Montgomery County, Md. School Board finds “gay gene” — Violates State Board of Education’s Order
ROCKVILLE, Maryland, June 13 /Christian Newswire/ — PFOX released this statement in response to the Montgomery County School Board’s approval of a new sex education curriculum for public schools:
“According to the American Psychiatric Association, there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological cause for homosexuality. But now the Montgomery County Board of Education has done what science and medicine could not do by declaring in its newly approved curriculum that homosexuality is “innate” or inborn. The board could not produce any factual evidence for what it will now teach students — only political “pledges” and payoffs for last year’s school board elections as claimed by gay rights activists.
The board has demonstrated its bias and arrogance in ignoring the March 7, 2007 Order of Maryland State Superintendent Nancy Grasmick that states that the Maryland Board of Education will render a decision in July on the legal appeal of the curriculum. PFOX, Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, and Family Leader Network had filed an appeal of the proposed curriculum, citing factual inaccuracies and violations of state and federal law. The local board’s action in adopting a final curriculum without waiting for the state board’s decision as to the legality of that curriculum tramples on the rights of parents and violates the intent of the Superintendent’s Order.
In her Order, Grasmick cites the curriculum’s attempt to address harassment problems relating to sexual orientation and gender identity. PFOX has documented how the curriculum fails to provide instruction on tolerance of ex-gays — a group that is the object of harassment encouraged by Montgomery County public school staff and students, a fact which the Montgomery County Board of Education does not deny.
When PFOX distributed flyers to the high schools urging tolerance of the ex-gay community, the faculty at multiple schools cooperated with Gay Straight Alliance (GSA) student clubs to oppose our message of tolerance.
A typical example was Winston Churchill High School where GSA students were allowed to place trash cans in the school hallways and carry trash bags labeled “PFOX” to urge all students to trash their ex- gay flyers. The principal, Dr. Joan Benz, stood by the trash cans to ensure that the protest against ex-gays would not be disturbed.
At Wootten High School, a gay teacher and co- sponsor of the school’s GSA club warned PFOX to stay out of the public schools, compared sexual preference to African-Americans’ skin color, and also compared PFOX to the Ku Klux Klan.
This discriminatory treatment is not corrected by the curriculum on teaching tolerance for sexual orientation because former homosexuals are not included in the curriculum. Why did the Board approve a curriculum that is supposed to teach respect for diverse sexual orientations when it excludes former homosexuals — the only sexual orientation that is subject to intolerance by both students and teachers?
We wait for the Maryland State Board of Education to correct the failings of the local board and protect the civil rights of all groups, and not just gays, bisexuals and cross-dressers.”
To view the Montgomery County public school teacher’s emails against the ex-gay community, see http://pfox.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=193#193
To view PFOX’s testimony before the School Board, see http://pfox.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=192#192
A copy of this press release is online at http://pfox.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=194#194
PFOX leads the nation in providing outreach, education, and public awareness in support of families and the ex-gay community. They can be reached via their website at www.pfox.org
HT: Ray Diaz via Christian Newswire
Filed under: Apologetics, Church Life, Family, Homosexuality, Politics
Here is another article demonstrating “heterophobia:”
National Ex-Gay Group Defends Surgeon General Nominee Holsinger and Ex-Gay Community Attacked by Gay Groups
Contact: Regina Griggs, Director, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX), 703-360-2225 PFOX@pfox.org http://www.pfox.org
WASHINGTON, June 11 /Christian Newswire/ — Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) today condemned the bigoted remarks by gay activists being made about the new Surgeon General nominee. Gay rights groups are attacking Dr. James Hoslinger’s nomination because his church is inclusive of ex-gays and he supports the right to self-determination regarding one’s sexual attraction.
Ex-gays and Americans who support the right to self-determination of same-sex attraction are routinely ridiculed by the very people who claim to be victims themselves. “Gay activists lobby to be included in tolerance policies, hate crimes and employment non-discrimination legislation, but work hard to deny ex-gays the right to the same treatment,” said Regina Griggs, executive director of PFOX. “This demonstrates how far the gay rights movement has moved from self-described victims to proactive perpetrators.”
“Ex-gays should not have to be closeted for fear of other’s negative reactions or disapproval,” Griggs said. “They do not think something is wrong with them because they chose to fulfill their heterosexual potential. We need to ensure the safety, inclusion, and respect of former homosexuals in all realms of society, but especially by the medical and mental health communities starting at the highest levels.”
“As a medical doctor, it seems Dr. Holsinger is aware that contrary to distortions by gay activists, no professional medical or mental health associations deny the right of any individual to seek support in resolving unwanted same-sex attractions.” Griggs said. “Indeed, these associations adhere to a code of ethics which call for their members to support the client’s right of self-determination.”
“Americans need to face the growing issue of bigotry perpetrated upon ex-gays and their supporters. Gay activists cannot claim sympathy as victims when they attack ex-gays for political purposes of their own,” said Griggs. “Tolerance is not a one-way street. All individuals with unwanted same-sex attractions deserve the right to self-determination and happiness based on their own needs, and not the political inconvenience of others.”
To view a sample of hate against former homosexuals, see http://www.pfox.org/downloads/HRC%20hates.pdf
PFOX leads the nation in providing outreach, education, and public awareness in support of families and the ex-gay community. They can be reached via their website at http://www.pfox.org
For great, honest info about the ex-gay movement:
http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/
And for a review of the science regarding causes of homosexuality:
http://members.aol.com/slevay/page22.html
Alan,
For the record, do you agree with the protection of ex-gays and the defense of their rights against persecution of heterophobia?
tr
Excellent information, Tony. Of course the real problem here is bullying, which is wrong in all its forms. We don’t need special anti-bullying laws for gays, ex-gays, the obese, etc. Just simple no tolerance rules that are enforced equally. Otherwise you get into ridiculous scenarios like the ones above.
