Saturday, July 21, 2007

Protestors for more "family values" arrested from the senate floor

Recently, I was once again made aware by the "family values" types that our founding fathers were all Christians, and that they had every intention of founding this country based completely on Christianity. Really? Let's check this out.

This recently came back into my thoughts as a result of three arrests made on the congress floor during a prayer offered by a Hindu priest. Here is the full article with video:

http://wizbangblue.com/2007/07/13/christian-extremists-act-out-in-senate-chambers.php

Oddly enough, I had spoken to the man in the group on an online forum that I have frequented for years, and way back when I was a fundamentalist on the
Charisma Magazine message boards. He was always very extreme in his beliefs, and heavily emphasized the King James version of the bible as the ONLY "real" translation. So it was no real surprise to me that he and his wife, along with their adult daughter, were arrested for disrupting the floor.

What really got me was the following statement by a Christian press:

WASHINGTON, July 12 /Christian Newswire/ -- Ante Pavkovic, Kathy Pavkovic, and Kristen Sugar were all arrested in the chambers of the United States Senate as that chamber was violated by a false Hindu god. The Senate was opened with a Hindu prayer placing the false god of Hinduism on a level playing field with the One True God, Jesus Christ. This would never have been allowed by our Founding Fathers.

"Not one Senator had the backbone to stand as our Founding Fathers stood. They stood on the Gospel of Jesus Christ! There were three in the audience with the courage to stand and proclaim, 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me.' They were immediately removed from the chambers, arrested, and are in jail now. God bless those who stand for Jesus as we know that He stands for them." Rev. Flip Benham, Director, Operation Save America/Operation Rescue


So, according to the above quote, our founding fathers would have "stood on the gospel of Jesus Christ" and never allowed someone of another faith to pray on the senate floor. Another quote:

Thursday's Hindu prayer was a major departure from the "thoughts and plans" of America's founding fathers. "We sing the song My Country 'tis of Thee, [saying] 'to Thee we sing.' The faith of our fathers, is being left behind," he contends, "and we're opening up to a bunch of religious ideologies and groups that were not part of our founding documents, were not part of our heritage."

Bynum says the farther America gets away from the faith of its founding fathers, the more troubled and confused the country will become. "The big deal is that up until just a few years ago, our Christian heritage has been respected as a nation," he notes. "Our Judeo-Christian documents -- the Old and the New Testaments -- have been the foundation of our law."


According to both of these quotes, our founding fathers (those men who assisted in founding the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and many of whom became presidents themselves) were all Christians who believed that only the Christian God should be allowed into the halls of government. But - well, where did that whole "separation of church and state" thing come from? Is it mistranslated? Does it mean simply that the government can't persecute Christians? Or does it mean, as I have been made to understand, that it goes both ways? Not only can the government not force people to believe what it wants, but the church can also not take over and run the government.

But hey, I might be wrong. So, I have studied quotes directly from our country's founding fathers. I'll only place a couple here, though you can look huge amounts of them up for yourselves.

Let's start with Thomas Jefferson. I'd say he was certainly amongst the founding fathers, and also became one of our country's presidents. What did he think about the whole church/state issue?

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for is faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."


What? He did mention separation of church and state? He wanted NO law to be made respecting ANY religion, or prohibiting the exercize of ANY religion? In fact, he went so far as to say that a proverbial WALL should be separating church and matters of state.

That's not what the Family Values folks would like for us to think. Oh, and by the way, Jefferson was a registered Episcopalian, but he was also a Deist - look it up. So was Ben Franklin.

So we have at least one of our founding fathers who apparently did NOT subscribe to the idea that ONLY fundamentalist christianity is allowable or acceptable in government.

When presented with the above, a Family Values type might say, "But the founders only meant that no DENOMINATION of Christianity should be put above another, but they still meant our country and government to be Christian."

Really? Let's take a look:

"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform" (James Madison, Annals of Congress, 1789).


Did he say Christian? NO - he said that Congress should not establish a religion. Period.

Madison even became angry when a chaplain was assigned to Congress (a chaplain from the "majority" regarding Christian belief):

"The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority shut the door of worship against the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain! To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor. " (Memorial and Remonstrance)


To put it simply, he was angry that they would assign a chaplain to Congress at all - because though that chaplain might represent the "majority" of people in congress, he did not represent the religious minorities, which would give the majority more clout to lord it over the smaller groups. He said it was a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles. He called it evil. He said that this act itself would "lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity..."

Pretty strong language for someone who supposedly wanted this nation to be ruled by a Theocratic government.

There are myriads of quotes from our Founding Fathers that directly come against the Family Values folks of today and their insistence that this nation was supposed to be governed by Christian rules and principles. Google them - you'll be enlightened.

In the meantime, if any of you folks happen to read this and believe what those protesters did was right, and was the way our founding fathers would have it, let me ask you this.

