Copyright © Marilyn Tw ink 2008

1
This document w as written and compiled for the benefit of the
GLBTIQ population of South Africa and Africa and for those who care
about human rights and equality before the law , dignity and freedom
and just living in peace and harmony w ith others and is to be
distributed freely as far as it will go, w ithout restrictions or alterations
or charge (w ith the exception of printing costs).

Version 01 November 2008

“This is scary shit of note. The deeper i dig, the darker the hole. I dont
want to dig anymore.”

“I dont ever w ant this book traced back to me. This is milenial end
times shit and these fucks are fucking making it happen. Or they think
they are. I just w ant to wrap this thing up and get it out on the w eb
ASAP. Anonymously of course. Who know s, our actions may scupper
these peoples plans for a few more decades? Then again maybe not.
Sometimes ignorance is bliss, but now the genie is out the bottle and i
cannot put it back.”

2
 Innocent Blood
by
Marilyn Tw ink

Contents:

Introduction 6
The Purpose Of This Book 7
Definitions 12

Part 1: Religion And GLBT 27

Chapter 1: Non-Christian Religious Views On GLBT 28
• Judais m
• Islam
• Buddhis m
• Hinduis m
• Scientology
• Shinto
• Zoroastrianism
Chapter 2: Mainstream Christianity’s View s On GLBT 70
• Christianity And Homosexuality
• Christian Denominational Positions On Homosexuality
Chapter 3: The Pr ovability Of Religion 93
• Is There A God?
• The Bible As An Authority
• Whose Side Is God On Anyw ay?
• Churches Evicting GLBT Members
• Religious Condemnation And Persecution

Part 2: The Heterosexist Agenda 149

3
 Chapter 7: Historical References To GLBT 150
• History Of Same Sex Unions
Chapter 8: Persecution Of GLBT 156
• The First GLBT Holocaust
• Same Shit, Different Century
• The Right Wing War On GLBT
• The So-called ‘Homosexual Agenda”
Chapter 9: Know Thine Enemies 184
• What Is Dominionis m?
• The War In South Africa
• Apathy: The 10th Province Of South Africa
• The SA Constitution We Thought Was So Perfect
• The Apathy Of SA Govt Watchdogs
• Home Education In Schools As Part Of The Right Wing
Agenda
• Unity Among GLBTIQ
• Hate In The SA Media
• James Dobson On SA Radio
• Players In SA To Watch Out For
• Uganda Falls
• Git Yer Snake Oil Here!
• Right Wing Anti-GLBTIQ Organizations (USA)
• Anti-GLBTIQ Organizations In SA
• The Enemy Within
Chapter 10: Propaganda Matters 332
• The Internet Used Against Us
• Propaganda And Other Agendas

Part 3: The GLBT Counter-Offensive: What We’re Doing About It 358

Chapter 11: Scientific Research In Support Of GLBT 359
Chapter 12: Gay Pride Events: Good Or Bad For GLBT? 369
4
 • Pride – What Is It?
• Pride Parades
Chapter 13: Small Gradual Victories 372
Chapter 14: Anything Less Is Not Equal! 377
Chapter 15: The Way Forw ard 383

Conclusion 385
Appendixes: A: Spider Diagram Show ing How These Orgs Link
Together As Per My Findings As Explained In This Book.

5
Introduction

First let me start by saying that I am in no w ay a religious minister, nor

have I ever had the intention of being any kind of minister. Nor am I in
any w ay a conspiracy theorist or under treatment for any kind of
psychosis or mental disorder. As a Christian believer I simply grew up
in a Christian home like most people in a predominantly Christian
society, thinking nothing of it for most of my life thus far. I gave my life
to Christ w hen I w as 12 years old and considered myself a “born
again” Christian as the good folk call themselves. I have since lived
the best life I could, believing in a loving God and savior, Jesus Christ.
How ever I am and have alw ays been transgendered and pansexual
and as a result of my condition from birth, I struggled w ith critical anti-
gay religious rhetoric and gender issues for most of my life.

Let me state right from the very beginning that this book is not
motivated out of religious hate or malice, or discontent w ith the
religious bodies of South Africa – but out of my ow n need to warn
South African society today (and particularly GLBTIQ folk like me w ho
are directly threatened by these invisible pow ers and principalities)
against the dangers of the grow ing patriarchy movement in the
country and their underlying motives: the oppression of w omen and all
those w ho do not fit it's 'ideal norms and standards', such as queer
folk. I have no problems at all w ith Christianity or Christians w ho like
me have faith in a loving God, w ho mind their ow n business and don’t
interfere in the affairs of others where they really do not affect me.
I draw the line clearly how ever, at people minding my business,
passing arbitrary judgment over me, publicly expressing hate against
me and those like me, and joining forces to deprive me and those like
me of equal civil rights – and then calling any attempt to organize and
stand up to them an “evil agenda” !

As it can be said, there are Christians and then there are Christians !
My issues are w ith the OTHER Christians w ho make public their
bigotry, intolerance and hatred for us simply because w e exist and set
out to do har m to us by campaigning to prevent us from attaining
equal rights and w ork to exclude us from all social aspects, to
criminalize us and even to incite further hatred and violence against
us. The folk w ho use the name and persona of the savior I have loved

6
and served for most of my life as a w eapon and expression of their
hate of me and those like me out of their ow n malicious ill w ill.
I have therefore written this book from the view point of a layman (of
course) surprised, shocked and outraged at the developments I have
picked up in the w orld around me. When I saw this web of lies and
deceit and hate taking shape before me, I w anted to subtitle the book
“74 pages of scary shit that w ill give your gay (or feminist) kids
nightmares they w ill never forget…” Perhaps I should have. And of
course now it is far longer than 74 pages.

The Purpose Of This Book

This book seeks to unmask the charlatans, despots and tyrants calling
themselves Christian leaders w ho preach hate against GLBTIQ out of
their ow n prejudice and heterosexist bigotry, inciting others to join in
supporting their irrational hate, inciting violence and death in the name
of a loving God and claiming to be divinely inspired holy men w hile
their hands are all equally stained in innocent blood.

It provides a lay man’s view s on the unjust and unjustifiable hate

expressed against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered,
intersexed and questioning folk by these radical religious right w ing
elements w ho have waged a global w ar against us since 1977. And of
course, as evidenced by the sections on history – from a lot further
back than that. In fact, it w ould seem that as far back as the advent of
Judais m and from the time Christianity entered the w orld stage, we
have been persecuted, hated and made to fear for our lives!

It explores the distorted facts, junk science, myths, errors, blatant lies
and fallacies used by these bigots to deliberately drum up hate
against a har mless minority group. They incite hate speech, hate
crime, persecution and the deter mination to achieve their ultimate
goal – the total annihilation of all those w ho do not fit into their perfect
little w orld.

When I first started w riting this book, it w as simply to show how the
radical religious right movement in the USA w as making inroads into
SA. At the time I only knew of the activities in the USA and of James
Dobson and his Focus on the Family organization w hich has offices
7
around the w orld as w ell as here in South Africa. But gradually as I
began to research local figures and organizations I w as shocked to
find so many parallels and connections betw een them and the
religious right w ing radicals in the USA. My concern grew as the dots
on the map before me began to join up and I became increasingly
incredulous at the sheer size and scope and complexity of the spider's
web before me! It became obvious to me that these people are very
serious about their "w ar on GLBT" and have been very, very busy
indeed in SA for at least the last 20 years or so!

This book is intended to expose a sub-culture of hate in the w orld –

and especially w here it is taking root here in South Africa. It is a
shadowy w orld of minority fundamentalist dominionist Christianity
which is steadily gaining support among mainstream churches and
religious organizations proclaiming "reformation" and "renew al" in the
US, other countries and here. Behind its benign public face it
preaches oppression, w ar, death and damnation to all w ho oppose it
in view or sentiment. They decry our attempts to attain civil rights and
equality as an “agenda”, our attempts to protect ourselves w ith laws
from their hate speech and persecution as trying to “silence and
persecute their church”! They demand not religious freedom – but
the religious freedom to persecute us! The activities of these
fiendish fringe groups and their supporters border precariously on
open violence – and frequently crosses this border to spill innocent
blood.

The deeper I dug into this dark mass of tragedy, the deeper I had to
go – until it seemed I could no longer see daylight. For a time I even
lost my faith in seeing all the venom and hate directed against us by
people w ho claim to be follow ers of a loving God and Chr istians. In
fact I no longer call myself a Christian because of this incongruity and
conflict. I now consider myself an agnostic because, considering
everything in the light of this, I truly don’t know w hat to believe
anymore, but I keep an open mind – and I’m not afraid or ashamed to
say it. Other folk should too.

In the end, the only light I could see in the gloom w as the love of the
one God w ho I realized w as not w hat all these hateful people claimed
He w as. Perhaps it w as he w ho led me to these discoveries, to
restore both my ow n faith and that of others. It is not He w ho hates us,
but people w ho do. And how can these folk claim to love God or

8
Christ and yet hate their neighbors, w ho are according to the gospels
"fellow sinners". Is one person's sin less sinful that of another? Does
the Bible not say "for ALL have sinned and are far from God?" Was it
not also said "if you hate your fellow man w ho you can see, how can
you claim to love God w ho you cannot see?"

These people claim through a convention that GLBTIQ and even

feminis m is a sin, merely “by thought alone” nevermind by action –
and have decided that we may not even call ourselves Christians –
therby marking us all equally as their hated enemies !

I am happy to add that there are many Christian folk out there w ho do
not judge or condemn us, but show us love and support, or at the very
least acceptance and tolerance, even if they don’t necessarily agree
with w hat we are. Such people are by far the best face of the Christian
faith in the world today, for they are the ones w ho know Christ’s love.
In fact they too endure the harsh criticism of those w ho seek to
destroy us.

I originally intended the book to be around 70 or so pages, but it is

now three hundred and eighty three and I admit freely that it has given
me nightmares and sleepless nights. I even had misgivings about
releasing it because of the potential backlash. One does not lightly put
together something of this nature and then release it w ith your name
and photo attached to it so those w ho might seek vengeance against
the author know where to start looking!

I revised and edited the manuscript numerous times. It has been a

gargantuan project, coordinating and organizing items w hich I thought
fitted together or choosing what was really relevant and what not.
From their w ebsites, some of the groups listed in the book come
across as fairly respectable mains-stream religious bodies – w hich are
in turn linked to the dar ker more shadow y violent groups that seem to
be all about hate and violence and blatant fanaticism. This in itself is
of concern to me because of the duality of some of these orgs – they
come across as benevolent Chr istian orgs, proclaiming love for Christ,
blah, blah, blah – and on their links page they sing praises for fanatic
“revolutionary lunatic fringe” orgs that are led by people know n for
viciously persecuting other people. It can be so difficult for ordinary
folk to judge w ho the bad guys are and w hat they are really all about.

9
This to me does not excuse the “benevolent innocent looking” orgs
from posting links to the “ megalomaniac sites”. In fact, it makes them
all birds of a feather, and since these “philanthropists” are all linked
together and seem to support each other morally and strategically it
makes even the least harmful looking of them as bad as the w orst of
them. To illustrate my point, let me say that if a w hole bunch of yellow
folk dislike green folk and set up different orgs about their dislike –
those folk w ho put up nice neat polite w ebsites claiming merely “to
disagree w ith the concept of people being green” and from there
provide links to and compliments about other w ebsites of orgs (w ith
links and comments that refer back to that org) run by people w ho
proclaim to violently hate green folk – are only tarring themselves w ith
the same brush as their lunatic fringe allies.
I have tried exceedingly hard to be objective about all this, but admit it
is very difficult w hen you see people saying things like
"Gays/Transsexuals should be executed!" – especially w hen you
realize that although you w eren’t mentioned specifically by name –
they mean w hat they say and that it includes YOU.

This book w ill mean different things to different people.

To GLBT folk it w ill show them that the w orld around them – and
indeed South Africa – is not as much the rose-tinted shoo-wah
rainbow nation place protecting their rights as w ell as they thought it
was. Hopefully it w ill increase our aw areness of w hat our self -
proclaimed enemies have been up to the last 15 years and sharpen
our senses to see w hat dastardly things they intend doing in the
future. The things I uncovered in researching this book, particular ly
the hate, have shocked me to the core – and my hope is that it also
shocks GLBT readers and their straight family and friends out of their
typical South African state of apathy and into taking an active part in
social matters and politics and in playing an affirmative role in all
things w hich affect us directly.

To straight folk it should show them w hat the radical religious right
wing folk have been up to in both your name as w ell as in the name of
your God, claiming to represent all of you – and especially the
Christian community – in their obscene "holy war" against gays,
lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered, intersexed, questioning folk – as
well as against feminism. I hope it w ill open your eyes to w hat is

10
rapidly rising on the SA scene as the " Men’s Movement" a.k.a the
patriarchy – and to take a stand against it.

And to the heterosexist bigots out there, it w ill show them up for the
ridiculous buffoons they are; caricatures of little dictators who unjustly
and unrighteously persecute their fellow human beings in the name of
a loving God for no reasons other than fanatical hate, homophobic
paranoia and ignorance, their quest for self-glorif ication and mission
not to serve God, but only themselves.

To me it represents 100 plus pages of scary shit that will give me

sleepless nights and nightmares for years to come!

This book’s goal is to expose these shadow y organizations, their

agendas and their actions and to show everyone that there is no
"homosexual agenda" other than achieving social, legal and political
equality – and that the only threatening agenda here is the insidious
heterosexist one.
I appeal to those w ho have seen the grow ing threat of the Dominionist
movement, their radical right w ing allies and radical supporters for
peace, equality and justice in South Africa to spread the news to their
friends, their families and to all those w ho these vile persecutors
would have live in fear and oppression.

11
Definitions

Terms Describing sexual orientation:

• GLBT LGBT (also GLBT) is an initialism referring collectively

to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender/transsexual
people.[1][2] In use since the 1990s, the term LGBT is an
adaptation of the initialis m LGB w hich itself started replacing
the phrase gay community w hich many w ithin the LGBT
communities felt did not represent accurately all those to w hich
it referred.[1][2] In modern use, LGBT relates to the diversity of
sexuality and gender identity-based cultures, and is
sometimes used to refer to anyone w ho is non-heterosexual,
and not exclusively people w ho are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or
Transgender.[1][3] LGBT is presently so mainstream that it
has been adopted by the majority of the LGBT community
centers and LGBT media in most English-speaking
countries.[2] (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
• Gay
In modern English, gay is an adjective (occasionally a noun)
that refers primarily to homosexuality. Until the mid-20th
century, the primary meanings of the w ord w ere "carefree,"
"happy," or "bright and showy"; however, it had already
acquired some sexual connotations as early as 1637[1], and it
began to be used in reference to homosexuality in particular
from the early 20th century, a usage that may date from before
the end of the 19th century.[1] Today, the w ords gay and
lesbian are recommended by major style guides to describe
people attracted to members of the same sex. (From
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
• Lesbian
A lesbian is a w oman w ho is romantically or sexually attracted
only to other w omen.[1][2] Women w ho are attracted to both
women and men are more often referred to as bisexual. An
individual's self-identification might not correspond w ith her
behavior, and may be expressed w ith either, both, or neither of
these w ords. (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

12
• Bisexual
Bisexuality refers to sexual behavior w ith[1] or attraction to
people of both sexes, or to a bisexual orientation. People w ho
have a bisexual orientation "can experience sexual, emotional,
and affectional attraction to both their ow n sex and the
opposite sex"; "it also refers to an individual’s sense of
personal and social identity based on those attractions,
behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community
of others who share them."[2] It is one of the three main
classifications of sexual orientation, along w ith a heterosexual
and a homosexual orientation. Individuals w ho do not
experience sexual attraction to either sex are know n as
asexual. (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
• Transgendered
Transgender (IPA: /trænz d nd /, from (Latin) derivatives

[trans <L, combination form meaning across, beyond, through]

and [gender <ME <MF gendre, genre <L gener- meaning kind
or sort]) is a general term applied to a variety of individuals,
behaviors, and groups involving tendencies that diverge from
the normative gender role (woman or man) commonly, but not
alw ays, assigned at birth, as w ell as the role traditionally held
by society.
Transgender is the state of one's "gender identity" (self -
identification as w oman, man, or neither) not matching one's
"assigned sex" (identification by others as male or female
based on physical/genetic sex). "Transgender" does not imply
any specific form of sexual orientation; transgender people
may identify as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual,
pansexual, polysexual, or asexual. The precise definition for
transgender remains in flux, but includes:
"Of, relating to, or designating a person w hose identity does
not conform unambiguously to conventional notions of male or
female gender roles, but combines or moves betw een
these."[1]
"People w ho were assigned a sex, usually at birth and based
on their genitals, but w ho feel that this is a false or incomplete
description of themselves."[2]
"Non-identification w ith, or non-presentation as, the sex (and
assumed gender) one w as assigned at birth."[3]

13
 A transgender individual may have characteristics that are
normally associated w ith a particular gender, identify
elsew here on the traditional gender continuum, or exist outside
of it as "other," "agender," "intergender," or "third gender".
Transgender people may also identify as bigender, or along
several places on either the traditional transgender continuum,
or the more encompassing continuums w hich have been
developed in response to the significantly more detailed
studies done in recent years.[4]
Transgender people in non- Western cultures
Asia
In Thailand and Laos,[65] the ter m kathoey is used to refer to
male-to-female transgender people[66] and effeminate gay
men.[67] The cultures of the Indian subcontinent include a
third gender, referred to as hijra[68] in Hindi. Transgender
people also have been documented in Iran,[69] Japan,[70]
Nepal,[71] Indonesia,[72] Vietnam,[73] South Korea,[74]
Singapore,[75] and the greater Chinese region, including Hong
Kong,[76][77] Taiw an,[78] and the People's Republic of
China.[79][80][81]
North America
In w hat is now the United States and Canada, many Native
American and Canadian First Nations peoples recognised[82]
the existence of more than tw o genders, such as the Zuñi
male-bodied Ła'mana,[83] the Lakota male-bodied w inkte[84]
and the Mohave male-bodied alyhaa and female-bodied
hw amee.[85] Such people w ere previously[86] referred to as
berdache but are now referred to as Tw o-Spirit,[87] and their
spouses would not necessarily have been regarded as
gender-different.[85] In Mexico, the Zapotec culture includes a
third gender in the form of the Muxe.[88]
Other
In early Medina, gender-variant[89] male-to-female Islamic
people w ere acknow ledged[90] in the form of the
Mukhannathun. In Ancient Rome, the Gallae w ere
castrated[91] follow ers of the Phrygian goddess Cybele and
can be regarded as transgender in today's terms.[92][93]
Among the ancient Middle Eastern Akkadian people, a
salzikrum w as a person w ho appeared biologically female but
had distinct male traits. Salzikrum is a compound w ord

14
 meaning male daughter. According to the Code of Hammurabi,
salzikr m had inheritance rights like that of priestesses; they
inherited from their fathers, unlike regular daughters. A
salzikrum's father could also stipulate that she inherit a certain
amount.[94

Transgender issues are controversial in both the public and

scientific spheres. Critics believe that trans people are
unhealthy varying from an innocent confusion to a mental
disorder to an immoral perversion. They believe that trans
people w ho embrace their feelings by transitioning either
socially, surgically, or both are especially harmful to
themselves emotionally and physically. Trans-affirming people
may call these criticis ms "transphobia" or "trans-bashing",
considering them personal attacks based on hatred and/or
fear. (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
• Intersexed
Intersexuality is the state of a living thing of a gonochoristic
species whose sex chromosomes, genitalia, and/or secondary
sex characteristics are determined to be neither exclusively
male nor female. An intersex organis m may have biological
characteristics of both the male and female sexes.[1]
Intersexuality is the term adopted by medicine during the 20th
century applied to human beings w ho cannot be classified as
either male or female.[2][3][4] Intersexuality is also the w ord
adopted by the identitary-political movement, to criticize
medical protocols in sex assignment and to claim the right to
be heard in the construction of a new one.[5] (From Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia).
• Hom osexuality
Homosexuality refers to sexual behavior w ith or attraction to
people of the same sex, or to a homosexual orientation. As a
sexual orientation, homosexuality refers to "having sexual and
romantic attraction primarily or exclusively to members of
one’s ow n sex"; "it also refers to an individual’s sense of
personal and social identity based on those attractions,
behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community
of others who share them."[1][2] Homosexuality, bisexuality,
and heterosexuality together make up the three main
classifications of sexual orientation and are the factors in the
Heterosexual-homosexual continuum. The exact proportion of

15
 the population that is homosexual is difficult to estimate
reliably,[3] but most recent studies place it at 2–
7%.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] How ever, according to a
survey, 12% of Norw egians have had homosexual sex. [13]
Sexual orientation is also distinguished from other aspects of
sexuality, "including biological sex (the anatomical,
physiological, and genetic characteristics associated w ith
being male or female), gender identity (the psychological
sense of being male, female or other), and social gender role
(adherence to cultural norms defining feminine and masculine
behavior)."[2]
Ety mologically, the w ord homosexual is a Greek and Latin
hybrid w ith homos (sometimes confused w ith the later Latin
meaning of " man", as in Homo sapiens) deriving from the
Greek w ord for same, thus connoting sexual acts and
affections betw een members of the same sex, including
lesbianis m.[14][15] The w ord gay generally refers to male
homosexuality, but is sometimes used in a broader sense,
especially in the media[citation needed], to refer to
homosexuality in general. In the context of sexuality, the word
lesbian alw ays denotes female homosexuality.
There is much evidence of both acceptance and repression of
homosexual behavior throughout recorded history. During the
last several decades, there has been a trend tow ards
increased visibility, recognition, and legal rights for
homosexuals, including marriage and civil unions, parenting
rights, and equal access to health care. (From Wikipedia, the
free encyclopedia).
• Pansexuality - or anthrosexuality (anthro- literally meaning
human, human sexual) (sometimes referred to as
omnisexuality is a sexual orientation characterized by the
potential for aesthetic attraction, romantic love, and/or sexual
desire for people, regardless of their gender identity or
biological sex. Thus, pansexuality includes potential attraction
to people (such as transgender individuals) w ho do not fit into
the gender binary of male/female. Some pansexuals suggest
that they are gender-blind; that gender and sex are
insignificant or irrelevant in deter mining w hether they w ill be
sexually attracted to others. Pansexuality versus bisexuality.
The ter ms "pansexual" and "bisexual" are not mutually
exclusive. Pansexuality is inclusive of bisexuality (attraction to
both males and females) but additionally includes attraction to
16
 other genders and sexes such as those identifying as
transgender, genderqueer, bigender, intersex, or genderfuck.
In this sense, it necessarily rejects the concept of a gender
binary, w hich some bisexuals may not reject. To this end,
pansexuality as a concept has been criticized as a "means to
skip the binaries and essentialis m of 'bi'. (From Wikipedia, the
free encyclopedia) (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
• Transphobia
Transphobia (or less commonly, transprejudice and trans-
misogyny, the later referring to transphobia directed tow ard
transw omen) refers to discrimination against transsexuality
and transsexual or transgender people, based on the
expression of their internal gender identity (see Phobia - ter ms
indicating prejudice or class discrimination). Whether
intentional or not, transphobia can have severe consequences
for the object of the negative attitude. Many transpeople also
experience homophobia from people w ho incorrectly associate
the medically recognised condition of gender identity disorder
as a form of homosexuality.[1]
Discriminatory or intolerant behaviour tow ard transsexuals
might include harassment, assault, or murder. Direct forms of
intolerance may also manifest themselves in non-violent w ays.
Indirect discrimination may include refusing to ensure that
transgender people are treated in the same manner as non-
transgender people.
Trans-bashing is the practice of victimising someone because
they are transgender and is a form of transphobia.[2] Unlike
gay bashing, it is attacking someone based on their gender
identity rather than because of their predisposition regarding
sexuality. Some believe that accusing transgender people of
being victims of "gay-bashing" erases their identities and the
truth of what happens to them.
Examples
There are many recorded examples of transphobia in many of
its different forms and manifestations throughout society.
Some instances clearly involve violence and extreme malice,
while others involve little more than a lack of understanding or
experience of the condition sometimes involving unconscious
predisposition based upon various religious edicts or social
conventions.

17
 Difficulties encountered by transgender people
Sometimes homeless shelters have engaged in practices that
have a disparate impact on transw omen, refusing, for
example, admission to w omen's areas and forcing them to
sleep and bathe in the presence of men[citation needed]. This
situation has been changing in some areas, how ever. For
example, on February 8, 2006, New York City's Department of
Homeless Services announced an overhaul of its housing
policy w ith the goal of specif ically ending discrimination
against transgendered people in its shelters.[3]
Some notable cases w ith transphobia themes and violent
crimes include Brandon Teena, Gw en Araujo, Fred Martinez,
Nizah Morris[4] and Lauren Harries.[5]
Transphobia in healthcare
One example of this is the case of Tyra Hunter. Ms. Hunter
was involved in an automobile accident, and w hen rescue
workers discovered she was transgender, they backed aw ay
and stopped administering treatment. She later died in
hospital.[6]
Transgender people depend largely on the medical profession
to receive not only hormone replacement therapy, but also
other vital care. Often it can be difficult for gender patients to
receive proper health care and treatment, because medical
gatekeepers w ho are transphobic (or w ho misunderstand the
nature of gender identity disorder) w ill refuse to administer
necessary treatment; in at least one case that included the
refusal to treat Robert Eads, a trans man, for ovarian cancer, of
which he subsequently died.[7][8]
Transphobia in employment
Transphobia can also manifest itself in the w orkplace.
Sometimes transsexuals lose their jobs when they begin the
transition. A study from Willamette University states that
discrim ination is so rife it's virtually im possible to find a
job at all to begin w ith.[9]

New s stories from the San Francisco Chronicle and

Associated Press have cited a 1999 study by the San
Francisco Department of Public Health finding a 70
percent unemployment rate amongst the city's
transgender population. On February 18, 1999, the San
18
Francisco Department of Public Health issued the results of a
1997 survey of 392 MTF ( male-to-female) and 123 FTM
(female-to-male) transgender people, show ing amongst other
things that only 40 percent of those MTF transgender people
surveyed had earned money from full or part-time employ ment
over the preceding six months' period. For FTMs, the
equivalent statistic w as 81 percent. The survey also found that
46 percent of MTFs and 57 percent of FTMs reported
employ ment discrimination.[10]
In the hiring process, discrimination may be either open or
covert, with employers finding other ostensible reasons not to
hire a candidate or just not informing prospective employees at
all as to w hy they are not being hired. Additionally, w hen an
employer fires or otherw is e discriminates against a
transgender employee, it may be a " mixed motive" case, w ith
the employer openly citing obvious w rongdoing, job
performance issues or the like (such as excessive tardiness,
for example) w hile keeping silent in regards to transphobia.[11]
Employ ment discrimination on the basis of gender identity and
expression, or the like, is illegal in a grow ing number of U.S.
cities, tow ns and states. Such discrimination might be
outlaw ed by specif ic legislation (as it is in the states of
California, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New Mexico and
Washington state) or city ordinances; additionally, it is covered
by case law in some other states. (For example,
Massachusetts is covered by cases such as Lie vs. Sky
Publishing Co. and Jette vs. Honey Far ms.) Several other
states and cities prohibit such discrimination in public
employ ment. The United Kingdom has also legislated against
employ ment discrimination on the grounds of gender identity.
Sometimes, how ever, employers discriminate against
transgender employees in spite of such legal protections.[11]
There is at least one high-profile employ ment-related court
case unfavorable to transgender people. In 2000, the Southern
U.S. grocery chain Winn- Dixie fired longtime employee Peter
Oiler, despite a history of repeatedly earning raises and
promotions, after management learned that the married,
heterosexual truck driver occasionally cross-dressed off-the-
job. Management argued that this hurt Winn-Dixie's corporate
image. The A merican Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit
against Winn- Dixie on behalf of Oiler but a judge dismissed it.
The case, how ever, led to a picket of the company's

19
 Jacksonville, Florida, headquarters and a boycott against the
company. One now -defunct website,
www.shameonw inndixie.org, claimed it w as "the largest-ever
public demonstration against gender-based bigotry." [12]
Sometimes transgendered people facing em ployment
discrim ination turn to sex work to survive, placing them at
additional risk of such things as encountering troubles
w ith the law, including arrest and crim inal prosecution;
enduring workplace violence; and possibly contracting
sexually transm itted diseases such as HIV;.[10] (And then
the bigots have the nerve to point fingers at them for doing all
they can to survive? And then they can claim they don’t’ hate
us?)
Transprejudice
Transprejudice is a similar term to transphobia, and refers to
the negative valuing, stereotyping and discriminatory treatment
of individuals w hose appearance and/or identity does not
conform to the current social expectations or conventional
conceptions of gender.[13]
Transprejudice may be manifested in w ays similar to other
prejudicial beliefs, such as homophobia or sexual prejudice.
As Blumenfeld (1992) suggests, homophobia functions on four
distinct yet-interrelated levels: personal, interpersonal,
institutional, and cultural (also referred to as collective or
societal).[14] Adapting Blumenfeld’s (1992) framew ork for use
with transprejudice, personal transprejudice w ould refer to an
individual’s belief system (prejudices) about TG/TS individuals.
Interpersonal transprejudice w ould be evident w hen a personal
prejudice transforms into discriminatory behavior. Institutional
transprejudice w ould be seen in the w ays in which
government, business, religious, educational, and professional
organizations (e.g., the medical and psychiatric community)
systematically discriminate against TG/TS individuals. Finally,
cultural transprejudice w ould refer to the social cognition that
influences attitudes tow ard TG/TS persons.
Transphobia in the lesbian, gay and bisexual community
Some in the LGBT communities are uncomfortable w ith
transgender individuals and issues. For example,
transw omen (male-to-female transgender and transsexual
people) are sometimes denied entry to w omen's spaces, and
the explanations given for such actions betray a degree of

20
transphobia. (The Michigan Wom yn's Music Festival, for
instance, has caused much debate for lim iting its
attendance to "w om yn-born w om yn".)[15] Kay Brow n of
Transhistory.net (“Transsexual, Transgender and Intersex
History”) has set forth a long chronology of the ejection of
those whom we now know as “transgendered” from gay
organizations starting in the 1970s[16].
While many gays and lesbians feel that “transgender” is simply
a name for a part of their ow n community (i.e. the LGBT
community), others actively reject the idea that transgender
people are part of their community, seeing them as entirely
separate and distinct. Some feel that bisexuality and
transgenderism are detrimental to the social and political
acceptance of gays and lesbians. This phenomenon has
been called “internalized homophobia” by some, meaning an
irrational fear and dislike of other homosexuals.[citation
needed]See Fone, B.R.S. (2000). Homophobia. New York:
Metropolital Books; Sears, J.T., and Williams, W.L. (1997).
Overcoming Heterosexism and Homophobia. New York:
Columbia University Press) This presumes that transgender
people are, in fact, “homosexuals,” an equation w hich is often
hotly debated, but w ith little real meaning due to the nature of
the differences betw een gender and sexuality - for example, if
a transw oman is attracted only to other w omen, then she is
either lesbian by nature of being a w oman, or is otherw ise a
heterosexual man.
The nature of the terms "Man" and "Woman" also become
unclear in a similar w ay under this philosophy, and many feel
that the only real recourse is to accept that the mind and
feeling of a person is the only thing that gives that person
identity, and so a person that has a female identity and mind is
indeed a w oman, as agreed by much legislation in Europe
enabling transsexual people to have the sex recorded on their
birth certificates amended accordingly[17]. According to this
thinking, it becomes clear that in at least a categorical sense,
transgendered people should only be accepted in the Gay and
Lesbian community if they themselves self -identify as gay or
lesbian as any other homosexual person does, and the blanket
assumption on the part of some gay and lesbian people on the
nature of those transgendered people w ho are in their LGB
community w ith a view to dis-inclusion constitutes an issue of
transphobia[16]. The implacability of this question has been
overcome by the rise in the 1990s of Queer Theory and the
21
 Queer community, w hich defines "queer" as embracing all
variants of sexual identity, sexual desire, and sexual acts that
fall outside nor mative definitions of heterosexuality; thus a
heterosexual m an or wom an as well as a transgendered
person of any sex can be included in the category of
queer through their own choice. (From Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia).

Terms applicable to bigotry (or used by bigots to describe

us):
• Hom ophobia - (from Greek homós: one and the same;
phóbos: fear, phobia) is an irrational fear of, aversion to, or
discrimination against homosexuality.[1][2][3] Some
definitions lack the "irrational" component.[4][5]
Homophobic is the adjective form of this term used to
describe the qualities of these characteristics, w hile
homophobe is the noun form given as a title to individuals
labeled w ith homophobic characteristics. Many people like
to confuse the meaning of the w ord "Homophobia" and say
that someone w ho hates homosexuals is homophobic,
when the actual definition means to be afraid of
homosexuality, not homosexuals.

"Homophobia" w as first used w ith its modern meaning in

1972. It has been criticized as a pejorative against those
with differing debatable value positions, w ith several
researchers proposing alternative w ords to describe
prejudice and discrimination against gays and lesbians.
The ter m " internalized homophobia" is used to describe a
prejudice against one's ow n homosexuality.

Sources of LGBT-based discrimination have been w idely

studied, and a focus of the LGBT community has been on
countering such discrimination. (From Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia)

• Heterosexism - Heterosexism is the presumption that

everyone is or should be heterosexual and/or the belief
that heterosexual people are naturally superior to
homosexual, bisexual and transgendered people.
Heterosexism also encompasses discrimination and
prejudice in favor of heterosexual people over gay, lesbian,
bisexual, asexual, and transgendered people.
22
 • Hypocrisy - Hypocrisy (or the state of being a hypocrite) is
the act of preaching a certain belief, religion or w ay of life,
but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself. For
example, an adult telling children not to smoke cigarettes,
even though the adult smokes. Hypocrisy is frequently
invoked as an accusation in many contexts. (From
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

Hate terms (etym ologies):

• Queer
Queer has traditionally meant odd or unusual, but is now
also used to refer to anyone who is not heteronormative.
Its use in reference to LGBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual,
transgender, intersex) communities as w ell as those
perceived to be members of those communities has tainted
the traditional definition and application.[w ho?] Its usage is
considered controversial and underw ent substantial
changes over the course of the 20th Century w ith some
LGBT people re-claiming the ter m as a means of self-
empow erment. The ter m is still considered by some to be
offensive and derisive, and by others as a re-appropriated
term used to describe a sexual orientation and/or gender
identity or gender expression that does not conform to
heteronormative society. (From Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia).
• Faggot, Fag
Faggot or fag, in modern North American and Australian
English is a w ord, and generally a pejorative slur term, for
a gay or effeminate man. Its use has spread to varying
extents elsew here in the English-speaking w orld.
The ter ms are used less in this sense in British English,
where "faggot" traditionally means a bundle of sticks and
faggots are a kind of meatball, w hile "fag" is common slang
for a cigarette or for hard w ork; in some public schools,
fagging w as the name given to the practice w here a
younger boy (a "fag") acted as an unpaid servant for an
older boy.
Ety mology
The origins of the w ord in this preceding sense are rather
obscure. The word faggot has also been used in English

23
 since the late 16th Century to mean "old or unpleasant
woman," and the modern use may w ell derive from this.[1]
Female ter ms, it should be noted, are often used w ith
reference to homosexual or effeminate men (cf. nancy,
sissy, queen). The application of the term to old w omen is
possibly a shortening of the ter m "faggot-gatherer", applied
in the 19th Century to people, especially older w idows,
who made a meagre living by gathering and selling
firewood.[2] It may also derive from the sense of
"something aw kw ard to be carried" (compare the use of
the w ord "baggage" as a pejorative ter m for old people in
general).[3]
It is sometimes claimed that the modern slang meaning
developed from the standard meaning of "faggot" as
"bundle of sticks for burning," presumably w ith reference to
burning at the stake.[3] This is unlikely to be the case[3],
but if true, is comparable to Italian "finocchio," w hich
literally translates as "fennel", but is used in Italian in a
sense very close to modern English "faggot"[citation
needed]. It is popularly assumed that this use of "finocchio"
originated in the time of the Holy Inquisition, w hen fennel
was apparently throw n on persons burned at the stake to
mitigate the stench of burned flesh.[citation needed]
Nevertheless, there is no tradition of burning at the stake
being used as a punishment for homosexuality in Britain[4],
although supposed w itches and heretics were burnt to
death in many parts of Europe, and w ere often accused of
homosexual behaviour.[5]
The Yiddish w ord faygele, lit. "little bird", is also claimed by
some as an explanation for the modern use of "faggot."
The similarity betw een the two words makes it a
reasonable possibility that it might at least have had a
reinforcing effect.[4]
An obsolete reference to faggot from 17th Century Britain
refers to a "man hired into military service simply to fill out
the ranks at muster."[3] (From Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia).

There are many others, and they vary from country to

country – but the best know n is the one blow :

24
 • Moffie(SA)
Afrikaans term for a male homosexual (derogatory). It is
sometimes used by gay guys themselves in the same w ay
as “queer”.
• Tranny
Slang ter m for a transgendered person, seen by some
transgedered folk as a derogatory term similar to “queer” or
“homo”.

Descriptive Terms perverted from their original meanings:

• Gay More recently, a new , pejorative, sense has
developed. According to a BBC ruling, this use of the w ord,
among younger generations of speakers in the UK, has a
non-sexual derisive meaning, equivalent to rubbish or
stupid (as in "That's so gay.").[4]
Ety mology
Pejorative non-sexualized usage
Look up ghey in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.When used
with a derisive attitude (e.g. "that was so gay"), the word
gay is pejorative. While retaining its other meanings, it has
also acquired "a w idespread current usage" amongst
young people, as a general ter m of disparagement.[10][11]
This pejorative usage has its origins in the late 1970s.
Beginning in the 1980s and especially in the late 1990s,
the usage as a generic insult became common among
young people.
This usage of the w ord has been criticized by some[w easel
words] as "homophobic". A 2006 BBC ruling by the Board
of Governors over the use of the w ord in this context by
Chris Moyles on his Radio 1 show , "I don't w ant that one,
it's gay", advises "caution on its use" for this reason:
“The w ord ‘gay’, in addition to being used to mean
‘homosexual’ or ‘carefree’, w as often now used to mean
‘lame’ or ‘rubbish’. This is a w idespread current usage of
the w ord amongst young people... The w ord 'gay' ... need
not be offensive... or homophobic [...] The governors said,
how ever, that Moyles w as simply keeping up w ith
developments in English usage. [...] The committee... w as
"familiar w ith hearing this w ord in this context." The
25
 governors believed that in describing a ring tone as 'gay',
the DJ w as conveying that he thought it w as 'r ubbish',
rather than 'homosexual'. [...] The panel acknow ledged
how ever that this use... in a derogatory sense... could
cause offence in some listeners, and counselled caution
on its use. ” —BBC Board of Gover (From Wikipedia, the
free encyclopedia).
Mom, dad – I’m stupid." Not exactly how people imagine
coming out, is it? Associating 'gay' w ith the concept of
'stupid' w ill make anybody calling themselves 'gay'
associated w ith being both homosexual and 'stupid' – is
this w hat we want? Or is this the intention of the genius
behind this disturbing trend?