What rules apply to someone like “Lyle, the effeminate heterosexual” (a former SNL skit where Dana Carvey played a straight guy who everyone – including his family – thought was gay) – the anti-gay bullying rules or the anti-regular person bullying rules?
These groups don’t just want to stop bullying. There are more effective ways to do that. They are trying to normalize perversions, entice kids and silence anyone who disagrees with them.
Very true Neil. Bullying of anyone should not be tolerated as we are all made in the image of God. Mistreatment of anyone is a type blasphemy, in a sense, because it is an attack on the name and nature of the person made in God’s image.
What is revealed here though, is that most Christians, although they disagree with the gay agenda and lifestyle, would agree that homosexuals should be protected from such bullying and abuse.
My question is, do most homosexuals agree that ex-gays should receive the same protection?
tr
“For the record, do you agree with the protection of ex-gays and the defense of their rights against persecution of heterophobia?”
I don’t think my answer should surprise you much…
Well, there are really two issues here. First of all, yes I believe it is wrong to persecute ex-gays. However, I don’t believe it is “persecution” to simply state that using and advocating these untested therapies is wrong and unwise. Nor do I think it is wrong for Christians to state that using and advocating these untested therapies is sinful.
You always try to make the point that describing homosexuality as sin isn’t persecution, right? So then saying the same thing about these “therapies” isn’t persecution either. Obviously I disagree with your conclusion, and you disagree with mine, but if you’re not attempting to “persecute” me by stating your opinion then it cannot be “persecution” for me to state my position, no?
I also believe we have to *protect* ex-gays, and all other people from charlatans and snake-oil. No matter how much a person wants to take a certain drug, or use a certain therapy to “cure” whatever sickness they have, I think we have a responsibility to protect those who are particularly vulnerable to fakes and frauds from that sort of deception.
In other words, IF actual peer-reviewed studies were published in mainstream scientific and psychological journals that demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of ex-gay therapies, I would have no problem if people availed themselves of such therapies as long as they’re not coerced either overtly or subtly to do so, and as long as the possible benefits and side effects are clearly and honestly described.
We have, for example, seen recently that people running these operations have begun backpedaling from their claims of what constitutes “change.” They’re going to need to be very specific about their definitions — much more than they have been in the past — if they’re going to get beyond the charge that they’re promising things they can’t deliver.
I take what should be the uncontroversial view that if we require that level of honest scientific study to determine the safety and efficaciousness for a simple aspirin, I think we should require it for something as serious as “conversion” therapy. You realize of course that we don’t even test new medications on dogs before they’ve been safety tested first! I’m believe we should treat ex-gays better than dogs and do the real work it would take to honestly demonstrate safety and effectiveness.
However, since at this time there is no such peer-reviewed statistically significant evidence, I believe that using these reparative therapies is wrong and the encouraging of their use by medical professionals is malpractice. The encouraging of the use of these therapies, given there is no real evidence that they’re safe and effective, by Christians is unconscionable, sinful, and amounts to human experimentation.
So Tony,
Now that I’ve answered your question, do you agree with this statement by PFOX?
“Tolerance is not a one-way street. All individuals with unwanted same-sex attractions deserve the right to self-determination and happiness based on their own needs, and not the political inconvenience of others.”
And if so, do you agree with this one?
“Tolerance is not a one-way street. All individuals with same-sex attractions deserve the right to self-determination and happiness based on their own needs, and not the political inconvenience of others.”
Or is tolerance indeed a one-way street for you?
Alan,
You said,
And likewise, Christians explaining the dangers of a homosexual lifestyle and what they believe the Scriptures say about the behavior is not persecution either. We might disagree on the views, but expressing them is not hateful, homophobic, or persecution.
That’s my point above. We are in agreement. Stating views is not persecuting, even if I state your views are wrong. Saying your behavior is wrong is not persecuting you. Beating you over the head with a stick because your views are wrong would be. I don’t think I have to state what my view on that is.
And I would say the same about those who would like to put forth the same view on the normality of the homosexual lifestyle. I think it is that is description and people deserve protection from that deception. We must respect one another’s right to disagree on that matter and not falsely portray the other as something it isn’t.
I believe Jesus Christ can change people, and that isn’t charlatans or snake oil. BTW, the Apostle Paul believed the same (1 Cor 6:9-11); notice the “were” in his statement. You believe Jesus can change people too, you just don’t think this is something where change is needed. We may as well debate the issue where the issue is, over that matter, rather than painting one another and the opposite position falsely.
I agree that deception and coercing is wrong from either side. The authority of Scripture is sufficient to demonstrate to me that such change is possible. Again, 1 Cor 6:9-11.
There are surely fakes and charlatans in all industries and they should be exposed. That doesn’t disqualify the legitimate work some ex-gay ministries are doing. It is the premise of possible change you are against, not just the ones faking it and scamming people.
Yeah, I don’t disagree with that. The issue for me is not who is doing it or who isn’t. The issue for me is from Scripture; it is possible for Jesus to do it. I don’t think someone needs a group to declare him or her changed or unchanged. They need the blood of Jesus to cleanse them from sin. I would only support groups that sought “change” from that source.
Well, this is a leap, since you are saying that there should be no trying since there is no evidence, but there can be no evidence without trying. You’re just against the concept of change.
