As I spoke to a few of my heterosexual friends about my participation in the recent Capital Pride festival, those who weren't fixated on the parade (the images of exhibitionists they usually see on television) would ask me something like, "Why do they have to have a special day just because their gay?" They were not mean spirited questions, just ones showing a lack of understanding.
This essay by Dan Furmansky, Executive Director of Equality Maryland, explains it in detail with facts, different perspectives, and most of all passion.
.....speaking to religious groups the past few weeks and contemplating why we hold Pride festivities has reminded me what a deeply meaningful, deeply spiritual event in our lives Pride can be.
Pride is a day for LGBT people and those who care about social justice to recall where we've been as a people. Many of us know of the origins of Pride at Stonewall in NYC in the late 1960s, when drag queens and gay men fought back against police harassment and brutality and said, resoundingly, E-N-O-U-G-H. With this rebellion as its backdrop, Pride has emerged as a holiday of liberation, redemption, salvation, starvation, pain, celebration, progress and resolve. It's a holiday where we as a people celebrate where we have been and where we hope to go.
This is why we have Pride
LGBT people being labeled insane by the psychiatric community until the 1970s. Gay men and lesbians could be institutionalized and subjected to "therapies." These ranged from the comparatively less invasive – such as psychotherapy and hypnosis – to the more severe, such as aversion therapy, castration, hysterectomies, lobotomies, electroshock treatment, and the administration of untested drugs.
Just take a moment to digest this information: They cut our brains.
This is why we have Pride.
There is plenty more in Furmansky's piece. If you really want to know what Pride is about, read his entire essay.
June 15, 2007
June 14, 2007
Challenge to Same-Sex Marriage in Mass. Defeated
From the Boston Globe:
A proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was defeated today by a joint session of the Legislature by a vote of 45 to 151, eliminating any chance of getting it on the ballot in November 2008. The measure needed at least 50 votes to advance.
The Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the group that spearheaded the court case that led to the Supreme Judicial Court's 2003 decision to legalize same-sex marriage, issued a statement praising the vote.
"We’re proud of our state today, and we applaud the legislature for showing that Massachusetts is strongly behind fairness," said Lee Swislow, executive director Advocates & Defenders. "The vote today was the triumph of time, experience, and understanding over fear and prejudice."
Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute that backed the amendment, pledged to continue fighting, but wouldn't commit to presenting another proposed amendment.
"I don't believe it's dead because the people have not had the opportunity to have their vote," Mineau told the Associated Press. "This will not go away until the citizens have their opportunity to decide what the definition of marriage is."
Here's an excerpt of an editorial from the Globe:
Legislators deserve to be proud of their votes, and residents can be proud of Massachusetts.
After three years of experience with gay marriage that has harmed exactly no one, the state's gay and lesbian couples can now get back to their ordinary lives, enduring the mundane tasks and rituals of daily life alongside their neighbors and co-workers. But now they do so secure in the knowledge that they are full citizens in a Commonwealth of inclusion.
Here is a link to some reactions gathered by the Globe:
Senator Edward Kennedy: "The nation’s eyes were on Massachusetts today, and they saw a triumph for civil rights and fundamental fairness. Today's historic vote will have a national impact on civil rights for years to come. Massachusetts has led the nation in education, in health care and in biotechnology, and today Massachusetts renewed its commitment as a proud leader in civil rights."
Former Mass. Governor Mitt Romney: "Today's vote by the State Legislature is a regrettable setback in our efforts to defend traditional marriage. Unfortunately, our elected representatives decided that the voice of the people did not need to be heard in this debate. It is now even more important that we pass a Constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage. Marriage is an institution that goes to the heart of our society, and our leaders can no longer abdicate their responsibility."
Of course, I disagree with every single thing Romney said, but none more so than that last statement. Marc Solomon, campaign director for MassEquality, said, "This is about individual courage and leadership."
I completely agree with Solomon. The results in Massachusetts were all about courage and leadership. Legislators were willing to take a stand for what they felt was right, an increasingly rare occurrence in America's political system on both sides of the isle.
Politicians like Romney fall back on "the voice of the people" line because they think the voice of the people will support their agenda. That is abdicating leadership, not demonstrating it.
The right-wing likes to talk about "our founding fathers" a lot, so let me share something I learned about them in school that I believe a lot of people, including many current office holders, have forgotten (or choose to ignore).
The United States was not established as a direct democracy, where people voted on everything. It is a representative democracy, where the people elect representatives to govern for them. These representative are not supposed to serve the best interests of their constituents as determined by the latest poll. Their responsibility is to serve the greater good of society, even if it goes against the will of the majority. Simply put, it is to do what is right, not what is popular. Unfortunately, many legislators are much more concerned with losing financial support and votes in the next election than serving the greater good.
Just imagine if the abolition of slavery was left up to "the will of of the people" in the South. How long would it have taken public opinion to swing against slavery? At least a couple of generations, perhaps?
How many people would ever vote in favor of a tax increase? Probably just the same ones who reminded the teacher in school that she forgot to assign some homework. What if people voted in favor of a tax decrease that left the nation unable to properly equip its armed forces?
So please don't bore me with this "will of the people" crap. Is the civil right of marriage under the United States Constitution (not the beliefs of any particular religion) limited to one male and one female, or is it applicable to two men or two women? That's the core issue and the only truly important one that courts and legislative bodies need to consider.
The vast majority of legislators in Massachusetts voted today that marriage is a civil right open to any two adults regardless of gender. Their opponents will not go away, but at least on this day the political leaders of the Bay State stood strong for equality.
Congratulations.
A proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was defeated today by a joint session of the Legislature by a vote of 45 to 151, eliminating any chance of getting it on the ballot in November 2008. The measure needed at least 50 votes to advance.
The Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the group that spearheaded the court case that led to the Supreme Judicial Court's 2003 decision to legalize same-sex marriage, issued a statement praising the vote.
"We’re proud of our state today, and we applaud the legislature for showing that Massachusetts is strongly behind fairness," said Lee Swislow, executive director Advocates & Defenders. "The vote today was the triumph of time, experience, and understanding over fear and prejudice."
Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute that backed the amendment, pledged to continue fighting, but wouldn't commit to presenting another proposed amendment.
"I don't believe it's dead because the people have not had the opportunity to have their vote," Mineau told the Associated Press. "This will not go away until the citizens have their opportunity to decide what the definition of marriage is."
Here's an excerpt of an editorial from the Globe:
Legislators deserve to be proud of their votes, and residents can be proud of Massachusetts.
After three years of experience with gay marriage that has harmed exactly no one, the state's gay and lesbian couples can now get back to their ordinary lives, enduring the mundane tasks and rituals of daily life alongside their neighbors and co-workers. But now they do so secure in the knowledge that they are full citizens in a Commonwealth of inclusion.
Here is a link to some reactions gathered by the Globe:
Senator Edward Kennedy: "The nation’s eyes were on Massachusetts today, and they saw a triumph for civil rights and fundamental fairness. Today's historic vote will have a national impact on civil rights for years to come. Massachusetts has led the nation in education, in health care and in biotechnology, and today Massachusetts renewed its commitment as a proud leader in civil rights."
Former Mass. Governor Mitt Romney: "Today's vote by the State Legislature is a regrettable setback in our efforts to defend traditional marriage. Unfortunately, our elected representatives decided that the voice of the people did not need to be heard in this debate. It is now even more important that we pass a Constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage. Marriage is an institution that goes to the heart of our society, and our leaders can no longer abdicate their responsibility."
Of course, I disagree with every single thing Romney said, but none more so than that last statement. Marc Solomon, campaign director for MassEquality, said, "This is about individual courage and leadership."
I completely agree with Solomon. The results in Massachusetts were all about courage and leadership. Legislators were willing to take a stand for what they felt was right, an increasingly rare occurrence in America's political system on both sides of the isle.
Politicians like Romney fall back on "the voice of the people" line because they think the voice of the people will support their agenda. That is abdicating leadership, not demonstrating it.
The right-wing likes to talk about "our founding fathers" a lot, so let me share something I learned about them in school that I believe a lot of people, including many current office holders, have forgotten (or choose to ignore).
The United States was not established as a direct democracy, where people voted on everything. It is a representative democracy, where the people elect representatives to govern for them. These representative are not supposed to serve the best interests of their constituents as determined by the latest poll. Their responsibility is to serve the greater good of society, even if it goes against the will of the majority. Simply put, it is to do what is right, not what is popular. Unfortunately, many legislators are much more concerned with losing financial support and votes in the next election than serving the greater good.
Just imagine if the abolition of slavery was left up to "the will of of the people" in the South. How long would it have taken public opinion to swing against slavery? At least a couple of generations, perhaps?
How many people would ever vote in favor of a tax increase? Probably just the same ones who reminded the teacher in school that she forgot to assign some homework. What if people voted in favor of a tax decrease that left the nation unable to properly equip its armed forces?
So please don't bore me with this "will of the people" crap. Is the civil right of marriage under the United States Constitution (not the beliefs of any particular religion) limited to one male and one female, or is it applicable to two men or two women? That's the core issue and the only truly important one that courts and legislative bodies need to consider.
The vast majority of legislators in Massachusetts voted today that marriage is a civil right open to any two adults regardless of gender. Their opponents will not go away, but at least on this day the political leaders of the Bay State stood strong for equality.
Congratulations.
June 13, 2007
Montgomery County, MD Adds Teaching About Homosexuality to School Cirriculum
From the Washington Post and Washington Times:
The Montgomery County school board yesterday approved new lessons on sexual orientation for use in every middle and high school, introducing homosexuality and gender identity in health classes where they have not been discussed except in response to a question from a student.
Two lessons, totaling 90 minutes, will be added to health courses in grades 8 and 10 in the fall, along with a 10th-grade lesson and instructional DVD on the correct use of a condom. The curriculum revisions, while short, place Montgomery in the forefront of a movement toward more candor in teaching about homosexuality in public schools.
"I know that these issues are not without emotion," said Superintendent Jerry D. Weast, speaking yesterday in a televised meeting. "But I do think this is the right thing to do. And I also think it needs to be done in the right way."
An advisory committee of parents and educators recommended in a memo to Mr. Weast Thursday that five statements be added to the lessons: that fleeting, same-sex attraction does not determine sexual orientation; that homosexuality is neither a disease nor a mental illness; that homosexuality is not a choice; that homosexuals can live "happy, successful lives"; and that children raised by same-sex couples "do just as well" as those raised by heterosexuals.
Mr. Weast said he deferred to staff recommendations after March test runs in six schools and declined to implement the advisory committee's requests. He denied that outside pressure forced the change.
Board member Patricia O'Neill, who voted for the curriculum, acknowledged that there are strong feelings on both sides of the issue and described tactics by some opponents as "incredibly hostile" and "bigoted."
Congratulations to the Montgomery County School Board and the organization Teach The Facts,
which worked very hard to educate people and rally support for this progressive cirriculum.
Ultimately, the real winners here are the students that will receive an education beyond the hatred and bigotry of some fundamentalist churches. This will only help boys and girls gain an early understanding of the sexuality and help those who are truly gay or lesbian come out earlier and learn to build a life as they really are instead of going through adolesence as a straight person, then relearning social skills when they later understand who they are.
The Montgomery County school board yesterday approved new lessons on sexual orientation for use in every middle and high school, introducing homosexuality and gender identity in health classes where they have not been discussed except in response to a question from a student.
Two lessons, totaling 90 minutes, will be added to health courses in grades 8 and 10 in the fall, along with a 10th-grade lesson and instructional DVD on the correct use of a condom. The curriculum revisions, while short, place Montgomery in the forefront of a movement toward more candor in teaching about homosexuality in public schools.
"I know that these issues are not without emotion," said Superintendent Jerry D. Weast, speaking yesterday in a televised meeting. "But I do think this is the right thing to do. And I also think it needs to be done in the right way."
An advisory committee of parents and educators recommended in a memo to Mr. Weast Thursday that five statements be added to the lessons: that fleeting, same-sex attraction does not determine sexual orientation; that homosexuality is neither a disease nor a mental illness; that homosexuality is not a choice; that homosexuals can live "happy, successful lives"; and that children raised by same-sex couples "do just as well" as those raised by heterosexuals.
Mr. Weast said he deferred to staff recommendations after March test runs in six schools and declined to implement the advisory committee's requests. He denied that outside pressure forced the change.
Board member Patricia O'Neill, who voted for the curriculum, acknowledged that there are strong feelings on both sides of the issue and described tactics by some opponents as "incredibly hostile" and "bigoted."
Congratulations to the Montgomery County School Board and the organization Teach The Facts,
which worked very hard to educate people and rally support for this progressive cirriculum.
Ultimately, the real winners here are the students that will receive an education beyond the hatred and bigotry of some fundamentalist churches. This will only help boys and girls gain an early understanding of the sexuality and help those who are truly gay or lesbian come out earlier and learn to build a life as they really are instead of going through adolesence as a straight person, then relearning social skills when they later understand who they are.
June 12, 2007
Placing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" In Historic Perspective
From the Chicago Tribune:
At a time when our military is desperate to recruit qualified men and women, when more than 80 percent of Americans oppose discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and when our national security depends on our credibility as a nation dedicated to the values of religious liberty, individual dignity and equal justice, it is deplorable that candidates for the White House still embrace and defend a policy that excludes tens of thousands of qualified Americans from military service and denies patriotic gays and lesbians the right to serve their nation unless they deny who they are, lie about their identity and return to the closet.
That sorrowful moment in the debate called to mind an earlier generation of American "leaders": the generation of Orval Faubus, Ross Barnett and Strom Thurmond. Exactly half a century ago, Gov. Faubus expressed his concept of "American values" by calling out the Arkansas National Guard to prevent nine African-American children from entering Little Rock's Central High School.
Several years later, Gov. Barnett rose to power in Mississippi by proclaiming that "the Negro is different because God made him different to punish him." A fierce defender of American values, Barnett ferociously opposed James Meredith's 1962 admission to the University of Mississippi, promising that Mississippi would never "surrender to the evil ... forces of tyranny."
While I would not place the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" discrimination at the level of the Little Rock situation, the similarity of excluding people based solely on how God made them is striking.
At a time when our military is desperate to recruit qualified men and women, when more than 80 percent of Americans oppose discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and when our national security depends on our credibility as a nation dedicated to the values of religious liberty, individual dignity and equal justice, it is deplorable that candidates for the White House still embrace and defend a policy that excludes tens of thousands of qualified Americans from military service and denies patriotic gays and lesbians the right to serve their nation unless they deny who they are, lie about their identity and return to the closet.
That sorrowful moment in the debate called to mind an earlier generation of American "leaders": the generation of Orval Faubus, Ross Barnett and Strom Thurmond. Exactly half a century ago, Gov. Faubus expressed his concept of "American values" by calling out the Arkansas National Guard to prevent nine African-American children from entering Little Rock's Central High School.
Several years later, Gov. Barnett rose to power in Mississippi by proclaiming that "the Negro is different because God made him different to punish him." A fierce defender of American values, Barnett ferociously opposed James Meredith's 1962 admission to the University of Mississippi, promising that Mississippi would never "surrender to the evil ... forces of tyranny."
While I would not place the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" discrimination at the level of the Little Rock situation, the similarity of excluding people based solely on how God made them is striking.
June 11, 2007
A Nice Writeup on Capital Pride
The Washington Post, although they buried the story in page 8 of the Metro section, had a nice writeup about Sunday's Capital Pride. I hope a few of the folks I met there and introduced to this blog enjoyed themselves and, if you're reading this, thanks for dropping by and checking it out.
Anyway, an interesting perspective presented in the Post article was from a number of people who had driven hours to get there just to have the opportunity to hold their partner's hand in public and fellowship with other GLBT people. Folks like me who live in an urban metro area take for granted the fact that there is an active GLBT community. Just to have one day among others like them was enough motivation for people to come hundreds of miles out of their way.
When people ask why have Pride festivals, there's one good reason.
Click here to read the Post article.