26
Part 1: Religion And GLBT

27
Religion! Isn’t this how religion has alw ays w orked? Read the book,
obey the book, believe the book, hit other people over the head w ith
the book if they don’t believe it too? If they don’t believe it, hate them
and even kill them? Life by the book, death by the book. Very
intelligent indeed.
Of course, this applies to any religion w hich advocates strict
adherence to any form of socio-religious rules in the form of written
texts.
Let me put this succinctly: I don’t care w hat faith bigots claim to
represent, but as long as they continue to persecute GLBT and vent
their hate against us, I w ill stand against them every single step of the
way.

Chapter 1: Non-Christian Religious Views On GLBT

• Judaism
“Homosexuality and Judaism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.w ikipedia.org/w iki/Jew ish_views_on_homosexuality
The subject of homosexuality in Judais m dates back to the Biblical
book of Leviticus. This describes sexual intercourse betw een males
as an "abomination" that may be subject to capital punishment,
although Halakhic courts are not authorized to administer capital
punishment in the absence of a Temple in Jerusalem.
The issue has been a subject of contention w ithin modern Jew ish
denominations and has led to debate and division. The prevalent view
among Jew s had been to regard homosexual intercourse as sinful,
arguing that it is categorically forbidden by the Torah. This remains
the current view of Orthodox Judais m, but not of Reconstructionist
Judais m and Reform Judais m. Conservative Judais m's Committee on
Jew ish Law and Standards, w hich until December 2006 held the
same position as Orthodoxy, recently issued multiple opinions under
its philosophy of pluralism, w ith one opinion continuing to follow the
Orthodox position and another opinion substantially liberalizing its
view of homosexuals and homosexual relationships w hile continuing
to regard certain sexual acts as prohibited

28
Homosexuality in the Hebrew Bible
The Torah, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, reflects the
Judais m of ancient Israel and serves as the primary source for
traditional Jew ish views on homosexuality.
The Torah prohibits men from having sex w ith other men. It states:
"You shall not lie w ith a male as one lies w ith a w oman; it is a to'evah"
(Leviticus 18:22). ( ) Leviticus
20:13 further states: "A man w ho lies w ith a male as one lies w ith a
woman; the tw o of them have done a to'evah; they shall be put to
death; their bloodguilt is upon them."
The ter m to'eva is usually translated as "abomination" and is used in
the Bible to refer to a variety of forbidden acts including incest,
idolatry, eating unclean animals, and economic injustice. In the
context of sexual prohibitions, the w ord is also interpreted by the
Talmud to be a contraction of the w ords to'eh ata
vah("You are w andering astray w ith it"). Preceding this it states in
Leviticus 18:3, "What is done in the land of Egypt, w herein you were
settled, you are not to do; w hat is done in the land of Canaan, to
which I am bringing you, you are not to do; by their law s you are not to
walk". Rabbis later interpreted that as prohibiting lesbianism as w ell
(see below ).
In Samuel ( I and II), the Biblical text described the relation betw een
David and Jonathan in ter ms of love, comparing it to the love betw een
man and w oman. Some modern scholars have ascribed sexual
significance to these passages,[1] w hile traditional interpretations
overwhelmingly reject any such interpretation. For example, after
David killed Goliath and spoke w ith Saul, the Bible relates:
Jonathan's soul became bound to David's soul, and Jonathan loved
him as [he loved] his ow n soul. Saul took him that day and did not
allow him to return home. Jonathan and David made a covenant
because he loved him as [much as] himself. Jonathan removed the
coat that w as on him and gave it to David, and his suit and even his
sw ord and even his bow and even his belt. David w ent wherever Saul
sent him, and w ould be successful. Saul put him in charge of the
soldiers. He w as good in the eyes of the entire nation and in the eyes
of the Saul's ministers.
Even though Jonathan w as the crown prince, he w as able to allow
David to assume authority that w as rightfully his ow n because of his
great love for him. On Jonathan's passing King David eulogized him:
"I have great pain over you, my brother Jonathan, you w ere very

29
pleasant to me, your love for me w as more w ondrous than the love of
women." (II Samuel 1:26)
There is, how ever, no evidence that Biblical passages about the
relationship betw een David and Jonathan, or the sexual significance
some modern academic scholars have ascribed to it, influenced either
historical or contemporary Jew ish views on the subject of
homosexuality, or w ere thought of as having a homoerotic character
in Jew ish religious thought.

Rabbinic Jew ish application and interpretation of these verses

Death penalty not carried out in practice
Rabbinic Judaism does not believe that the above verses refer to
what is now adays described as a homosexual inclination, nor do
these verses refer to lesbian sexual activity. Instead, these verses
specifically refer to a w illing act of anal sex betw een two male Jews.
According to[specify] Rabbinic interpretation understands the Torah
prohibition of Lo tikrevu legalot ervah ("You shall not come close [to
another person] to uncover nakedness") to forbid all sexual acts w hich
can lead to forbidden intercourse, and prescribes the punishment of
lashes.[citation needed] But according to[specify], this verse is not
written in conjunction w ith Homosexuality, rather it is referring to the
forbidden incest marriages. The major sources of Halacha (Jew ish
law) such as the Rambam ( Maimonides) and the Shulchan Aruch
(Code of Jew ish Law) only quote that law in reference to the forbidden
family marriages.[citation needed]
How ever, even in Biblical times, it w as very difficult to get a conviction
that w ould lead to this prescribed punishment. The Jew ish oral law
states that capital punishment w ould only be applicable if tw o men
were caught in the act of anal sex, if there were two witnesses to the
act, if the tw o w itnesses warned the men involved that they committed
a capital offense, and the two men subsequently acknow ledged the
warning, but proceeded to engage in the prohibited act anyw ay. As
such, it is not surprising that there is no account of capital
punishment, in regards to this law , in Jew ish history.
In any case, rabbinic tradition understand the Torah's system of
capital punishment not to be in effect in the absence of a Sanhedrin
and Temple. How ever, the severity of the punishment may indicate
the seriousness with w hich the act was seen in Biblical times.

30
Lesbian sexual activity
Although there is no direct textual prohibition of homosexual acts
betw een w omen (lesbianism) in the entirety of the Torah, such
behaviour is w idely view ed as forbidden by most rabbis based on a
Drash interpretation of the Biblical verse "Do not follow the ways of
Egypt w here you once lived, nor of Canaan, w here I w ill be bringing
you. Do not follow any of their customs." (Leviticus 18:3).
A midrash, Sifra Aharei Mot 8:8–9, states that this refers to sexual
customs, and that one of those customs w as the marriage of w omen
to each other, as w ell as a man to a w oman and to her daughter.
Maimonides, in his Mishneh Torah, summarizes the matter as
follow s:[2]
For w omen to be mesollelot w ith one another is forbidden, as this is
the practice of Egypt, w hich we were warned against: "Like the
practice of the land of Egypt . . . you shall not do" (Leviticus 18:3). The
Sages said [in the midrash of Sif ra Aharei Mot 8:8–9], "What did they
do? A man married a man, and a w oman married a w oman, and a
woman married tw o men." Even though this practice is forbidden, one
is not lashed [as for a Torah prohibition] on account of it, since there is
no specific prohibition against it, and there is no real intercourse.
Therefore, [one w ho does this] is not forbidden to the priesthood
because of harlotry, and a w oman is not prohibited to her husband by
this, since it is not harlotry. But it is appropriate to administer to them
lashings of rebellion [i.e., those given for violation of rabbinic
prohibitions], since they did something forbidden. And a man should
be strict w ith his w if e in this matter, and should prevent w omen know n
to do this from coming to her or from her going to them.
Classical rabbinic Jew ish sources do not specifically mention that
homosexual attraction is inherently sinful (though it is regarded as
unnatural). How ever, someone w ho has had homosexual intercourse
is seen to have allow ed their "unnatural attractions" to get the better of
them, and it is thus believed that they w ould be held accountable by
God for their actions. If he does teshuva (repentance), i.e. he ceases
his forbidden actions, regrets w hat he has done, apologizes to God,
and makes a binding resolution never to repeat those actions, he is
seen to be forgiven by God (in a similar manner to the other capital
crimes, excepting murder).[citation needed]

Teachings of Kabbalah
Hasidic Judais m view s homosexuality as a grave sin. Accepting
Kabbalah, Jew ish mysticism, as nor mative, it believes that
31
heterosexual intercourse is a holy act, because it has the potential to
lead to new life, and because heterosexual sex mimics the
mechanism through w hich God created the universe. When a male
and a female perform this act, they evoke creative spiritual energies,
similar to ones that were used to create the Universe. This creation
mechanism involved tw o opposite partners (male and female aspects
of Divinity know n as zachar and Nahkayvah [pronounced n-kAy-vah]),
a source of life-force and a recipient of it. The sexual act w hich
evokes the male creative energy on the male side must, therefore,
also involve evocation of female creative energies, even if the specific
act w ill not lead to birth in the physical reality. If it is done properly, it
results in one of the holiest activities in a Jew 's life.

Therefore, a homosexual act is w rong not because it does not result

in a birth (in Judais m, a sexual act that does not result in a birth is not
forbidden, such as when the w ife is pregnant, barren, or using
contraceptives), but because it invokes holy spiritual forces which are
then used in an unnatural w ay (from the Creation's point of view ),
betw een tw o partners that are of the same sex. Therefore, only male
homosexuality (w hich involves the intercourse) is Biblically forbidden;
female homosexuality is forbidden for different reasons and in general
is much less serious sin. (As a matter of fact, the exact same
explanation can be used to explain Kabbalistic view of masturbation
and w hy it is forbidden).[citation needed]

Orthodox Jew ish views

While a variety of views regarding homosexuality as an inclination or
status exist w ithin the Orthodox Jew ish community, Orthodox Judais m
generally prohibits homosexual conduct. While there is disagreement
about w hich acts come under core prohibitions, all of Orthodox
Judais m puts certain core homosexual acts, including male- male anal
sex in the category of yehareg ve'al ya'avor, "die rather than
transgress", the small category of Biblically-prohibited acts (also
including murder, idolatry, adultery, and incest) w hich an Orthodox
Jew is obligated under the laws of Self-sacrifice under Jew is h Law to
die rather than do.

According to Rabbi Dr. Nor man Lamm, former president of Yeshiva

University, halakha prohibits homosexuality to non-Jews as well as to
Jews.[3]

32
Haredi Orthodox view
Rabbi Benjam in Hecht writes that some Orthodox rabbis view
Hom osexuality as a deliberate rebellion against God.
Rav Moshe Feinstein, in Iggrot Moshe, Orach Chaim, Part 4,
Responsa 115, adopted a very strong position against homosexuality.
Human drives are necessary although they must be controlled. Since
there is no purpose for the homosexual drive, Rav Moshe contends, it
must not be a true drive. Therefore, the underlying reason for gay
behavior, he argues, must be to rebel against G-d, to w ish to do
something forbidden (perhaps, implying some innate know ledge of its
forbidden nature). [4]

Modern Orthodox view

In recent years some w ithin Modern Orthodox Judais m have begun
re-evaluating homosexuality as a phenomenon, and the Orthodox
community's response to homosexual Jews. Traditionally,
homosexuals have been considered to have chosen to engage in
homosexual actions in order to spite God (le-hach'is) or to be
perverse. Beginning in the 1970s and influenced by new perspectives
in the sociological and biological sciences, some Orthodox rabbis
began to adopt less unsympathetic positions. Rabbi Dr. Immanuel
Jakobovits, in his entry Homosexuality in the Encyclopedia Judaica
(Keter Publishing), describes the traditional opinion in this w ay:
Jew ish law [...] rejects the view that hom osexuality is to be
regarded merely as a disease or as m orally neutral.... Jew ish law
holds that no hedonistic ethic, even if called "love", can justify
the m orality of homosexuality any more than it can legitim ize
adultery or incest, however genuinely such acts m ay be
performed out of love and by m utual consent.
Rabbi Norm an Lamm (the Chancellor, a rosh yeshiva ["head of the
yeshiva"], and former president of Yeshiva University, a major Modern
Orthodox Jew ish institution) advocated[5] that some (although not all)
homosexuals should be view ed as diseased and in need of
compassion and treatment, rather than w illful rebels w ho should be
ostracized. He distinguishes betw een six varieties of homosexuals,
including "genuine homosexuals" w ho have "strong preferential erotic
feelings for members of the same sex", "transitory" and "situational"
homosexuals w ho w ould prefer heterosexual intercourse but are
denied it or seek gain in homosexuality, and heterosexuals w ho are
merely curious. Lamm explains:

33
Clearly, genuine homosexuality experienced under duress (Hebrew :
ones) most obviously lends itself to being ter med pathological
especially w here dysfunction appears in other aspects of personality.
Opportunistic homosexuality, ideological homosexuality, and
transitory adult homosexuality are at the other end of the spectrum,
and appear most reprehensible.... Where the category of mental
illness does apply, the act itself remains to´evah (an abomination), but
the fact of illness lays upon us the obligation of pastoral compassion,
psychological understanding, and social sympathy. In these sense,
homosexuality is no different from any other social or anti-halakhic act
... An example of a criminal act that is treated w ith compassion by the
Halakhah, w hich in practice considers the act pathological rather than
criminal, is suicide.... in the course of time, the tendency has been to
remove the stigma from the suicide on the basis of mental disease....
The suicide analogy should not, of course, lead one to conclude that
there are grounds for a blanket exculpation of homosexuality as
mental illness.... people do not ordinarily propose that suicide be
considered an acceptable and legitimate alternative to the rigors of
daily life. No sane and moral person sits passively and w atches a
fellow man attempt suicide because he "understands" him and
because it has been decided that suicide is a " morally neutral" act. By
the same token, in orienting ourselves to certain types of
homosexuals as patients rather than criminals, w e do not condone the
act but attempt to help the homosexual. Under no circumstances can
Judais m suffer homosexuality to become respectable.
When an Orthodox Rabbi, Steven Greenberg, publicly announced that
he w as homosexual, there w as a significant response from rabbis of
all denominations reported in the Jew ish newspapers. Rabbi Moshe
Tendler, a leading rabbi at Yeshiva University, stated "It is very sad
that an individual w ho attended our yeshiva sunk to the depths
of w hat we consider a depraved society,"
Tendler said that Rabbi Greenberg's announcement is "the exact
same as if he said, 'I'm an Orthodox Rabbi and I eat ham sandw iches
on Yom Kippur.' What you are is a Reform Rabbi." [6]
Sandi Simcha Dubowski's movie Trembling Before G-d (2001)
documented the experiences of several homosexual Modern
Orthodox and Haredi Jew s. No Haredi Orthodox group spoke out in
favor of the film. The spokesperson for Agudath Israel of America,
Rabbi Avi Shafran, attacked the film w ith an article "Dissembling
Before G-d", m aintaining that gay people can be cured through
therapy, and that the m ovie is meant to promote homosexuality:

34
Unfortunately, though, "Trembling" seems to have other intents as
well. While it never baldly advocates the case for broader societal
acceptance of homosexuality or for the abandonment of elements of
the Jew ish religious tradition, those causes are subtly evident in the
stark, simplistic picture the film presents of sincere, conflicted and
victimized men and w omen confronted by a largely stern and stubborn
cadre of rabbis.
That picture is both incomplete and distorted. For starters, the film
refuses to even allow for the possibility that men and w omen w ith
homosexual predilections might - w ith great effort, to be sure -
achieve successful and happy marriages to members of the opposite
sex. [7]
Ex-gay organizations
JONAH is a Jewish ex-gay organization that focuses on
"prevention, intervention, and healing of the underlying issues
causing same-sex attractions."[8] It is an international organization,
with the majority of its membership in the United States, Israel,
Canada and Europe. [9] It uses a variety of psycho-educational
methods, including live support group meetings, E- mail list-serv
groups, netw orking, therapy referrals, experiential w eekend
programs.[10]
Atzat Nefesh is based in Israel and addresses people w ith a variety of
sexual problems. It operates a hotline and several support groups in
Israel, and purports to successfully change the sexual orientation of
LGB people.[11]
Other view points
"Compassion, sy mpathy, empathy, understanding - these are
essential elements of Judaism. They are what homosexual Jews who
care about Judaism need from us today." Jonathan Sacks, Chief
Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonw ealth
(United Kingdom)
Chaim Rapoport has written Judaism and Homosexuality: An
Authentic Orthodox View , he is Rabbi of London's Ilford United
Synagogue and a member of the cabinet of the Chief Rabbi of the
United Kingdom.
Edah, a defunct modern Orthodox advocacy group, has decided to
hold public meetings on this topic for the Orthodox Jew ish community.
Sandi Simcha Dubowski's movie Trembling Before G-d (2001)
documented the struggles of homosexual Orthodox Jews w ith
traditional rejection of homosexuality. The documentary w as shown by
35
several modern Orthodox synagogues and stimulated debate on
whether greater acceptance of homosexuality is possible w ithin
Orthodoxy.
Steven Greenberg identifies himself as a gay Orthodox rabbi; he has
been a source of controversy both w ithin Orthodoxy and among gay
and lesbian Jew s. For example, in 2005, Greenberg visited South
Africa where he received a negative reception from many religious
leaders including the Chief Rabbi of South Africa Warren Goldstein [2]
Both in the United States and in Israel, several groups have sprung up
in the last few years that seek to support those w ho identify as both
Orthodox and homosexual and to promote understanding of
homosexuality w ithin Orthodox communities and among Orthodox
rabbis. These include the Gay and Lesbian Yeshiva Day School
Alumni Association [3], the w omen's group OrthoDykes [4], the youth
group JQYouth [5], and the Israeli group Hod (" Majesty") [6][7].
Conservative/Masorti Judaism
Main article: Homosexuality and Conservative Judaism
As a matter of both Jew ish law and institutional policy, Conservative
Judais m has wrestled w ith homosexuality issues since the 1980s.
In Conservative Judaism, the Committee on Jew ish Law and
Standards (CJLS) of the Rabbinical Assembly makes the movement's
decisions concerning Jew ish law . In 1992, the CJLS action affirmed
its traditional prohibition on homosexual conduct, blessing
hom osexual unions, and ordaining openly hom osexual clergy.
How ever, these prohibitions grew increasingly controversial within the
Conservative movement.
In 2006, the CJLS shifted its position and paved the w ay for significant
changes regarding the Conservative movement's policies tow ard
homosexuality. On December 6, 2006, The CJLS adopted three
distinct responsa reflecting very different approaches to the subject.
One responsum substantially liberalized Conservative Judaism's
approach including lifting most (but not all) classical prohibitions on
homosexual conduct and permitted the blessing of homosexual
unions and the ordination of gay clergy. Tw o others completely
retained traditional prohibitions. Under the rules of the Conservative
movement, the adoption of multiple opinions per mits individual
Conservative rabbis, congregations, and rabbinical schools to select
which opinion to accept, and hence to choose individually w hether to
maintain a traditional prohibition on homosexual conduct, or to permit
gay unions and clergy.

36
The liberalizing responsum, adopted as a majority opinion by 13 of 25
votes, was authored by Rabbis Elliot N. Dorff, Daniel Nevins, and
Avram Reisner. It lifted most restrictions on homosexual conduct and
opened the w ay to the ordination of openly gay and lesbian rabbis and
acceptance of homosexual unions, but stopped short of religiously
recognizing gay marriage. The responsum invoked the Talmudic
principle of kavod habriyot, w hich the authors translated as "human
dignity", as authority for this approach. The responsum maintained a
prohibition on male- male anal sex, w hic h it described as the sole
Biblically prohibited homosexual act. This act remains a yehareg ve'al
ya'avor ("die rather than transgress" offense) under the decision.[12]
Tw o traditionalist responsa w ere adopted. A responsum by Rabbi Joel
Roth [13], adopted as a majority opinion by 13 votes, reaffirmed a
general complete prohibition on homosexual conduct. A second
responsum by Rabbi Leonard Levy, adopted as a minority opinion by
6 votes, maintained that homosexuality is potentially curable and
encouraged people w ith homosexual inclinations interested in living
as religious Jew s to seek treatment.
The Committee rejected a fourth paper by Gordon Tucker w hich
would have lifted all restrictions on homosexual sexual practices.
The consequences of the decision have been mixed. On the one
hand, four members of the Committee, Rabbis Joel Roth, Leonard
Levy, Mayer Rabinow itz, and Joseph Prouser, resigned from the
CJLS follow ing adoption of the change.[14] [15] On the other hand,
the Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies of the University of Judaism in
Los Angeles had previously stated that it w ill immediately begin
admitting gay and lesbian students as soon as the law committee
passes a policy that sanctions gay ordination[16]. On March 26, 2007,
the Jew ish Theological Seminary in New York follow ed suit and began
accepting openly homosexual candidates for admission for their
Rabbinical program[17].

Meanw hile, Masorti synagogues in Europe and Israel, w hich have

historically been somew hat more traditional than the American
movement, continue to maintain a complete ban on homosexual
conduct, clergy, and unions. As such, most Conservative rabbis
outside the USA are exercising their authority as local rabbinic
authorities ( mara d'atra) to reject the more liberal responsa. The head
of the Israeli Masorti movement's Vaad Halakha (equivalent to the
CJLS), Rabbi David Golinkin, w rote the CJLS protesting its
reconsideration of the traditional ban on homosexual conduct. [18].
The Masorti movements in Argentina, Hungary, and the United
37
Kingdom have indicated that they w ill not admit or ordain homosexual
rabbinical students.[19] The Masorti Movement's Israeli seminar also
rejected a change in its view of the status of homosexual conduct,
stating that "Jew ish law has traditionally prohibited homosexuality."
[20]
Reform Judais m
The Reform Judaism movement, the largest branch of Judaism in
North A merica, has rejected the traditional view of Jew ish Law on this
issue. As such, they do not prohibit ordination of gays and lesbians as
rabbis and cantors. They view Levitical laws as sometimes seen to be
referring to prostitution, making it a stand against Jew s adopting the
idolatrous fertility cults and practices of the neighbouring Canaanite
nations rather than a blanket condemnation of same-sex intercourse
or homosexuality. Reform authorities consider that, in light of w hat is
seen as current scientific evidence about the nature of homosexuality
as a biological sexual orientation, a new interpretation of the law is
required.
In the late 1980s the primary seminary of the Reform movement,
Hebrew Union College-Jew ish Institute of Religion, changed its
admission requirements to allow gays to join the student body. In
1990 the Central Conference of American Rabbis ( CCAR) officially
endorsed a report of their committee on homosexuality and rabbis.
They concluded that "all rabbis, regardless of sexual orientation, be
accorded the opportunity to fulfill the sacred vocation that they have
chosen" and that "all Jew s are religiously equal regardless of their
sexual orientation."
In 1996 CCAR passed a resolution of civil marriage. How ever, this
same resolution made a distinction betw een civil marriages and
religious marriages; this resolution thus stated:
How ever we may understand homosexuality, w hether as an illness,
as a genetically based dysfunction or as a sexual preference and
lifestyle - we cannot accommodate the relationship of tw o
homosexuals as a "marriage" w ithin the context of Judaism, for none
of the elements of qiddushin (sanctification) normally associated w ith
marriage can be invoked for this relationship.[8]
The Central Conference of American Rabbis support the right of gay
and lesbian couples to share fully and equally in the rights of civil
marriage, and
That the CCAR oppose governmental efforts to ban gay and
lesbian m arriage.

38
That this is a matter of civil law , and is separate from the question of
rabbinic officiation at such marriages.
In 1998, an ad hoc CCAR committee on Human Sexuality issued its
majority report (11 to 1, 1 abstention) w hich stated that the holiness
within a Jew ish marriage "may be present in committed same gender
relationships betw een two Jew s and that these relationships can
serve as the foundation of stable Jew ish families, thus adding strength
to the Jew is h community." The report called for CCA R to support
rabbis in officiating at gay marriages. Also in 1998, the Responsa
Committee of the CCAR issued a lengthy teshuvah (rabbinical
opinion)[9] that offered detailed argumentation in support of both sides
of the question w hether a rabbi may officiate at a commitment
ceremony for a same-sex couple.
In March 2000 CCAR issued a new resolution stating that "We do
hereby resolve that, that the relationship of a Jewish, same
gender couple is worthy of affirm ation through appropriate
Jew ish ritual, and further resolved, that we recognize the
diversity of opinions w ithin our ranks on this issue. We support
the decision of those who choose to officiate at rituals of union
for same-sex couples, and we support the decision of those who
do not."
To promote inclusion of LGBT members and clergy, the Reform
movement established the Institute for Judaism and Sexual
Orientation at Hebrew Union College. The IJSO offers educational
programs and makes available copies of Reform responsa and
policies on homosexuality.
Reconstructionist Judaism
The (Jew ish) Reconstructionist movement sees homosexuality as a
normative expression of sexuality and welcomes gays and lesbians
into Reconstructionist communities to participate fully in every aspect
of community life. Since 1985, the Reconstructionist Rabbinical
College has admitted gay and lesbian candidates for their rabbinical
and cantorial programs. In 1993, a movement Commission issued:
Homosexuality and Judais m: The Reconstructionist Position.[21] The
Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association (RRA) encourages its
members to officiate at homosexual marriages/commitment
ceremonies, though the RRA does not require its members to officiate
at them. In 2007, the RRA elected as president Toba Spitzer, the first
openly gay or lesbian leader of a rabbinic association.“

39
 Islam
“Homosexuality and Islam
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Islamic views on homosexuality have alw ays been influenced by the

rulings prescribed by the Qur'an and the teachings of the Islamic
prophet Muhammed. Traditionally, Qur'anic verses and hadith have
condemned sexual acts betw een members of the same sex.
The Qur'an cites the story of "people of Lot" (also know n as the
Sodomites) w ho w ere destroyed by the w rath of Allah because they
engaged in homosexual acts. The legal punishment for sodomy has
varied among jur istic schools: some prescribe capital punishment;
while other prescribe a milder discretionary punishment.
Hom osexuality is a crime and forbidden in most Islamic countries
like Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. In some relatively secular or multi-
religious Islamic countries, this is not the case, Algeria, Malaysia,
Indonesia and Turkey being some examples. Despite this, homoerotic
themes w ere present in poetry and other literature by some Muslims
which celebrated male love, and w ere more common than
expressions of attraction to w omen.[1]
Some movements in Islam, such as the Al-Fatiha Foundation, accept
and consider homosexuality as natural, either regarding Qur'anic
verses as obsolete in the context of modern society, or pointing out
that the Qu'ran speaks out against homosexual lust, and is silent
on hom osexual love. Writer Irshad Manji, a lesbian herself and a
staunch critic of Islam,[2] is of the opinion that homosexuality is
permissible w ithin Islam; how ever, it only remains a minority
view point. Within the Shi'a school of thought in Islam , thinkers
such as Ayatollah Khomeini have argued the legality of sex-
change operations if a m an is homosexual, and feels
effeminate.[3]
Eminent scholars of Islam, such as Sheikh ul- Islam Imam Malik, Imam
Shafi amongst others, rule that the Islam disallow s homosexuality and
ordains a capital punishment for a person guilty of it.[4]

Rulings in the Islamic Law

Homosexuality is traditionally deemed forbidden by Islamic law . The
Qur'an, the central text of Islam believed by Muslims to be the
revelation of God,[5] is explicit in its condemnation of
homosexuality.[6][7] The Qur'an proclaims Islam as the "religion of
40
nature," and sanctifies and encourages sexual intercourse within
marriages only. Specific verses condemning homosexuality include:
“We also (sent) Lut: He said to his people: " Do ye commit lew dness
such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye
practise your lusts on men in preference to w omen : ye are indeed a
people transgressing beyond bounds." And his people gave no
answ er but this: they said, " Drive them out of your city: these are
indeed men w ho want to be clean and pure!" But w e saved him and
his family, except his w if e: she was of those who legged behind. And
we rained dow n on them a show er (of brimstone): Then see w hat w as
the end of those who indulged in sin and crime!”[7:80–84 (Translated
by Yusuf Ali)]
“The people of Lut (those w ho dw elt in the tow ns of Sodom in Jordan)
rejected the messengers. Behold, their brother Lut said to them: "Will
ye not fear (Allah)? I am to you a messenger w orthy of all trust. So
fear Allah and obey me. No rew ard do I ask of you for it: my rew ard is
only from the lord of the Worlds. Of all the creatures in the w orld, w ill
ye approach males, And leave those whom Allah has created for you
to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)!"
They said: "If thou desist not, O Lut! thou w ilt assuredly be cast out!"
He said: " I do detest your doings." "O my Lord! deliver me and my
family from such things as they do!" So We delivered him and his
family,- all. Except an old w oman w ho lingered behind. But the rest
We destroyed utterly. We rained dow n on them a show er (of
brimstone): and evil w as the shower on those who were admonished
(but heeded not) ! Verily in this is a Sign: but most of them do not
believe. And verily thy Lord is He, the Exalted in Might Most
Merciful.”[26:160–175 ( Translated by Yusuf Ali)]
“(We also sent) Lut (as a messenger): behold, He said to his people,
"Do ye do w hat is shameful though ye see (its iniquity)? Would ye
really approach men in your lusts rather than w omen? Nay, ye are a
people (grossly) ignorant!" But his people gave no other answ er but
this: they said, " Drive out the follow ers of Lut from your city: these are
indeed men w ho want to be clean and pure!" But his people gave no
other answ er but this: they said, " Drive out the follow ers of Lut from
your city: these are indeed men w ho want to be clean and pure!" And
We rained dow n on them a show er (of brimstone): and evil w as the
show er on those w ho were admonished (but heeded not)!”[27:54–58
(Translated by Yusuf Ali)]
“And (remember) Lut: behold, he said to his people: "Ye do commit
lew dness, such as no people in Creation (ever) committed before you.
Do ye indeed approach men, and cut off the highw ay?- and practise
41
lew dness (even) in your councils?" But his people gave no answ er but
this: they said: "Bring us the Wrath of Allah if thou tellest the truth." He
said: "O my Lord! help Thou me against people w ho do
mischief!"”[29:28–29 (Translated by Yusuf Ali)]
“If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of
four (Reliable) w itnesses from amongst you against them; and if they
testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah
ordain for them some (other) w ay. If tw o men among you are guilty of
lew dness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them
alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.”[4:15–16 (Translated
by Yusuf Ali)]
The Hadith, w hich are oral traditions relating to the w ords and deeds
of the last Islamic prophet Muhammed and regarded as important
tools for determining the Muslim w ay of life by all traditional schools of
jurisprudence, also contain numerous statements condemning
homosexuality.
Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 1457 Ibn Maajah, 2563. It w as narrated by
Jaabir ( may Allaah be pleased w ith him): “The Prophet (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: ‘There is nothing I fear for my
ummah more than the deed of the people of Loot.’” ( Classed as
saheeh by Shaykh al-Albaaniin Saheeh al-Jaami’, no. 1552). Narrated
by Ahmad, 1878: It w as narrated that Ibn Abbaas said: “The Prophet
Muhammed (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “…
cursed is the one w ho has intercourse with an animal, cursed is the
one w ho does the action of the people of Loot.” (Classed as saheeh
by Shaykh al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Jaami’, no. 5891). Narrated by al-
Tir midhi, 1456; Abu Daw ood, 4462; Ibn Maajah, 2561: It w as narrated
that Ibn Abbaas said: “The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be
upon him) said: "Whoever you find doing the deed of the people of
Loot, kill the one w ho does it and the one to w hom it is done.”
(Classed as saheeh by Shaykh al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Jaami’, no.
6589). Another Hadith narrative reports Muhammed as having said:
"No man should look at the private parts of another man, and no
woman should look at the private parts of another w oman, and no tw o
men sleep [in bed] under one cover." One narrative, attributed as part
of Muhammad's farewell speech, says that "Whoever has intercourse
with a woman and penetrates her rectum, or w ith a man, or w ith a
boy, w ill appear on the Last Day stinking w orse than a corpse; people
will find him unbearable until he enters hell fire, and God w ill cancel all
his good deeds."[8] Another w idely reported hadith (from Sunan al-
Tir midhi, w hich is one of the Sunni Six major Hadith collections)
reports Prophet Muhammed as having prescribed the death penalty

42
for homosexuality w hile saying "Whoever you find committing the sin
of the people of Lut, kill them, both the one w ho does it and the one to
whom it is done."[4]
Rulings by Scholars of Islam
Based on the principles of the Qur'an and the Hadith, several eminent
scholars of Islam, such as Imam Malik, Imam Shafi, Ahmad and
Ishaaq have ruled that the person guilty of homosexuality should be
stoned regardless of his married or unmarried nature.[4]

Ibn Kathir's commentary on the w ords of Qur'an with respect to

homosexuality are “The w ords of Allah ‘And the tw o persons (man
and w oman) among you w ho commit illegal sexual intercourse, hurt
them both’ mean, those w ho commit immoral actions, punish them
both. Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased w ith him), Sa’eed ibn
Jubayr and others said: By condemning them, shaming them and
hitting them w ith shoes. This was the ruling until Allaah abrogated
it and replaced it w ith whipping and stoning. ‘Ikrimah, ‘Ata, al-
Hasan and ‘Abd-Allah ibn Katheer said: This w as revealed concerning
a man and w oman w ho commit fornication. Al-Saddi said, it w as
revealed concerning young people before they get married. Mujaahid
said: it w as revealed concerning tw o men if they admit it bluntly; a hint
is not sufficient - as if he was referring to homosexuality. And Allah
knows best.” [9][10]
Ibn al-Qayyim is reported to have said "Both of them – fornication and
homosexuality – involve immorality that goes against the w isdom of
Allah’s creation and commandment. For homosexuality involves
innumerable evil and har ms, and the one to w hom it is done w ould be
better off being killed than having this done to him, because after that
he w ill become so evil and so corrupt that there can be no hope of his
being reformed, and all good is lost for him, and he w ill no longer feel
any shame before Allah or before His creation. The semen of the one
who did that to him w ill act as a poison on his body and soul. The
scholars differed as to w hether the one to w hom it is done w ill ever
enter Paradise."[11]
Ahmad Kutty, senior lecturer and Islamic scholar at the Islamic
Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, in his lectures on the subject
has expressed the view a Muslim practicing homosexuality needs to
give it up since it is considered 'one of the most abominable sins in
Islam'.[12] Muslims like Dr. Nadia El-Aw ady, the Health & Science
Editor at IslamOnline, have attempted to discuss and understand
homosexuality in an Islamic[13] as w ell as a scientific light,[14] citing
its apparent ill-effects for the Islamic as w ell as the moral society.[15]
43
Islamic UK-based group, the Shari'ah Court of the UK has issued a
fatwa[16] calling for a death sentence for playw right Terrence McNally
for depicting Jesus and his follow ers as a group of homosexuals.
Many scholars of Shari'a, or Islamic law , interpret homosexuality as a
punishable offence as well as a sin. There is no specific punishment
prescribed, how ever, and this is usually left to the discretion of the
local authorities on Islam.[17]
According to the Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World:
Whatever the legal strictures on sexual activity, the positive
expression of male homeoerotic sentiment in literature w as accepted,
and assiduously cultivated, from the late eighth century until modern
times. First in Arabic, but later also in Persian, Turkish and Urdu, love
poetry by men about boys more than competed w ith that about
women, it overw helmed it. Anectodtal literature reinforces this
impression of general societal acceptance of the public celebration of
male- male love (w hich hostile Western caricatures of Islamic societies
in medieval and early modern times simply exaggerate). .... .[1]
In a tradition from the Arabian nights, Muhammad w as said to have
warned his follow ers against staring at youth because of their beauty:
"Do not gaze at beardless youth, for they have eyes more tempting
than the huris." [18]
Legal status in modern Islamic nations
Homosexuality is a crime and forbidden in most Islamic countries,
Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. In some secular or multi-religious Islamic
countries, this is not the case, Albania, Indonesia and Turkey being
examples. How ever, the governments of Albania, Indonesia, and
Turkey are presidential representative democratic republics and are
not Islamic Republics, like in the case of Iran.
Same-sex intercourse officially carries the death penalty in
several Muslim nations: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, northern
Nigeria, Sudan, and Yemen. [19] [20] It formerly carried the death
penalty in Afghanistan under the Taliban. The legal situation in the
United Arab Emirates is unclear. In m any Muslim nations, such as
Bahrain, Qatar, Algeria and the Maldives, hom osexuality is
punished w ith jail time, fines, or corporal punishment. In some
Muslim- majority nations, such as Turkey, Jordan, Indonesia or Mali,
same-sex intercourse is not specific ally forbidden by law . In Egypt,
openly gay men have been prosecuted under general public morality
laws. (See Cairo 52.) On the other hand, homosexuality, w hile not
legal, is tolerated to some extent in Lebanon, and has been legal in
Turkey for decades.

44
In Saudi Arabia, the maximum punishment for homosexuality is
public execution, but the government will use other
punishments—e.g., fines, jail time, and whipping—as
alternatives, unless it feels that homosexuals are challenging
state authority by engaging in LGBT social movements.[21] Iran
is perhaps the nation to execute the largest number of its
citizens for homosexuality. Since the 1979 Islamic revolution in
Iran, the Iranian government has executed more than 4,000
people charged with homosexual acts[22]. In Afghanistan after the
fall of the Taliban, homosexuality w ent from a capital crime to one that
it punished w ith fines and prison sentence.
Most international human rights organizations, such as Human Rights
Watch and Amnesty International, condemn law s that make
homosexual relations betw een consenting adults a crime. Since 1994,
the United Nations Human Rights Committee has also ruled that such
laws violated the right to privacy guaranteed in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights. How ever, most Muslim nations (except for
Turkey, w hich has been ruled by secular law since 1856 and recently
has modernized its laws in order to meet the requirements of entry to
the European Union) insist that such laws are necessary to preserve
Islamic morality and virtue. Of the nations w ith a majority of Muslim
inhabitants, only Lebanon has an internal effort to legalize
homosexuality.[23]
LGBT movements w ithin Islam
Besides the Al-Fatiha Foundation w hich supports homosexuality, the
Imaan is also social support group for Muslim LGBT people and their
families in the UK[24]
There are also a number of Islam ic ex-gay (i.e. people claiming to
have experienced a basic change in sexual orientation from exclusive
homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality[25]) groups aimed at
attempting to guide homosexuals tow ards heterosexuality. The
StraightWay Foundation is a UK based ex-gay organization w hich
works with homosexual Muslims w ho seek to eliminate their same-sex
attractions.[26] Al-Taw bah is an internet based ex-gay group[27]. It
should be noted that the efficacy of ex-gay treatments and
therapies has been brought into serious doubt by m any well-
respected psychological and medical groups, such as the
American Psychological Association.[28]
In addition to the aforementioned groups, Muslim w riters like Irshad
Manji express the view that homosexuality is per missible w ithin Islam;
how ever, this remains a minority view point. Within Shi'a Islam,
45
thinkers such as Ayatollah Khomeini's original fatw a has been
reconfirmed by the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,
and is also supported by many other Iranian clerics.[29] The law
remains in force in Iran, w here the state will pay a portion of the cost
for a sex-change operation.”