One person, like Mike Haley for instance, that has changed permanently and lived a productive heterosexual life indicates that change is possible. The possibility isn’t in question even if some “practices” are. Personally I don’t know if these groups are legit or not. I would not recommend someone to go to “gay camp.’ I would recommend them go to the cross of Christ.
tr
Alan,
Man you did good on this one pal!
I’m sure you think you’ve got me logically pinned on that! ☺
Let me explain…
I would agree with both stances, from a purely secular standpoint. Obviously I think tolerance is a two-way street.
However, as a Christian I would not really agree with either statement. Not because I don’t believe in tolerance, but because I don’t agree with other wordings in that phrase.
This would be more theologically accurate:
Also, “tolerance” in my statements means, “tolerance” defined properly.
Tolerance does not mean that I agree with the your position being true, it means that I allow you to exist with your position and not bash your head in for holding it.
True tolerance only exists with true disagreement. If tolerance means I have to agree that your position is correct, then we would agree, and tolerance would not be necessary.
Our culture is working hard to change the definition of the word ‘tolerance’ to mean that in order to be ‘tolerant’ that I have to agree to the truth of your position. That isn’t tolerance.
Intolerance would be if I were to prevent you from holding your position. I don’t desire to prevent you from holding your position, but to convince you of its error.
tr
“It is the premise of possible change you are against, not just the ones faking it and scamming people.”
“Well, this is a leap, since you are saying that there should be no trying since there is no evidence, but there can be no evidence without trying. You’re just against the concept of change.”
No, I’m not, but thank you for telling me what I believe.
How is it that you get to go off on tirades against me like this, putting words in my mouth, twisting my arguments and that’s OK? But when you think I do it, you and your little email peanut gallery scream bloody murder? (Hi Neil!) 
In fact, if I may be allowed to state what I really think, rather than your assumptions and mischaracterizations, I am actually FOR honest, responsible, statistically sound, peer-reviewed research on the subject. If the research says such “change” is possible (and we’d better be well informed about the definition of “change” they’re using) through safe and effective therapy then fine. I wouldn’t accept it for myself, but I wouldn’t be for barring other people from it, as long as they weren’t coerced and were completely informed about what is meant by “change” and the possible risks.
“I don’t think someone needs a group to declare him or her changed or unchanged. They need the blood of Jesus to cleanse them from sin. I would only support groups that sought “change” from that source.”
Interesting. So I take it that you’re fine ingesting any substance another Christian says is OK? Or is this the only issue on which you believe you don’t need valid medical evidence?
I believe that Jesus is involved in healing my headache. He gave us the knowledge to create the medications, the curiosity to find those medications, the understanding to create studies to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness, etc. You’d like to paint my position for actual scientific evidence as anti-Jesus. Sorry, buddy, ain’t gonna work. He’s got the whole world in His hand, even us damned science types.
There is no logical reason why we should treat this “condition” any differently from any other. For example, we expect valid scientific data to demonstrate that medications & therapy are useful for treating other psychological problems like depression. We should expect valid scientific data to demonstrate that therapy (& medication?) are useful for treating “the gay.” You want to use different rules for some reason. There are plenty of studies about psychological treatments like AA, for example. You want to use different rules for some reason.
Next time you or a loved one needs medical attention, you may not think of it, but there are hundreds of scientists and medical professionals who have used their skills to make sure you get the safest most effective treatment available. And Thank God for that!
I think that people who want change their sexual orientation should receive the same standard of care that YOU get when you are treated for something. I don’t believe they should get some second class, shoddy standard of care simply because some people don’t feel like actually doing the hard work to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of a particular therapy — perhaps because they’ve already come to the conclusion that it’s effective without evidence (dangerous) or because regardless of the evidence they’re sure it’s effective (ideology trumps science) or because they’re simply lazy.
You seem to want to cut corners on this therapy, but I bet you’d never accept that if you or someone you loved was going in for surgery, taking a medication, or receiving psychiatric therapy.
“One person, like Mike Haley for instance, that has changed permanently and lived a productive heterosexual life indicates that change is possible. ”
Well, the “permanently” part remains to be seen, doesn’t it? Many, many of these folks later on become ex-ex-gays. The group Exodus has gone through so many executive directors who ultimately didn’t really change, I can’t even keep track anymore.
I’m happy that he’s happy. But as I’ve said many times, the plural of “anecdote” is not “data.” I can give you all sorts of names of people who have been injured by these ex-gay groups. That isn’t scientific evidence either! They’re all just anecdotes. I’m interested in actual research.
Alan,
That’s silly. I am not saying “Jesus over science.” I am saying that the Scripture say that change is possible so I believe it is. As far as methods and groups, I would sure want to see the same evidence you would.
tr
“Tolerance is not a one-way street. All individuals, regardless of their personal sinful desires, deserve the right to know God’s-determination, and to true happiness based on their obedience to God’s Word, not to their own selfish desires or to the political inconvenience of others.”
Wow, holy theocracy Batman! I’m not even going to go there. I’ll be happy to drop that one.
“I’m sure you think you’ve got me logically pinned on that! ”
No, I just wondered if you’d try to be consistent.
“Tolerance does not mean that I agree with the your position being true, it means that I allow you to exist with your position and not bash your head in for holding it.”
See? Sometimes we can agree on things.
Unfortunately when the rubber hits the road — ie. not just holding a position, but living one’s life — things get a little more complicated.
For example, your definition of tolerance would mean that I get to believe that gay marriage is fine and you won’t beat me over the head for believing that. But try to actually get married? Nope, nuh uh, no way. See? Tolerance is much more complicated than simply holding views. And, since you believe that desire is “selfish” and against God’s Word, you feel it’s completely OK to discriminate against me on that issue. See how someone might say that’s not really “tolerance”?