What particular denomination of Christianity should Congress follow if it is going to be ruled on Christian principles? Catholicism? "Oh dear God NO!" say the Baptists, who think those Catholics are idolaters. How about Mormonism? "No again! They're a cult!" say several hundred other denominations. Methodists? Too liberal! Baptists? Too conservative! Since there are well over 500 denominations of Christianity out there, this could go on forever.

Before you consider a theocracy rather than the Republic/Democracy we have today (or at least had before the Family Values/Moral Majority groups got ahold of it), consider - do you REALLY want to have a majority denomination of Christianity setting the rules and standards for you and your church? Do you want their beliefs forced upon you and your children because Congress deems it correct to "found our nation on Christian principles," and therefore picks the dominant Christian denomination to rule?

If you're really thinking, you'll be terrified by the prospect. Good grief, what if Pat Robertson got to call the shots? We'd have blown up half of the rest of the world by now, and would not provide relief for any natural disasters because "well, they deserved it - it was God's punishment because of their sin."

Any THINKING Christian would be absolutely mortified by the thought of having a dominant religious body - even a Christian one - in control. That's what most of the immigrants to the New World were trying to get AWAY from, if you'll recall. Much better to be allowed to worship as you please, in whatever way you please, without government interference, I would think.

In fact, it is more of a concern, as Madison felt as well, that anyone at ALL prays to open Congress. Government practices should be free of religious trappings of any kind, lest the sect with the majority will gain control. NO religion or denomination should be pandered to. To be truly politically correct, not one single meeting of the government should have a prayer on the agenda. Not one single branch of government should be displaying religious sayings (such as the 10 commandments) on their walls. That is the ONLY way to make sure that each of us is truly able to worship (or not worship) in any way we choose.

Religion in government is a BAD IDEA. If you're still not sure of that, check out the history of any government ruled by a particular religious sect - see the kinds of atrocities performed in the name of whatever god rules that neck of the woods. It ain't pretty.

I haven't posted a blog in awhile. Seems that life, and work,

I haven't posted a blog in awhile. Seems that life, and work, and artwork have gotten in the way. I'll try to do something about that, as exposing the "family values" ilk for what it is - well, it's important.

Side comment, before the "real" post though. Tammy Faye Messner (formerly Bakker of the PTL/Jim Bakker debacle in the 80s) died a few hours ago. Of all the televangelists (or former ones), she was probably the only one I ever saw a genuineness of love in. She loved and did not judge. The woman, in the last ten years of speaking engagements, never once told the homosexual community anything but that God loved them. Period. Never spouted how they were sinners in the hands of an angry God, or that they should change or face hell fire. She just loved them.

I recently saw her on Larry King Live. She looked terrible (and I'm not talking about make-up). She was down to sixty-five pounds, and one could tell that she was in visible pain. Yet she kept her sense of humor and her love for people. If there is a heaven, I'm pretty sure she's there. She'll be the greeter, one can be certain.

Rest in peace, Tammy Faye.

Saturday, March 24, 2007

What I learned at the Southwest Believer's Convention

I've been pondering for some years. This is a very dangerous thing, because when I ponder, my mind goes down little rabbit trails, and I often end up really, really angry. This time I decided to share my madness with a few other people besides my longsuffering former husband; I'm sure he'll thank you later. I began my pondering several years ago while reading my Bible. I was once a very conservative Christian fundamentalist. I got over it, so now I'm a church dropout. I'm fine with God, but the rest? Not so much. That was a rabbit trail. Back to topic: I was reading a scripture that told me how I needed to store up my treasure in heaven, and not on this earth, and that God would take care of my needs (my simplistic paraphrase of Matthew 6:19-21).

I began thinking about some of the messages being preached from many of our pulpits – especially the television ones, but some not-so-famous ones as well. I pondered the myriads of preachers I had heard telling me that if I gave into their ministry, I would reap a 100-fold return. I just had to "buh-LIEVE!" I think to myself, well, that's a bit self-serving, don't you think? I've heard many ministers saying, "If your bank account doesn't have enough to meet the need, then it's a SEED, so plant it into this ministry and reap your return," as if God was some heavenly bank manager.

Then I asked myself the tough question: If those ministers believe what they are telling us to believe, that they can get a 100-fold return for their giving, then why are they not giving all they have to some other worthy ministry "in faith believing" that they will reap that return? If they did that, they would never need a praise-a-thon to raise money to keep that ministry (not to mention their Mercedes, mansions in gated communities, and private jets) up and running. So, if Christian program networks such as Trinity Broadcasting Network, and all of their prosperity doctrine ministers really believe it, let them put their money where their mouths are, and plant that seed!

Otherwise, all their talk is just another large pile of bovine fecal matter.

There. I feel better.

No, wait; I don't quite feel better yet.