Buddhism
“Hom osexuality and Buddhism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.w ikipedia.org/w iki/Homosexuality_and_Buddhis m

Asian societies shaped by Buddhist traditions take a strong ethical
stand in human affairs and sexual behavior in particular. How ever,
unlike most other w orld religions, m ost variations of Buddhism do
not go into details about w hat is right and what is wrong in what
it considers m undane activities of life. Details of accepted or
unaccepted human sexual conduct are not specif ically mentioned in
any of the religious scriptures in the Pali language. The most common
formulations of Buddhist ethics are found the Five Precepts and the
Eightfold Path, w hich state that one should neither be attached to nor
crave sensual pleasure. These precepts take the form of voluntary,
personal undertakings, not divine m andate or instruction. The
third of the Five Precepts is "To refrain from committing sexual
misconduct.[1]. How ever, "sexual misconduct" is a broad term, and is
subjected to interpretation relative to the social nor ms of the follow ers.
In fact, Buddhism in its fundamental form does not define w hat is right
and w hat is wrong in absolute ter ms for lay follow ers. Therefore the
determination of whether or not homosexuality is acceptable for a
layperson is not a religious matter as far as fundamental Buddhism is
concerned.
Among Buddhists there is a w ide diversity of opinion about
homosexuality. Buddhis m teaches that sensual enjoyment and desire
in general, and sexual pleasure in particular, are hindrances to
enlightenment.[2] Buddhist monks and nuns of most traditions are
expected to refrain from all sexual activity and take vows of celibacy.
Some Buddhist orders may specifically prohibit transgender,
homosexually active, or homosexually oriented people from ordination
but accept homosexuality among laypersons.

46
Buddhist texts
Within the ear liest monastic texts such as the Vinaya (c. 4th century
BCE), male monks are explicitly forbidden from having sexual
relations w ith any of the four genders: male, female,
ubhatovyanjañaka and pa aka. These latter tw o encompass a range
of sexual and gender variations of male-bodied, female-bodied, and
intersex people.[3] Later, Buddha allow ed the ordination of w omen,
but forbade ordination to these other types of people on sexual
grounds.[4]
The w ord ubhatovyanjañaka is usually thought to describe people
who have both male and female sexual characteristics.[5] Some
interpret this as including those who are not physical hermaphrodites,
but display behavioral and psychological characteristics of both sexes,
such as a w oman w ho is attracted to other w omen.[6] 5th century
Buddhist writer Buddhaghosa describes ubhatobyanjanaka as people
with the body of one gender but the "pow er" of the other. Leonard
Zw illing argues that in this account Buddhaghosa does not in fact
describe hermaphroditis m but rather bisexuality or homosexuality;[7]
other w riters dispute this.
The pa aka, is a complex category that is variously defined in
different Buddhist texts as including those born sexually indeter minate
or w ith no sex, eunuchs, those whose sexuality changes every half
month, males w ho gain sexual satisfaction by performing fellatio on
other men, and voyeurs. It sometimes includes males or females w ith
any sexual dysfunction, such as impotence or irregular menstrual
cycles. The common element seems to be those w hose sexuality is
either limited physiologically, or those w ho have "perverse" or extra
sexuality. Together these "third sex" types are almost alw ays
portrayed negatively as a pariah class, especially in the earliest texts.
As the Vinaya tradition develops, pa aka becomes the term of
choice that most often stands for the excluded third sex category as a
whole.[8] In modern contexts, pa aka is often interpreted to include
lesbians, gay men, and transgender and intersex people,[9] although
in ancient times, a man w ho sexually penetrated another man or a
pa aka w as not himself considered a pa aka.[10]
Pa aka are categorised w ith others who are also excluded from
ordination; either those w ith physical abnormalities such as deafness
or dw arfism, or those w ho have committed crimes.[11] "The Story of
the Prohibition of the Ordination of Pandaka" from the Vinaya justifies
the ban by giving an example of a monk w ith an insatiable desire to
be sexually penetrated by men, thus bringing shame upon the
Buddhist community.[12] In Buddhaghosa' s Samantapasadika,
47
pa aka are described as being filled w ith defiling passions
(ussanakilesa), unquenchable lusts (avapasantaparilaha) and are
dominated by their libido (parilahavegabhibhuta). Fourth century
Buddhist w riter Vasubandhu contends that the pa aka has no
discipline for spiritual practice, due to their defiling passions of both
male and female sexes. They lack the moral fortitude to counter these
passions because they lack modesty and shame. Incapable of
show ing restraint, such a being is abandoned by their parents and
lacking such ties are unable to hold strong views.[13]
The Abhidhar ma states that a pa aka cannot achieve enlightenment
in their ow n life time, but must w ait for reincarnation as a normal man
or w oman. Ananda — Buddha' s cousin and disciple — w as said to be
a pa aka in one of his many previous lives, as w as the Buddhist nun
Isid s (from the Therigatha). In both cases birth as a pa aka w as a
result of poor karma, and the idea that being a pa aka stems from
bad behaviour in a previous life is common in Buddhist literature.[14]
Buddha' s proscriptions against certain types of people joining the
monastic sangha (ordained community) are often understood to
reflect his concern w ith upholding the public image of the sangha as
virtuous. Thus, sexually active people, especially those w ith unusual
sexual tastes, and people of a third gender — along w ith criminals
and disabled people — run the risk of bringing the order into
disrepute. Peter Jackson, scholar of sexual politics and Buddhism in
Thailand, speculates that the Buddha w as initially reluctant to allow
women to join the sangha for this reason. Jackson explains:
"Buddhis m, the middle path, has alw ays been concerned w ith the
maintenance of social order and since the Buddha' s time the sangha
has never claimed to provide a universal vehicle for the spiritual
liberation of all individuals in society, explicitly excluding those w ho
are considered to reflect badly on the monkhood in ter ms of prevailing
social norms and attitudes."[15]
The third sex are excluded from a variety of Buddhist practices (in
addition to ordination):
acting as preceptors in ordination ceremonies,[16]
making donations to begging monks,[17]
being preached to,[18]
meditating,[19]
ability to understand the Dhar ma. [20]

48
In contrast, later texts, particularly Tibetan Buddhist writings,
occasionally value pa aka positively for their " middleness" and
balance. The pa aka in these Tibetan w orks is translated w ith the
term ma ning — "genderless" or "without genitals".[21] The 13th
century Tibetan monk Gyalw a Yang Gönpa, w ho was one of the
significant figures in the early Drukpa Kagyu sect,[22] w rites about ma
ning as a balanced state betw een maleness and femaleness. Yang
Gönpa describes ma ning as "the abiding breath betw een male
exhalation and female inhalation" and "the balanced yogic channel, as
opposed to the too tight male channel, and the too loose female
one".[23]
Tibetan Buddhis m
Gampopa, often called the founder of Tibetan Buddhis m, w rote (in the
12th century) that anal sex was a violation of the third precept
regarding sexual misconduct. Longchenpa, 13th century founder of
the Nyingma school, elaborated that sexual misconduct includes
"intercourse in forbidden parts of the body, such as the hands." [24]
The current Dalai Lama interprets sexual misconduct to include
lesbian and gay sex, and indeed any sex other than penis-vagina
intercourse, including oral sex, anal sex, and masturbation.[25] He
explained in 1997:[26] " It’s part of w hat we Buddhists call bad sexual
conduct. Sexual organs w ere created for reproduction betw een the
male element and the female element — and everything that deviates
from that is not acceptable from a Buddhist point of view ."[27]
How ever, in the same interview he also said that heterosexual non-
procreative sex is not considered to be sexual misconduct — he is
"for" heterosexual sex w ith condoms or the pill[citation needed]. The
Dalai Lama admitted that there is a difference betw een the views of
believers and unbelievers: "From a Buddhist point of view , men-to-
men and w omen-to-w omen is generally considered sexual
misconduct. From society' s point of view , mutually agreeable
homosexual relations can be of mutual benefit, enjoyable and
harmless."[28] He claimed the proscription against sexual misconduct
can be traced to the 2nd century Buddhist scholar Ashvaghosha.
Four years earlier, he had been unsure if a mutually agreeable non-
abusive same sex relationship w ould be acceptable. He had difficulty
imagining the mechanics of homosexual sex, saying that nature had
arranged male and female organs "in such a manner that is very
suitable… Same-sex organs cannot manage w ell."[29]
In an interview with Wikinew s, Tashi Wangdi, Representative to the
Dalai Lama, further elaborated on these view s. If a person w as to
engage in homosexuality, "a person w ould not be considered as
49
follow ing all the precepts of Buddhist principles. People don’t follow all
the principles. Very few people can claim they follow all the principles.
For instance, telling a lie. In any religion, if you ask if telling a lie is a
sin— say Christian— they w ill say yes. But you find very few people
who don’t at some point tell a lie. Homosexuality is one act, but you
can’t say [a person w ho is homosexual is] not a Buddhist. Or
someone w ho tells a lie is not a Buddhist. Or someone w ho kills an
insect is not a Buddhist, because there’s a strong injunction against
that."[30]

Theravada Buddhis m
In Thailand, traditional accounts propose that "homosexuality arises
as a karmic consequence of violating Buddhist proscriptions against
heterosexual misconduct. These kar mic accounts describe
homosexuality as a congenital condition w hich cannot be altered, at
least in a homosexual person' s current lifetime, and have been linked
with calls for compassion and understanding from the non-
homosexual populace."[31] Som e more recent Thai Buddhist
accounts (from the late 1980s) have "described hom osexuality
as a w ilful violation of "natural" (hetero)sexual conduct resulting
from lack of ethical control over sexual im pulses."[32] Peter
Jackson, an Australian scholar of sexual politics and Buddhis m in
Thailand, w rites that these positions represent "two broad schools of
thought on hom osexuality [which] are current am ong
contem porary Thai Buddhist writers, one accepting, the other
unaccepting. The key factor differentiating the divergent stances is
the author' s conceptualisation of the origin of homosexuality; those
who, taking a liberal stance, maintain that it is a condition w hich is
outside the conscious control of homosexual men and w omen and
has its origins in past misdeeds, w hereas those who maintain that
homosexuality is a w ilful violation of ethical and natural principles
takes an antagonistic position."
Peter Jackson argues that AIDS in the 1980s brought about a shift of
perception in Thailand regarding kathoeys, "placing homosexuality
rather than gender at the focus of the concept", w hich w as associated
with "a shift in Buddhist attitudes from relative tolerance of
hom osexuality to condemnation."[33]
In 1989, the supreme governing body of the Thai sangha affirmed that
"gays" (here translated from Thai kathoey) are prohibited from
being ordained.[34] Their declaration has apparently gone
unheeded in some quarters, as Phra Pisarn Thammapatee (AKA
Phra Payom Kalayano), one of the most eminent monks in the
50
country, demanded in 2003 that 1,000 gay monks be ousted from the
sangha, and that better screening processes are put in place to keep
out any gay postulants.[35]

Japanese Buddhis m
Several writers have noted the strong historical tradition of open
bisexuality and homosexuality among male Buddhist institutions in
Japan. When the Tendai priest Genshin denounced monks "… w ho
have accosted another’s acolyte and w ickedly violated him" in a text
printed in 985 AD, the main offence seems to have been that the
acolyte w asn' t one'
s own.[36] Chigo Monogatar i, "acolyte stories" of
love betw een monks and their chigo were popular, and such
relationships appear to have been commonplace, alongside sex w ith
women. In the 15th century, maverick Zen monk Ikkyu Sojun (1394-
1481) w rote "follow the rule of celibacy and you are no more than an
ass." Later, "exhausted with homosexual pleasures", he took a w if e.
Western Christian travellers to Japan from the 16th century have
noted (w ith distaste) the prevalence and acceptance of forms of
homosexuality among Japanese Buddhists[37] — Jesuit priest
Francis Cabral w rote in 1596 that ‘abominations of the flesh’ and
‘vicious habits’ w ere "regarded in Japan as quite honourable; men of
standing entrust their sons to the bonzes to be instructed in such
things, and at the same time to serve their lust".[38]
A 17th century Japanese Buddhist scholar, Kitamura Kigin, w rote that
Buddha advocated homosexuality over heterosexuality for priests:
"It has been the nature of men' s hearts to take pleasure in a beautiful
woman since the age of male and female gods, but to become
intoxicated by the blossom of a handsome youth… w ould seem to be
both w rong and unusual. Nevertheless, the Buddha preached that
[Mount] Imose[39] w as a place to be avoided and the priests of the
law entered this Way[40] as an outlet for their feelings, since their
hearts were, after all, made of neither stone nor wood.[41] Like w ater
that plunges from the peak of Tsukubane to form the deep pools of
the Minano River, this love has surpassed in depth the love betw een
women and men in these latter days. It plagues the heart not only of
courtier and aristocrat but also of brave w arriors. Even the mountain
dw ellers w ho cut brush for fuel have learned to take pleasure in the
shade of young saplings." - Wild Azaleas (1676)

51
Chinese Buddhism
In Chinese Buddhis m, homosexuality w as a third level sin punishable
in one of the nine hells.[42] Marie- Eve Blanc w rites that "Mahayana
Buddhis m (as in China and Vietnam) is less tolerant than Theravada
Buddhis m (Thailand)."[43]

Buddhis m in the West

In contrast to Buddhis m in Asia, modern Buddhis m in the Western
world is typically associated w ith liberal politics and a concern for
social equality — partly as a result of its largely middle-class
intellectual membership base, and its philosophical roots in
freethought and secular humanis m.[44] When applying buddhist
philosophy to the question of homosexuality, w estern Buddhists often
emphasize the importance the Buddha placed on tolerance,
compassion, and seeking answ ers w ithin one' s self. They stress these
over-arching values rather than examining specific passages or texts.
As a result, western Buddhism is often relatively gay-friendly,
especially since the 1990s. As interpretation of what is sexual
misconduct is an individual decision and not subject to judgement by
any central authority, a view of accepting all peoples, but rejecting
certain types of sexual acts is more predominant. LGBT people such
as Issan Dorsey, Caitriona Reed, Pat Enkyo O'Hara and Soeng
Hyang have been ordained as Buddhist monastics.
The USA branch of Soka Gakkai International, a Japanese-based
new religious movement (Shinsh ky ) influenced by Nichiren
Buddhis m, announced in 1995 that they w ould start holding w edding
ceremonies for same-sex couples,[45] and in 2001 established a
conference for LGBT members and their supporters.[46] A Buddhist
temple in Salt Lake City connected w ith Jodo Shinshu, another
Japanese school of Buddhism, also holds religious rites for same-sex
couples.[47]”

Hinduism
“LGBT issues and Hinduism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.w ikipedia.org/w iki/Homosexuality_and_Hinduis m
Hindu views of homosexuality and, in general, LGBT (lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender) issues, are diverse. Same-sex relations
and gender variance have been represented within Hinduism from

52
Vedic times through to the present day, in rituals, law books, religious
or so-called mythical narratives, commentaries, paintings, and
sculpture. The extent to which these representations embrace or
reject homosexuality has been disputed w ithin the religion as w ell as
outside of it.

Contemporary Hindu society

Sexuality is rarely discussed openly in contemporary Hindu society,
expecially in modern India w here sex between men is illegal, due to
colonial British law s.[1] How ever, the Indian government has
confirmed it does not support the prosecution of homosexuals and
despite the penal code, has stated that this is outdated and there
have been no convictions for many years.
Professor of w omen' s studies and world religions Paola Bacchetta
argues that "queerphobia is one of the pillars of Hindu nationalis m".[2]
How ever, in the last twenty years homosexuality has become
increasingly visible in the print and audio-visual media, w ith many out
LGBT people, an active LGBT movement, and a large Indian LGBT
presence on the Internet. From the 1990s onw ard, modern gay and
lesbian Hindu organizations have surfaced in India' s major cities and
in 2004, plausible calls w ere made for the first time to repeal India' s
outdated and nontraditional laws against homosexuality.
Deepa Mehta' s 1996 film Fire, w hich depicts a romantic relationship
betw een tw o Hindu w omen, w as informally banned for "religious
insensitivity"[3] after Hindu Nationalists attacked cinemas w here it w as
being screened on the grounds that it denigrated Indian culture, not
on the grounds of homophobia per se, a position shared and
confirmed by feminist Madhu Kishw ar[1].In addition, The Bharatiya
Janata Party (Hindu Nationalist Party) w ho were in pow er in India at
the time, refused to ban it. Similar protests occurred in 2004 against
the lesbian-themed film Girlfriend — even though the portrayal of
lesbianis m w as this time distinctly unsympathetic.[4] Several human-
rights groups such as the People' s Union for Civil Liberties have
asserted that sexual minor ities in India face severe discrimination and
violence, especially those from rural and low er caste backgrounds.[5]
Hijras and other third-gender groups are sim ilarly oppressed in
m odern-day India, forced to live on the m argins of society.
Most modern Hindus reject homosexuality on the basis that Hindu
dharma generally requires men and w omen to marry and produce
progeny.[citation needed] Not all Hindus are aw are of or believe that
some persons (often know n as the "third sex" or "third gender") are

53
not advised to marry the opposite sex or beget children according to
their ow n nature. Men that are too effem inate or transgendered to
m arry w omen are often rejected by their fam ilies and forced to
join third-gender groups such as the hijra. Increasingly, LGBT
people are "com ing out" to parents and comm unities, and
receiving w idely varying degrees of support.
In her book, Love' s Rite,[6] Ruth Vanita exam ines the phenomena
of same-sex weddings, m any by Hindu rites, w hich have been
reported by the Indian press over the last thirty years and w ith
increasing frequency. In the same period, sam e-sex joint suicides
have also been reported. Most of these marriages and suicides are by
low er middle-class female couples from s mall tow ns and rural areas
across the country; these women have no contact w ith any LGBT
m ovements. Both cross-sex and same-sex couples, when faced w ith
family opposition, tend to resort to either elopement and marriage or
to joint suicide in the hope of reunion in the next life. Vanita examines
how Hindu doctrines such as rebirth and the genderlessness of the
soul are often interpreted to legitimize socially disapproved
relationships, including same-sex ones. In a 2004 survey, most —
though not all — sw amis said they opposed the concept of a Hindu-
sanctified gay marriage.[7] But several Hindu priests have performed
same-sex marriages, arguing that love is the result of attachments
from previous births and that marriage, as a union of spirit, is
transcendental to gender.[citation needed]
Many Indian and Hindu intellectuals now publicly support LGBT civil
rights. Some liberal Hindu reform movements, especially those in the
West, also support social acceptance of gays, lesbians and other
gender minorities. Psychoanalyst Sudhir Kakar w rites that Hindus are
more accepting of "deviance or eccentricity" than are adherents of
Western religions, w ho typically treat sexual variance as "anti-social or
psychopathological, requiring ' correction' or ' cure'
".[8] Hindus, he
argues, believe instead that each individual must fulfil their personal
destiny (svadharma) as they travel the path tow ards moksha
(transcendence).

The Hindu Third Sex

Hindu philosophy has the concept of a third sex or third gender
(tritiya-prakriti - literally, "third nature"). This category includes a w ide
range of people w ith mixed male and female natures such as
transgenders, homosexuals, transsexuals, bisexuals, the intersexed,
and so on.[9] Such persons are not considered fully male or female in
traditional Hinduism, being a combination of both. They are
54
mentioned as third sex by nature (birth)[10] and are not expected
to behave like ordinary men and w omen. They often keep their ow n
societies or tow n quarters, perform specific occupations (such as
masseurs, hairdressers, flower-sellers, domestic servants, etc.) and
are generally attributed a semi-divine status. Their participation in
religious ceremonies, especially as crossdressing dancers and
devotees of certain temple gods/goddesses, is considered auspicious
in traditional Hinduism. Some Hindus believe that third-sex people
have special pow ers allow ing them to bless or curse others. In
Hinduis m, the universal creation is honored as unlimitedly diverse and
the recognition of a third sex is simply one more aspect of this
understanding.[11]

Hindu religious narratives

In the Hindu narrative tradition, stories of gods and mortals changing
gender occur.[12] Sometimes they also engage in sexual activities as
different genders. Homosexual and transgender Hindus commonly
identify w ith and worship the various Hindu deities connected w ith
gender diversity such as Ardhanarisvara (the hermaphrodite form of
Shiva); Aravan (a hero whom Krishna married after becoming a
woman); Ayyappa (a god born from the union of Shiva and Mohini, a
female incarnation of Vishnu); Bahuchara-devi (a goddess connected
with transsexuality and eunuchis m); Bhagavati-devi (a Hindu goddess
associated w ith crossdressing); Bhagiratha Maharaja (an Indian king
born of two female parents); Caitanya Mahaprabhu (an incarnation of
Radha and Krishna combined); Chandi- Chamunda (tw in w arrior
goddesses); Gadadhara (an incarnation of Radha in male form);
Ganesha (the elephant-headed god); Gangamma-devi (a goddess
connected w ith crossdressing and disguises); Harihara (Shiva and
Vishnu combined); Kartikeya; Vallabhavardhana, Yellamma-devi and
countless others.[13] There are also specific festivals connected to
the w orship of such gender-variant deities, some of w hich are famous
in India for their crossdressing devotees and homosexual undertones.
These festivals include the Aravan Festival of Tamil Nadu, the
Ayyappa and Chamaya-Villaku Festivals of Kerala, the Bahucara-
mata Festivals of Gujarat and the Yellamma-devi Festivals of
Karnataka, among others.

Mahabharata
In the Mahabharata, as the result of a curse he w as compelled to
honor, the hero Arjuna takes a "vow of eunuchism," that is, to live as

55
the third sex for a year: "O lord of the Earth, I w ill declare myself as
one of the "neuter" sex. O monarch, it is, indeed difficult to hide the
marks of the bowstring on my arms. I w ill, how ever, cover both my
cicatrized arms w ith bangles. Wearing brilliant rings on my ears and
conch-bangles on my w rists and causing a braid to hang dow n from
my head, I shall, O king, appear as one of the third sex, Vrihannala by
name."[14]
Another important character, Sikhandi, is born female, but raised as a
boy. Sihkandi' s father, King Drupada, had begged the god Mahadeva
to give him a son, to w hich Mahadeva replied: "Thou shalt have a
child w ho w ill be a female and male. Desist, O king, it w ill not be
otherw ise." When Sikhandi comes of age and marries, Sikhandi' s w ife
"soon came to know that [Sikhandi] w as a woman like herself."
Fleeing from the unnamed w if e' s enraged father, Sikhandi encounters
a male Yaksha (nature spirit) in the forest, and they agree to swap
sexes. Now in a male body, Sikhandi proves to his father-in-law that
he is truly male, after the latter sends "a number of young ladies of
great beauty" to Sikhandi to test him. They report back that he is "a
pow erful person of the masculine sex," and Sikhandi becomes a
skilled and famous w arrior, playing a pivotal role in the w ar.[15]

Ramayana
In some versions of the Krittivasa Ramayana, the most popular
Bengali text on the pastimes of Lord Ramachandra (an incarnation of
Vishnu), there is an interesting narrative of tw o queens that conceived
a child together. When the famous king of the Sun Dynasty, Maharaja
Dilipa, died, the demigods become concerned that he did not have a
son to continue his line. Lord Shiva therefore appeared before the
king's tw o widowed queens and commanded them, "You tw o make
love together and by my blessings you will bear a beautiful son." The
tw o wives, w ith great affection for each other, executed Shiva' s order
until one of them conceived a child. Unfortunately, how ever, the child
was born boneless, but by the blessings of a sage, Astavakra, the
child w as restored to full health and continued the dynasty. Astavakra
accordingly named the child "Bhagiratha" - he w ho was born from tw o
vulvas (bhaga). Bhagiratha later became one of the most famous
kings of India and is credited w ith bringing the Ganges River dow n to
earth through his austerities.[16]

56
Hindu texts
Hindus have many sacred texts and different communities give
special importance to different texts. Even more so than in other
religions, Hindus also foster disparate interpretations of the meaning
of various texts. The Vedas, which form the foundation of Hinduis m
for many, do not refer explicitly to homosexuality. People of a third
gender (tritiya-prakriti), not fully men nor w omen, are mentioned here
and there throughout Hindu texts such as the Puranas but are not
specifically defined. In general they are portrayed as effeminate men,
often cowardly, and w ith no desire for women. Modern readers often
draw parallels betw een these and modern stereotypes of lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender sexual identities.
Historians Ruth Vanita and Saleem Kidw ai, in their pioneering book,
Same-Sex Love in India: Readings from Literature and History, for the
first time compiled extracts from Indian texts, from ancient to modern
times, including many Hindu texts, translated from 15 Indian
languages. In their accompanying analytical essays, they also
demonstrated that Hindu texts have discussed and debated same-sex
desire from the earliest times, in tones ranging from critical to non-
judgmental to playful and celebratory.
Historian Devdutt Pattanaik summarizes the place of homosexuality in
Hindu literature as follows: "though not part of the mainstream, its
existence w as acknow ledged but not approved."[17] Other Indologists
assert that homosexuality w as not approved for brahmanas or the
tw ice-born but accepted among the low er classes.
In his book, Tritiya-Prakr iti: People of the Third Sex, Vaishnava monk
Amara Das Wilhelm demonstrates how ancient expressions of
Hinduis m accommodated homosexual and transgender persons much
more positively than w e see in India today: " Early Vedic teachings
stressed responsible family life and asceticism but also tolerated
different types of sexualities w ithin general society."[18]

Manu Smriti
The Manu Smriti, an important Hindu law code probably compiled
betw een 200 BCE and 200 CE, prescribes punishments for certain
instances of male and female homosexuality. If a stri [adult w oman]
was found having sexual relations w ith a kanya [unmarried girl], for
instance, her "head should be shaved immediately or tw o of her
fingers should be cut off, and she should be made to ride on a
donkey."[19] If tw o kanya have sex, each "must be fined two hundred

57
(panas), pay the double of her (nuptial) fee, and receive ten (lashes
with a) rod."[20]
Vanita states in her introduction to Love'
s Rite, the concern here is not
with the gender of the partners but the loss of virginity - the same
punishment of cutting off two fingers is applied to men w ho violate
unmarried girls, and that there is no prescribed punishment for sexual
relations betw een non-virgin w omen.
For Brahmanas and tw ice-born men, "causing an injury to a priest,
smelling w ine or things that are not to be s melled, crookedness, and
sexual union w ith a man are traditionally said to cause loss of
caste"[21] In the same chapter, the atonement for tw ice-born men is a
ritual bath: "A tw ice-born man w ho has intercourse w ith a male, or
with a female in a cart drawn by oxen, in water, or in the day-time,
shall bathe, dressed in his clothes."[22] Here again, it can be noticed
that the proscriptions are specif ically for brahmana and tw ice-born
males; there is no mention in the Manu Smriti of punishment for
homosexual behavior betw een males of the other classes.
The majority of sexual matters dealt w ith by the law books are
heterosexual in nature, and the punishments prescribed for
heterosexual transgressions are often more severe. For example, "A
man w ho is not a Brahmana ought to suffer death for adultery
(samgrahana)" (2.8.359).
The Manu Smriti also notes the biological origins of a third gender: "A
male child is produced by a greater quantity of male seed, a female
child by the prevalence of the female; if both are equal, a third-sex
child [napumsaka] or boy and girl tw ins are produced; if either are
weak or deficient in quantity, a failure of conception results." (MS
3.49)

Narada Smr iti

The Narada Smriti, written around 400 CE, forbids the m arriage of
hom osexual men (mukhebhaga - men w ho perform oral sex on other
men) to w omen: "These four [irsyaka, sevyaka, vataretas, and
mukhebhaga] are to be completely rejected as unqualified for
marriage, even for a w oman w ho has been raped." (NS 1.12.15)[23]
The Narada Smriti also lists fourteen different types of panda or men
who are impotent w ith w omen (see below).

58
Kama Sutra
The Kama Sutra is an ancient text dealing w ith kama or desire (of all
kinds), w hich in Hindu thought is one of the four normative goals of
life. The Kama Sutra is the earliest extant and most important w ork in
the Kama Shastra tradition of Sanskrit literature. It w as compiled by
the philosopher Vatsyayana around the 4th century, from earlier texts,
and describes homosexual practices in several places, as well as a
range of sex/gender ' types'
.
The author describes techniques by w hich masculine and feminine
types of the third sex (tritiya-prakriti), as w ell as w omen, perform
fellatio.[24] The Second Part, Ninth Chapter of Kama Sutra
specifically describes tw o kinds of men that w e would recognize today
as masculine- and feminine-type homosexuals but w hich are
mentioned in older, Victorian British translations as simply
"eunuchs."[25] The chapter describes their appearances - feminine
types dressed up as women w hereas masculine types maintained
muscular physiques and grew small beards, moustaches, etc. - and
their various professions as masseurs, barbers and prostitutes are all
described. Such homosexual men w ere also known to marry,
according to the Kama Sutra: "There are also third-sex citizens,
sometimes greatly attached to one another and w ith complete faith in
one another, w ho get married together." (KS 2.9.36). In the
"Jayamangala" of Yashodhara, an important tw elfth-century
commentary on the Kama Sutra, it is also stated: "Citizens w ith this
kind of [homosexual] inclination, w ho renounce women and can do
without them w illingly because they love one another, get married
together, bound by a deep and trusting friendship."[26]
After describing fellatio as performed betw een men of the third sex,
the Kama Sutra then mentions the practice as an act betw een men
and w omen, w herein it is mostly scorned, especially for brahmanas.
(KS 2.9.37)
The Kama Sutra also refers to svairini, w ho are "independent w omen
who frequent their ow n kind or others" (2.8.26) — or, in another
passage: "the liberated w oman, or svairini, is one w ho refuses a
husband and has relations in her ow n home or in other houses"
(6.6.50). In a famous commentary on the Kama Sutra from the 12th
century, the Jayamangala, explains: "A woman know n for her
independence, w ith no sexual bars, and acting as she w is hes, is
called svairini. She makes love w ith her own kind. She strokes her
partner at the point of union, w hich she kisses." (Jayamangala on
Kama Sutra 2.8.13). The various practices of lesbians are described

59
in detail w ithin the Second Part, Eighth Chapter of the Kama
Sutra.[citation needed]

Others
There are other ancient Hindu/Sanskrit texts that refer to
homosexuality. The Sushruta Samhita, for example, a highly-
respected Hindu medical text dating back to at least 600 B.C.,
mentions tw o different types of homosexual men ( kumbhika - men
who take the passive role in anal sex; and asekya - men w ho devour
the semen of other men) as well as transgenders (sandha - men w ith
the qualities, behavior and speech of women). It also states that men
who behave like w omen, or w omen w ho behave like men, are
determined as such at the time of their conception in the w omb. (SS
3.2.42-43)[27] The Sushruta Samhita also mentions the possibility of
tw o w omen uniting and becoming pregnant as a result of the mingling
of their sexual fluids. It states that the child born of such a union w ill
be "boneless." Such a birth is indeed described in the Krittivasa
Ramayana of South India (see below ).

Other texts list the various types of men w ho are impotent w ith w omen
(know n in Sanskrit as sandha, kliba, napumsaka, and panda). The
Sabda-kalpa-druma Sanskr it-Sanskrit dictionary, for instance, lists
tw enty types, as does the Kamatantra and Smriti-Ratnavali of
Vacaspati (14th century). The Narada Smriti similarly lists fourteen
different types. Included among the lists are transgenders (sandha),
the intersexed (nisarga), and three different types of homosexual men
(mukhebhaga, kumbhika and asekya). Such texts demonstrate that
third-sex terms like sandha and napumsaka actually refer to many
different types of "men w ho are impotent w ith w omen," and that
simplistic definitions such as "eunuch" or "neuter" may not alw ays be
accurate and in some cases totally incorrect. In his article
Homosexuality and Hinduis m, Arvind Shar ma expresses his doubt
over the common English translation of words like kliba into "eunuch"
as follow s: "The limited practice of castration in India raises another
point significant for the rest of the discussion, namely, w hether
rendering a w ord such as "kliba" as "eunuch" regularly is
correct..."[28]
Third-gender sects in modern Hinduis m
Below are listed some of the most common third-gender sects found
in Hinduism. There are an estimated half million crossdressing
"eunuchs" in modern-day India, associated w ith various sects,
60
temples and Hindu deities.[29] Despite being called "eunuchs", the
majority of these persons (91%) do not practice castration but are
more accurately associated w ith transgender (i.e., crossdressing)
and/or homosexual behavior. In modern times, many Hindus scorn
and ridicule people of the third gender[citation needed]

The Aravani or Ali

The most numerous third-gender sect (estimated at 150,000) is the
aravani or ali of Tamil Nadu in southern India. The aravanis are
typically transgender and their main festival, the popular Koovagam or
Aravan Festival celebrated in late April/early May, is attended by
thousands - including many feminine- and masculine-type
homosexuals. The aravani w orship the Hindu god, Aravan, and do not
practice any system of castration.
The new s by Pushpa Narayan | TNN published on the front page of
THE TIMES OF INDIA, March 16, 2008, under the heading: "Third sex
is official in Tamil Nadu", subtitle: "Karuna Govt First In Country To
Issue Ration Cards To Transgender tells about the first trend setting
step taken in India w here the third gender is officially recognized by
the government of Tamil Nadu. Ration Card is the primary definitive
proof of identity for citizens in India. No sooner than the first batch of
18 applications w ere cleared, that too, in less than a day, applications
to seek identity as "Third Gender" marked in the sex column as ' T',
distinct from the usual 'M'and 'F'have started pouring in. In Tamil
Nadu alone 40,000 Aravanis vernacular for transgender are estimated
to benefit by this move implemented under the leadership of social
welfare minister Poongothai Aladi Aruna, a gynecologist.
The Hijra
Main article: Hijra (South Asia)
The most w ell-know n third-gender group in India is perhaps the hijra
of northern India. The hijra is the only sect that practices castration, a
custom introduced during Muslim rule around the tenth century A.D.
(Most Hindus do not consider male castration a traditional Hindu
practice.[citation needed]) There are an estimated 50,000 hijra in
northern India and they are w ell-know n for their crossdressing and
homosexuality. After interviewing and studying the hijra for many
years, Serena Nanda w rites in her book, Neither Man Nor Woman:
The Hijras of India, as follow s: "There is a w idespread belief in India
that hijras are born her maphrodites [intersexed] and are taken aw ay
by the hijra community at birth or in childhood, but I found no evidence
to support this belief among the hijras I met, all of whom joined the
61
community voluntarily, often in their teens."[30] Nanda also states:
"There is absolutely no question that at least some hijras - pehaps
even the major ity - are homosexual prostitutes. Sinha' s (1967) study
of hijras in Lucknow , in North India, acknow ledges the hijra role as
performers, but views the major motivation for recruitment to the hijra
community as the satisfaction of the individual' s homosexual
urges..."[31] The hijras especially w orship Bahuchara-devi, the Hindu
demigoddess presiding over male castration and transsexuality.
The Jogappa
A lesser-know n third-gender sect in India is the jogappa of South India
(Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh), a group similarly associated w ith
crossdressing, homosexuality and male prostitution. The jogappa are
connected w ith Yellamma-devi, a popular Hindu deity of Durga, and
include both feminine transgenders dressed as women as w ell as
masculine types. Both serve as dancers and male prostitutes, and
they are usually in charge of the temple devadasis (maidservants of
the goddess w ho similarly serve as dancers and female courtesans).
Large festivals are celebrated at these temples w herein hundreds of
scantily-clad devadasis and crossdressing jogappas parade through
the streets. The jogappa do not practice castration.[32]

The Sakhi-Bekhi
The sakhi-bekhis are prominent throughout Bengal, Orissa and Uttar
Pradesh although their numbers have diminished in recent years.
Members of this sect typically dress themselves as w omen in order to
reinforce their identity as sakhis or girlfriends of Krishna and to attain
the esteemed spiritual emotion know n as sakhi-bhava. Such men are
not alw ays transgender or homosexual but in many cases they are. In
modern times, the sakhi-bekhi sect w as condemned as sahajiya
(unauthentic) w hen some members began making public shows of
their romantic feelings for Krishna while at the same time having illicit
relations w ith cudadharis (men dressed up as Krishna w ith a crown of
peacock feathers). Now adays, most sakhi-bekhis crossdress in
private and are less conspicuous. They generally worship Sri Radha,
the consort of Lord Krishna, although some specifically w orship Lord
Caitanya (the incarnation of Radha and Krishna combined) and are
know n as gauranga-nagaris. Neither group practices castration.[33]
Religious art
Medieval Hindu temples such as those at Khajuraho depict sexual
acts in sculptures on the external w alls. The meaning of the erotic

62
images is disputed. Some of these scenes involve same-sex
sexuality:
An orgiastic group of three w omen and one man, on the southern w all
of the Kandariya Mahadeva temple in Khajuraho. One of the w omen
is caressing another.
A similar group, also on the southern w all, show s a w oman facing the
view er, standing on her head, apparently engaged in intercourse,
although her partner is facing aw ay from the view er and their gender
cannot be deter mined. She is held by tw o female attendants on either
side and reaches out to touch one of them in her pubic area.
Also at Khajuraho, a relief of two women embracing one another.
At the Lakshmana temple in Khajuraho (954 CE), a man receives
fellatio from a seated male as part of an orgiastic scene.
At the Shiva temple at Ambernath, constructed in 1060 CE, a badly
weathered relief suggests an erotic interest betw een tw o women.
At the Rhajarani Temple in Bhuveshvar, Orissa, dating from the 10th
or 11th century, a sculpture depicts two women engaged in oral sex.
A 12th century Shiva temple in Bagali, Karnataka depicts a scene of
apparent oral sex betw een two males on a sculpture below the
sikhara.
At Padhavli near Gw alior, a ruined temple from the 10th century
shows a man w ithin an orgiastic group receiving fellatio from another
male.
An 11th century lifesize sandstone sculpture from Orissa, now in the
Seattle Art Museum, show s Kama, god of love, shooting an arrow at
tw o women w ho are embracing one another.”

Scientology
“Homosexuality and Scientology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.w ikipedia.org/w iki/Homosexuality_and_Scientology
Scientology views of homosexuality are based on the w ritings of L.
Ron Hubbard, the founder of the Church of Scientology. His
statements about homosexuality have given rise to assertions from
critics that Scientology promotes homophobia. These allegations are
disputed by some gay Scientologists.

