As we saw in the African American civil rights struggle, it is only when there is the force of law, or the threat to use the force of law, that integration into mainstream society, with all the civil rights available that accrue to all citizens, occurs. Whether it is the bringing of civil and/or criminal suits or the threat and/or actual removal of tax exempt status from religious institutions that help cause the suicides, assaults, and murders of LGBT people, full equality will only occur by means of the judicial system and not merely by appealing to the will and whims of the electorate.
For example:
A school district in Herkimer County, N.Y. has agreed to take immediate action to protect a gay student before the academic year begins in September.
The agreement is only a step in resolving a lawsuit that was filed on behalf of a 14-year-old student who was constantly harassed by students at his high school for his sexual orientation....
"It shouldn’t take a lawsuit to motivate school district officials to protect a student from vicious harassment," said NYCLU staff attorney Corey Stoughton, lead counsel on the case. "Our case will proceed until the district addresses the systemic failures that allowed it to ignore Jacob’s plight for two years."
NYCLU executive director Donna Lieberman added that the district must take steps to "ensure that all students are safe at school and treated with the dignity and respect they deserve."
[For the full article, see here
Although the lead counsel in the case said, ""It shouldn’t take a lawsuit to motivate school district officials to protect a student from vicious harassment," the fact is that it is such a lawsuit, or the mere threat of such a law suit, that will move prejudiced people to act in a civilized manner and protect those under their care. Mere appeals to bureaucrats' "better natures" will often be of no avail, just as the appeal to the electorate's "better natures" cannot and should not be counted upon to acquire full and equal civil rights.
As with secular institutions, the same mechanics hold true with "religious" institutions:
Calvin College professors say they want a campus discussion about academic freedom after being told it is "unacceptable" for them to advocate for homosexual issues and same-sex marriage.
College employees received a memo last week saying the Board of Trustees has revisited issues surrounding the college's position on homosexuality, concluding it is "unacceptable" for faculty and staff to teach, write or advocate on behalf of the issue....
The board says there are cases where academic integrity will "require acquainting students with alternate views. However, the position of the church and the college should be clearly and sympathetically presented [Notice, that consigning Gay people to pariah status is to be taught "sympathetically."], and advocacy of homosexual practice and same-sex marriage is not permitted."
[For the full article, see here.]
Regarding the Roman Catholic Church:
Catholic bishops in New Jersey have started their new campaign against ending marriage discrimination.
The fight has been prompted by the anticipation of a possible vote on same-sex marriage by New Jersey lawmakers after the November election.
Under direct order of bishops, a 2,300-word letter was distributed inside Sunday bulletins at parishes across the state. The note included mention that it’s a long-standing Catholic value that marriage is only “the union of one man and one woman.”
[For the full article, see here.]
Whether it is a professing "Christian" college or a "religious" denomination such as the Roman Catholic Church, it will be the threat and/or actual removal of tax exempt status that will enable them to "get another revelation" (Just as it did with the Mormon Church when Jimmy Carter, in 1978, threatened to remove its tax exempt status unless they stopped their discrimination against African Americans.), and stop their hateful rhetoric and behavior directed against LGBT people.
Regarding the Mormon Church, it is instructive to read the following, in order to see how the legal threat to diminish its coffers, and how this tactic can get other "religious" institutions to immediately stop discriminating and poisoning the society in which it is allowed to exist, if not flourish:
Prior to 1978, Mormon leaders forbid Blacks from holding the Mormon Priesthood. In 1978, due to mounting pressure from pending lawsuits concerning racism, Spencer W. Kimball suddenly received a revelation that Blacks could now enter the temple and hold the Mormon Priesthood. If the Mormon Church had not changed its views on Black people, it would have lost its Tax-Exempt 503(c) status - as pending litigation in several states in America was proceeding.
Today the Mormon Church flatly denies that it's revelation was based on losing its Tax-Exempt 503(c) status - however a great deal of evidence exists showing that it did.
[For more discussion of this particular topic, see here.]
As James Hipps of "Gay Agenda" wrote in regard to this matter:
It wasn’t that long ago (1978 to be exact) when former President Jimmy Carter had to threaten the church with taxation if they didn’t stop preaching segregation. It was only three weeks later the church’s leader heard a voice from “God” or had some “vision” that people of color were human too! [See here.]
It would behoove Gay Rights organizations to learn from previous civil rights and other discrimination issues and use their energies and monies to take discriminatory institutions to court and/or lobby the IRS and Congress to remove tax exempt status from any religious institution that advocates discrimination, and attempts to codify or reinforce their prejudices into civil law, that in any way deprives LGBT people of full and equal civil rights.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
TWO EXAMPLES OF PROFESSING CHRISTIAN HATERS
This is a brief video of a speech by Wiley Drake, Pastor of First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Park, California, praying for the death of Pres. Obama:
In case you think that Drake is merely some isolated looney tune, realize that he was second vice president of the Southern Baptist Association in 2006-2007. [See here.]
Another Pastor, Steven Anderson, Pastor of the Faithful World Baptist Church, in Tempe, Arizona, had this to say about Obama:
I'm not gonna pray for [Obama's] good. I'm going to pray that he dies and goes to hell. When I go to bed tonight, that's what I'm going to pray. And you say, 'Are you just saying that?' No. When I go to bed tonight, Steven L. Anderson is going to pray for Barack Obama to die and go to hell.
[For the full article, see here.]
By the way, "Anderson wants the death penalty for homosexuals. The source for such a draconian response? The Bible, of course." [See here.]
A friend of mine who called me last night and told me about these Pastors who pray for the death of Obama, and who have the temerity to call themselves "Christians," and appeal to the Bible to justify their hate, wrote me the following email:
Both Pastors Drake and Anderson are on the record for praying for President Obama to die and go to Hell. What kind of Christianity is this that claims that God told Pastor Drake to pray for the President's death? To allow Jesus & God to be used in this manner should not be ignored by those of us that know better. These are the faces of the new Christianity that drive sane people away from our faith, because there is an unwillingness among other pastors to say that that is wrong.
Notice his last sentence: "These are the faces of the new Christianity that drive sane people away from our faith, because there is an unwillingness among other pastors to say that that is wrong."
Where are the other clergy and the other professing Christians who remain silent in the face of this unspeakable madness? Where are those moral and spiritual cowards who allow such hate to be preached in God's name and yet remain silent amidst the oppression of others?
As I've written before, when a person hates one minority group, almost invariably he/she hates one or more other minority groups! So, if one hates African Americans, chances are he/she hates Jews and/or Latinos and/or LGBT people and/or.....
Those professing Christians who remain silent in the face of such hate being spewed in the name of God are just as guilty of the sinful oppression of LGBT people as are the overt haters who are in the public eye! By their silence, they enable, and even tacitly condone, the hateful rhetoric of the Drakes and Andersons of the world; tacitly affirm that they have a right to spew their hateful venom and still call themselves "Christians."
I've said it before and I'll say it again: One of the best coordinated grassroots activities in which we can engage is to select one homophobic church in each city or jurisdiction, and then each and every Sunday during the times of their services picket those churches and let people know that the hate preached in those churches, and in churches like them, is antithetical to the Gospel and to anything that is of God!