We were wrapped up in that stuff for years - from the time my husband and I married at age 20, until the time several years ago when we said to one another, "Wait a minute - where did he get that from in the Bible?" we were wrapped up in it. We were self-professed "Word of Faith-ites." We went to a hard-line fundamentalist prosperity doctrine-type church. We ate, slept, read, and regurgitated fundamentalism, Family Values, Word of Faith, and prosperity doctrine. We were ministers. We taught it.

Then, when the dam started to break for us, we were at a the Southwest Believer's Convention in Texas. That's Kenneth Copeland's biggest convention, if you're not "in the know." All his buddies are there, like Jesse DuPlantis, Jerry Savelle, Creflo Dollar, and that year, it was also Oral and Richard Roberts, Kenneth Hagin, etc. - some kind of "honor the great Dr. Roberts" thing.

I do not regret going, because I believe that the real God – one not manufactured by politicos and preachers - used that convention to teach me something about what was really coming from those microphones. Here are some of the things I was taught by the ministers and practices there:

1. If you are still sick or disabled (or struggling financially, or gay), you are either still in some kind of hidden sin, or your faith is just not big enough yet.

2. If you don't give your money (in every meeting, even though there are three meetings a day for a week), a large usher will look at you down his nose and pause the white cardboard bucket under your chin just a little longer. You will also not get your 100-fold return, you selfish, faithless slacker.

3. When you're standing in line waiting for the doors to open on the arena, be prepared to run; otherwise, you will be run OVER by the people who want to get as close to the "anointed ones" as possible. Never mind that this stampede behavior might be rude, and sometimes actually hurts (I literally had bruises on my arms); all's fair to make it to the good seats. Ah, such Christian love.

4. If you miss a meeting to stay at the hotel and swim, take a break, get your own quiet time - you are not as holy as the others are, and later will be told by others that you missed the most "anointed" of all the lessons.

5. If you run down and throw your money (literally, this happened) at Jesse DuPlantis' feet because another minister wanted to bless him, you will be blessed. If you don't run down there and throw your money at his feet, you will, in effect, NOT be blessed.

6. When you leave the giant coliseum in 7000-person droves and spread into downtown looking for lunch, give any homeless people a very wide berth and try not to look at them. If you look at them, they exist, and they might actually notice you looking at them and then you might be obligated to do or say something.

This really took place, if you were wondering. We poured out of that place to rush and get lunch so we could be back to see another prosperity minister - whose last name (Dollar) is appropriately akin to the money being bilked from the masses - and headed downtown. We were with a small group of people from our church, including the pastor. I saw ahead what looked like a swarm of bodies all pressing against the building wall to avoid something - you could actually SEE the tide of people moving over.

Getting closer, I noticed why. They were getting as far away from a homeless man as they could. I began to move with them - after all, I wasn't a spiritual giant - I was still young, and was with people I thought were much more spiritual than me. My pastor even moved over to the wall and looked straight ahead. I know, because I admired the man, and watched to see what he would do. I did the same as he; and paid the price in heavy constrictions somewhere in my heart and stomach area.

Then I remembered - The Gospels, which said that when we helped someone in need, we were helping God. I had passed up an opportunity to just love on someone, and had just spent my last penny on a meal that wasn't even worth eating while that guy outside had nothing.

On the way back, there he was again, and there all those people were again avoiding him. I looked more closely at him. He had scraggly hair, and was carrying a tattered wool blanket over his shoulder (in August, in Texas); it was all he owned. I looked down - he had no shoes, and his toes had blackened and rotting off. I made eye contact. I didn't have anything to give, but just smiled weakly and said "Hello, sir." He grinned and tears welled up in his eyes, and he said, "Thanks for noticing me."

I didn't tell anyone else about the exchange, as they were busy not looking, and I didn't want to rock the boat with these people I considered ever so much more spiritual than me. But I have never been the same since. My husband and I began to see the outright arrogance and selfishness of what we were involved in. The harassment for "mo money, mo money" - the sermons that said "You should be rich; you should drive a Mercedes; if you're not prosperous, there's something wrong with you. If you're not like US there is something wrong with you."

All around us people die in poverty. And they see the gaudy gold cherubs on the sets of Christian television where many of these "family values" are being preached, and they see the evident riches in the diamond rings of the people who preach with their Nehru suit collars, and they say to themselves, "What's wrong with me? Why am I being punished? Why are my children hungry, Lord? Is my faith not big enough? I sent all I had to that preacher; I really believed I'd receive the return on my investment just like he said. But my cupboards are still empty, and my children are still sick, and I still can't pay for my junker of a car to get fixed. I just must not be good enough for God."

I cringe every time I hear the head glitzy-guy, Paul Crouch of TBN, arguably the most popular Christian television network since Jim Bakker's PTL club folded, saying they have yet another satellite connection in a third world country. Why? Because I don't want poverty-stricken people to see the excess and say, "That God is a God for the rich, not for me."

I thank whomever God might be every day that my eyes were opened, and my husband and I saw what was really going on, and we got out.

