned for humanity. When God created man, he saw man was alone and added a female mate for him. Why didn’t he pick one of the baboons, one of the lions to make his partner? He could have done so. He didn’t,"
[Emphasis mine] Say…weren’t they saying the same thing about mixed race marriages not all that long ago in Virginia…?
Who would have guessed that answering a few census questions could make you a participant in battling the "homosexual agenda"?
Napa resident Marcia Zwick never imagined this when she recently received a large, important-looking envelope in the mail. She works as a legal secretary and is accustomed to handling official documents.
"I’m a reasonably intelligent person," Zwick said. "I couldn’t tell what this really was."
The answer isn’t readily apparent.
"U.S. Taxpayer Census," the envelope says on the outside in big letters. "Do Not Tamper: Reply Within 5 Days."
Inside is an official-looking questionnaire. "This U.S. Taxpayer Census has been specially commissioned to gather public opinion in America’s ‘grassroots’ about the new Social Security Preservation Act (HR 219) now pending in the U.S. Congress," it says.
"This Census is individually registered under your name to represent Napa public opinion in California 01 voting district. So it is critical you return it — even if you are undecided about some answers."
In reality, the "Census" is a mailer from something called the Christian Seniors Association. And of the nine questions it asks, six involve a slanted look at Social Security and three involve donating money to the right-wing organization.
What the mailer doesn’t tell you, though, at least not in so many words, is that any funds contributed to the Christian Seniors Association will in fact go to its parent group, the Traditional Values Coalition.
Cute. This from the man who routinely calls gay people sexual predators and pedophiles. They’re the folks responsible for this bit of fragrant web advertising:
The mailer from the Christian Seniors Association only hints at broader public-policy goals. An accompanying letter explains that the organization was started several years ago as an alternative to the AARP.
…
It’s not until you get to the fine print on the back of the association’s Census form that you learn the organization "is a division of Traditional Values Coalition" and that "all contributions are combined to help pay Traditional Values Coalition expenses."
So this ersatz seniors organization really exists mostly to funnel old people’s money over to TVC. You have to figure that’s because scaring them with the gay bogyman isn’t opening up their checkbooks like it used to. Picture Lou spending money old people gave to him out of their fixed incomes thinking it was going to a campaign for senior’s issues, on his splendid little war on homosexuality instead. I guess screwing old people isn’t ungodly if all you rape them for is their money. You know…that stuff they use to put food in their mouths and a roof over their heads and buy their medicine with. Who the hell made Lou Sheldon a reverend? John Gotti?
As many as eight conservative Episcopal churches in Virginia are expected to announce today that their parishioners have voted to cut their ties with the Episcopal Church. Two are large, historic congregations that minister to the Washington elite and occupy real estate worth a combined $27 million, which could result in a legal battle over who keeps the property.
In a twist, these wealthy American congregations are essentially putting themselves up for adoption by Anglican archbishops in poorer dioceses in Africa, Asia and Latin America who share conservative theological views about homosexuality and the interpretation of Scripture with the breakaway Americans.
“The Episcopalian ship is in trouble,” said the Rev. John Yates, rector of The Falls Church, one of the two large Virginia congregations, where George Washington served on the vestry. “So we’re climbing over the rails down to various little lifeboats. There’s a lifeboat from Bolivia, one from Rwanda, another from Nigeria. Their desire is to help us build a new ship in North America, and design it and get it sailing.”
Together, these Americans and their overseas allies say they intend to form a new American branch that would rival or even supplant the Episcopal Church in the worldwide Anglican Communion, a confederation of national churches that trace their roots to the Church of England and the archbishop of Canterbury.
…
In Virginia, the two large churches are voting on whether they want to report to the powerful archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, an outspoken opponent of homosexuality who supports legislation in his country that would make it illegal for gay men and lesbians to form organizations, read gay literature or eat together in a restaurant.
"I think what upsets people is that Rushdoony [the founder of the Christian Reconstructionist movement] seemed to think – and I’m not sure about this – that a godly society would stone people for the same thing that people in ancient Israel were stoned," he said. "I no longer consider that essential.
"It would still be a little hard to say that if one stumbled on a country that was doing that, that it is inherently immoral, to stone people for these things," Ahmanson said. "But I don’t think it’s at all a necessity."
Well…there’s stumbling on such a country, and then there’s bankrolling one yourself. The conservatives can make all the excuses they want for their decision to schism, but the staringly obvious fact is that they are ripping their church apart for nothing more righteous and noble then a bottomless hatred of homosexual people. Nobody is forcing them into the arms of the man who wants to cleanse Nigeria of homosexuals, anymore then anyone was forcing them to take money from a man who still finds it "a little hard to say" that stoning them to death is immoral. They’re going willingly. Joyfully. A ‘lifeboat’ Yates called it, who preaches to his faithful in a state that used to enforce a law forbidding bars and restaurants from serving known homosexuals, and which only last month passed a constitutional amendment that strips same sex couples of all legal rights. But it isn’t enough that the state hates gay people as much as they do. God has to hate them that much too.
When they tell you it’s not about hate, laugh in their faces and point to their new Moses and his promise land, where homosexuals cannot even sit down together in public without facing arrest. Then point to their blood money.
Galileo was persecuted for revealing what we now know to be the truth regarding Earth’s place in our solar system. Today, the issue is homosexuality, and the persecution is not of one man but of millions. Will Christian leaders once again be on the wrong side of history?
Not all of them. The author Mary Renault once said that politics, like sex, is an expression of the person within. If you are mean and selfish and cruel she said, then that will show up in politics and it will show up in your sex life when what really matters is that you aren’t the sort of person who will behave like that. To that I would only add religion. If you are mean and selfish and cruel it will show up in your religious life, when what really matters is that you aren’t the sort of person who will behave like that. I realize this point of view rubs people who believe in the transforming power of faith the wrong way but it’s been my experience. When contemplating the Eternal, it’s pretty damn hard to separate what’s you, from what is trancendant, and that’s if you’re really trying. For most people, religion is a mirror, and you never know that better then when the discussion turns to homosexuality, and all of a sudden God just seems to agree with every cheapshit prejudice of the believer you’re talking to…
In the USA Today Opinion pages last week, Oliver "Buzz" Thomas, a Baptist minister and author of 10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You (But Can’t Because He Needs the Job), tried to reason with his fellow Christians. He might as well have been talking to the wind.
Christianity is not the problem. Christianity has nothing to do with the problem. Christians, just like any other group of random people anywhere, both do and do not accept the homosexual as their neighbor. For the ones that do their faith clarifies and illuminates and sustains that deeply felt need to love their neighbor, and stand with them when they are persecuted. For the ones that do not, Christianity provides an excuse, a cloth they can wrap the rotting core of their hatreds in, so they won’t have to look at it, won’t have to look at what they are becoming because of it. You try to take that cloth away from them and they’ll grip it with a ferociousness the likes of which you’ll never witness anywhere else. Because once that cloth is gone, they have to take responsibility for what they are, for they’ve done.
Last week, U.S. Roman Catholic bishops took the position that homosexual attractions are "disordered" and that gays should live closeted lives of chastity. At the same time, North Carolina’s Baptist State Convention was preparing to investigate churches that are too gay-friendly. Even the more liberal Presbyterian Church (USA) had been planning to put a minister on trial for conducting a marriage ceremony for two women before the charges were dismissed on a technicality. All this brings me back to the question: What if we’re wrong?
Religion’s only real commodity, after all, is its moral authority. Lose that, and we lose our credibility. Lose credibility, and we might as well close up shop.