63
Classification of homosexuality
In 1950 Hubbard published Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental
Health, introducing his "science of the mind," Dianetics. He classified
homosexuality as an illness or sexual perversion, citing contemporary
psychiatric and psychological textbooks to support his view :
"The sexual pervert (and by this ter m Dianetics, to be brief, includes
any and all forms of deviation in Dynamic II [i.e. sexuality] such as
homosexuality, lesbianis m, sexual sadism, etc., and all dow n the
catalog of Ellis and Krafft-Ebing) is actually quite ill physically... he is
very far from culpable for his condition, but he is also far from normal
and extremely dangerous to society..."[1]
Hubbard further defined perversion in his 1951 book Science of
Survival: Prediction of Hum an Behavior. Here he introduced the
concept of the "tone scale", a means of classifying individuals
and hum an behaviour on a chart running from +40 (the most
beneficial) to -40 (the least beneficial). Sexual perversion, a
category in which he included homosexuality, w as termed
"covert hostility" and given a score of 1.1, "the level of the
pervert, the hypocrite, the turncoat, ... the subversive." Such
people were "skulking coward[s] who yet contains enough
perfidious energy to strike back, but not enough courage ever to
give w arning."[2]
He characterized "promiscuity, perversion, sadism, and irregular
practices" as well as "Free Love, easy marriage and quick divorce" as
being undesirable activities, "since it is non-survival not to have a w ell
ordered system for the creation and upbringing of children, by
families." Sexual perverts engaged in "irregular practices which do
anything but tend tow ard the creation of children" and "efforts [which]
tend not tow ards enjoyment but tow ard the pollution and derangement
of sex itself so as to make it as repulsive as possible to others and so
to inhibit procreation."[3]
Hubbard's 1951 book Handbook for Preclears likew ise classif ied
homosexuality as "about 1.1 on the tone scale", along w ith "general
promiscuity". He set out w hat he saw as the cause of homosexuality:
a mental "aberration", w ith the result that "an individual aberrated
enough about sex w ill do strange things to be a cause or an effect. He
will substitute punishment for sex. He w ill pervert others.
Homosexuality comes from this manifestation and from the
manifestation of life continuation for others." The "aberration" w as
caused by a child trying to "continue the life" of a dominant parent of
the opposite sex.[4]

64
Hubbard' s views on homosexuality w ere given a fuller explanation in a
1972 book by Scientologist Ruth Minshull, How To Choose Your
People, w hich was published through the Church of Scientology,
copyrighted to Hubbard and given " issue authority" by the Scientology
hierarchy. Scientology churches sold the book alongside the w orks of
Hubbard until 1983.[5] Minshull described the "gentle- mannered
homosexual" as a classic example of the "subversive" 1.1 personality,
commenting that they " may be fearful, sympathetic, propitiative, griefy
or apathetic. Occasionally they manage an ineffectual tantrum." They
were claimed to be social misfits:
"Hom osexuals don't practice love; 1.1s can' t. Their relationships
consist of: 1) brief, sordid and im personal meetings or 2) longer
arrangements punctuated by dram atic tirades, discords,
jealousies and frequent infidelity. It could hardly be otherw ise
since the tone is m ade up of suspicion and hate, producing a
darling sweetness interspersed w ith petty peevishness. Their
"love" turns to deep contempt eventually."[6]
Homosexuals had no redeeming "social value," in Minshull' s view .
She cautioned that "homosexuals should not be abused or ridiculed.
But a society bent on survival must recognize any aberration as such
and seek to raise people out of the low emotion that produces it."
Hubbard's view s on homosexuality may account for his treatment of
Quentin Hubbard, his son. Quentin died of an apparent suicide in
1976, and w as largely reported to have been a homosexual [1].

"Curing" hom osexuality?

There is some evidence that Hubbard' s Dianetics movement sought
to use Dianetics to "cure" homosexuality. In January 1951, the
Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation of Elizabeth, NJ published
Dianetic Processing: A Brief Survey of Research Projects and
Preliminary Results, a booklet providing the results of psychometric
tests conducted on 88 people undergoing Dianetics therapy. It
presents case histories and a number of X-ray plates to support
claims that Dianetics had cured "aberrations" including manic
depression, asthma, arthritis, colitis and "overt homosexuality," and
that after Dianetic processing, test subjects experienced significantly
increased scores on a standardized IQ test.[7]
In Hubbard' s 1951 book Handbook for Preclears, he set out
instructions for Dianeticists to "cure" homosexuality. After claiming
that the cause of homosexuality w as a fixation on a dominant parent
of the opposite sex, he advised: "Break this life continuum concept by
65
running sympathy and grief for the dominant parent and then run off
the desires to be an effect and their failures and the homosexual is
rehabilitated."[4]
Hubbard urged society to tackle the issue of sexual perversion
(including homosexuality), calling it "of vital importance, if one
w ishes to stop imm orality, and the abuse of children." In Science
of Survival, he called for drastic action to be taken against sexual
perverts, whom he rated as "1.1 individuals":
"Such people should be taken from the society as rapidly as
possible and uniformly institutionalized; for here is the level of
the contagion of immorality, and the destruction of ethics; here is
the fodder which secret police organizations use for their filthy
operations. One of the most effective measures of security that a
nation threatened by w ar could take w ould be rounding up and placing
in a cantonment, aw ay from society, any 1.1 individual w ho might be
connected w ith government, the military, or essential industry; since
here are people w ho, regardless of any record of their family' s loyalty,
are potential traitors, the very mode of operation of their insanity being
betrayal. In this level is the slime of society, the sex criminals, the
political subversives, the people w hose apparently rational activities
are yet but the devious writhings of secret hate."[2] (Secret hate?
Look w hat’s talking!)
In later years, Hubbard sought to distance himself from efforts to
regulate the sexual affairs of lay Scientologists. In a 1967 policy letter,
he declared: "It has never been any part of my plans to regulate or to
attempt to regulate the private lives of individuals. Whenever this has
occurred, it has not resulted in any im proved condition...
Therefore all former rules, regulations and polices relating to the
sexual activities of Scientologists are cancelled."[8] Members of the
Sea Org remained under strict rules according to a 1978 order.[9]

Current Church of Scientology view points

Although Hubbard' s view s on homosexuality remain unamended in
modern editions of Scientology books, gay Scientologists have argued
that Hubbard and the Church have set aside any anti-homosexual
view s expressed in the past.
In 2002 the American Church of Scientology published a press
release on its website quoting gay activis t Keith Relkin as saying,
"Over the years I have worked w ith the Church of Scientology for
greater inclusion of gay people like me, and today represents a
milestone in that progress."[10]
66
A 2004 article in the St. Petersburg Times reported that the Church
defines marriage as the union betw een a man and a w oman.[11]”
Le’t break from Wikipedia for a moment and look at a little incident
involving a Pride march in 2008 and some Scientology supporters:
From Queerty, Canada "free of an agenda - except that gay one".
“Those Scientologists sure are sneaky.
http://www.queerty.com/scientologys-anti-gay-push-thw arted-at-
toronto-pride-20080710/
Members of the "religion's" Toronto branch used the city' s gay pride
celebrations to disseminate their out-of-this world holy word, The
Dianetics, w hich equates same-sex desire with mental illness and
advocates reparative therapy for those afflicted w ith the gay. Of
course, we shouldn' t be surpris ed by such activities - some say the
group offed founder L. Ron Hubbard' s son for being bent.
Before you get too worried about susceptible homos, how ever, rest
assured that the anti-Scientological activists of Anonymous Toronto
were on hand to thwart the group' s evil deeds. And, apparently
forgetting their harmonious public image, the Scientologists got nasty
- and a bit violent - w ith the activists.
An Anonymous member sent over an explanatory video on
Scientology' s anti-gay agenda and some footage from the pride
battles, including w hen Scientological leader Yvette Shank telling the
activists "we can find out where you live." Eeks !
Watch it, after the jump.” (We can find out where you live? What is
that if not a threat?)
Shinto
“Homosexuality and Shinto
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.w ikipedia.org/w iki/Homosexuality_and_Shinto
Homosexuality in Shinto has a varied past of periods of acceptance
and rejection. Unlike other religions, Shinto is very decentralised and
non-dogmatic and thus there is no definitive religious ruling on
homosexuality.
Homosexuality in Japanese society
Main article: Homosexuality in Japan
Shinto and Japanese society are tightly bound together, each shaping
the other. This, in combination w ith the flexibility of the Shinto, has

67
meant that the acceptance or rejection of homosexuality in Shinto
reflects attitudes in Japanese society. Historically, hom osexuality
w as acceptable in Japanese society, especially in the Warrior
class and later the Middle class. With increased contact w ith
Western nations in the 19th Century, Japanese society adopted
the view that homosexuality w as uncivilised and rejected it.
Homosexuality w as rarely seen as immoral, but rather as socially
unacceptable. Shinto views on the family and social responsibility
became a justification for this rejection.
In recent years, homosexuality has become more acceptable in
Japanese society as many people believe that science has show n
that it is completely natural for a minority of adults to be attracted
solely to members of the same sex. Again, this social transition has
manifested itself in the Shinto. Socially conservative and progressive
Shintoists may both believe that their religion is a vindication for their
beliefs on homosexuality.

Shinto beliefs
Japan has a very collectivist society, and this is reflected in Shinto.
Shintoists are expected to do w hat is best for the whole of society
even if it w ill disadvantage themselves. Tradition is seen as extremely
important to society and maintenance of tradition is expected of all
Shintoists. The family is seen as the mechanism by w hich tradition is
preserved.
Many social conservatives believe that reproduction is essential so
that tradition may be transferred to the next generation. Since
homosexuality cannot result in reproduction it is seen as a means by
which tradition might be ended. Other social conservatives believe
that homosexuality itself is untraditional and bad for society as a
whole.
Social progressives believe that because most adults are
heterosexual, tradition could not be destroyed solely through
homosexuality. Homosexual couples may adopt children and pass
their traditions on to the next generation w ithout biologically
reproducing. Many believe that traditions are meant to change as
society changes. This is exemplified by the fact that w hile
hom osexuality w as traditionally acceptable in the past, increased
contact w ith the West and Western attitudes changed what w as
traditional.
Shinto is also concerned w ith respect for nature. Socially conservative
Shintoists may argue that homosexuality is fundamentally against
68
nature'
s law in that it does not result in reproduction. Socially
progressive Shintoists point out that science has show n that
homosexuality is completely natural for a minority of adults and even
animals.”
Zoroastrianism
“From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.w ikipedia.org/w iki/Zoroastrianism
(I never heard of this before either – so here goes, a little
background.) Zoroastrianism( IPA: / z ro  æstri n z m/) is the
 

religion and philosophy based on the teachings ascribed to the

prophet Zoroaster, after w hom the religion is named. The ter m
'Zoroastrianism' is in general usage essentially synonymous w ith
Mazdais m, i.e. the w orship of Ahura Mazda, exalted by Zoroaster as
the supreme divine authority.
Zoroastrianism w as once the dominant religion of much of Greater
Iran, and w as a formative influence on that region' s history and
traditions. The religion w as marginalized follow ing the Islamic
conquests of the mid-7th century, after which the number of adherents
dw indled significantly, and there are less than 20,000 Zoroastrians left
in that region today. Today, the largest indigenous population of
Zoroastrians is in India, w here they number about 70,000. Eight of the
nine principal religious centers are located on the w est coast of that
country (the ninth is in central Iran).

Homosexuality and Zoroastrianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.w ikipedia.org/w iki/Homosexuality_and_Zoroastrianis m
Homosexuality in Zoroastrianis m is, as in many other religions, a
controversial topic. Orthodox Zoroastrians tend to favor the
suppression of homosexuality in their community w hile more socially
progressive Zoroastrians accept homosexuality. Generally, though,
homosexuality is discouraged by a majority of Zoroastrians.

Homosexuality in scripture
The sacred scripture of Zoroastrianism is called the Avesta. It is made
up of many parts written over many centuries. The oldest portion
believed to be the w ritings of Zarathustra himself, are the Gathas.
Within the Gathas, Zarathustra does not mention homosexuality at all,

69
nor sexuality in general. Zoroastrians w ho reject the later writings in
the Avesta as being corruptions of Zarathustra' s original teachings
believe this is proof that homosexuality is not sinful.
How ever, many Zoroastrians accept the entire Avesta as their
religious guide, including the Vendidad, a collection of 22 Fargards or
precepts concerned w ith religious purity (only very conservative
Zoroastrians continue to abide by all of these law s). The Vendidad
states:
"The man that lies w ith mankind as man lies w ith w omankind, or as
woman lies w ith mankind, is a man that is a Daeva [demon]; this man
is a w orshipper of the Daevas, a male paramour of the Daevas"
This passage has been interpreted to mean that homosexuality is a
form of demon w orship and thus sinful. Ancient commentary on this
passage suggests that those engaging in sodomy could be killed
without permission from the Dastur

Homosexuality and Zoroastrian culture

Some people speculate[w ho?] the reason w hy Zoroastrians tend to
discourage homosexuality is not simply because of a scriptural
prohibition, but from perceived tradition. Since present-day
Zoroastrianism does not traditionally accept converts, some follow ers
of the religion see reproduction as essential to maintain the
community. A homosexual couple cannot reproduce sexually,
whereas a heterosexual couple can. Some follow ers suggest that
homosexuality should be discouraged as celibacy is. How ever, few
Zoroastrian communities exclude members on the grounds that they
may be, or are, homosexual. Upon his death, Freddie Mercury, a
homosexual Parsi, w as given a traditional Zoroastrian funeral service.
Alexander Bard, a Sw edish bisexual musician, has also been inducted
into Zoroastrianis m. (Funny how religions hate of GLBTIQ alw ays
boils dow n to reproductivity, innit? It’s a recurring theme!)
Chapter 2: Mainstream Christianity’s Views On
GLBT

• Christianity and homosexuality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.w ikipedia.org/w iki/Homosexuality_and_Christianity

70
“Since the first decades of Christianity, most Christians have regarded
homosexuality as immoral. This has led to the position upheld today
by denominations such as the Roman Catholic[1] and Orthodox
Churches, as w ell as by most Evangelical Protestant churches such
as the Southern Baptist Convention.
Recently how ever, some Christians have come to believe that sexual
relations betw een members of the same sex is not inherently sinful.
Denominations holding to that view include the United Church of
Canada, liberal congregations w ithin the United Church of Christ, the
Episcopal Church in the United States of America, the Moravian
Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Methodist Church of
Great Britain, and Friends General Conference. Furthermore, the
Metropolitan Community Church has been founded to specifically to
serve the Christian LGBT community. Other denominations, such as
the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Methodist Church, and the
Evangelical Lutheran Church, are actively debating the issue. It is a
current controversy in the w orldwide Anglican Communion since the
Episcopal Church of the USA has ordained the first openly gay
bishop, Gene Robinson.
Historical view s on homosexuality
The ear ly Christian Church, the Roman Catholic Church the Eastern
Orthodox Churches and, later, the Pr otestant churches have
traditionally explicitly condemned of sex betw een men, namely, " man
lying w ith man as one lies w ith a woman" and men "burning w ith lust
tow ard one another." Whereas the Roman Catholic view is founded
on a natural law argument informed by scripture and largely indebted
to Thomas Aquinas, the Protestant view is based more directly upon
scriptural verses.[citation needed]

Denunciation of same-sex sexual relationships is also seen in

surviving early Christian writings, such as in the writings of Justin
Martyr, Aristides, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Eusebius
of Caesarea, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Augustine of Hippo,
and in canonical sources such as the Apostolic Constitutions.
Eusebius of Caesarea, for example, condemned "the union of w omen
with w omen and men w ith men."
Many prominent Christian theologians have been critical of
homosexual relationships throughout the religion' s history. Thomas
Aquinas denounced homosexual acts ("the sin of sodomy",
sodomiticum vitium)[2] as second only to bestiality among the w orst of
all sexual sins, and Hildegard of Bingen's book Sci vias, which w as

71
officially approved by Pope Eugene III, condemned sexual relations
betw een w omen as "perverted forms".
The late Yale University Church historian John Bosw ell sparked a
controversy when he argued for the existence of a rite of
adelphopoiesis as a religiously-sanctioned same-sex union.[3][4] His
view s have not found w ide acceptance.[4] He also argued that
condemnation of homosexuality began only in the 12th century.[5]
Critics of Boswell have pointed out that many earlier doctrinal sources
condemn homosexual behavior in ethical terms w ithout prescribing a
punishment, and that Bosw ell' s citations reflected a general trend
tow ards harsher penalties from the 12th century onw ards.”

I can remember from an early age being taught in Sunday school and
hearing adults saying nasty things about gay folk. The regular stuff
about them being sinners and bad people – and that bad people go to
hell etc, etc. Other children at Sunday school and also at school w ould
intimidate boys w ho seemed a little effeminate and bully them. And I I
was one of them. Often the taunts and persecution w ould include
references to “Jesus hates queers” and other florid pearls of wisdom.
It w as rather disheartening to hear things like that as I grew up
know ing my own sexuality was anything but purely hetero. In fact this
constant bombardment caused mounting internal conflict as I tr ied to
reconcile my sexual and gender identity w ith my Christian faith.
In high school, having tired of the continual bullying and abuse, I
toughed up and w orked out physically so I didn’t look so feminine. In
the end, all it took w as one classroom braw l w ith a bully – just one
retaliatory punch on my part – and I got an apology the next day and
none of the bullies messed w ith me again after that. Looking back, I
should have done that years ago. When I w as 17 I knew exactly w hat
I w anted to be, it w asn’t a doctor or a law yer – I w anted to be a
woman. But society saw me as a man and I knew that to be false.
Religion told me if I “chose” that I w as “evil” and “turning my back on
God”. And looking inside I knew that I w asn’t “evil”, I w as a person
stuck in dire circumstances, having know n from a very young age that
I w as a girl. And w hat I saw looking back at me from the mirror w as
not me.
Once again, looking back I can clear ly see how I allow ed myself to be
“guilted” and shamed into burying my true personality and identity in
order to keep everybody else happy and especially to spare my
parents the “shame” of having a gay or transgendered child. In fact,
because of this religious indoctrination and brainw ashing in dogma
that “being GLBT is wrong and you w ill burn in hell for it” I languished
72
in mounting misery and personal agony for nothing! It took me another
7 years before I developed the courage and desperation to eventually
come out as transgendered.
Let’s take a look at the attitude of some mainstream churches tow ards
GLBT.

• Christian denominational positions on

homosexuality
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.w ikipedia.org/w iki/List_of_Christian_denominational_position
s_on_homosexuality

“This is a list of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality.

The issue of homosexuality and Christianity is a subject of on-going
theological debate w ithin and betw een Christian denominations and
this list seeks to summarise the various official positions. It should be
noted that w ithin these denominations many members may hold
somew hat differing views on and even differing definitions of
homosexuality. The list is in alphabetical order and includes
denominations self-identified as Christian, w hich may not be so
recognized by the other denominations.

Adventism
The Seventh-day Adventist Church is opposed to same-gender sexual
practices and relationships on the grounds that "sexual intimacy
belongs only w ithin the marital relationship of a man and a w oman." It
believes the Bible consistently affirms the pattern of
heteromonogamy, and all sexual relations outside the scope of
spousal intimacy are contrary to God' s original plan.[5](So they
condemn us for being gay, and refuse to allow same sex marriage –
and then condemn us again for not being married?? And then some of
them have the cheek to actually ask w hy we feel the need to “affirm”
our relationships!! I dunno – w hy do straights feel the need to “affirm”
theirs?? AM I the only one seeing the hypocrisy in their tw o-faced
policies?)
Anglicanism
The Anglican Communion has been divided over the issue of
homosexuality. The Church of England, the mother church of the
Communion, currently maintains (according to the statement Issues in
Human Sexuality) that same-sex partnerships are acceptable for
73
laypersons but gay clergy are expected to be abstinent. The Lambeth
Conference of 1998 called homosexuality "incompatible w ith
Scripture" but this remains a purely advisory guideline as there are no
communion-w ide legislative bodies in the Anglican Church. On the
other hand, the Episcopal Church, w hich is the American body
(province) of the Anglican Communion, approved (2003) Gene
Robinson to be the bishop of the diocese of New Hampshire. Bishop
Gene Robinson is the first openly gay (non-celibate) clergy to be
ordained to the episcopate
(http://www.nhepiscopal.org/BishopSearch/index.htm,
http://www.nhepiscopal.org/bishop/bishop.html).”
Breaking off from the Wikipedia listing for a moment, let’s look at this
article involving an Anglican priest:
“ Hom osexuals should carry warning tattoos, says chaplain” By
Aislinn Simpson Last Updated: 7:39PM BST 06 Oct 2008
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/3145269/Homosexuals-
should-carry-warning-tattoos-say s-chaplain.html
A Church of England clergyman has said that homosexuals should be
tattooed w ith health w arnings similar to those seen on cigarette
packets.
Rev Mr Mullen reportedly said in an internet blog homosexuality w as
"clearly unnatural" and w as the "cause of fatal disease" Photo: JIM
WINSLET The Rev Dr Peter Mullen, w ho is rector of St Michael’s
Cornhill and St Sepulchre w ithout New gate in the City, said in an
internet blog that homosexuality w as "clearly unnatural, a perversion
and corruption of natural instincts and affections, and because it is a
cause of fatal disease".
He w rote: "Let us make it obligatory for homosexuals to have their
backsides tattooed w ith the slogan SODOMY CA N SERIOUSLY
DAMAGE YOUR HEALTH and their chins w ith FELLATIO KILLS."

The Bishop of London, the Rt Rev Richard Chartres, said the posting,
which has since been taken dow n, was "highly offensive". The Rev
Mullen, 66, w as told on Friday that he could face disciplinary action.
Peter Tatchell of gay rights group OutRage! said he should resign.
The rector, w ho has written for The Daily Telegraph, insisted that he
meant no har m:
"I wrote some satirical things on my blog and anybody w ith an ounce

74
of sense of humour or any understanding of the tradition of English
satire w ould immediately assume that they’re light-hearted jokes."
(Yes, very funny – w hat a w it. Ha ha.)
Mr Mullen is also listed as the chaplain to the London Stock
Exchange. How ever, an LSE spokesman said it w as a historical title.
"There are no formal links betw een us and him in any w ay." (This
doesn’t exactly sound like much of a rebuff to me, more like a
statement of convenience. Even so, they should bloody w ell UNLIST
him.)
“MP attacks vicar who called for gays to have health w arnings
By Tony Grew • October 20, 2008 - 12:34
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-9339.html
A Labour MP has said that a Church of England cleric w ho made
homophobic comments on his blog "should know better." Rev Peter
Mullen apologised after it emerged that he had called for gay men to
have health w arnings tattooed on their bodies. He claimed he w as
joking, but admitted he had caused offence after pressure from the
Bishop of London.
Now Ashok Kumar has condemned Rev Mullen in a letter to the
Northern Echo. The vicar writes a column for the paper, w hich he has
retained despite his homophobic blog postings.
"At a time w hen homophobic bullying in our schools is rif e and gay
boys are three times more likely to commit suicide than
heterosexuals, someone in a position of influence and authority
should know better," the MP for Middlesbrough South and East
Cleveland w rote.
"It is no coincidence that hom ophobic hate crime often increases
after a public figure m akes ill-judged, anti-gay comments.
"I acknow ledge that Mr Mullen repeated an apology in his recent
column, but this w as insufficient and w holly inadequate and did little to
convince me he doesn' t harbour offensive prejudices w hich he tries to
hide under a mask of humour and his religious beliefs.
"Defending his comments by saying that he w as simply making a joke
misses the point completely.
"As someone w ho has fought racism throughout my political life, I am
proud to say that someone making openly racist comments w ould not
be allow ed to continue w riting a column in a w ell-respected
new spaper that has alw ays taken a stand against oppression and
discrimination."
75
Rev Mullen w rote on his blog:
"Let us make it obligatory for homosexuals to have their backsides
tattooed w ith the slogan SODOMY CAN SERIOUSLY DA MAGE
YOUR HEALTH and their chins w ith FELLATIO KILLS."
His blog entries have now been deleted.
In others he called gay people an unnatural perversion and wrote a
poem about the blessing of the civil partnership of tw o gay priests in
which he used derogatory language.
The 66-year-old, rector of St Michael' s Cornhill and St Sepulchre
without New gate in the City, is a traditionalist w ho is hostile to w omen
priests.
After being summoned to a meeting w ith Diocese of London offic ials
to explain his homophobic outbursts, Rev Mullen said:
"I did not intend to cause offence when I made some joking remar ks
about homosexuals. I w as not actually meaning to criticise individual
homosexual persons, but the prom oters of gay culture.
"How ever, my remarks have caused offence and for this I am sorry
and make a full and complete apology." (Somehow I don’t believe him
– I think he’s only apologizing because he got caught out and rapped
over the knuckles for it. Bigot.)

Continued from Wikipedia:

“Baptists
Main article: Homosexuality and baptists
The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest of the Baptist
denominations and the largest Protestant group in the U.S., considers
same-gender sexual behavior to be sinful, stating clearly "We affirm
God's plan for marriage and sexual intim acy – one m an, and one
wom an, for life. Hom osexuality is not a "valid alternative
lifestyle." The Bible condemns it as sin. It is not, however,
unforgivable sin. The same redem ption available to all sinners is
available to homosexuals. They, too, m ay become new creations
in Christ."[6] Their behavior tow ard gays and lesbians is one of
"love the sinner, hate the sin" (i.e., they should not show hatred
tow ard the person, but should condemn his/her behavior).
However the SBC forbids homosexuals to become members.

76
Other conservative Baptist denominations and Independent Baptist
churches are also generally opposed to homosexuality, along the
same lines as the SBC. They, too, generally adopt the "love the
sinner, hate the sin" approach. (These cretins throw the baby out w ith
the bathw ater!)

Churches such as the Westboro Baptist Church, known for their

open hatred tow ard both the homosexual person and the
behavior, as well as their view that hom osexuality constitutes the
"unpardonable sin," are rare in Baptist circles, and are in fact
often condemned by other Baptists w ho w ould otherw ise agree
that homosexuality is a sin. This also includes Hephzibah Baptist
Church, led by Rev. William Sanderson.

How ever, there are a number of Baptist churches, particularly in the

American Baptist Churches in the USA and the Cooperative Baptist
Fellowship, that have more inclusive views. The Association of
Welcoming and Affirming Baptists, a group of some 50 churches and
organizations, is committed to the "full inclusion" of gay and lesbian
persons in their churches. This "full inclusion" may or may not include
approbation of same-sex sexual conduct.

Canadian and American Reformed Churches

The Canadian and American Reformed Churches cite Biblical sources
from Leviticus 20:13, w hich reads: "If a man lies w ith a man as one
lies w ith a woman, both of them have done w hat is detestable." NIV

A homosexual member of one of these churches w ill be placed under

censure or excommunicated and can only be received again into the
communion of saints and be admitted to the Lord's Supper in these
Reformed traditions after he/she has declared repentance from
his/her homosexuality, w hich the churches teach is a sin. After
repentance, the person is declared forgiven by the church.[citation
needed]
Christian Reformed Church in North America
The Christian Reformed Church has maintained the stance since the
1970s that homosexuality is the direct result of a sinful world much
like any other sin. Homosexuality should be discouraged and the
Church should show compassion for homosexuals like they w ould for

77
any other sinner. Further, the Church should do everything in its
pow er to help homosexuals see "the error of their ways" and to help
repair the brokenness of sin.

How ever, gays and lesbians should not be denied any right granted to
heterosexuals. They have the right to maintain office and be an active
member in a congregation as their gifts can still be used to glorify
God. The view is generally derived from the compassion Jesus
show ed for the sinners of his day (prostitutes and other notable
sinners). As such, any homosexual w ho repents the sin of
homosexuality is entirely forgiven even if they continue to struggle
with temptation.[7] ( Gee, isn’t that nice of them to throw us a bare
bone from their full table?)

Although the First Chr istian Reformed Church of Toronto (also the first
CRC congregation to call a w oman minister) voted to allow gays and
lesbians in committed partnerships as elders and deacons, this
decision w as later rescinded in the face of pressure from the Toronto
classis Reformed Church.[8][9]

Churches of Christ
The Churches of Christ believe homosexuality is a lifestyle choice,
and being actively gay is considered a serious sin. Many believe this
is a struggle just as lust, lying, etc are temptations but are only sinful if
the person gives into that temptation. They allow LGBT members, so
long as they remain celibate.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Main article: Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
day Saints
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints makes clear that
same-gender attraction is not sinful and no one should blamed for it,
but that a few people have been able to overcome it.[10] How ever, it
considers homoerotic thoughts, feelings and behaviors to be a
problem that everyone can and should overcome.[11] Homosexual
activity is considered a serious sin on par or greater than other sexual
activity outside of a legal, heterosexual marriage.[10] They have
encouraged their members to reach out to homosexuals w ith love and
understanding, w hich has sparked criticism and protests from

78
m ore conservative churches.[12][13] In 2007, they produced God
Loveth His Children, a pamphlet w hose stated purpose is to help LGB
members.

Eastern Orthodoxy
For more details on this topic, see Eastern Orthodox view of
sin#Homosexuality.
The Eastern Orthodox Church holds the opinion that sexuality, as w e
understand it, is part of the fallen w orld only. In Orthodox Theology
both monasticism and marriage are paths to Salvation ("sotiria" in
Greek, literally meaning "becoming w hole"). Celibacy is the ideal path
for monasticism w hile marriage is blessed under the context of true
love ("Man must love his w ife as Jesus loved his Church": this phrase
is part of the Orthodox Marriage Ritual). This context can be
interpreted by the non-Orthodox as not being exclusive of
homosexuality, w hereas it is seen as exclusive of homosexuality by
the vast majority of the Orthodox. Traditionally the church has
adopted a non-legalistic view of sin (see above), in which
hom osexuality is a sin. Some mem bers of the church have
assumed an active role in encouraging negative social
stereotypes against gay individuals w ho do not repent and
several prom inent mem bers of the clergy have m ade statements
condem ning hom osexuality. The leader of the Church of Greece,
archbishop Christodoulos of Athens has described being gay as
a "handicap."[citation needed]

All jurisdictions, such as the Orthodox Church in America, have taken

the approach of welcoming people w ith "homosexual feelings and
emotions," while encouraging them to w ork tow ards "overcom ing
its harmful effects in their lives," w hile not allow ing the
sacraments to people who seek to justify hom osexuality.[14]

LGBT activis m w ithin Orthodox churches has been much less

widespread than in Catholicism and many Protestant denominations.
In 1980 the group Axios was founded in Los Angeles to advocate for
sexual minorities in the Orthodox church, and has since started
several other chapters in the United States, Canada, and Australia.
Jehovah'
s Witnesses
Jehovah's Witnesses consider same-sex sexual activity to be sinful,
but recognize that some people may be prone to homosexuality,
79
including members of their congregation. Members are required to
abstain from any homosexual behaviour, w hich is listed as a serious
sin. While distancing themselves from homosexual activity, they are
taught not to hate homosexuals. Their literature has stated that
christians shall not make homosexuals the target of ill w ill, ridicule, or
harassment, and that all fellow humans should be treated in a
respectful and dignified manner. [15]

Lutheranism
Main article: Homosexuality and Lutheranism
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the largest Lutheran
church body in the United States, has a current policy which states
that persons who are gay or lesbian in their self-understanding are
allow ed to be ordained, but m ust m aintain a lifestyle of celibacy.
How ever, it is currently evaluating this policy, w ith the next debate
scheduled for 2009. During the national meeting in 2005, [16]
delegates voted against a measure that w ould have allow ed non-
celibate gay ordination and the blessing of same-sex unions by 503
against to 490 in favor.

Outside of ordination, policy states that LGBT individuals are w elcome

and encouraged to become members and participate in the life of the
congregation. The ELCA does not have a policy against same-sex
unions, nor does it have a rite for blessing those unions, but leaves
the question up to pastoral care. ELCA congregations that specifically
embrace GLBT persons are called Reconciling in Christ
congregations. The group Lutherans Concerned supports the
inclusion of LGBT members in Lutheran churches in the ELCA and
ELCIC. All other Lutheran churches in the United States oppose
ordination and marriage of homosexuals.

In 2006, Lionel Ketola became the first person in a same-sex

marriage to be appointed vicar (intern) of an Evangelical Lutheran
Church in Canada congregation. This occurred at [17] in New market,
Ontario. Later that year, the Eastern Synod of the ELCIC voted to
allow a "local option" for blessing same-sex unions. The national
church, which had previously rejected such a proposal, proceeded to
assert that it alone had the authority to make such a decision. The
National Church Council agreed in a September ruling, but promised

80
to bring forw ard another motion authorising the local option for
approval at the 2007 National Convention.

Most Lutheran state churches in Germany, Lutheranism' s country of

origin, are also liberal, view ing homosexuality as moral and allow gay
and lesbian clergy. But the Lutheran churches in Germany are also
divided on the issue of blessing same-sex unions. In general, very few
churches in the more rural parishes (Baden, Saxonia, Hesse-
Waldeck) are in favor of blessing same-sex unions w hile the urban
churches do allow them (Hanover, Rhineland, Westfalia,
Brunswick, Oldenburg, Berlin-Brandenburg, Bremen,
Northelbia...). Nevertheless, all the state churches agree that gay
and lesbian individuals are welcome as members, and that any
kind of persecution is unacceptable.

The Evangelical Lutheran Churches in Scandinavia, also members of

the Lutheran World Federation, are also liberal in their position on
homosexuality and view homosexuality as moral. In Sw eden (Church
of Sweden) the Lutheran church allow ed 2006 blessings of same-sex
unions and permit gay clergy. A notable bishop is the KG Hammar,
former Archbishop of Uppsala and primate of the Church of Sw eden,
has been very vocal in supporting gay and lesbian Lutherans. The
Church of Norw ay is divided, w ith 6 of 11 bishops accepting
homosexual practice as moral, even though the church officially
rejects it.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland is divided on issue, but

many of its most well know n bishops have expressed their
acceptance for homosexuality. Also some theologians related to
church have supported gay-marriages.

The s maller and more conservative denominations of the International

Lutheran Council and Confessional Evangelical Lutheran Conference
do not sanction same-sex partnerships among the clergy or laity.

Mennonite Churches
Mennonite churches vary in terms of acceptance of homosexuals.
While some are very progressive, others, most notably the Old Order
Amish, consider homosexuality very sinful.

81
Methodism
Methodist Church of Great Britain
The Methodist Church of Great Br itain has not taken a definitive
stance on homosexuality, although affirms the traditional belief that
individuals should remain chaste outside marriage.[18] In 2006, the
Church also prohibited the blessing of same sex unions on or off
church property.[3] (If we’re not considered good enough to be wed
on “church property” then w hy would w e want to lower our standards
to deign to be seen on their property?)

The United Methodist Church

One source of considerable controversy w ithin the United Methodist
Church is its official positions on homosexuality. Since 1972, the
Book of Discipline has declared "homosexual practice" to be
"incompatible w ith Christian teaching." Follow ing the 1972
incom patibility clause other restrictions have been added at
subsequent General Conferences. Currently the Book of
Discipline prohibits the ordination of "practicing, self-avowed
hom osexuals," forbids clergy from blessing or presiding over
same-sex unions, forbids the use of UMC facilities for same-sex
union ceremonies and prohibits the use of Church funds for "gay
caucuses" or other groups that "prom ote the acceptance of
hom osexuality." An additional prohibition tow ard the full
participation of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons
w ill be debated at the 2008 General Conference in Fort Worth.
Follow ing the 2005 decision of the Judicial Council to uphold a
pastor' s right to deny mem bership to a m an solely based on his
sexual orientation (despite the silence of the Book of Discipline
on the m atter) the denomination expects a host of petitions
surrounding the eligibility of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and
transgender persons for mem bership.

Despite this language, not all members of the Church are of one mind
on this issue. Preceding the incom patibility clause the Book of
Discipline clearly states that "hom osexual persons, no less than
heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth." Some
believe that this "sacred w orth" clause stands in contradiction to the
follow ing statement regarding the incompatibility of homosexual
practice w ith Christian teaching. The Book of Discipline affirms that
all persons, both heterosexual and homosexual, are included in
the m inistry of the church and can receive the gift of God' s
82
grace. While the Book of Discipline supports the civil rights of
homosexual persons and rejects the abuse of homosexuals by
families and churches, it also calls for law s defining marriage as a
union betw een one man and one w oman. Failed efforts have been
made to pass resolutions to "fully include gay. lesbian, bisexual and
transgender persons in the life of the Church" [1] at General
Conferences since the introduction of the incompatibility clause in
1972; delegates from annual conferences in the Northeast and on the
West Coast typically vote to do so, but are outnumbered by those
from Southeast.

Some of these issues have come before the Judicial Council. On

October 31, 2005, the Council undertook tw o controversial measures
on this topic. First, the Council upheld the revocation of Irene
Elizabeth Stroud's clergy status for disclosing she is openly lesbian.
The council also rendered a decision allow ing a Virginia pastor to
deny church membership to a gay man. The latter decision w as
especially controversial, since it appeared to UMC LGBT proponents
to contradict both the Constitution and membership policies of the
United Methodist Church w hich stipulate that membership shall be
open to all persons "w ithout regard to race, color, national origin,
status or economic condition." The Judicial Council had previously
found that the w ord "status" applies to gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgender persons (See Decision 1020). Decision 1032 created
vigorous debate on the level of autonomy individual pastors and
congregations have in interpreting and applying Church doctrine.

Metropolitan Community Church

The Metropolitan Community Church is an international fellow ship of
Christian congregations. It is considered by many to be a full mainline
denomination or communion. There are currently 300 congregations
in 22 countries, and the Fellowship has a specific outreach to
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities. Acceptance
of homosexuality is an important part of its theology.

The Metropolitan Community Church w as instrumental in the

first legal challenges to the heterosexual legal definition of
m arriage in Ontario (see Same-sex m arriage in Ontario). Two
couples used an old legal procedure called reading the banns to
m arry w ithout a licence. When same-sex m arriage was legalized
in Ontario, their m arriages were recognized.[citation needed]
83
Moravian Church
The Moravian Church declared in 1974 that gays and lesbians
were full m embers of the Christian community. In 2002, the
Northern Provincial Synod placed a moratorium for the time being on
further decisions about homosexuality. Currently, the questions of
marriage and ordination are unresolved.[citation needed]
New Apostolic Church
From the statement: " Position of the New Apostolic Church on certain
issues of sexual conduct." Section 4.4:

"On the grounds of Biblical tenets and Christian tradition, the

New Apostolic Church deems practised homosexuality to be
unacceptable."

"Brothers and sisters who are practising hom osexuals, or living

in a homosexual partnership, are barred from discharging
m inisterial and teaching duties in our Church."