I'm still not finished. My pondering seems to be heading down slope and picking up speed fast. One more thing (if I can stop at one more):

I am sick to death of underhanded threats of "touch not God's anointed," and "better be careful when you mock men of God." I've even heard some of these big ministers (all of them, but Joyce Meyer said it in a meeting I was at personally) say that when someone spoke out against a big-name minister, they got cancer, or died a horrible death shortly afterward.

That is nothing but spiritual abuse and strong-arm tactics, and instilling fear into the hearts of people so they won't question your methods or your biblical soundness. Convenient, isn't it? Bordering on...dare I say it? Cult-like.

I have seen it done over and over and over again by people who do not want to be questioned - so, rather than responding to questions with "Biblically sound" answers, they cryptically throw out scare tactics and veiled threats about how if someone speaks against their sermons, they will be cursed by God.

Quote from Kenneth Copeland:
There are people attempting to sit in judgement right today over the ministry that I am responsible for, and the ministry that Kenneth E. Hagin is responsible for. ... Several people that I know of called that faith bunch out of Tulsa a cult, And some of them are dead right today in an early grave because of it, and there's more than one of them got cancer.


Well, I've found that I can speak out against ungodly things, and guess what? I'm not dead yet. And until I do die, I will speak out against charlatans and money-hungry ministers of the prosperity gospel, and strong-arm spiritual abuse. I will also pray for those ministers who are preaching this garbage; I will pray that they will be exposed for the frauds they are.

I pray for the people who have been inexorably harmed by the psychological manipulation of these high-pressure sales pitches from the pulpit. I have worked in a counseling capacity, and you would not believe the people who come to me simply because they have been harmed by these so-called "men of God." My husband and I were harmed as well, to the point that my husband was suicidal for self-condemnation. That, again, is another story, which you can see in the first post on this blog.

So, before my pondering comes to a stop, a message to all of you well-meaning folks out there who feel they need to warn me about what horrible curse may befall me for speaking out against false doctrines and false preachers: Save your breath. I don't buy it.

Monday, March 12, 2007

What are Family Values, really?

I've found it very interesting recently to see which people the religious right "Family Values" folks are going to support for the Republican nominee for president. They seem to be having a rough time lately, though it is becoming apparent that when the rubber meets the road, money talks. Wayne Besen, in his daily commentary, brings a lot of these discrepancies to light. I'll make a few quotes, but I encourage you to read the entire article at http://www.waynebesen.com/2007/03/panderers-and-philanderers.html

Of particular interest were comments regarding Mitt Romney's seeming increase in popularity with certain religious right organizations, though there had been widespread skepticism of his LDS faith, and his history of waffling on issues to please the group he is speaking to:

According to an article in Sunday's New York Times, the ultra-wealthy Romney is desperately funneling cash to right wing organizations and literally banking on their support.

The Times revealed that a foundation of Romney's recently made $10,000-$15,000 contributions to the anti-abortion Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Massachusetts Citizens for Limited Taxation and the Massachusetts Family Institute. Moneybags Mitt also funneled $10,000 to a non-profit organization tied to the National Review magazine; he slipped $35,000 to the Federalist Society; and pumped $25,000 into the coffers of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.


Watching the jockeying for position in the early political debates has gotten me thinking about what exactly Family Values stands for. So, like many internet searchers, I turned to Wickipedia. It states:

Since 1980, the Republican party has used the issue of family values to attract socially conservative voters. While family values remains a rather vague concept, social conservatives usually understand the term to include some combination of the following principles (also referenced in the 2004 Republican Party platform):

Opposition to homosexual marriage
Support for traditional education and parental involvement in that education
Support for policies that encourage "adoption over abortion"
Support for behavior identified as traditional or moral such as respect, discipline, attentiveness, religious commitment
Support for healthy choices such as a nutritious diet, medical screenings, and physical activity
Support for health education, including abstinence, on the risks associated with early sexual activity such as teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases
Support for policies that protect children from obscenity and exploitation


I've read many articles on this term - seems that the term was popularized in a speech by Dan Quale, who said that pop culture contributed to our nation's "poverty of values", and that "it doesn't help matters when primetime TV has Murphy Brown—a character who supposedly epitomizes today's intelligent, highly paid, professional woman—mocking the importance of fathers, by bearing a child alone, and calling it just another 'lifestyle choice'".

Those of us who remember that infamous line also know that it drew huge amounts of ridicule and was probably one of the main reasons Mr. Quale didn't do so well in his presidential bid. But apparently, though there was a firestorm of negative publicity, people on the right grabbed hold. The "Family Values" campaign was born. Seems an awfully shaky beginning, doesn't it?

Unfortunately, it gained in popularity and is still a catch-phrase for right wing proponents everywhere, especially those in the fundamentalist religious communities. "Don't allow gay marriage, because it will cause a decline in family values."

"Don't teach sex education to our children in schools, only abstinence, or our nation's family values will decrease even further."

