Got Milk?

Sean Penn used to be one of those people that … well, I’d cringe whenever I’d hear his name. There were all those “bad boys” movies in the 1980s and that whole Madonna thing and … I remember a few times over the years that someone would start talking about him … and to tell the truth, I just sort of stopped listening. Then, several years after the movie came out, I finally convinced myself to watch Dead Man Walking, a movie that totally took me by surprise, although it wasn’t until he’d done I am sam and Mystic River that I started to think that maybe he wasn’t going to be so bad after all.

Now, granted – I haven’t seen the movie yet, but from what I am hearing – one of his next movies may just prove me wrong again. I’m talking about a movie, currently set to release in November called Milk.

Milk is the latest movie from Director Gus Van Sant (the same guy who brought us Good Will Hunting, Even Cowgirls Get The Blues, and My Own Private Idaho, just to name a few) and tells the story of San Francisco’s first openly gay elected official, Harvey Milk.

If you don’t know about Harvey Milk, go rent the excellent documentary, The Times of Harvey Milk.

On November 27, 1978, then city supervisor of San Francisco, California, Harvey Milk was assassinated by the recently resigned city supervisor, Dan White. White was convicted of his crime, but only received a seven year sentence because his legal defense team claimed junk food made him temporarily incompetent. Yes, this was the original “Twinkie Defense”. San Francisco erupted in riots over this – and the Milk assassination became one of the crucial turning points in the fight for gay civil rights.

Even this early in the game, Sean Penn is already starting to receive adoration from the way he is portraying Harvey Milk, leaving some to start to wonder if a second Oscar Award is coming soon. (His first was for Mystic River.)

Me? I just wonder what Barbra Streisand is thinking right now?

Her Son-In-Law, Josh Brolin, who recently finished filming Milk – where he plays Milk’s assassinator Dan White, has just started filming Oliver Stone’s W. where he plays George W. Bush – Two totally opposite (yet strangely similar) real-life characters I’m sure The Funny Girl has some pretty strong feelings about…

And from the recent cover of Entertainment Weekly – he appears to have a pretty good likeness…

…although this is now starting to lead into a topic for another, later, blog post!

Noli Nothis Permittere Te Terere - The Year in Review (B) The Most Responded To Post

When I started this blog (after several - ok, more than several - failed attempts at blogging) it was because I had something to say, and I figured this was a good way to say it. I never saw myself as the whole activist type - although I know others who do, considering everything I’ve been through and what I’ve done with my life … I consider myself more as a thinker, an educator, a helper, people person… I like to help fight for the cause, but more from the background - more like being the supporting actor than taking the lead role. And blogging fit right into this….

I’ve tired (from time to time) to post about things that really matter to me … maybe just to raise awareness - maybe just to talk about it in a way I don’t see too many other people talking about it …

That is, after all, the spirit of “Noli Nothis Permittere Te Terere” (Don’t let the Bastards Get You Down) … Bad things happen to everyone in this life - especially when you’re a little bit different - and, for me anyway, well … the way I see it, one has two options: Sit there and take it and let it drag you down with it, or you can do whatever you can about it and hopefully become better in the process.

My most responded to post, Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone, Unless The Bastard Is A Faggot is a perfect example of this.

One of the issues many (if not all) gays and lesbians face (at least at some point in their lives) are messages from the right-wing Christians about their belief that homosexuality is a sin, an abomination to God - and these messages can appear everywhere. For someone trying to deal with their own issues (religious issues, personal issues, or sexuality issues) these messages can be quite a downer.

The battle of basic human rights is something that the gay community has been fighting for awhile now… in their daily lives, in the courts… and the religious right is there for the fight.

The original post was a great example of this… and in some ways it was a wake-up call. One of the ways the gay community has been fighting for their human rights was using the courts to help protect their rights. A gay bar gets shut down for no reason other than it’s a gay bar, our right to freely assemble may be compromised.  A gay guy is murdered brutally just for being gay and the gay community thinks that should be a hate crime.

So, what was stopping the religious right from using those same tactics? They say it’s their constitutional right of freedom of religion to persecute homosexuals, it’s protected by the Bible and the Constitution. They say they want to continue spewing their anti-gay message, and anyone who says they shouldn’t are violating their constitutional right to free speech.

In many ways, lots of us are fighting the same battle over and over again… the one that goes “Homosexuality is bad.” “No it isn’t.” “The Bible says it is.” “My Bible doesn’t say that.” “Yes, it does. Right here.” “Nope. My Bible says Jesus was about love and tolerance, not about persecuting people.” “You’re mis-reading the bible, because it says, right here, that Homosexuality is bad.” “No it isn’t.” “The Bible says it is.” … see the pattern here.

And reading the comments to my post (17, so far, as of today) you’ll see quite a bit of that pattern. I mean, come on, people - can we get past that? It really isn’t getting us anywhere.  But, unfortunately I think it’s going to continue for eternity. Nobody’s going to win this one - unless we decide to just drop it. (But, I don’t see that one happening anytime soon.)