” I don’t think someone needs a group to declare him or her changed or unchanged. They need the blood of Jesus to cleanse them from sin. I would only support groups that sought “change” from that source.”
Sorry, this made it sound like you were advocating religious change without actual evidence. Sort of like faith healers on TV, I guess.
I believe change is possible in many areas of our lives. Alcoholics can manage their addiction, depressed people can find ways to live more balanced lives. Heck, I was born left handed and my parents trained me to be right handed.
But there is good solid evidence behind all of that, and I expect the same from these “therapies” to “change” people. At the moment there is none and practicing on the general public without testing is nothing more than human experimentation.
oops…ignore that last one…and let me clarify:
“I am not saying “Jesus over science.” I am saying that the Scripture say that change is possible so I believe it is. As far as methods and groups, I would sure want to see the same evidence you would.”
Sorry, this
” I don’t think someone needs a group to declare him or her changed or unchanged. They need the blood of Jesus to cleanse them from sin. I would only support groups that sought “change” from that source.”
made it sound like you were advocating religious change without actual evidence. Sort of like faith healers on TV, I guess.
I believe change is possible in many areas of our lives. Alcoholics can manage their addiction, depressed people can find ways to live more balanced lives. Heck, I was born left handed and my parents trained me to be right handed.
But there is good solid evidence behind all of that, and I expect the same from these “therapies” to “change” people. At the moment there is none and practicing on the general public without testing is nothing more than human experimentation.
Alan,
Regarding me saying you are against change, I wasn’t telling you what you believe; I was saying that that is what appears to be the logical conclusion of the arguments you make.
You say otherwise and I have to take your word for it, but regardless of the discussion, you always find a way to come down on the side that is against someone contemplating the position of change being a true possibility. That’s all I was saying pal. Don’t over-react me telling you what you believe again… we’ve already beat that dead horse.
Absolutely not. Religious hocus-pocus is no different than secular hocus-pocus in my view. If you’ve ready any other of my posts you would know such isn’t the case at all. Perhaps that’s why you think I only write about homosexuality; maybe you only read those articles!
If you had read any others you’d know that I speak against those guys just as much.
But as far as the issue goes here Alan, I think we are talking about the issue of “change” from two different perspectives. My comments above, and others, on the subject of change, are theological in nature, and your comments about evidence and science are more secular in nature. On the latter I am sure we agree, on the former probably not.
My comments above, in the theological realm, are not “theocratic,” (which is often an anti-Christian charge we hear from those who oppose holding to Biblical standards – yawn! – No one I know on the Christian side of things is advocating a theocracy). This was addressed here if you want to listen: http://www.albertmohler.com/radio_show.php?cdate=2006-08-28
What I am simply saying is that the Bible calls homosexuality sin, and the Bible teaches that someone who has repented and trusted in Christ is a new creation, and that Jesus can change that person’s desire for sin, as well as their impending judgment for it. That doesn’t mean a person quits sinning altogether, but that their attitude towards it changes due to their forgiveness for it and the huge cost required for that to happen. They go from loving sin and seeking it, to abhorring it and resisting it. Falls into sin are just that, falls, not dives, and repentance is sought rather than justification for it. The thinking is different regarding sin.
When Paul spoke to the Corinthians he listed out a list of things in which people were habitually participating in, and was teaching that those who are habitually practicing and known for such sins will not inherit the kingdom. Why? Because they haven’t repented and trusted in Christ. He said,
Paul continues by explaining that some of these Christians were previously known for these very sins, but that now they did not practice them because they were washed in the blood of Christ. Notice the past-tense, “were,”
The Bible teaches that we love all kinds of sin, and that when we are saved we become new creatures (2 Cor 5:17) that abhor sin and no longer walk in it (1 John). Therefore, theologically speaking, the Bible teaches that change is possible.
Now, when we bring that to the practical world, and the area that you are talking about, the “how that happens” with these groups and all is up for discussion. And I agree with you, hocus pocus and manipulation and cohesion are not appropriate in trying to convince someone one way or another.
My comments that confused you was simply saying that I would not endorse a secular group that tried to train someone to ignore the desires of their heart instead of dealing with them. Personally, I agree with you from a secular standpoint. I don’t think someone can just change on their own or even with this type of “help.” I think the only way to deal with our desire to sin is through the cross of Christ, and any method that left that out I would think would leave a lot to be desired.
I do not think that secular psychology, hypnosis, or other types of treatments like that are useful in this, because it is the gospel and Christ that sinners need, not secular manipulation.
That is what I meant when I said,
Jesus can change people through a proper understanding of the gospel, a changed heart and desires, which comes through repentance and trusting in Christ. I believe the Bible is sufficient to demonstrate this and that the Word of God is active and able to change people.
Now if a group wants to gather around this idea and help people who want to hear more about this and experience this change, and if that involves having them in residence so they aren’t tempted back to their former lifestyle for a while, all that is fine. But the effectiveness is in the truth, and no one should be forced to hear or do that if they aren’t so inclined. If such a group goes further than what the Bible teaches in “treatments” I would be as against that as you are Alan, and would demand any evidence for such methods just as you are.
I am not for ideological groups that are centered around the idea of showing “converts” for the furthering of their cause and the propagation of their ideals, on either side of the equation. I would be for a group that wanted to help individuals who wanted to know how God could change them from the inside out.
This is why the issue of “is homosexuality sin” such an important one. I would imagine Alan that theologically speaking, all that I have said about change and the gospel, we would agree on if we were talking about other things in which we are in agreement are clearly sins: porn, robbery, adultery, lying, etc. I am sure our theology about change would line up on these issues. The issue is that you and other homosexuals don’t want homosexuality in this list of sins that need to be repented of.