Anyway, an interesting perspective presented in the Post article was from a number of people who had driven hours to get there just to have the opportunity to hold their partner's hand in public and fellowship with other GLBT people. Folks like me who live in an urban metro area take for granted the fact that there is an active GLBT community. Just to have one day among others like them was enough motivation for people to come hundreds of miles out of their way.
When people ask why have Pride festivals, there's one good reason.
Click here to read the Post article.
"Outing the Out of Touch"
Maureen Dowd laid it out very clearly in an op/ed piece in the New York Times on Sunday:
Be honest. Who would you rather share a foxhole with: a gay soldier or Mitt Romney?
A gay soldier, of course. In a dicey situation like that, you need someone steadfast who knows who he is and what he believes, even if he’s not allowed to say it out loud.
Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue, as the gloriously gay Oscar Wilde said. And gays are the sacrifice that hypocritical Republican candidates offer to placate “values” voters — even though some candidates are not so finicky about morals regarding their own affairs and divorces.
They may coo over the photo of Dick Cheney, whose re-election campaign demonized gays, proudly smiling with his new grandson, the first baby of his lesbian daughter, Mary.
But they’ll hold the line, by jiminy, against gay Americans who are willing to die or be horribly disfigured in the cursed Bush/Cheney war in Iraq.
Hypocrisy is not something unique to the Republican Party, they've just taken it to levels previously unseen in our nation.
Click here to read the rest of Dowd's piece, although Republicans will probably just brush it off as another attack by the so-called "liberal media," which is what they call any media outlet that doesn't bless right-wing policy.
Be honest. Who would you rather share a foxhole with: a gay soldier or Mitt Romney?
A gay soldier, of course. In a dicey situation like that, you need someone steadfast who knows who he is and what he believes, even if he’s not allowed to say it out loud.
Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue, as the gloriously gay Oscar Wilde said. And gays are the sacrifice that hypocritical Republican candidates offer to placate “values” voters — even though some candidates are not so finicky about morals regarding their own affairs and divorces.
They may coo over the photo of Dick Cheney, whose re-election campaign demonized gays, proudly smiling with his new grandson, the first baby of his lesbian daughter, Mary.
But they’ll hold the line, by jiminy, against gay Americans who are willing to die or be horribly disfigured in the cursed Bush/Cheney war in Iraq.
Hypocrisy is not something unique to the Republican Party, they've just taken it to levels previously unseen in our nation.
Click here to read the rest of Dowd's piece, although Republicans will probably just brush it off as another attack by the so-called "liberal media," which is what they call any media outlet that doesn't bless right-wing policy.
June 10, 2007
Announcing the Affirming Christian Network
At today's Capital Pride Festival, Pastor Brenda and I rolled out a new ministry effort we are developing under the sponsorship of our home church, Believers Covenant Fellowship.
Titled the Affirming Christian Network, we are seeking to gather teachings, sermons, special music, and other types of ministry from GLBT affirming churches and other sources. We want to have a wide range of different voices to speak to the GLBT faith community and others who have been pushed away by "the church."
We are not seeking to be an organization ourselves. Instead, we hope to be more of a clearing house for other affirming ministries, pooling resources together to become an effective and helpful Christian resource for the GLBT community. We will be providing information and, for those seeking a home church, we are working on developing the most comprehensive list available of accepting and affirming churches.
So far we have three other churches who have signed on as affiliates, meaning they will be contributing matierial to the site. If your church would be interested in doing so, please contact us at affirmingchristiannetwork@gmail.com.
Here's the kind of information we will be providing:
About Us – Who we are and what we are doing.
Affirming Ministries – Ministries and individuals who are GLBT supportive but are not contributing content to ACN.
Praise & Worship – Audio and video of affiliate worship services and special music.
Teachings – Sermons, workshops and seminars on a wide range of topics.
Insightful discussion – Group, panel, radio discussions on relevant topics of interest.
Interviews – Ministers and leaders in the Christian GLBT community share their views on topics of interest.
Affiliates – Ministries and individuals that contribute content to ACN.
Links – Other GLBT affirming organizations not necessarily of a religious nature.
Resources – Books, Music, Manuscripts, Lists, etc. available for use.
There's not much material up yet, but there will be. You can take an early peek now and I hope you will check it out regularly in the future. Again, that's www.affirmingchristiannetwork.org
I'll be contributing some essays to the site myself and occassionally will link there here.
Titled the Affirming Christian Network, we are seeking to gather teachings, sermons, special music, and other types of ministry from GLBT affirming churches and other sources. We want to have a wide range of different voices to speak to the GLBT faith community and others who have been pushed away by "the church."
We are not seeking to be an organization ourselves. Instead, we hope to be more of a clearing house for other affirming ministries, pooling resources together to become an effective and helpful Christian resource for the GLBT community. We will be providing information and, for those seeking a home church, we are working on developing the most comprehensive list available of accepting and affirming churches.
So far we have three other churches who have signed on as affiliates, meaning they will be contributing matierial to the site. If your church would be interested in doing so, please contact us at affirmingchristiannetwork@gmail.com.
Here's the kind of information we will be providing:
About Us – Who we are and what we are doing.
Affirming Ministries – Ministries and individuals who are GLBT supportive but are not contributing content to ACN.
Praise & Worship – Audio and video of affiliate worship services and special music.
Teachings – Sermons, workshops and seminars on a wide range of topics.
Insightful discussion – Group, panel, radio discussions on relevant topics of interest.
Interviews – Ministers and leaders in the Christian GLBT community share their views on topics of interest.
Affiliates – Ministries and individuals that contribute content to ACN.
Links – Other GLBT affirming organizations not necessarily of a religious nature.
Resources – Books, Music, Manuscripts, Lists, etc. available for use.
There's not much material up yet, but there will be. You can take an early peek now and I hope you will check it out regularly in the future. Again, that's www.affirmingchristiannetwork.org
I'll be contributing some essays to the site myself and occassionally will link there here.
Baptist Pastors Disagree on the "Literal, Infalible" Word of God
I've posted on this before, but I believe my points bear repeating since more information has come to light.
From EthicsDaily.com:
Half of Southern Baptist pastors believe God gifts some people with a "private prayer language," according to poll results released Friday by LifeWay Christian Resources, fueling a minor controversy ongoing on Baptist blogs for a year and a half.
The Southern Baptist Convention's International Mission Board approved a policy in November 2005 to no longer appoint missionaries who make a practice of privately praying in unintelligible tongues. The act is usually associated with neo-Pentecostal, charismatic or "Third Wave" Christians, but some Baptists, including IMB President Jerry Rankin, acknowledge having a private prayer language.
"Southern Baptists, at least half of them, have become more open to a practice that was not mainstream a hundred years ago," prior to the modern Pentecostal/charismatic movement...
Could some Baptists be gaining a further revelation of God's word? Does that mean that there are still points made or inferred in the Bible that have been beyond their understanding that has gradually come to light? Is the Bible, in truth, not just infailble but not quite so easily broken down into black-and-white as the SBC has worked so hard to do over the last generation?
If as many as half of their leadership, the pastors, are wrong about speaking in tounges (some have to be right, which makes the others wrong by my math), how can they take such a hard-line stance on what they perceive as the evils on homosexuality, especially in light of how little is written about it in the Bible? If they can't get on the same page about speaking in tounges, how can they be so absolutely certain about their stance toward GLBT people?
Enough questions. My answer is, of course, THEY CAN'T and that the leadership is pursuing an agenda based more on tradition and their own prejudices than anything written in the word of God.
One ranking member of the SBC even tried to discredit the study, which was conducted by Lifeway Research, a department of the SBC publishing house Lifeway. They're trying to discredit their own study because they didn't like the results.
One SBC theologian, Malcolm Yarnell of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, questioned both the methodology of the study and its timing, just before the SBC annual meeting later this month, where the issue of private prayer languages is expected to surface.
In my opinion, this issue of speaking in tounges in clearly not a heaven-or-hell matter. Personally, I'm convinced that I was going to heaven before I received that gift from the Holy Spirit, and I still am after receiving it.
My point is that there is a LOT more that God wants to teach us beyond the written word of the Bible. He will never teach us anything to contradict it, but there is much to learn beyond the events and lessons taught over 2,000 years ago.
There is much he wants to teach us. We simply have to open our hearts and minds and listen to what the Holy Spirit has to say.
From EthicsDaily.com:
Half of Southern Baptist pastors believe God gifts some people with a "private prayer language," according to poll results released Friday by LifeWay Christian Resources, fueling a minor controversy ongoing on Baptist blogs for a year and a half.
The Southern Baptist Convention's International Mission Board approved a policy in November 2005 to no longer appoint missionaries who make a practice of privately praying in unintelligible tongues. The act is usually associated with neo-Pentecostal, charismatic or "Third Wave" Christians, but some Baptists, including IMB President Jerry Rankin, acknowledge having a private prayer language.
"Southern Baptists, at least half of them, have become more open to a practice that was not mainstream a hundred years ago," prior to the modern Pentecostal/charismatic movement...
Could some Baptists be gaining a further revelation of God's word? Does that mean that there are still points made or inferred in the Bible that have been beyond their understanding that has gradually come to light? Is the Bible, in truth, not just infailble but not quite so easily broken down into black-and-white as the SBC has worked so hard to do over the last generation?
If as many as half of their leadership, the pastors, are wrong about speaking in tounges (some have to be right, which makes the others wrong by my math), how can they take such a hard-line stance on what they perceive as the evils on homosexuality, especially in light of how little is written about it in the Bible? If they can't get on the same page about speaking in tounges, how can they be so absolutely certain about their stance toward GLBT people?
Enough questions. My answer is, of course, THEY CAN'T and that the leadership is pursuing an agenda based more on tradition and their own prejudices than anything written in the word of God.
One ranking member of the SBC even tried to discredit the study, which was conducted by Lifeway Research, a department of the SBC publishing house Lifeway. They're trying to discredit their own study because they didn't like the results.
One SBC theologian, Malcolm Yarnell of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, questioned both the methodology of the study and its timing, just before the SBC annual meeting later this month, where the issue of private prayer languages is expected to surface.
In my opinion, this issue of speaking in tounges in clearly not a heaven-or-hell matter. Personally, I'm convinced that I was going to heaven before I received that gift from the Holy Spirit, and I still am after receiving it.
My point is that there is a LOT more that God wants to teach us beyond the written word of the Bible. He will never teach us anything to contradict it, but there is much to learn beyond the events and lessons taught over 2,000 years ago.
There is much he wants to teach us. We simply have to open our hearts and minds and listen to what the Holy Spirit has to say.
Domestic Violence Among Gay Couples Is a "Hidden Menace"
That was the conclusion arrived at during a conference in Manchester, England on Friday. This from the (London) Times:
Violent domestic abuse is as common and as severe among gay and lesbian couples as among heterosexuals, a conference in Manchester was told yesterday.
Same-sex abuse has largely been a hidden menace because many homosexual men and women are fearful of reporting incidents to police or mainstream support organisations.
But research suggests that a greater percentage of gays and lesbians are living in fear of an abusive and dominant partner than previously thought.
Greater Manchester Police urged those suffering abuse in same-sex relationships to report their abusers to the authorities and made a public pledge to deal seriously and swiftly with complaints.
The conference, organised by the Greater Manchester Police Lesbian and Gay Staff Affiliation, and staged a stone’s throw from the city’s famous canal-side gay village, was opened by Michael Todd, the force’s Chief Constable.
There is no reason I can think of to conclude that the problem is any less serious on our side of the pond, but there are many parts of the United States where a victim of same-sex domestic abuse would only invite more trouble by seeking legal assistance.
As equal rights for the GLBT community becomes the standard instead of the exception, hopefully that will change for the better.
Thanks to PageOneQ for the tip.
Violent domestic abuse is as common and as severe among gay and lesbian couples as among heterosexuals, a conference in Manchester was told yesterday.
Same-sex abuse has largely been a hidden menace because many homosexual men and women are fearful of reporting incidents to police or mainstream support organisations.
But research suggests that a greater percentage of gays and lesbians are living in fear of an abusive and dominant partner than previously thought.
Greater Manchester Police urged those suffering abuse in same-sex relationships to report their abusers to the authorities and made a public pledge to deal seriously and swiftly with complaints.
The conference, organised by the Greater Manchester Police Lesbian and Gay Staff Affiliation, and staged a stone’s throw from the city’s famous canal-side gay village, was opened by Michael Todd, the force’s Chief Constable.
There is no reason I can think of to conclude that the problem is any less serious on our side of the pond, but there are many parts of the United States where a victim of same-sex domestic abuse would only invite more trouble by seeking legal assistance.
As equal rights for the GLBT community becomes the standard instead of the exception, hopefully that will change for the better.
Thanks to PageOneQ for the tip.
June 09, 2007
A Call for Support of Sexual and Gender Diversity
From 365gay.com
A coalition of national faith leaders issued an open letter Monday to more than 20,000 religious and political leaders, calling for a faith-based approach that supports diverse sexual orientations and gender identities.
The letter, published by the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing, challenges religious leaders to use the pulpit to spread a welcoming message to all people while educating themselves about the diversity of human sexuality.
Aside from thousands of religious leaders, each U.S. congressional member will receive the document.
"While religious denominations continue to debate issues of sexuality," said the institute's director, the Reverend Debra W. Haffner, "the silence and ... condemnation of clergy have led to destroyed relationships, suicidal despair and discrimination, and violence against LGBT persons. Denying that God created diversity as a blessing is denying biblical teaching."
"Too many religious institutions have failed to embrace sexual and gender diversity," the letter reads. "Some have mistakenly called homosexuality sinful when the real issue is heterosexism or the unjust privileging of heterosexuality. Heterosexism devalues gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, just as sexism and male privilege devalue women.
"Silence, misinformation and condemnation of differing sexual and gender identities have created despair, destroyed relationships, and led to violence, suicide and even murder. Sexual and gender oppression can no longer be portrayed as virtuous and morally defensible."
According to a press release, the letter was developed by theologians and ordained clergy from Jewish, Baptist, Brethren, Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, United Church of Christ and Unitarian Universalist traditions. (The Advocate)
It's sad when politics focuses on divisiveness, but it can be tragic when our churches take the same approach.
That must change, and those who understand need to speak out and work to make it happen.
A coalition of national faith leaders issued an open letter Monday to more than 20,000 religious and political leaders, calling for a faith-based approach that supports diverse sexual orientations and gender identities.
The letter, published by the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing, challenges religious leaders to use the pulpit to spread a welcoming message to all people while educating themselves about the diversity of human sexuality.
Aside from thousands of religious leaders, each U.S. congressional member will receive the document.
"While religious denominations continue to debate issues of sexuality," said the institute's director, the Reverend Debra W. Haffner, "the silence and ... condemnation of clergy have led to destroyed relationships, suicidal despair and discrimination, and violence against LGBT persons. Denying that God created diversity as a blessing is denying biblical teaching."
"Too many religious institutions have failed to embrace sexual and gender diversity," the letter reads. "Some have mistakenly called homosexuality sinful when the real issue is heterosexism or the unjust privileging of heterosexuality. Heterosexism devalues gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, just as sexism and male privilege devalue women.
"Silence, misinformation and condemnation of differing sexual and gender identities have created despair, destroyed relationships, and led to violence, suicide and even murder. Sexual and gender oppression can no longer be portrayed as virtuous and morally defensible."
According to a press release, the letter was developed by theologians and ordained clergy from Jewish, Baptist, Brethren, Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, United Church of Christ and Unitarian Universalist traditions. (The Advocate)
It's sad when politics focuses on divisiveness, but it can be tragic when our churches take the same approach.
That must change, and those who understand need to speak out and work to make it happen.
Let's Talk About Pride Events
I'll be participating in my second Pride event on Sunday, where Pastor Brenda and I will be working at the booth our church, Believers Covenant Fellowship, has at the Capital Pride street festival in the shadow of the U. S. Capitol.