So, I guess the Noli Nothis Permittere Te Terere message is: just don’t let them get you down. It’s a pattern that has nothing to do with who you are, just what you are.

Tammy Fae …

To be honest with you - I never thought all that highly about Tammy Fae Messner. Although, to me, she always was Tammy Fae Baker…

Growing up isn’t all that easy for a gay boy in an Evangelical Christian household. After my parents learned I was gay, I spent a lot of time in church where I was prayed over, went through religious “therapy”, and was constantly reminded that gay people were sinners with no hope of salvation.

I got that message loud and clear at home as well - and not just from my parents - but, on the TV too. We watched our fair share of televangelists (more so at my Grandma’s house as my parents preferred religious figures who could shake your hand after the service) and yes, we watched PTL with Jim & Tammy Fae Baker. So, when Jim Baker would talk about the shameful “Sin” of homosexuality with his wife standing by his side - I figured they were all alike.

At this point in my life, I was struggling enough already to accept my own gay feelings. Those who know my coming out story (which I’ll post at a later time) know that I had started to figure out I was gay at an early age - and knew all too well that there were people out there who thought homosexuality was ok, but there were even more out there who thought that it was not. I tried to not let those who were anti-gay influence me too much. But, still, it was a lot for a young teen to deal with. It wasn’t like we had a lot of gay-positive role models back in the mid-1980s…

I just always assumed Tammy Fae was one of those anti-gay people, and dismissed her whenever I heard her name. Unfortunately, with her, and all that makeup, the air-conditioned dog houses - it wasn’t all that hard.

Somewhere along the way, Tammy Fae taught me something rather important about myself. I, who had put in so much hard work breaking down stereotypes and fighting prejudice, should have taken a long hard look at myself a long time before I did. Yep. I stereotyped her. Yep. I was somewhat prejudiced against those gay hating homophobic evangelical types.

And when I found out she was going to be on The Surreal Life, even though I hate “reality television” I thought to myself - “oh, that’s bound to be interesting.” When I found out who she was going to be living with - namely, porn-star Ron Jeremy - I decided to watch. Just one episode. I’m no Ron Jeremy fan. I’m no Vanilla Ice fan. (Far from it, actually.) I wasn’t an Eric Estrada fan either - although he was part of the reason I discovered I had a uniform fetish - but that’s besides the point. I just knew the former televangelist was going say something, and I was waiting for it … waiting for it … and … damn.

She not only seemed to mind sharing a house with a porn star - she actually seemed to make him her friend.

What The Fudge-sickle? Where’s the lady who used to stand by her husband while he talked about (among other things) the evils of pornography? (After all porn was just as bad as being gay.)

After that - the more I learned about Tammy Fae - the worse I started to feel. I totally misjudged her.

While it’s true that she never said anything on television while I was growing up in defense of the shameful homosexuals her husband would pray for on national television for - she, herself, never said anything like that. Not even close. She never seemed to have a bad word to say about anyone. She seemed to love and respect everyone.

I have often said that most of the Evangelicals I have ever met (or even heard about) seemed to forget a couple of Jesus’ most important messages: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” or even that whole “Love your neighbor” thing. Tammy Fae, I guess, was actually all about that.

Somehow I missed some of her accomplishments. I missed it when, back in the 80s, she talked with a person dying of AIDS on her Christian show. (Keep in mind it was a HUGE taboo back then.) I missed it in 1996 when she hosted the “Jm J and Tammy Fae Show” with Jm J. Bullock (a - gasp - homosexual). I missed it when she told Larry King that she always admired the gay community. I missed it when she said that “God loves everyone.”

I am sorry, Tammy Fae.

I hope you rest in peace.

Thank you.

“Believe In A Kind, Loving God - Or We’ll Kill You”

That’s the message in a new Christian-themed video game. “Believe in a kind, loving God, or we’ll kill you.”

In the game Left Behind: Eternal Forces, your mission is to battle the anti-christ, and in order to do this you must build an army by converting others to Christianity, and killing the ones who either refuse to convert or get in your way. And because they’re trying to give you the message that killing human beings is wrong, you have to have your character pray or else you’re going to lose some game-points.

I have so many problems with this - I don’t know where to start.

For example - what message is this game sending to those who play it? (Like, it’s ok to kill humans in the name of Christ - all ya gotta do, man, is just say a little prayer and your murders are forgiven.) As a non-Christian, it scares me when I hear a message that promotes a “do anything it takes” to convert people to Christianity, especially if that includes murder.

Jeffrey S. Frichner, the president of Left Behind Games, claimed, “The game itself is just a great game. People of other faiths could play it and not know it’s Christian.” I just don’t see how this is possible when your main antagonist is the anti-christ and your mission is to convert people to Christianity. The game is chalk full of biblical references and vignettes, and can lead you to Christian message-boards. He, himself, even admits this is a lie by saying the game was designed to evangelize, “in a way which is very respectful, not Bible-thumping.” (Really? Respectful?)