It is a common fear tactic. Proponents of that phrase, "family values" are quick to let people know that if they are different from THEIR definition of what that means, they are, essentially NOT families with values at all. They frighten uneducated fundamentalists with the idea that if they support a political candidate that, say, supports gay marriage, or stem cell research, or any other liberal cause, they are supporting the decay of our society. That all good Christian men and women, and their children, will suffer from that decay unless they vote the conservative route.

Some people (perhaps who haven't been paying enough attention) may wonder why I'm linking the GOP and their "Family Values" doublespeak to religious fundamentalism. The answer is that, for all intents and purposes, they seem to have melded into one and the same group. Statistics show that nearly 2/3 of weekly churchgoers vote Republican, while 2/3 of non-attenders tend to vote Democratic. Of those churchgoers who vote Republican, most identify with conservative/fundamentalist denominations. So it appears that, at least to Fundamentalist Christians, the Republican party is "God's Party." And the politicians are eating it up and regurgitating it with their own spin.

See, the problem is not in supporting what one might construe as REAL family values - there is nothing wrong with giving support to families, assisting them in staying together, or in supporting their children, or in striving to live good, honest lives. The problem is in the rhetoric: "Are you for or against a two-parent family?" "Are you for or against allowing gays to marry, which goes against the traditional family?" This verbiage will always strive to put anyone critical of the message - or with a differing view of what constitutes a "family" in the anti-family corner.

James Dobson, fundemantalist leader of Focus on the Family, which has its main base in Colorado Springs, is one such spin doctor. His very website title - "Focus on the Family" - villifies any family which is not set up under Dobson's "godly" structure - that of a husband, wife, and two-point-four children. Any other family structure, no matter what THEIR values, is considered "sinful" by Dobson's definition.

So what are "Family Values?" Seems to me, they would be helping men, women, and children, no matter who they are, or what orientations, or what family structure and make-up - to succeed.

Monday, February 26, 2007

Another "Family Value" - equating Homosexuality with Pedophelia

A little background: At one time my former husband and I were very active in a fundamentalist church. I was the music minister. We were the youth ministers. He was a deacon and often preached in the pastor's stead. I taught adult Sunday School; the pastor was in my class. My husband taught Wednesday night bible study - the pastor was in HIS class. The pastor and his wife became our friends, and we shared with them our pasts. My husband was encouraged to "give his testimony" before the church. After all, we were speaking from the ruse that my husband had been "healed" of his homosexuality. He struggled daily with "temptation," but he was told he must put it aside, as if it were the Apostle Paul's "thorn in the flesh."

My husband was reluctant. After all, he remembered being a teenager, in the closet with his family but "out" while staying with friends in California. He saw the "Turn or Burn" signs, and "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." Sometimes he even saw "God Hates Fags" placards. So it was not without trepidation that he finally agreed to tell the congregation of his history. This was our family. These were our friends. This was our life. We were enmeshed.

He did, though. He told them of his attractions for men from a young age. He told them of his fear of being found out, of his marriage to me based in that fear, of his growing love for me, and of his "healing" - which hadn't happened, but it looked good at the time. He had tears in his eyes numerous times during that talk. The congregation was enrapt. Afterward, there were many hugs for both of us, many people thanking him. And then there were the others. We heard whispers... "should he really be working with the youth?" Eventually, the whispers grew to more discontented rumors - that perhaps someone with that kind of past might "rub off" on a teenage boy. Or that one of them might even be molested. After all, maybe he wasn't healed, and everybody knows that homosexuals must be pedophiles, too, right?

We eventually left amidst the whispers. I stopped singing. He stopped preaching. We started studying, and came out of all of that fear-filled dogma as my husband, with my blessing, began the long journey of coming out of the closet and accepting his orientation. Sometimes, we would be in the grocery store and one of the congregants we knew had been whispering would see us, and turn his or her cart around to go the other way. Sometimes people would say an awkward hello. But always there was that look in their eyes... 'what if he molests someone'?

In the fundamentalist church (many denominations fit this group, but let's just say they are the churches that believe in the "literal" view of the Bible), there is a teaching - it is evil and insidious and has no basis whatsoever in fact. That a homosexual is also a pedophile. Or, that if homosexuality is accepted as a social norm, then pedophelia might also be accepted, or bestiality, or some other such "aberration."

I see people doing this all the time - especially those right wing bastions who are fighting to keep gay marriage from being made legal. I see it on Internet discussion forums where people steeped in ignorance parrot the pundits and the pastors and never study it for themselves. On one such forum I became incensed and had to respond to the ugliness - I was banned from posting there again. See, it was a "word of faith/charismatic" forum and they were apparently afraid of what I had to say. An exerpt:

I have spent years researching molesters - pedophiles. They are not "born that way." In research and profiling of pedophiles, we see one criteria that is common in nearly 100% - a pedophile was molested in some way him or herself. Does that make what they do right? Absolutely not. These people need serious therapy.