Old Catholic Church

The Old Catholic Churches in Germ any, Sw itzerland, Austria and
the Netherlands view homosexuality as m oral, perm it gay and
lesbian priests, and bless gay couples.[citation needed] These
should not be confused w ith the Roman Catholic Church, or the Old
Roman Catholic Church, w hich holds the identical position those in
communion w ith the Holy See [19] (see below ).

Pentecostalism
Most churches that are w ithin the Pentecostal Movement view
homosexual behavior as a sin. The second largest Pentecostal
Church in the USA, the Assemblies of God, makes its view clear on
homosexuality in a position paper stating " It should be noted at the
outset that there is absolutely no affirmation of homosexual behavior
found anyw here in Scripture. Rather, the consistent sexual ideal is
chastity for those outside a monogamous heterosexual marriage and
fidelity for those inside such a marriage. There is also abundant
evidence that hom osexual behavior, along with illicit
heterosexual behavior, is immoral and comes under the
judgement of God" [20]

84
These churches therefore oppose same-sex unions, gay pastors,
and w ould tend to forbid congregants who persist in hom osexual
practices. Politically, there are likely to support politicians w ith
the same viewpoints. Most Pentecostal churches insist that
those w ho engage in hom osexual activity should cease such
behavior, as w ith any sin.[citation needed] (No w onder these folk
tend to give me the creeps ! I alw ays knew their “Jesus loves you
schpiel w as as false as their faith!)

Presbyterianism
Main article: Homosexuality and Presbyterianis m
The Presbyterian Church (USA), the largest U.S. Presbyterian body,
is sharply divided over the issue of homosexuality. Although gay and
lesbian persons are w elcome to become members of the church,
denom inational policy prohibits non-celibate same-sex relations
(as well as non-celibate heterosexual relations outside of
m arriage) for those serving as ministers or as elders on key
church boards. After rancorous debate, that policy w as upheld in
a vote of presbyteries in 2002. The denom ination' s constitution
defines m arriage as "a covenant through which a m an and a
wom an are called to live out together before God their lives of
discipleship" (W-4.9[21]). The denom ination is currently aw aiting
the release of a study on the "peace, unity, and purity" of the
church before taking up the issue again. The Church does bless
same-sex unions, but does not perm it same-sex m arriages, and
does not explicitly support the consumm ation of these unions.

Other much s maller American Pr esbyterian bodies, such as the

Presbyterian Church in America,[22] the Associate Reformed
Presbyterian Church,[23] and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church[24]
condemn same-sex sexual behavior as incompatible w ith Biblical
morality, but believe gays and lesbians can repent and abandon
the "lifestyle."

In New Zealand the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand

has debated homosexuality for many years. In 1985 its General
Assembly declared "Homosexual acts are sinful." The most recent
decision of the Assembly in 2004 declared "this church may not
accept... anyone involved in a sexual relationship outside of faithful
marriage betw een a man and a w oman," but added the lemma, " In

85
relation to homosexuality... this ruling shall not prejudice anyone, w ho
as at the date of this meeting, has been accepted for training, licensed
ordained of inducted."

Many Presbyterians in New Zealand are active in the Association for

Reconciling Christians and Congregations,[25] an ecumenical group
that supports the full inclusion and participation of all people in the
Church, including gay and lesbian persons.

In America, More Light Presbyterians, a coalition of gay-inclusive

congregations, w as founded in 1980. Today the organization has 113
member churches, while many more informally endorse its mission to
more fully w elcome people of all sexualities into the life of the church.

Quakerism
Main article: Homosexuality and Quakeris m
In the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia, Friends are
largely accepting of homosexuality.

In America, the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) is deeply

divided on the issue. The more conservative Friends United Meeting
and Friends Evangelical Church considers homosexuality sinful; but
other Friends, such as those in the Friends General Conference,
strongly support equal rights for gay and lesbian persons.[citation
needed] It is dependent on the Friend that you ask. (It should be
noted that those who call themselves "Conservative Friends" do not
necessarily conform to the Friends United Meeting, the Friends
Evangelical Church or the Friends General Conference, and so have
mixed theological feelings to homosexuality)

Reformed Catholic Church

Main article: Homosexuality and the Reformed Catholic Church
In the Reformed Catholic Church, homosexuality is simply not an
issue. The church accepts, ordains and sacramentally marries people
who are homosexual. It is an open, inclusive, w orldw ide church w ith a
mandate for those w ho are poor, those w ho are rejected by other
churches and who are hurting. No account is taken of gender, sexual

86
orientation, mar ital status or other conditions of life that many other
churches use to reject or control it'
s adherents.

Rom an Catholic Church

Main article: Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism

General
The Roman Catholic Church considers human sexual behavior that it
sees as properly expressed to be sacred, almost sacramental in
nature. Sexual acts other than "unprotected" vaginal intercourse
within a heterosexual marriage are considered sinful because in the
Church' s understanding, sexual acts, by their nature, are meant to be
both unitive and procreative (mirroring God' s inner Trinitarian life).
The Church also understands the complementarity of the sexes to be
part of God' s plan. Same-gender sexual acts are incompatible w ith
this framew ork:

"[H]omosexual acts are contrary to the natural law . They close the
sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine
affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can
they be approved."[26]

These teachings are, of course, not limited to the issue of

homosexuality, but is also the general background for the Catholic
prohibitions against, for example, fornication, contraception,
pornography, consummated anal sex, consummated oral sex,
masturbation, and all other forms of non-coital sex.
Social justice
To be sure, the Church has clearly stated that homosexual desires or
attractions themselves are not necessarily sinful. They are said to be
"disordered" in the sense that they tempt one to do something that is
sinful (i.e., the homosexual act), but temptations beyond one's control
are not considered sinful in and of themselves. For this reason, while
the Church does oppose same-gender sexual acts, it also officially
urges respect and love for those w ho do experience same-sex
attractions and isn' t opposed to the homosexual orientation, thus the
Catholic Church is also opposed to persecutions and violence against
the LGBT community:

87
"The number of men and w omen w ho have deep-seated homosexual
tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, w hich is objectively
disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be
accepted w ith respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of
unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons
are called to fulfill God'
s w ill in their lives and, if they are Christians, to
unite to the sacrifice of the Lord' s Cross the difficulties they may
encounter from their condition."[27]

For those w ho do experience gay sexual attractions, the Catholic

Church offers the follow ing counsel:

"Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-

mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of
disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can
and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian
perfection."[28] (Perfection? DID CHRIST EV ER ADMONISH
PEOPLE TO BE PERECT? Or did he try to show how imperfect w e
are and that he offers us salvation anyw ay through his grace alone?)

It should be noted that the Church considers the call to chastity to be

universal to all persons according to their state in life. How ever, only
heterosexual Catholics have the option of expressing their chastity
through married love.

In 1997, the USCCB came out w ith a tract called alw ays our children
which some might find helpful. It articulates the most recent stance on
homosexuality, especially as it relates to parents of homosexual
children.

Homosexuality and priesthood

Main article: Homosexuality in the Roman Catholic priesthood
The Roman Catholic Church forbids the ordination of men w ho have
"deeply rooted homosexual tendencies," as it is expressed in a 2005
document, called Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the
Discernment of Vocations w ith regard to Persons w ith Homosexual
Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy

88
Orders. Men w ith "transitory" same-sex feelings could be eligible for
ordination after three years of having moved on from this stage of
their life. Comments from various bishops suggest that interpretations
of the subject of this ban vary from diocese to diocese, and some
bishops still quietly ordain homosexuals as priests.

Swedenborgianism
The largest Sw edenborgian denomination in North America, the
General Church of the New Jerusalem does not ordain gay and
lesbian ministers, but the oldest denomination, the Sw edenborgian
Church of North America, does. Ministers in Sw edenborgian Church
of North America may deter mine individually w hether or not they w ill
marry same-sex couples. Ministers of the General Church of the New
Jerusalem are not permitted to marry or bless any same-sex
couples.[citation needed] The Lord' s New Church Which Is
Hierosolyma has no official doctrine on the debate of homosexuality.
Personal opinions vary, but respecting others and not condemning
anyone is an important facet of the Lord' s New Church: "Human
freedom is necessary if men are to be led in freedom according to
reason by the Lord into the life in the Lord w hich is freedom itself." So
the Church values the "expression of the thoughts and feelings of all
in the Church provided they are not in opposition to the Essentials and
the Principles of Doctrine of the Church" [29]

United Church of Canada

This congregation of the United Church of Canada has posted a
statement affirming that they w elcome people of all backgrounds,
including gays and lesbians, as full members of the church. The
United Church of Canada, the largest Protestant denomination in
Canada, affirms that gay and lesbian persons are welcome in the
church and the ministry. The resolution "A) That all persons,
regardless of their sexual orientation, w ho profess Jesus Christ and
obedience to Him, are w elcome to be or become full member of the
Church. B) All members of the Church are eligible to be considered
for the Ordered Ministry." w as passed in 1988. This w as not done,
how ever, w ithout intense debate over what was termed "the issue";
some congregations chose to leave the church rather than support the
resolution.

89
The church cam paigned starting in 1977 to have the federal
government add sexual orientation to federal non-discrim ination
laws, w hich w as accomplished in 1996. [30] The church has also
engaged in activism in favour of the legalization of same-sex
m arriage in Canada.

United Church of Christ

The polity of the United Church of Christ (UCC) (considered to be in
the tradition of Congregationalists) is such that the view s of one
setting of the church cannot be unw illingly ' forced' on the Local
Church, w hether betw een congregations or betw een the upper levels
of the church and individual congregations. Thus, view s on many
controversial matters can and do vary among congregations. David
Roozen, director of the Hartford Institute for Religion Research w ho
has studied the United Church of Christ, said surveys show the
national church' s pronouncements are often more liberal than the
view s in the pews but that its governing structure is set up to allow
such disagreements. [31]

The United Church of Christ General Synod in 1985 passed a

resolution entitled "Calling on United Church of Christ
Congregations to Declare Themselves Open and Affirm ing" [32]
saying that "the Fifteenth General Synod of the United Church of
Christ encourages a policy of non-discrim ination in em ployment,
volunteer service and mem bership policies w ith regard to sexual
orientation; encourages associations, Conferences and all
related organizations to adopt a sim ilar policy; and encourages
the congregations of the United Church of Christ to adopt a non-
discrim ination policy and a Covenant of Openness and
Affirm ation of persons of lesbian, gay and bisexual orientation
w ithin the community of faith". General Synod XIV in 2003
officially added transgender persons to this declaration of full
inclusion in the life and leadership of the Church.

In July 2005, the 25th General Synod [33] encouraged

congregations to affirm "equal m arriage rights for all", and to
consider "wedding policies that do not discrim inate based on the
gender of the couple." The resolution also encouraged
congregations to support legislation perm itting civil same-sex
m arriage rights. By the nature of United Church of Christ polity,
General Synod resolutions officially speak "to, but not for" the other
90
settings of the denomination (local congregations, associations,
conferences, and the national offices). This Synod also expressed
respect for those bodies w ithin the church that disagree and called for
all members "to engage in serious, respectful, and prayerful
discussion of the covenantal relationship of marriage and equal
marriage r ights for couples regardless of gender."

Some associations permit ordination of non-celibate gay clergy and

some clergy and congregations are w illing to perform or allow same-
sex marriages or union services. Approximately 10% of UCC
congregations have adopted an official "open and affirming" statement
welcoming gay and lesbian persons in all aspects of church life. A few
congregations explicitly oppose the General Synod Equal
Marriage Rights resolution - an independent movement called
"Faithful and Welcom ing Churches(FWC)" that partly defines
faithful as "Faithful... to the preservation of the fam ily, and to the
practice and proclam ation of hum an sexuality as God' s gift for
m arriage between a m an and a w om an."[34] Many congregations
have no official stance; these congregations'de facto stances
vary w idely in their degree of welcome tow ard gay and lesbian
persons.

The United Church of Christ Coalition for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and
Transgender Concerns is one of the officially recognized "Historically
Underrepresented Groups" in the United Church of Christ, and as
such has a dedicated seat on the United Church of Christ Executive
Council and a number of other boards. The Biblical Witness
Fellowship, a notable conservative renewal organization w ithin
the UCC, formed in the 1970s in response to general synods
opinions on the sexuality issue and has argued that there "has
been a deliberate and forceful attem pt within the m ainline church
to overthrow Biblical revelation [about] ... w hat it means to be
hum an particularly in the Biblical revelation of a humanity
reflective of God and sexually created for [heterosexual]
m arriage and fam ily." [2] (Sounds to me like these nice fellows think
of us as inhuman, doesn’t it?)

Uniting Church in Australia

Main article: Uniting Church in Australia#Ordination of homosexual
people

91
The Uniting Church in Australia allows for the m embership and
ordination of gay and lesbian people. On July 17, 2003 it clarified
its 1982 position w hen the national Assem bly meeting stated that
people had interpreted the scriptures with integrity in com ing to
the view that a partnered gay or lesbian person in a comm itted
same sex relationship could be ordained as a m inister. It also
stated that people w ho had come to the opposite view had also
interpreted the scriptures w ith integrity. When Presbyteries (regional
councils) select candidates for ministry they may use either of these
positions, how ever they cannot formally adopt either position as
policy, but must take each person on a case by case basis. By
explicitly stating the tw o positions, this decision fleshes out a 1982
Assembly Standing Committee decision w hich did not ban people w ith
a homosexual orientation from membership. After emotional debate,
the 1997 Assembly did not reach a decision, and the 2000 Assembly
decided not to discuss homosexuality.[citation needed]

United Reformed Church

The United Reformed Church of Great Britain has committed itself to
continue to explore differences of view among its members, in the
light of the Church’s understanding of scripture and under the
guidance of the Holy Spirit. A detailed report w as submitted to the
2007 General Assembly[4] (Soooo – their official policy is that they
have no official policy.)
Unity School of Christianity
Unity believes that all people are created w ith sacred worth.
Therefore, Unity recognizes the importance of serving all people
within the Unity family in spir itually and emotionally caring w ays. Unity
strives for its ministries, publications, and programs to reach out to all
who seek Unity support and spiritual grow th. Unity’s ministries and
outreaches strive to be free of discrimination on the basis of race,
color, gender, age, creed, religion, national origin, ethnicity, physical
disability, or sexual orientation. Unity’s sincere desire is to ensure that
all Unity organizations are nondiscriminatory and support diversity.”
My thank again to the w onderful library that is Wikipedia!
Quite a diverse bunch of folk w ho all claim to be Christians huh? And
they all claim to be the ones w ho are follow ing the “true path”, in
disagreement w ith the others.
I feel it is absolute hypocrisy to assert that gay people are w elcome to
join or attend a church as members – as long as they stop being gay!

92
How hateful is that? That’s like saying w hites are w elcome as long as
they stop being w hite! It is sick and devoid of the love Christ
commanded Christians to treat their fellow human beings w ith! It is
blatant hypocrisy!

Chapter 3: The Provability Of Religion

To start off w ith, mainstream Christianity condemns GLBT using the

bible as both a w eapon and as “evidence” against us. In combating
this religious based hatred against us, it is logical that at some point
that w e w ill face two options: (a) either discredit the Bible and its
Christian foundations altogether, or (b) find a way to show up the
flaws in both the Christian faith and the Bible w hich make such hate
both possible and “glorify” it, thus indicating a path to follow that can
lead to a “healing” of the dogmatic rift betw een “true Christianity” and
Christian GLBT. In my opinion, logic tells me this has become
unavoidable. Personally, I w ould much rather go w ith the “b” option
than “a”… even if “a” is by far arguably the easiest to assert than “b”.

So let us explore BOTH options, starting w ith option “a” – let us

examine the follies of mainstream Christianity in using the Word of a
loving God against GLBT and the reliability and authority of the bible
as “evidence” to substantiate their persecution of us. Let’s start w ith
the faith aspect:

Supposing somebody unearths ancient Roman census records a few

years from now – listing Joseph the carpenter and Mary and young
Jesus (and even some siblings possibly). Supposing somebody even
finds records of, or even court transcripts of Christ’s trial by Pontius
Pilate or the Pharisees? Suppose even that someone somehow finds
the tomb or even the nails or the cross used to crucify Christ on –
what would any of this even prove? It w ould surely only prove the
Christ existed in the real w orld and w as not simply a figment of
somebody’s imagination. I am sure there are many such proofs of
Christ’s existence currently know n to archaeology and history,
show ing independent confirmation for some of the New Testament’s
historical accounts.

But w hat any solid tangible evidence of Chr ist’s existence cannot do is
prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christ was ever indeed the
93
Son of God as claimed, by either himself or reams of holy scriptures.
That, and all other claims of the Bible can only be taken seriously –
solely by means of FAITH.

In the end I suppose it comes dow n to this – a simple statement of

fact:

Religion is completely and utterly unprovable.

Let’s look at a classic circular argument used to show how perverse

illogic has infiltrated modern society:

Statement: “The Bible is the w ord of God.”

Question: “Why do you believe that?”

Answer: “Because the Bible tells me so.”

Question: “How do you know the Bible is fact?”

Answer: “Because God w rote the Bible.”

Can you see w hat happens here? A document claims it is the w ord of
God and it is assumed and believed that it must be so because after
all, God wrote it. That’s like a child claiming the Tooth Mouse really
exists because the teeth disappear w hile the child is sleeping and
there’s a shiny penny under the pillow come morning to prove the
existence of the alleged anthromorphic personification.

“The Tooth Mouse collected my tooth.”

“How do you know it was the Tooth Mouse?”

“My parents told me so.”

94
“How do you know they’re telling the truth?”

“Because the Tooth Mouse left me a penny.”

The child know s he put the tooth under his pillow one night and aw oke
to find a shiny penny there in its place. So therefore, because his
parents insist the Tooth Mouse collected it and left him the penny, the
child believes his parents and believes in the Tooth Mouse – even
though he has never even laid eyes on this alleged Tooth Mouse.
How ever, w e adults all know the Tooth Mouse’s true identity, don’t
we? The parents. The same example could be made using Santa
Claus and presents left under the tree. Both statements show a
certain element of truth to them – if you’re a lemming. In fact I could
assert that most mainstream Christians are also “asleep”, not at all
aw are of the truth of the matter, blissfully unconscious while the
‘parent’ (the mainstream churches) exchanges the tooth for a penny
to perpetuate the lie they have created.

• Is There A God?

To establish TRUE biblical credibility you need to identify the source,

in this case the deity itself. Since God has not (to general know ledge)
made any public appearance, nor Chr ist since the day he w as taken
up into Heaven on the first Ascension Day, nor have there been any
reliable sightings or eye-w itness accounts of actual supernatural
events which can be 100% attributed to this deity, how can anyone
prove the existence of God? Bear in mind I do not say this w ith
disrespect. I am taking this from a logical perspective.

How do you prove the existence of God? You can’t.

Which is just my point. If you believe there is a god of any kind it is a

feeling or opinion based on the follow ing alone: Faith. Even Christ
used this example w ith the man w ho became know n as “Doubting
Thomas”. In fact the Bible and the Christian faith both assert faith
(belief) in things taught to them w ithout seeing proof. (Which is
exceedingly convenient from a certain point of view .) In short, this is

95
not something that can or should (according to reconstructionist folk)
be reasoned about. To me, this is a perfect argument to show how
the church expects people to simply give blind faith and blind
obedience – w hich on its ow n makes so much room for folk to be
misled and made w illing paw ns of.
It’s true because I said so, and don’t try to think
about it, because it just is.
It means essentially “believe this because I tell you to.” Back in the
army w e had a saying that w ent “Don’t do what I do, do what I tell you
to do.” A couple of decades back my uncle said the same thing, only
the saying he used w as “Ours not to reason why – ours but to do and
die.” Thus it can be said that an autocracy and a theocracy (especially
a theonomy) are largely one and the same thing. This to me is
religion’s one flaw and simultaneously its one strength. As a believer
you have to take this entire concept on faith and play a celestial game
of “Simon sez”.

Religion is not a logical concept at all. Which is w hy so many

arguments w ith bigots ensue because you just can’t seem to reason
with somebody so caught up in something that can’t be proven or
justified by referring to any outside sources, that they can’t see the
wood for the trees, no matter how much scientific evidence you stick
under their noses! There is a w ord for this – fanaticism. There is
another description for it as well – Gratuitous ignorance! Folk are
ignorant and glad for that ignorance because it seems to excuse their
uninformed hate or prejudice!

Now that we have established the improvability of a religion, in this

case Christianity, and show n that faith in any god is indeed a matter of
FAITH, w hich by its own nature is unscientific and subject to law s of
its ow n making, let’s move on to ‘b’.

• The Bible As An Authority

“Because The Bible Tells Me So”

Let us examine the Bible as far as being an authority on GLBT

matters :

96
I am of the opinion that faith in God needs to be based on faith in
God. Belief or faith in any god is fundamentally a highly private and
personal aspect to the individual, it is a choice to believe or to follow a
faith, one w hich should not be forced upon masses of people by those
who cannot conceive this. Granted, Christians need something to tell
people w ho don’t know God about who he is and what it means to
follow him. My argument here is not in favor of them discarding their
scripture, but I am asserting that people ought not to follow it blindly
and literally as the be-all and end-all of Chr istian '
w isdom'
.
Else the fundamentalists will have us traveling the same path as Al-
Queda and the Taliban – killing ‘infidels’ in a catastrophic holy war,
the likes of which the world hasn’t seen since the Crusades. It is very
well such idiocy that may one day bring about an apocalypse.

Is The Bible Really The Word Of God?

All people w ith a moderately Christian background know the Bible. At

least most people w ould vaguely recognize it if it were hurled at them
across a crowded classroom and have the presence of mind to duck.
It is taught to us at school, Sunday school and later at church as
adults – enforced as the absolute truth, one hundred percent
authoritative book of rules and regulations w hich w e had better accept
and follow and beat other folk over the head w ith - or else.

It is most often the very first thing folk refer to w hen GLBT people
come out of the closet. We all know the verses they use to condemn
us – old familiar favorites like the story of Sodom. Nothing like a bit of
doom and gloom and some fire and brimstone to get a little righteous
smiting going on, right? But how much of this ancient document is fact
and how much is fiction? How much of it truly comes from this God
they talk about? How much w as left out during the numerous revisions
that took place in its history? How much of the Old Testament that
was made up by Rabbis to ‘fill in the blanks’ about otherw ise two-
dimensional characters in it, w as even remotely accurate and
“inspired by God”?

How much of this dogma contradicts itself on numerous subjects?

How much of this w ork is so often quoted and used against GLBT out
of context? There is more than enough historical evidence to show
that the Bible in itself as a historical and religious document has been
97
tampered w ith, mis-translated on occasion, censored and even re-
drafted (King James version) for anybody w ith half a brain to see it as
unreliable and incomplete at best. Then of course, lastly, ask yourself
this:

Is the New Testament (known as the Christian Bible) even a

legitimate contender for the title of “The Word Of God?”

What? Why would I even say that? Well, take a look from my point of
view : Did Christ ever in fact commission the New Testament? What I
mean by this is, did Christ actually leave instructions to anybody draw
up a new ‘Torah’ for his follow ers? Did he? Did he tell them explicitly
what to put in it? No? Who w rote it then? The 12 disciples? We are
told – or assume they did – Mathew , Mark, Luke and John – and yet
surprisingly enough not one of those four set a pen to paper to record
the legacy that w as the founding of the Christian faith!

Those four Gospels bear their names, but they w ere first written many
years after the events recorded w ithin them. Of course they are all
similar – naturally they w ere used in cross-reference (no pun
intended) w hile being w ritten. Then of course there comes the matter
of the other gospels… the ones not included in the Bible lying on your
bedside table. What about the Gospel Of Mary Magdalene?
Reportedly this one got the chop because she was a strong female
personality and w as a little too close to Christ as far as the ear ly
church fathers (read patriarchy) felt comfortable w ith. But according to
historians little Mary Magdalene w as quite a vocal element, w hich
made the folk w ho prefer w omen to be in the kitchen, all sw eet and
subservient – a little nervous. Especially w hen present day scholars
suggest that were it not for her gender she may even have been one
of the disciples herself. Imagine that?

A female disciple? Never! That would give the Church fathers (read
patriarchy) who these days can’t even handle the concept of a female
priest let alone gay bishops, the absolute dingles!

What about the Gospel of Judas, w hich shot to international fame

recently upon re-discovery in the dessert? Gospel of Judas? Who on
Earth would name a holy book after a traitor like that? Oh, but that
one disputes the other four gospels in that it makes Judas look like a
98
decent sensitive kind of guy w ho was closer to Christ than the other
disciples w ere… oh and the small detail that it insinuates that Christ
asked Judas to betray him to the authorities intentionally in order to
bring about the fulfilment of prophecy.. Was it so? Who knows? – But
then, that is my point. Nobody does.

What then about the Apocrypha? And the other gospels? ‘Oh they
weren’t inspired by God’ some w ould say… Really? Oh, but the others
were? How do we know ? I mean how does anybody actually know?

What my point here all comes dow n to is these books w ere all written
by folk using “divine inspiration” and second hand information passed
on verbally in the time between their writing and the events upon
which they are based.

The time factor between events and writing them down amounted to
at least a century and in some cases more!

If people listen to office gossip I’m sure they would find it very
interesting how a juicy story changes as it does the rounds verbally.
Which is w hy I suppose it was written dow n in the end – but imagine
how those same stories might have evolved in the time before that?
I’m sure you realize the scope for error, inaccuracy, addition,
omission, manipulation and exaggeration is immense!

At this point I assert that because I may write something about God
while inspired by God, it may likely in no way reflect God’s opinion,
wisdom or even what he desires people to do.

If I w ere to sit and w rite a book about an ancestor w ho died so long

ago that nobody alive today even knew him, detailing things that
supposedly happened to him in his life as passed on to me by my
relatives, w hat will this depiction look like? Would it be even remotely
accurate? Realistically, I may have copies of immigration papers, a
shipboard pass even, an address of a place he actually lived – w hich I
may even have visited – but I have nothing of the actual person to tell
me w ho or what kind of person he w as. I never knew him, I never
spoke to him, I never observed his movements and have naught but

99
the second hand stories of other folk w ho are in the exact same
position I find myself in to go on.

So tell me how is it that some people sat down approxim ately

165 years after Christ’s death and wrote reams of stuff about him
and his m ovements and his actions, quoted him and even
describe the expressions on his face – while quite believably
divinely inspired of course – and somehow the rest of humanity
blindly and unquestioningly accepts every single line and verse
of this product of human creativity as irrefutable undeniable
FACT? When nobody – NOBODY – knows in any w ay w hatever
what actually took place and what did not?

A man I w ork with who is a greatly respected Christian figure once

argued w ith me over this aspect. He asserted unequivocally that if a
text was written by a man inspired by God then it w as written by God
through the man. BUT HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? He couldn’t give
me a satisfactory answer, I suspect because I had him cornered. He
just insisted that It comes dow n to faith, believing that it is so, because
“of course it w as so” – but without any burden of proof whatever.

It is unprovable and these folk are just accepting whatever is being

programmed into them without knowing from where it truly came.

‘Lost In Translation’

Now , follow ing this line of thought – couldn'

t it be possible that some
holy books or parts of them w ere written by people according to their
ow n prejudices? What about the myriad translations that were carried
out from ancient times right up to the present day?
What if the translators carried their own prejudices
across in their work?

If the original translation was flawed then all subsequent translations

would logically also be just as flawed.

Add to this the fact that some of these dubious authors (from the Old
Testament and the New ) many of whose names or reputations w e
100
don’t even know , might easily have slipped in elements of their ow n
dislikes. “Oh, I hate gays, let’s slip that in here.”

That is human nature is it not? Condemn those things which you

personally dislike and put them in a holy book as holy law to force
countless generations to perpetuate your legacy of hate of your
victims down through the centuries... wow! Talk about the ' gift that
keeps on giving' !.

Motive and opportunity. We can see plenty of motive judging by anti-

GLBT bigots activities and behavior today, w hat they had back then
was opportunity! I’m sure they could have. And I’m just as sure that
some would have, given the chance. At least that w ould provide some
credible explanation for the conflicting verses – some condemning
and some defending GLBT – w ouldn’t it?

Most of the Christian recriminations of GLBT folk today have their

roots and basis in the Old Testament. Most of the Old Testament w as
written by Rabbis, learned scholars of ancient Hebrew law – and well
versed in it. There w as no separate judicial system or actual secular
government – it w as all run by the Jew ish priests. And the ancient
Hebrew laws (state laws and religious laws) were placed together in
the Torah, the basis of the Christian Old Testament.

What better way to make your laws stick than to

build them into your religion?

It is not the first time that I w ill assert that religion is about control. And
it certainly w ill not be the last. I w ill never see a more compelling
reason to advocate the separation of church and state than this
example – other than of course seeing w hat is happening w ith
Christianity in the USA, w here right w ing religious bigots continue to
interfere w ith and influence affairs of state (and religion as w ell). In our
modern societies w here we' re (supposedly) more advanced and
tolerant, if some genuine God-sent prophet w ere to come along today,
he/she w ould laugh at the religiously enforced bigotry w e have to deal
with. As laughable as the verses in the Old Testament prescribing to
people to put rails around their roofs so nobody falls off, not taking

101
mother birds from their nests and even some obscure law about
putting tassels on your clothes!

So the Old Testament w as mainly law and florid historical accounts,

and the New Testament mainly more historical accounts in the vein of
a DVD w ith the same movie shot in different angles… For me, w hat it
all boils dow n to is this – people say homosexuality (in fact all the
facets of GLBT) is a ‘sin’ because “the Bible tells me so”. Really?
Where?

To zoom in on the virtues of using the Bible as an authoritative

sledgehammer to nail folk over the head w ith, apply this logic to
Christianity and the Bible:

Inspired by God DOES NOT M EAN written by God.

Men w rote the Bible about God, claiming to be inspired by God in

doing so (whether this is true or not) – thereby building into the book
the somew hat esoteric claim that the book was written by God himself
no less. Therefore people assert that the Bible must be true because
look – it even says it was written by God. Looking at the illogical
argument show n in the Tooth Mouse example, it is easy to see how
people can be tricked into believing almost anything and to actually
think it makes perfect sense.

It is therefore my assertion that through the dogma of religion, those

who control religion also control those who adhere to it, using the
liturgy of their religion as they see fit, to condemn those they choose
as scapegoats for whatever purpose suits them.

I, Faith!

There is more than enough historical evidence to show that the Bible
was indeed w ritten by mortal men, w hether or not inspired by the God
of which they wrote. And that belief in the Bible as a credible verifiable
record is therefore somew hat shaky.

102
Religion and belief in the unprovable is as a result of what? Faith, of
course. Faith that the thing you believe in is real and true as you have
been taught it. But it isn’t alw ays, is it? Even though many people
may argue against this, in all honesty they have to admit to
themselves that it is the truth. Religious verses and stories filled w ith
evocative imagery are essentially nothing more than hearsay. History
and stories told in the third person alone is not the undeniable w ord of
a deity. If w e cannot prove any factual truths in any of these stories,
how can people expect every other person in the world to just accept
them as unquestionable fact?

There is a classic example doing the rounds in internet discussion

circles w ith reference to this concept: To do so w ould be little different
than 300 years after a nuclear war, people discovering a Harry Potter
book describing London as part of the story and immediately asserting
that every sentence in the book must be true because they discovered
London really existed. We know the difference, but how would they?
Can you see through this example how easily a religion could be
founded on believing in w izards and magic?
In the end, how much of the Bible, the book that is used to judge the
lives and actions of other people on, even originates from the one the
authors claim it does? How much of it comes from God himself? All?
None? Well, if I must be frank – the only portion of the ENTIRE
collection of books and history called the Bible that could lay claim to
genuine author ity and pen ship by God himself would be the two
tablets on which it is claimed by Moses that God wrote the 10
Commandments… and since these artifacts seem to have been
conveniently missing completely from the w orld stage since about
66AD, it is kind of hard to prove that either. Really, if they existed,
don’t you think they w ould have shown up on the archaeological black
market by now ? Wouldn’t they? Imagine the price such artifacts would
fetch! If they still (or ever) existed, somebody w ould w ant to sell them,
somebody w ould w ant to buy them – everybody w ould want to see
them! Imagine the socio-religious carnage their existence or re-
emergence w ould cause, especially if they could indeed be
authenticated!

Holy Scriptures (And The Holes In Them)

Christians passing judgment on and persecuting GLBT and using the

Bible as an authority to do this, are confidently going into battle
103
clothed in cardboard armor and w ielding plastic swords. Firstly, there
are very few verses in the w idely accepted modern versions of the
Bible w hich seem to condemn homosexuals – but then there are also
a few verses that defend and even praise them. (Now how about
that?) This foundation of their judgment of us can also be seen as
rather flimsy if we take into consideration the actual legitimacy of this
document in respect of its accuracy, origins and its integrity.

Looking at all the negative verses most often quoted against GLBT by
religious “authorities” and bigots around the w orld, w e see the
follow ing:

Sticks And Stones

The follow ing extract quoted from Transsexual Road Map:

(Comments in pink are my ow n.)
“ Judaeo-Christianity and Transsexuality
Leslie Feinberg, in the must-read Transgender Warriors, makes a
very important point that the Hebrew s are not to blame for the origins
of trans oppression. Leslie points out correctly that the real problem
was the patriarchal class division that occurs when any culture
begins to produce enough surplus to accumulate w ealth. How ever, as
with most religions, the Hebrews sought to codify and enforce laws
that maintained the priestly class as designated keepers of much of
the surplus. Rules also sought to maintain the status of the w ealthy.
This meant vilifying other belief systems that posed a threat to the
Hebrew status quo. This is certainly widespread, but the Hebrews
were among the first to put it in w riting that'
s survived.
One cannot deny that the rules w ritten in Hebrew Scriptures have
been used ever since to justify hatred of transgendered people.
Hebrew thought per meated Christian thought, w hich permeated
Western thought. The Bible is probably the most influential literary
work ever written. As with the passages below , it's important to put
Hebrew anti-trans motivations in context, but it'
s clear that the Bible
has been misused as one of the most damaging w eapons against the
transgendered.
Know thine enem y
Probably the most intolerant religious group regarding transsexuality
in America is fundamentalist evangelical Christianity. They are

104
certainly the largest. Many of the more fundamentalist sects believe in
their literal interpretation of the Bible. They feel the Bible'
s eternal
truths, as they interpret them, back them up in saying transsexuals
are an abomination in God' s eyes.
Religious groups like Americans for Truth About Homosexuality make
it their full-time mission to oppose transsexual activism and other
things they see as morally corrupt. These people are heavily funded,
large in number, and politically connected. I believe these groups are
the gravest direct threat to transgender rights w e face.
How ever, it doesn'
t take much looking to see that their condemnations
of transsexuals do not follow a literal interpretation of the Bible.
I'
ve included examples that expose their hypocrisy and hatred below .
Passages from Scripture
Many Jews and Christians look to the Torah and/or Bible for
guidance. Keep in mind that these Scriptures w ere compiled over
almost 2,000 years. Think of how much different the w orld is since the
time of Christ, and you'll get an idea of the kind of time the Bible
spans. Because of the radical differences in their dates of origins and
authorial intent, there are many places w here the Bible contradicts
itself. See the section below on eunuchs for a good example.
Unfortunately, this often makes it possible for both sides to find
passages that echo their sentiments. As Shakespeare writes in
Merchant of Venice, "The Devil can cite Scripture for his purpose."
The best thing to try to do w hen someone quotes a Bible passage out
of context is to try to put it back, both in that chapter'
s context, and in
historical context. Allow me an example:
Deuteronom y 22:5
I call this the cross-dressing rule, though it could be broadly
interpreted to include transsexuals. They w eren'
t throw ing the term
"transsexual" around four millennia ago.

• A w oman shall not w ear anything that pertains to a man, nor

shall a man put on a w oman' s garment; for w hoever does
these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.
Hebrew law was codified by priests w ho believed these law s were
based on the received w ord of God, and that Hebrew s were God' s
chosen people. This attitude is often a recipe for disaster-- any time
someone thinks they have a divine right to do something, you
probably w on' t be able to convince them otherw ise w ithout
considerable effort.

105
Of Hebrew law, the Ten Commandments are best-know n. How ever,
Deuteronomic code discusses a vast number of rules and rituals to be
follow ed.
Many of the Hebrew laws, including the cross-dressing rule, are about
separation. When Hebrew marauders attacked and killed the agrarian
inhabitants of Palestine and took their cities and virgins, they took
great pains to make sure that their ow n culture and hierarchy w as not
polluted by the displaced inhabitants or their new forcibly converted
wives.
The Hebrew s were especially horrified by the polytheistic w orship of
the people they conquered, so their laws w ere especially strict
regarding the LORD. For instance, the first four of the Ten
Commandments:

1. Worship no gods before me

2. No graven images

3. Don'
t take my name in vain

4. Observe the Sabbath

Several Palestinian pagan sects involved w orship w here priests would
crossdress in sex-changing rituals. Thus, for Hebrew priests-- cross-
dressing idolatrous polytheists bad, monotheists good. And never the
tw ain shall meet.
I believe that the current Western obsession w ith
separation/distinction of sexes has its literary roots in ancient Hebrew
law .
Mosaic law in context
Much of the Deuteronomic code is not follow ed these days, because
many of the law s are ridiculous by current moral standards. Still, those
with a political agenda, w hether pro or con on an issue, often pick and
choose passages that back up their claims, ignoring the fact that the
passages appear amidst a lot of other stuff that seems ridiculous
today.
Take a look at the miscellaneous rules which follow Deuteronomy
22:5--

• A w oman shall not w ear anything that pertains to a man, nor

shall a man put on a w oman' s garment; for w hoever does
these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.

106
 • Don'
t take a mother bird from her nest.

• Put a rail around your roof so no one falls off. (These days if
we see people on our roofs we get slightly suspicious and call
the cops!)

• Don'
t plant crops w ith vines.

• Don'
t hitch oxen and donkeys together.

• Don'
t w ear cloth combined of w ool and linen.

• Sew tassels on four corners of clothes.

• If a man marries a girl, but later doesn't w ant her and claims
she w asn' t a virgin, her parents are to bring blood stained
wedding sheet to the leaders, w ho are to beat him and make
him give 500 silver pieces to the father, and he can' t divorce
her. If the husband' s claims are true, she' s to be stoned to
death at the entrance to her father' s house. (Like the guy’s
buying a horse, not getting married! Talk about a tough divorce
settlement!)

• Men w ho have sex w ith others'fiancées are to be killed along

with the fiancée. How ever, if it happens in the country, you
should just kill the man, since no one could have heard the
woman cry out. (Who cares? I mean, really?)

• Raping single gir ls requires payment of 50 silver pieces to her

father and marriage w ith no divorce. (So a cold hearted
bastard w ho violently forces himself on your daughter is
somehow good enough for her to spend the rest of her life
with? What kind of idiot reasoning is that? So good ol’ dad
gets 50 silver pieces – w hat the heck does the poor girl get out
of it other than a lifetime of continued rape and further abuse?
This is simply obscene! It is no more than slavery!)