There are many of us with problems with this game. In fact, some Christian groups have been trying to petition Wal-Mart, trying to get them to pull the game off their shelves, saying that the message of the game (either convert or kill non-Christians) gives totally the wrong message, especially on Christmas.

Especially on Christmas? (As opposed to any other day of the year?)

But … here’s my question. What if this game was designed by Muslims? Or, what if this game was designed by Atheists? Convert people to Muslim, and kill the ones you can’t convert. What would Christians think of the game then? (What would the Department of Homeland Security think of the game then?)

I don’t know - either way - doesn’t sound like a good idea.

Only In America

At first I thought they were kind of funny. Then I thought some film student just had too much time on their hands. But, then I thought … Maybe, just maybe … It’s a good example of social commentary. No. I am not talking about paparazzi videos of Britney Spears Crotch.

I’m talking about a few movie trailers on YouTube.

The “Scary Mary” trailer of Mary Poppins is one example. Take a few clips from the film, throw in some scary music - and the trailer makes the movie look more like The Exorcist or The Omen than The Sound of Music.

And then there’s the Harry Potter and the Closet of Secrets trailer … that makes Harry Potter look like good movie competition for Brokeback Mountain.

Or, how about the new Shining trailer … the one that makes Stanley Kubrick’s movie of Stephen King’s The Shining look like a heartwarming story of a boy in search of a father figure.

Yes - these kinds of things are kind of fun to watch. We all probably know that Mary Poppins isn’t a horror flick, Harry Potter is not a gay love story, and the Shining … well, that movie scared the crap out of me when I was a kid.

But, what if we had never even heard of those movies before? Would we want to see those movies after watching the (fake) trailers?

It just got me thinking about all the stuff we see on the evening news. There’s a myth or urban legend floating around that says the evening news is supposed to be unbiased and fair to both sides of a news story. Maybe when Barbara Walters was a budding journalist - that was the case, but that notion seemed to fly out the window a long time ago.

In fact, lately it seems like the evening news is nothing but opinion.

Case in point. Gwyneth Paltrow recently made a statement to some Portuguese newspaper - and before long, it was all over the American press how Gwyneth was Anti-American … how Gwyneth went on an America-Bashing spree. Whatever she said must have been real bad, to cause this much fury … right?

Finally I watch the news to learn that all Mrs. Paltrow said was that she preferred living overseas because the Brits tended to be a little smarter and more cultured. But, all the promos were promising me information on why Gwyneth hates America … why Gwyneth thinks Americans are stupid … why she dislikes the American culture so bad. But, she actually said nothing of the sort. Not at all.

I felt bad … mostly because I thought she had a good, valid point. America - the country that made Borat the Number One movie for how long now … the same country that gave us such memorable films as Talladega Nights or Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle … the same country that unleashed Beavis & Butthead into the world … and yes, the same country that went ballistic when the President got caught getting a blog job … that made such a big deal over Janet Jackson’s left tit and Britney Spears naked shaved crotch getting out of a limo … and …

So what if someone thinks America is dumb. I’m sorry - I love America - I love being an American - but we’ve done some pretty stupid things over the years, and American Culture … oh, don’t even let me go there.

Gwyneth, my friend (can I call you that?) … I totally understand and can relate with what you said. I’d live in Brittan too if I could … (and not just because I’m a sucker for a guy with an accent, either…)

All this just makes me wonder … why I even watch TV? I don’t believe the news is telling us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth … so … how the heck do we really know what’s going on in the world.

Un-American Arrogance In Biblical Porportions

On November 28, 2006, the American Family Association released an Action Alert urging the public to show their outrage that an elected official wants to take his oath of office on the Holy Book of his religion. Gasp! The Shock! The Horror!

The AFA quotes Dennis Prager:

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison’s favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath. 

This is not, nor has it ever been, about anybody’s “favorite book”. If I were elected to congress and wanted to hold my hand over a Harry Potter book or Eragon - I would understand if people started to look at me funny and start to complain. The placing of the hand over the Bible, or any other Holy Book is one thing - Harry Potter, quite another.

Belief in, or acceptance of, the Bible has never been a requirement to hold public office. If it were, Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the Founding Fathers would probably start to roll over in their graves. It’s un-American.

America was built on the concept of freedom - and one of those freedoms is the freedom of religion. I, as an American Citizen, am free to choose whatever religious beliefs I wish to follow. If I want to pick up a bible and head to church - I am free to do that. Or not - it’s ok. If I want to pick up the Koran and become Muslim - I have that right. If I want to become a zen Buddhist, or practice Judy-ism (the gospel according to Judy Tenuta)  … it’s all good.

But, if I want to force my religious beliefs on anyone, force them to use materials from my religion in their activities - that is Un-American!

America is not only interested in one book. We are interested in a lot of things. The Bible is ok. But Harry Potter is a better seller. I hear Stephen King has been selling a lot of books lately too. And just think how well a book of Britney Spears crotch shots would sell - it’d put Madonna’s Sex book to shame!