Also, the vast majority of pedophiles, even many of those men who molest boys, identify themselves with being heterosexual in their orientation.

To equate a homosexual with a pedophile is gay-bashing, and if you want to call me a heretic and toss me out of your forum to say so, well so be it. Whether or not you think homosexuality is a sin, there is no excuse for comparing those in the homosexual community to pedophiles whatsoever. To do that, and THEN to get angry when someone compares the homosexual person who has been persecuted to another race that has been persecuted - that smacks of pure hypocrisy.

The fact is, persecution of any person due to their beliefs, color, or sexual orientation is wrong. Disagree with their lives if you will - call it sin if you will - but don't condone the persecution, and don't equate them with criminals who have mental disorders (i.e., pedophiles).



Yep - they banned me. Interesting, that. But not surprising. The whole "Family Values" campaign is based in fear. Make people fearful of the homosexual man or woman, and you control their votes based in their fear. Make them think that if they allow equal rights for GLBT people, their children will not be safe. Hell, make 'em think even their farm animals might not be safe! It's the same strategy that was used against the Jews during WWII, and the same used against people of African Descent during the Civil Rights movement. If they dehumanize those they hate, they can somehow justify their bigotry.

I asked a friend in disbelief once about how hate-filled some of thise vitriol could be. She replied,
They fear, they promote more fear, and they hide in their fundamentalist "family values" bunkers, trying to shield themselves from any truth that might penetrate their prejudices.


There are many, many men out there that molest young girls. And some women who molest young boys. I suppose then, in the logic of the Family Values folks, that must mean that heterosexuality is a dangerous trend! After all, there is a far greater percentage of pedophiles who identify as heterosexual than those who identify as homosexual. To the person reading this who might believe that homosexuals might also be pedophiles...Get your facts straight. Most men who molest boys identify as heterosexual. If there are a few men in the homosexual population that are molesters as well, that does not incriminate the entire population. To even suggest such a thing is ignorance of the science and the psychology - and the RESEARCH - that is out there.

Some of these same people will try to convince their congregations by saying that most homosexual men were introduced to their homosexuality through the "gateway of pedophelia." Again, that is nothing but pretzel logic, or as an old friend of mine once said, nothing but a big pile of bovine fecal matter. If that were the case, then all men who were molested by men as children would be gay in adulthood, and this is simply not true. Most men who were molested as children (studies put them at about 90 to 94%) identify in adulthood as heterosexual.

In all my research on homosexuality and lesbianism (which has eventually led me to believe that homosexuality CANNOT be helped, and CANNOT be a criteria for being excluded from the love and salvation of God), I have learned a few things.

One, is that the propensity for homosexuality is probably genetic, though environmental factors may play a part. Let me explain why. A baby can be born with characteristics resembling their other-sex counterparts (at least the stereotypes). Studies of the brain HAVE proven out that the homosexual brain actually does have some differences from the average heterosexual brain activity (I'll go back and spend hours looking up the documentation if necessary, but if you have the true desire to know the REAL truth, you'll look for yourself).

Also, studies of hormone balance can play a part in whether or not a child is born with genetic tendencies toward homosexuality (again, if someone insists on the study, I'll take awhile digging it up in my archives, but whatever - or, just do a google search and find it yourself).

The results of a huge body of research suggest that genes, brain anatomy, and prenatal sex hormones heavily influence.

Now, what does this mean? That according to science up to this time, one can be born predisposed to homosexuality. This predisposition is further exacerbated by environmental factors. That is one reason why nearly every person with same-sex attraction cannot remember a time, even when they were small children, that they didn't feel "different" or attracted in some way to the same sex.

"Nobody in science now believes that sexual orientation is caused by events in adolescence...Homosexuality is an early, probably prenatal and irreversible preference." Author and geneticist Matt Ridley


Interesting quote. Now compare that to a quote by a non-scientist member of a conservative christian rights leader:
"Often, one's 'homosexuality' is thrust upon him by childhood molestation, poor familial relations, or general peer harassment during the adolescent years, including the continual calling of that child 'gay'." Parents Rights Coalition, a conservative Christian agency in Massachusetts.


It's strange to me that ONLY religious conservatives deny the scientific evidence that has been put forth to lay out genetic evidence for homosexuality or other sexual differences in individuals. Of course, I used to be one of those people - that person on the "narrow road," who said, "Well, it's because I'm right. They're ALL lying about the genetics they've connected. It's ALL part of that gay agenda that's destroying the family, destroying this country, blah blah blah..." **insert vomiting animation here**

There are hundreds of studies out there that have shown a preponderance of evidence that sexuality is by genetic causes prior to birth, and by environmental causes BEFORE birth, while the child is in the womb.

Scientific research has stated that pedophelia is NOT a genetic premutatin, but due to the abuse and molestation of a person when they were a child. Viva la difference.