If anyone thinks we can or should make nice to professing Christian (or other) haters, please listen to the following audio message from Pastor Anderson, and realize that there can be no common ground between those who struggle for full and equal civil rights for LGBT people and the Pastor Andersons of the world and those whom he represents who, either by their rhetoric and/or behavior or by their silence, seem to comprise most of the institutional Church:
Please click on the audio link on this web page to hear an example of the venom of Pastor Anderson.
In case you think that Drake is merely some isolated looney tune, realize that he was second vice president of the Southern Baptist Association in 2006-2007. [See here.]
Another Pastor, Steven Anderson, Pastor of the Faithful World Baptist Church, in Tempe, Arizona, had this to say about Obama:
I'm not gonna pray for [Obama's] good. I'm going to pray that he dies and goes to hell. When I go to bed tonight, that's what I'm going to pray. And you say, 'Are you just saying that?' No. When I go to bed tonight, Steven L. Anderson is going to pray for Barack Obama to die and go to hell.
[For the full article, see here.]
By the way, "Anderson wants the death penalty for homosexuals. The source for such a draconian response? The Bible, of course." [See here.]
A friend of mine who called me last night and told me about these Pastors who pray for the death of Obama, and who have the temerity to call themselves "Christians," and appeal to the Bible to justify their hate, wrote me the following email:
Both Pastors Drake and Anderson are on the record for praying for President Obama to die and go to Hell. What kind of Christianity is this that claims that God told Pastor Drake to pray for the President's death? To allow Jesus & God to be used in this manner should not be ignored by those of us that know better. These are the faces of the new Christianity that drive sane people away from our faith, because there is an unwillingness among other pastors to say that that is wrong.
Notice his last sentence: "These are the faces of the new Christianity that drive sane people away from our faith, because there is an unwillingness among other pastors to say that that is wrong."
Where are the other clergy and the other professing Christians who remain silent in the face of this unspeakable madness? Where are those moral and spiritual cowards who allow such hate to be preached in God's name and yet remain silent amidst the oppression of others?
As I've written before, when a person hates one minority group, almost invariably he/she hates one or more other minority groups! So, if one hates African Americans, chances are he/she hates Jews and/or Latinos and/or LGBT people and/or.....
Those professing Christians who remain silent in the face of such hate being spewed in the name of God are just as guilty of the sinful oppression of LGBT people as are the overt haters who are in the public eye! By their silence, they enable, and even tacitly condone, the hateful rhetoric of the Drakes and Andersons of the world; tacitly affirm that they have a right to spew their hateful venom and still call themselves "Christians."
I've said it before and I'll say it again: One of the best coordinated grassroots activities in which we can engage is to select one homophobic church in each city or jurisdiction, and then each and every Sunday during the times of their services picket those churches and let people know that the hate preached in those churches, and in churches like them, is antithetical to the Gospel and to anything that is of God!
If anyone thinks we can or should make nice to professing Christian (or other) haters, please listen to the following audio message from Pastor Anderson, and realize that there can be no common ground between those who struggle for full and equal civil rights for LGBT people and the Pastor Andersons of the world and those whom he represents who, either by their rhetoric and/or behavior or by their silence, seem to comprise most of the institutional Church:
Please click on the audio link on this web page to hear an example of the venom of Pastor Anderson.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
ONE SURE WAY TO ELIMINATE HOMOPHOBIC CHURCHES
To assure elimination of homophobic messages and church advocacy of discrimination against LGBT people, just threaten to remove their tax exempt status! (Indeed, in my opinion, all churches should lose their tax exempt status!)
It is important to keep in mind that tax exemptions are a matter of “legislative grace,” which means that no one is necessarily entitled to tax exemptions and that they are not protected by the Constitution. If a government doesn’t want to allow tax exemptions, it doesn’t have to. It is up to taxpayers to establish that they are entitled to get any exemptions which the government allows: if they fail to meet that burden, the exemptions can be denied.
Such denial is not, however, an infringement upon their free exercise of religion. As the Supreme Court observed in the 1983 case of Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Washington, “a legislature’s decision not to subsidize the exercise of a fundamental right does not infringe the right.”
[For the full opinion, see here.]
[Also see here and here and here for some different perspectives on this issue.]
James Hipps of the blog,"Gay Agenda," put it best:
Former president Jimmy Carter threatened the LDS with taxation in 1978 if they didn’t stop preaching segregation…low and behold, three weeks later, the Mormons no longer believed being a person of color was a punishment from God.
I just can’t believe we let these tax-exempt cults dictate laws and rights. This really has to stop!
He's absolutely right!
In the case of homophobic churches and clergy who spew hateful rhetoric about LGBT people, bear false witness against them, and advocate discrimination against them, a sure way to silence these destructive forces that have provided much of the impetus to prevent and eliminate full and equal civil rights for LGBT people, would be to threaten to remove their tax exempt status.
We must threaten to remove the tax exempt status from any church or religious institution that poisons the well in our society, and homophobic churches and clergy do just that!
It is important to keep in mind that tax exemptions are a matter of “legislative grace,” which means that no one is necessarily entitled to tax exemptions and that they are not protected by the Constitution. If a government doesn’t want to allow tax exemptions, it doesn’t have to. It is up to taxpayers to establish that they are entitled to get any exemptions which the government allows: if they fail to meet that burden, the exemptions can be denied.
Such denial is not, however, an infringement upon their free exercise of religion. As the Supreme Court observed in the 1983 case of Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Washington, “a legislature’s decision not to subsidize the exercise of a fundamental right does not infringe the right.”
[For the full opinion, see here.]
[Also see here and here and here for some different perspectives on this issue.]
James Hipps of the blog,"Gay Agenda," put it best:
Former president Jimmy Carter threatened the LDS with taxation in 1978 if they didn’t stop preaching segregation…low and behold, three weeks later, the Mormons no longer believed being a person of color was a punishment from God.
I just can’t believe we let these tax-exempt cults dictate laws and rights. This really has to stop!
He's absolutely right!
In the case of homophobic churches and clergy who spew hateful rhetoric about LGBT people, bear false witness against them, and advocate discrimination against them, a sure way to silence these destructive forces that have provided much of the impetus to prevent and eliminate full and equal civil rights for LGBT people, would be to threaten to remove their tax exempt status.
We must threaten to remove the tax exempt status from any church or religious institution that poisons the well in our society, and homophobic churches and clergy do just that!
Monday, August 24, 2009
VIDEO: MICHELANGELO SIGNORILE AND LOG CABIN REPUBLICAN'S CHARLES MORAN
The following video is a brief discussion with Michelangelo Signorile and Log Cabin Republican Charles Moran.
At the beginning of the video, where it shows Obama expressing his support for LGBT people, notice how he haltingly expresses himself in his talk, indicating to me that he is at best ambivalent about equal rights for LGBT people, and at worst is merely seeking to shore up part of his base so as to win the next presidential election.
As you know, the latter is my view. I feel that Obama is a mere two-faced narcissist who doesn't care one bit about equal rights for LGBT people, or for much of anything else that can't garner him political mileage to meet his narcissistic needs and self-interest.
At the beginning of the video, where it shows Obama expressing his support for LGBT people, notice how he haltingly expresses himself in his talk, indicating to me that he is at best ambivalent about equal rights for LGBT people, and at worst is merely seeking to shore up part of his base so as to win the next presidential election.