Attending my first Capital Pride two years ago inspired me to start writing this blog (hopefully you think that was a good result). My first post here was about my experience, and as Straight Not Narrow celebrates Pride Month and our second anniversary, I invite you to post a comment here and share you experience at your local Pride event. Our friends Sharone and Erica are participating in Albuquerque Pride, and I bet a lot of you out there will also have stories to tell.
Please do.
Attending my first Capital Pride two years ago inspired me to start writing this blog (hopefully you think that was a good result). My first post here was about my experience, and as Straight Not Narrow celebrates Pride Month and our second anniversary, I invite you to post a comment here and share you experience at your local Pride event. Our friends Sharone and Erica are participating in Albuquerque Pride, and I bet a lot of you out there will also have stories to tell.
Please do.
June 08, 2007
"The Importance of Being an Ally"
This piece, written by an activist in Michigan, really hits home and expresses many of the thoughts I have as a GLBT ally myself. I recommend reading the entire piece, but here are a couple of excerpts:
Growing up in the United Methodist Church, I was taught that we’re all God’s children and the importance of the Golden Rule. Now, I may have been taught a different version of that basic tenet of life than the homophobes of society, because my Golden Rule never included fine print that read
Treat others as you wish to be treated….but only if they look like you, act like you, believe in what you believe, and aren’t different from you in any major way.
I believe we all have a duty to lead by example, something that I try to practice each and everyday. Allies have the upper hand in this fight, some might even say we already have our foot in the door. By leading by example for our family, friends and neighbors, and showing our support of the LGBT community, we can show others that it’s not just a gay issue, it’s an issue of personal rights and freedom, an issue that needs to be taken out of the courts, the government, and the churches, and an issue that shouldn’t matter, but a personal decision that should be respected and equally left alone.
Good stuff, and something I hope any straight person reading this blog who is not actively supporting their GLBT brothers and sisters will take to heart.
Growing up in the United Methodist Church, I was taught that we’re all God’s children and the importance of the Golden Rule. Now, I may have been taught a different version of that basic tenet of life than the homophobes of society, because my Golden Rule never included fine print that read
Treat others as you wish to be treated….but only if they look like you, act like you, believe in what you believe, and aren’t different from you in any major way.
I believe we all have a duty to lead by example, something that I try to practice each and everyday. Allies have the upper hand in this fight, some might even say we already have our foot in the door. By leading by example for our family, friends and neighbors, and showing our support of the LGBT community, we can show others that it’s not just a gay issue, it’s an issue of personal rights and freedom, an issue that needs to be taken out of the courts, the government, and the churches, and an issue that shouldn’t matter, but a personal decision that should be respected and equally left alone.
Good stuff, and something I hope any straight person reading this blog who is not actively supporting their GLBT brothers and sisters will take to heart.
June 07, 2007
Looking at the Damage Done by Gay Marriage Bans
This post on the blog In This Moment looks at some of the consequences of gay marriage bans in various states:
When we fought the Kansas ban on same sex marriage in 2005, I was struck by how vigorously our opponents claimed that the ban would never hurt a soul.
Over and over again, they assured voters that voting "yes" on the constitutional amendment would only ban something that was already illegal. In the end, Kansas voters gave in and approved the ban.
Meanwhile, with every passing day there is new evidence that everything the religious right said about these amendments was a lie. People are being hurt. Both gays and straights are losing health insurance and other employment benefits. Some are even losing the right to prosecute abusers for beating them up, and that's just the start.
What I have never understood is how it helps this nation to keep LGBT citizens from getting jobs and having health insurance. What does the religious right think it gets by hurting lesbian and gay families and their children?
I don't know if those questions can be answered. Perhaps, like many voters in Kansas, people just aren't thinking. Perhaps they don't understand the consequences of their votes, or perhaps, as John Aravosis says over at AMERICAblog: "The religious right pretty much wants us dead."
I know some like Fred Phelps do believe that all gays should be put to death. On the other hand, I know that many other honest Americans don't. I think it's time for folks to wake up and understand what their votes are doing. It's time to stop believing the lies of the religious right.
In this post, it is clear that, at least in some states, gay marriage bans have a broader reach and affect any non-married couple. Sadly, some on the religious right don't care who gets hurt as long as their interpretation of the Bible, or perhaps just their own thurst for power, is satisfied.
When we fought the Kansas ban on same sex marriage in 2005, I was struck by how vigorously our opponents claimed that the ban would never hurt a soul.
Over and over again, they assured voters that voting "yes" on the constitutional amendment would only ban something that was already illegal. In the end, Kansas voters gave in and approved the ban.
Meanwhile, with every passing day there is new evidence that everything the religious right said about these amendments was a lie. People are being hurt. Both gays and straights are losing health insurance and other employment benefits. Some are even losing the right to prosecute abusers for beating them up, and that's just the start.
What I have never understood is how it helps this nation to keep LGBT citizens from getting jobs and having health insurance. What does the religious right think it gets by hurting lesbian and gay families and their children?
I don't know if those questions can be answered. Perhaps, like many voters in Kansas, people just aren't thinking. Perhaps they don't understand the consequences of their votes, or perhaps, as John Aravosis says over at AMERICAblog: "The religious right pretty much wants us dead."
I know some like Fred Phelps do believe that all gays should be put to death. On the other hand, I know that many other honest Americans don't. I think it's time for folks to wake up and understand what their votes are doing. It's time to stop believing the lies of the religious right.
In this post, it is clear that, at least in some states, gay marriage bans have a broader reach and affect any non-married couple. Sadly, some on the religious right don't care who gets hurt as long as their interpretation of the Bible, or perhaps just their own thurst for power, is satisfied.
Does Jesus Love Transgender People?
This article by Joanne Herman in the Advocate resoundingly concludes that yes, he would, despite what most fundamentalists would have people believe.
Herman does an excellent job in illustrating two key points about misusing the Bible; 1) focusing on one or two scripture verses that, taken out of context, contradict the message of God's love and 2) picking and choosing what scripture to take literally.
Herman points out how Deuteronomy 22:5 and 23:1 are used to condemn transgender people--very isolated references that are not as black and white as many people choose to interpret them. At the same time, she points out, people focus on scriptures like that and the clobber passages while ignoring the laws of the time written right along with them that would, for example, condemn a person to death for working on the Sabbath and prohibit the eating of shellfish.
Could the Bible include any positive references to transgender people?
Meanwhile, biologist Joan Roughgarden has noted that the Bible actually provides evidence that transgender people were a part of regular life even in biblical times. Roughgarden is a transgender woman who has taught at Stanford University since 1972. In her book Evolution's Rainbow, Roughgarden wondered why, if Darwin’s theory of evolution were correct, diversity in the animal population did not seem to be disappearing.
But Roughgarden is also a Christian who has done extensive reading of the Bible. In her latest work, Evolution and Christian Faith, she offers the radical notion that the two beliefs are actually quite compatible. And she goes a step further to claim that Jesus’ beliefs and teachings actually were intended to help Christians live with the diversity that existed then and that would continue to be present.
Of relevance to trans people is her discussion of eunuchs. She references Matthew 19:12, in which Jesus describes three types of eunuchs—those “which were so born from their mothers’ womb,” those “which were made eunuchs of men,” and those “which made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.”
Roughgarden interprets the first category as describing intersex individuals and the latter transsexual individuals. She notes that Jesus’ descriptions line up with those of ancient Roman writers who described those we would today call cross-dressers as well as those who transitioned genders without physical alteration.
She points out that some eunuchs held powerful positions and that “eunuchs were common enough that writers referred to them with such phrases as ‘armies of eunuchs.’” And she asserts that the apostle Philip's baptism of the eunuch in Acts 9:27–38 serves as an “explicit instruction to include eunuchs within the church.”
Newman closes with a critically important point:
Many LGBT people have been hurt by religion used in hate, and transgender people are no exception. I nervously returned to church only when my wife, Barbara, was dying of cancer and I needed a spiritual connection during those difficult days. What I discovered was that there are progressive mainline churches that truly welcome LGBT folks, and their leaders are convinced that Jesus would (and did) too.
So don’t hesitate to question sweeping generalizations about Jesus. And if you are a Christian, please do your own research.
Don't take my word for it either. Hopefully what you read here and other welcoming and affirming resources leads you to consider these points, do your own study, and work out with God through the Holy Spirit what is right and who he accepts.
I'm confident you'll find a lot more of the new covenant Jesus established and a lot less of the Old Testament judgementalism that fundamentalists work so hard to hang on to.
Herman does an excellent job in illustrating two key points about misusing the Bible; 1) focusing on one or two scripture verses that, taken out of context, contradict the message of God's love and 2) picking and choosing what scripture to take literally.
Herman points out how Deuteronomy 22:5 and 23:1 are used to condemn transgender people--very isolated references that are not as black and white as many people choose to interpret them. At the same time, she points out, people focus on scriptures like that and the clobber passages while ignoring the laws of the time written right along with them that would, for example, condemn a person to death for working on the Sabbath and prohibit the eating of shellfish.
Could the Bible include any positive references to transgender people?
Meanwhile, biologist Joan Roughgarden has noted that the Bible actually provides evidence that transgender people were a part of regular life even in biblical times. Roughgarden is a transgender woman who has taught at Stanford University since 1972. In her book Evolution's Rainbow, Roughgarden wondered why, if Darwin’s theory of evolution were correct, diversity in the animal population did not seem to be disappearing.
But Roughgarden is also a Christian who has done extensive reading of the Bible. In her latest work, Evolution and Christian Faith, she offers the radical notion that the two beliefs are actually quite compatible. And she goes a step further to claim that Jesus’ beliefs and teachings actually were intended to help Christians live with the diversity that existed then and that would continue to be present.
Of relevance to trans people is her discussion of eunuchs. She references Matthew 19:12, in which Jesus describes three types of eunuchs—those “which were so born from their mothers’ womb,” those “which were made eunuchs of men,” and those “which made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.”
Roughgarden interprets the first category as describing intersex individuals and the latter transsexual individuals. She notes that Jesus’ descriptions line up with those of ancient Roman writers who described those we would today call cross-dressers as well as those who transitioned genders without physical alteration.
She points out that some eunuchs held powerful positions and that “eunuchs were common enough that writers referred to them with such phrases as ‘armies of eunuchs.’” And she asserts that the apostle Philip's baptism of the eunuch in Acts 9:27–38 serves as an “explicit instruction to include eunuchs within the church.”
Newman closes with a critically important point:
Many LGBT people have been hurt by religion used in hate, and transgender people are no exception. I nervously returned to church only when my wife, Barbara, was dying of cancer and I needed a spiritual connection during those difficult days. What I discovered was that there are progressive mainline churches that truly welcome LGBT folks, and their leaders are convinced that Jesus would (and did) too.
So don’t hesitate to question sweeping generalizations about Jesus. And if you are a Christian, please do your own research.
Don't take my word for it either. Hopefully what you read here and other welcoming and affirming resources leads you to consider these points, do your own study, and work out with God through the Holy Spirit what is right and who he accepts.
I'm confident you'll find a lot more of the new covenant Jesus established and a lot less of the Old Testament judgementalism that fundamentalists work so hard to hang on to.
June 06, 2007
The Evolution of Marriage Laws
June 12 is the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in the Loving vs. Virginia case that struck down bans on interracial marriages. The law that was struck down was Virginia's "Racial Integrity Act." Sound a lot like today's marriage protection acts? That's the point of this op-ed piece in the Washington Post.
Interracial marriage bans now seem obviously invidious. But go back far enough and the consensus flips. At one point, most everyone thought such bans were legitimate. The same is true of segregated schooling and discrimination against women. It is true of just about everything the Supreme Court has held that the equal protection clause prohibits: At one point, all of these practices were seen as legitimate reflections of the world, not as invidious attempts to impose inequality. When the court held these practices unconstitutional, it was neither enforcing a rule that had existed since 1868 nor creating a new rule. It was recognizing that social attitudes had shifted, and with them the understanding about what is reasonable and what is invidious.
This point connects Loving to current social struggles, most notably the debate over same-sex marriage. Opponents decry the "activist judges" in Massachusetts who struck down that state's same-sex marriage ban and warn that the Supreme Court will someday follow. So it may -- but, if it does, responsibility will not lie primarily with judges.
The past few decades have brought a dramatic change in social attitudes about homosexuality. The American Psychiatric Association, which once classified homosexuality as a mental disease, abandoned that position in 1973. Public opinion polls show an increasing acceptance of homosexuality, and state legislatures are beginning to follow. Restricting the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples is increasingly seen as invidious, an inequality inflicted for no good reason.
If the trend continues, this view eventually will find expression at the Supreme Court level, just as it did in Loving. This is not judicial activism. It is how we make the Constitution ours.
The writer of this piece, Kermit Roosevelt, is author of the book "The Myth of Judicial Activism," which is the phrase right-wingers use to describe rulings they don't like, so he's done his homework.
I saw a piece from Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council where he writes that, of course, interracial marriage is fine because it still involves a man and a woman but same-sex marriage is against God's plan. It is obvious, though, that 40 years ago there were Tony Perkins types arguing that interracial marriage was also a violation of God's will. Fortunately over time people grew to learn that was wrong, just as it appears will happen for same-sex unions.
Interracial marriage bans now seem obviously invidious. But go back far enough and the consensus flips. At one point, most everyone thought such bans were legitimate. The same is true of segregated schooling and discrimination against women. It is true of just about everything the Supreme Court has held that the equal protection clause prohibits: At one point, all of these practices were seen as legitimate reflections of the world, not as invidious attempts to impose inequality. When the court held these practices unconstitutional, it was neither enforcing a rule that had existed since 1868 nor creating a new rule. It was recognizing that social attitudes had shifted, and with them the understanding about what is reasonable and what is invidious.
This point connects Loving to current social struggles, most notably the debate over same-sex marriage. Opponents decry the "activist judges" in Massachusetts who struck down that state's same-sex marriage ban and warn that the Supreme Court will someday follow. So it may -- but, if it does, responsibility will not lie primarily with judges.
The past few decades have brought a dramatic change in social attitudes about homosexuality. The American Psychiatric Association, which once classified homosexuality as a mental disease, abandoned that position in 1973. Public opinion polls show an increasing acceptance of homosexuality, and state legislatures are beginning to follow. Restricting the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples is increasingly seen as invidious, an inequality inflicted for no good reason.
If the trend continues, this view eventually will find expression at the Supreme Court level, just as it did in Loving. This is not judicial activism. It is how we make the Constitution ours.
The writer of this piece, Kermit Roosevelt, is author of the book "The Myth of Judicial Activism," which is the phrase right-wingers use to describe rulings they don't like, so he's done his homework.
I saw a piece from Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council where he writes that, of course, interracial marriage is fine because it still involves a man and a woman but same-sex marriage is against God's plan. It is obvious, though, that 40 years ago there were Tony Perkins types arguing that interracial marriage was also a violation of God's will. Fortunately over time people grew to learn that was wrong, just as it appears will happen for same-sex unions.
June 05, 2007
Democratic Presidential Candidates All Oppose "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
This article from The Advocate spells out in some detail the views of the eight announced Democratic presidential candidates regarding the existing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, but the bottom line is that they are came out against it during Sunday's debate.
In Tuesday night's Republican debate, all ten candidates supported "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Pretty easy to draw a line there, isn't it?
In Tuesday night's Republican debate, all ten candidates supported "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Pretty easy to draw a line there, isn't it?
Much More on Gay Republicans
I ran across this story which is a good follow-up to a story I posted on Sunday where I questioned how a GLBT person could be a member of the Republican party. I appreciated the conversation that resulted, but here is a lengthy research piece posted on the website of Political Research Associates.
The article focuses on the Log Cabin Republicans, which it reports has about 20,000 members, and some of the best known gay conservatives like Andrew Sullivan. Here are a couple of the points I found particularly interesting:
Among the cadre of gay conservative writers, people of color are also conspicuously absent. This makes sense if we realize that issues like affirmative action, racism, and public education are mostly off the radar of gay right pundits. While gay conservative people of color certainly do exist, their relationship with the gay movement has been problematical, and no one has emerged to represent them nor has anyone been sustained by the usual media.