But, I’m getting away from myself here.

This reminds me of something quite similar. It’s the image of someone swearing on a Bible in a courtroom that the testimony they’re about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Sounds familiar, right?

When a Muslim is to testify, and they place their hands on a Koran - it’s apparently no big deal. When a child, who is too young to know what the Bible is or what it represents is to testify, he doesn’t put his hand on anything - the judge usually just asks them if they know the difference between the truth and a lie and then ask them to promise to tell the truth, and it isn’t a big deal. When an atheist testifies in court and dosen’t put his hand on a bible, it’s still no big deal.

How, exactly, is this any different than what’s going on here?

And how, exactly, is forcing elected officials to place their hands on the Bible (and not the Koran) not in direct violation of the Establishment Clause?

Censorship

Maybe this is old news - I don’t know. It was new to me. Over Thanksgiving, a friend showed this to me … so I thought I would pass it on to you.

I’ve never been a fan of censorship … especially in this day and age … so if you’re like me - maybe you’ll enjoy this.

Evangelicals v. Rev. Ted Haggard

At first, I wasn’t wanting to post on the Reverend Ted Haggard thing … what more is there to say? Rev. Ted Haggard went to see a gay male prostitute for a “massage”. He bought some methamphetamine while he was there. He got caught … oops. So now, he admits to buying drugs but he didn’t have sex with that guy.

Why does this ALMOST sound familiar? Oh, yeah … almost sounds like Bill Clinton. Smoked dope but didn’t inhale and oh, yeah, he didn’t have sex with that woman. Yep. Sounds close. But, no cigar.

What could I possibly add to this?

But, then this morning, I was watching the Sunday Morning News and they featured a major story on this guy. The news segment this morning told the story of how the Evangelical Minister had been forced to resign and lose his position at his Church. But then they continued to show the reaction of several members of his congregation who wanted to stand behind him (no puns, please) and support him through all this.

One gentleman even started talking about how a Church is more than just a building - it’s a “family” and “families” stick together in times of crisis.

My inner child really wanted to start throwing a temper tantrum. Throughout my entire life, I’ve heard (from Evangelicals, and to be fair, others too) about how doing drugs will mess up your life and make you go to Hell. But, at least through a lifetime membership in a 12-Step Program, you can be saved as long as you admit you’re powerless over drugs and make a decision to turn your life back over to God. But, if you’re gay … forget it. All bets are off. You’re a bad person. You will always be a bad person.

Heck - look at how Pat Robertson likes to blame the gays and lesbians for everything from 9/11 to Hurricane Katrina. Yeah, I know … a lot of evangelicals don’t support those views, and yet they keep supporting him. Go figure…

And you wonder why I don’t give my inner child his own blog?

After working hard to shut my inner child up - my inner adult wanted to throw his own two cents in.

Seeing those people rally behind Reverend Ted really got me thinking. Here’s a guy they all trusted. Here’s a guy they all turned to for advise on moral and ethical issues. Here’s a guy they accepted and welcomed with everything they had…

He goes out and buys Meth during a “massage” from a “gay escort” …

He says he didn’t engage in sexual relations, but I think that’s a bit hard to believe. If you want a legitimate massage, you go to a licenced and-or certified masseur … someone who has had training in massage. If you want to get your rocks off while you get touched, you call an escort. Normally, I would think everyone would know this, but…

Maybe those standing behind Haggard are starting to realize that homosexuality isn’t necessairily as evil as they previously thought, and maybe the evangelical paradigm is starting to shift … just a little.

Or, maybe not. We’ll see.

Religious Objections…

After a Minneapolis Bus Driver complained about a gay-themed advertisement on a bus she was driving, she asked to be allowed to drive another bus because the ad offended her religious values. The transit authorities considered this to be a reasonable accommodation to her religious beliefs.

I read about this story shortly after I read about the Minneapolis Cab Drivers who, because of their Muslim beliefs, were refusing to pick up passengers carrying alcohol.

And these aren’t the only examples of people who are supposed to deal with the public in general but refuse to do something because of their religious beliefs. From time to time we hear about others too: pharmacists who refuse to fill certain prescriptions because of religious objections (such as the birth control pill) … or, how about doctors who refuse medical treatments because of religious objections?

I just wonder if things are being pushed too far?

When it comes to the Minneapolis bus driver - according to the Amalgamated Transit Unit Local 1005 - bus drivers have never been excused from driving buses with ads that they object to for religious reasons, including political based messages and endorsements of political candidates.

So, then why start precedent with gay-themed ads?

Legally speaking, most businesses must accommodate its employees religious beliefs unless it brings undue business hardship. However, once you start drawing lines between what diverse groups of people find appropriate or inappropriate, someone is surely guaranteed to feel left uncomfortable or worse. By letting drivers refuse to drive buses with pro-gay ads on them, homosexual employees are left feeling uncomfortable and rejected. And yet, both religion and sexual orientation are supposedly protected by the company’s policies.