As you know, the latter is my view. I feel that Obama is a mere two-faced narcissist who doesn't care one bit about equal rights for LGBT people, or for much of anything else that can't garner him political mileage to meet his narcissistic needs and self-interest.
Friday, August 21, 2009
LGBT RIGHTS MUST BE AFFIRMED IN THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL AND POLITICAL ARENAS
I'm probably in the minority of those who advocate for marriage equality for same-sex couples when I say that I find the following advertisement for same-sex marriage in Maine to be depressing:
I find it depressing because it adapts itself to the idea that it is the right of the electorate to vote on minority group civil rights!
As I've written in a previous post:
We can't spend our time and tremendous amounts of monies trying to get the majority of the electorate to vote for equal rights. If integration of African Americans was put on the ballot in each state during the civil rights era, we would still have segregation and Jim Crow laws! There must be meaningful, coordinated, and aggressive grassroots, street, and organizational activism, coupled with the filing of civil suits at the federal level, to achieve equal rights. "Separate is not equal," and that fact must be, and undoubtedly will be, affirmed by the Judiciary in regard to Gay people, as it was for African Americans, and not left to the will and whim of the majority of the electorate, for to do so demeans Gay people, and puts each and every minority group's rights up for grabs. We would never think of putting one or more civil rights of Jews, of African Americans, of Asians, etc. on the ballot to be voted upon, and Gay people's civil rights must not be treated any differently.
We will not "win the hearts and minds" of people by merely saying the equivalent of "We are people and families too." The fight for full and equal civil rights, including the right of marriage, will not be ultimately won by going hat in hand to the electorate and trying to appeal to logic and to "the milk of human kindness" to win this struggle.
Indeed, even if this struggle were to be won state by state, it would take an inordinate amount of time to legalize same-sex marriage, and it would still leave other civil rights of LGBT people up for grabs, each to be dealt with incrementally. That's why the Dallas Principles are worthy of great consideration and implementation, particularly taking into account the excellent critique of Don Charles in his two part post, "Democratizing the Dallas Principles," Part One and Part Two, that are posted on his blog, Christ, The Gay Martyr.
Putting LGBT rights (or any other minority group's rights, for that matter) to a vote of the electorate is likely to lose, in large part due to the lies and distortions of the "religious" and secular homophobes, as well as to the free floating fears, frustrations, and anger of people, many of whom are living in economically uncertain, if not hard, times, and who consciously or unconsciously look for scapegoats upon whom to vent their fears, frustrations, and anger.
And reactionary clergy, talk show hosts, and organizations play upon those fears, frustrations, and anger by claiming to represent "traditional family values," "the sanctity of marriage," "the well-being of our children," and all sorts of other buzz words that grab people emotionally by playing upon the fear of change, a change that they say is designed to accommodate those whom they constantly vilify as, in one way or another, being "deviant" and even "dangerous."
Specious appeals to "tradition," "the Bible," and even "God," ring true to those who are ignorant and/or gullible and/or frustrated and/or fearful and/or angry enough to believe the one-dimensional mind-set of those who have a lot of money to bring to the propaganda table so as to further vilify LGBT people, and who also monopolize much of the media and most of the institutional Church, making the likelihood of an electoral win in California in 2010 or 2012, or in Maine, Washington, D.C., or any other state increasingly less likely to occur.
The more the lies are allowed to be spewed in the "religious" and secular market places, the more likely it is that those lies will be increasingly believed and, hence, the more likely subsequent ballot initiatives designed to reinforce second-class status on LGBT people will continue to be successful. As Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister said, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
...[Brian S.] Brown [the Executive Director of the National Organization for Marriage] said that a solid majority of voters in every state or jurisdiction in which same-sex marriage has been placed on the ballot has voted down same-sex marriage — or similar legal rights for same-sex couples granted through domestic partnership benefits.
“Whenever we’ve been able to have a direct vote on the issue, we’ve won — in 30 out of 30 states,” Brown said.
He said his organization is poised to help local ministers fight plans by the D.C. City Council to pass legislation this fall that would allow same-sex marriages to be performed in the District.
He said NOM also will join local opponents of same-sex marriage to seek to overturn the law passed by the Council in May, and later cleared by Congress, that allows the city to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.
Brown said NOM would “definitely” contribute funds to pay for a court challenge of D.C. Board of Elections & Ethics and D.C. Superior Court rulings that stopped a ballot measure on the issue from taking place.
Both the election board and a Superior Court judge ruled in June that a referendum calling for overturning the same-sex marriage recognition law could not be held because, if approved, it would violate the city’s Human Rights Act, which bans discrimination based on sexual orientation.
“The people of D.C. deserve the right to vote on this issue,” he said. “It really sort of boggles the mind that one of the key issues in the District is the idea of voting rights. There’s a lot of support for voting rights, especially coming from some of those who support same-sex marriage.
“And while there’s a push for voting rights and the idea that D.C. would have a right to vote in Congress, it’s a little incongruous that there’s this attempt to block the right of D.C. voters to have their say on an issue of this much import — the very definition of marriage.”
[For the full article, see here.]
Ironically, both Brown and many LGBT activists take for granted the acceptability of having one's civil rights voted upon, whereas constitutional questions must be decided by the judiciary. Hence, the need for federal civil rights cases brought before the judiciary, just as Ted Olson and David Boies are doing, in conjunction with coordinated grassroots (such as the National Equality March) and organizational activism is so important in making sure that LGBT people have every single civil right that heterosexuals have.
I find it depressing because it adapts itself to the idea that it is the right of the electorate to vote on minority group civil rights!
As I've written in a previous post:
We can't spend our time and tremendous amounts of monies trying to get the majority of the electorate to vote for equal rights. If integration of African Americans was put on the ballot in each state during the civil rights era, we would still have segregation and Jim Crow laws! There must be meaningful, coordinated, and aggressive grassroots, street, and organizational activism, coupled with the filing of civil suits at the federal level, to achieve equal rights. "Separate is not equal," and that fact must be, and undoubtedly will be, affirmed by the Judiciary in regard to Gay people, as it was for African Americans, and not left to the will and whim of the majority of the electorate, for to do so demeans Gay people, and puts each and every minority group's rights up for grabs. We would never think of putting one or more civil rights of Jews, of African Americans, of Asians, etc. on the ballot to be voted upon, and Gay people's civil rights must not be treated any differently.
We will not "win the hearts and minds" of people by merely saying the equivalent of "We are people and families too." The fight for full and equal civil rights, including the right of marriage, will not be ultimately won by going hat in hand to the electorate and trying to appeal to logic and to "the milk of human kindness" to win this struggle.
Indeed, even if this struggle were to be won state by state, it would take an inordinate amount of time to legalize same-sex marriage, and it would still leave other civil rights of LGBT people up for grabs, each to be dealt with incrementally. That's why the Dallas Principles are worthy of great consideration and implementation, particularly taking into account the excellent critique of Don Charles in his two part post, "Democratizing the Dallas Principles," Part One and Part Two, that are posted on his blog, Christ, The Gay Martyr.
Putting LGBT rights (or any other minority group's rights, for that matter) to a vote of the electorate is likely to lose, in large part due to the lies and distortions of the "religious" and secular homophobes, as well as to the free floating fears, frustrations, and anger of people, many of whom are living in economically uncertain, if not hard, times, and who consciously or unconsciously look for scapegoats upon whom to vent their fears, frustrations, and anger.