The power of gay conservative pundits has successfully focused LGBT issues on the narrow frame of gay marriage. This has effectively erased from their line of vision those LGBT people who do not stand to receive its benefits, those not in the solid middle class, poor single parents, and the uninsured.
In 2007, the gay agenda that so worries the Christian Right as a radical remaking of society amounts to the single issue of gay rights, manifest in a primary demand of gay marriage and the remnants of interest in non-discrimination of gays in the military. While gay conservatives may not have consciously engineered this single issue focus, their increasing visibility in the cause during a period of conservative resurgence reinforces the narrow scope of contemporary gay politics.
Strikingly, these narrow goals can be seen as conservative, or non-radical demands - to be allowed to defend national security and to be recognized as identical to heterosexuals under the law. This toes the line of the gay conservative position as does the reality that the gay movement, despite its political diversity, has embraced same sex marriage as its central political demand. Whether done consciously or not, this choice allows some, including parts of the Right, to separate the LGBT community into "good gays," those who just want to get married and settle down, and "bad gays," those who flaunt their sexuality, demand radical change, or challenge gender-normative images. This, riding on the demise of a functioning radical gay left, represents the true influence of gay conservatism on the politics of homosexuality: the gay movement continues to be pulled to the right.
While I believe the extreme left among gay political activists have been effectively marginalized, I personally don't find that the "gay movement" is drifting to the right. I welcome your opinions on that point.
The article focuses on the Log Cabin Republicans, which it reports has about 20,000 members, and some of the best known gay conservatives like Andrew Sullivan. Here are a couple of the points I found particularly interesting:
Among the cadre of gay conservative writers, people of color are also conspicuously absent. This makes sense if we realize that issues like affirmative action, racism, and public education are mostly off the radar of gay right pundits. While gay conservative people of color certainly do exist, their relationship with the gay movement has been problematical, and no one has emerged to represent them nor has anyone been sustained by the usual media.
The power of gay conservative pundits has successfully focused LGBT issues on the narrow frame of gay marriage. This has effectively erased from their line of vision those LGBT people who do not stand to receive its benefits, those not in the solid middle class, poor single parents, and the uninsured.
In 2007, the gay agenda that so worries the Christian Right as a radical remaking of society amounts to the single issue of gay rights, manifest in a primary demand of gay marriage and the remnants of interest in non-discrimination of gays in the military. While gay conservatives may not have consciously engineered this single issue focus, their increasing visibility in the cause during a period of conservative resurgence reinforces the narrow scope of contemporary gay politics.
Strikingly, these narrow goals can be seen as conservative, or non-radical demands - to be allowed to defend national security and to be recognized as identical to heterosexuals under the law. This toes the line of the gay conservative position as does the reality that the gay movement, despite its political diversity, has embraced same sex marriage as its central political demand. Whether done consciously or not, this choice allows some, including parts of the Right, to separate the LGBT community into "good gays," those who just want to get married and settle down, and "bad gays," those who flaunt their sexuality, demand radical change, or challenge gender-normative images. This, riding on the demise of a functioning radical gay left, represents the true influence of gay conservatism on the politics of homosexuality: the gay movement continues to be pulled to the right.
While I believe the extreme left among gay political activists have been effectively marginalized, I personally don't find that the "gay movement" is drifting to the right. I welcome your opinions on that point.
Worlds Don't Have to Collide, They Can Hopefully Coexist
That's the hope for this coming weekend in Binghamton, NY, where a evangelical festival led by Franklin Graham will be held near a gay pride fair. Leaders of both events have openly invited people attending the other one to come to theirs, and there does seem to be a spirit of at least peaceful co-existence if not cooperation. Hopefully that will come to pass.
From the Christian Post:
Tens of thousands of people are expected to hear the message of sin and salvation at an evangelistic festival in Binghamton, N.Y., this weekend. Also coming to town that same weekend is a gay pride fair.
The NYPENN Franklin Graham Festival will hit Binghamton this Friday for a three-day event complete with popular Christian music artists, KidzFest and free admission. It's the first time a Graham festival is landing in the Southern Tier and local organizers are readying two additional overflow venues at the Binghamton University Events Center.
With praying and preparation months into the event, John O'Neil, chairman of the event's executive committee of local volunteers, says the festival is to "reach the un-churched, to provide a message of love, a message of hope, a message of meaning," according to the local Press & Sun-Bulletin.
And one group of people that organizers have extended the festival invitation to is the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender community (LGBT). June is “gay pride” month and members of the Binghamton Pride Coalition have a series of events planned for the entire month, including its third annual Pride Fair celebrating the LGBT community on Saturday.
"I'd like to invite them to come to our meeting. I think everyone, no matter what your preferences, can certainly find hope in the message of the Gospel," Art Bailey, director of the Graham festival, told the local newspaper. "People of all persuasions want you to look at everything with an open mind. I think we'd say the same thing."
As Binghamton prepares to welcome Graham to the city for the June 8-10 festival, the city's mayor has already raised the gay flag and shown his support to the LGBT community.
On June 1, Mayor Matthew T. Ryan and members of the Binghamton Pride Coalition kicked off the month with a proclamation, calling it a month to celebrate community diversity and to raise awareness of LGBT issues. Ryan also issued an executive order recognizing same-sex "marriages" in the city. The City of Binghamton now joins Ithaca, Rochester, Albany and Nyack in recognizing same-sex "marriages" legally performed in other states and jurisdictions.
Some students and faculty at Binghamton University protested an evangelistic festival being held on school grounds, claiming the event contradicts the Student Handbook's provision against bias-related activities, as well as a disregard for diversity, according to Press & Sun-Bulletin.
Protestors were rebuffed as the school's administration confirmed that Graham's organizers met all the conditions for rental of the Events Center.
Claudia Stallman of Binghamton, who directs the Lesbian and Gay Family Building project, told the local newspaper that the LGBT community has no plans to disrupt the Graham festival and hopes people who attend the evangelistic event do not disrupt their celebration.
Meanwhile, organizers have high expectations for the Franklin Graham festival and hundreds have been praying for its success.
"It's something that's going to transform this community forever," said O'Neil.
From the Christian Post:
Tens of thousands of people are expected to hear the message of sin and salvation at an evangelistic festival in Binghamton, N.Y., this weekend. Also coming to town that same weekend is a gay pride fair.
The NYPENN Franklin Graham Festival will hit Binghamton this Friday for a three-day event complete with popular Christian music artists, KidzFest and free admission. It's the first time a Graham festival is landing in the Southern Tier and local organizers are readying two additional overflow venues at the Binghamton University Events Center.
With praying and preparation months into the event, John O'Neil, chairman of the event's executive committee of local volunteers, says the festival is to "reach the un-churched, to provide a message of love, a message of hope, a message of meaning," according to the local Press & Sun-Bulletin.
And one group of people that organizers have extended the festival invitation to is the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender community (LGBT). June is “gay pride” month and members of the Binghamton Pride Coalition have a series of events planned for the entire month, including its third annual Pride Fair celebrating the LGBT community on Saturday.
"I'd like to invite them to come to our meeting. I think everyone, no matter what your preferences, can certainly find hope in the message of the Gospel," Art Bailey, director of the Graham festival, told the local newspaper. "People of all persuasions want you to look at everything with an open mind. I think we'd say the same thing."
As Binghamton prepares to welcome Graham to the city for the June 8-10 festival, the city's mayor has already raised the gay flag and shown his support to the LGBT community.
On June 1, Mayor Matthew T. Ryan and members of the Binghamton Pride Coalition kicked off the month with a proclamation, calling it a month to celebrate community diversity and to raise awareness of LGBT issues. Ryan also issued an executive order recognizing same-sex "marriages" in the city. The City of Binghamton now joins Ithaca, Rochester, Albany and Nyack in recognizing same-sex "marriages" legally performed in other states and jurisdictions.
Some students and faculty at Binghamton University protested an evangelistic festival being held on school grounds, claiming the event contradicts the Student Handbook's provision against bias-related activities, as well as a disregard for diversity, according to Press & Sun-Bulletin.
Protestors were rebuffed as the school's administration confirmed that Graham's organizers met all the conditions for rental of the Events Center.
Claudia Stallman of Binghamton, who directs the Lesbian and Gay Family Building project, told the local newspaper that the LGBT community has no plans to disrupt the Graham festival and hopes people who attend the evangelistic event do not disrupt their celebration.
Meanwhile, organizers have high expectations for the Franklin Graham festival and hundreds have been praying for its success.
"It's something that's going to transform this community forever," said O'Neil.
Understanding God's Perfect Love for GLBT People
One of the things I've learned during the last two years of writing this blog is how difficult it is for so many GLBT people to find a path to God that does not require them to forsake their sexual identity for the guise of a heterosexual or a life of celibacy.
This post on Ex-Gay Watch by Eugene Wagner does as good a job of explaining it as any essay I have run across:
Every time I recount the story of how I transitioned from a place of unquestioning acceptance of ex-gay ideology into the journey that I find myself on today, it comes out a bit differently as I focus on different aspects of what was, at the time, a far more complex process than a few pages of text could ever fully capture. If there’s one pivotal event that I hope I adequately account for in every retelling, it’s how I came to truly understand, for the first time, that God loves me exactly the way I am, and that I don’t have to change who or what I am to earn his acceptance
Words cannot fully convey just how revolutionary it was to come to the realization that not only did I not have to become somebody else in order to appease God, but he didn’t want me to be somebody else. Yet somebody else was precisely what I was trying to become through my efforts to “reclaim my natural heterosexuality.”
In practice, the lessons drummed into me in church every Sunday led me to a life of fear - fear of what God would do to my worthless self if I didn’t say and do all the right things, fear of what God will do to those I love if I can’t persuade them to adopt my beliefs and standards, and fear of the terrible judgment God will pour out on our nation if his followers can’t bring enough of our neighbors to repentance.
But if “perfect love drives out fear,” as we’re told in 1 John 4:18, then something must be amiss in our churches. If fear is ever our motivation for doing anything, then perhaps it’s time for us to stop and reexamine what we really believe, underneath what we claim to believe.
Fortunately, Eugene came out of this struggle at peace with himself and with God's love for him as a homosexual child of God.
That path, although difficult and often painful, is available to any and all GLBT people who seek it. It is worth the effort.
This post on Ex-Gay Watch by Eugene Wagner does as good a job of explaining it as any essay I have run across:
Every time I recount the story of how I transitioned from a place of unquestioning acceptance of ex-gay ideology into the journey that I find myself on today, it comes out a bit differently as I focus on different aspects of what was, at the time, a far more complex process than a few pages of text could ever fully capture. If there’s one pivotal event that I hope I adequately account for in every retelling, it’s how I came to truly understand, for the first time, that God loves me exactly the way I am, and that I don’t have to change who or what I am to earn his acceptance
Words cannot fully convey just how revolutionary it was to come to the realization that not only did I not have to become somebody else in order to appease God, but he didn’t want me to be somebody else. Yet somebody else was precisely what I was trying to become through my efforts to “reclaim my natural heterosexuality.”
In practice, the lessons drummed into me in church every Sunday led me to a life of fear - fear of what God would do to my worthless self if I didn’t say and do all the right things, fear of what God will do to those I love if I can’t persuade them to adopt my beliefs and standards, and fear of the terrible judgment God will pour out on our nation if his followers can’t bring enough of our neighbors to repentance.
But if “perfect love drives out fear,” as we’re told in 1 John 4:18, then something must be amiss in our churches. If fear is ever our motivation for doing anything, then perhaps it’s time for us to stop and reexamine what we really believe, underneath what we claim to believe.
Fortunately, Eugene came out of this struggle at peace with himself and with God's love for him as a homosexual child of God.
That path, although difficult and often painful, is available to any and all GLBT people who seek it. It is worth the effort.
June 04, 2007
International Carnival of Pozitives Issue 12
We are ALL living with HIV/AIDS. This is a carnival about living with HIV/AIDS and how HIV/AIDS has affected your life. This site assumes that HIV/AIDS is caused by a variety of HIV viruses, either wild strains or those generated from drug resistance, and is not a forum for those who do not believe that HIV causes AIDS. Your stories of life with HIV/AIDS, including your survival strategies, your medication issues, your friends or loved ones with HIV/AIDS, your efforts for the cause, in fact, anything to do with how you live positively will be accepted.
That's the call for contributions for the International Carnival of Pozitives, which has just published its 12th issue. Here's the link, and I always highly recommend these moving stories of focusing of the positives in a life touched by the HIV/AIDS virus.
That's the call for contributions for the International Carnival of Pozitives, which has just published its 12th issue. Here's the link, and I always highly recommend these moving stories of focusing of the positives in a life touched by the HIV/AIDS virus.
Exxon Adds Insult to Injury
With gas prices well over $3.00 a gallon across the United States, it's easy to hate on the big oil companies, especially while they are recording record profits. Unfortunately, Exxon is piling on by the way they continue to show disrepect towards GLBT people.
This from the Human Rights Campaign:
ExxonMobil shareholders voted today with record support for a resolution to add “sexual orientation” to the company’s written equal employment opportunity policy. The percentage of shares voted in favor of the proposal has grown each of the last eight years, with 37.8 percent of shares voting in favor of the policy this year, an increase from 34.6 percent in 2005. The tally represents about 1.78 billion total shares voted in favor of the proposal.
“ExxonMobil continues to have the dubious distinction of being the only Fortune 50 company that refuses to add sexual orientation to their non-discrimination policy,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “With a record number of shareholders voting in favor of equal protections and siding with the overwhelming majority of Americans supporting the right of all employees to earn a living free of discrimination, it is irresponsible for ExxonMobil not to join the majority of companies that provide equal protections and benefits to all families.”
ExxonMobil is alone as the only Fortune 50 company that refuses to write sexual orientation protections into its primary non-discrimination policy. A total of 435 — nearly 90 percent — of Fortune 500 companies include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination policies and 124 — or 25 percent — include gender identity. ExxonMobil’s competitors, BP Corp., Chevron Corp., Dow Chemical and DuPont all have non-discrimination statements inclusive of sexual orientation and gender identity. Moreover, ExxonMobil does not provide domestic partner health insurance to all of its employees.
Solmonese continued, “In 2006, for the first time, a majority of the Fortune 500 — a total of 266, or 53 percent — offered domestic partner benefits. While most of corporate America recognizes and respects the diversity of their workforce, ExxonMobil continues to resist the most basic protections that should be afforded to all Americans.”
The Human Rights Campaign was on hand at the annual shareholder meeting in Dallas to present the resolution. A group of 21 organizations, including HRC, make up the Coalition to Promote Equality at ExxonMobil.
Mobil Corp. offered such written protection, and domestic partner benefits, to its employees; however, upon its 1999 merger with Exxon, the basic non-discrimination protection was removed and the domestic partner benefits program closed to new employees. Twenty-four members of Congress, and thousands of stockholders and consumers, wrote to ExxonMobil Chairman Lee R. Raymond in December 1999 to protest the policy reversals. In January 2000, stockholders and activists protested at a company facility in Houston, causing the facility to close for the day.
I hope you keep this in mind the next time you select where to buy gas.
This from the Human Rights Campaign:
ExxonMobil shareholders voted today with record support for a resolution to add “sexual orientation” to the company’s written equal employment opportunity policy. The percentage of shares voted in favor of the proposal has grown each of the last eight years, with 37.8 percent of shares voting in favor of the policy this year, an increase from 34.6 percent in 2005. The tally represents about 1.78 billion total shares voted in favor of the proposal.
“ExxonMobil continues to have the dubious distinction of being the only Fortune 50 company that refuses to add sexual orientation to their non-discrimination policy,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “With a record number of shareholders voting in favor of equal protections and siding with the overwhelming majority of Americans supporting the right of all employees to earn a living free of discrimination, it is irresponsible for ExxonMobil not to join the majority of companies that provide equal protections and benefits to all families.”