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that if you deal with the public, you may just have to interact with people you normally wouldn’t associate with or look at things you’d rather not see. If you do not like to deal with people who are different than you - then maybe getting a job in the public sector isn’t such a bright idea.  “The Public” is made up of a wide mixture of people from various political lines of thoughts to religions to sexual orientation to national origins to skin color … and if you would rather not deal with the public - it should be up to you to find a career or job more suited to you.

While this may be a minor blip on the radar - it concerns me because I wonder what could happen next?

When it comes to medical care, doctors take the Hippocratic Oath which states, amongst other things, that they heal their patients to the best of their ability and not deliberately cause anyone harm. When it comes to times of war, battlefield doctors (remember that old show, MASH?) tend to overlook who’se side of the conflict someone was fighting for - and they’re labelled heroes because they healed the sick, even if they were the enemy. But, when it comes to treating someone who has a disease like AIDS, can a doctor refuse treatment because he has a religious objection to the type of person she or he is healing?

I must have forgotten about that part of the Hippocratic Oath where it states it’s ok to refuse medical treatment to someone who needed it just because you disagree with his lifestyle, political views, or sexual orientation.

And in those cases of rape or incest where a woman may want to choose to terminate pregnancy? Or, in times when pregnancy endangers the life of the mother - how do you legislate the idea that one person’s life is worth more than anyone else’s? And why wouldn’t that be unethical?

Or, what if I turned it all around.

What if I refused you when you needed it because I had religious objections to your religious views?

Homosexuality and Pedophilia (And Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla)

It figures on the very day I post about Homosexuality and Pedophilia, A friend of mine alerts me to a news article about Mark Foley.

There are so many issues here, I don’t know where to start.

In the past 24 hours, there have been many news articles written about the Republican Congressman (Florida) Mark Foley. Many of those articles called Mark Foley a pedophile. He is not. But, I suppose to answer that question, one must look at the definition of Pedophilia.

Pedophilia has been defined by Law Enforcement as well as the Medical and Psychological field as a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. There is no cut off age for pedophilia interest, as puberty can hit different children at different ages. Having an attraction to young, post-pubescent children is what is called Ephebophilia. Pederasty is an ephebophiliac attraction to young males, while attraction to postpubscent females is referred to as the “Lolita Syndrome” - a reference to the 1962 Stanley Kubrick film Lolita based on the novel by Vladimir Nabokov.

Legally, psychologically, and mentally, there are more differences between pedophilia and ephebophilia than there are similarities. However, there are many people and groups out there trying to blur the lines between the two, usually stating something along the lines of “sexual attraction to children is sexual attraction to children and it is bad, no matter what you call it.”

Sexual orientation has nothing to do with either pedophilia or ephebophilia. So, then why is it that we are more outraged when Congressman Mark Foley sends inappropriate text messages to a sixteen year old boy than we were when Mary Kay Laterno gets pregnant by her teenage lover and student? What about Sandra “Beth” Geisel? In fact, there have been quite a few female teachers getting caught in inappropriate relationships with their male students since Laterno. In fact, it almost seems like the world loves Laterno - we can’t stop talking about her, and did you see that movie they did on Lifetime? Or, did you see the episode of Law and Order: SVU that was ripped out of the Laterno Headlines?

So, why does Laterno get celebrity status while Mark Foley gets labeled a dangerous pedophile?

Another issue that was raised in several of the articles I read about Mark Foley was on the Republican response to learning about Foley’s indiscretions. The

One of my biggest questions is this: What if Mark Foley was a Democrat and not a Republican? Would they have sat on their asses for awhile doing nothing until the story finally went public, or would they have been there starting another round of the war they raise with the Democrats? And dare I mention anything like “Family Values”?

Homosexuality and Pedophilia (and Child Predators)

One topic I am actually surprised I haven’t focused on (on this blog) yet is that of child predators. When NBC’s Dateline started doing it’s To Catch A Predator series, I started watching. Part of me was afraid that homosexuals were about to get a bad rap. I knew that all that was needed would be for one gay person to appear on the show and change the focus of everything. Before long, homosexuality and pedophilia would be, once again, linked. So far, thank Goodness, that hasn’t happened.

In fact, Dateline: To Catch A Predator has almost had the opposite effect. Through this show, we have seen how just about any kind of person can be a child predator. Those featured on the show have included military men, the average Joe next door, and even church leaders and other highly religious people.

One of the myths that have stuck around (even long after it has been debunked) is how homosexuals are pedophiles or child predators. Sure, such things do happen occasionally - however it is far from the norm. In fact, by far the greatest number of pedophiles are heterosexuals - or, at least people living in heterosexual relationships or at least reflecting the heterosexual lifestyle.