It’s happened to Christianity before, most famously when we dug in our heels over Galileo’s challenge to the biblical view that the Earth, rather than the sun, was at the center of our solar system. You know the story. Galileo was persecuted for what turned out to be incontrovertibly true. For many, especially in the scientific community, Christianity never recovered.
This time, Christianity is in danger of squandering its moral authority by continuing its pattern of discrimination against gays and lesbians in the face of mounting scientific evidence that sexual orientation has little or nothing to do with choice. To the contrary, whether sexual orientation arises as a result of the mother’s hormones or the child’s brain structure or DNA, it is almost certainly an accident of birth. The point is this: Without choice, there can be no moral culpability.
This is reason’s case. It’s a good case. But it’s the wrong case to make to about half his audience. For the Christians who don’t hate, the evidence of science, and for that matter the lives of their homosexual neighbors, provides further cause to stand with the gay community, and speak out against persecution. But when you try to reason with the ones who just can’t see the people for the homosexuals, you’re talking right past them. Appeals to reason, appeals to the Christian faith, do not reach down to where the hate is. Mr. Thomas is not even talking to half of his audience. He’s talking past them.
For those who have lingering doubts, dust off your Bibles and take a few hours to reacquaint yourself with the teachings of Jesus. You won’t find a single reference to homosexuality. There are teachings on money, lust, revenge, divorce, fasting and a thousand other subjects, but there is nothing on homosexuality. Strange, don’t you think, if being gay were such a moral threat?
On the other hand, Jesus spent a lot of time talking about how we should treat others. First, he made clear it is not our role to judge. It is God’s. ("Judge not lest you be judged." Matthew 7:1) And, second, he commanded us to love other people as we love ourselves.
This is also reason’s case. The rules of evidence have merely changed from the scientific, to the theological. But it is still an appeal to reason.
Scroll down to the comments below his opinion article, and you can see what reasoning with bigots gets you…
Sodom and Gomorrah??? And you are a Baptist Preacher?? Shame on You. What would Jesus do? He’s already done it (Death, burial and resurrection) "Grace"! God’s Word is the same yesterday, today and forever. Choice is everyone’s decision: Heaven or Hell. This is the reason no one fear’s God, is pastors like you that is suppose to be preaching the Truth, are tickling the ears with what the people want to hear. All of us will stand before the Lord’s judgement; you and me included…….Now do your JOB! Their house is on fire….Tell them to come to the Lord for salvation. Talk about discrimination are you discriminating against GOD??? God won’t let you starve, if He Called you to the ministry? Have a good day.
In spite of what you try to "prove" and your smear tactics against good Christian people, Bible-believing Christians will NEVER accept your lies and propaganda for a sinful lifstyle which God Himself in the Bible condemns. Homosexulality is sin and no one is born with it. Your hatred of the church only reflects your own bias. I you want to promote this perversion you have a right to do so, but don’t condemn others who choose to believe the Bible instead of your lies and distortion!
Oliver Thomas seems to believe that disagreement with gays on matters of sexual beahvior is equivalent to persecution and bigotry. Since when is it a crime or a sin to hold certain standards of behavior, or to disagree with liberalized views of sexual conduct? When did Christianity require indulgence of urges strengthened by genetics? Why must Jesus expressly condemn an activity for churches to be justified in opposing it? (If that were the case, Christians would be compelled to accept substance abuse, pedophelia, pornography, and a whole host of other inborn attractions Jesus didn’t mention by name.)
Yes I am disappointed and I’ll get to that in a moment. What Oliver "Buzz" Thomas has forgotten are scriptures such as; [Romans 1:26-27]…
Ah yes…the Some Of My Best Friends Are defense…
I’m no homophobe or gay basher, I have had good friends that are gay, but I never compromised my standing on the word of God to accommodate their feelings. Believe it or not they actually over time appreciated the fact that I stuck firmly with my convictions and didn’t conform to what society sees as tolerance. I accepted them for who they were as people but not their sexual sin and they knew that from the beginning and know it still to this day. If I were to run into them again at the market we’d joyfully catch up on lost time and laugh at college memories.
The, Shoot Your Bible Verses Back At Them Like A Machine Gun approach…
Sexual immorality is explicitly discouraged in the Bible passages below. The full texts of a few representative verses from Paul’s genuine writings are included…
Old Testament
Exo 22:16,17
Deu 22:13-29
New Testament
1Co 6:15-20; 7:1,2
You know that your bodies are parts of the body of Christ. Shall I take a part of Christ’s body and make it part of the body of a prostitute? Impossible! Or perhaps you don’t know that the man who joins his body to a prostitute becomes physically one with her? The scripture says quite plainly, “The two will become one body.” But he who joins himself to the Lord becomes spiritually one with him. Avoid immorality. Any other sin a man commits does not affect his body; but the man who is guilty of sexual immorality sins against his own body. Don’t you know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who lives in you and who was given to you by God? You do not belong to yourselves but to God; he bought you for a price. So use your bodies for God’s glory. A man does well not to marry. But because there is so much immorality [from the Greek word porneia, Strongs #4202], every man should have his own wife, and every woman should have her own husband. (TEV)
In the last passage listed above, Paul commends marriage as a means to avoid "fornication" (KJV), "immorality" (NAB, NIV, REB, TEV), "sexual immorality" (NRSV), which is a translation of the Greek word porneia (Strong’s # 4202). That Greek word and its related Greek words porneuo (Strong’s # 4203), pornos (Strong’s # 4205), and ekporneuo (Strong’s #1608) are discouraged throughout the New Testament, as in the following verses:
New Testament
Mat 5:32
Mat 15:19
Mat 19:9
Mar 7:21
Joh 8:41
Act 15:20,29
Act 21:25
Rom 1:29
1Co 5:1,9,10,11
1Co 6:9,13,18
1Co 7:2
1Co 10:8
2Co 12:21
Gal 5:19
Eph 5:3
Col 3:5
1Th 4:3
Heb 12:16
Jude 1:7
Rev 2:14,20,21
Rev 9:21
Rev 14:8
Rev 17:2,4
Rev 18:3,9
Rev 19:2
Homosexual acts are explicitly discouraged in the Bible passages below. The full texts of a few representative verses from Paul’s genuine writings are included.
Old Testament
Lev 18:22-30
Lev 20:13
New Testament
Rom 1:24-27
24 God has given those people over to do the filthy things their hearts desire, and they do shameful things with each other. 25 They exchange the truth about God for a lie; they worship and serve what God has created instead of the Creator himself… 26 Because they do this, God has given them over to shameful passions. Even the women pervert the natural use of their sex by unnatural acts. 27 In the same way the men give up natural sexual relations with women and burn with passion for each other. Men do shameful things with each other, and as a result they bring upon themselves the punishment they deserve for their wrongdoing.
1Co 6:9,10
9 Surely you know that the wicked will not possess God’s Kingdom. Do not fool yourselves; people who are immoral or who worship idols or are adulterers or homosexual perverts [from the Greek word apsenokoites, Strong’s #733] 10 or who steal or are greedy or are drunkards or who slander others or are thieves—none of these will possess God’s Kingdom.
If you bother to look in the bible you will find problems for these kind of people. In God’s world they were not born this way. If I was a gay male I would start looking at women closer and become a member of God’s Church, and If I was a gay female I would look closer at men and become a member of God’s church.
First, Poppycock! Second, I am sick of the Matthew 7:1 argument…
Third, yes Jesus never mentions homosexuality per se. He does, however, discuss adultery several times.
Just another liberal screed trying to downplay religion and lift up their homosexual agenda. There is a reason that homosexuality has been looked down upon by almost every civilization and religion. It’s is against god’s will and nature. Homosexuals can’t reproduce so they have to coopt your children to advance their agenda and the bible is a major stumbling block in their way, so that is why the attacks on religion and the bible.