And reactionary clergy, talk show hosts, and organizations play upon those fears, frustrations, and anger by claiming to represent "traditional family values," "the sanctity of marriage," "the well-being of our children," and all sorts of other buzz words that grab people emotionally by playing upon the fear of change, a change that they say is designed to accommodate those whom they constantly vilify as, in one way or another, being "deviant" and even "dangerous."
Specious appeals to "tradition," "the Bible," and even "God," ring true to those who are ignorant and/or gullible and/or frustrated and/or fearful and/or angry enough to believe the one-dimensional mind-set of those who have a lot of money to bring to the propaganda table so as to further vilify LGBT people, and who also monopolize much of the media and most of the institutional Church, making the likelihood of an electoral win in California in 2010 or 2012, or in Maine, Washington, D.C., or any other state increasingly less likely to occur.
The more the lies are allowed to be spewed in the "religious" and secular market places, the more likely it is that those lies will be increasingly believed and, hence, the more likely subsequent ballot initiatives designed to reinforce second-class status on LGBT people will continue to be successful. As Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister said, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
...[Brian S.] Brown [the Executive Director of the National Organization for Marriage] said that a solid majority of voters in every state or jurisdiction in which same-sex marriage has been placed on the ballot has voted down same-sex marriage — or similar legal rights for same-sex couples granted through domestic partnership benefits.
“Whenever we’ve been able to have a direct vote on the issue, we’ve won — in 30 out of 30 states,” Brown said.
He said his organization is poised to help local ministers fight plans by the D.C. City Council to pass legislation this fall that would allow same-sex marriages to be performed in the District.
He said NOM also will join local opponents of same-sex marriage to seek to overturn the law passed by the Council in May, and later cleared by Congress, that allows the city to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.
Brown said NOM would “definitely” contribute funds to pay for a court challenge of D.C. Board of Elections & Ethics and D.C. Superior Court rulings that stopped a ballot measure on the issue from taking place.
Both the election board and a Superior Court judge ruled in June that a referendum calling for overturning the same-sex marriage recognition law could not be held because, if approved, it would violate the city’s Human Rights Act, which bans discrimination based on sexual orientation.
“The people of D.C. deserve the right to vote on this issue,” he said. “It really sort of boggles the mind that one of the key issues in the District is the idea of voting rights. There’s a lot of support for voting rights, especially coming from some of those who support same-sex marriage.
“And while there’s a push for voting rights and the idea that D.C. would have a right to vote in Congress, it’s a little incongruous that there’s this attempt to block the right of D.C. voters to have their say on an issue of this much import — the very definition of marriage.”
[For the full article, see here.]
Ironically, both Brown and many LGBT activists take for granted the acceptability of having one's civil rights voted upon, whereas constitutional questions must be decided by the judiciary. Hence, the need for federal civil rights cases brought before the judiciary, just as Ted Olson and David Boies are doing, in conjunction with coordinated grassroots (such as the National Equality March) and organizational activism is so important in making sure that LGBT people have every single civil right that heterosexuals have.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
HYPOCRITICAL POLITICIANS AND CLERGY
The mayor of Anchorage on Monday vetoed a ban against discrimination based on sexual orientation, saying it was unclear that such discrimination existed....
“This ordinance was going to force small-business owners particularly to accommodate people who choose a certain lifestyle,” said the Rev. Jerry Prevo, pastor of the Anchorage Baptist Temple and a leader of the measure’s opponents.
“Once you give special rights to homosexuals,” Mr. Prevo said, “then the next step is you legalize homosexual marriage and so forth.”
For the full article, see here.]
How a seemingly limited human being like the Rev. Jerry Prevo became a pastor of a church that professes to be "Christian," I'll never know, save to say that he represents far more "ministers" than any Christian would feel comfortable with having seemingly represent "Christianity."
The deceitful and distorted mantra that Gay people "choose a certain lifestyle" and that they want "special rights" is very sinister in its distortion, and it's being repeated so often by many clergy in the institutional Church, so that ignorant and/or gullible and/or hateful people professing to be decent, and even "Christian," seem to thrive on that lie, so that a ban on discrimination is vetoed, the reason given being that it "unclear that such discrimination existed."
For anyone to deny that there is discrimination against Gay people is a downright lie! And, worse than that, it is a hypocritical lie! And we have assorted pastors who call themselves "Christian," fueling such discrimination and lies against Gay people, all the while lying about the lives of Gay people.
Another reality is that hypocrisy is not restricted to any one political party, in that we have a narcissistic hypocrite in Pres. Obama who both assiduously affirms DOMA while at the same time he condemns it.
President Barack Obama insisted Monday he still wants to scrap what he calls a discriminatory federal marriage law, even as his administration angered gay rights activists by defending it in court.
The president said his administration's stance in a California court case is not about defending traditional marriage, but is instead about defending traditional legal practice.
Justice Department lawyers filed new papers Monday seeking to throw out a lawsuit brought by a gay couple challenging the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. Gay rights groups say that by doing so, the administration is failing to follow through on campaign promises made by Obama last year to work to repeal the law.
[For the full article, see here.] [Also see here and here and here.]
Ya think?
Please see this video of Rachel Maddow talking with Howard Dean on the subject of Obama's Justice Department's brief in federal court regarding DOMA:
“This ordinance was going to force small-business owners particularly to accommodate people who choose a certain lifestyle,” said the Rev. Jerry Prevo, pastor of the Anchorage Baptist Temple and a leader of the measure’s opponents.
“Once you give special rights to homosexuals,” Mr. Prevo said, “then the next step is you legalize homosexual marriage and so forth.”
For the full article, see here.]
How a seemingly limited human being like the Rev. Jerry Prevo became a pastor of a church that professes to be "Christian," I'll never know, save to say that he represents far more "ministers" than any Christian would feel comfortable with having seemingly represent "Christianity."
The deceitful and distorted mantra that Gay people "choose a certain lifestyle" and that they want "special rights" is very sinister in its distortion, and it's being repeated so often by many clergy in the institutional Church, so that ignorant and/or gullible and/or hateful people professing to be decent, and even "Christian," seem to thrive on that lie, so that a ban on discrimination is vetoed, the reason given being that it "unclear that such discrimination existed."
For anyone to deny that there is discrimination against Gay people is a downright lie! And, worse than that, it is a hypocritical lie! And we have assorted pastors who call themselves "Christian," fueling such discrimination and lies against Gay people, all the while lying about the lives of Gay people.
Another reality is that hypocrisy is not restricted to any one political party, in that we have a narcissistic hypocrite in Pres. Obama who both assiduously affirms DOMA while at the same time he condemns it.
President Barack Obama insisted Monday he still wants to scrap what he calls a discriminatory federal marriage law, even as his administration angered gay rights activists by defending it in court.
The president said his administration's stance in a California court case is not about defending traditional marriage, but is instead about defending traditional legal practice.
Justice Department lawyers filed new papers Monday seeking to throw out a lawsuit brought by a gay couple challenging the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. Gay rights groups say that by doing so, the administration is failing to follow through on campaign promises made by Obama last year to work to repeal the law.
[For the full article, see here.] [Also see here and here and here.]
Ya think?