Repentance is “turning from sin” which starts with first “agreeing with God” about what sins are sins, that we are guilty of them, and that they are an abomination to God. This repentance will guide us to the cross and trusting in the payment for the sins (Christ) in which we are guilty of.
If God sees homosexuality as sin, then all that I am telling you is true, and you are in eternal trouble because you have not repented of that sin. I grieve over that on your behalf Alan. If God does not see homosexuality as sin, then I am wrong and you are right, and you are fine.
The problem is Alan, that anyone who is tempted for any sin could make the same stance for the sins they are tempted for, and in so doing are self-deceiving themselves and making an idol which is a fictitious god in their mind that won’t judge “my sin issue.”
I declare and proclaim that as a Biblically revealed truth. You disagree, and that is the crux of our issue. I love you anyway, and pray that God will break through that self-deception and convict you of this clearly revealed sin unto repentance. That isn’t intolerant, its truth in love.
In closing, your comments on tolerance,
LOL. I hope my comments above explain what I meant by that. Certainly it wasn’t whatever you thought I meant, which is indicated by your reaction. Perhaps I lost a lot of meaning in trying to portray my point with the play on the previous words of others.
I was, thanks for noticing.
Funny to read this two sentences after calling me a “holy theocrat!” ☺ Which is further indication I didn’t mean whatever you thought.
Not so Alan. I would bring to the table of evidence that you are in fact, married to a man, in a church, and are recognized as such. None of my positions have prevented you from doing any of that.
I do not feel that you should be discriminated against at all. I think you should receive all the rights I have or that anyone else has. And we both do have the same rights. I am married to a woman, and you have the same right to marry a woman as I do. And even though I hold to that position, you still are married to a man, and I am still not bashing your head in… thus, I am tolerant of your position even though I think it is wrong, sinful, and against God’s design and wish for your life.
In truth,
tr
“you always find a way to come down on the side that is against someone contemplating the position of change being a true possibility.”
No, I really don’t. What part of this is so confusing for you?
“I am actually FOR honest, responsible, statistically sound, peer-reviewed research on the subject. If the research says such “change” is possible (and we’d better be well informed about the definition of “change” they’re using) through safe and effective therapy then fine. I wouldn’t accept it for myself, but I wouldn’t be for barring other people from it, as long as they weren’t coerced and were completely informed about what is meant by “change” and the possible risks.”
First of all, no one needs my permission to do anything. Second of all, I state clearly that “I wouldn’t be for barring other people from it [seeking change therapy.]” Again you misconstrue my arguments, though apparently I’m the only one around here who does that.
“I would imagine Alan that theologically speaking, all that I have said about change and the gospel, we would agree on if we were talking about other things…”
Actually again you misconstrue my view. I believe God can, if He chooses, help people to change whatever. But I believe it is unlikely that God will change his mind. That is, He’s unlikely to help someone change from gay to straight when He created them gay to begin with. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible… anything is possible with God. Of course we’ve seen plenty of individuals who seem to be straight, who have “changed” to recognize their true sexual orientation is gay. God helps them get over their self-loathing too. So, yes indeed, I believe all things are possible through God. But that doesn’t mean that He doesn’t provide us with evidence that can be validated most of the time. I see no split between the two, because I believe in a rational God who acts in time, in our lives. Sure He can also do completely unexplainable miracles too (virgin birth, anyone?), but most of the time He gives us all sorts of evidence — quantifiable evidence — of His work.
“I think you should receive all the rights I have or that anyone else has. And we both do have the same rights.”
I don’t want to get too far off track here, but I have to respond to that statement since it is so obviously, completely, and totally false. No, Tony, we really don’t have the same rights. Let’s compare tax forms sometime, or estate planning. Before I took my husband to the hospital a couple weeks ago for minor surgery I was sure to dig all of our legal papers (power of attorney, etc.) out of the lock-box just to make sure I had some leverage just in case the hospital staff wouldn’t let me back to see him, since I’m not “family.” Do you have to do that? Nope. Do you even need those papers? Nope. Do you have a card in your wallet with your lawyer’s name and number on it, just in case either of us are in an accident out of town and need evidence that we’re actually a couple? If something should ever happen to me, he’ll have to pay an outrageous tax on every item I leave him. You don’t, if something were to happen to your wife you get it all, tax free. He won’t get my social security benefits like you would if something were to happen to your wife. The list goes on and on and on.
So don’t give me the song and dance that we have the same rights. I’m sorry, but you’re frankly delusional if you think that’s true, buddy.
“I am married to a woman, and you have the same right to marry a woman as I do.”
Again, I don’t want to get off topic as I think we’ve pretty much gotten to an understanding of where we’re both at on the “change” issue. But again, I can’t let a statement like that go by without responding.
You do realize this is exactly the same argument used by the bigots who were against interracial marriage, don’t you? A black man had the same right to marry a black woman as a white man had to marry a white woman.
http://www.vtfreetomarry.org/pfds/Arguments_Against_Interracial_Marriage_and_Equal_Marriage.pdf
According to your logic, then we should be able to outlaw inter-religious or inter-denominational marriage, not to mention interracial marriage. Do not be yolked with unbelievers! Where are the laws outlawing Catholic-Jewish weddings?! Funny how specifically some people want to apply the Bible, isn’t it?
Fortunately people woke up and figured out what a crock that kind of “logic” truly was almost exactly 40 years ago with the Loving v. Virginia case. Same thing will happen again, thank God.