There’s this old joke about how protestantism represents the ascendancy of Paul over Peter, and protestant fundamentalism represents the ascendancy of Paul over Christ…
Mr. Thomas you do yourself quite a disservice by showing your complete ignorance of scriptures. First of all, the Old Testament law was given to the Jewish nation and it was never expected that non-Jewish individuals would follow these laws. So for you to say that if I apply the verse in Leviticus 18 and therefore I must therefore keep the whole law shows you incompetence in interpreting and applying scripture. Paul explicitly tells the Gentile converts in New Testament that they were under no obligation to keep the law (see Galatians 2 and 3)of the Old Testament.
Sir, I will never make any apologies for my beliefs because there is no need for me to do so since my beliefs can be backed up by the word of God.
Gay, Homosexuals whatever, you trust in the lord, your way is wrong, but he still loves you, while I find you kind of sickening. Ya see, I am not performing according to God’s plan by my feeling as I do.
And for anyone who thinks religion is a cause of prejudice, and not just another one of its excuses…
What I don’t understand is how homosexuality differs from any other congenital birth defect or condition (ie downs syndrome, spina bifida, or any of the myriad of other birth defects). Something goes wrong in the development of the fetus and alters the funtioning of the brain. So while it’s debatable whether or not their behavior is moral or immoral I don’t think there’s any reason why there shouldn’t be research into preventing whatever changes the brain chemistry in the first place. Homosexuality is a disease… we shouldn’t be embracing it… we should be looking to cure/prevent it.
hate the sin, not the sinner.
to know the LORD is to fear…to fear the LORD is to love…to love the LORD is to obey his comandments.
You may believe there is a God and in Jesus, but this is not enough, you must make a formal commitment to them. Remember Jesus says there is no way to the Father except thru me. There must be a vocal (or prayer) some action by you to make a commitment. Your belief only may leave you in a place you do not want to be. You may say I believed, why am I being denied eternal life. For some belief may be enough, but for others there is eternal death. Some of us who claim to be Christians may not receive eternal life (I may be one I do not know). My wife tells me I am to judgemental. Maybe I should listen closer. Anyway go to a bible study and find out why you should be a Christian.
Take the following steps!
In my belief there are two steps to becoming a member of God’s family. Formally accepting Jesus as savior, (I believe Jesus is the Christ the son of the liveing God, I believe in my heart he is Lord and God raised him from the dead).
Be, Baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
You have been forgiven at this point and the Holy Spirit now lives within you, to give you strength and help you in your sinful ways which will require much prayer.
As a straight woman, I don’t understand what it’s like to be attracted to the same sex, but I have had conversations with those who have never felt any other way. However, as a Christian, I do believe in the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality, and fornication, adultery, etc.
Even if I followed your line of logic that some people can’t help it, how far should we extend these "rights"? What’s never addressed is the "gay today, gone tomorrow" crowd, who argue for gay "rights" while only temporarily in gay relationships.
Ann Heche (straight, gay, straight again…Julie Cyphers, married to Lou Diamond Phillips, "married" to Melissa Etheridge, now married to a man again…) the list goes on. If we’re supposed to believe that gay people can’t love anyone of the opposite sex, these actors aren’t very good ambassadors for the cause.
I’m apt to believe that hormones gone awry explain at least some cases of homosexuality. The stereotypically effeminate man or masculine woman, (no bra, short hair, no makeup, etc.) would fall into that category. I have even seen people whose sex is hard to determine at first glance. This of course does not excuse any form of sexual immorality, adultery or fornication, gay or straight.
What those who believe in gay marriage are really asking for is nothing less than acceptance of their behavior. Tolerance already exists. (And please dont bring up Matthew Sheppard – his murderer admitted that he only killed him for money; didn’t even know he was gay!)
If gay "marriages" were allowed, children could be taught in schools that these are perfectly acceptable lifestyles. I don’t claim to know what it’s like to feel "gay", but I also don’t want 6 year olds recruited into the lifestyle.
Mr. Thomas there is NO conclusive scientific evidence that homosexuals are born that way. 60 Minutes did a piece on this very subject a few months ago and these scientific theories were all over the place. (1) Its the mother’s fault — hormonal imbalance or triggers during pregnancy. However, on this program they showed faternal twins (same mother, same hormones) who had different sexual orientations. (2) Its in the DNA: again identical twins who share the same DNA — one is gay the other is heterosexual. (3) And there was the big brother theory which supposedly says the more big brothers a man has the more likely he is to be gay. Again, how do you explain the eldest brother being gay or no brothers being gay?
It was also interesting that NOT ONE of these theories explain lesbianism. According, to the scientist spouting this nonesense, when they viewed the dna of lesbians, looked at the hormonal balance/triggers/whatever of their birth mothers, or the status of their sisters — they could find no genetic reason to explain lesbianism. So where does that leave these scientific theories?
Mr. Thomas you have the absolute right to defend the practices of homosexuality. However, please do not mislead individuals reading your op-ed or other works that this practice can be backed up by science because that IS A LIE.
Finally, if you and others want to embrace homosexuality as a right, privilege, or whatever you see it as — fine, great, bravo, and more power to you. However, please do not lecture to me or tell me that I need to or will need to apologize to anyone because of my belief in God’s word.
The Scripture also says, "Fornicators and adulterers God will judge." Jesus doesn’t address homosexuality, because in the world of the Hebrew, that’s a "no brainer." If God condemned it as an abomination, and if He is not the author of sin or evil, it follows that He stands against it now.
With the author’s convoluted logic, God will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.
We, like the apostle Paul, should determine in our minds to know nothing save Jesus Christ and him crucified [1]; but what does this mean? For Paul, and every preacher, preaching Christ crucified is condemning, among many things, homosexuality. How do I know that?
In 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul did not only condemn homosexuality in general, but got REALLY SPECIFIC by naming the “effeminate” or catamite (PASSIVE homosexual partner) and “abusers of themselves with mankind” or sodomite (ACTIVE homosexual partner). Who can misunderstand and misapply Paul’s word under inspiration?
Obviously, Mr. Thomas is tickling many ears having turned aside unto fables [2], which is great for crowd seekers because the world hears them [3]. Mr. Thomas, you need to remember, “Let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment” [4]. Do your homework. Preach the word. Have backbone. Quit tickling ears.
I could easily address your abuse of other points e.g. Leviticus, Jesus & love, Mt. 7:1; but I want to keep this response short to be read by all.
It’s the truth, not fables, that makes men free [5].
[1] 1 Corinthians 2:2
[2] 2 Timothy 4:3-4
[3] 1 John 4:5
[4] James 3:1 NKJV
[5] John 8:32
We find ourselves living in a society, where the moral climate is at it’s lowest point (2 timothy 3:1-5). There are several million people on this plantet, Earth, who still have a love for God and His Word. True lovers of God’s Word are now in the minority but they will be vindicate and so will Almighty God and His Son Jesus Christ. The family arrangement will perish if They do not bring an end to the selfish greed and depraved sexual appetite of those, who "claim" that God made them that way!!
How sad that a so called "minister of God" feels justified to support this "lifestyle" that the Word of God clearly condemns. If a heterosexual couple who are not married is condemned, how much more so a homosexual one!! God is not one to be mock, whatever a man sows, he will reap-Galatians 6:7.
Any religion claiming to be christain should have the courage to stand up for Almighty God and His Son Jesus Christ and not allow the moral climate to shape their views!!
The following individuals did not allow the world to shape their moral stand or views.
Foremost Jesus Christ, Moses, Abraham, Apostle Paul just to name a few.