Please see this video of Rachel Maddow talking with Howard Dean on the subject of Obama's Justice Department's brief in federal court regarding DOMA:
Friday, August 14, 2009
GAY DOES NOT ONLY EQUAL SEX MUST BE EMPHASIZED
A judge has dismissed a federal lawsuit against Tennessee school districts that once blocked access to gay-themed Web sites. The schools already had agreed to remove the filters to the sites.
If that agreement is broken, the case will return to court, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which fought in favor of students suing the schools.
The suit that included Metro Nashville Public Schools and Knox County was over access to sites that were nonsexual.
[For the full article, see here.]
Given the sexual obsession of so many people, mixed with often "religiously" sanctimonious and negative messages to which we are exposed, any perception of adult relationships has "sex" as a major component, save for that of heterosexual marriage. For some reason, when one thinks of "marriage," sexual relationships are both taken for granted as well as virtually non-existent in the minds of those discussing marriage as a subject.
Therefore, since in the minds of many Gay=Sex, and that love is usually not even considered in same-sex relationships by homophobes, the very existence of same-sex marriage brings sex front and center in their minds; their often ambivalent, if not negative, view of sex connotes salaciousness that invades their comfort zones in this area of their lives.
When one hears homophobes rail against Gay people, they virtually always betray their own ambivalent, if not negative, views of sex and sexual matters; rarely, if ever, is love discussed in the context of same-sex relationships or in the struggle to legitimize same-sex marriage. Since sex is a subject with which many are uncomfortable, and that discomfort is highlighted by homophobes who emphasize that subject, Gay people have become both the target and the mirror of that discomfort; the attempt to prevent same-sex marriages can largely be seen to have its roots in the negative or ambivalent views of sex that so many homophobes have.
Since in these people's minds, Gay=Sex, anything that has to do with Gay people is seen solely in sexual terms by those who are uncomfortable with sex in one way or the other and, therefore, it is not surprising that internet sites that even have the word "Gay" in the title are viewed as inherently salacious, and there are attempts by those who feel they are "protecting the children" to seek to filter out anything that deals with Gay issues.
Indeed, a couple of years ago a friend of mine told me that he couldn't access this blog in his public library, as the filter the library used blocked it from access. He assured the librarian that this site was non-pornographic and the filter was removed.
One wonders how often this blog, and sites like it that have the word "Gay" in their title are inaccessible to young (and even older) people. The fact that "Christianity" also appears in the title of this blog was irrelevant, as the word "Gay" trumped all other terms and considerations and that fact can be attributed to the equation of Gay with Sex and little or nothing else.
All people involved in the civil rights struggle for full and equal LGBT rights must emphasize the emotional component of same-sex love and relationships; enable potential Straight allies to see that just as heterosexual relationships and marriage are seen as largely based on love, the same holds true of same-sex relationships.
By so doing, a lot of the stigma and perceived "deviance" of same-sex relationships held by many is likely to be diluted, with the goal of having people see that just as "love" is at the core of heterosexual marriage and relationships, "love" is also at the core of same-sex marriage and relationships.
Working toward this goal is crucial, as full and equal civil rights can only be achieved when potential Straight allies see same-sex marriage as being based on the same criteria as are heterosexual marriages, and the nonsense that occurred (and may yet occur) in Tennessee and elsewhere will be seen for the ignorance it displays.
If that agreement is broken, the case will return to court, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which fought in favor of students suing the schools.
The suit that included Metro Nashville Public Schools and Knox County was over access to sites that were nonsexual.
[For the full article, see here.]
Given the sexual obsession of so many people, mixed with often "religiously" sanctimonious and negative messages to which we are exposed, any perception of adult relationships has "sex" as a major component, save for that of heterosexual marriage. For some reason, when one thinks of "marriage," sexual relationships are both taken for granted as well as virtually non-existent in the minds of those discussing marriage as a subject.
Therefore, since in the minds of many Gay=Sex, and that love is usually not even considered in same-sex relationships by homophobes, the very existence of same-sex marriage brings sex front and center in their minds; their often ambivalent, if not negative, view of sex connotes salaciousness that invades their comfort zones in this area of their lives.
When one hears homophobes rail against Gay people, they virtually always betray their own ambivalent, if not negative, views of sex and sexual matters; rarely, if ever, is love discussed in the context of same-sex relationships or in the struggle to legitimize same-sex marriage. Since sex is a subject with which many are uncomfortable, and that discomfort is highlighted by homophobes who emphasize that subject, Gay people have become both the target and the mirror of that discomfort; the attempt to prevent same-sex marriages can largely be seen to have its roots in the negative or ambivalent views of sex that so many homophobes have.
Since in these people's minds, Gay=Sex, anything that has to do with Gay people is seen solely in sexual terms by those who are uncomfortable with sex in one way or the other and, therefore, it is not surprising that internet sites that even have the word "Gay" in the title are viewed as inherently salacious, and there are attempts by those who feel they are "protecting the children" to seek to filter out anything that deals with Gay issues.
Indeed, a couple of years ago a friend of mine told me that he couldn't access this blog in his public library, as the filter the library used blocked it from access. He assured the librarian that this site was non-pornographic and the filter was removed.
One wonders how often this blog, and sites like it that have the word "Gay" in their title are inaccessible to young (and even older) people. The fact that "Christianity" also appears in the title of this blog was irrelevant, as the word "Gay" trumped all other terms and considerations and that fact can be attributed to the equation of Gay with Sex and little or nothing else.
All people involved in the civil rights struggle for full and equal LGBT rights must emphasize the emotional component of same-sex love and relationships; enable potential Straight allies to see that just as heterosexual relationships and marriage are seen as largely based on love, the same holds true of same-sex relationships.
By so doing, a lot of the stigma and perceived "deviance" of same-sex relationships held by many is likely to be diluted, with the goal of having people see that just as "love" is at the core of heterosexual marriage and relationships, "love" is also at the core of same-sex marriage and relationships.
Working toward this goal is crucial, as full and equal civil rights can only be achieved when potential Straight allies see same-sex marriage as being based on the same criteria as are heterosexual marriages, and the nonsense that occurred (and may yet occur) in Tennessee and elsewhere will be seen for the ignorance it displays.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
A WONDERFUL VIDEO ABOUT SISTER PAULA, TRANSGENDER EVANGELIST
This relatively brief video captures some of the delightful spirituality in the life and message of Sister Paula who preaches the Gospel in a genuinely authentic way. I strongly urge you to follow her podcasts on her website Sister Paula Ministries.
Friday, August 7, 2009
THERE MUST BE NO ACCOMMODATION TO TOXIC RELIGION OR ANY WARPED VIEW OF FAITH
This article,The APA Nixes "Ex-Gay Therapy": A Win for the Religious Right? article is worth reading for the simple reason that it reaffirms the fact that fundamentalism of all stripes, particularly including that which invokes "religion" and its view of God, are antithetical to any kind of meaningful dialogue. Facts don't matter to "true believers"; they will often twist facts with which they are confronted to meet their preconceived prejudices and mind-sets.
An excerpt from this article reads as follows:
On Wednesday, the American Psychological Association made headlines by repudiating gay-to-straight therapy. In a report, the APA found that not only is there no evidence that the practice actually works, but it can also lead to depression and suicidal tendencies. Considering that so-called "reparative therapy" has been enthusiastically championed by the religious right, you might be surprised to learn that they're touting the report as a major victory.