The fundamentalist Christian is in a quandary. If he/she accepts the science, they are actually rejecting scripture. So, instead, excuses are made for the science - the scientists were biased, or maybe it's all part of the "homosexual agenda," or just the statement that reasoning and logic are contrary to God. So they continue to ignore the cognitive dissonance and believe the propaganda that tells them that homosexuals must also be pedophiles. With no basis at all in fact - simply a concerted movement by the "Family Values" folks to promote fear in the hearts of its constituents.

Family Values proponents would like us to believe that: "...males are primarily introduced to homosexuality through the gateway of pedophilia."

Warning - colorful language coming: Bullshit. Give me the evidence. The actual scientific research that says that a male is primarily introducecd to homosexuality through pedophelia. There IS none. There are some papers presented by ex-gay ministries - none of them are backed up with science, or with widespread study. Are many homosexuals introduced to same-sex relations prior to age 18? Of course! Many HETEROSEXUALS are as well - I defy you to find many people of age 18 anymore that haven't had sexual contact...some, and I commend them, but not many.

Are there some cases of homosexuals whose first encounter was through pedophelia? I'm sure there are, just as there are some cases of HETEROSEXUALS whose first encounter was through pedophelia. But there is NO preponderance of evidence that says pedophelia is "the gateway" to homosexuality; in fact, that is a vary naive assumption with no basis in research.

Another "Family Value" uncloseted.

Ted Haggard - Completely Heterosexual After Three Weeks "Ministry"

CNN reported on February 7, 2007 that Ted Haggard (the former minister of 14,000 member New Life Church in Colorado Springs, CO), after only three weeks of ministry by leading ministers, "is completely heterosexual." In November, 2006, Haggard was forced to resign his position at the megachurch, as well as the National Association of Evangelicals (one of the leading forces in campaigning to deny gay couples the right to marry), because he was exposed for having a long-term sexual relationship with Denver male escort Mike Jones.

Apparently Mr. Haggard "subjected himself" to three weeks of "intense ministry" by four leading evangelical ministers, who declared him to be cured in that time period. A quote from Rev. Tim Ralph, one of the four:
"He is completely heterosexual. That is something he discovered. It was the acting-out situations where things took place. It wasn't a constant thing."

Hmmmm - so, it was "just the acting out situations" and therefore he's not gay. Interesting concept. This is the kind of convoluted speech that is used by evangelicals and proponents of reparative therapy that bewilders me.

In response, Mike Jones, the escort who had been in those "acting out situations" with Haggard, quoted:

"Well, that's the quickest therapy I've ever heard of. It's hard for me to imagine someone who is performing oral sex and saying that he is 'straight. That just doesn't jive. If you were to ask me 'Do I think is Ted Haggard gay?' I would have to say yes."



Rev. Ralph also made comments that if Mr. Haggard were gay, he'd have had more than one affair, and since nobody else had come out and accused Haggard of having sex with him, it "proved" that Haggard was not gay.

HUH?? So, since he only had sex with one man, Haggard's sexual contact with Mike Jones was simply "acting out." Very strange logic. In my world, we call that "pretzel logic." Twisting the facts to try to make a ludicrous point.

Unfortunately, a gullible church will grab hold and believe it. And Haggard's wife will continue to love and support him, praying with all her might that it is over - that he will never "act out" again. Haggard will either disappear from any publicity at all, or he will become the newest poster child for the ex-gay movement, which attempts to convince the church that homosexuality can be "cured." Which, of course, is another way of saying that they believe it is some sort of disease.

A three year affair with a male escort - and he's "healed" in three weeks. The stats don't back up the claim. More about those statistics another time. The fact is (and any non-fundamentalist will tell you this), if you have a desire to put your mouth on a person of the same sex's genetalia - you are not straight. And THAT'S OKAY!

I'm sure Ted Haggard WANTS it to be true - that he is straight, that he is healed, that he will no longer have to deal on a daily basis with the desire to be with a man, that he will want to be with his wife and ONLY his wife for the rest of his life. I'm sure that is something he would love to have. It is unfortunate that he lives in a society that doesn't value him for exactly who he is...that he felt the need to suppress his attractions at all.

It will be easy for him to deny his attractions to men as long as he is surrounded by all this attention from the "leadership" - but, like John Paulk (James Dobson's former "ex gay" posterboy), as soon as Haggard is back out from under their "leadership", he's on his own with the temptations again. And like John Paulk, who immediately went to a gay bar as soon as he was out of "ministry" covering - Haggard will find that he is faced with this again.

And he and his wife and their children will suffer for it.

Not to mention the millions of gay people out there who are suffering for those attitudes as well.

Family Values?

21 years ago, I was a bright-eyed young woman who was in love with a handsome, albeit serious, young man. We married, had a baby, and I expected to live happily ever after. We lived in a conservative, mostly fundamentalist Christian community at the heart of a mostly conservative, fundamentalist state. Homosexuals were not discussed except in derogatory terms, with the term "abominations before God" being used whenever the topic did arise.