If we are ashamed of God, he will be ashamed of us and not acknowledge us. That is a dangerous position to be in. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God-Hebrews 10:31
Another Some Of My Best Friends Are…
A few thoughts for you and others to consider. 1)Your intentional selective Scipture usage is interesting in that this is exactly what you usually accuse the "bible beleivers" of doing. There are much more difficult passages in the Bible for you and others who agree with you to consider. I know you are aware of them, but instead of intelligent, informed dialogue, you chose selective banter that only seduces the uninformed. Jesus certainly didn’t speak on homosexuality, but that is only an argument from silence, which isn’t very convincing. If your reliance on science is so strong, maybe you ought to investigate the false claims of scientist throughout history and the damage they have caused as well. Investigate the claim that five years from now nearly half of what is claimed to be scientific fact will be disproved.
In Romans, Paul writes of the corrupted nature of man from birth. The idea that every one of us is predisposed to sin. The mere discovery of something that the Bible has claimed for centuries doesn’t change what sin is nor does it change our response to it. I do believe that homosexuality is outside of God’s desire for His creation. I also believe that Christ calls us to compassion for those that disagree with me. I am a local pastor with homosexual friends and a fellow staff member who struggles with homosexuality. He is one of my best friends. Can anyone speak the truth on the matter and have compassion without trying to make a political point? You are intentional in what you write and don’t write. To me your silence speaks so loud it is hard to read your words.
I give an "amen" to the person who reminded everyone that just because Christians view homosexuality as a sin, they are not "persecuters." Be reasonable! I am a Christian and do not for a minute think I will be able to understand the difficult trial of same-sex attraction. However, we are all sinners, we all have our individual hardships, temptations, lusts etc. For homosexuals, if they feel this is not a choice, then maybe they should focus not on the cause, but how to live in accordance with God’s law. I am not Catholic, and they certainly are not the moutpiece for all Christian religions, however I applaud them for standing firm with Biblical doctrine and not be swept up in what pop culture wants to feel is ok. The bottom line is if we want to be happy, we must obey God’s commandments. We cannot treat the commandments like a buffet, picking and choosing what is easiest for us to obey, and expect to feel satisfied. Wickedness never was happiness.
Here we go again. Pick out the parts you don’t like, inflate the ones you do and call it scholastic whatever. Agchhh. That’s an expression of disgust combined with frustration. It is because these so called "Men of God" lack the courage to apply the important spirit of the scripture, while amplifying the value of the "spices and mints", so to speak. It is in-obvious to these particular brand of "Pharise opaques", the ones who justify homosexual lust-gratification, that is, that the overall meaning and lesson in the Bible is the negation of the animal, or in more modern terms, carnal, in human nature. While they trumpet restraint in wrath, so long as it is not against their particular "natural-ness". While they limit lust, so long as it is not against children, yet. While they desparge greed, against the lastest poster children for oppression. And while they consult the latest trend, without thinking, of course, as to who or what they should be "against" in any particular month, week, day or hour, they do seem to forget that Christ told them that there is a Ghenna for those who do not seek him. If they believe they can do so while making "love" to the same sex, or children or animals or themselves or money or whatever, what person can argue to change them? If they believe that there is no righteous wrath, no one, not even Christ himself as to His correction of the Pharises, can turn them from their self directedness. They are what they are. Rationalized animals, the carnal self-purified and the makers of their own god and religion. It is the same as it has always been, with the only change being the technical mass media distribution of so polarized a view by so many that have been inculcated into the "sacredness" of our carnal roots. These are the same that would have pronounce "sin" upon Christ for whipping the money changers from the Temple. They never would have guessed they were defining "sin" upon the ultimate definer, of them, and, lest we forget, us.
I hear it all the time: "Wishful thinking" presented as fact – that homosexuals cannot help themselves; that they are born that way and that their is "scientific" evidence indicating a genetic basis. On the contrary, there is NO solid scientific evidence and what little there is has been effectively refuted. Why also doesn’t the liberal community want us to know what EX-GAYs have to say and how they fell into the lifestyle? Most will tell you that they were subjected to some form of dramatic emotional trauma (ie., parental or peer rejection and sometimes molestation) that caused them to go into a kind of self-defense withdrawal. One man said his dad always put incredible pressure on him as a youth to excel in sports…but he had no interest. Eventually his dad (and other boys) essentially rejected him, calling him a wimp. He withdrew and found relative safety in the company of his mother, sister and other girls that seemed to understand his emotions. He longed for the love and acceptance of his father and eventually tried to substitute other men for it. He also stated that the gay lifestyle means hundreds of gay partners but ultimately the lifestyle is empty, lonely and unfullfilling. His journey out was not easy because its emotional and mental…but there is a way out. He and many others are living proof.
The idea that got Galileo in trouble with the Roman church, that the earth is the center of the Universe, was from Aristotle and not the Bible. Such human philosophy invaded the church and was partly responsible for the Reformation. This makes the author’s main premise that science is superior to the Bible in this case null and void. After this absurdity he then tries replace biblical teachings again with human philosophy. This would recreate the same error he was trying to condemn. Anyone who thinks this article has any merit needs to take a logic course.
Now the bottom line is this? Should we change every law that exists to accomodate a group of people who are living outside what is considered the legal bonds of marriage. NO. We wouldn’t do if for other special interest groups. If they want to live together as companions and partners, then finding a way to make it work for them is part of the burden of choosing that lifestyle. Because whether they like it or not, homosexuality may not be a choice; maybe it is something that happens at birth, but deciding to live a gay lifestyle is a choice. If being gay wasn’t a bad thing, then why do so many homosexuals say that they tried to live a heterosexual lifestyle; made every attempt to live straight? Why did they not tell anyone when they were very young and first had those strange attractions to the wrong sex? Because something within their own PERSONAL moral structure let them know it was wrong. The apostle Paul said in Romans that "nature itself lets us know there is a God." Nature also lets us know the lifestyle that God ordained for man to live. You rarely see two male dogs trying to mate…they would kill each other.
Anyway. I love you. Whether you are gay, lesbian, straight, Pentecostal, Church of Christ, Church of God, Mormon, Seventh Day Adventist, Catholic: I love you because I love HIM, and he has allowed me the capacity to love you all.
Now one last word for "Buzz." SHUT UP!
If I am travelling South on I-75 and I approach an exit from the flowing highway I must choose to leave it. But my journey has begun with me travelling south on I-75.
If I am alive I am on a heterosexual journey. I do not need to choose to be heterosexual, I am. I must however choose to exit that journey.
Homosexuality is a choice, and a sin. And the fact that I don’t choose to be hetrosxual does not disprove homosexuality’s status as a choice.
I believe in compassion and acceptance, but not absolution. Those who are debating the scripture are demonstrating their lack of understanding of a very complex issue regarding God’s law as reveled across time. The Bible does teach against homosexuality from a variety of perspectives, and does not contradict itself in doing so.
The scientific community says that alcoholism is in the genes and murderers have a gene that makes them predisposed to kill. Let’s just say that everything is OK. It sure makes it hard to figure out what a morally pure life is. I guess you have all the answers and we have had it wrong for years.
When it comes to tolerance, where is yours?
The problem with this very old tactic is that Mr. Thomas discredits the Bible in order to discredit Leviticus, then appeals to that very same Bible (presumably Matthew, Mark etc.) in order to support his position on homosexuality. This "Cafeteria" approach to Scripture supposes that some Scripture is wrong while other scripture is right. Thus Scripture is only inspired in spots, a so-called "Dalmatian theology". The problem with this faulty approach is the question of who decides what parts of scripture are inspired or right and what parts are wrong. In his article, Mr. Thomas has appointed himself the supreme determiner of Biblical rightness. Thank you, but I will let Scripture determine that for itself.