ExxonMobil is alone as the only Fortune 50 company that refuses to write sexual orientation protections into its primary non-discrimination policy. A total of 435 — nearly 90 percent — of Fortune 500 companies include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination policies and 124 — or 25 percent — include gender identity. ExxonMobil’s competitors, BP Corp., Chevron Corp., Dow Chemical and DuPont all have non-discrimination statements inclusive of sexual orientation and gender identity. Moreover, ExxonMobil does not provide domestic partner health insurance to all of its employees.
Solmonese continued, “In 2006, for the first time, a majority of the Fortune 500 — a total of 266, or 53 percent — offered domestic partner benefits. While most of corporate America recognizes and respects the diversity of their workforce, ExxonMobil continues to resist the most basic protections that should be afforded to all Americans.”
The Human Rights Campaign was on hand at the annual shareholder meeting in Dallas to present the resolution. A group of 21 organizations, including HRC, make up the Coalition to Promote Equality at ExxonMobil.
Mobil Corp. offered such written protection, and domestic partner benefits, to its employees; however, upon its 1999 merger with Exxon, the basic non-discrimination protection was removed and the domestic partner benefits program closed to new employees. Twenty-four members of Congress, and thousands of stockholders and consumers, wrote to ExxonMobil Chairman Lee R. Raymond in December 1999 to protest the policy reversals. In January 2000, stockholders and activists protested at a company facility in Houston, causing the facility to close for the day.
I hope you keep this in mind the next time you select where to buy gas.
June 03, 2007
Mike Rogers Cleans Out Closets on Capitol Hill
From Yahoo News:
Mike Rogers, who writes the blogs Blogactive.com and PageOneQ (where I found this link), is fighting back against anti-gay politicians when he finds evidence that they are actually closeted homosexuals.
He outs them.
Rogers is a muckraking gay blogger who uses his insider's knowledge of Washington politics and broad blanket of contacts to "out" gay politicos — but only, he says, if they are undermining gay rights. Critics call his tactics divisive and politically motivated.
Rogers, a longtime gay activist, started blogactive.com in 2004, using it to yank out of the closet at least two dozen high-ranking political figures, including senators, congressmen and Bush administration officials.
He's outed so many closeted gay politicos, he's starting to make Capitol Hill look like Brokeback Mountain. All of them, he says, use their positions to actively oppose the equal rights of gay citizens while at the same time, secretly live a gay life.
People have called Rogers a gay terrorist, but he says, "The only people who say things like that are people who have a vested interest in protecting the closet."
"I feel more sad for [the people I out] than anger," Rogers says. "... That they are in this position, that they are self-loathing, willing to wake up everyday and go to work against the very community they are a member of is quite shocking.
"Many gay organizations are troubled by outing but stop short of condemning it. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation "doesn't encourage outing, period," says GLAAD's Rashad Robinson. "But there is an argument that can be made — and many make it — for holding closeted political figures who attack and exploit gay people and our families for political gain accountable for their actions.
"However, the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay Republican group, disagree. "Log Cabin is strongly against outing," says its president, Patrick Sammon. "It is unproductive and motivated by vengeance. It does nothing to further the cause of equality for gay and lesbian Americans."
I think the response by the Log Cabin Republicans (I still don't understand how a self-respecting GLBT person can be a Republican given that party's hostility toward the community) is really sad. I applaud Rogers' activities. Of course they are politically motivated, just like the actions of those who work hard to deny rights to GLBT people. I think exposing closeted, self-loathing politicans who work as enemies of gay rights need to be flushed out into an honest public debate outside of their closets.
Honesty and truth in politics--it's a radical idea but it just might work.
Mike Rogers, who writes the blogs Blogactive.com and PageOneQ (where I found this link), is fighting back against anti-gay politicians when he finds evidence that they are actually closeted homosexuals.
He outs them.
Rogers is a muckraking gay blogger who uses his insider's knowledge of Washington politics and broad blanket of contacts to "out" gay politicos — but only, he says, if they are undermining gay rights. Critics call his tactics divisive and politically motivated.
Rogers, a longtime gay activist, started blogactive.com in 2004, using it to yank out of the closet at least two dozen high-ranking political figures, including senators, congressmen and Bush administration officials.
He's outed so many closeted gay politicos, he's starting to make Capitol Hill look like Brokeback Mountain. All of them, he says, use their positions to actively oppose the equal rights of gay citizens while at the same time, secretly live a gay life.
People have called Rogers a gay terrorist, but he says, "The only people who say things like that are people who have a vested interest in protecting the closet."
"I feel more sad for [the people I out] than anger," Rogers says. "... That they are in this position, that they are self-loathing, willing to wake up everyday and go to work against the very community they are a member of is quite shocking.
"Many gay organizations are troubled by outing but stop short of condemning it. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation "doesn't encourage outing, period," says GLAAD's Rashad Robinson. "But there is an argument that can be made — and many make it — for holding closeted political figures who attack and exploit gay people and our families for political gain accountable for their actions.
"However, the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay Republican group, disagree. "Log Cabin is strongly against outing," says its president, Patrick Sammon. "It is unproductive and motivated by vengeance. It does nothing to further the cause of equality for gay and lesbian Americans."
I think the response by the Log Cabin Republicans (I still don't understand how a self-respecting GLBT person can be a Republican given that party's hostility toward the community) is really sad. I applaud Rogers' activities. Of course they are politically motivated, just like the actions of those who work hard to deny rights to GLBT people. I think exposing closeted, self-loathing politicans who work as enemies of gay rights need to be flushed out into an honest public debate outside of their closets.
Honesty and truth in politics--it's a radical idea but it just might work.
2nd Annual Blogging for GLBT Familes
Mombian.com hosted the second annual "Blogging for GLBT Families," which just wrapped up yesterday. I was happy to contribute last year and, although I did not directly participate this time there are still some wonderful posts that are worth your time to read. At last count there are over 130 different posts collected for this event so try to block out some time and check out as many as you can.
Here's the link to the 2nd annual "Blogging for GLBT Families."
Here's the link to the 2nd annual "Blogging for GLBT Families."
June 02, 2007
More Examples of Religion and Politics Mixing--Poorly
Two items came to my e-mail over the last couple of days that reminded me how the intertwining of politics and religion is often to the detriment of both.
First, this item from Americans United for Separation of Church and State:
Americans United asserts that Bill Keller Ministries seems to have violated federal tax law when its online division, Liveprayer.com, ran articles warning readers that a vote for Romney is a vote for Satan.
“If you vote for Mitt Romney, you are voting for satan!” asserted the ministry in the May 11 “devotional” posted on Liveprayer.com. “This message today is not about Mitt Romney. Romney is an unashamed and proud member of the Mormon cult founded by a murdering polygamist pedophile named Joseph Smith nearly 200 years ago. The teachings of the Mormon cult are doctrinally and theologically in complete opposition to the Absolute Truth of God’s Word….This message is about the top Christian leaders in our nation who are supporting this cult members [sic] quest to become the next President of the United States.”
Keller apparently saw this report, writing this under the heading of devotional (what?!) dated June 2:
A real tool of satan, Barry Lynn who runs a group called the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, has called on the IRS to investigate Liveprayer for my comments about Mitt Romney. Since I highly doubt Lynn even knows who I am, it would be interesting to know if it was the Mormons who put him up to this.
Nice. Another reminder that when someone uses the phrase "Absolute Truth of God's Word" or anything akin to that they usually mean "The Truth According to Me Using Scripture to Justify It." These folks generally don't take criticism very well either. For what it's worth, I LOVE Rev. Lynn. I have seen him speak several times on television and have a great respect for his views and the effectiveness with which he presents them.
Personally, I don't think there's much chance I would vote for Mitt Romney for President, but it has nothing to do with the fact that he's a mormon. I'm not voting for Chief Pastor, I'm voting for Chief Executive. I wish anyone who makes a decision whether or not to vote for a political candidate based on their faith and not their political record and views could have their vote taken away from them.
Then this disturbing notice arrived in my e-mail from Wayne Besen's advocacy organization, Truth Wins Out:
Truth Wins Out announced its strong and committed opposition today to President George W. Bush’s nomination for U.S. Surgeon General, Dr. James W. Holsinger, after it was revealed that he started a church in Lexington, Kentucky that has a ministry to “cure” gay people.
“Holsinger is an ideologue whose medical views on gay and lesbian people resemble sorcery more than sound science,” said Truth Wins Out’s Executive Director Wayne Besen. “The last thing America needed was another deplorable nominee who isn’t up to the job, but this is exactly what Bush delivered.”
Holsinger’s nomination will go before the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, chaired by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) Presidential candidates Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL), Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Christopher Dodd (D-CT) sit on this committee.
I'm way past the "you must be freakin' kidding me" reactions when Bush pulls something like this, jabbing a sharp stick in the eye of the GLBT and scientific communities yet again.
What I find particularly interesting here is the makeup of the Senate committee that will vote on this nomination. Senators Obama and Clinton have been making some ovetures to the GLBT community fishing for votes, but now it's their votes that will speak volumes about how much support they will actually give the gay and lesbian people they want to support them.
First, this item from Americans United for Separation of Church and State:
Americans United asserts that Bill Keller Ministries seems to have violated federal tax law when its online division, Liveprayer.com, ran articles warning readers that a vote for Romney is a vote for Satan.
“If you vote for Mitt Romney, you are voting for satan!” asserted the ministry in the May 11 “devotional” posted on Liveprayer.com. “This message today is not about Mitt Romney. Romney is an unashamed and proud member of the Mormon cult founded by a murdering polygamist pedophile named Joseph Smith nearly 200 years ago. The teachings of the Mormon cult are doctrinally and theologically in complete opposition to the Absolute Truth of God’s Word….This message is about the top Christian leaders in our nation who are supporting this cult members [sic] quest to become the next President of the United States.”
Keller apparently saw this report, writing this under the heading of devotional (what?!) dated June 2:
A real tool of satan, Barry Lynn who runs a group called the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, has called on the IRS to investigate Liveprayer for my comments about Mitt Romney. Since I highly doubt Lynn even knows who I am, it would be interesting to know if it was the Mormons who put him up to this.
Nice. Another reminder that when someone uses the phrase "Absolute Truth of God's Word" or anything akin to that they usually mean "The Truth According to Me Using Scripture to Justify It." These folks generally don't take criticism very well either. For what it's worth, I LOVE Rev. Lynn. I have seen him speak several times on television and have a great respect for his views and the effectiveness with which he presents them.
Personally, I don't think there's much chance I would vote for Mitt Romney for President, but it has nothing to do with the fact that he's a mormon. I'm not voting for Chief Pastor, I'm voting for Chief Executive. I wish anyone who makes a decision whether or not to vote for a political candidate based on their faith and not their political record and views could have their vote taken away from them.
Then this disturbing notice arrived in my e-mail from Wayne Besen's advocacy organization, Truth Wins Out:
Truth Wins Out announced its strong and committed opposition today to President George W. Bush’s nomination for U.S. Surgeon General, Dr. James W. Holsinger, after it was revealed that he started a church in Lexington, Kentucky that has a ministry to “cure” gay people.
“Holsinger is an ideologue whose medical views on gay and lesbian people resemble sorcery more than sound science,” said Truth Wins Out’s Executive Director Wayne Besen. “The last thing America needed was another deplorable nominee who isn’t up to the job, but this is exactly what Bush delivered.”
Holsinger’s nomination will go before the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, chaired by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) Presidential candidates Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL), Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Christopher Dodd (D-CT) sit on this committee.
I'm way past the "you must be freakin' kidding me" reactions when Bush pulls something like this, jabbing a sharp stick in the eye of the GLBT and scientific communities yet again.
What I find particularly interesting here is the makeup of the Senate committee that will vote on this nomination. Senators Obama and Clinton have been making some ovetures to the GLBT community fishing for votes, but now it's their votes that will speak volumes about how much support they will actually give the gay and lesbian people they want to support them.
Lesbian Moms Taking Pride in Mormon Country
This is one of the best explainations of why the GLBT community celebrates in the annual Pride festivals.
From the Salt Lake Tribune:
Their household includes two parents and two sons, but they're rarely considered a family.
When Kim and Ruth Hackford-Peer visited a public recreation center, they were not allowed to buy a family pass. When they take their sons to pose for a family photo or visit the doctor's office, people call them sisters. And when they hold hands walking down the street, strangers stare in disapproval.
"There's just not an acknowledgement that we're a family," says Kim, who's been with Ruth for 10 years.
But once a year, Kim and Ruth look forward to their "favorite holiday" - the Utah Pride Festival, an annual four-day event better known in the gay community as Pride.
Here, Kim and Ruth don't have to be prepared to defend their family from adults who mumble rude comments. They don't have to tell people that they are lesbians and not best friends. They don't have to worry about their sons - 5-year-old Riley and 1-year-old Casey - being ridiculed for having two mommies.
If for only a few days during Pride, they are recognized as a family.
"It's celebrating our relationship, our family, our existence," Kim says, playing with her boys in their east side Salt Lake County home.
Ruth, a 33 year-old educator, describes Pride as an event where gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender (GLBT) people can be "open" and don't have to feel ashamed of their lifestyle.
"It's about loving myself and who I am," she says. "It's about GLBT people celebrating the joys of being a queer person."
Pride is also turning into an annual tradition for gay families as the event organizes more kid-friendly activities, say gay parents.
Pride started in 1969 as a protest against discrimination and violence against gays in New York City, and today there are Pride festivals in cities worldwide.
That's what I learned at my first Pride event two years ago. It's about people celebrating who they are, especially since there are still a lot of people around who want GLBT people to hide in shame and not express their God given gift of homosexuality.
I strongly encourage members of the GLBT community to support their local Pride activities. I also highly recommend these events, especially the street festivals, to straight folks like me. If you've never been, I suspect it will be eye opening.
My church, Believers Covenenant Fellowship, will have a booth at Capital Pride in Washington DC on Sunday, June 10, just a few blocks down from the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue. If you're in the area, please stop by and say hello.
Thanks to PageOneQ for the tip on the article.
From the Salt Lake Tribune:
Their household includes two parents and two sons, but they're rarely considered a family.
When Kim and Ruth Hackford-Peer visited a public recreation center, they were not allowed to buy a family pass. When they take their sons to pose for a family photo or visit the doctor's office, people call them sisters. And when they hold hands walking down the street, strangers stare in disapproval.
"There's just not an acknowledgement that we're a family," says Kim, who's been with Ruth for 10 years.
But once a year, Kim and Ruth look forward to their "favorite holiday" - the Utah Pride Festival, an annual four-day event better known in the gay community as Pride.
Here, Kim and Ruth don't have to be prepared to defend their family from adults who mumble rude comments. They don't have to tell people that they are lesbians and not best friends. They don't have to worry about their sons - 5-year-old Riley and 1-year-old Casey - being ridiculed for having two mommies.
If for only a few days during Pride, they are recognized as a family.
"It's celebrating our relationship, our family, our existence," Kim says, playing with her boys in their east side Salt Lake County home.
Ruth, a 33 year-old educator, describes Pride as an event where gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender (GLBT) people can be "open" and don't have to feel ashamed of their lifestyle.
"It's about loving myself and who I am," she says. "It's about GLBT people celebrating the joys of being a queer person."
Pride is also turning into an annual tradition for gay families as the event organizes more kid-friendly activities, say gay parents.
Pride started in 1969 as a protest against discrimination and violence against gays in New York City, and today there are Pride festivals in cities worldwide.
That's what I learned at my first Pride event two years ago. It's about people celebrating who they are, especially since there are still a lot of people around who want GLBT people to hide in shame and not express their God given gift of homosexuality.
I strongly encourage members of the GLBT community to support their local Pride activities. I also highly recommend these events, especially the street festivals, to straight folks like me. If you've never been, I suspect it will be eye opening.
My church, Believers Covenenant Fellowship, will have a booth at Capital Pride in Washington DC on Sunday, June 10, just a few blocks down from the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue. If you're in the area, please stop by and say hello.