And yet, someone always manages to twist the facts to suit their own wants and needs. One recent example of this is from a group calling themselves Americans For Truth. They recently wrote an article about a recent episode of the Oprah Show that focused on pedophilia and child predators. The article starts out by saying:

One of the questions I have regarding any linkage between homosexuality and pedophilia is why such a disproportionate number of child molestation victims are boys—if (openly) homosexual men comprise such a small percentage of society? We doubt that Oprah Winfrey, who is very pro-”gay,” will pursue the answer to that question, but at least she is exposing the notorious group NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association), which once marched in homosexual “pride” parades in the early days of American “gay liberation.”

While Oprah may not pursue the answer to that question - let me address it now. There is no link between homosexuality and pedophilia. None. What-so-ever.

The writer of this highly prejudicial and misleading article fails to take a number of facts into consideration. For example, most of the convicted pedophiles and child predators are heterosexuals. Most are married, living the heterosexual lifestyle. Sure, occasionally one identifies himself as homosexual, but this is far from the norm.

Another way in which this article tries to mislead you is by throwing up the notorious group NAMBLA, and pointing out one aspect of gay history that we’re not very proud about. Because the article cannot say (and be truthful) that NAMBLA is a group of gay men (because supposedly most of its members are blatantly straight) they point out that in the early days of the gay rights movements, they were allowed to march in the Gay Pride Parades. What the article doesn’t say is that the gay community, in general, can’t stand NAMBLA or what they represent either. We’re just as repulsed by them as Americans For Truth is.

(And, since when does marching in a gay pride parade mean you’re a homosexual? Tell that to the countless politicians who march every year in local gay pride parades. Tell that to the members of PFLAG, a wonderful organizations for the Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. Tell that to … ok, you get the idea.)

The Americans For Truth article contains very little truth, and whatever truth it does contain is both prejudicial and misleading, like the Nambla statement. Even the headline isn’t true. “Oprah Exposes NAMBLA:Homosexual Pedophiles Online”… Oprah did no such thing. In fact, Oprah never even focused on homosexual pedophiles at all. The article also names Todd Calvin, NAMBLA member and convicted pedophile. It is presented in a way that makes you think the guy is gay - even though, on Oprah, we heard from his ex-wife, and the only suggestion of homosexuality is the fact that he was convicted of molesting a young boy.

I also think it is highly suspect in the way they single groups, such as NAMBLA, while ignoring other groups entirely. Why was there no mention in this article about all those Catholic Priests who molested young boys? (And why were those Catholic Priests not labeled homosexual and kicked from the Church, but rather often promoted or moved to different areas?) While it’s true that most “pedophilia groups” are not organized the way NAMBLA was, that doesn’t mean they do not exist. Many such groups do exist, nameless, recruiting through friends of friends - getting together to share ideas about how to seduce the innocent and not get caught.

The Oprah Show did expose a lot of topics that need a lot of focus and attention. Or, maybe what we need is another slight paradigm shift? The Internet has been, and is still, used for illegal purposes - and that does include child porn, that does include groups of pedophiles, and countless other illegal activities. I am not blaming the Internet, far from it. But, when we get onto the Internet, we need to be aware that such things do happen around here. More importantly, law enforcement needs to be aware of it.  (And, more and more every day, they are.)

Let He Who Is Without Sin … (Part Two)

I have recently gotten a few comments on one of my older posts - Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone - Unless The Bastards A Faggot … and I wanted to take a moment or two to respond.

One of the topics I want to comment on is whether or not being gay is a choice. Personally, I think the issue is a bit absurd. I mean … I can’t see why anybody with half a brain would think that being gay is a choice.

Think, for a second about the kind of people you’re attracted to. Are they tall or short? Are they fat or thin? Are they blond or brunette or redhead? Do they have long hair or short hair? Are they introverted or extroverted? Are they loud or quiet? Do they tend to like classical music or Top 40? Do they like action movies or romantic comedies? Do they dress in jeans and sweat shirts, or something more dressy? Are they street smart or book smart? Do they remind you of a parent or friend? Do they have tattoos or piercings or do those kinds of things turn you off?

Ok, so you got a mental image … right? Well, then let me ask you this: At what point did you sit down and consciously choose to be attracted to one type of person rather than some other? How long did you actually debate whether tall people are more attractive than short people (or vice vursa)? How old were you when you chose what kinds of people you like to be with? That sounds almost crazy, doesn’t it? … Or … did you just realize over time that you like what you like and have no idea why - not that it really matters much.

So - if you never sat down and made a choice about what you’re attracted to - why do you say that people who are attracted to their same gender choose that? Doesn’t make much sense.

If you’re heterosexual - when did you choose to be straight?

Alex - You are right. I am not a Christian. So I will not debate the bible with you. You can quote your bible at me, but it won’t do much good because I do not believe in what the Bible has to say. My religion teaches that homosexuality is not a sin. In my Church, they teach about respecting others, even if they have beliefs that are different than your own. Part of that respect means not passing judgement. Part of that respect is one not trying to force their beliefs on another. According to my religious teachings, you did cross that line (but I do forgive you) - with your entire comment. Had you said, “in order to be a good Christian, it is my opinion that you must live your life with these principles” - but in making it sound like in order to be a good person - you made it clear that you do not respect religious views that are different than yours. Please do not say you do.