Mr. Thomas if you want to condone homosexuality that is your God given right but don‘t “try“ to change “The Word of God“ to fit your beliefs? The Bible says we were all born sinners.
It is irrelevant that a person is born gay. Your sin may have included homosexuality etc.., mine included lying, fornication etc… Thank God I had parents and “The Word of God” to give me standards to live by or I would still be a liar today. The problem is, who is teaching someone who is born gay, that it is wrong. Someone needs to teach a pedophile, yes, you may be attracted to little children, but it is wrong. I don’t believe that a person wakes up one morning and yawns and says “I think I will be attracted to little children today”. No, they were born that way. Does that make it alright? Are there any studies being conducted on that subject?
There is good news for the homosexual, the pedophile, and the liar you don’t have to be.
To every person who has made up their minds to live life their own way and not according to “Godly Principles”. There is no need to argue. It is your God given choice.
Ironically, homosexuality is one area where religion and science agree. Contrary to what the author states, a close reading of scientific literature shows there is NO scientific PROOF that homosexuality is innate, genetic, inborn or biologically pre-determined (scientists are backing off from the gay gene theory). There is ample "common sense" evidence that homosexuality is, however, very harmful to people involved, witness the AIDS crisis and numerous diseases such as anal cancer for which homosexual men are at greater risk.
No one is born homosexual. With that being said, no one chooses to be homosexual either. It is like other psychologcial issues, a matter of development, beginning with childhood. But no one has to be homosexual. I know this because I am a man who left homosexuality. I am not just talking about behavior here, but patterns of sexual response and fantasy. I can’t say it was easy but it can be done. A truly liberal and tolerant approach would make people aware of this alternative. This is the message that needs to get out to people yet is rarely, if ever, heard.
With all due respect, I believe you’ve been "bonging the yahe"( When religion loses its crdibility 11/20/06). Comparing Galileo with gay rights is an absurd straw man argument. You want to talk persecution?… try being a devoted follower of Jesus in secularized American society today. As for Christianity’s moral authority, try admonishing anyone by quoting from the Bible…you might get a blank stare and a laugh. I don’t know where you are getting your "fact" and "truth", but I am not aware of a "gay gene" being discovered…scientists who have spent years studying this issue, simply do not know. Sure there may be a predetermination at an early age, but an argument from nature is flawed, because as everyone (not just Christians, Jews and Muslims) knows, nature is flawed. As for your quoting from Scripture, the Law ( for followers of the Christ) is fulfilled in Jesus…so we are not under the law, but not free of moral living (Acts 15), including sexual morals in the context of Hebrew Biblical morality. Of course,if you are not a follower of Christ, this doesn’t apply to you and you can ignore it like you ignore the letters of St. Paul, etc. Unfortunately your article, to me, supports what the " Religious Right" has been saying about a " Homosexual Agenda"…biased judgemental statements without hard scientific proof used to attack the demonized " narrow-minded, Bible thumping Christians", etc. I don’t think this email has much of a chance of being published in USA Today, but I thought I would try and check your open mind.
If Mr. Thomas has proved anything from his essay, it is his complete ignorance of the Bible. There is no text in scripture stating that the Earth is the center of the solar system; the Bible makes no mention of a solar system, and never states that planets go around anything. Venus, Mars, and Jupiter are never discussed. Galileo was persecuted by the mediaeval Roman Catholic Church, an organization dominated by tradition, not scripture; an organization that burned many people alive for reading the Bible or translating it into the language of the common people. Going on, eating catfish might have been forbidden by Leviticus, but there was no death penalty stated for this offence, or for many others. Premarital sex might have been forbidden, but if the two were single, the penalty was not death, but rather marriage forthwith to the partner in question. Mr Thomas totally fails to catch the basic distinction made by the New Testament regarding ceremonial laws specially applicable to the Jewish nation at that time (cf Acts 15), and moral laws which applied to all humans for all time (see Jesus’ statements, Matthew 5, the Sermon on the Mount). Jumping with Mr Thomas to Genesis, it is stated that everything that God made was good. This statement was made at Creation, and not after the Fall or the entrance of sin into the world. Mr Thomas and his logic would imply that rapists and child molesters are good, since God made them. Traveling to Romans 1 or any other references by Paul to homosexuality, there is absolutely no hint that minors are being discussed by Paul; it is another wishful dream by the august reverend to try to prove his desired conclusion. Homosexuality, with no special qualifications, bells, or whistles, is held forth as a prime example of the moral depravity of the Gentile world, and all who engaged in that sin or many other sins listed there, at the conclusion of the chapter are declared to be worthy of death. Mr Thomas begs to argue that Jesus never mentions homosexuality. Nor does he mention rape. Guess Jesus thought that rape was a very trivial thing. Get a brain. Garbage in, garbage out.
I have no doubt homosexual desire is genetic. I also have no doubt that if medical science bothered to look, it would find genetic links to all of mankind’s evil desires. God created a perfect man and woman, but their own choice to sin condemned their offspring to be imperfect. The obvious way that this imperfection is passed down is through the now-imperfect genetic code.
A complete reading of the Bible leaves no doubt that God is Love, but He is also Perfectly Just. Jesus was compasionate to sinners, but He left no doubt that sin keeps man separated from God, and that only by believing in His Perfect Sacrifice could man be saved from God’s Judgement. To quote (completely) from the Gospel when the adulerous woman was accused: "…neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."
There is much more…Thomas’ opinion piece really opened up the sewers…but in a way it was all worth it, for this one response, from a reader named David. Here’s the bedrock of pain, right here. Here’s what this piss ignorant worthless useless sickening prejudice does to people, to families, to the bond between parent and child. Here is why I am not a Christian. I simply cannot follow Jesus where I’m pretty sure he would want me to go. He would say I need to forgive, and I cannot. This is why:
I thought some might be interested in what happened when I sent this article to my Christian family. First, the response from my older sister. Second, the response from my dad.
David,
Do you not realize how painful it is to receive something like this from you? Your lifestyle choice is your choice; I don’t agree with it, but it is your choice. In fact, I am very sad for you. You will never experience the joy of marriage, or the joy of becoming a father. The family name, Peery, has ended with our generation. You have lost your excitement for living the Christian life. Need I remind you that you were the head of the Christian club in high school; started the Christian group, the Core, at Santa Clara; worked at Hume Lake Christian Camp; and worked at a Baptist Church. Were all these Christian activities a cover-up for your true soul?! I’m not sure what turned you away from living the Christian lifestyle. If I recall correctly, you even were considering becoming a youth pastor. When I listen to my Christian music on my way to work many days I nearly come to tears when I think about you when listening to many of the words in the songs. I wonder how the evil one took hold of you, but I will never lose the faith that you will return and come to your senses. I only hope it is not too late. I think of our very own Uncle Jim and how he lost his life over making the decisions he did. I don’t know how, knowing that, you could repeat the cycle of this.
It’s not me who has to live your life; it is you and you alone. I don’t send you articles on how morally correct it is to be heterosexual; therefore, I don’t appreicate you sending me articles on how morally correct it is to be homosexual.
I will continue to pray for you in hopes that you might change. Until then, I am very sad for you.
Sarah
Hi David,
For yourself, don’t you think that homosexuality was a choice you made?
I’ve read up on a lot of scientific claims about homosexuality. The arguments I’ve read are weak at best. This article doesn’t cite specific scientific claims. If you want to, we can discuss the various studies.
Environment and family life are big factors too. Relationships with fathers are a huge factor. Were there people who influenced you?