Ten years into the marriage, it was revealed to this bride, who was still very much in love with her husband (though he was often distant and depressed) that he had a "terrible secret." He was gay. He had fought that fact all of his life. When he met me, he knew that he was gay, but he thought he could change - that God would heal him. And the alternative - coming out as a gay man - could get him killed. Certainly it would mean he would be shunned by his congregation, his friends, and possibly his family.

So, being convinced it was his only choice (because homosexuals were NOT accepted, and could not get married and have children), he married me, this girl that he loved as best he could - with the sanctions of the ministers surrounding us.

After struggling in "ex-gay" ministries until he was so suicidal I thought I'd come home any day to a corpse, and after years of trying to quell his real orientation, we were both left with a shattered marriage. All because he was unacceptable for who he was. I realized then that I'd rather have a gay husband than a dead husband.

So I got to start over at 40, my "happily ever after" destroyed - because he thought that he could "change" and love me the way I deserved to be loved, and because he could not live as the man he was created to be in a marriage relationship with a partner of the same sex. My husband never had the courage to tell me he was gay - until after I confronted him on the evidence I'd seen. However, at least he gathered his courage and told me everything after that, and of his fears that if he'd told me sooner, I would leave and he'd never see our daughter or me again. I understand that fear.

He finally gave me, even if it took years, the most important of gifts - the truth. I loved him with every single part of me (I still do, but am learning to shift that marriage love into a deep friendship). I have since realized something important to me - he loved me in the way a gay man loves a woman. I didn't want to know that there was a difference back then. But I know now.

I also don't know what kind of absolute private hell life as a gay man or woman in the closet might be. I've had a hell of my own, though – that of believing that my marriage was something it was not – because conservative religion told us it was wrong to be gay.

I know that there are many gay men and women who choose NOT to deceive or to be what society, family, religion, or politics tell them they should be. I have the utmost respect and admiration for the bravery of these people to live real, authentic lives.

My former husband and I are not the only couple out there. A low estimate of more than 2 million couples in this country alone (USA, wave those little freedom flags everybody) are in some stage or other of the same situation. I have collected hundreds of stories from other couples. In many of these situations, the ministers who married the couples KNEW that one of them was gay (or in their words, struggled with same-sex attraction), and they encouraged them to marry anyway, even though the straight spouse knew nothing. To "save" the homosexual from hellfire and damnation...they never gave a thought to the straight spouse who could, and eventually would, be destroyed by it. Both of them become the sacrificial lambs for religious fundamentalism.

These gay people who married, some of them hoping that God would heal them or change them, some of them to simply have a "normal" life in a marriage with children and the picket fence, some of them to hide from persecution - had they been accepted for who they ARE, would probably never have married someone of the opposite sex.

Had they been allowed to marry a partner of the same sex, and been accepted, they never would have made the choices that are now destroying their lives, the lives of their unsuspecting spouses, and in some cases the lives of their children. All because they only way they can be equal - and have the same rights as everybody else - is to pretend to BE everybody else.

So where are "Family Values" in all of this? Gay marriage harms no-one, and it allows everyone to share in equal rights under the law. Disallowing gay marriage and treating homosexuals (or transgendered individuals, or any people who are not sanctioned by the church) as "lesser" or "abominations" is a destroyer of families….millions of them, every year.

I could spend my life angry at what I got handed regarding my marriage, and blame the GLBT community, especially since it seems sometimes that the gay spouse who comes out has support from the gay community, while the straight spouse seems to just disappear into the woodwork, with little to no support (even though they have been through intense trauma as a result of their partner's deception). But that wouldn't be living very authentically either, considering the roots of this stem from society's lack of acceptance of those who have non-heterosexual orientations or gender identities.

Will I play "devil's advocate" as some of our leaders do, and entertain the opposing viewpoint? No. Because it is evil. Anything which places one group of people in a position to be "better than" another group is pure evil. Conservative, liberal, or in between, if a particular ideal of that group passes judgment on others, or causes others to be placed in a category that makes them second- or even third-class citizens, it is EVIL.

There are so many people destroyed by this horrific vilification of homosexuality. They seem to be coming out of the woodwork these days, what with ministers in Colorado, ex-governors, and even the male of "How Stella Got her Groove Back" fame.

The "Family Values" folks would like to pass the blame for all of this on to the Gay community. But it is they themselves who are destroying families everywhere. I will not blame the GLBT community for the hell my former husband and I have gone through. And I will not tolerate intolerance. I choose instead to offer love, acceptance, and support to the GLBT community. It is a community I have been a part of by marriage, and have grown to love. Go to a gay event, festival, or educational meeting. They're not just for our gay, lesbian, bi, transgender, or questioning friends. It is for everyone who wishes to support the basic human rights of all of our sisters and brothers. THAT is family values. Anyone who says differently just isn't paying attention.