One tragedy of the conclusion of the American Psychological Association's findings regarding the harm of "ex-gay therapies" is that the APA saw that "religion" could adversely impact a person's identity as being Gay and, therefore, one could legitimately deny a Gay identity, and deny him/herself a life as a Gay man or woman, for the sake of that religious belief.
So, we have the following possible outcome regarding a fundamentalist mind-set, be it from assorted religious leaders or from those who wish to accommodate such fundamentalists:
According to new APA guidelines, the therapist must make clear that homosexuality doesn't signal a mental or emotional disorder. The counselor must advise clients that gay men and women can lead happy and healthy lives, and emphasize that there is no evidence therapy can change sexual orientation.
But if the client still believes that affirming his same-sex attractions would be sinful or destructive to his faith, psychologists can help him construct an identity that rejects the power of those attractions, the APA says. That might require living celibately, learning to deflect sexual impulses or framing a life of struggle as an opportunity to grow closer to God.
"We're not trying to encourage people to become 'ex-gay,'" said Judith Glassgold, who chaired the APA's task force on the issue. "But we have to acknowledge that, for some people, religious identity is such an important part of their lives, it may transcend everything else."
[For the full article, see here.]
So, even the APA gives the startling conclusion to its unsurprising findings as to the harm of "ex-gay therapies" that it's OK to redirect one's sexuality to other pursuits for the sake of "religion," even, as in the case of fundamentalism, even toxic religion!
And they give this conclusion, despite their statement:
No solid evidence exists that such change is likely, says the resolution, adopted by a 125-to-4 vote. The association said some research suggested that efforts to produce change could be harmful, inducing depression and suicidal tendencies. [See here.]
As Frederick Schiller once remarked, "Against stupidity, even the gods contend in vain!"
So, they have the temerity to state that when one's being Gay counters the client's perception of what it means to be a Christian: "That might require living celibately, learning to deflect sexual impulses or framing a life of struggle as an opportunity to grow closer to God."
Apparently, in its attempt to accommodate toxic religion, and even their client's misunderstanding of God, faith, and sexuality, the APA affirms that it might be OK to suppress these primal needs in spite of the fact that any attempt to "change could be harmful, inducing depression and suicidal tendencies."
This seeming attempt to accommodate those religious true believers who see a contradiction between sexuality and religiosity just goes to show how toxic religion has impacted our culture, even impacting behavioral and social scientists who should know better than to make such an accommodation.
The Chair of the APA's task force stated the veritably inconceivable as a presumed attempt to accommodate fundamentalists and other misdirected people: "But we have to acknowledge that, for some people, religious identity is such an important part of their lives, it may transcend everything else."
Rather than confront the destructive lie that "religious identity" and "sexuality" are not inconsistent with each other, save for those whom God gifted with the call to celibacy, the APA allows toxic religion to rear its ugly head in the name of "mental health." I'll never know why they wouldn't confront this destructive lie by redirecting their client to, or working in tandem with, a credible clergy person who could help their client see that being Gay is consistent with God's will for that person's life; being Gay is certainly not a sin!
The "client still believes that affirming his same-sex attractions would be sinful or destructive to his faith" because he has been taught that lie!
What kind of "faith" is it that in order to claim one of God's gifts to us, God's grace, we have to relinquish another one of God's gifts to us, our sexuality?
It is incumbent upon all clinicians and clergy to affirm God's Gay children as having been gifted with their sexuality and the capacity to love, the latter of which is tragically missing in many self-professed "Christians."
And it is not the clinician's business to help his or her client accommodate to any warped view of faith or to the toxic religion that teaches that warped view!
Indeed, the client, LGBT people, and Straight people must learn that the attempt to deny what God has made shows a decided lack of faith, a faith without which it is impossible to please God! (Hebrews 11:6)
An excerpt from this article reads as follows:
On Wednesday, the American Psychological Association made headlines by repudiating gay-to-straight therapy. In a report, the APA found that not only is there no evidence that the practice actually works, but it can also lead to depression and suicidal tendencies. Considering that so-called "reparative therapy" has been enthusiastically championed by the religious right, you might be surprised to learn that they're touting the report as a major victory.
One tragedy of the conclusion of the American Psychological Association's findings regarding the harm of "ex-gay therapies" is that the APA saw that "religion" could adversely impact a person's identity as being Gay and, therefore, one could legitimately deny a Gay identity, and deny him/herself a life as a Gay man or woman, for the sake of that religious belief.
So, we have the following possible outcome regarding a fundamentalist mind-set, be it from assorted religious leaders or from those who wish to accommodate such fundamentalists:
According to new APA guidelines, the therapist must make clear that homosexuality doesn't signal a mental or emotional disorder. The counselor must advise clients that gay men and women can lead happy and healthy lives, and emphasize that there is no evidence therapy can change sexual orientation.
But if the client still believes that affirming his same-sex attractions would be sinful or destructive to his faith, psychologists can help him construct an identity that rejects the power of those attractions, the APA says. That might require living celibately, learning to deflect sexual impulses or framing a life of struggle as an opportunity to grow closer to God.
"We're not trying to encourage people to become 'ex-gay,'" said Judith Glassgold, who chaired the APA's task force on the issue. "But we have to acknowledge that, for some people, religious identity is such an important part of their lives, it may transcend everything else."
[For the full article, see here.]
So, even the APA gives the startling conclusion to its unsurprising findings as to the harm of "ex-gay therapies" that it's OK to redirect one's sexuality to other pursuits for the sake of "religion," even, as in the case of fundamentalism, even toxic religion!
And they give this conclusion, despite their statement:
No solid evidence exists that such change is likely, says the resolution, adopted by a 125-to-4 vote. The association said some research suggested that efforts to produce change could be harmful, inducing depression and suicidal tendencies. [See here.]
As Frederick Schiller once remarked, "Against stupidity, even the gods contend in vain!"
So, they have the temerity to state that when one's being Gay counters the client's perception of what it means to be a Christian: "That might require living celibately, learning to deflect sexual impulses or framing a life of struggle as an opportunity to grow closer to God."
Apparently, in its attempt to accommodate toxic religion, and even their client's misunderstanding of God, faith, and sexuality, the APA affirms that it might be OK to suppress these primal needs in spite of the fact that any attempt to "change could be harmful, inducing depression and suicidal tendencies."
This seeming attempt to accommodate those religious true believers who see a contradiction between sexuality and religiosity just goes to show how toxic religion has impacted our culture, even impacting behavioral and social scientists who should know better than to make such an accommodation.
The Chair of the APA's task force stated the veritably inconceivable as a presumed attempt to accommodate fundamentalists and other misdirected people: "But we have to acknowledge that, for some people, religious identity is such an important part of their lives, it may transcend everything else."
Rather than confront the destructive lie that "religious identity" and "sexuality" are not inconsistent with each other, save for those whom God gifted with the call to celibacy, the APA allows toxic religion to rear its ugly head in the name of "mental health." I'll never know why they wouldn't confront this destructive lie by redirecting their client to, or working in tandem with, a credible clergy person who could help their client see that being Gay is consistent with God's will for that person's life; being Gay is certainly not a sin!
The "client still believes that affirming his same-sex attractions would be sinful or destructive to his faith" because he has been taught that lie!