Sodomy is discouraged all over the Bible; but the Corinthian church had some who came out of that lifestyle:
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." I Cor 6:9-11
Homosexual sin is like heterosexual sin is just like a lot of other sins. Jesus can forgive it all if you ask for forgiveness. Let Jesus do the changing.
You are my son. I am proud of many things you do. I love you. God has used you in the past and wants to do great things through you in the future. The homosexual thing is not the real you. The scars will be there for a long time but it doesn’t have to define you. I hope we can talk more about it in the future.
Jesus said, "Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne." Rev. 3:19-21. Jesus won’t barge in; he waits outside until the guy inside opens the door.
I won’t put you on the spot this Thanksgiving. You’re welcome here anytime. If you want to discuss more then or at another time, let me know.
Love,
Dad
Love. There is no knife that cuts like the one families wield upon each other. Strangers can beat the living crap out of you, can take your life away from you. But only family can chew your heart up, and spit it back out again in shreds. Love. Look at it. And if you are brave, consider that this is Exactly what the gutter means by it. If you’re not bleeding, then we’re not loving you enough…
Picture Minister Thomas trying to patiently reason with David’s father…a man who is slowly twisting the knife in his son’s gut out of…oh not hate surely, but Love. The problem is that you even think you can reason with a man who would do that to his own son, after having absolutely convinced himself of his own compassion in doing it. The more the kid hurts, the more Dad is loving him. And it is especially useless to reason with such as him from religious faith. All this man’s religion ever did for him, was take away his brakes. That was probably all he needed it for. Otherwise, how else could he put the knife in his son’s heart and still look at himself in the bathroom mirror every morning? In the end, Blaise Pascal said it best when he remarked that "men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." But the religious conviction did not put the evil there. It was merely waiting for something to come along, and give it purpose.
To appeal to someone’s better nature, they first have to have one. And now you know why you can’t bring reason to a knife fight.
But then again…if Exodus respects a person’s right to self determination, why do they oppose same sex marriage, and why do they support a state’s right to enact sodomy laws? It’s simple: they don’t mean what they say. It’s just rhetoric for popular consumption. Self determination is anathama to the religious right…and not just with regard to the rights of gay people. Heterosexuals could find themselves in an America where it is illegal to sell any and all forms of birth control, even to legally married heterosexual couples. You can tell everything you need to know about the religious right’s respect for a person’s right to self determination by the sexual abuse they’re perfectly willing to inflict on teenagers, who cannot legally say no. When the rest of us loose our right to tell them No, they’ll do the same to us, never doubt it. The ninth commandment after all, says not to bear false witness against your neighbor. It doesn’t say anything about lying To your neighbor.
A former LIA "client" and now booster takes issue with this post of mine. Here’s my reply…
—–
> I, having been a client at LIA (March, 2005), would like to know some of
> Lance’s horrendous experiences caused by his time there.
A client were you? Swell. You know the difference between being a "client" and being an inmate…right? There’s the beginning of the horror right there buddy, and what’s disturbing right off the bat about your comment is that you seem utterly unable to even notice it. So you my friend, are part of the horror.
Those kids are not in there by choice. Most of them had either made peace with their sexual nature, or were at least beginning to, when they were dragged into LIA by parents terrified from the cesspool of anti-gay propaganda that the religious right vomits into the public discourse, much of which John happily repeats. Joe Stark was on Pat Robertson’s 700 club, mindlessly babbling that gays only live an average of 36 years. Where the hell did he hear that claptrap, if it wasn’t John? Even Paul Cameron isn’t claiming 36 years. But John doesn’t seem to care where he gets his facts on homosexuality, as long as they’re sufficently ugly.
For months at least, if not longer, John was linking his LIA website to a group called The International Organization Of Heterosexual Rights, and using their bogus statistics to paint a picture of homosexuals and homosexuality that was relentlessly perverse and disgusting. After community activists started pointing out how unChristianly it was to be linking to a hate site, John pulled the link. But he kept their bogus fact sheet online. So at least for a time (I haven’t been there recently), people visiting his site were still being given this crap from a hate group…only they weren’t being told who the source of this information was. Dig it. John responded to the accusation that he was spreading hate rhetoric, not by taking it down, but by making it harder for people to discover that the facts on his website were coming from a hate group.
I think part of the reason he does it is because he knows that it frightens parents, and that’s his last best source of clients now: Helpless gay teens who cannot legally refuse his dangerous blend of anti-gay religiosity and junk psychology. As more and more comes to light about the practices of these ex-gay ministries, and their spectacular rates of failure, fewer and fewer grown adults are checking in. So the kids, who cannot legally refuse, are his last best source of income, which he needs to keep the operation afloat. Never mind what it does to kids, to their parents, to the bond between parent and child…John’s on a mission from God, and Gods don’t feel shame.
Imagine a teen who is left handed. Imagine they’re told that their left-handedness is unnatural, perverse, a God condemned abomination. Imagine sending that kid to a place that claims to be able to treat left-handedness through prayer and counseling, and establishing a closer relationship to Jesus. They claim that left-handedness is a form of addiction, that using your left hand to do things like writing is no different from people who use their hands to rob, assault, and murder, people and animals. Imagine that left-handed kid being forced to sit next to grown men who’ve used their hands to do all manner of cruel and perverse things to animals and humans alike, while the staff of this treatment facility is telling him, perhaps not so much in word but sure as hell in deed, that he’s no better then those men. Someday, his desire to use his left hand instead of the God ordained right hand, will lead him into all manner of brutish, deviant, ugly acts.
Imagine this kid trying desperately…trying, trying with all his heart and soul to pray away his left handedness. But he can’t…he’s left handed. And every time he feels the urge to use his left hand, it only serves to remind him that he doesn’t love God enough, that he’s headed for the same life that all those robbers, and murderers live. He’s going to become just like them one day…
What does that sort of thing to to a kid? Well we all know what it does to an adult because it happened. Does the name Jack McIntyre ring any bells? Or has John finally erased all memory of Love In Action’s bloody birth? McIntyre was one of LIA’s first clients (I say client because he went in of his own accord…a choice of free will that neither Lance nor Zach nor any kid in the horrifically misnamed Refuge "program" are allowed) A few months ago I finally stumbled on a copy of his suicide note. You want to know what the horror is my friend? Well…take a peek into the Pit then…
TO: Those left with the question, why did he do it?
I loved life and all that it had to offer to me each day.
I loved my job and my clients.
I loved my friends and thank God for each one of them.
I loved my little house and would not have wanted to live anywhere else.
All this looks like the perfect life. Yet, I must not let this shadow the problem that I have in my life. At one time, not to long ago, that was all that really mattered in my life. What pleased me and how it affected me. Now that I have turned my life over to the Lord and the changes came one by one, the above statements mean much more to me. I am pleased that I can say those statements with all the truth and honesty that is within me.
However, to make this short, I must confess that there were things in my life that I could not gain control, no matter how much I prayed and tried to avoid the temptation, I continually failed.
It is this constant failure that has made me make the decision to terminate my life here on earth. I do this with the complete understanding that life is not mine to take. I know that it is against the teachings of our Creator. No man is without sin, this I realise. I will cleanse myself of all sin as taught to me by His word. Yet, I must face my Lord with the sin of murder. I believe that Jesus died and paid the price for that sin too. I know that I shall have everlasting life with Him by departing this world now, no matter how much I love it, my friends, my family. If I remain it could possibly allow the devil the opportunity to lead me away from the Lord. I love life, but my love for the Lord is so much greater, the choice is simple.