Alan, you demonstrate the wide gap of disagreement we will never cross when you say,
<blockquote>”Actually again you misconstrue my view. I believe God can, if He chooses, help people to change whatever. But I believe it is unlikely that God will change his mind. That is, He’s unlikely to help someone change from gay to straight <b>when He created them gay to begin with</b>.”</blockquote>
That is precisely where we disagree.
tr
Alan,
Got it on the “change” biz and the evidence you would accept. I am not too sure that I believe you though. Not that I think you are being dishonest, just that I think if you were presented with such evidence you’d figure out a way to wiggle out from accepting it.
Just like you did by calling the Mike Haley example an “antidote” and pointed out that he hasn’t changed back “yet.” Well, that argument could be used against either side. I could just point out that all gays haven’t been changed…yet.
That’s silly, and demonstrates how any evidence would be construed by you to avoid acceptance…which validates my original point that I question whether practically you are just against the concept of change, even though your clear and fair words say otherwise.
I’m not telling you what you believe here; I’m just saying that this how I think it will always practically work out with you and that change will always be the fictitious monster in your eyes. I wasn’t purposely misconstruing your arguments, just pointing out that I think this is the way it would shake down with you. Perhaps I’m wrong and am sure you’d claim so.
tr
Alan,
On rights you say,
Too late!
In my comments on this, I was talking about “getting married” which was your previous example, and my point is that you had gotten married, and no one stopped you. I wasn’t talking about all of these other things you listed.
Although I disagree with homosexual marriage, the way the taxes are done in this country is a whole other discussion. Personally, I don’t know that I would be against your partner getting your stuff. To me that isn’t really the issue. And obviously, regardless of my moral stance on homosexuality, I would never want to prevent you from access to him in the hospital. I would side with you against anyone prohibiting you from that.
My point Alan was not all of this stuff and to say you had all the rights with men that I have with women, as marriage goes. My point was that we are both men in America, and we do have the same rights to do the same things…namely, marry a woman. No one is going to stop you from marrying a woman because you have the same right to do so as I do. The difference is that you don’t want to marry a woman; you want to do what is unnatural and marry a man. What is different is not unfairness being applied differently to you and I, but that you have a different desire to do something unnatural.
Your pointing out that such an argument is similar to bigots and racist falls way short, as it is clear that one is born white or black, and the bible clearly says it is not a sin to be one or the other. On the other hand, it is not clear that one is born gay, and there is evidence to the contrary, and it is also subjective in that someone could claim to be one way one day and another the next. Not so with races (notwithstanding Michael Jackson –
). Furthermore, the Bible does say that homosexuality is sinful… so the race analogy doesn’t fit at all. Laws that prohibited marriage between races were wrong, as well as would be laws to prevent marriages between those of different religions. Marriages between those of the same sexes are an entirely different issue.
tr
“I wasn’t purposely misconstruing your arguments, just pointing out that I think this is the way it would shake down with you. Perhaps I’m wrong and am sure you’d claim so.”
Yup, you are. You misconstrue my arguments but come up with an excuse for it. If I did that you’d complain about it, just as I’m doing now. Your blog, your rules…I’m just pointing out the inconsistency. I’m sure your email peanut gallery disagrees. LOL
You don’t know me, so I can understand your reasons for misconstruing my statements and doubting my sincerity. However, I am, by nature a skeptic, in the classical sense of the word. That is, I withhold judgement until I see the evidence. That’s probably why I went into science as a career in the first place. The fact that I’m not going to say that I believe change is possible with no evidence right now, doesn’t mean such evidence couldn’t be found. However, unlike many folks I’m not prepared to trumpet the “triumphs” of these “change therapies” without actual documented, controlled, rigorous study, either.
Fact is, if the study were done well according to standard practices (random assignment into experimental/control groups, a random sample isn’t really possible, but something as close as possible, double blind as much as is possible, etc.) there wouldn’t be much to argue with. No study can be done perfectly…there are always things to quibble over in the protocol, but if it were done responsibly, there’s not much problem. The Chi-square don’t lie.
And regardless of the outcome, frankly why would I care? I’m not going to avail myself of these treatments. Unlike many folks these days, I don’t really think it’s my business to butt into other people’s lives simply because I disagree with how they’re living them.
At the same time, I am deeply skeptical about these studies have never been done. I might take your suspicious about my motives and turn them around to say that they haven’t been done because those folks don’t really want to know the answer.
“ust like you did by calling the Mike Haley example an “antidote” and pointed out that he hasn’t changed back “yet.” Well, that argument could be used against either side. I could just point out that all gays haven’t been changed…yet.”
Thank you for making my point precisely! THAT is why neither Mike Haley nor any opposite example I could provide would constitute what I’m referring to as evidence. They are simply anecdotal evidence — no control, no study, no nuthin’. You can accumulate 10 or 100 or 1000 anecdotes but there is still no real controlled study. The plural of anecdote is not data.
“I would side with you against anyone prohibiting you from that.”
It really is too bad that so very few of your conservative brethren agree with you. Wouldn’t it be amazing to see you or someone like you actually post a blog entry on why those things (unfair taxes, hospital visitation, estate planning, etc.) are wrong, instead of constantly arguing about how sinful we all are? I won’t hold my breath.
(If I were a gambling man, I’d wager the change in my pocket that if you did so, you’d see some real fireworks from your conservative friends for “backsliding.”)
“Furthermore, the Bible does say that homosexuality is sinful… so the race analogy doesn’t fit at all”
Did you read the link I provided? In fact the analogy is a *perfect* one precisely because, at the time, being black was considered “the mark of Cain” and interracial marriages were prohibited on exactly the same religious grounds you use to argue against gay marriage. Exactly the same argument, based on exactly the same reasons. Again, I’d suggest you take a look at the link I provided above.