I would also like to thank D-VO for his or her comments (and reaction to Alex).  I think they were very well said.

My Thoughts on Freedom of Religion

There has been a lot of blog talk lately about Freedom of Religion. The general consensus is that “Freedom of Religion” means that anyone can practice their religion any time and any place they choose. Unfortunately, I think the general consensus is … well, a little misguided.

Recently, I posted the antics of Tyler Harper. He’s a high school student who believes that his religious freedom was being infringed upon when he wore t-shirts with a blatant message slamming and condemning his fellow students. When school administration sat down with him to inform him that his t-shirts were inappropriate, and tried to counsel him into demonstrating in a more productive, less threatening way – Tyler Harper started screaming that his religious freedom was being violated.

In another, similar story – this week, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the claims of a cosmetology teacher who said her religious freedoms were being violated. Martha Piggee brought the suit when the school she had been working at failed to re-hire her. The main incident that led to the school’s decision involved a gay student named Jason Ruel. Piggee had placed several comic-book style religious pamphlets denouncing homosexuality into the student’s lab coat, urging him to talk with her about his sexuality and her belief in God. After Ruel complained to the school administration, they investigated, finding that Piggee’s actions violated the school’s policy for sexual harassment. The decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals said that they could “see no reason why a college or university cannot direct its instructors to keep personal discussions about sexual orientation or religion out of a cosmetology class or clinic.”

So, does this mean that “freedom of religion” can be used as an excuse for inappropriate schoolhouse bullying or sexual harassment?

The First Amendment to the US Constitution says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The first part of the First Amendment is what’s known as the Establishment Clause. It keeps the government from establishing a National religion. The second part is known as The Free Exercise Clause, and states that government can’t infringe on our rights to participate in whatever religion we choose to. While the Establishment Clause is absolute, the Free Exercise Clause often faces state restrictions.

Over the years, the courts have faced the issues of what happens when local laws come into conflict with religious beliefs or practices. Examples have included Native American religious rituals involving the use of Peyote (a controlled substance) … Bigamy in the Mormon Church … even Jehovah’s Witnesses have been the focus many times. The result has been limitations placed upon the Free Exercise Clause.

For me, the issue is as much a moral one as a legal one. If one person’s religious beliefs infringe upon the rights of another individual (or group of individuals) something is wrong.

Would we get a better perspective if we, temporarily, took religion out of the picture for a minute. Let’s say that someone was sexually harassing another person. Is there any reason that would be considered ok? Then, why should we believe, as Mrs. Piggee does, that it’s ok if done in the name of religion.

Or, let’s say that someone is bullying someone. Is there any reasons that would be ok? Then, why should we believe, as Mr. Harper does, that it’s ok if done in the name of religion.

Is it ok to kill another human being? What if that was being done in the name of religion? Most religions have a long history of doing just that. Even Christianity.

The Time To Speak?

One of my new on-line acquaintances, David Shelton, recently posted in his blog about one of the candidates running for Mayor of his home-town of Clarkesville, TN. One of the candidates had, earlier this year, written a letter to The Leaf-Chronicle (the city’s newspaper) criticizing them for writing an article about this year’s gay pride parade, and asking them to not “give impression gay lifestyle is healthy” [sic].

Like David, I am also saddened every time this rhetoric is hurled from the pulpits, every time the Bible is used to justify bigotry or condemn anyone who might share different social values. But, we have to remember that this is nothing new - just look throughout history over the past couple thousand years and you’ll see examples that will make your head spin. The Bible has been used as justification for genocide - just look at the history of the Crusades - anyone of non-christian faiths (like the Muslims, Pagans, etc…) were slaughtered; even Christian Sects like the Cathers were pretty much wiped out, all justified by what was written in the bible. The Cathars were, obviously, an important part of history - a portion of history that will forever be lost because … well, there ain’t none left to tell their side of the story.

Throughout history, the bible was used to justify slavery. The bible was used to justify the oppression of women, even today, remnants of this can still be seen. How many times have we heard that women can’t do something because of Eve’s involvement during the events in the Garden of Eden.

Even in the modern day, the Bible has been used to justify everything from hate groups (like the Klu Klux Klan) - Timothy McVeigh used the bible to justify his actions in blowing up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City - or, how about how the bible has been used to justify the murder of abortion doctors or the bombing of clinics where abortions take place.

I do not want this post to sound like I am anti-Christian, although I know that a lot of people will think that. I am not attacking Christianity, but rather the actions of certain (but not all) Christians.

I firmly believe that one of the great things about living in America is that we have a right to voice our opinions, as long as it is done in an appropriate manner. I do not fault Clarksville Mayoral Candidate Mark Hiehle for voicing his opinion. Even though I do not agree with his opinion, I’m glad he was able to voice it.