Thanks to PageOneQ for the tip on the article.
June 01, 2007
Groups Intensifying Efforts to "Redeem" Homosexuals
The efforts to "change" GLBT people to straight people are racheting up with new pushes by two organizations.
First, the Christian Post reports on expanded efforts by "ex-gay" group Exodus International:
In the past three decades, Exodus has challenged churches and the wider public who respond to homosexuals with ignorance and fear as well as those who uphold homosexuality as a valid orientation. And over the last five years since Alan Chambers stepped into presidency, the ex-gay organization has increased its number of member ministries to over 130 as well as its involvement in public policy issues and has become a prominent voice on gender issues, particularly in the wake of the Ted Haggard sex-and-drugs scandal.
Last summer, Exodus launched the Exodus Church Network, declaring itself a ministry of the church. Currently with 40 churches aligned to its network, Exodus helps churches to stand boldly on the truth of Scripture with regard to homosexuality, to minister to individuals struggling with unwanted homosexuality, and to create a nationwide referral list of churches for those searching for a church that will walk alongside them in their journey.
This report only prints one side of the issue and fails to mention how organizations like Exodus, by spreading the "ex-gay" myth, have destroyed lives and helped drive people to suicide.
The Southern Baptist Convention is also beginning a new initiative to "redeem" gay people. From Ethics Daily:
The Southern Baptist Convention is hiring a minister specializing in "gender issues" to help churches reach out and minister to homosexuals, without condoning same-sex relationships.
On Friday, Bob Stith, after retiring as pastor of Carroll Baptist Church in Southlake, Texas, becomes director of Southern Baptists' Ministry to Homosexuals Task Force.
Thirteen years ago Stith began to feel guilty about negative attitudes toward homosexuals coming across in his own preaching. He got involved in Exodus International, a Christian ministry that leads people out of homosexuality, and Living Hope, a non-denominational Exodus referral agency in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex.
In 2001 Stith made a motion at the SBC annual meeting to establish a task force "to inform, educate, and encourage our people to be proactive and redemptive in reaching out to those who struggle with unwanted same-sex attractions." (The SBC didn't exactly rush into this did they?)
Stith told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that no one in his church or family had struggled with homosexuality. (No, they're probably tucked away in the closet)
"In all honesty, my preaching about it had been negative, focusing on biblical passages about sin but not redemption," he said. "Those who heard me preach would never have come to me for help. When I realized that, it broke my heart. This ministry is just something God put on my heart."
Stith's softer rhetoric contrasts with earlier statements by Southern Baptists denouncing homosexuality--such as the 1996 Disney boycott that targeted the company for providing domestic-partner benefits to gays--but it doesn't sway gay-rights groups like Soulforce and the Human Rights Campaign, who believe "ex-gay" outreach ministries do more harm than good.
I point these items out because it just makes it more impairative that GLBT Christians and their allies stand up and speak out, allowing THEIR message of God's love and redemption to carry the day. We needs to minimize the damage Exodus, the SBC, and any other groups that want people to deny who they are to conform to their limited understanding can do.
First, the Christian Post reports on expanded efforts by "ex-gay" group Exodus International:
In the past three decades, Exodus has challenged churches and the wider public who respond to homosexuals with ignorance and fear as well as those who uphold homosexuality as a valid orientation. And over the last five years since Alan Chambers stepped into presidency, the ex-gay organization has increased its number of member ministries to over 130 as well as its involvement in public policy issues and has become a prominent voice on gender issues, particularly in the wake of the Ted Haggard sex-and-drugs scandal.
Last summer, Exodus launched the Exodus Church Network, declaring itself a ministry of the church. Currently with 40 churches aligned to its network, Exodus helps churches to stand boldly on the truth of Scripture with regard to homosexuality, to minister to individuals struggling with unwanted homosexuality, and to create a nationwide referral list of churches for those searching for a church that will walk alongside them in their journey.
This report only prints one side of the issue and fails to mention how organizations like Exodus, by spreading the "ex-gay" myth, have destroyed lives and helped drive people to suicide.
The Southern Baptist Convention is also beginning a new initiative to "redeem" gay people. From Ethics Daily:
The Southern Baptist Convention is hiring a minister specializing in "gender issues" to help churches reach out and minister to homosexuals, without condoning same-sex relationships.
On Friday, Bob Stith, after retiring as pastor of Carroll Baptist Church in Southlake, Texas, becomes director of Southern Baptists' Ministry to Homosexuals Task Force.
Thirteen years ago Stith began to feel guilty about negative attitudes toward homosexuals coming across in his own preaching. He got involved in Exodus International, a Christian ministry that leads people out of homosexuality, and Living Hope, a non-denominational Exodus referral agency in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex.
In 2001 Stith made a motion at the SBC annual meeting to establish a task force "to inform, educate, and encourage our people to be proactive and redemptive in reaching out to those who struggle with unwanted same-sex attractions." (The SBC didn't exactly rush into this did they?)
Stith told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that no one in his church or family had struggled with homosexuality. (No, they're probably tucked away in the closet)
"In all honesty, my preaching about it had been negative, focusing on biblical passages about sin but not redemption," he said. "Those who heard me preach would never have come to me for help. When I realized that, it broke my heart. This ministry is just something God put on my heart."
Stith's softer rhetoric contrasts with earlier statements by Southern Baptists denouncing homosexuality--such as the 1996 Disney boycott that targeted the company for providing domestic-partner benefits to gays--but it doesn't sway gay-rights groups like Soulforce and the Human Rights Campaign, who believe "ex-gay" outreach ministries do more harm than good.
I point these items out because it just makes it more impairative that GLBT Christians and their allies stand up and speak out, allowing THEIR message of God's love and redemption to carry the day. We needs to minimize the damage Exodus, the SBC, and any other groups that want people to deny who they are to conform to their limited understanding can do.
Transgender Minister Reappointed to Baltimore Methodist Church
A transgender United Methodist minister will be reappointed to lead his Baltimore congregation, church officials announced Thursday at a regional convocation.
The Rev. Drew Phoenix was greeted with applause after telling 1,600 members of the church's Baltimore-Washington conference that he had gone through "spiritual transformation" in the past year, since changing his name from Ann Gordon and receiving medical treatment to become a man.
"It is my intention and hope that by sharing my story that we commit ourselves as Christians and as United Methodists to become educated about the complexity of gender," Phoenix said. "Each of us is a beloved child of God - no exceptions."
Click here to read the entire report. You'll see that the opposition is just starting to warm up.
The Rev. Drew Phoenix was greeted with applause after telling 1,600 members of the church's Baltimore-Washington conference that he had gone through "spiritual transformation" in the past year, since changing his name from Ann Gordon and receiving medical treatment to become a man.
"It is my intention and hope that by sharing my story that we commit ourselves as Christians and as United Methodists to become educated about the complexity of gender," Phoenix said. "Each of us is a beloved child of God - no exceptions."
Click here to read the entire report. You'll see that the opposition is just starting to warm up.
May 31, 2007
Religious Conservatives Overwhelm "Liberal Media"
Media Matters for America, a media watchdog organization, conducted a study to determine how the so-called "liberal media" balanced coverage of conservative and progressive religious news and views:
In order to begin to assess how the news media paint the picture of religion in America today, this study measured the extent to which religious leaders, both conservative and progressive, are quoted, mentioned, and interviewed in the news media.
Among the study's key findings:
o Combining newspapers and television, conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed in news stories 2.8 times as often as were progressive religious leaders.
o On television news -- the three major television networks, the three major cable new channels, and PBS -- conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed almost 3.8 times as often as progressive leaders.
o In major newspapers, conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed 2.7 times as often as progressive leaders.
o Despite the fact most religious Americans are moderate or progressive, in the news media it is overwhelmingly conservative leaders who are presented as the voice of religion. This represents a particularly meaningful distortion since progressive religious leaders tend to focus on different issues and offer an entirely different perspective than their conservative counterparts.
Reactions to these findings were presented at EthicsDaily.com:
"I have long felt the media have given Americans a distorted view of what people of faith believe," said Bob Edgar, general secretary of the National Council of Churches. "This research from Media Matters proves that."
"This important report makes a compelling case that Americans may be getting an incomplete story," said Alexia Kelley, executive director of Catholics in Alliance for Common Good. "It's a story that too often features strident commentary from the usual suspects, divisive culture warriors with a message that fails to speak to the fullness of our rich faith traditions."
But Robert Knight of the conservative Media Research Council found fault with the study.
"Religious liberals march in lockstep with the liberal, secular media, so they have to go to conservatives to get controversy, because that's what makes news," he said.
Knight said it isn't enough to say there are more conservatives cited in the media.
"It's what did they let them say," he maintained. "Often they'll let the liberal give a heartfelt argument for that point of view, and then they'll allow the conservative one of the weakest points a conservative made.
"Having been in journalism and seeing that side of it, and having been on the other side of the camera and the notepad, I can tell you often the most powerful points are just thrown into a wastebasket if you're the conservative."
People, at least book buyers, seem to be tuning out. According to this report from the Christian Post, sales of religious books dropped 10.2% in 2006 from the previous year.
Unfortunately, due to the judgemental rhetoric often offered by religious conservatives, I suspect they have soured people on reading books that actually could be a spiritual blessing to them, which also ties in to the rise of books on athiesim.
In order to begin to assess how the news media paint the picture of religion in America today, this study measured the extent to which religious leaders, both conservative and progressive, are quoted, mentioned, and interviewed in the news media.
Among the study's key findings:
o Combining newspapers and television, conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed in news stories 2.8 times as often as were progressive religious leaders.
o On television news -- the three major television networks, the three major cable new channels, and PBS -- conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed almost 3.8 times as often as progressive leaders.
o In major newspapers, conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed 2.7 times as often as progressive leaders.
o Despite the fact most religious Americans are moderate or progressive, in the news media it is overwhelmingly conservative leaders who are presented as the voice of religion. This represents a particularly meaningful distortion since progressive religious leaders tend to focus on different issues and offer an entirely different perspective than their conservative counterparts.
Reactions to these findings were presented at EthicsDaily.com:
"I have long felt the media have given Americans a distorted view of what people of faith believe," said Bob Edgar, general secretary of the National Council of Churches. "This research from Media Matters proves that."
"This important report makes a compelling case that Americans may be getting an incomplete story," said Alexia Kelley, executive director of Catholics in Alliance for Common Good. "It's a story that too often features strident commentary from the usual suspects, divisive culture warriors with a message that fails to speak to the fullness of our rich faith traditions."
But Robert Knight of the conservative Media Research Council found fault with the study.
"Religious liberals march in lockstep with the liberal, secular media, so they have to go to conservatives to get controversy, because that's what makes news," he said.
Knight said it isn't enough to say there are more conservatives cited in the media.
"It's what did they let them say," he maintained. "Often they'll let the liberal give a heartfelt argument for that point of view, and then they'll allow the conservative one of the weakest points a conservative made.
"Having been in journalism and seeing that side of it, and having been on the other side of the camera and the notepad, I can tell you often the most powerful points are just thrown into a wastebasket if you're the conservative."
People, at least book buyers, seem to be tuning out. According to this report from the Christian Post, sales of religious books dropped 10.2% in 2006 from the previous year.
Unfortunately, due to the judgemental rhetoric often offered by religious conservatives, I suspect they have soured people on reading books that actually could be a spiritual blessing to them, which also ties in to the rise of books on athiesim.
GLBT People in India Hope "QueerFest" Opens Minds
India is not an easy place to be gay, in no small part because it is illegal. Gay rights activists are hoping to change some minds this week with the 10-day festival "Queerfest 07." Sounding similar to the Gay Pride events we are so used to in the United States, this is a revolutionary event in India. From the Washington Post article:
Homosexuality is a crime in India and can result in a jail term of at least 10 years.
While the British colonial-era law has rarely been enforced, activists say it has become a tool for police to harass gay and lesbian couples in order to get bribes.
If couples refuse or are unable to pay a bribe, they are often put in dingy cells, brutally beaten and humiliated.
The anti-gay law, which dates back to the 19th century, is now being questioned by gay rights groups who argue that not only is it an abuse of human rights but also acts as an impediment in the fight against HIV/AIDS in India.
However, the government says Indian society is not ready to legalize homosexuality. A court judgment is pending.
Activists say the festival -- which will include talks, photo exhibitions, films, performances and a candlelight vigil -- is an attempt to use culture to help society recognize the rights of India's homosexuals.
Hopefully this festival will make a difference. It's unfortunate that right-wing Christians are not the only group who can aggressively discriminate against GLBT people.
The battle for equal rights is being fought on many fronts in many nations across the globe.
Homosexuality is a crime in India and can result in a jail term of at least 10 years.
While the British colonial-era law has rarely been enforced, activists say it has become a tool for police to harass gay and lesbian couples in order to get bribes.
If couples refuse or are unable to pay a bribe, they are often put in dingy cells, brutally beaten and humiliated.
The anti-gay law, which dates back to the 19th century, is now being questioned by gay rights groups who argue that not only is it an abuse of human rights but also acts as an impediment in the fight against HIV/AIDS in India.
However, the government says Indian society is not ready to legalize homosexuality. A court judgment is pending.
Activists say the festival -- which will include talks, photo exhibitions, films, performances and a candlelight vigil -- is an attempt to use culture to help society recognize the rights of India's homosexuals.
Hopefully this festival will make a difference. It's unfortunate that right-wing Christians are not the only group who can aggressively discriminate against GLBT people.
The battle for equal rights is being fought on many fronts in many nations across the globe.
May 30, 2007
Is the Same-Sex Marriage "Battle" Equivalent to World War II?
The title is, of course, a ridiculous question. Unfortunately, it is the premise for a letter sent out by MassResistance, the lobbying group that is trying to push same-sex marriage, legal in Massachusetts, onto a ballot referendum. Here is an excerpt, the entire letter is printed on Pam's House Blend:
This Memorial day, here in Massachusetts in 2007, the homosexual lobby dominates our State House, and is filing bills to push their agenda further than ever. They have homosexual clubs in high schools across the state. They use state money to bring kids downtown to mingle with adult cross-dressers and other hard-core activists. A federal judge ruled that schools can show picture books to elementary school children about homosexual romance. And our political leaders help raise money for their movement.
Sixty-five years from today, what will people remember about what you did to stop them? Will you dedicate yourself to this fight?
World War Two was won with guns and bullets and bombs. This war will be won with truth and fearlessness. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that we can and will prevail completely. Our adversary's movement has the illusion of indomitable strength, but at is really a house of cards, held up by threats and intimidation and a dysfunctional ideology. If you are willing to fight - to tell the truth and not be afraid - it will fall.
There is one difference from 1942. Today, one of the biggest obstacles in this battle is the mainstream conservative movement itself - our side. They value "dignity" and "polite behavior" over speaking the harsh and uncomfortable truth. They preach prayer as a way to avoid taking action. They seek to compromise as a way to avoid conflict. They talk about differences of opinion as a way to avoid facing good versus evil. It subverts our efforts and causes terrible results.
Did people in 1942 talk about respecting the Nazis "choice" of political philosophy? Or that we ought to consider letting Japan have Korea and the Solomon Islands if they'd let us have the Philippines - because that's what the "experts" say we could work out?
Don't listen to them. It's a false promise. It's extremely tempting but it's the road to hell.
Just when you think the right wing can't stoop any lower, they manage to pull it off. How dare this organization insult the brave men who risked, and often lost, their lives to defend the United States from a true threat of tyrany. How dare they diminish the sacrifices the people on the home front had to make to support this effort, from long separations from loved ones to rationing of gas, nylon, and other basic staples needed for the war effort. How dare they compare people who merely want the right to marry without in any way, shape, or form infringing on the rights of anyone else, to the freakin' Nazis!
If anyone is on the road to hell, it is the person or people who wrote this abomination of a letter.