What kind of "faith" is it that in order to claim one of God's gifts to us, God's grace, we have to relinquish another one of God's gifts to us, our sexuality?
It is incumbent upon all clinicians and clergy to affirm God's Gay children as having been gifted with their sexuality and the capacity to love, the latter of which is tragically missing in many self-professed "Christians."
And it is not the clinician's business to help his or her client accommodate to any warped view of faith or to the toxic religion that teaches that warped view!
Indeed, the client, LGBT people, and Straight people must learn that the attempt to deny what God has made shows a decided lack of faith, a faith without which it is impossible to please God! (Hebrews 11:6)
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
NATIONAL EQUALITY MARCH, OCTOBER 10TH AND 11TH, 2009
Here is a video of a rousing speech given in Utah by Cleve Jones demanding full and equal civil rights for LGBT people and announcing the March on Washington that is to be held on October 10th and 11th.
This march will likely have little impact on Obama and on other politicians at this time, for the simple reason that most of those who are not in favor of equal rights for LGBT people have yet to see what political mileage and career enhancements can come from people who they think make up a relatively small part of their constituency, except in a relatively few selected jurisdictions in this country.
The major impact that this march is likely to have will be to generate enthusiasm to demand equal rights; enable latent anger to become manifest both to others and to oneself; reinforce the need to demand equal rights across the board, without settling for any incremental steps, the indignity of having one's civil rights voted upon by the electorate, or settling for empty rhetoric from some smiling politician who counts on his charisma and charm to override his having to do anything to deliver on his empty promises.
Obama cannot be counted on to deliver on his cynical rhetoric for the simple reason that I feel that he is homophobic as well as having a narcissistic personality that enables him to say one thing and do the very opposite without his seeming to have any hint of guilt, or perhaps even of his seeing any contradiction between his words and his deeds.
To him, it seems, just looking good and saying what he perceives people want to hear, transcend what values he has if, indeed, he holds any core values that he uses as a compass with which to navigate his behavior and decisions regarding the welfare of others.
Moreover, I think his extreme narcissism enables him to also transcend any contradiction between his words and his deeds because he may well be oblivious to such contradiction; if that contradiction is pointed out to him, his narcissism is likely to override what would be very embarrassing to an average person.
His homophobia that makes a mockery of his public rhetoric regarding LGBT people is abundantly evident, from his being against same-sex marriage, aligning himself with Donnie McClurkin and Mary Mary during part of his campaign, having homophobic Rick Warren give the inaugural prayer, allowing highly decorated military personnel such as Lt. Dan Choi and Lt. Col. Fehrenbach to be discharged under DADT under his watch, aggressively defending DOMA under his watch, and also pressuring Rep. Alcee Hastings to withdraw his Amendment to not fund DADT.
Rep. Alcee Hastings was interviewed by Rachel Maddow, and this interview is instructive as to Obama's level of commitment to living up to his lofty, though patently empty, rhetoric to LGBT people:
It seems that the National Equality March is coming at an appropriate time!
This march will likely have little impact on Obama and on other politicians at this time, for the simple reason that most of those who are not in favor of equal rights for LGBT people have yet to see what political mileage and career enhancements can come from people who they think make up a relatively small part of their constituency, except in a relatively few selected jurisdictions in this country.
The major impact that this march is likely to have will be to generate enthusiasm to demand equal rights; enable latent anger to become manifest both to others and to oneself; reinforce the need to demand equal rights across the board, without settling for any incremental steps, the indignity of having one's civil rights voted upon by the electorate, or settling for empty rhetoric from some smiling politician who counts on his charisma and charm to override his having to do anything to deliver on his empty promises.
Obama cannot be counted on to deliver on his cynical rhetoric for the simple reason that I feel that he is homophobic as well as having a narcissistic personality that enables him to say one thing and do the very opposite without his seeming to have any hint of guilt, or perhaps even of his seeing any contradiction between his words and his deeds.
To him, it seems, just looking good and saying what he perceives people want to hear, transcend what values he has if, indeed, he holds any core values that he uses as a compass with which to navigate his behavior and decisions regarding the welfare of others.
Moreover, I think his extreme narcissism enables him to also transcend any contradiction between his words and his deeds because he may well be oblivious to such contradiction; if that contradiction is pointed out to him, his narcissism is likely to override what would be very embarrassing to an average person.
His homophobia that makes a mockery of his public rhetoric regarding LGBT people is abundantly evident, from his being against same-sex marriage, aligning himself with Donnie McClurkin and Mary Mary during part of his campaign, having homophobic Rick Warren give the inaugural prayer, allowing highly decorated military personnel such as Lt. Dan Choi and Lt. Col. Fehrenbach to be discharged under DADT under his watch, aggressively defending DOMA under his watch, and also pressuring Rep. Alcee Hastings to withdraw his Amendment to not fund DADT.
Rep. Alcee Hastings was interviewed by Rachel Maddow, and this interview is instructive as to Obama's level of commitment to living up to his lofty, though patently empty, rhetoric to LGBT people:
It seems that the National Equality March is coming at an appropriate time!
Saturday, August 1, 2009
LESSONS FROM AN INTERVIEW WITH EXODUS INTERNATIONAL'S PRESIDENT ALAN CHAMBERS
The President of Exodus International, Alan Chambers, recently published a book entitled, "Leaving Homosexuality," and the interview he gave regarding his "leaving homosexuality" is instructive.
Alan Chambers said: For so long I’ve heard gay activists say to me, “You’re just in denial. You’re not grasping the reality of the situation. You’re just denying who you really are.” The truth is, I am in denial, but it is self-denial. I’m not in denial of who I used to be. I’m not in denial of the temptations that I could still experience. I am denying the power that sin has over me.
Sin does not have any power that we don’t give it, and what I’ve found is that my freedom – and the freedom of others I’ve known who’ve left homosexuality -- was centered around denying what might come naturally to us regardless of how it got there. And once you deny sin’s power, you can live a free life.
The most authentic part of my life is first and foremost my relationship with Christ, but sitting here where I’m doing this interview in my back yard -- with my kids and with my wife -- this is who I am. This is who I want to be. This is the truth of my life. This is who I was created to be. And this is what brings me happiness.
[For the full interview, see here.]
Moreover, in his April 20th blog post he wrote the following:
I'm a follower of Christ and believe every word of the Bible is true and infallible....[I say] to the gay community: it is my great hope that we as a Christian church will give you no more reasons to justifiably doubt God's love for you. I am sorry for the times when I have contributed to that.
Jesus does tell us to deny ourselves and pick up our respective crosses and follow Him! However, to view same-sex love as a "cross" is merely internalizing the oppressor's mind-set, rhetoric, and presumed values rather than seeing same-sex love as one of God's many gifts!
Chambers says that he believes that "every word in the Bible is true and infallible," and that statement is both specious and tautological (Not even the Bible makes that claim for itself!); he presumes that his interpretation of the Bible is the only possible one; he presumes that his exegeses of certain biblical passages are true, undoubtedly because homophobic clergy have been interpreting those passages for him, and he has internalized their erroneous views of both the Bible and of those passages.
He seems to have allowed Gay people's oppressors to create an identity for him that is divorced from his "temptations" and "denying what might come naturally" to him, and replacing them "with my kids and with my wife." About the latter he alleges: "this is who I am. This is who I want to be. This is the truth of my life. This is who I was created to be. And this is what brings me happiness."