• No sex w ith any of father'

s w iv es. (What, he has more than
one?)
Being forced to marry your rapist, polygamy, stoning people to
death... not exactly civilized by modern standards. Just as strange
today is sew ing tassels on your clothes or putting a rail around your
roof.
As I mentioned earlier, the Hebrews were deeply invested in
distinction and separation. Their dietary law s are about categories,
107
and most unclean animals do not fit into an acceptable category. For
instance, Jews can' t mix dairy and meat. Rules against pork are
because pigs have cloven hooves but don' t chew a cud, thus are not
neatly categorized. Only w ater creatures with fins and scales may be
eaten-- no shrimp or frogs, etc.
Biblical scholars have commented that the laws above about mixing
crops, livestock and fabrics are manifestation of this fierce urge to
maintain distinctions. Think of other common phrases from the Bible:
separate the sheep from the goats, or the w heat from the chaff...
The Hebrew s w ere heavily invested in maintaining a distinction
betw een their beliefs and the beliefs of those they conquered. This
meant in part a very distinct separation of sexes.
How ever, there are numerous passages about people who blur these
distinctions: eunuchs.

Eunuchs
Eunuchs are people born male w ho have been castrated. Technically,
transsexuals fit that narrow definition, although eunuchs generally
lived as men after castration. This custom appeared throughout Asia
and peaked during the Byzantine Empire. The practice w as used for
servants in royal households and to a lesser extent, in harems. Many
ancient religious rituals involved genital modification, including the
Hebrew practice of circumcision.
The first chapter of Daniel shows that he and the Chaldean king' s
chief eunuch were close. Some have gone as far as to say Daniel
himself w as a eunuch, but that's not clear. An even more tendentious
stretch is that Daniel w as gay. Another eunuch, Ebedmelech, saved
Jeremiah after he' d been put in a w ell by his enemies (Jeremiah
38:7).
Eunuchs get a bad rap early on in Scripture, but in later Jew ish and
Christian w ritings, they are allow ed to join those groups in w orship.
Deuteronom y 23.1
Immediately follow ing the above miscellaneous rules in Deuteronomy,
there'
s specif ic mention of eunuchs.

• He w hose testicles are crushed or whose male member is cut

off shall not enter the assembly of the LORD.
Hmm. That doesn'
t sound good (the rule or the injury).

108
Also out of the club are pagan temple prostitutes and Israel'
s political
enemies, among others. This chapter also tells how to deal w ith w et
dreams and how to bury your excrement w hile camping. Again, put it
back into context...
Remember, circum cision = genital modification
The rule probably applied to those w ho modified their genitals as part
of pagan ritual. Like 22.5, it is about transgender practices by non-
Hebrews. Of course, the Hebrew version of genital modification w as
OK, and some say this is because circumcision didn' t usually interfere
with reproduction. Anything that negates reproduction interferes w ith
the system by w hich wealth is passed on-- a big no-no.
And let'
s not forget castrati
Further, remember that eunuchs know n as castrati were highly
respected singers in European cathedrals. Their full-throated soprano
voices were considered an appropriate and inspirational form of
praise to God.”

The Myth Of Sodom

This is often the biggest w eapon in the Christian bigots’ arsenal. As

soon as they get a chance they will claim that God destroyed Sodom
because of homosexuality. It is in fact the most common
misconception out there today! I have seen zealots almost sticking
their fingers up people’s noses in their enthusias m for pointing out
how ‘w rong’ other folk are (while maintaining how ‘right’ they
themselves are naturally) ! And they have even given the act of anal
sex (which often occurs in heterosexual relations too, by the by) the
insulting and highly inaccurate misnomer of ‘sodomy’ – as you w ill see
in the quote below :

“Genesis 19:1-11(Quoted from www.whosoever.org)

These texts are often used to show that homosexual behavior is

punished by God. It is, how ever, concerned about abuse, not about
sex in itself , but male-male rape and hospitality concerns. The people
of Sodom obviously w ere engaged in practices that angered God.
How ever, these verses do not show that homosexuality in itself w as
the real problem. As described below , many other verses in the Bible
support this fact and show what the real "sin of Sodom" w as.
109
It is interesting to note that Lot offered his own daughters for the men
to have sex w ith, so that they would not bother the guests. Was this
not male-female rape? Lot refused to expose his guests to the abuse
of the men of Sodom. To do so w ould have violated the law of sacred
hospitality. In desert country, w here Sodom lay, to stay outside
exposed to the cold of the night could be fatal, so a cardinal rule of
Lot' s society was to offer hospitality to travelers. In w ar, the victors
often w ould rape members of the defeated enemy, for to treat them as
women w ould insult them, and treat them as inferior.

What w as the sin of Sodom? Abuse and offence against strangers,

insult to the traveler, inhospitality to the needy, and sexual abuse.
That is the point of the story understood in its historical context. The
whole story and its culture make clear that the author w as not
concerned about sex in itself, lot offered his daughters w ithout a
second thought, the point of the story is not sexual ethics. The story of
Sodom is no more about sex than it is about pounding on someone' s
front door. The point of the story is abuse and assault, in whatever
form they take. To use this text to condemn hom osexuality is to
m isuse this text.

The Bible often refers back to the story of Sodom and says outright
what Sodom' s sin w as. Ezekiel 16:49-49: "This w as the guilt of your
sister Sodom : she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food
and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy." They
rejected even God' s messengers. Also see Isaiah 1:10-17, Jeremiah
23:14, in reference to Sodom. The sins listed in those places are
injustice, oppression, partiality, adultery, lies, and encouraging
evildoers. The sin of Sodom had nothing to do w ith homosexuality.
Even Jesus understood the sin of Sodom as the sin of inhospitality.
Other passages in the Bible come right out and say the same thing.
Yet people continue to cite the story of Sodom to condemn gay and
lesbian people.

There is a sad irony about the story of Sodom w hen understood in its
ow n historical setting. People oppose and abuse homosexual men
and w omen for being different, odd, strange, "queer", outsiders,
foreigners in our society. They are disow ned by their families,
separated from their children, fired from their jobs, evicted from
apartments and neighborhoods, insulted by public figures, beaten and
110
killed on the streets, and even throw n out of churches. All this is done
in the name of religion and supposed Christian morality. Such
oppression is the very sin of w hich the people of Sodom were
guilty. Such behavior is what the Bible truly condemns over and over
again. So, those who oppress and condem n hom osexuals
because of the supposed "sin of Sodom " m ay themselves be the
real "sodom ites", as the Bible understands it.”

How about that? It w ould seem that the biggest biblical rock the bigots
seem to love beating us w ith w ould turn out to be the biggest millstone
around their ow n necks. Seems the myth of Sodom is a bit “hit and
myth” to me.

Ironic, don’t you think? Well, Destiny is a fickle girl – and sometimes
she likes to dance with Irony… and the two of them can surely cut a
rug.

The follow ing extract again taken from Transsexual Road Map:
“ Isaiah 56:4-5
In contradiction to the rules against eunuchs in Deuteronomy stands
this passage from Isaiah:

• "For thus says the Lord: to the eunuchs who keep my

Sabbaths, w ho choose the things that please me and hold fast
to my covenant, I w ill give, in my house and w ithin my w alls, a
monument better than sons and daughters, I w ill give them an
everlasting name that shall not be cut off."
"Shall not be cut off??" Who says the Bible doesn'
t have any humor !
That's a pretty bad pun! This passage is especially useful for
transsexuals, since it appears in the Old Testament along w ith the
Deuteronomy passage.
Acts 8:26-39
This is the story of the evangelist Philip (not the apostle), w ho meets a
devout Ethiopian eunuch. Philip offers to interpret a passage the
eunuch w as reading at the time. The passage w as Isaiah 53:7-8,
often interpreted as a prophecy of Christ' s coming. Philip takes this
chance to tell the eunuch about Jesus Christ, and the eunuch asks to
be baptized. This eunuch is traditionally held to be the person w ho
brought Chr istianity to northern Africa.

111
The point of this is that even eunuchs can be baptized as Christians
or join in God's w orship, in contradiction w ith Deuteronomy 23:1 and
in keeping w ith Isaiah 56:4-5. In fact, eunuchs have been doing the
work of the church since the time of Christ.
Matthew 19:12
This passage has Jesus speaking directly about eunuchs:

• For there are some eunuchs, who were so born from their
m other' s wom b: and there are some eunuchs, w ho were
made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs w ho have
made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven' s sake.
He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Many interpretations of this passage have arisen. Some believe it is a
discussion of voluntary celibacy, but the fact that Christ mentions
people born that w ay indicates to me a birth condition. Some have
also interpreted this to mean gays, w hich doesn' t seem out of the
question. How ever, I think the most literal interpretation w ould include
intersexed (born that way) and transsexual persons (made that w ay).
Regardless of interpretation, the main point is that anyone able to
receive the Kingdom of Heaven may do so. (Straight from the horse’s
mouth as they say.)
Mark 9:43-47
This passage has Jesus speaking directly about altering one'
s body:

• If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to
enter life maimed than w ith two hands to go into hell, w here
the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut
it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have tw o
feet and be throw n into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin,
pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God w ith
one eye than to have tw o eyes and be throw n into hell.
Many interpretations of this passage have arisen as w ell. While it is
rarely taken as a literal exhortation, it does seem to say that your
bodily form does not matter, and that altering it w ill not exclude you
from entering heaven.
Your body is a temple
I Corinthians 5:19
The "your body is God' s temple" argument is used for everything from
suicide to poor eating habits.

112
 • If anyone destroys God' s temple, God w ill destroy him. For
God' s temple is holy, and you yourselves are his temple.
For transsexuals, this argument often manifests itself as, "If God had
wanted you to be a woman, he w ould have made you that way." This
argument is easily countered by asking if this applies to any sort of
medical intervention, from w earing corrective lenses, to taking aspirin,
to other surgeries. (The other point that should be raised is that
modification of the temple is not destruction of the temple.)
God and discrim ination
1 Sam uel 16:7
In this passage, the low ly shepherd David is anointed king of Israel.
Samuel assumes the LORD w ill choose one of David' s many
handsome brothers, but the LORD says to Samuel:

• “...I do not judge as man judges. Man looks at the outw ard
appearance, but I look at the heart. “

Acts 10:34
This appears in the story of the first Gentile converted to Chr istianity.

• Peter began to speak: " I now realize that it is true that God
treats everyone on the same basis. Whoever fears him and
does w hat is right is acceptable to him...
The original context w as race, but a broader interpretation seems
valid.
Galatians 3:28
Another catch-all comeback! If someone starts spouting Scripture to
justify hating transsexuals, lay this one on them:

• ...there is neither male nor female, for w e are all one in Christ
Jesus.
John 3:16
Of course, nothing beats a passage that'
s really familiar...

• For God so loved the w orld, that he gave his only begotten
Son, that w hosoever believeth in him should not perish, but
have everlasting life.

113
Sounds like that covers pretty much any believer, huh? Thanks to that
rainbow wig guy who popularized the verse, even if a lot of sports fans
don't know what he w as referring to.
If someone throws a Scripture passage at you, and you want my
thoughts regarding a comeback, send me a note and I'
ll dissect the
passage in question. “
Before w e get to grips w ith w hat is to me the REAL issue surrounding
the bible, and its authenticity, let’s have a look at the follow ing:
(Please note I use this in reference to the mention of “Christian Family
Values” as quoted off the PE Church Net entry later in section 2 of this
book. It seems this is w hat they are referring to.) Although this comes
off an ‘atheist’ site, the conclusions are very perceptive and to me hit
the nail right on the head w rt relevant areas of concern. There are few
points w hich I disagree on, but the over all article reinforces the point I
am trying to make.

“Some Family Values From The Bible KJV

http://englishatheist.org/indexx.shtml
• Genesis.19:8 Behold now , I have tw o daughters w hich
have not know n man; let me, I pray you, bring them out
unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes.

• Genesis 19:32-36 Come, let us make our father drink w ine,

and w e will lie w ith him, that w e may preserve seed of our
father. And they made their father drink w ine that night:
and the firstborn went in, and lay w ith her father; and he
perceived not w hen she lay dow n, nor w hen she arose.
Behold, I lay yesternight w ith my father: let us make him
drink w ine this night also; and go thou in, and lie w ith him,
that w e may preserve seed of our father. And they made
their father drink w ine that night also: and the younger
arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not w hen she
lay dow n, nor when she arose. Thus were both the
daughters of Lot w ith child by their father.

• Genesis 22:2,10 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only
son Isaac, w hom thou lovest, and ... offer him there for a
burnt offering.... And Abraham stretched forth his hand,
and took the knife to slay his son.

114
The Bible Teaches Not So Valuable Fam ily Values
Christians are pretty quick to say they have the perfect family values
and that they are firmly based on biblical teachings, but w hat sort of
family values are in the Bible? Is this book really a good source on
how to raise a family?

Child Disciple
Many Christians today feel that spanking is w rong but the Bible shows
us how to handle our children. Have a look at: Exodus 21:15 and 17.
Both say that if a child hits or curses his father or mother, he is to be
killed:

21:15: And he that s miteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put
to death.
21:17: And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be
put to death.
This is repeated in Leviticus 20:9 w hich says that if a child curses his
mother or father he is to be put to death.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 requires stoning to death any child w ho is

stubborn or rebellious. (Cross reference this w ith dominionist beliefs –
those folk would actually make this law if they came to political
pow er.)

21:18: If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, w hich w ill not
obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, w hen
they have chastened him, w ill not hear ken unto them:
21:19:Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring
him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20: And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is
stubborn and rebellious, he w ill not obey our voice; he is a glutton,
and a drunkard.
21:21: And all the men of his city shall stone him w ith stones, that he
die: so shalt thou put evil aw ay from among you; and all Israel shall
hear, and fear.
Proverbs 22:15 says you should beat your foolish children w ith a rod.

115
22:15: Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of
correction shall drive it far from him.
Many m odern Christians say that those are Old Testament laws
that no longer apply but they should bear in m ind the words of
Mark in the New Testament:

7:9: And he said unto them, Full w ell ye reject the commandment of
God, that ye may keep your ow n tradition. 7:10:
For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Who so
curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
7:11: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is
Corban, that is to say, a gif t, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited
by me; he shall be free.
7:12: And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his
mother;
7:13: Making the w ord of God of none effect through your tradition,
which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Marriage
First rule is to keep your daughter pure for her w edding because if she
is not a virgin on the night she w ill be stoned to death.

Sadly, this barbaric punishment is still being follow ed in some parts of

the Moslem w orld, w hich share some of the teachings of the Hebrew
bible. There is no such penalty, needless to say, for a groom who
is not a virgin. The fact that Christian w omen w ho have engaged in
premarital sex are not being stoned to death today shows that even
believers recognize cruelty and absurdity in their own "Good
Book."

"If any man take a w if e, and go in unto her . . . and say, I took this
woman, and w hen I came to her, I found her not a maid . . . and the
tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring
out the damsel to the door of her father' s house, and the men of
her city shall stone her w ith stones that she die . . ." Deuteronomy
22:13-21
In m ost Christian countries having more than one w ife is a crime
and having sex with a w om an who isn't your w ife is grounds for
116
divorce. Monogam y is considered the desirable standard,
although Morm ons w ill give you some debate on the m atter. But
m any Christians consider that sex should only be allowed inside
m arriage.

However, the Bible is pro-polygamy...

There are m any instances in the bible show ing men having
m ultiple wives, or to have slept with their slaves, servants or
anyone else they could get thier hands on. (In fact is that not the
point w here the ancestors of Islam parted from the Hebrew s?)

Here'
s a few of them ...
Genesis 4:19: And Lamech took unto him tw o wives: the name of the
one w as Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
King David had lots of w ives, apparently not enough though,

4:3: And David took more w ives at Jerusalem: and David begat more
sons and daughters.
14:4: Now these are the names of his children w hich he had in
Jerusalem; Shammua, and Shobab, Nathan, and Solomon,
14:5: And Ibhar, and Elishua, and Elpalet,
14:6: And Nogah, and Nepheg, and Japhia,
14:7: And Elishama, and Beeliada, and Eliphalet.
Let's not forget about Gideon and his views on monogomy: he
fathered 71 sons through m any w ives plus a m istress in
Shechem . So much for m onogam y and fidelity. Is this how the
hotel-bible Gideon Society expects us to dem onstrate fam ily
values to our children?

Judges 8:30-31: And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body
begotten: for he had many w ives. And his concubine that w as in
Shechem, she also bare him a son, w hose name he called
Abimelech.
Let'
s also mention Solom an, king of polygam ists. At least one
thousand sexual partners. Another fine exam ple of fam ily values
from one of God's favourites.

117
But king Solomon loved many strange w omen, together w ith the
daughter of Pharaoh, w omen of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites,
Zidonians, and Hittites . . . And he had seven hundred w ives,
princesses, and three hundred concubines. ~ I Kings 11:1-3
Notice that this lifestyle is never denounced by God, Jesus, or
the biblical writers. Solomon, supposedly an ancestor of Jesus, w as
praised by Jesus: "all his glory" (Matthew 6:29), "w isdom of Solomon"
(Matthew 12:42). Jesus compared himself (not so humbly) to
Solomon' s greatness: "a greater than Solomon is here." (Luke 11:31)

If polygamy is condoned and even encouraged throughout the Bible

why is it that modern Christians condemn those w ho w ant more than
one w oman?

Perhaps they think w e should follow some of the other rules

concerning marriage given in Leviticus:

21:7: "you shall not marry a w oman divorced from her husband.
20:10: " If a man commits adultery, both the adulterer and adulteress
shall be put to death."

Abortion
Abortion and homosexuality are hot topics for Christians but w hat
does the Bible really say about being pro-life and against abortion?

Nothing, as it turns out...

"O daughter of Babylon, w ho art to be destroyed; happy shall he be,
that rew ardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that
taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." Psalm 137:8-9
2 King.15:16 "Then Menahem s mote Tiphsah, and all that w ere
therein, and the coasts thereof from Tirzah: because they opened not
to him, therefore he sm ote it; and all the women therein that were
w ith child he ripped up."
Is this "pro-life"? No, this is one of numerous examples of god-
ordained genocide. Even if you feel there is justice in killing the
innocent infants of people deemed "evil" by your religion, w ould

118
you be happy to do it, as the bible declares? If this is not evil and
against any sort of civilised values, then what is?

Numbers 5:20-31 says that if a w oman cheats on her husband, he is

to take her to the priest and he will give her "bitter water". If the
woman didn' t cheat on her husband her pregnancy w ill continue as it
should. But if she did cheat on him, then her belly w ill swell, her thigh
will rot, the baby w ill be lost and she w ill be a curse am ong her
people. No value is placed on the fetus.

5:20: But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband,
and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain w ith thee beside thine
husband:
5:21: Then the priest shall charge the woman w ith an oath of cursing,
and the priest shall say unto the w oman, The LORD make thee a
curse and an oath among thy people, w hen the LORD doth make thy
thigh to rot, and thy belly to sw ell;
5:22: And this w ater that causeth the curse shall go into thy bow els, to
make thy belly to sw ell, and thy thigh to rot: And the w oman shall say,
Amen, amen.
5:23: And the priest shall w rite these curses in a book, and he shall
blot them out w ith the bitter w ater:
5:24: And he shall cause the w oman to drink the bitter w ater that
causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter
into her, and become bitter.
5:25: Then the priest shall take the jealousy offering out of the
woman' s hand, and shall w ave the offering before the LORD, and
offer it upon the altar:
5:26: And the priest shall take an handful of the offering, even the
memorial thereof, and burn it upon the altar, and afterw ard shall
cause the w oman to drink the w ater.
5:27: And w hen he hath made her to drink the w ater, then it shall
come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against
her husband, that the w ater that causeth the curse shall enter into her,
and become bitter, and her belly shall sw ell, and her thigh shall rot:
and the w oman shall be a curse among her people.
5:28: And if the w oman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be
free, and shall conceive seed.

119
5:29: This is the law of jealousies, w hen a w if e goeth aside to another
instead of her husband, and is defiled;
5:30: Or w hen the spirit of jealousy cometh upon him, and he be
jealous over his w if e, and shall set the woman before the LORD, and
the priest shall execute upon her all this law .
5:31: Then shall the man be guiltless from iniquity, and this w oman
shall bear her iniquity. (Sounds like borderline sorcery and magic to
me, how about you?)
Many Christians claim and define a fertilized egg as a living child
even though this is not backed up by medical science or the
bible. The bible says that life is only in the blood, (Leviticus 17:11 and
Deuteronomy 12:23). How ever, there is no blood until the second
week after conception, so as far as abortion is concerned, the
Christians are hypocrites.

But the fact that they oppose m any avenues of medical research
causes great harm to such potential life savers as stem cell
research. which interferes with the very rights of the individual to
health and happiness. Millions of people suffer from m any
diseases, and w ithout this research, the chances of finding cures
for these horrible diseases become very low .

Although the bible contains hundreds of laws and thousands of

rules there is not one single w ord about abortion. But if we are to
examine the bible to see if it supports the Christian and religious
view point on w hat constitutes life and what does not, we w ill find that
the bible is pro abortion and anti-life. One of the so called "laws of
god" sheds much light on the value of a fetus. Look at how the bible
values a fetus.

21:22: If men strive, and hurt a w oman w ith child, so that her fruit
depart from her, and yet no mischief follow : he shall be surely
punished, according as the w oman' s husband w ill lay upon him; and
he shall pay as the judges determine.
21:23: And if any mischief follow , then thou shalt give life for life,
21:24: Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
21:25: Burning for burning, w ound for wound, stripe for stripe.

120
As you can see, the bible comm ands the death penalty for the
killing of a hum an being, but not for the expulsion of a fetus.

Hosea 13:16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled
against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be
dashed in pieces, and their w omen w ith child shall be ripped up.

The Beginning Of Life?

Here is another point w hich many Chr istians misunderstand or
misinterperate their very ow n "word of god". The bible states that life
begins at birth and not at conception. In fact, god defines life as
"breath" and the evidence for this starts in Genesis where God
"breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living
soul."

Many anti-abortionists, in their desperation for biblical support of their

beliefs, cite irrelevant verses such as:

"Behold, I w as shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive

me." Psalm 51:5
Verses such as this do not support their beliefs even remotely they
and use this verse out of complete desperation. The verse just quoted
invokes original sin and show s how sexist bible believers really are
but the verse has absolutely nothing to do w ith abortion.

Paul, Jesus and all the biblical figures ignored every chance to
condem n abortion. Since these ' holy'people w ent out of their ways
to invent rules for virtually every aspect of people’s lives, w hy is it that
they did not make a ruling on abortion and the fetus? How is it that
these godly and supposedly inspired men failed to make an issue out
of abortion? They ignored the subject because they did not value a
fetus at all.

Thou Shalt Not Kill

The anti abortion hypocrites are quick to quote the sixth
commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" ~ Ex. 20:13 ~ and claim that this
commandment of god shows that god is pro-life and anti abortion.
Oddly enough, this doesn't stop some anti-abortionist from
121
killing medical staff. (Or to advocate and encourage the execution of
gay people!)

Exodus 21:22-25 states clearly that a fetus is not a living breathing

human being. Furthermore, a critical and honest analysis show s that
"Thou shalt not kill" does not apply to all living, breathing hum an
beings. We know this because children are routinely m assacred
in the bible at the comm andment of god, Moses and other holy
men. Take for exam ple, some of the verses above where the
bible comm ands the killing of a child for being a "stubborn son"
or for cursing one’s father or mother, or being a hom osexual
Leviticus. 20:13 or for doing working on the Sabbath, such as
picking up sticks, Num bers 15:32-35.

God can not be considered pro-life, and certainly not anti-

abortion as the Christians claim . Some Christians believe that the
Ten Commandments w ere part of "The Law " Jesus supposedly
"nailed to the cross" so it seems pointless for them to quote this rule
their ow n god did aw ay with.

Women'
s Rights
They don't have any. None at all...they are not even allowed to
speak in church.
~ Genesis 3:16 Unto the w oman he said, I w ill greatly multiply thy
sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;
and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
~ 1 Corinthians.11:3 "But I w ould have you know , that the head of
every man is Christ; and the head of the w oman is the man; and the
head of Christ is God."
~ 1 Corinthians.14:34-36 "Let your w omen keep silence in the
churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are
commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law . And if they
will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a
shame for w omen to speak in the church." (The patriarchy at w ork
with a pen again I see… )
~ Ephesians.5:22-24 "Wives, submit yourselves unto your ow n
husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the w if e,
even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the

122
body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the w iv es
be to their ow n husbands in every thing."
~ Colossians.3:18 " Wives, submit yourselves unto your ow n
husbands, as it is fit in the Lord."
~ 1 Timothy.2:11-15 "Let the wom an learn in silence w ith all
subjection. But I suffer not a w om an to teach, nor to usurp
authority over the m an, but to be in silence. For Adam w as first
formed, then Eve. And Adam w as not deceived, but the w oman being
deceived w as in the transgression. Notw ithstanding she shall be
saved in childbearing.
~ 1 Peter.3:1 "Likew ise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own
husbands."
So w hen we hear Christians talking about family values, w e should
remember these things they hold dear are the exact opposite of
what' s meantioned in the Bible, especially w hen they say that the
Bible backs them up. It's just proof that these people don' t even
know what they believe, or they have never read the bible, or are
only exposed to it once a week in church and have it explained to
them w hat the verses "really mean".“

The follow ing quote taken from: Gay And Lesbian Bible.com
http://gayandlesbianbible.com/index.php?pr=Excerpt
“The follow ing is the Introduction taken from the Study New
Testament for Lesbians, Gays, Bi, and Transgender.

“Is there a man, learned or unlearned, w ho w ill not, w hen he takes the
volume into his hands, and perceives that w hat he reads does not suit
his traditonal tastes, break out immediately into violent language, and
call me a forger, and a profane person for having the nerve to add
anything to the ancient books, or to make any changes or corrections
to them? It is useless to play the lyre for a donkey. So great is the
strength of established usage that even acknow ledged corruptions
please most people, for they prefer to have their copies nice rather
than accurate.”
Jerome (4th century AD)

123
Introduction.

Generally speaking, many Christians are a judgmental lot and do not

approve of w omen as Church leaders, divorced people, or
homosexuals. How ever, these biases are not supported by the Bible
itself. Some may appear to be, due to mistranslation, others are not
supported even by that. Many Christians, w hen shown that a w ord
they thought meant one thing in fact means something entirely
different, simply do not w ish to know . They prefer to disregard the
evidence in order to adhere to their ow n closely held traditions.(See
what I mean w hen I call bigots a bunch of bloody stupid lemmings?)
In the New Testament, Jesus railed against legalistic religious
leaders, and told us to bew are of them. He at no point told us to
bew are of women as Church leaders, of divorced people, or of
homosexuals. And of course he w ould not, as the New Testament in
the original Greek does not speak against these three groups in any
way whatsoever.
History.
For centuries, parts of the Church have tried to prevent correct Bible
translation reaching the hands of the people. The first hand-written
English language Bible manuscripts w ere produced in the 1380s AD
by John Wycliffe, an Oxford scholar. Some years after he died, the
Pope ordered his bones dug up and destroyed.
The Roman church executed people found with a Bible w ritten in any
language other than Latin. One of Wycliffe’s follow ers, Hus, w as
burned at the stake in 1415, and Wycliffe’s Bibles w ere throw n in the
fire. In 1517 seven people w ere burned at the stake by the Roman
Catholic Church for teaching their children to say the Lord’s Prayer in
English rather than in Latin.
Johann Gutenberg invented the printing press in the 1450s. The first
book ever printed w as a Latin language Bible. In the 1490s another
Oxford professor, and the personal physician to King Henry the 7th
and 8th, Thomas Linacre, read the Gospels in Greek, and w as
horrified at the difference between the original Greek and the Latin
Vulgate. He w rote about the shocking Vulgate translation of the
original Greek in his dairy.
Eras mus w as compelled to correct the vastly inaccurate Latin Vulgate.
In 1516 he published a Greek-Latin Parallel New Testament. This w as
the first non-Latin Vulgate text of the scripture to be produced in over
1,000 years. The 1516 Greek-Latin New Testament of Erasmus

124
further focused attention on just how corrupt and inaccurate the Latin
Vulgate w as.
In the 1530s Martin Luther published the entire Bible in Ger man. Just
prior to that Tyndale w as forced to flee from England for translating
the New Testament into English from the or iginal Greek. In 1525-1526
the Tyndale New Testament became the first printed edition of the
scripture in the English language. They w ere burned as fast as the
Bishop could confiscate them. The church declared it contained
thousands of errors. People found in possession of one of Tyndale’s
New Testaments w ere burned to death. Tyndale w as imprisoned for
500 days and then strangled and burned at the stake in 1536.
Myles Coverdale and John Rogers (alias Thomas Matthew ) were
follow ers of Tyndale. They continued his English Bible project.
Coverdale finished translating the Old Testament, and in 1535 pr inted
the first complete Bible in the English language. How ever, instead of
the original Greek, he translated from Luther’s German text and the
Latin. The first complete English Bible w as printed on October 4,
1535, and is know n as the Coverdale Bible.
In 1537 John Rogers under the pseudonym Thomas Matthews
worked with Tyndale on the second complete English Bible. This w as
the first English Bible translated from the original Biblical languages of
Greek and Hebrew . It w as a composite made up of Tyndale’s
Pentateuch and New Testament (1534-1535 edition) and Coverdale’s
Bible and some of Roger’s ow n translation of the text. John Rogers
was burned at the stake on February 4, 1555, for refusing to renounce
his translation w ork.
In 1539, Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury, hired Myles
Coverdale at the bequest of King Henry VIII to publish the “Great
Bible”. It became the first English Bible authorized for public use, and
was distributed to every church and chained to the pulpit. A reader
was even provided so that the illiterate could hear the Bible read in
English. Cranmer’s Bible, published by Coverdale, w as known as the
Great Bible due to its great size.
King Henry VIII had requested that the Pope per mit him to divorce his
wif e and marry his mistress. The Pope refused so Henry renounced
Roman Catholicis m and declared that as he was the reigning head of
State he w as also the new head of the Church. This new branch of
the Church became know n as the Anglican Church or the Church
of England. King Henry took on the role of the Pope. His first act w as
to annoy Rome by funding the printing of the scriptures in English.
This w as the first legal English translation of the Bible.

125
In the 1550s, the Church at Geneva, Sw itzerland, w as sympathetic to
the reformer refugees. Among those w ho met in Geneva w ere Myles
Coverdale and John Foxe (publisher of the Foxe’s Book of Martyrs),
Thomas Sampson and William Whittingham. With the help of
theologians John Knox and John Calvin, the Church of Geneva set
out to produce a Bible. The New Testament w as completed in 1557,
and the complete Bible w as first published in 1560. It became know n
as the Geneva Bible. The Geneva Bible w as the first Bible to add
numbered verses to the chapters, for the purpose of finding passages
easily. There w ere extensive marginal notes and references next to
every chapter. This was a first. The Geneva Bible remained more
popular than the King James Version for many decades. It w as the
first Bible taken to A merica, and w as the Bible of the Puritans and
Pilgrims. The Geneva Bible has been out of print since 1644.
At end of Queen Mary’s reign, the reformers were able to return to
England. The Anglican Church, now under Queen Elizabeth I, allow ed
the printing and distribution of Geneva Bibles. How ever, the notes
were strongly against the Church. It w as decided to have a new Bible
produced w hich did not have these bothersome notes. In 1568, a
revision of the Great Bible know n as the Bishop’s Bible w as
introduced. It did not become popular.
In 1582, the Roman Catholic Church decided to have an official
Roman Catholic English translation. Instead of translating from the
original Greek, they used the corrupt Latin Vulgate. This version
became know n as the Rheims New Testament.
Upon the death of Queen Elizabeth I, Prince James VI of Scotland
became King James I of England. Clergy approached the new King in
1604 and announced their desire for a new translation to replace the
Bishop’s Bible. James w as none too happy about the notes w hich
disparaged kings. About 50 people made a new translation, heavily
using several other translations rather than translating from the
original Greek. They relied heavily upon translations: Tyndale’s
New Testament, The Coverdale Bible, The Matthew s Bible, The Great
Bible, The Geneva Bible, the Rheims New Testament, and they
relied heavily upon the Latin Vulgate. The King James Bible w as
printed in 1611. It is often called “The Authorised Version” but it w as
never actually authorized by the king or the church. It w as an Anglican
version printed to compete w ith the Protestant Geneva Bible, by the
very people w ho opposed Protestants and in many cases ordered
their execution.
The King James Bible produced by the Anglican Church took decades
to overcome the Protestant Church’s popular Geneva Bible. Both the
126
Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Church persecuted
Protestants throughout the 1600s. John Bunyan w ho w rote Pilgrim’s
Progress w as imprisoned by the Anglican church for the crime of
preaching the Gospel. The Puritans and the Pilgrims w ho left England
for America rejected the King James Version and took w ith them the
Geneva Bible.
In the 1880s the English Revised Version become the first English
Bible version to become popular after the KJV times. This w as also
notew orthy as it was the first time that the 14 Apocryphal books were
omitted. Up until the 1880s every Protestant Bible (not just Catholic
Bibles) had 80 books rather than 66. The original 1611 King James
Version contained the Apocrypha, as did all the earlier Bible versions.
The Apocrypha has only been missing from the Bible in the last 120
years.

The Bible in Modern Times.

Many people are not aw are that most available Bible translations are
backed by denominations or specif ic ideological groups. Certain
members of the USA “Religious Right” have successfully controlled
the availability and content of some Bible versions. In 1997, lobbyists
applied considerable pressure to the publisher (Zondervan) of the
New International Inclusive Language Bible (NIV I) w hich w as
published in England, not to release it in the USA. The NIVI’s crime?
To translate gender language accurately; for example, to translate the
Greek w ord meaning “ person” by the English w ord “person” instead
of the traditional “ m an” . The lobbyists alleged that it w as “tampering
with” God’s Word, and “misquoting God”. (So restoring modern
mistranslations back to the original source is “tampering w ith Gods
Word and misquoting God”? Yeah – right; only because it leaves them
with egg on their faces and not a leg to stand on w hile preaching hate
from their soiled little pulpits !)
In 2001 the Religious Right lobbied to prevent the New Testament
translation know n as Today’s New International Version (TNIV) being
used by three major denominations. Their ow n national Christian
bookstore chain refused to sell it. The lobbyists have been spaw ned
mainly by the anti-equality for w omen organization The Council on
Biblical Manhood and Womanhood ( CBMW) w hich is allied closely
with the Southern Baptists. The Southern Baptist Convention’s giant
bookstore chain Lifew ay Christian Resources is the parent of
Broadman and Holman Publishers w hich publishes the Holman
Christian Standard Bible. Lifew ay bookstores refused to sell the TNIV.
Of the Holman Christian Standard Bible, R. Albert Mohler, president of
127
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, said he w as
excited “if for no other reason than w e w ill have a major translation w e
can control.”
A number of the same lobbyists w ere members of the Translation
Committee of the English Standard Version (ESV) Bible, a direct
market competitor to the TNIV. The ESV had on its board of advisors
several people w ho were signatories against the TNIV immediately
upon its release. It is w orth noting that the ESV w as released only
shortly before the TNIV. The ESV w as published by Crossway Books,
the President of w hich, Lane T. Dennis, w as one of the original
CBMW Council members and later on the CBMW Board of
Reference. Crossw ay Books publish many books by CBMW
members.
The foremost lobbyists are members of the secretive organization
Council for National Policy (CNP) w hich is hostile to the idea of
separation of church and state, and lobbies against the Equal
Rights Amendment. The CNP enjoys tax free status, and plans the
strategy for the Religious Right. Among its members have been
Christian Coalition founder and The Council on Biblical Manhood
and Wom anhood founding member Pat ( Marion) Robertson;
founder of Focus on the Family James Dobson; founders of
Concerned Wom en for America and members of The Council on
Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Beverly and Tim LaHaye; John
Ashcroft, the Bush administration’s former Attorney General; Ed
Meese, the Reagan administration’s Attorney General; Christian
Coalition executive director Ralph Reed; the U.S. Taxpayers Party
founder, How ard Phillips; Gun Ow ners of America head Larry Pratt;
Christian Reconstructionists (w ho favor the death penalty for
abortionists, hom osexuals, uncontrollable teenagers, am ong
others) including Gary North and R.J. Rushdoony.
It is disturbing that the very group w hich arguably has done more than
any other in history to control the availability and content of Bibles is
one of the most politically pow erful groups. Nevertheless, there are
various reasons why errors in w ord meaning continue to be
promulgated in Bibles. ( Now how about that? Of course when bigots
today argue that the bible seems to condemn gay people, or preach
the subservience of women to men, THEY ARE PERFECTLY RIGHT
– because the bigots only allow their versions to be published and
distributed!)

128
Word meaning.
For centuries, the meanings of numerous New Testament w ords
remained unknow n, thus translators w ere left to guess. In the late
1880s and again in the mid 1970s, large amounts of papyri and
inscriptions w ere discovered. These impacted our know ledge of word
meaning in the New Testament to such a degree that scholars
labelled the finds “sensational” and “dramatic.”
The papyri w ere written at the time of the New Testament, and
touched upon all aspects of life, comprising everyday private letters
from ordinary people, contracts of marriage and divorce, tax papers,
official decrees, birth and death notices, and business documents.
Large numbers of previously uncommon w ords found in the New
Testament now appeared commonly in everyday documents as w ell
as on inscriptions, and so mysteries of w ord meaning w ere solved.
(This has nothing to do w ith the Dead Sea Scrolls.)
Yet nearly every New Testament translation of today follows the
traditional translations of the earlier versions, w hich were published
centuries before the evidence from the papyri and inscriptions
revealed to us the meanings of numerous New Testament w ords.
In 1895, the celebrated Ger man scholar Deissmann published a large
body of papyri, and betw een 1914 and 1929 Moulton and Milligan
published documentary (“documentary” or “non-literary” meaning
papyri and inscriptions) vocabulary in eight volumes in their
Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. Although this w as an enormous
advance, Moulton and Milligan still had no entry for about 17 percent
of New Testament w ords. Of the w ords they did include in their
lexicon, there w ere 800 words for which they did not list documentary
attestation. Due to ongoing discoveries, the work was out of date
before the last volume had been published. Nearly every recent New
Testament dictionary and concordance is based on this old w ork w hile
some are based on w ork prior even to that of Moulton and Milligan.
Recent discoveries of word meaning have revolutionized our
understanding of w ords which appear in the New Testament, but
sadly, this scholarship has been largely ignored by Bible translators.
Several thousand Greek inscriptions and papyri w ere published for
the first time, or reissued, in 1976. In that year alone, 15 volumes of
recently discovered papyri were published. Light w as thrown on a
large number of words previously unattested. Finds are ongoing:
several thousand new inscriptions come to light each year. In the last
tw o decades, four thousand inscriptions have been found at Ephesos
alone.