Now of course you could say, “But they were wrong back then!” to which I respond, “Yeah, and so are you.”
Exactly the same argument, based on exactly the same reasons, yielding exactly the same unfortunate mistakes.
[...] School board finds gay gene even though scientists cannot. One school offers special protections to gays but not to ex-gays. [...]
Very well said, Alan. I suggest to any others who may be reading this blog to check out their local UCC (United Church of Christ) congregation. We are a Christian community following the example of Christ in working for justice, peace, and equality in our communities. We, as Jesus’ church, recognize the wholeness of God’s children in all the beautifully diverse ways we were created: young and old, black and white, male and female, gay and straight. To all those who have been rejected from your faith community please know that there are Christian communities where you are welcomed, loved, and embraced. All truly loving relationships are blessed by God, sacred and holy. May God continue to look over his children and may the arc of the moral universe be long, but bend toward justice.
Yes, as long as you don’t mind ignoring the clear and emphatic Word of God, the UCC would be a swell place to be.
That’s true Neil. We ignore many areas of the Bible, including the prohibition on homosexuality. Here are some other items in the Bible we find objectionable:
–slavery
–genocide
–the murdering of innocent children
–requiring women to be silent in public
–stoning disobedient children
–stoning homosexuals
–stoning adulterers
–the sun orbiting around the earth
–the earth is a flat circle
–etc., etc., etc.
I’m sure you also “reject” these elements of the Bible. I just go a few further.
David, thanks for the classic example of how liberal theologians distort and/or ignore the clear teachings of the Bible whenever it suits them. Then again, what would I expect from a Christian who thinks the Bible is full of errors and that thinks all religions are valid paths to God?
Neil,
Thank you for providing the classic example of fundamentalist dogmatism and arrogant self-righteousness. Then again, what would I expect from a Christian who is a member of the IRD and think they alone have the correct reading of scripture.
But you know my faith is correct, David. You said so yourself when you claimed that all religions were equally valid paths to God. My path claims that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and that liberal Christianity is full of false teachings. Thanks for the validation.
And, once again, you pull the passive-aggressive postmodern trick of saying I’m arrogant because I think my view is correct. But you think your view is correct and that mine is wrong, don’t you? Does that make you arrogant?
Again, Neil, in matters of faith there is no “accuracy” only “meaning”. You are being what Spong calls a “fact-fundamentalist”. I cannot reconcile the idea of a loving God with one that only provided 1/4 of the world with the means towards salvation. I’m a Universalist, as you know and I am on a spiritual journey towards enlightenment. I have no interest in defining who is right or who is wrong when it concerns spiritual matters.
Peace and Grace!!
David, thanks for the clarification on your theology. And I do apologize for my first comment, as it was too smarmy.
Does Spong think it is a spiritual fact that I’m a fact fundamentalist? (just kidding; that’s a rhetorical question).
Enjoy your weekend!
Yes, I would hope that you would refrain from labeling the UCC in the way you do. We are all brothers in Christ even though we may have MAJOR theological differences.
May God continue to bless you, your family, and your spiritual walk!!!!
Uh, I didn’t mean I didn’t think it was true, just that it wasn’t a particularly productive way for me to say it.
Hopefully you’ll come back to my blog over time and we can continue the discussion about truth. I think there are foundational differences that make dialogue difficult until there is some agreement there. Words mean things, so when people use the same words to describe radicially different things (e.g., the Jesus of Mormonism vs. the Jesus of the Bible) then things can get confusing.
You think it is a spiritual fact that we are brothers in Christ, but I’m not so sure. I don’t mean that as any sort of insult, just that we seem to have irreconcilably different definitions of who Christ is. I’ve read a bit about him and I’m pretty sure the one I follow is not a universalist.
People like Spong, Currie, you and others obviously think your claims are true, but you tend to criticize others who hold different views for thinking they are a different kind of “true” (extra true, absolutely true, etc.). The adjectives add nothing to the conversation other than to create a false category with which to criticize someone else for alleged arrogance or intolerance.
Blessings to you,
Neil
Neil,
When have I EVER criticized your faith tradition? And do you honestly think Mormons (who share many of your positions on social issues) are going to hell? Who are “acceptable” Christians? The United Methodist Church (I’m guessing no)? You realize that 1 billion Catholics in the world think you are a heretic for being a Protestant. Are they all going to hell? I mean no offense, I’m truly curious.
As you may know from my previous posts on your blog, I grew up in a DEVOUTLY Jehovah’s Witness community. My father was an elder in the congregation. The JWs, like yourself, hold to a very strict reading of scripture — believing it to be written by God himself. Yet, the JWs (along with the thousands of other denominations) have come to very different conclusions in their theology. What makes you think your reading of the Bible is correct and the JWs, UMC, UCC, Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Quakers, Mormons, Christian Scientists, Seventh-Day Adventists are wrong?
I guess that is my trouble with this exclusionary theology. I grew up listening to ministers tell me that come Armageddon only the 5 million Jehovah’s Witnesses will survive and the rest of the world will be destroyed by God. It doesn’t make any sense to me then and it doesn’t make any more sense to me now.
David,
You can criticize my faith tradition, call me a fact fundamentalist, etc. all you like. But you keep ignoring my premise: You think you are right. I think I’m right. Yet I don’t call you arrogant, fact fundamentalist, etc. for thinking you are right. I would rather discuss each other’s truth claims and see where that leads.
Re. Hell: I believe what the Bible clearly teaches: Without a saving relationship with the real Jesus – the one and only God and creator of the universe – you will go to Hell. We are all sinners in need of a Savior.