I am not asking you to sanction my actions. That is not the purpose of my writing this at all. It is for the express purpose of allowing each one who will read this to know how I weighed things in my own mind. I don’t want you to think that, ‘I alone,’ should have been the perfect person, without sin. That would be ridiculous! It is the continuing lack of strength and/or obedience and/or will power to cast aside certain sins. To continually go before God and ask forgiveness and make promises you know you can’t keep is more than I can take. I feel it is making a mockery of God and all He stands for in my life.
Please know that I am extremely happy to be going to the Lord. He knows my heart and knows how much I love life and and all that it has to offer. But, He knows that I love Him more. That is why I believe that I will be with Him in Paradise.
I regret if I bring sorrow to those that are left behind. If you get your hearts in tune with the word of God you will be as happy about my ‘transfer’ as I am. I also hope that this answers sufficiently the question, why?
May God Have Mercy On My Soul.
A Brother & A Friend.
No. May God have mercy on yours, because I don’t have any to spare for the likes of you. Jack McIntyre killed himself, rather then make one more promise to God he knew he could not keep. Bad enough John Smid is doing this to grown adults. Now he’s dragging kids into his little psych room, where he’ll sit them down right next to grown men who have engaged in the most extreme sexual perversions imaginable, and let them know that they’re just like those men are, that their sexual orientation will lead them into all of that and worse. This is what John is subjecting gay teenagers to. He takes in kids who are more or less fine with their sexual orientation, or getting there, and puts his crowbar to their self esteem and tries systematically to utterly destroy their deepest sense of their inner selves, to make them see their sexual nature as ugly and perverse and foul, and that only a relationship with Jesus can save them from their homosexuality. But it won’t. They’re Gay. What happens is that they loose their faith, and often enough, loose their family too. But as long as the checks clear, John doesn’t seem to mind.
> I speak on behalf of LIA, not only because I believe in what they’re doing, but also
> because I care a great deal about John Smid and the LIA staff.
If you care about any of them then you need to do whatever you can to convince them to stop tormenting gay people, and particularly gay teens who are content with who they are. John is trying his best to gut their ability to ever feel good about themselves as gay people, and ever experience what it is to love and be loved, body and soul. He is systematically trying to put as much fear and loathing into teens and adults of their sexual nature so that they’ll never be able to love wholeheartedly without feeling ashamed and dirty. To assault someones sense of self to the point where they cannot see one of this life’s most wonderful, beautiful, amazing things as anything other then ugly and perverse is a crime against them of absolutely staggering magnitude. To do that to children is a crime against humanity.
> Zach Stark’s opinion of "reparative therapy," as it’s being dubbed, variegated a
> great deal after his experience at LIA. "Love In Action has been misrepresented
> and what I have posted in my blogs has been taken out of perpective and context,"
> as Zach is quoted at 365gay.com on 8-1-05. My question to Lance is this: What
> specific occurrences at LIA made your experience so horrendous?
As for Zach…I’m a little fuzzy about how you expect a kid who was forced into ex-gay therapy against his will, and who said in an update to that blog post you’re quoting from there that he could only post blogs his father approved of, to speak out publicly against his treatment. Actually, I’m being sarcastic. You know damn well he couldn’t. Since he’s still underage, and cannot speak for himself without suffering whatever consequences his parents (you know…the ones who put him into LIA in the first place) can dictate, it’s unreasonable to expect him to get on a soapbox about his feelings toward LIA. If I were you though, I would strongly suggest that his silence on the matter since those first couple of posts speaks volumes.
I was with Lance at a protest against reparative therapy in Silver Spring, Maryland. John Smid was there too, but too cowardly to come out to the line and speak with Lance himself. One of the other LIA staffers, a new guy, did come out because, as he said, he wanted to hear from Lance himself why he was upset about what LIA did to him. Lance gave him an earful, the gist of which was that he resented being made to feel horrible about himself simply because he’s gay.
John likes to boast that he brings families together. What happened to Lance after he left LIA was horrible, and he finally had to move out because his mom had become so abusive. The day he moved out, his mom cornered him and started beating the crap out of him. He’s told this to reporters and gave a more detailed account to Morgan Jon Fox who is doing a documentary on the LIA protests. Morgan and Lance let me sit in on the interview to take some photographs and Lance’s story nearly brought me to tears and I had to concentrate on what I was doing and I almost couldn’t. John did nothing, nothing for that family, except tear it apart. Oh…and he cashed the check.
You care about the LIA staff do you? Then dig up whatever stunted whithered stump of a conscience any of them still have left in them, and make them see two things they really, really need to see. First, that they are committing a monstrous assault on the human identity of the people they’re "treating" and their capacity to love and accept love from another. Second, that John has no brakes, and one of these days he’s going to push a gay kid too far and then they’re be more then Jack McIntyre’s blood on the LIA account books, and if you think the judgment on LIA has been harsh up till now, you haven’t seen anything. Yet.
Wait…you just gotta love this. A Pennsylvania pro-family group… Later in the article you discover that it’s the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Family Association. Agape Press is owned and operated by the American Family Association. So it isn’t merely "A Pennsylvania pro-family group", but themselves that they are are talking about here. They can’t even get the first sentence of their "news article" out without being deceptive. Not one single sentence into it and they’re already being deceitful. If there is an answer to all the wickedness in this world, a way out of sinfulness and toward redemption and hope, their religion sure isn’t it, is it.
But…anyway…
…suggests that the recent arrest of a University of Pennsylvania professor on child sex charges should cause the school to consider banning homosexual professors, just as the Boy Scouts ban homosexual troop leaders.
Considering how often heterosexual teachers have been caught recently in bed with their students, your reflex might be to just toss this off as yet another fart from the kook pews. But what’s interesting about this piece is that, for a change, they seem not to be relying on Paul Cameron’s junk science to back them up, but another guy who I hadn’t heard of before. His name is Gene Abel.
The AFA of Pennsylvania leader cites a study of non-incarcerated child-sex offenders by research scientist Gene Abel that found homosexuals "sexually molest young boys with an incidence that is occurring five times greater than the molestation of girls." Abel’s research reports that, on average, 150.2 boys are molested per homosexual offender, whereas 19.8 girls are molested per heterosexual offender.
Well that sounds pretty bad. Bad in the same way mind you, as Paul Cameron’s factoid that the average lifespan of a homosexual is 46 years sounds pretty bad. Right away, even before you look into it deeper, you just know that there is something a tad…er…queer, about it. If homosexuals are molesting kids at a rate several orders of magnitude greater then heterosexuals are, then even if we’re just a tiny fragment of the population as a whole you’d expect to see something like nearly every kid in America having been molested at least once in their lives. And since kids eventually grow up to become adults, nearly all adults alive today must have been molested when they were kids. And yet, that is just not the case. So you know something’s wrong here right away, and that something is either Abel, or Agape is distorting the work of another honest scientist.
But Abel, though he seems credentialed in a way Paul Cameron is not, is a crank. Maybe even a bigger uglier crank then Paul Cameron, because Abel actually thinks that most child molesters are other children, not adults. Paul Cameron is something of a pathetic figure. Abel, at least to the degree I’ve been able to find out anything about him so far, is horrifying.
You can tell that something’s not quite right about this man immediately, simply by doing a Google search on him. What you get, page after page of it, are cites by the right wing kook press and nobody else, until you’re very, very deep in the rankings. So that’s the first tip off right there. A little casual digging further, and you start running across his books, like Stop Child Molestation, and that’s where it starts getting interesting.
Abel thinks the average age of a child molestor is 13, which means that most child molesters, according to Abel, are children themselves. According to one reviewer at Amazon.Com, Abel blames that on…testosterone, accidental pairings of orgasm with thoughts of younger children, sexual victimization, or "biology that is deviant." Don’t bother looking up "deviant biology" in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders because you won’t find it.