129
 These discoveries have been largely overlooked by Bible
translators, despite greatly exciting New Testament scholars and
lexicographers. Laypersons and a significant number of Bible
translators alike are unaw are of the main body of scholarship as it is
tucked aw ay in technical academic journals. Thus the dictionary w ork
we see in today’s New Testament translations follow s Tyndale’s
translation of 1534 and the King James Version of 1611 with a
disregard for modern evidence for Greek w ord meaning.
For centuries Matthew 11:12 (for example) caused problems for
translators, and left readers w ondering w hy heaven should suffer
violence or be forcefully seized by people. Only in recent years was it
discovered that the sentence is full of technical legal terminology of
the time. The actual translation is, “From the time of John the Baptizer
until now , Heaven’s Realm is being used or even robbed by people
who have no legal right to it. This stops those who do have a legal
right to it from enjoying their ow n property.”(I think that means the
dominionists! Don’t you?)
The w ord arsenokoites in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 has been
assumed to mean “hom osexual”. How ever, the word does not mean
“homosexual”, and its range of meaning includes one w ho anally
penetrates another (female or male), a rapist, a murderer, or an
extortionist. When used in the meaning “anal penetrator” , it does not
apply exclusively to m ales as the receptors, as it w as also used
for women receptors. The w ord does not appear in any Greek
literary source until the poets of the Imperial period. This late
occurrence is most significant as the Greeks wrote at length on male-
male sexual relationships.
The cognate verb appears in the Sibylline Oracles ii.73 me
arsenokoitein, me sukophantein, mete phoneuein, w here it is in
company w ith committing extortion and committing murder. Pseudo-
Macarius Aegyptius, Homiliae spirituales IV 4.22, stated that the
people of Sodom sinned greatly and did not repent, and “created the
ultimate offense in their evil purpose against the angels, w ishing to
work arsenokoitia upon them”. Aristides said that the Greek gods
commit murders and poisonings, adulter ies, thefts and arsenokoites in
the context of rape. The 6th c. astrologer Rhetorius Aegyptius used
the term as w omen w ith the receptors: “arsenokoites (of women) and
rapists of women.”

130
Relevant Know ledge.
E.D. Hirsch stated, “To grasp the w ords on a page w e have to know a
lot of that isn’t dow n on the page.”[1] The reader’s context deter mines
how a certain passage w ill be understood. Linguist specialist in Bible
translation, Ernst-August Gutt, explained contextual implications w ith
this example.[2]
Mother: “What’s your new teacher like?”
Daughter: “He rides to school on a motorbike.”
If the daughter liked men w ho rode motorbikes, the mother w ould
know that her daughter liked the teacher.
How ever, if the daughter did not like men w ho rode motorbikes, the
mother w ould know that the daughter disliked the teacher.
Yet if the reader read w ithout context the question by the mother and
the answ er by the daughter, the reader w ould not know whether or not
the daughter liked the teacher, and in fact, the reader could w ell
assume that the daughter w as not answering the mother’s question.
Some context w ould be necessary for the reader to arriv e at the
correct conclusion.
As would be expected, the original writers of the Bible did not supply
extra information to their readers w hen such context was well know n
to their readers. It w as simply unnecessary. Gutt states, “Returning to
Bible translation, it is obvious that in many cases the cognitive
environment of the target language audience show s very little
resemblance to that of the original audience.”[3] He continues, “One
of the most surprising facts about modern Bible translation is that this
major barrier to successful comprehension is given very little
attention… The fact that differences in background know ledge are
likely to cause major comprehension problems for the modern reader
are rarely mentioned.”[4]
Dr Gutt even suggests warnings should appear in the prefaces of
Bible translations. He states, “They are also important, to alert them to
the possibility that even seemingly clear texts may actually have quite
a different meaning, due to differences in background know ledge.
This possibility of misunderstanding is, in some w ays, more serious
than that of obscurity, since obscurity will be noticed, but
misinterpretations often go unrecognized.”[5]
Contexts of certain Biblical passages have come to light only in recent
times, and the contexts have show n the original interpretation, and
thus traditional translation, to be gravely w rong.

131
For example, in Matthew 19 the Rabbis asked Jesus about his
interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1. The context, discovered only in
recent years, w as that there w ere tw o different Forms of Divorce
available at the time. The “Any Matter” is a technical ter m from Jew ish
divorce law , a Form of Divorce introduced by the Rabbi Hillel. The
other For m of Divorce, divorce on the ground of “General Sexual
Immorality”, w as available to both men and w omen, both of w hom
were able to divorce the partner on the specific grounds based on
Exodus 21:10-11. This traditional type of divorce was becoming rarer
by the start of the 1st c., being replaced by the “Any Matter” divorce,
which was for men only, and popular as no grounds had to be shown
and there w as no court case. For an “Any Matter” divorce, the man
simply had to w rite out a certificate of divorce and give it to his w ife.
By Jesus’ time, the “Any Matter” w as the more popular form of
divorce, but the rabbis were still arguing about the legalities of it. The
disciples of Shammai w ere particularly opposed to it.
Matthew 19:3-8 has been mistranslated giving the impression that
Jesus w as asked the question, “Is it ever legal to divorce?” and he
answ ered, “No, except on the grounds of sexual immorality.” This is
not the case. Jesus w as asked if it w as legal to divorce on the
grounds of “Any Matter” and he answ ered, “No, only on the grounds of
‘General Sexual Immorality’”. In other w ords, he was disagreeing w ith
the “Any Matter” form of divorce. Jesus certainly w as not saying that
at that time, or in the time to come, people w ere never to divorce
except on the ground of sexual immorality.
In another example, Romans 1 and Jude have been said to speak
against homosexuality. How ever, the “flesh of different kind” w as
referring not to hom osexuality but to “The Watchers” (angels)
com ing to earth and “whoring after” hum an w omen. This is w ell
documented in the apocryphal literature.
(See how the absence of certain books in the w hole can alter the
perception of the remainder of the works? Argue against my
statement here, my bigot adversaries.)
2 Enoch speaks of those w ho “went against nature” and “w ho boast of
their w icked deeds, stealing, lies, calumnies, envy, rancour,
fornication, murder, and w ho, accursed, steal the souls of men, w ho,
seeing the poor take aw ay their goods and themselves w ax rich,
injuring them for other men’s goods; w ho being able to satisfy the
empty, made the hungering to die; being able to clothe, stripped the
naked; and w ho knew not their creator, and bow ed to the soulless and
lifeless gods, who cannot see nor hear, vain gods, who also built
hew n images and bow dow n to unclean handiw ork.” In similar
132
language in Romans 1, Paul speaks of those who “exchanged God’s
truth for the lie, the idol, and w orshipped and served the creation other
than the Creator.. the females exchanged natural sex for what is other
than nature. And the same goes for males too. The males got rid of
natural sex w ith the female and burned w ith their mutual yearning –
males producing indecency w ith one another, and as a result got w hat
was coming to them for their mistake. They didn’t think it fit to
acknow ledge God, so he gave them an unfit mind, to do things that
are not appropriate. They have been filled w ith every kind of
wrongdoing, evil, greedy grasping behavior, malice - full to the utmost
with jealousy, murder, quarrels, deceit, nasty dispositions. They are
people w ho give out information, w hether true or false, which is
detrimental to the character or w elf are of others. They are slanderers,
God haters, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of bad deeds. They
are not obedient to parents, they don’t have intelligence, they do not
keep covenant, they do not have natural affection, they do not have
mercy.”
Jude speaks of angels w ho did not uphold their ow n office, and that
God has held them w ith eternal ropes down in the gloom. In the next
sentence Jude says that “just like these” Sodom and Gomorrah “w ho
went after different flesh” serve as an example of those w ho undergo
punishment in the eternal fire. Jude quotes 1 Enoch in verses 14-15. 1
Enoch 6-10 states that 200 angels came to earth, lusted after human
women causing “defilement” and producing progeny. The Book of
Jubilees 5 sets out the punishment by God upon these angels. 2
Enoch 10 states, “And (they)… showed me there a very terrible place,
and there w ere all manner of tortures in that place: cruel darkness and
unillumined gloom, and there is no light there, but murky fire
constantly flaming aloft, and there is a fiery river coming forth, and
that w hole place is everyw here fire, and everyw here there is frost and
ice, thirst and shivering, w hile the bonds are very cruel... This place is
reserved for those who sin against nature.” Note the words “sin
against nature”.
The Testament of Naphtali 3.3.4-5 states that the w omen of Sodom
had sex with angels, who “changed the order of their nature, whom
also the Lord cursed at the flood, and for their sakes made desolate
the earth, that it should be uninhabited and fruitless.” Note the term
“changed the order of their nature” w hich is similar to Jude’s ter m,
“w ent after different flesh” and to Paul’s statement, “for the females
exchanged natural sex for what is other than nature. And the same
goes for males too,” in Romans 1:26.

133
The context in Romans 1 and Jude is angels having sex w ith humans,
as w ell as committing other crimes. In fact, the context cannot be
more obvious in Jude 6-7, “6 And as for the Messengers who did not
uphold their ow n office but deserted their own places, he (the Lord)
has held them fir mly in eternal ropes dow n in the gloom, w aiting for
the Judgment of the Great Day. 7 Just like these, Sodom and
Gomorrah as w ell as the surrounding cities, w hich in a similar w ay
committed porneia and w ent after different flesh, serve as an example
of those who undergo punishment in the eternal fire.” 1 Enoch 10 says
the main angel w ho was responsible for abandoning his office in this
way w as bound hand and foot and cast into in darkness w here he
would remain until the Great Day of Judgement.
Note the “just like these” in verse 7. Jude is spelling it out very clearly,
Messengers (angels) did not uphold their ow n office, are held w ith
ropes in darkness/gloom, and just like these, Sodom and Gomorrah
went after strange flesh (angels having sex w ith hum an w omen).
This is most certainly nothing to do w ith hom osexuality: it is not
even anything at all to do w ith sex between hum an beings.

Traditions w ith no basis in fact.

Faulty traditions abound in the Christian community. Some of these
have arisen from mistranslation, but some have not. The follow ing
traditions demonstrate the ease w ith which one can be misled by
religious tradition alone. The popular belief remains that there w ere
“three” “wis e men” and that these people visited Jesus as a baby in a
manager. How ever, the Bible does not mention the number, and in
fact states that they visited Jesus in a house. (History tells us that
Jesus w as around two years of age at the time.) At no time does the
Bible, in any translation, suggest or imply that the “w is e men” w ere
present soon after Jesus’ birth. Further, not one Bible version states
the number “three”; this is purely unfounded tradition based perhaps
on the number of different types of gifts, not even number of gifts. In
another instance, there is much talk and speculation in some of the
Christian community as to w ho the “Antichrist” could be, despite the
fact that there is no mention of a single “Antichrist” figure anyw here in
the Bible. The w ord only appears in the First and Second Letters of
John, only briefly, and is identified as those people (plural) w ho do not
agree that Jesus the Anointed One has come in human form. The
word is not mentioned in Revelation. These misconceptions are all
based on correct translation, so it is not surprising that
misconceptions based on mistranslation are perpetrated. Turning to
translation matters, in w hat is surely to be seen as censorship, the
134
word Magos is translated w idely as “w ise man” in the context of the
young Jesus, “sorcerer” in Acts, and “astrologer” in Daniel.
Many modern translators have follow ed the KJV, w hether directly or
through the lexicons (dictionaries). For example, the w ord paidarion in
John 6:9 is translated as follows: “lad” (KJV, NKJ, RSV, NAS), “boy”
(NIV, PME, Weymouth, TNIV), “small boy” (JB), “little boy” (Amplified).
Yet paidarion can mean “slave”, “young (free) man” “young (free)
woman”, “child”, “girl”, “manservant”, “soldier”. All these meanings
have been w ell attested in the Septuagint alone. There is no evidence
for the exclusive term “lad” or “boy”.[6] The lexicon BAGD’s (the
predecessor of BDAG) entry disregarded the evidence from the
Septuagint, and ignored BGU 2347.3 w here paidarion is clear ly
show n to be an adult man. BGU w as published three years earlier
than BAGD.

Deliberate Changes.
The NKJV, NIV, TEV, Phillips Modern English, RSV, Jerusalem
Bible, New English Bible and the Living Bible changed the fem ale
name Junia to a m asculine name. The KJV, NJKV and Living Bible
changed the fem ale name Nympha to a m asculine name, and
changed “the church that is in her house” to “ the church that is
his house” . The NKJV reversed the order of “mother and
brothers” . The NJKV and KJV reversed the order of Priscilla
(w om an) and Aquila (m an) when the couple w as presented in a
teaching context. The KJV, NKJV and Tyndale Bible added the
words “ a m an” to a sentence about a wom an being in a position
of responsibility, and the Living Bible, New English Bible, Phillips
Modern English changed it to a word to include both genders.
Theological bias has influenced Bible translators to err from the
text in other w ays. For example, the straightforw ard and simple Greek
sentence of 1 Cor. 11:10 which simply states that a wom an ought
to show her ow n authority on her head has been completely
altered in most Bible versions to state that a w oman must w ear a
covering (the word “ veil” does not appear in the Greek) to show
she is under a m an’s authority. The Greek sentence does not
mention a man or husband. (Interesting, huh, feminist sisters? How
the patriarchy w orks against us all… )
The translations of most New Testament versions are based on a lack
of understanding of Greek w ord meaning and display a disregard for
published academic research w hic h shows passages in earlier
translations to be wrong. “

135
Now how about that? Of course w hen bigots today argue that the
bible condem ns gay people, or preach the subservience of
women to men, THEY ARE PERFECTLY RIGHT – because the
bigots only allow their versions to be published and distributed!
To sum up: You can trace the first texts in the Old Testament back as
far as 4000 years ago, and the New Testament about 165 years after
Christ’s death. All this is very interesting, isn’t it? So there is clear
evidence that the Bible has been deliberately changed and edited and
mistranslated. It has been used by countless generations of Christian
leaders, many of w hom w ere also unaw are of these errors and
corruptions themselves – to CONTROL how others think, to place
blame on those w ho conveniently fit the profile as convenient
scapegoats. People have been murdered for trying to expose these
lies in the past, for even daring to translate the Bible for their
persecutors knew their treachery would be discovered!
So does this book dictate your faith? I don’t think it does – but it does
help to deter mine the NATURE of your faith. For most of us a religion
is supposed to be about faith - which is about believing in something
taught to you by another believer - neither of you have any proof that
what you believe in is either fact or even remotely true. What I mean
is this – how many of us have actually experienced burning bushes
and parted seas to convince us that any of this stuff is true? Whereas
how many of us can truthfully say “I found my religion on a
bookshelf”? Pretty much all of us, right? Then to that person, that’s all
it is, all it ever w ill be.
Since the Bible was not written by the actual God, but by men
claiming to have been inspired by him, taking into consideration all the
contradictions and obvious elements of corruption that have crept in
over the last 2000 years, it is somewhat ironic that Christian folk use it
as a weapon against GLBT people, condemning them, persecuting
them and in extreme cases even killing them.
And people’s lives hang in the balance w hen these radicals start
waving pitch forks and burn us at the stakes through their hate which
has been generated by these so-called ‘holy” scriptures? The ‘Word of
God’ today is a tragic misnomer, a shadow of the original, fatally
flaw ed and through deliberate changes diabolically set against a few
groups of people w hom the patriarchy have desperately sought to
oppress in all aspects of social life since before the time of Christ!
Everything that has been w ithin its covers, past and present, added or
omitted, is no more than conjecture and postulation written by men
under dubious circumstances. Based on faith, or inspired by their

136
faith – and how is that ever "authoritative"? It’s a load of thumbsucked
balderdash!

Once it is realized that the Bible was written by men – and men are
fallible, it plainly shows the Bible to be no more the Word Of God than
a telephone directory is the Word Of Alexander Graham Bell.
People often spend more time debating scripture and trying to be right
than trying to understand the underlying message w ithin it. Comparing
bible versions is to me like a game of ' I’ll show u mine if u show me
yours'or Poker, w ith some folk holding a King James Royal Flush and
calling the Mor mons bluff, with like-minded folk shout "Snap!" at each
other.
They have forgotten Gods love, tolerance and shepherd instinct,
preferring to act as wolves in the fold instead. People forget that w hen
Christ came there w as only the Old Testament, w hich for the
purposes of the ' r ighteous element'w orks fine as a literal rule book
and talks about all aspects of ancient Jew is h life, including putting
rails around your roof so nobody falls off and not removing mother
birds from their nests.
They forget that Christ represented the New Covenant betw een God
and man, w hich supplanted the rules somew hat and made them more
into guidelines. Among the commands he is reported to have given us
verbally w as to love others and to treat them as you would be treated
yourself. He did not preach w ar or condemnation or hate. Nor did he
point out a comprehensive list of sins.

Neither did Christ leave instructions to write down the things he said
nor to add anything to the existing scriptures of the Old Testament or
to create a new " Super-Torah" and beat folk over the head with it if
they stepped out of line.

While these texts provide fascinating history and insight into the life
and times of Christ as perceived by folk w ho lived at least a hundred
years after his death, w orking from stories handed dow n by w ord of
mouth through a generation or tw o, it can hardly be called FACTUAL
and 100% accurate.
Considering the evidence uncovered in respect of the deliberate
alteration and manipulation of the original biblical texts by the official
Christian church, both past and present – as w ell as modern agents
applying political pow er to the matter in order to perpetuate its own
137
manufactured lies and deceit – as w ell as the lengths to w hich they
would go to defend and promote this drek – I ask how can those who
claim to follow , claim to love and claim to serve a loving God, continue
to cling to an unholy perversion and believe in hateful men w ho claim
to know the mind and w ill of God?
Their purpose is perfectly clear – a struggle for pow er – to keep the
world on its knees before THEM and not before the God they claim to
serve! Religion is, w as, and alw ays will be about control!

Taking all this into consideration it is no wonder that the Christian faith
is in such a mess today.

To sum up my argument about the legitimacy of the Bible and the

logic behind using faith in the unprovable as w eapons and motivation
to persecute others:
Please do not mistake my argument here for disrespect for the
Christian God. My intent has been to show people’s lunacy in using a
book, w hether holy book or not, as a basis for destroying the lives of a
minority group w ho, other than apparently transgressing only some of
the principles w ithin it (w hich is also another debatable point) do no
harm w hatsoever. Especially w hen it cannot be shown how true and
accurate this book is to what it is supposedly intended to be by the
God in w hose name it is w ritten – and w hose existence can also not
be verified. While this is all fine and w ell, if you consider the rest of the
books content, it preaches love and tolerance and peace – not the
hate that some sexually obsessed fanatics seem to find within its
pages!

It is interesting to note that it took a century – A WHOL E CENT URY,

ONE HUNDRED YEARS – before people even felt the need to start
writing ' gospels' !

For nearly tw o centuries before any 'gospels'were written, w hat did

the early Christians do for reading material? They had faith. They felt
and thought about it. They lived by it. They died by it. That' s good
enough for me too.
To sum up the section about the accuracy and faithfulness to the
original bible texts:

138
The deliberate changes made to the Bible to reflect a male bias by
changing female characters to male ones, the alteration of texts to
reflect the patriarchic Hebrew and Christian opinions of the time in
manufacturing instances of female subservience to the male, and the
deletion of whole books of the Bible (Apocrypha) w hich further
obscures certain references and allusions made in the remainder of
the document and completely alter the interpretation of the whole –
ALL add up to make the modern popular editions of the Bible
unreliable and inaccurate.
When bigots today argue that the bible seems to condemn gay
people, or preach the subservience of women to men, THEY A RE
PERFECTLY RIGHT – because the bigots strive to control bible
publication and distribution and only allow their authorized
versions to be published and distributed! Their assertion that they
are protecting the accuracy of the modern bible has no basis in fact as
they are merely protecting their ow n selfish interests as the version
they defend is the inaccurate version corrupted from the original
through mistranslation, misunderstood w ords and social
circumstances of the ancient past and also deliberate changes made
in order to reflect exactly what they wanted to see – condemnation of
those they despise – us.

• Whose Side Is God On Anyway?

This is a rhetorical question that could be asked of every dispute since

time began. Either side in every w ar has claimed that some or other
god w as on their side. In the Crusades, the Christians and the
Muslims (w ho incidentally w orship the same Abrahamic god) both
claimed he w as on their side. My belief is that if there is a god, he is
on the side of the good and just – and ironically enough there are
plenty of those on both sides of every conflict. The fact that the
Christian bigot factions professing a hatred for innocent GLBT people
and engaging in this vile w ar against us claim the Christian god is on
their side, does not make it so.

In fact I go so far as to say I don’t care which side he is on -

for he is surely not on theirs.

• Churches Evicting GLBT Members

139
The Christian Bible tells us the blood of Christ is our salvation through
his grace and mercy alone. Nobody comes to the Father but by Me,
says Christ. No good w orks or efforts or sweat from our brow s could
earn our w ay into heaven. Laws cannot do this, laws are fallible and
inflexible. Christ is about mercy, forgiveness, love and acceptance.

If tw o people love each other, w hether two males or tw o females, the

only thing in the bible they contradict is ancient Hebrew ideas on
procreation and socio-political circumstances at the time.

It is unjust to hold a birth condition as natural to a gay person as your

being left or right handed against them – or condemning them as
'sinners'simply for existing or loving. Just because YOU don’t agree
with their love doesn’t make it w rong in the eyes of god, does it? No
amount of prayer or hate or lies to prove the contrary can actually
make it so. People have the right to not like it or not agree w ith it, but
not the right to actively judge and persecute them for it. Even that is
biblical law - judge not, lest ye be judged. GLBT do straight people no
harm, can the bigots say the same about us?

Some churches insist that GLBT people may attend their church as
members on the proviso that they remain celibate. What blatant
blackmail! And then some go even further by insisting that gay people
should “stop being gay” as though it w ere some random choice as
easy as choosing w hich color socks to w ear in the morning! Their
argument about ' turning from sin'– in our case meaning ' turning
straight'or denying our natural impulse to change our gender (as
show n in the scientific evidence section of this document as being
impossible) w ould mean for a GLBT person to live in torment, going
against everything he/she is and never being happy or loved. Is this
what you think any loving god w ould ' w ill'for a beloved child – a
lifetime of torture and conflict? I know what I’m talking about – I have
been there. Tw enty five years worth, all misery. No more, thank you
very much.

If I am a Chr istian and I happen to be gay, w hat can anybody do

about it? Can anyone stop me from being gay? Can anyone stop me
from being Christian if I choose to be? Can they prevent me from
loving him? Can they revoke my ‘membership card’? One is a choice
(being Chr istian) w hile the other not (being gay). Would they rather

140
the person 'go to hell'than be Christian and a part of the Christian
community? Seeing as many Christian bigots favor a policy of evicting
Christian GLBT from ‘their’ churches outright, it w ould seem that
would be the case. That is how much they hate us.

‘Keep Your Church – God Don’t Live Here No More’

Whose ‘house’ is a church? Is it not called the "House of God"? Not

the "House Of The People Who Claim To Be Followers Of God"?
Right. So consider then that these people have no religiously
legitimate right to prevent anybody, w hether a drunk, a prostitute - or
a GLBT "social outcast" such as I from attending or participating in a
service and hearing the word of God. By casting people out or
preventing them from coming in, they are assuming the mantle of a
judge and are claiming righteousness over others. For ALL have
sinned, not just the gay bloke they frog-march dow n the aisle to the
door, but the whole congregation up to and including the
pastor/minister/judge-president as well! By advocating this
discrimination they judge others and claim they are "better" than
fellow “sinners”.

Is this not usurping God and claiming his house as their own?

An interesting w ay they show their repentance, like they bought it off a

shelf and flaunt it like a new toy. They forget that it is by their gods’
grace alone that they are “saved” – not though their own efforts or
good works or piety. In short, God’s love is a gift to all w ho accept it –
not something that can be earned or w orked for or bought through
good deeds.

This should strike a note in Christian bigots, for if they are

indeed ‘saved’ they should realize that they have been saved by
Christ’s love and mercy and did not a thing to deserve it – so
where does this smarmy superior ‘I’m a better Christian than
they are’ or ‘I’m a Christian and you can’t be ‘cos you’re queer’
attitude come from?

I suppose this should highlight that there are Christians and then there
are Christians. They can’t even agree how to worship the same god,
141
or which Bible to use – how could they ever agree on anything else –
except apparently on who to hate?

The Christian alternative to eviction or expulsion w ould be for the

other members of the congregation to just sw allow their prejudice,
chuck some cold w ater on their un- Christian hate, screw on a smile
and concentrate on their own spiritual w ellbeing and the state of their
ow n souls instead of making other peoples’ business their ow n. They
should rather share the love of their god w ith fellow believers and
members of their congregation than to pretend they are too good to
worship in the company of fellow ‘sinners’. A question they should be
asking themselves is this:

“ Is your faith so fragile that GLBT are a threat to you?”

Don' t you think it strange that Christ has never ever been quoted as
having said one single word against gay people? Not ONE single
word? Didn’t he have time to do so? Or did folk not think it important
enough to mention at the time? Unlikely, considering all the other
things folk have written into the Bible over the centuries. You’d think
one bright entrepreneur w ould have remembered to scribble in “gays
make God vomit” somew here, don’t you? In fact, considering all the
deliberate changes made to the scriptures as shown earlier tend to
make me w onder why they haven’t done it yet!

Funny how Christ supposedly said other things like ' Let he w ho is
without sin cast the first stone'and '
judge not, lest ye be judged'? Or
are w e poor stupid gay and transgendered folk just reading it w rong?
Should w e be seeing some hidden underlying message of hate in the
Bible there somew here? Betw een the lines perhaps?

• Religious Condemnation And Persecution

A question for you to ponder: (Quoted from a blog found on the

internet.)

Churches the w orld over are gathering places for folk to communicate
with God, catch up on the latest gossip, show off some new fashion or

142
give aw ay as much money as noticeably as possible. Folk w ill smile
and nod, sing angelically (if not falsely) and listen for an hour to a little
man at the front whose name they don’t remember much telling them
what naughty boys and girls they have been the past w eek.

Some folk w ill read pretty much the same holy w rit as other folk, but
they w ill read the darker lines rather than the lighter ones, looking for
folk they can catch out and point fingers at and say things like "Thou
shalt not!" and " It is w ritten!". Some folk w ill even read betw een the
lines or read hidden text written in invisible ink – and blame other folk
for simply being, let alone damn them for things they cannot help.
Such as being born gay or transgendered. Or for being raped and
forcibly made pregnant. These same folk ignore the fact that their
copy of holy writ is several thousand years old, written and translated
by men, w hether inspired by God or no, and the tiny little detail that all
men are fallible.

Despite this insignificant detail, some folk persist in claiming to know

exactly what Gods will is, and proceed to make life decidedly
unpleasant for those w hom they claim displease him (and w ho
coincidentally also displease them). They try to snatch back the light
of the living God saying "this is not for you!"

Afterwards, when recriminations and accusations fly, they claim " It

was God' s will!" Oh, so that makes it all r ight then! This is w hat is
broadly (if not flippantly) referred to as religion. (Something w hich, it is
claimed, Chr ist hates too – maybe because it gives him such a bad
rap).

Isn’t it funny how some folk w ill harp on how ' bad'or ' w rong'or '
s ick'
other folk are, telling them they'
re going to burn in hell, beat them over
the head w ith holy writ and expel them from ' their'churches and
marginalize and dehumanize them till they feel that not even God can
possibly love them – and then claim how they don’t hate anybody?
WHAT A PROFOUND CONCEPT.

Be that as it may, there are other folk w ho have FAITH in a LIV ING
God, they live in PEA CE and har mony and spread his LOVE and
LIGHT around them. These people may not agree w ith the lives of
some other folk, but they accept them into their hearts and their lives
143
and show them the light of this loving God instead of condemning
them, denying them the light and telling them to "sod off back into the
dark! You'
re a sinner – go to hell!”

My question (finally), is WHICH OF THESE ARE YO U?

Mainstream Christianity is so blatantly anti- GLBT, almost all the hate

we face in the modern w orld is from the Christian quarter. (There is a
large portion from the Islamic quarter also, but that’s another matter
for another book.) We are being attacked from every side on religious
right w ing Christian grounds, through blatantly un-Christian hate that
shows no more than hypocrisy. On the Radio, TV, in movies, in print
media, in churches, in schools, in the w orkplace, in peoples homes.

This hate divides our families, in fact creating completely the opposite
effect of what self-proclaimed defenders of the almighty supposedly
threatened “family unit” and certain self-ordained religious ministers
claim to w ant. Parents and siblings turn on GLBT family members,
and instead of supporting them w ith love and understanding – attack
them and shame them and in severe cases even guilt-trip them into
remaining in the closet or even joining dangerous and ineffective “ex-
gay” torture camps. Oh, in one w ay it does unite the family – against
the GLBT members of the same family.
Politicians ride a crest of anti-GLBT hate to w in their polls. It seems
you can’t be a great evangelist or political leader these days w ithout
advocating hate against gay people as one of your "plus-points".

The Christian god commands love and tolerance tow ards ALL others
and yet some Christians seem to take immense pleasure and pride in
demonizing, persecuting and slandering us in the media, press and in
society in general. They set up vast powerful international
organizations to strip us of our humanity through insidious means and
underhanded tactics. They try to disempow er us, take aw ay our civil
rights, freedom and equality through legal battles, and boycotts of
businesses that dare to support their GLBT employees or to recognize
their GLBT customers. They aim to silence us in the media and in
politics and all affairs which directly affect us by acquiring controlling
interests in media corporations and applying pressure on those w ho
will not comply to their edicts. They advocate hate and incite violence
against us in the media and in their social circles. They are proving
144
themselves to be a religion of hate, not love. Of rejection, not
acceptance. Of ignorance and superstition, not know ledge and
enlightenment. Of injustice, rather than justice.

"Blessed be the peacemakers" says their book, and yet they make
war through hitting others over the head with it.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", their god says – and so
most of them must be quite perfect and blameless for all the stones
they cast at us.

"Judge not, lest ye be judged", their lord commands – and thus we

may safely assume many of them will be facing judgment on charges
of bigotry, hate and persecution. Is their god not big enough to fight
his own battles? Does he need bigot zealots to do it for him?

Isn’t it amazing that not all Christians are bigots, but that most bigots
claim to be Christians? Funny you don’t see gay couples frowning on
straight couples getting married or straight couples holding hands or
kissing in public places. What does more har m, I w onder – love
betw een consenting adults – or hate speech in public places? Love is
just love. It’s not a w eapon of mass destruction!

A fine “morality” is being taught to children, teaching them that hatred

and bigotry is more healthy and vital to their faith than the greatest
command from their Christian god – “to love one another as I have
loved you” – i.e. selflessly! Who has the right to determine morality
anyw ay?

Radical oppressive right w ing '

f undamentalist Christianity'is evidently
offensive to many other Christian folk as w ell (they proudly assert in
the media and on the internet that “James Dobson doesn’t speak for
me!”) and shame a faith built on love, sacrif ice, tolerance and
acceptance of others.
God supposedly said: "For ALL have sinned and are far from God."
NOT: " For the queers have sinned and are far from God! – But you
folks here are all right, off you go, go persecute them!"

145
So w hy do Christian bigots act like he did? How hypocritical of them to
act as though they have any less "sin" than we GLBT do in the eyes
of their god – and as though they are somehow justif ied in hating us
when they are just as stained by their ow n "sins" – and even more so
by their hate of us! What gives them any moral high ground over us?
How can they even stand to think that w ay? Nothing but vanity and
pride – and pride comes before a fall!

They reject scientific research and fact, often refusing to even read it
or believe it because it proves their precious anti-GLBT brainw ashing
to be defective and flaw ed. Scientific research indicating that GLBT
are BORN, not made, is dis missed as ' lies from the devil'. GLBT are
ostracized from churches as though they somehow ' belong'to the
other members and not to their god and as though GLBT have no
share in the love of the same god that supposedly loves them.

"The House of God" has become a facetious misnomer used to

welcome all but GLBT and to expel us into the cold as the unholy
scapegoats for "ungodliness" and "sin".
"Love the sinner and hate the sin" they cry, yet how can they
persecute the one w ithout the other? We are one, inseparable, the
same. A person’s sexuality and gender identity are an integral part of
who that person is. It is how we are born. So how then do Christian
bigots propose to hate the alleged "sin" without hating or persecuting
the alleged "sinner"? If they believe god made us, then they must
believe this god made us this w ay. For WE KNOW it to be true that w e
were alw ays this way and that just as a straight person cannot be
made gay, a gay person cannot be made straight. Scientific evidence
is mounting to show that sexuality and gender identity are inborn
traits, and therefore natural to the individual. Trying to change this
through forceful means (i.e. “reparative therapy” and so-called
'preventive'approaches designed to "prevent" homosexuality from
occurring in children! – This is nothing if not monstrous child
abuse!) causes so much emotional damage to the victims of these
fallacies, w ho often participate voluntarily out of religion-enforced guilt
and self-hate for their born sexualities or gender identities.

How ironic that folk claiming to be loving Christians could advocate

the use of harsh methods which can only be described as torture to
force people to change themselves just to please them.

146
 It is even more ironic that the religious conservative right advocates
such barbaric means and methods to manipulate and even traumatize
children – and yet they are so quick to jump up at the mere mention of
the words “child abuse”!

The argument that " GLBT is a choice and not a birthright" is insulting,
demeaning and dehumanizing to GLBT – especially in the context of
their reasoning that it is somehow a "sin" and ostensibly makes us
perverted and evil fro “choosing” a “sinful lifestyle” – “morally
excusing" their persecution of us from a religious perspective. But
while religion may be plastic and flexible enough to be used to excuse
such monstrous behavior, human rights is not.

Being gay or transgendered is a birthright,

religion is a lifestyle choice!

Believing church leaders'(in fact anyone’s) flaw ed claims that being

GLBT is a "choice" somehow exonerates them for hating us in the
eyes of radical religious folk because they believe w e choose to
commit alleged sin and "lustful acts". When in fact, GLBT mostly have
as loving and per manent relationships as they do.
And their denial of same-sex marriage reinforces the concept that we
'live in sin'
, combining it w ith images of lust and perversion. Many
Christian Right folk stand against same-sex marriage simply in order
to reinforce this stereotype. They argue that gay marriage w ill
somehow damage straight traditional marriage and increase the
straight divorce rate? How exactly? None of these claims have ever
been substantiated by any statistics or facts other than distorted
propaganda and utter bullshit posted by hate groups such as Focus
On The Family – courtesy of our friend James Dobson w ho is often
accused of perverting the scientific work of eminent researchers for
his ow n ends.

How many of these lunatic fascist bastards have the cheek to ask us
why we want to marry our partners as they do? Why on earth do we
“feel the need to ‘validate’ our relationships? What arrogance! What
would their response be if we had to ask them the same question?

147
How many crimes against GLBT are committed around the w orld daily
in the name of some god that is being abused as no more than a
convenient scapegoat for the bigots to use as a w eapon against
innocent minorities? How do those Christians who believe in a loving,
forgiving, merciful god feel about this affront to their faith? These
aggressive anti-GLBT bigots certainly don’t live up to their claimed
'morality'do they? By spreading and perpetuating hate and misery
against us, inciting violence even – they are simply show ing their true
colors: A BRIGHTER SHADE OF HIPOCRISY. It is the color of blood.
Our blood.

148
PART 2: The Heterosexist Agenda

149
I called this part ‘the heterosexist agenda’ because I w as in a w ay
referring to the bigots claims that there is some kind of ‘gay agenda’.
As can be seen in the definitions section and in other places in this
book, the ter m ‘heterosexist’ or ‘heterosexism’ does not refer to
ordinary straight, heterosexual folk, but to those straight folk w ho
persecute those who differ from the heterosexual classification.

Though the ter m is so new that the spellchecker on my pc does not

even recognize it, the concept and philosophy has been around since
there w as ever a concept of homo and hetero sexuality. There have
alw ays been GLBT folk and there have obviously alw ays been
heterosexual folk – and thus, logically, there have also alw ays been
those w ho dislike us or even fear us. These would be the folk w e call
homophobic today – but homophobia (fear or dislike) in comparison to
heterosexism (hatred and discrimination) seems more to be an acting
out of the prejudice associated w ith homophobia. Thus to me the tw o
are inexorably linked. One cannot act out as a heterosexist w ithout
being influenced by an element of personal homophobia. Simple logic
from a layman’s point of view .

Since there have been GLBT as long as there have been people, it is
reasonable to assume there has been bigotry for roughly the same
period. And since cultures began to record history there have been
recorded incidents of GLBT cropping up here and there. Everything
from mere mentions of our existence to blood stained chapters of
blatant persecution.

CHAPTER 7: Historical References To GLBT

Ever since the start of the new “sexual revolution” or the “w ar on
GLBT” as declared by our religiously uptight adversaries the
heterosexist bigot lunatic fringe, they have tried to disprove our claims
that w e are born, a natural part of the human race – and also
therefore have been present throughout human history. What
disproves their claims? Human history itself. I have included here
references to GLBT from WIkipedia: (Coincidentally this page also
happens to provide information on the history of same sex marriage –
and as can be seen it is DEFINITELY NOT A NEW OR
REVOLUTIONARY CONCEPT!)

150
History of same-sex unions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.w ikipedia.org/w iki/History_of_same-sex_unions#Asia

“Although state-recognized same-sex marriage is a relatively new

phenomenon in Western society, there is a long history of same-sex
unions around the w orld. Various types of same-sex unions have
existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly
ritualized unions. The first country to allow same sex marriage w as
the Netherlands

In Ancient Egypt, Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum are considered by

many to be the first male couple in history. They shared the title of
Overseer of the Manicurists in the Palace of King Niussere during the
Fifth dynasty of Egyptian pharaohs, and are listed as "royal
confidantes" in their joint tomb.[16]

Asia
Same-gender romantic love or sexual desire has been recorded since
ancient times in the entirety of the continent of Asia, right from the
Middle East to South Asia to East Asia. Such desire often took the
form of same-sex unions, usually betw een men, and often included
some difference in age. There is far less information available on
relationships among w omen in ancient times.

In China, in the southern province of Fujian w here male love w as

especially cultivated, men w ould marry youths in elaborate
ceremonies.[1] The marriages w ould last a number of years, at the
end of which the elder partner would help the younger find a (female)
wif e and settle dow n to raise a family. Generally, this practice - though
unusual even in China - w as reflective of the value Chinese culture
placed on the reciprocal relationship betw een benevolent elders
teaching and guiding the obedient younger members of society.