This Memorial day, here in Massachusetts in 2007, the homosexual lobby dominates our State House, and is filing bills to push their agenda further than ever. They have homosexual clubs in high schools across the state. They use state money to bring kids downtown to mingle with adult cross-dressers and other hard-core activists. A federal judge ruled that schools can show picture books to elementary school children about homosexual romance. And our political leaders help raise money for their movement.
Sixty-five years from today, what will people remember about what you did to stop them? Will you dedicate yourself to this fight?
World War Two was won with guns and bullets and bombs. This war will be won with truth and fearlessness. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that we can and will prevail completely. Our adversary's movement has the illusion of indomitable strength, but at is really a house of cards, held up by threats and intimidation and a dysfunctional ideology. If you are willing to fight - to tell the truth and not be afraid - it will fall.
There is one difference from 1942. Today, one of the biggest obstacles in this battle is the mainstream conservative movement itself - our side. They value "dignity" and "polite behavior" over speaking the harsh and uncomfortable truth. They preach prayer as a way to avoid taking action. They seek to compromise as a way to avoid conflict. They talk about differences of opinion as a way to avoid facing good versus evil. It subverts our efforts and causes terrible results.
Did people in 1942 talk about respecting the Nazis "choice" of political philosophy? Or that we ought to consider letting Japan have Korea and the Solomon Islands if they'd let us have the Philippines - because that's what the "experts" say we could work out?
Don't listen to them. It's a false promise. It's extremely tempting but it's the road to hell.
Just when you think the right wing can't stoop any lower, they manage to pull it off. How dare this organization insult the brave men who risked, and often lost, their lives to defend the United States from a true threat of tyrany. How dare they diminish the sacrifices the people on the home front had to make to support this effort, from long separations from loved ones to rationing of gas, nylon, and other basic staples needed for the war effort. How dare they compare people who merely want the right to marry without in any way, shape, or form infringing on the rights of anyone else, to the freakin' Nazis!
If anyone is on the road to hell, it is the person or people who wrote this abomination of a letter.
Leave Tinky Winky Alone!
I have a confession to make.....
I love the Telletubbies (Po is my favorite).
There, that's a weight off my shoulders. My late wife Bette (La La was her favorite) and I just thought they were adorable. I ask you, how can you NOT love the Telletubbies?
Sadly, not everyone does. I thought the last hater was gone when Jerry Falwell recently passed away, but once again Tinky Winky (the purple one with the purse for those keeping score at home) is under attack.
From the BBC:
A senior Polish official has ordered psychologists to investigate whether the popular BBC TV show Teletubbies promotes a homosexual lifestyle.
The spokesperson for children's rights in Poland, Ewa Sowinska, singled out Tinky Winky, the purple character with a triangular aerial on his head.
"I noticed he was carrying a woman's handbag," she told a magazine. "At first, I didn't realise he was a boy."
EU officials have criticised Polish government policy towards homosexuals.
Ms Sowinska wants the psychologists to make a recommendation about whether the children's show should be broadcast on public television.
Poland's authorities have recently initiated a series of moves to outlaw the promotion of homosexuality among the nation's children.
Tinky Winky's psychological evaluation is being treated fairly light-heartedly by many people here.
One radio station asked its listeners to vote for the most suspicious children's show. Some e-mailed in, saying that Winnie the Pooh had only male friends.
Even Ms Sowinska has backtracked a little, insisting that she does not believe the Teletubbies is a threat to the nation's children. But the evaluation is still going ahead and her office can recommend that the show should be taken off the air.
Poland was criticised recently after its education ministry announced plans to sack teachers who promote homosexuality.
Last month the European Union singled out Poland for criticism in its resolution condemning homophobia in the 27-member bloc.
It's hard to take this very seriously, but I ask everyone to please refrain from leaving any Polish jokes in the comments. Your discretion is appreciated.
Save Tinky Winky!
I love the Telletubbies (Po is my favorite).
There, that's a weight off my shoulders. My late wife Bette (La La was her favorite) and I just thought they were adorable. I ask you, how can you NOT love the Telletubbies?
Sadly, not everyone does. I thought the last hater was gone when Jerry Falwell recently passed away, but once again Tinky Winky (the purple one with the purse for those keeping score at home) is under attack.
From the BBC:
A senior Polish official has ordered psychologists to investigate whether the popular BBC TV show Teletubbies promotes a homosexual lifestyle.
The spokesperson for children's rights in Poland, Ewa Sowinska, singled out Tinky Winky, the purple character with a triangular aerial on his head.
"I noticed he was carrying a woman's handbag," she told a magazine. "At first, I didn't realise he was a boy."
EU officials have criticised Polish government policy towards homosexuals.
Ms Sowinska wants the psychologists to make a recommendation about whether the children's show should be broadcast on public television.
Poland's authorities have recently initiated a series of moves to outlaw the promotion of homosexuality among the nation's children.
Tinky Winky's psychological evaluation is being treated fairly light-heartedly by many people here.
One radio station asked its listeners to vote for the most suspicious children's show. Some e-mailed in, saying that Winnie the Pooh had only male friends.
Even Ms Sowinska has backtracked a little, insisting that she does not believe the Teletubbies is a threat to the nation's children. But the evaluation is still going ahead and her office can recommend that the show should be taken off the air.
Poland was criticised recently after its education ministry announced plans to sack teachers who promote homosexuality.
Last month the European Union singled out Poland for criticism in its resolution condemning homophobia in the 27-member bloc.
It's hard to take this very seriously, but I ask everyone to please refrain from leaving any Polish jokes in the comments. Your discretion is appreciated.
Save Tinky Winky!
May 29, 2007
Book Review: "Bashing Back"
Wayne Besen, a syndicated columnist and Executive Director of Truth Wins Out, a GLBT advocacy organization, has released a new book titled, “Bashing Back” (Harrington Park Press, 207 pages, $14.95). The cover features Besen wearing boxing shorts and gloves, and the collection of his syndicated columns chosen for this volume live up to that image.
Besen’s was one of the first GLBT oriented websites I was linked up with when I started this blog, and it didn’t take very long to discover the creativity, biting wit, and insight that are featured in his writing. All of those qualities come through in “Bashing Back.”
Although his career has featured a lengthy stint as a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign and the establishment of Truth Wins Out (an organization that “counters right wing disinformation campaigns, debunks the ‘ex-gay’ myth, and provides accurate information about the lives of GLBT people.”), Besen has also worked for news organizations and goes beyond GLBT issues in his writing. “Bashing Back” features numerous columns on issues in culture and politics that affect the general population.
Here are a few of my favorite quotes from his columns. There were plenty of quality ones to chose from:
On Civil Unions:
…..gay people are a small minority and can’t afford to be obstinate and reject civil unions as a last resort. Our families need protections today, and idealism won’t get them hospital visitations rights. However, fair-minded people should always push forward and be wed to the idea that America should never settle for a system that doles out different rights to different people simply for who they are.
On Republican Attitudes Toward GLBT People:
(President) Bush and his sophisticated Republican cronies have enough gay friends, colleagues, and family members to know their red-meat rhetoric is pure nonsense. Sadly, gay people are considered expendable and collateral damage in Bush’s unprincipled war for reelection.
On “Modern Conservatism”:
Modern Conservatism is a fraud. It is the province of hypocrites who stand for no core principles except amassing political power. Nowhere is hollowness of conservatism more evident than in cynical election year attempts by Congress to ban same-sex marriage.
I have to admit, I sometimes envy right-wingers. They can be as creative with reality as they wish, and their bamboozled base of boobs rewards their audacity with membership and money.
On Dating in Cyberspace:
In cyberspace, however, if you ask for Don Juan, you’re likely to get Don Knotts. Recently, I was flirting with a guy on the Internet who said he was a great catch. He wasn’t kidding. When I eventually met him in person he looked like a salmon. (What a great line!)
On Religion in the GLBT Community:
Unless we win the battle of heaven, the right wing will continue to make our lives hell. To win the hearts and minds of most Americans, powerful alliances with religious organizations must be forged, and GLBT people of faith must be respected. (Amen!)
On Evangelistic Response to AIDS in the GLBT Community:
AIDS has killed millions of people while evangelicals have been, at best, indifferent. It is great that they want to get in the compassion game a quarter of a century after the fact. However, if evangelicals want a truly loving marriage with the gay community, they need to treat us with respect in both sickness and in health. If they are going to condemn our loving relationships in the bedroom, there is no place for them at our bedsides.
I really enjoyed this book, which is organized alphabetically by the subject of the column. This makes it easy to pick and choose columns that are near and dear to your heart, but I recommend taking the time to read each one—you could miss something interesting and entertaining.
This book alternately made me nod my head in agreement (I read many excerpts to Pastor Brenda), laugh out loud, or wince at the edginess. Agree or disagree with Besen (I largely agreed), his writing will hold your interest, his information is well researched, and his conclusions/suggestions show creativity and a passion for doing the right thing, two qualities often lacking in today’s public discourse.
Besen is much more in-your-face and confrontational than I am, but I find his voice to be a very important one in leading the fight for GLBT equality. I highly recommend “Bashing Back,” and you can purchase it at Amazon.com or buy an autographed copy at Wayne Besen’s website.
Besen’s was one of the first GLBT oriented websites I was linked up with when I started this blog, and it didn’t take very long to discover the creativity, biting wit, and insight that are featured in his writing. All of those qualities come through in “Bashing Back.”
Although his career has featured a lengthy stint as a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign and the establishment of Truth Wins Out (an organization that “counters right wing disinformation campaigns, debunks the ‘ex-gay’ myth, and provides accurate information about the lives of GLBT people.”), Besen has also worked for news organizations and goes beyond GLBT issues in his writing. “Bashing Back” features numerous columns on issues in culture and politics that affect the general population.
Here are a few of my favorite quotes from his columns. There were plenty of quality ones to chose from:
On Civil Unions:
…..gay people are a small minority and can’t afford to be obstinate and reject civil unions as a last resort. Our families need protections today, and idealism won’t get them hospital visitations rights. However, fair-minded people should always push forward and be wed to the idea that America should never settle for a system that doles out different rights to different people simply for who they are.
On Republican Attitudes Toward GLBT People:
(President) Bush and his sophisticated Republican cronies have enough gay friends, colleagues, and family members to know their red-meat rhetoric is pure nonsense. Sadly, gay people are considered expendable and collateral damage in Bush’s unprincipled war for reelection.
On “Modern Conservatism”:
Modern Conservatism is a fraud. It is the province of hypocrites who stand for no core principles except amassing political power. Nowhere is hollowness of conservatism more evident than in cynical election year attempts by Congress to ban same-sex marriage.
I have to admit, I sometimes envy right-wingers. They can be as creative with reality as they wish, and their bamboozled base of boobs rewards their audacity with membership and money.
On Dating in Cyberspace:
In cyberspace, however, if you ask for Don Juan, you’re likely to get Don Knotts. Recently, I was flirting with a guy on the Internet who said he was a great catch. He wasn’t kidding. When I eventually met him in person he looked like a salmon. (What a great line!)
On Religion in the GLBT Community:
Unless we win the battle of heaven, the right wing will continue to make our lives hell. To win the hearts and minds of most Americans, powerful alliances with religious organizations must be forged, and GLBT people of faith must be respected. (Amen!)
On Evangelistic Response to AIDS in the GLBT Community:
AIDS has killed millions of people while evangelicals have been, at best, indifferent. It is great that they want to get in the compassion game a quarter of a century after the fact. However, if evangelicals want a truly loving marriage with the gay community, they need to treat us with respect in both sickness and in health. If they are going to condemn our loving relationships in the bedroom, there is no place for them at our bedsides.
I really enjoyed this book, which is organized alphabetically by the subject of the column. This makes it easy to pick and choose columns that are near and dear to your heart, but I recommend taking the time to read each one—you could miss something interesting and entertaining.
This book alternately made me nod my head in agreement (I read many excerpts to Pastor Brenda), laugh out loud, or wince at the edginess. Agree or disagree with Besen (I largely agreed), his writing will hold your interest, his information is well researched, and his conclusions/suggestions show creativity and a passion for doing the right thing, two qualities often lacking in today’s public discourse.
Besen is much more in-your-face and confrontational than I am, but I find his voice to be a very important one in leading the fight for GLBT equality. I highly recommend “Bashing Back,” and you can purchase it at Amazon.com or buy an autographed copy at Wayne Besen’s website.
Opening of the "Creation Museum"
The Creation Museum opened Monday in Petersburg, Kentucky, not too far outside of Cincinnati, Ohio. From the article in the Washington Post,
Despite the showmanship behind the $27 million museum opening here Monday, the evangelists who put it together contend that none of the gleaming exhibits are allegorical. God did create the universe in six days, they say, and the Earth is about 6,000 years old.
But in this latest demonization of Darwinian evolution, there is a sticking point: For the biblical account to be accurate and the world to be so young, several hundred years of research in geology, physics, biology, paleontology, and astronomy would need to be very, very wrong.
"This may be fascinating, but this is nonsense," said Lawrence M. Krauss, a theoretical physicist at Case Western Reserve University and a vocal defender of evolutionary science. "It's fine for people to believe whatever they want. What's inappropriate is to then essentially lie and say science supports these notions."
Eugenie C. Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, calls the sparkling facility "the creationist Disneyland."
I post this story here because (1) people behind this are some of those who demonize GLBT people and (2) I just needed to vent about it.
The mentality of taking the bible as the "literal and inerrant Word of God" was a driving force behind the construction of this museum. That is the same mentality that harps on specific translations and interpretations of the Bible (like the GLBT "clobber verses") and calls someone like me a heretic if I disagree. According to them, if you can't refute the staggeringly overwhelming evidence to the contrary and say without a doubt that the Earth was formed in six calendar days by God 6,000 years ago, well, you just don't belive enough if at all.
"When you're talking about origins, you're not talking about science," (Ken)Ham (an evangelist) said as charter members snapped photographs in an early walk-through. "You're talking about belief."
As for myself, I don't think it is really the big deal some conservatives are working hard to turn this issue into. I don't care if the seven days mentioned in Genesis were literal calendar days or something esle. My faith is not caught up in defending any specific timeline in the Bible. I focus on what the Holy Spirit does in my life and how He wants me to minister to others in a way that can make a positive difference in their lives.
How much difference do you think $27 million could have made in peoples lives? How many could it have fed and clothed. How many young single mothers the right wingers fought so hard to prevent from having abortions could some of those funds have helped? How many churches could have used that money for outreach ministry?
Jesus didn't build a museum for His Father, he focused his energy and the resources of his followers on helping people and saving their souls.
Aren't we supposed to be following his example?
P.S. My gifted, spiritual wife Pastor Brenda pointed this out when I read this post to her:
Genesis 1:1 (NIV) In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty. Darkness was over the surface of the deep and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, "Let there be light" and there was light. God saw that the light was good and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day and the darkness light. And there was evening and there was morning the first day.
So then, what was God looking at as the "first day" began? How long had that been there, with solid ground, water, and gravity already in place?
Maybe a few billion years? The Bible does not tell us, and I'm perfectly fine with that.
Despite the showmanship behind the $27 million museum opening here Monday, the evangelists who put it together contend that none of the gleaming exhibits are allegorical. God did create the universe in six days, they say, and the Earth is about 6,000 years old.
But in this latest demonization of Darwinian evolution, there is a sticking point: For the biblical account to be accurate and the world to be so young, several hundred years of research in geology, physics, biology, paleontology, and astronomy would need to be very, very wrong.
"This may be fascinating, but this is nonsense," said Lawrence M. Krauss, a theoretical physicist at Case Western Reserve University and a vocal defender of evolutionary science. "It's fine for people to believe whatever they want. What's inappropriate is to then essentially lie and say science supports these notions."
Eugenie C. Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, calls the sparkling facility "the creationist Disneyland."
I post this story here because (1) people behind this are some of those who demonize GLBT people and (2) I just needed to vent about it.
The mentality of taking the bible as the "literal and inerrant Word of God" was a driving force behind the construction of this museum. That is the same mentality that harps on specific translations and interpretations of the Bible (like the GLBT "clobber verses") and calls someone like me a heretic if I disagree. According to them, if you can't refute the staggeringly overwhelming evidence to the contrary and say without a doubt that the Earth was formed in six calendar days by God 6,000 years ago, well, you just don't belive enough if at all.