By creating an identity consistent with what he undoubtedly feels is the world-view of most of the secular world, and with the world-view of most of the institutional Church (and certainly of virtually all of the fundamentalist wing of the institutional Church with which he seems to identify), his manufactured identity and place in life "brings me happiness," not necessarily because he is living in accordance with his true identity as a gay man, but because he is conforming to both the expectations of most people in society and with the professing Christians with whom he identifies--those who believe that "every word in the Bible is true and infallible"; living as a Gay man or woman is a sin. Hence, he has made himself believe that he was "created to be" something that does not come naturally to him, as he himself says that he is daily struggling with his perceived need for "self-denial" in this crucial area of his life.
He feels that he has "left homosexuality" because he is now married and has children! However, Jesus says that one's true identity is based on one's thoughts and not merely on how one acts! (Matthew 5:21-22; 27-28) Indeed, Proverbs 23: states: "For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he...." Chambers, along with many others, seems to feel that being Gay is what you do! However, being Gay is what one is!
Chambers or anyone else can be heterosexually married and have numerous children and yet still be Gay, because that's how God created them, and no amount of self-denial or, more accurately in this area, self-torture, can or should change that fact.
It doesn't seem to appear to Chambers and others in or out of the "ex-gay" movement that by seeking to deny this emotional/sexual primal part of their very selves, their souls, that they are throwing one of God's precious gifts back in God's face, and that they are preventing themselves from living "abundant" lives that Jesus promises His disciples so that they can fulfill the ministries that God has given each of them to do.
By viewing as an axiom that living as a gay man or woman is a sin, Chambers sets himself and many other Gay people up for seeing their sexual orientation and the thoughts, "temptations," behaviors, and relationships that go along with that sexual orientation as being inherently sinful! He doesn't seem to ask himself why God would create Gay people if God didn't approve of Gay people and their faithful relationships in the first place?
He seems to feel that the Bible condemns as sinful one's living life as a gay man or woman, which it clearly doesn't, despite repeated homophobic messages from assorted clergy and others who ignorantly think that one can "leave homosexuality"; tellingly, he omits consideration of the passage in Matthew 19:12 where Jesus is clearly talking about Gay people: "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb...."
"Eunuchs" who are born that way are undoubtedly God's Gay children! I'm not surprised that Chambers and so many others who are fundamentalist professing Christians never refer to this verse, as their homophobic assumptions and commensurate reading of the Bible hide this important truth from them.
I have genuine compassion for the Alan Chambers' of the world!
And I have even greater compassion for all of God's Gay children who have been cruelly victimized by the mind-set that would in any way bear false witness against them!
Alan Chambers said: For so long I’ve heard gay activists say to me, “You’re just in denial. You’re not grasping the reality of the situation. You’re just denying who you really are.” The truth is, I am in denial, but it is self-denial. I’m not in denial of who I used to be. I’m not in denial of the temptations that I could still experience. I am denying the power that sin has over me.
Sin does not have any power that we don’t give it, and what I’ve found is that my freedom – and the freedom of others I’ve known who’ve left homosexuality -- was centered around denying what might come naturally to us regardless of how it got there. And once you deny sin’s power, you can live a free life.
The most authentic part of my life is first and foremost my relationship with Christ, but sitting here where I’m doing this interview in my back yard -- with my kids and with my wife -- this is who I am. This is who I want to be. This is the truth of my life. This is who I was created to be. And this is what brings me happiness.
[For the full interview, see here.]
Moreover, in his April 20th blog post he wrote the following:
I'm a follower of Christ and believe every word of the Bible is true and infallible....[I say] to the gay community: it is my great hope that we as a Christian church will give you no more reasons to justifiably doubt God's love for you. I am sorry for the times when I have contributed to that.
Jesus does tell us to deny ourselves and pick up our respective crosses and follow Him! However, to view same-sex love as a "cross" is merely internalizing the oppressor's mind-set, rhetoric, and presumed values rather than seeing same-sex love as one of God's many gifts!
Chambers says that he believes that "every word in the Bible is true and infallible," and that statement is both specious and tautological (Not even the Bible makes that claim for itself!); he presumes that his interpretation of the Bible is the only possible one; he presumes that his exegeses of certain biblical passages are true, undoubtedly because homophobic clergy have been interpreting those passages for him, and he has internalized their erroneous views of both the Bible and of those passages.
He seems to have allowed Gay people's oppressors to create an identity for him that is divorced from his "temptations" and "denying what might come naturally" to him, and replacing them "with my kids and with my wife." About the latter he alleges: "this is who I am. This is who I want to be. This is the truth of my life. This is who I was created to be. And this is what brings me happiness."
By creating an identity consistent with what he undoubtedly feels is the world-view of most of the secular world, and with the world-view of most of the institutional Church (and certainly of virtually all of the fundamentalist wing of the institutional Church with which he seems to identify), his manufactured identity and place in life "brings me happiness," not necessarily because he is living in accordance with his true identity as a gay man, but because he is conforming to both the expectations of most people in society and with the professing Christians with whom he identifies--those who believe that "every word in the Bible is true and infallible"; living as a Gay man or woman is a sin. Hence, he has made himself believe that he was "created to be" something that does not come naturally to him, as he himself says that he is daily struggling with his perceived need for "self-denial" in this crucial area of his life.
He feels that he has "left homosexuality" because he is now married and has children! However, Jesus says that one's true identity is based on one's thoughts and not merely on how one acts! (Matthew 5:21-22; 27-28) Indeed, Proverbs 23: states: "For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he...." Chambers, along with many others, seems to feel that being Gay is what you do! However, being Gay is what one is!
Chambers or anyone else can be heterosexually married and have numerous children and yet still be Gay, because that's how God created them, and no amount of self-denial or, more accurately in this area, self-torture, can or should change that fact.
It doesn't seem to appear to Chambers and others in or out of the "ex-gay" movement that by seeking to deny this emotional/sexual primal part of their very selves, their souls, that they are throwing one of God's precious gifts back in God's face, and that they are preventing themselves from living "abundant" lives that Jesus promises His disciples so that they can fulfill the ministries that God has given each of them to do.
By viewing as an axiom that living as a gay man or woman is a sin, Chambers sets himself and many other Gay people up for seeing their sexual orientation and the thoughts, "temptations," behaviors, and relationships that go along with that sexual orientation as being inherently sinful! He doesn't seem to ask himself why God would create Gay people if God didn't approve of Gay people and their faithful relationships in the first place?
He seems to feel that the Bible condemns as sinful one's living life as a gay man or woman, which it clearly doesn't, despite repeated homophobic messages from assorted clergy and others who ignorantly think that one can "leave homosexuality"; tellingly, he omits consideration of the passage in Matthew 19:12 where Jesus is clearly talking about Gay people: "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb...."
"Eunuchs" who are born that way are undoubtedly God's Gay children! I'm not surprised that Chambers and so many others who are fundamentalist professing Christians never refer to this verse, as their homophobic assumptions and commensurate reading of the Bible hide this important truth from them.
I have genuine compassion for the Alan Chambers' of the world!
And I have even greater compassion for all of God's Gay children who have been cruelly victimized by the mind-set that would in any way bear false witness against them!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)