You seem to think it is a fact that if a majority of people would be on their way to Hell then that invalidates the possibility of that worldview being true (even though we’re all supposedly right). But this Jesus whom you claim to follow made it quite clear that more people will take the wide road than the narrow.
David, I’d be glad to explain why my take on the essentials of the faith is correct. If I’m wrong, perhaps you can use scripture to point out why.
You’ll note that this is what I did on Chuck’s blog. He dismissed John 14:6 as a claim to Jesus’ exclusivity by using some poor reasoning and factually incorrect data. I pointed out, among other things, that his whole premise was flawed: If he wanted to explain away that Jesus was the only way to salvation then he had 99 more passages to deal with. His seminary education led him to believe there was only one that made this claim.
Here’s an example of why I think the JW interpretation is wrong, and it is easily verifiable. As I wrote about here, the JW Bible inserts the word “a” in John 1:1 so that it reads, ” . . . the Word was ‘a’ God.”
Go check out every translation you can find and all the manuscript evidence. The JW Bible has it wrong.
Though every difference isn’t that easy to refute, many are. It may take some work. But I would rather do that than conclude that since religions have differences then they must all be right, or that I don’t like the idea of people going to Hell so I’ll assume that only a religion where everyone goes to Heaven is true.
By the way, I think it is more productive to speak of particular beliefs and not that some denominations are saved and some aren’t. There are Methodist churches teaching sound doctrine and there are apostate Methodist churches. And within both types there are some individuals who truly trust in Jesus and those who don’t (though probably not in the same ratios).
Very interesting, Neil. But unfortunately your take on John 1:1 isn’t quite so simple. The JWs have a fairly convincing anti-Trinitarian argument (which can rightly be called Arian). Why, for example, did Jesus say on the cross to the other condemned man, “Today you will be with me in paradise” if Jesus was going to spend the next 3 days in Hell? Also, what about the numerous other references in the synoptics Gospels which highly suggest an Arian perspective (for example, why would Jesus get baptized by John the Baptist if he was God, to whom was he praying before the crucifixion). Only largely in John can one formulate a Trinitarian argument. I think it displays how the early Christians were debating the divinity of Christ and this is reflected in the gospels they wrote. The doctrine of the Trinity was most likely a borrowing from the neighboring pagan cultures (Egypt and Babylonia) which frequently had triune gods — and was added later to orthodox Christian doctrine.
And the translation of John 1:1 also isn’t so clear-cut. There is a level of controversy regarding the translation of that verse. The JWs, in fact, are not the only ones who have translated it that way.
David, please re-read your comment and consider this: You offered nothing against my refutation of John 1:1. You just threw out a few other arguments against the Trinity.
And you have yet to convince me that why it is ok for you to make truth claims (”everyone goes to heaven”) that it is arrogant of me to make them.
I don’t want to dominate Tony’s blog, so feel feel to visit mine if you want to continue this.
You’re right, Neil. That’s because I agree with your take on John 1:1. I believe the JWs are in error — although not without their reasons. I’m saying that the Trinity is both supported, and refuted, in the gospels. It is not clear at all.
Regarding truth claims — since both of us are human or unable to truly know, or understand, the fullness of God it is folly to make claims of ABSOLUTE Truth. My theology is what makes sense to me. Had I been born in India I would likely have a very different perspective. The same is true for you. Your theology (as is mine) is deeply influenced by the European Enlightenment, the Scientific Method, the Copernican Revolution, and the American Revolution (and probably most of all by the Reformation). We are all shaped by our culture, gender, family, etc. This heavily influences how we will interpret scripture and what spiritual path we choose for ourselves.
Clarification to previous post:
When I say the JWs were in “error” I mean with their translation — not their theology. I am not arrogant enough to judge their theology.
Truth is what corresponds to reality. Putting “absolute” in front of “truth” adds little, if anything. Just because you can’t completely know God (a point I readily concede) doesn’t mean you can’t know what He revealed to us and wants us to know.
The concept of the Trinity is true, but understanding it is not a requirement for salvation.
Countless people grew up in the West and reject Christianity. Countless people grew up in the East and embrace it. There may be as many authentic Christians in China as there are in the U.S. People in India may have less access to Christian doctrine than those in the West, but God can still reach them (Acts 17:26-27, among others).
It is too bad that pluralistic “Christians” spend more time and money rationalizing why others don’t need Jesus than they do taking the Gospel to them.
David, that’s too bad about your clarification – I thought we finally agreed on something! But I think you’re taking the easy way out. If their translation is in error then so is their theology, at least with respect to that point.
“Truth is what corresponds to reality.”
Do you recognize how this statement has been shaped by Western thought — particularly the Enlightenment and the Scientific Method (not to mention Protestantism)? The concept that the world is constructed within uniform laws which are understandable to humans is itself a Western idea that would be quite foreign to the biblical writers.
Also, how can you be so sure about the Trinity given the obvious ambiguity in the gospels? If scripture was indeed divinely-inspired why is it so confusing? Is God intentionally deceptive? Why do we have pagan histories that are strikingly similar to some of the stories in the bible which pre-date it (Epic of Gilgamesh, Triune Babylonian Gods, Mithraism)?
David, just because something was shaped by Western thought doesn’t mean it isn’t universally true. Jesus was not a relativist. Just skim through the Bible and consider all the “absolute” statements. Truth is not a new concept. Buddhists think Buddhism is true. Hindus think Hinduism is true.
I’ll be glad to debate the Trinity or anything else once I’m convinced that 1) You understand that things can be true or false and 2) You are really interested in the truth.
I’m gone . . . stop by my blog if you like (I don’t want you to think I’m ignoring you).
“Very well said, Alan.”
Thanks David…Take care.