"When you're talking about origins, you're not talking about science," (Ken)Ham (an evangelist) said as charter members snapped photographs in an early walk-through. "You're talking about belief."
As for myself, I don't think it is really the big deal some conservatives are working hard to turn this issue into. I don't care if the seven days mentioned in Genesis were literal calendar days or something esle. My faith is not caught up in defending any specific timeline in the Bible. I focus on what the Holy Spirit does in my life and how He wants me to minister to others in a way that can make a positive difference in their lives.
How much difference do you think $27 million could have made in peoples lives? How many could it have fed and clothed. How many young single mothers the right wingers fought so hard to prevent from having abortions could some of those funds have helped? How many churches could have used that money for outreach ministry?
Jesus didn't build a museum for His Father, he focused his energy and the resources of his followers on helping people and saving their souls.
Aren't we supposed to be following his example?
P.S. My gifted, spiritual wife Pastor Brenda pointed this out when I read this post to her:
Genesis 1:1 (NIV) In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty. Darkness was over the surface of the deep and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, "Let there be light" and there was light. God saw that the light was good and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day and the darkness light. And there was evening and there was morning the first day.
So then, what was God looking at as the "first day" began? How long had that been there, with solid ground, water, and gravity already in place?
Maybe a few billion years? The Bible does not tell us, and I'm perfectly fine with that.
May 28, 2007
Watch Out for Gay Terrorists in Alabama
At least that's what the Alabama Department of Homeland (In)Security was thinking when they included gay rights organizations on a list of groups that they alegedly felt could include terrorists.
Since the list reportedly included anti-war organizations, environmentalists, animal rights advocates, it's easy to think that instead of spawning terrorists, they included every group that was likely to skew Democratic when they voted.
This list has been dropped from the department's web site after, imagine this, people complained about the UTTER STUPIDITY OF IT.
The only thing they appeared to get right was also listing anti-abortion groups, since they actually do have a documented history of violently attacking abortion clinics.
While the Alabama Department of Homeland (In)Security was watching these groups, who was watching people who might have actually been planning on engaging in terrorist activity? After all, they couldn't let their own prejudice get in the way of protecting the citizens of their state, now could they?
Since the list reportedly included anti-war organizations, environmentalists, animal rights advocates, it's easy to think that instead of spawning terrorists, they included every group that was likely to skew Democratic when they voted.
This list has been dropped from the department's web site after, imagine this, people complained about the UTTER STUPIDITY OF IT.
The only thing they appeared to get right was also listing anti-abortion groups, since they actually do have a documented history of violently attacking abortion clinics.
While the Alabama Department of Homeland (In)Security was watching these groups, who was watching people who might have actually been planning on engaging in terrorist activity? After all, they couldn't let their own prejudice get in the way of protecting the citizens of their state, now could they?
GLBT Activists Have Rough Time In Moscow
From CNN.com
Russian police detained gay protesters calling for the right to hold a Gay Pride parade in central Moscow on Sunday while nationalists shouting "death to homosexuals" punched and kicked the demonstrators.
Riot police detained gay rights activists as they tried to present a petition asking Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov, who has called gay marches satanic acts, to lift a ban on the parade.
Nationalists and extreme Russian Orthodox believers held icons and denounced homosexuality as "evil" while a group of thick-set young men turned up with surgeon's masks, which they said would protect them from the "gay disease." (Watch angry opponents punch protesters)
"We are defending our rights," said a young gay man named Alexey, with blood pouring out of his nose after he was beaten up by a man screaming "homosexuals are perverts" opposite the mayor's office. His attacker was detained.
"This is terrible but I am not scared. This is a pretty scary place, a pretty scary country if you are gay. But we won't give up until they allow us our rights," he said.
In an understatement that I assume was not ment to be humorous, the report said:
Russia decriminalized homosexuality in 1993 but tolerance is not widespread.
No kidding! The report continued:
"We believe these perverts should not be allowed to march on the streets of Moscow, the third Rome, a holy city for all Russians," said Igor Miroshnichenko, who said he was an Orthodox believer who had come to support the riot police.
"It (homosexuality) is satanic," he told Reuters. One man holding a crucifix threatened to beat-up any gay person he saw.
A couple of things really strike me here. First, Russia didn't decriminalize homosexuality until 1993! Talk about a hostle environment for GLBT people. Second, despite being the ones getting physically attacked, it was the gay protesters who were arrested. There was this comment on that:
"It is very conspicuous when people are arrested in front of the mayor's office when they were doing nothing other than trying to present a peaceful petition," said Scott Long, a rights activist with Human Rights Watch who observed the events.
"There was no real attempt to separate the two sides and that led to people being beaten up," he said. "I would call on the Russian authorities to protect freedom of assembly, protect freedom of expression and protect demonstrators."
The Cold War may be over, but there are still some serious battles being fought on Russian soil for human rights, and GLBT people are really struggling in theirs.
Russian police detained gay protesters calling for the right to hold a Gay Pride parade in central Moscow on Sunday while nationalists shouting "death to homosexuals" punched and kicked the demonstrators.
Riot police detained gay rights activists as they tried to present a petition asking Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov, who has called gay marches satanic acts, to lift a ban on the parade.
Nationalists and extreme Russian Orthodox believers held icons and denounced homosexuality as "evil" while a group of thick-set young men turned up with surgeon's masks, which they said would protect them from the "gay disease." (Watch angry opponents punch protesters)
"We are defending our rights," said a young gay man named Alexey, with blood pouring out of his nose after he was beaten up by a man screaming "homosexuals are perverts" opposite the mayor's office. His attacker was detained.
"This is terrible but I am not scared. This is a pretty scary place, a pretty scary country if you are gay. But we won't give up until they allow us our rights," he said.
In an understatement that I assume was not ment to be humorous, the report said:
Russia decriminalized homosexuality in 1993 but tolerance is not widespread.
No kidding! The report continued:
"We believe these perverts should not be allowed to march on the streets of Moscow, the third Rome, a holy city for all Russians," said Igor Miroshnichenko, who said he was an Orthodox believer who had come to support the riot police.
"It (homosexuality) is satanic," he told Reuters. One man holding a crucifix threatened to beat-up any gay person he saw.
A couple of things really strike me here. First, Russia didn't decriminalize homosexuality until 1993! Talk about a hostle environment for GLBT people. Second, despite being the ones getting physically attacked, it was the gay protesters who were arrested. There was this comment on that:
"It is very conspicuous when people are arrested in front of the mayor's office when they were doing nothing other than trying to present a peaceful petition," said Scott Long, a rights activist with Human Rights Watch who observed the events.
"There was no real attempt to separate the two sides and that led to people being beaten up," he said. "I would call on the Russian authorities to protect freedom of assembly, protect freedom of expression and protect demonstrators."
The Cold War may be over, but there are still some serious battles being fought on Russian soil for human rights, and GLBT people are really struggling in theirs.
May 27, 2007
GLBT Cirriculum Passed--And Needed--In California
From the Christian Post:
The California Senate passed a bill on Thursday that would prohibit all classes, textbooks, and teachers from any instruction that "reflects or promotes bias against GLBT people.
Not everyone is happy:
"SB 777 is designed to transform our public schools into institutions that disregard all notions of the traditional family unit," said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute (CRI), in a statement. "This reverse discrimination is an outright attack on the religious and moral beliefs of California citizens."
Fine. The CRI would probably prefer keeping this status quo:
From the Boston Edge newspaper:
A new study shows that anti-gay prejudice is rampant in America’s middle schools, making bias the norm, rather than the exception, and adding urgency to what has become recognized as a need to educate children about bullying and to enforce zero-tolerance anti-bullying policies.
The study, titled A Voice from the Middle, was released by the National Association of Secondary School Principals and Phi Delta Kappa International. The report reveals that 77 percent of middle schoolers believe that their classmates have a negative attitude toward people they think are gays or lesbians; 26 percent of middle schoolers went so far as to say that their classmates have a "very negative" attitude.
"This survey, like so many before it, illustrates the difficulties lesbian, gay and bisexual students experience in school," said Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network Founder and Executive Director Kevin Jennings. "
The Christian Post article mentions the fear of "normalizing homosexuality." Obviously the right wing benefits from GLBT people being considered "abnormal" and want to bring up the next generation with only negative impressions of homosexuality.
As a youngster, I went through some of the early teaching of African-American culture and, not coincidentally, gained a better understanding of their issues and learned acceptance at an early age. Civil rights for African-Americans just seemed to make sense since they were people like me.
The same truth applies to the GLBT community, but social conservatives don't want people to learn that. It would diminish their political power and reduce the number of people willing to financially support their bigotry and hatred.
Fortunately, legislatures across the nation have taken action similar to what California has done, mandating teaching acceptance of ALL people.
The California Senate passed a bill on Thursday that would prohibit all classes, textbooks, and teachers from any instruction that "reflects or promotes bias against GLBT people.
Not everyone is happy:
"SB 777 is designed to transform our public schools into institutions that disregard all notions of the traditional family unit," said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute (CRI), in a statement. "This reverse discrimination is an outright attack on the religious and moral beliefs of California citizens."
Fine. The CRI would probably prefer keeping this status quo:
From the Boston Edge newspaper:
A new study shows that anti-gay prejudice is rampant in America’s middle schools, making bias the norm, rather than the exception, and adding urgency to what has become recognized as a need to educate children about bullying and to enforce zero-tolerance anti-bullying policies.
The study, titled A Voice from the Middle, was released by the National Association of Secondary School Principals and Phi Delta Kappa International. The report reveals that 77 percent of middle schoolers believe that their classmates have a negative attitude toward people they think are gays or lesbians; 26 percent of middle schoolers went so far as to say that their classmates have a "very negative" attitude.
"This survey, like so many before it, illustrates the difficulties lesbian, gay and bisexual students experience in school," said Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network Founder and Executive Director Kevin Jennings. "
The Christian Post article mentions the fear of "normalizing homosexuality." Obviously the right wing benefits from GLBT people being considered "abnormal" and want to bring up the next generation with only negative impressions of homosexuality.
As a youngster, I went through some of the early teaching of African-American culture and, not coincidentally, gained a better understanding of their issues and learned acceptance at an early age. Civil rights for African-Americans just seemed to make sense since they were people like me.
The same truth applies to the GLBT community, but social conservatives don't want people to learn that. It would diminish their political power and reduce the number of people willing to financially support their bigotry and hatred.
Fortunately, legislatures across the nation have taken action similar to what California has done, mandating teaching acceptance of ALL people.
Athiest's Books Selling Big-Time
From the Christian Post:
The time for polite debate is over. Militant, atheist writers are making an all-out assault on religious faith and reaching the top of the best-seller list, a sign of widespread resentment over the influence of religion in the world among nonbelievers.
Christopher Hitchens' book, "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything," has sold briskly ever since it was published last month, and his debates with clergy are drawing crowds at every stop.
Sam Harris was a little-known graduate student until he wrote the phenomenally successful "The End of Faith" and its follow-up, "Letter to a Christian Nation." Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" and Daniel Dennett's "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon" struck similar themes — and sold.
Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary, a prominent evangelical school in Pasadena, Calif., said the books' success reflect a new vehemence in the atheist critique.
"I don't believe in conspiracy theories," Mouw said, "but it's almost like they all had a meeting and said, 'Let's counterattack.'"
Is this really a surprise? Not to me. I wonder just how many people the religious right has pushed away by their desire to establish a theocracy and write hatred and discrimination into the U. S. Constitution, not to mention all of the states.
With power-hungry bigots acting that way in the name of God, no wonder people are turning to alternatives. If you are an athiest with a message, there has been no better time to put a book out on the market because people are hungry to hear anything but the bluster and Old Testament judgementalism of the religious right.
That's why it is so important for Christians with a different message to get it out there in the public forum. There are other paths to God besides what the religious right spews.
We just need to tell people before they settle into a path further away from God.
The time for polite debate is over. Militant, atheist writers are making an all-out assault on religious faith and reaching the top of the best-seller list, a sign of widespread resentment over the influence of religion in the world among nonbelievers.
Christopher Hitchens' book, "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything," has sold briskly ever since it was published last month, and his debates with clergy are drawing crowds at every stop.
Sam Harris was a little-known graduate student until he wrote the phenomenally successful "The End of Faith" and its follow-up, "Letter to a Christian Nation." Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" and Daniel Dennett's "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon" struck similar themes — and sold.
Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary, a prominent evangelical school in Pasadena, Calif., said the books' success reflect a new vehemence in the atheist critique.
"I don't believe in conspiracy theories," Mouw said, "but it's almost like they all had a meeting and said, 'Let's counterattack.'"
Is this really a surprise? Not to me. I wonder just how many people the religious right has pushed away by their desire to establish a theocracy and write hatred and discrimination into the U. S. Constitution, not to mention all of the states.
With power-hungry bigots acting that way in the name of God, no wonder people are turning to alternatives. If you are an athiest with a message, there has been no better time to put a book out on the market because people are hungry to hear anything but the bluster and Old Testament judgementalism of the religious right.
That's why it is so important for Christians with a different message to get it out there in the public forum. There are other paths to God besides what the religious right spews.
We just need to tell people before they settle into a path further away from God.
May 26, 2007
Conservatives Claiming Bias in Media Treatment of Transgenders
Recent attention that transgender people have received in mainstream media, including the cover story in Newsweek and a character on the popular TV show "Ugly Betty" has started the conservative whining about "media bias."
From the Christian Post:
"They're (media) trying to normalize transgender existence. There's no question about that," said Dr. Robert Gagnon, associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.
Not only are some Christians concerned about the normalizing of the transgendered life, but one pro-family activist noted mainstream media bias on the controversial issue.
Pete LaBarbera, executive director of Americans for Truth (and extreme right-winger), told One News Now that the American media is justifying its biased reporting on the transgender movement in the name of compassion.
Echoing LaBarbera's concerns, Gagnon said the media is "trying to present a case where they are able to demonstrate that these persons cannot help themselves, [that] this is not something they asked for. [And] if you don't allow them to become transgender, they'll probably kill themselves."
While media may be drawing more sympathetic hearts toward the transgender community, it's still hard to say when or whether transgenders will be fully accepted in American society, says Debra Rosenberg, assistant managing editor at Newsweek who wrote "Rethinking Gender."
"With more anti-discrimination laws being passed, though, it does seem like things are moving in that direction," she adds.
It always saddens me when professed Christians are quick to put people different from them in seperate categories. It seems to me it's the people who put God in a small, inflexible box are the ones quickest to put GLBT people in their own, seperate box far away from God.
I praise any media attention that shows transgenders for what they are--people.
From the Christian Post:
"They're (media) trying to normalize transgender existence. There's no question about that," said Dr. Robert Gagnon, associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.
Not only are some Christians concerned about the normalizing of the transgendered life, but one pro-family activist noted mainstream media bias on the controversial issue.
Pete LaBarbera, executive director of Americans for Truth (and extreme right-winger), told One News Now that the American media is justifying its biased reporting on the transgender movement in the name of compassion.
Echoing LaBarbera's concerns, Gagnon said the media is "trying to present a case where they are able to demonstrate that these persons cannot help themselves, [that] this is not something they asked for. [And] if you don't allow them to become transgender, they'll probably kill themselves."
While media may be drawing more sympathetic hearts toward the transgender community, it's still hard to say when or whether transgenders will be fully accepted in American society, says Debra Rosenberg, assistant managing editor at Newsweek who wrote "Rethinking Gender."
"With more anti-discrimination laws being passed, though, it does seem like things are moving in that direction," she adds.
It always saddens me when professed Christians are quick to put people different from them in seperate categories. It seems to me it's the people who put God in a small, inflexible box are the ones quickest to put GLBT people in their own, seperate box far away from God.
I praise any media attention that shows transgenders for what they are--people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