Deviant biology. Deviant biology. If you’ve ever entertained the thought that finally convincing the homophobes that our sexual orientation isn’t chosen, isn’t an artifact of poor parenting or ungodliness, but that it is something hard wired into us either at or before birth, if you’ve ever thought for a second that convincing them of this fact would make them hate us a little less, you can disabuse yourself of that notion right now. Repeat after me: Deviant biology. Deviant biology.
There is much in that review of Abel’s book that is worth noting. The emphasis in the following is my own…
The first sign that something is amiss is his claim that one out of every twenty boys develops pedophilia, usually in childhood or puberty. He never explains how he arrives at this figure, one which cannot be found anywhere else in the literature. This 5% prevalence rate would mean that pedophilia is one of the most common serious childhood diseases in America, similar in prevalence to asthma.
A handful of influential therapists began promoting the belief in an epidemic of childhood sexual deviance about 20 years ago-at the same time that some of the same therapists convinced the public that satanic ritual sexual abuse was occurring at nursery schools across the nation, and that large numbers of women had been sexually abused by their parents in childhood but had repressed their memories of it. Both of these beliefs were eventually disproved by investigators and researchers, but only after thousands of children were traumatized and adults’ lives were destroyed. However, the myth of rampant childhood sexual deviance has survived, most likely because its believers-juvenile sex offender therapists-comprise an industry mostly hidden from public view and exempt from oversight by the mainstream mental health community. Sexuality researchers have noted that these therapists commonly label children as "sex offenders" for mutually desired sexual contact with each other, then imply that they are dangerous to other children.
Abel recommends that all parents question their sons at around 6th grade about their sexual fantasies. Any boy who is suspected of having sexual thoughts involving younger children, or who has been sexually touched by an older child or adult, is to be referred to a "sex-specific therapist" who will test him for pedophilic symptoms. The test should be either a sexual interest test (developed by Abel himself, in which the boy examines photographs of children and adults in swimwear while a computer measures visual reaction time), a lie detector test, or a plethysmograph connected to his genitals while he looks at or listens to sexually stimulating material.
The problem with such tests (aside from their intensely humiliating and stigmatizing effects) is that they have never been validated, a process which would require testing a representative sample of American children to establish norms. In fact, all researchers are agreed that very little is known about normal sexual feelings during childhood and adolescence. To make matters worse, Abel refuses to release data necessary for independent researchers to evaluate his test.
I’m still digging for a reliable link to this, but I see out there what looks like a news article noting that Dr. Paul Fedoroff (who is a staff psychiatrist with the Law and Mental Health program at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, and assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto, and co-director of the sexual behaviors clinic at the Royal Ottawa Hospital in Canada), said that at least some of Abel’s studies might not be reliable because…
…they were conducted on sex offenders who were given certificates of confidentiality, meaning that they would not be turned over to the police, no matter what they admitted. To get the certificate of confidentiality, the offender had to admit something. The more they divulged, the better they looked in front of their therapists.
So Abel was apparently interviewing subjects who had a vested interest in telling him what he wanted to know. And since he doesn’t divulge his data, we cannot even know whether even this self serving source of information was enough to justify his conclusions.
But never mind. It isn’t science, if you’re not willing to publish your data along with your results. That one fact alone tells us all we need to know about Abel. He is not a man of science. This is why you see him being cited approvingly in the kook pews. And just like all his other neighbors there, while posturing as a defender of children, Abel shows a stunningly depraved indifference toward them.
However, the most chilling part of Abel’s book comes when he outlines treatment methods to cure "pedophilia" among boys: separation from other children (possibly removal from the family), monitoring of sexual feelings and behavior by family members and friends who report to the therapist (and sometimes by plethysmograph), high doses of sex drive reducing drugs, covert sensitization, and aversion therapy with ammonia. The last two methods are intended to eliminate particular sexual thoughts by pairing them with pain, fear, or humiliation. Any of these methods may be imposed on the boy for life by the therapist, regardless of his or his parents’ wishes.
Although Abel refers to them as "breakthroughs in testing, medicine, and therapies," students of history will recognize plethysmographs, sex drive reducing drugs, aversion therapy, and covert sensitization as the methods used decades ago to "cure" homosexuality. Mainstream health professionals and the public (even those who disapprove of homosexual behavior) now consider them ineffective, dangerous, and unethical. Numerous accounts show they lead to nightmares, depression, chronic anxiety, self-hatred, and suicidal thoughts among both gay men and children labeled as "deviant." And no wonder: Considering the fact that we know almost nothing about the development of sexual feelings, it is clear that such efforts amount to messing with something we don’t understand.
Like the "expert" doctors and therapists who justified their use on homosexuals, Abel shows no concern for emotional trauma and intense stigma these methods inflict on boys, instead rationalizing such abuse by writing that the protection of normal children takes precedence over the welfare of deviant children.
Especially disturbing is the apparent endorsement of this approach by some other leaders in the juvenile sex offender industry-an approach that would create a new class of lepers consisting, presumably, of 5% of all boys.
So with utterly no actual science grounding his notions of the developing sexuality of children, Abel proposes to subject any of them, as young as sixth graders, to having their genitals hooked up to a machine while they’re shown provocative images of scantily clad children and adults, and then perhaps a nice regimen of sex drive reducing drugs, aversion therapy, covert sensitization and the occasional lungful of ammonia. Sixth graders mind you. And he figures some of them may have a "deviant biology" which makes them dangerous to the other kids. That…and testosterone. This is the man being cited by ersatz Christian publications as an authority on child molestation. Well…I guess so. Picture him shoving ammonia in a sixth grader’s face while the kid has his genitals hooked up to a machine and he’s being shown a picture of another kid in a bikini.
So by that logic, and accepting the premise (which I do not) that men who molest boys are by definition homosexuals, then we should not only keep gay professors out of colleges, we should keep gay students out of colleges too. And grade school. And you’d better believe that this is also on the agenda of the AFA too. Just…one step at a time please.
Eventually, it’ll be only Christian Nationalists who are allowed to go to school. Well…the straight boys anyway. The ones who pass the plethysmograph test. Because a women’s place is in the house, being gracefully submissive to her husband and bearing him as many children as he wants her to, so girls don’t need much of an education really. And the boys will only be taught by male professors, since women shouldn’t have authority over men. Remind me again…why did we bomb the Taliban?
First he dismissed 81-year-old Mary Lambert from the Diaconate Board of the First Baptist Church along with two members, claiming there were attendance issues.
Now the Rev. Timothy LaBouf has dismissed Mary Lambert as a Sunday School teacher for an adult class after she’s been on the job for over 50 years, claiming that his interpretation of the Bible is that a woman is prohibited from teaching men.
Lambert has been a church member for 54 years and a long time Sunday School teacher but got a letter dated Aug. 9 from LaBouf and the board saying that the Bible says a woman can perform any job, as long as its outside of the church.
LaBouf, who has been pastor at the church for about two years, and is also a member of the Watertown City Council, quotes the first epistle to Timothy which hold "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent".
Lambert received the letter signed by Kendra LaBouf, wife of the pastor. "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission" the letter said. "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became sinner".
The Rev. Timothy LaBouf, who also serves on the Watertown City Council, issued a statement saying his stance against women teaching men in Sunday school would not affect his decisions as a city leader in Watertown, where all five members of the council are men but the city manager who runs the city’s day-to-day operations is a woman.
This blog is powered by WordPress and is hosted at Winters Web Works, who also did some custom design work (Thanks!). Some embedded content was created with the help of The Gimp. I proof with Google Chrome on either Windows, Linux or MacOS depending on which machine I happen to be running at the time.