But … where are the voices that oppose that line of thought? How many letters were sent to the editors of the Leaf-Chronicle praising them for the story they wrote about their gay pride parade? Where are the voices that say there is nothing wrong with the gay lifestyle? Where are the voices that say it might be a sin according to your religious beliefs, but not to mine?

Why haven’t we heard more from these people?

Or, how about those out there who don’t support gay rights, but don’t believe in condemning it either? Where are those voices?  And where are the voices reminding us of passages such as Matthew 7:1? (Judge not lest ye be judged.) Or, how about John 8:7? (So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.)

I, for one, would like to hear more of those voices…

What Are We Teaching Kids?

I’ve been hearing a lot lately about the attack on free speech coming out of California. Recently, the California Supreme Court refused to hear a case involving a high school student named Tyler Harper. There has been so much talk about this issue - it’s actually kinda hard to tell what’s really going on.

If you listen to most of the blog posts I’ve read on the subject so far, you’ll think this is a case of Christianity coming under fire by the United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit. Or, maybe you’ll think it’s about Christianity and homosexuality. I’ve heard about how the constitutional right to free speech doesn’t hold anymore if you’re a Christian.

They want to make this an issue about morals and principles - and in a way I agree with that. I just don’t think it’s about the same morals and principles.

Tyler Harper attends Poway High School in Southwest California. The school itself is no stranger to controversies. In 2003, the Gay-Straight Alliance held what they called A Day Of Silence, intended to teach the students tolerance of others, especially on the basis on sexual orientation. The day saw several altercations between students resulting in several suspensions. Then, a group of students decided to hold a Straight Pride Day, in which several students wore anti-gay T-shirts which led to more incidents and a few more suspensions.

The following year, 2004, the Gay-Straight Alliance petitioned the school to hold another Day of Silence, but before they could do so, the group had to sit down with the principle in order to “problem solve” ways to prevent altercations and reduce the tensions felt the previous year.

On the April 24, 2004 Day Of Silence, student Tyler Harper wore a T-shirt saying “I WILL NOT ACCEPT WHAT GOD HAS CONDEMNED” on the front, and “HOMOSEXUALITY IS SHAMEFUL, ROMANS1:27” on the back. The following day, he wore the same t-shirt, except the message on the front of the shirt had changed to, “BE ASHAMED, OUR SCHOOL EMBRACED WHAT GOD HAS CONDEMNED”. (The message on the back remained the same.)

A Teacher saw this shirt and overheard several students talking about it. Remembering the altercations from the year before and explained to Harper he thought it was “inflammatory” and that it violated the school’s dress code. Harper was directed to the principles office, who asked him to remove the shirt because he also found it violated the school’s dress code. The principle explained that it wasn’t because of his views on homosexuality, but because it “created a negative and hostile working environment for others”, and that there were less threatening ways to get his message across, even coming up with some different ideas. All of which Harper turned down, asking to be suspended from school.

Harper spent the rest of the day in the school conference room, but was later visited by a Deputy Sheriff, Hubert, who acted as the School’s Resource Officer. He was at the school that day because the principle asked him to come in for the day after someone claiming to be a parent called the school, stating complaining about the school’s condoning of homosexuality and threatening that they “would be doing something about it.” Hubert sat down with Harper trying to understand the situation, the two discussing their viewpoints on homosexuality, religion, and the Bible. Harper contends this amounted to him being interrogated.

The Assistant Principle, Giles, also sat down with Harper. The two attended the same Church, and shared the same faith and beliefs about homosexuality. Giles expressed he knew where Harper was coming from, but wished that he could express himself in a more positive way, urging him to organize something with the school’s Bible Club.

On June 2, 2004, Harper filed a lawsuit in district court alleging five causes of action - violating his freedom of speech, violating his right to free exercise of religion, violating the Establishment Clause, violating the Equal Protection Clause, and violating the Due Process Clause. On June 22, 2004, the school filed a motion to dismiss the charges, and on July 12, Harper filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to stop the school from violating his constitutional rights.

On November 4, 2004, the courts granted the school’s motion to dismiss the equal protection and due process claims and denied the motion for the first amendment claims (free speech, free exercise of religion, and establishment of religion). The court also denied the preliminary injunction. Harper then filed in the appellate courts.

Last week, the Appellate Courts declined to hear the case.

After reading the history of the case, it becomes clear this isn’t really an issue of Christianity v. Homosexuality - as a lot of people are claiming. Many of those involved in the story shared Harper’s views on homosexuality and religion, expressing concern that Harper’s T-shirt had gone too far. Harper’s failure to even consider alternatives (as well as Harper’s asking to be suspended because of this) made it clear to me he was out more for the political statement than the religious values he says he’s for.

In my opinion, it’s more of a moral outrage to create a hostile environment for other people - which appears to be Harper’s main plan of attack.

Is this what we are teaching our kids? If you don’t like someone, or if you don’t like a group of people - it’s ok to degrade them, belittle them, and create a hostile environment for them? If you don’t agree with someone’s religious beliefs or political views, it’s ok to harass them?

Sorry … but I don’t think so.