In Japan , Shudo ( shud ), the Japanese tradition of age-

 

structured homosexuality w as prevalent in samurai society from the

medieval period until the end of the 19th century. Shudo, in its
pedagogic, martial, and aristocratic aspects, is closely analogous to
the ancient Greek tradition of pederasty (paiderastia).

Some early Western societies integrated, and even celebrated, same-

sex relationships, though it should be noted these relationships w ere
generally substantially different from and in some cases co-existed

151
with traditional marriage. The practice of same-sex love in antiquity
often took the form of formal pairings of men w ith youths, which had
many of the attributes of marriage but w ere limited in duration. ( It is
important to note, how ever, that marriages in Ancient Greece betw een
men and w omen w ere also age structured, with men in their 30' s
commonly taking w ives in their early teens.) There were also
m arriage between men, at least am ong the Rom ans, as this
practice w as outlaw ed in 342 AD by the Christian emperors
Constantius II and Constans. This law specif ically outlaw s marriages
betw een men and reads as follows:

When a man marries and is about to offer himself to men in w omanly

fashion [quum vir nubit in feminam viris porrecturam], w hat does he
wish, when sex has lost all its significance; w hen the crime is one
which it is not profitable to know ; when Venus is changed to another
form; w hen love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to
arise, the laws to be ar med w ith an avenging sw ord, that those
infamous persons w ho are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may
be subjected to exquisite punishment. ( Theodosian Code 9.8.3)

In spite of this, gay unions are believed to have continued until

the late Middle Ages.[2][3][4]

In Hellenic Greece, the pederastic relationships betw een Greek men

(erastes) and youths (eromenos) w ho had come of age w ere, it has
been argued, analogous to marriage in several aspects. The age of
the youth was similar to the age at which women married (the mid-
teens, though in some city states, as young as age seven), and the
relationship could only be undertaken w ith the consent of the father.
This consent, just as in the case of a daughter' s marriage, w as
contingent on the suitor's social standing. The relationship, just like a
marriage, consisted of very specific social and religious
responsibilities and also had a sexual component. That there w ere
debates on which form of love was better is clear from numerous
references in w orks of such writers as Plato (w ho favored homosexual
relationships e.g. Phaedrus and the Symposium) and Lucian. An
interesting conservative betw een tw o men, one of w hom argues that
love betw een men is superior w hile the other argues the case for
women, is found in an ancient Greek novel entitled Leucippe and
Clitophon.

At the same time, many of these relationships might be more clear ly

understood as mentoring relationships betw een adult men and young
boys rather than an analog of marriage. This is particularly true in the
152
case of Sparta, w here the relationship w as intended to further a young
boy's military training. While the relationship w as generally life long
and of profound emotional significance to the participants, it w as not
considered marriage by contemporary culture and the relationship
continued even after participants entered into traditional marriage to
women as w as expected in the culture w hen men reached age 30.

Nevertheless, homosexual relationships betw een men of the same

age w ere not unheard of in Ancient Greece. The most famous
example is that of Achilles and Patroclus. In contrast to the Greeks,
evidence for homosexual relationships betw een men of the same age
exists for the Romans. These sources are diverse and include such
things as the Roman novel Satyricon, graffiti and paintings found at
Pompeii as w ell as inscriptions left on tombs and papyri found in
Egypt.

The fact that marriage occurred betw een two men among the Romans
is proved by a law in the Theodosian Code from the Christian
emperors Constantius and Constans w hich was passed on December
16, 342. [5] Martial attests to same-sex marriages betw een men
during the early Roman Empire.[6] The first recorded marriage
betw een tw o men occurred during the reign of the Emperor Nero, w ho
is reported to have married tw o other men on different occasions.[7]
How ever, both of them w ere eunuchs and much can be read into his
mental state by the fact that he made them up to look like Poppaea,
his deceased w if e, w ho he was presumed to have killed by kicking her
in the stomach until she miscarried bloodily. Elagabalus is also
reported to have married a man in a public ceremony held at Rome.[8]
Emperors w ho w ere universally praised and lauded by the Romans,
such as Hadrian and Trajan openly had male lovers, although it is not
recorded w hether or not they ever married their lovers. Hadrian' s
lover, Antinuous, received deification upon his death and numerous
statues exist of him today, more than any other non-imperial
person.[9]

Among the Romans, bisexuality seems to have been perceived as the

ideal. Edw ard Gibbon mentions, of the first fifteen emperors,
"Claudius w as the only one w hose taste in love w as entirely correct"—
the implication being that he w as the only one not to take men or boys
as lovers. Gibbon based this on Suetonius'factual statement that "He
had a great passion for women, but had no interest in men."[10]
Suetonius and the other ancient authors actually used this against
Claudius. They accused him of being dominated by these same
women and w ives, of being uxorious, and of being a w omanizer.
153
Proscription under Christianity (Kindly take note that this is w here the
shit hits the fan. Coincidence? You tell me!)

Increasingly influential Christianity promoted marriage for procreative

purposes and to align society w ith Judeo-Christian perspectives on
heterosexual relationships. The first law against hom osexual
m arriage w as promulgated by the Christian emperors
Constantius and Constans.[11] Nevertheless, the Christian
em perors continued to collect taxes on m ale prostitutes until the
reign of Anastasius (491-518) (Grand hypocrisy or w hat? Outlaw
them, punish them w ith death – but collect w hat monies you can from
them – sounds just like something the Nazis did to the Jew s.) . In the
year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodoisus and
Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who
were guilty of it were condem ned to be burned alive in front of
the public. [12] The Christian emperor Justinian (527-565) made
homosexuals a scape goat for problems such as "fam ines,
earthquakes, and pestilences."(Sounds like modern bigots blaming
everything in the modern w orld against us now .) [13] The teachings of
the Talmud and Torah, and the Bible, specifically prohibited the
practices as contrary to nature and the w ill of the Creator, and a moral
shortcoming.

After the Middle Ages in Europe, same-sex relationships w ere

increasingly frowned upon and banned in many countries by the
Church or the state. How ever, Historian John Bosw ell argued that
Adelphopoiesis, or brother- making, represented an ear ly form of
religious same-sex marriage in the Orthodox church, and Alan Bray
saw the rite of Ordo ad fratres faciendum ("Order for the making of
brothers") as serving the same purpose in the medieval Roman
Catholic Church. In the Balkans, same-sex m arriage survived until
m odern days, in the form of the Albanian rite of vellameria,
"brother bond."[14]

In late medieval France, the practice of entering a legal contract of

affrèrement provided a vehicle for civil unions between unrelated
adults w ho pledged to live together sharing ‘un pain, un vin, et une
bourse’ – one bread, one w ine, and one purse.[15]

Modern Europe
In the 20th and 21st centuries various types of legal same-sex unions
have come to be accepted in the majority of European countries as
they have modernized and become secularized. Opposition to gay
marriage or unions comes from Christian groups, almost
154
exclusively, especially from the Rom an Catholic and Eastern
Orthodox Churches. Gay Marriage is currently legal in Spain,
Belgium, the Netherlands, and Norw ay. Religious countries such as
Ireland, Italy, Greece, Romania and Poland (and other Eastern
European countries) continue to refuse to allow even same-sex
unions. (Hear that Dobby? Estonia called – one of their village idiots is
missing.)

North America

Main article: Same-sex marriage in the United States

Same-sex m arriage has been documented in m any societies that
were not subject to Christian influence. In North America, among
the Native Americans societies, it has taken the form of Tw o-Spirit-
type relationships, in w hich some male members of the tribe, from an
early age, heed a calling to take on female gender w ith all its
responsibilities. They are prized as w ives by the other men in the
tribe, w ho enter into formal marriages w ith these Tw o-Spirit men.
They are also respected as being especially pow erful shamans.

In the United States during the 19th century, there was recognition of
the relationship of tw o women making a long-term commitment to
each other and cohabitating, referred to at the time as a Boston
marriage; how ever, the general public at the time likely assumed that
sexual activities w ere not part of the relationship.

Rev. Troy Perry performed the first public gay w edding in the United
States in 1969, but it w as not legally recognized, and in 1970,
Metropolitan Community Church filed the first-ever lawsuit seeking
legal recognition of same-sex marriages. The lawsuit w as not
successful. In March 2005, Tw o Unitar ian Universalist ministers Kay
Greenleaf and Daw n Sangrey were charged w ith multiple counts of
solemnizing a marriage w ithout a license in the State of New York.
The charges were the first brought against clergy for performing
same-sex unions in North A merica, according to the Human Rights
Campaign, a Washington, D.C.-based gay rights group.

The earliest use of the phrase "commitment ceremony" as an

alternative ter m for "gay w edding" appears to be by Bill Woods w ho,
in 1990, tr ied to organize a mass "commitment ceremony" for Haw aii'
s
first gay pride parade. Similarly, Reverend Jimmy Creech of the First
United Methodist Church performed his first "commitment ceremony"
of a same-sex couple in 1990 in North Carolina. In January, 1987,
Morningside Monthly Meeting of the Society of Friends became the
155
first Quaker Meeting to take a same-sex marriage under its care w ith
the marriage of John Bohne and William McCann on May 30, 1987.
Although several other Meetings held “Ceremonies of Commitment,
Morningside w as the first to refer to the relationship as a marriage and
afford it equal status.

Africa
In Africa, among the Azande of the Congo, men w ould marry youths
for whom they had to pay a bride-price to the father. These marriages
likew ise w ere understood to be of a temporary nature. “

CHAPTER 8: Historical Persecution Of GLBT

In ancient times among the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians and Chinese,

homosexuality w as just another form of expression of human
sexuality. It w as not stigmatized or regarded as particularly significant.
The Greeks w rote about it like it w as just another ordinary facet to
human sexuality. Since Judeo-Christianity entered the w orld religious
and cultural scene and changed the situation – and began its
steadfast persecution of (as can be see in the previous chapter) all
those w ho dare differ from their precious norm, all expressions of
homosexuality have been punished, censured and banned – in fact
any form of sexual expression w hich did not result in procreation has
become a taboo!

July 14th, 1683

During the second Turk siege of Vienna, the city w as surrounded. The
Schotten abbey w hich was close to the city walls was burning. The
fire spread to the Hof arsenal w here the weapon and gun-powder
stores were. In a panic the citizens spotted a 17 year old boy close to
the scene – he was w earing w omen’s clothes. Both him and a
Viennese, the so-called ‘Baron Zw ifl’, w ere suspected w ithout any
evidence, of setting the fire for the Turks. Both w ere lynched by the
mob. The blood covered corpses were dragged to the church
cemetery, w here they were professionally skinned by a butcher
encouraged by the cheers of the crowd. (In my opinion, these
barbarians w ere no better than the Turks w ithout their w alls.)

The 20th Century and Current

Ironically there are those today w ho are ignorant and hateful enough
to believe and purport that the Holocaust never happened at all – that
156
it w as some w estern and Jew ish propaganda exercise to w in
protection from the USA and to oppress Muslims. How utterly quaint.

• The First GLBT Holocaust

I have called this section the first GLBT holocaust because there
has already been one. And if you draw comparisons and parallels
betw een w hat happened under the Nazi’s and w hat is threatening to
happen today in many parts of the w orld, particularly in predominantly
Christian countries supporting dominionists, it points me to ask a
question: Are we heading for a second? I am sure from all the
mater ial I have gathered here that most of the radicals certainly hope
so. But in the meantime let us look at the First Holocaust:

“The Nazi persecution of Gays“ quoted and condensed from

www.triangles-roses.org by de Gert Hekma. ( My personal comments
are in pink.)
“For many decades, next to nothing w as published on the Nazi
persecution of gay men for the simple reason that both Ger man
governments in cooperation w ith the occupying forces continued to
persecute gay men after the w ar until the late sixties. In the West,
they used the laws of the Nazi' s, in the East those from before the
Nazi-period, in both cases the infam ous paragraph 175. Only since
the seventies, books and articles began being published on the
theme, for example Harry Wilde' s Das Schicksal der Verfemten
(1969), Heinz Heger' s The Men w ith the Pink Triangle (1972) w hich
was made into a successful play, Richard Plant' s The Pink Triangle.
The Nazi War Against Homosexuals (1986) and Ruediger Lautmann' s
important article in Seminar: Gesellschaft und Homosexualität (1977)
that offered a first survey of the history of this persecution including
concrete numbers of vic tims. Since, the number of books and articles
has grow n rapidly w hile in the last tw o years six new books w ere
published in Ger man on specific aspects of the Nazi treatment of
homosexuals. The Berlin Schw ules (gay) Museum and the
Sachsenhausen museum in Orienenburg (20 miles to the north of
Berlin) co-organized the first major exhibit on the topic in their rooms
in the summer of 2000.
In 1977, Lautmann and his co-authors established that betw een 5.000
and 15.000 men had been sent to concentration camps because of
homosexual offences, w hile about half of them died or w ere murdered
157
there. Before, this persecution had often been denied w hile, at the
pro-gay side, the Protestant Church of Austria had claimed 220.000
murdered homosexuals.(2) Rainer Hoffschildt is preparing a list of the
names of all men persecuted for homosexual offences by the Nazis.
In the book of essays edited by the Heinrich Böll Foundation, he
expects to come to a number of 5-7000 men but does not speak out
about the number that died in these camps of death. He w arns also
not to use the number of cases of homosexual offences persecuted
by the Nazis in the period 1933-1945 (about 50.000) as equalling the
number of vic timised men because many w ere repeat offenders. At
the other hand, gay men as w ell as lesbian w omen w ere persecuted
under other legal provisions for example against asocials, insane
people or vagrants.
The main importance of the new books is how ever not establishing
numbers but reporting the life histories and social conditions of gay
men, sometimes also of lesbian w omen, in Nazi times. In all books,
except the one published by the Heinr ich Böll Foundation, the faces of
gay men can be seen and their moving stories can be read. Most of
the Nazi victims w ere utterly unprepared for their fate, and those who
survived the w ar, had to confront afterwards the refusal to offer gay
men “Wiedergutmachung” (compensation). Some men even remained
imprisoned, or w ere sentenced again to severe penalties by judges
and public prosecutors who made their careers in the Nazi period. For
gay men, the “liberation” of 1945 meant no end to discrimination and
prosecution. The capitalist West of Germany w as even w orse than the
communist East. It kept the Nazi extension of para-graph 175 of 1935
as it w as not deemed to be a result of Nazi ideology. The extension of
1935 broadened the crime from a limited number of homosexual acts
that resembled coitus to all forms of desire, including mutual
masturbation or intimacies. But the East had also its flaws: some
gay men who dared to request after the w ar a special status as
Nazi victim s, were prosecuted because of fraud.
The collection of essays on Berlin edited by Pretzel and Rossbach
includes a chronology of the Nazi prosecution of gay men. Within a
month after the take-over at the end of January 1933, the Nazi
minister of interior issued an order to close all gay bars. He also
forbade obscene literature. In May, Magnus Hirschfeld' s Institute for
Sexual Sciences w as sacked by the SA. The first gay and
transgender men w ere sent in the autumn to the new ly built
concentration camps. The legal provisions to arrest “sex criminals”
were broadened. Without any attempt to produce legal proof, many
SA leaders were murdered in the summer of 1934, among them their
chief of staff, Hitler'
s buddy Ernst Roehm. As official reason w as given
158
that the regime w anted to clean society of such dens of sexual
debauchery. The same year, the Gestapo got a section for
homosexual crimes, and in 1936 a National Institute to Combat
Homosexuality and Abortion w as founded (the combination makes
clear that a main Nazi issue w as promoting reproduction). ( The
reproduction issue seems to be a recurring theme in the religious
rights’ argument that sex is solely for this purpose – and also in their
argument against same sex marriage.)
In 1935, paragraph 175 w as broadened. Tw o years later, SS leader
Heinrich Himmler gave his infamous lecture on the homosexual
danger implying that it could menace through infection the homosocial
institutions of the Nazi regime. (Sound familiar?) After the beginning of
the w ar in 1939, it w as decided that no prisoner w ould be released
from concentration camps. Persons w ho w ere considered to endanger
the social body could be exter minated. The death penalty for
homosexual offences was introduced in 1941 for the SS and the
police, in 1943 for the army. At that time, many gay men had already
succumbed to the terror in the camps.
The book on Ber lin is important for its stories of horror, idiocy but
sometimes also tenderness. It is astonishing to realize that a vivid
gay culture and an active m ovement had disappeared w ithin a
m onth after the Nazis took power. More than a third of homosexual
offences in Berlin came to the attention of the police through non-
involved private persons, mostly neighbours. Another third w as
discovered by the police itself while also fam ily mem bers or the
workplace denounced supposed sex-criminals. There were in fact
no spaces where a gay m an could feel safe, not even at home.
Gay men of all social classes and political persuasions were
prosecuted. The Nazi men w ho w ere judged for homosexual offences
faced the harshest destiny. The book offers essays on legal material
from numbers to policies, on interrogations, on meeting places, on
Sachsenhausen. The best part that makes up half of the book is a
wide range of personal stories on the Nazi persecutions that are
recuperated mainly from official archives. The police pictures of
arrested men look dreadful, at the other hand the book has many
lovely private pictures. There is a nice story of a gay fetishist w ho
dressed his secretary in “Samt und Seide” (velvet and silk), kissed
and touched him and got thus excited. The poor man w as sentenced
to prison even though there w as no proof of a sexual act.
The book edited by Mueller and Sternw eiler on Sachsenhausen that
complements the exhibit is the most gruesome in its details and
illustrations. It opens w ith “a list of the dead”, the 300 know n names of

159
men w ho were persecuted for homosexual offences and died in
Sachsenhausen. It continues w ith articles on the architecture of and
the procedures in the camp. Gay men w ere separated from other
prisoners because of the risks of homosexual infection. The w orst
jobs w ere reserved for them. In the Klinkerw erke or brickw orks, they
had to dig up and transport mud. In the summer of 1942 89 gay men
were brutally killed on this location. Building a firing range for the SS
was another place of death as the SS men used the prisoners as
targets while they w ere forced to continue the construction w ork. In
the “shoe-company” heavily packed gay men w ere coerced to w alk for
hours on new models to try them out in adverse circumstances. More
benign locations w ere the kitchen and hospital that sometimes could
offer some extra food. For young men, there w as the possibility of
becoming the secret beloved of a prison warden. In this w ay Heinz
Heger survived the worst time in Sachsenhausen. Some men
consented to be castrated in the vain hope of getting out of the camp.
Before 1939, gay men w ere considered the low est rank in the
hierarchy of prisoners w ith Jew s and Gypsies. After the w ar started,
the camps w ere flooded w ith political pr isoners and prisoners of war
from outside Ger many, and gay men became only a tiny part of the
camp population (nearly no non-Ger man gay men w ere slept there).
After 1942, the camps changed largely from places of extermination to
labour camps. The prisoners w ere dearly needed to contribute to the
war effort. Now , with many foreigners in the camps, gay men could
even rise to positions of power that had alw ays been withheld from
them. The book ends w ith several essays on the continuation of
discrimination of gay men after the war. Men w ho had hoped to be
free after the liberation, had sometimes to stay in prison, and no gay
Nazi victim ever received appropriate indemnification for his ordeal.
The book by Rahe and others has an article on the scandal that
recently 80% of the court archives from the period 1935-1949 w as
destroyed by the National Archive in Hamburg, including much
mater ial on the persecution of homosexual offences.
The book on the Cologne region w ent also w ith an exhibit. It opens
with an overview of the Nazi persecution of gays, and a second one
on lesbians. Most articles discuss specif ic topics like the closing dow n
of bars, raids on cruising places and preventive policies in Cologne, a
theatre scandal in Essen, castration. An interesting article concerns
Hanns Heinz Ew ers, a gay author who contributed to the gay press
before 1933 and w rote Fundvogel (1927), an early novel on a
transsexual operation. He w as the official biographer of the Nazi hero
Horst Wessel (1932). After Hitler came to pow er, most of his books

160
were forbidden but strangely enough not the gay ones. He died in
oblivion during the w ar.
The publication of the Heinrich Böll Foundation includes discussions
on and proposals for a monument to commemorate the gay victims of
the Nazi regime. Even tw o places are already suggested, in
Tiergarten near the location of Hirschfeld'
s destroyed Institute, or on
Nollendorferplatz w here the gay scene w as before 1933 and again is
now adays.
The books raise many important questions. A recurring theme is the
strange mixture of anti-homosexuality and homo-eroticism in Nazis m.
For a long time, many Nazi victims and leftist Nazi opponents
represented their persecutors and enemies as gay men, and denied
the anti-gay ideologies and practices of the Nazis. Some authors
claim that the gay experience of Nazism has therefore a unique
specificity in the sense that gay men w ere mixed up betw een the
Nazis and their opponents. But not only gay men w ere active on both
sides, all prosecuted groups had their traitors w ho cooperated w ith the
Nazis, often helping them in the annihilation of their ow n group. (A
disturbing phenomenon w here gay people themselves engage in anti-
gay hate speech – most often to deflect notice of their own sexuality,
but often enough by ‘masculine’ non-obvious gay men w ho target the
visible feminine group because they somehow draw ‘undue attention’
to themselves – and them. Some have even bragged about
participating in gay-bashing, w hich in itself is despicable, but even
more so because it is GLBT-on-GLBT violence!)
Another question concerns the place gay men should occupy in the
list of victims. It has become politically correct nowadays to delineate
the victims of the Nazis as being Jew s, Gypsies, leftists, resistance
fighters, Eastern-Europeans, Jehovah-w itnesses, the insane,
homosexuals. But w hen I see, for example, after visiting the
exposition on the gay victims of the Nazis, that mention is made of
17.000 prisoners of w ar from the Soviet-Union murdered in one single
year in Sachsenhausen, the destiny of perhaps 5.000 murdered gay
men seems to be minor. The authors deal in very different w ays w ith
this fact. Ilse Kokula has the unhappy formulation that “the suffering is
not less when the number of dead people is smaller” (Heinrich Böll
Foundation, 137). Grau found a better w ay to express the discussion
of numbers “it is absurd to measure in numbers the suffering
done to hum ans” (id, 100).
There is no doubt any longer that gay men w ere persecuted harshly
by the Nazis, and especially the gay Nazis that Nazi victims have
singled out for opprobrium. There is no doubt that among all the
161
victims gay men have a real and special, but also minor place. One
difference betw een gay and most other groups is that gay men w ere
prosecuted in nearly all Western states at that point in time, perhaps
less cruelly and systematically than by the Nazis, but nonetheless
they had to face prison, castration, therapies, ostracism, and other
forms of social and personal discrimination everyw here. As Florence
Tamagne in her Histoire de l' homosexualité en Europe ( Paris 2000)
and I myself argued in an article in Sexual Cultures in Europe (Vol 2,
Manchester 1999), the thirties saw a steady decline in acceptance of
homosexuality and an increasing persecution of gay men all over
Europe that did not end in 1945, but only from the sixties on in
Western Europe, and from the eighties on in Eastern-Europe.
Another major point is about Wiedergutmachung. Ger many, but also
The Nether lands, have promised a retribution to gay victims of the
Nazis in the nineties. But as most men hid themselves very deep in
their closets, w hile the few who opened up, are dead by now , minor
indemnifications have come to less than a handful of gay victims. The
question for the Berliners is the next step, a national homomonument
to commemorate the victims. Amsterdam and Frankfurt have already
one, Berlin w ill probably discuss it for a lengthy period w ith its
ominous separatist traditions. In the Netherlands, some have
suggested to pay substantial amounts of money for gay projects, not
only because of persecutions and discriminations dur ing the Second
World War, but also for the periods before and after. The range of
legal, financial, medical and other damage being done to gay men
and lesbian w omen until recent seems to justify indeed major,
probably collective, indemnifications by most Western governments.
The books offer a broad overview but show also that some topics are
still under-researched. Most needed is research on persecutions in
the Southern parts of Germany, in Austria and in Bohemia. Gay men
in most occupied countries suffered little from the Nazis because they
did not endanger the Ger man race (except w hen they seduced
Ger man soldiers). Very little is know n on the attitudes of the general
population regarding the gay persecutions. They probably supported
them seen the number of denunciations in “tolerant” Berlin. Major gay
scandals involving the army (false accusations against the highest
officer in charge, general von Fritsch, in 1938) or catholic institutions
deserve specific attention. Grau suggests to do research on the
persecutors of gay men and on the treatment of homosexuals in
homosocial Nazi institutions like SA, SS and Hitlerjugend. (Hitler
Youth)

162
Several older books and articles have already brought forward
mater ial on gay exiles, gay resistance fighters, the stereotype of the
gay nazi, fascis t theories of homosexuality and their consequences.
Recently, leading Ger man gay historian Manfred Herzer has accepted
“à contre Coeur” the thesis that many gay men w ere seduced by the
homoerotic masculinity of the Nazis, and supported Hitler' s party. This
entanglement of gay men w ith their oppressors certainly earns a full-
blow n study. This love for the enemy, so brilliantly depicted in the
work of Jean Genet w ho was seduced like many of his French gay
compatriots by Ger man homoeroticism, w as difficult to gauge for the
gay libbers of the seventies. It should also be w orthwhile to have a
new general study on homosexuality in the Nazi period for w hich all
these books and articles contribute parts and parcels.
Another important discussion concerns the m odernity of the Nazi-
persecution. Many people consider it to have been a regressive phase
in the progress promised by the Enlightenment, others have analyzed
Nazis m, like the equally murderous Stalinis m, as a modern
movement. Its use of media, technology and mass psychology
certainly made it to a form of politics that very much belongs to the
present and in fact happened again in other parts of the w orld. For
gay emancipation, the question is if discourses and practices
regarding homosexuality now adays are so different from those of the
Nazis that they offer a safeguard against future disasters. I do not
see such fundamental changes. (Which is w hy I alw ays point out
the old adage that those w ho don’t know history are destined to
repeat it.)
All the recent books and exhibits on the Nazi persecution of gay men
have made the topic inevitable. The statistics of the persecution are
becoming more precise, w hile the personal stories in the discussed
books have given the victims faces and voices. They confront us very
directly w ith one of the ugliest periods of gay history. They w ill
certainly contribute to a feeling of “never again”. But seen the
activities of the extreme right, religious fundamentalists and
other groups and the lack of support for gay em ancipation by
governments and international institutions, such hope does not
offer certainty. Gay emancipation and sexual liberation need a much
firmer base in society than they have now adays even in the most
liberal countries to counter such murderous politics.”

Indeed the words “"Thou shalt not be a victim, thou shalt not be
a perpetrator, but above all thou shalt not be a bystander"

163
 Inscribed above the entrance to the Holocaust Museum hold
truth for all of us.
So there it is, the historical persecution of GLBT and the heterosexist
desire to write us out of humankind’s history. Will they succeed in
some future time? Since w e are born and part of human biology, it is
unlikely. Even w ere they to wipe us all out in a single generation, as
long as there are human beings to reproduce, there would alw ays be
more of us again in the end. Thus they could never completely
extinguish us from the light of the w orld – but these insidious fucks
sure could try – and by the look of it, some of them are:

• Same Shit, Different Century

Modern hate crime has many forms. For the transgendered, the
simple social function called dating holds terror – as you never know
when you are running the gauntlet w ith Death. Below are just a few
examples:
“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080731/ap_on_re_us/transgender_slaying
Colorado m an charged in transgender slaying By P. SOLOMON
BANDA, Associated Press Writer
GREELEY, Colo. - A Colorado man is accused of fatally battering a
sex partner with a fire extinguisher after discovering that his
companion w as a transgender woman.
Allen Ray Andrade, 31, faces several charges, including second-
degree murder in the death of Justin Zapata, 20, w ho was known as
Angie Zapata. The victim's bloodied, battered body w as discovered in
her apartment by her sister on July 17. Weld County District Attorney
Ken Buck said Wednesday that he is considering filing first-degree
murder charges and may prosecute the death as a hate crime.
Andrade w as arrested in the Denver suburb of Thornton, w here he
lives. Police responding to a noise complaint found him in Zapata' s
2003 PT Cruiser, w hich had been missing.
Andrade told investigators that he met Zapata through MocoSpace, a
social netw ork designed primarily for cell phone users, according to
an arrest affidavit released by Greeley police. The tw o met July 15
and spent the day together.
Andrade told investigators that Zapata performed oral sex on him but
wouldn't let him touch her, according to the affidavit. He said he also
spent the night at Zapata's apartment, but in separate beds. The next
164
day, Zapata left Andrade alone in her apartment, and Andrade noticed
several photographs that led him to question Zapata'
s gender.
Andrade confronted Zapata w hen she got back. He grabbed Zapata' s
crotch area, felt male genitalia and became angry, the affidavit says.
He told investigators that he took a fire extinguisher off a shelf, struck
Zapata tw ice in the head and thought he "killed it." (Note the utter
contempt for a human life. This creature w aited a considerable time to
act out his hate against a defenceless non-threatening individual in a
most violent manner, w hich showed nothing less than premeditated
intentions to murder. I hope they hang this monster high or fry his ass
deep and crispy.)
"It'
s disgusting," Greeley Police Chief Jerry Garner said of Andrade'
s
reference to Zapata. "It'
s a horrible thing to say."
Andrade told investigators he covered Zapata w ith a blanket and
started gathering evidence he thought might link him to the crime
when he heard gurgling sounds and noticed Zapata w as sitting up.
That's w hen he picked up the fire extinguisher and hit her again,
police said. He left the scene in her car.
Zapata's sister, Monica Murguia, couldn't be reached for comment on
Andrade' s arrest. She told Denver'
s KDV R-TV that Andrade deserved
to remain behind bars forever.
"He took a part of our heart, he did, w hen he killed her," she said after
reading the arrest affidavit.
A guard at the jail said information about w hether Andrade had an
attorney w as not available. There w as no telephone listing for him in
Thornton.”
Another:

“Gunman Opens Fire On Gay-Friendly Church, Two

Killed Jim Burrow ay
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/07/27/2437 July 27th, 2008
A lone man ar med w ith a 12-gauge shotgun entered the sanctuary of
the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville,
Tennessee, just after 10:00 am this morning and opened fire, killing
tw o people and w ounding at least seven others before being subdued
by members of the congregation.
Police have arrested Jim D. Adkisson, 58, and charged him w ith first-
degree murder. He is being held on a $1 million bond.

165
The attack occurred just as a youth performance w as getting
underw ay. There w ere about 200 people in the church w hen Adkisson
opened fire. Congregants dove under pews and fled the sanctuary.
When Adkisson paused to reload, several congregants overpow ered
him and held him until police arrived.
One of those killed w as identified as Gregory McKendry Jr., 60, a
church board member and usher. It appeared that Mr. McKendry may
have been one of the first people Adkisson encountered when he
entered the sanctuary. He is being remembered as a hero for
shielding others from being hit by a shotgun blast. Mr. McKendry and
his w if e had recently taken in a 16-year-old foster son, who spoke to
reporters three hours after the attack.
Another congregant, Linda Kraeger, 61, died at the University of
Tennessee Medical Center a few hours later. Of the seven who were
injured, five are in serious or critical condition. Tw o were treated for
minor injuries and released. None of the injured w ere children.
The church had recently put up a sign w elcoming gays into the
church. One of the goals of the church’s long range plan is to
“increase congregational participation in human rights programs for
gay/lesbian/transgendered persons.” The church hosts Knoxville’s
Spectrum Café, a safe harbor for area high school youth who “self -
identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender; w ho may be
questioning their sexual or gender identity; w ho feel left out because
of who they are, what they believe, or where they come from.” The
church also hosts the Knoxville Monday Gay Men’s Group. There is
some speculation among congregation members that this may have
been a motivation.”

“Police: Man shot churchgoers over liberal views

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D926V4880&show _article=1
Jul 28 12:18 PM US/Eastern By DUNCAN MANSFIELD
Associated Press Writer
KNOXV ILLE, Tenn. (A P) - An unemployed man accused of opening
fire with a shotgun and killing tw o people at a Unitarian church
apparently targeted the congregation out of hatred for its liberal social
policies, police said Monday.
Knoxville Police Chief Sterling Ow en IV said a letter had been been
recovered from the SUV of Jim D. Adkisson, 58, by investigators
seeking clues about the motive behind the attack. Authorities said he

166
was an apparent stranger to the Tennessee church where gunfire
punctuated a children' s performance based on the musical "Annie."
Tw o people w ere killed and seven w ounded Sunday.
"It appears that w hat brought him to this horrible event w as his lack of
being able to obtain a job, his frustration over that and his stated
hatred of the liberal movement," Ow en said at a new s conference.
No children w ere hurt, but five people remained in serious or critical
condition Monday. A burly usher w ho died is being hailed as a hero
for shielding others from gunfire Sunday at the Tennessee Valley
Unitarian Universalist Church. Witnesses said some of the men
present tackled a man w ho pulled a shotgun from a guitar case before
at least three blasts rang out.
Adkisson, w ho is charged w ith first-degree murder, remained jailed
Monday under "close observation" on $1 million bail, author ities said.
The Unitarian-Universalist church promotes progressive social w ork,
including advocacy of w omen and gay rights. The Knoxville
congregation also has provided sanctuary for political refugees, fed
the homeless and founded a chapter of the American Civil Liberties
Union, according to its Web site.
Ow en said the letter indicated Adkisson, w ho neighbors said had
previously w orked as a truck driver, did not expect to leave the church
alive. He added the man also reported having no family or next-of-kin.
"He certainly intended to take a lot of casualties," Ow en said. "He had
76 rounds w ith him."
Police said Adkisson carried a 12-guage semiautomatic shotgun into
the church in a guitar case, but it appeared no specific person w as
targeted in the church. A search of his house also turned up a .38
caliber handgun, Ow en added.
Investigators w ere reviewing several home video recordings of the
children'
s performance for any evidence. Ow en said police don'
t plan
to release those videos and they did not make public a copy of
Adkisson' s letter.
Unitarians have roots in a movement that rejected Puritan orthodoxy
in New England. Although the outlook and beliefs of individual
Unitarian churches can vary dramatically, most congregations retain a
deep commitment to social justice, w hich has led them to embrace
liberal positions over the years. Unitarians w ere among the first to
ordain w omen, support the civil rights movement and back gay rights.
The shooting started as about 200 people w atched a show put on by
25 children.
167
Church member Mark Harmon said he w as in the first row when he
heard "an incredibly loud bang." He thought the noise w as part of the
play, then he heard another bang and saw a w oman bleeding as he
dove for cover.
"It seems so unreal," Har mon said.
Church members praised Greg McKendry, 60, w ho died as he
attempted to block the gunfire. Barbara Kemper said that McKendry
"stood in the front of the gunman and took the blast to protect the rest
of us."
Kemper said the gunman shouted before he opened fire.
"It w as hateful w ords. He w as saying hateful things," she said,
refusing to elaborate.
"Greg McKendry w as a very large gentleman, one of those people
you might describe as a refrigerator w ith a head," said church
member Schera Chadw ick. "He looked like a football player. He did
obviously stand up and put himself in betw een the shooter and the
congregation."
A second victim w as identified as Linda Kraeger, 61. She died at a
hospital hours later, Kenner said. Officials said Adkisson w as
arraigned Sunday night and faces his next court appearance Aug. 5.
Other Unitarian congregations held tearful services afterw ard. At a
packed Westside Unitarian Universalist Church in suburban Farragut,
congregants prayed, sang and consoled each other.
The shooting follow s a December 2007 spree in w hich a man shot
four staff members at a missionary training center near Denver, Colo.,
killing tw o, after being told he couldn'
t spend the night. About 12 hours
later and 65 miles aw ay in Colorado Springs, police say the 24-year-
old man fatally shot a parishioner at a megachurch and w ounded four
others before killing himself. “

People don’t kill people because they merely dislike or disagree with
them – they kill them because they hate them.

Please take note that the gunman did not shoot specifically at people
he thought w ere gay – he w as shooting randomly at the folk unlucky
enough to be closest to him – w hich to me indicates that he w as
attacking them ALL for belonging to a church that supported people
whom he hated. Now , a little new s about w hat Dobby has been
getting up to:
168
From Pinknew s.co.uk.

“Anti-gay '
Day of Truth'fails to make its mark in US
schools By Adam Lake • April 29, 2008 - 16:08
These flyers that were handed to students were printed by Exodus
Ministries, a Christian organisation that claims it can ' cure'
homosexuality.
Gay rights groups across America have breathed a sigh of relief after
the homophobic ‘Day of Truth’ failed to make an impact on American
schools.
Gay new s group, GoodasYou.org described that events failure:
"The so-called "Day of Truth" w ent by yesterday with less than a
whimper.
"While last Friday' s pro-acceptance, anti-bullying 'Day of Silence'
attracted considerable attention, there w as barely a mention of
Monday' s anti-gay endeavour on either mainstream or "pro-family"
new s sites, and none of the usual social conservative groups issued
so much as a press release celebrating the event.
"In fact, a Google News search doesn'
t turn up even one "DOT"
mention posted after 4/27."
The event came three days after the Gay, Lesbian and Straight
Education Netw ork (GLSEN) ' Day of Silence'
, w hich highlights the
persecution that many LGBT students in America, and around the
world, still regularly face daily.
The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) established the 'Day of Truth'to
oppose the promotion of same-sex marriage legalization and to
express their viewpoint on homosexuality from a conservative
Christian perspective. It is held annually follow ing the '
Day of Silence'
.
According to the ADF, students w ho have attempted to speak against
gay rights have been censored or, in some cases, punished for their
actions under campus hate-speech rules. ( Highly unlikely, but if it is
true than its about god damned time! That w ill teach them to be nasty
little bigots and engage in anti-social behavior and hate speech! )
ADF bills the ‘Day of Truth’ as an opportunity for students to, "Counter
the promotion of the homosexual agenda," and publicly exercise their
freedom of speech. (These people don’t w ant freedom of speech –
they w ant freedom of hate speech!)
The event aims to be student-led in the same model as the ' Day of
Silence'
, w ith students forming small groups at their ow n school to

169
organize and promote participation, though it is organized by the
national ADF.
The organisers website advises students on what to do if teacher
attempt to halt their hom ophobic actions:
"ADF has more than 1,000 allied attorneys w ho are available to assist
you if you run into complications w ith school offic ials or pro-
homosexual advocacy groups on your campus."
The w ebsite continues:
"We are merely trying to point those w ho struggle w ith homosexual
behaviour to Christ’s love and healing. (Blah, blah. fucking blah.)
"When Christ loved someone, like the w oman caught in adultery, he
did not condemn her but expressed compassion for her. He also gave
her the loving admonition to "go now and leave your life of sin" (John
8:11). As follow ers of Jesus Christ, w e cannot sit idly by w hile
someone is trapped in sinful behaviour that separates him or her from
God. (Yeah – says them!! As follow ers of Christ they should practice
what he preached – LOV E THY NEIGHBOUR – NOT PERSECUTE
THEM! If Christ knew these bigots were follow ing him he w ould
undoubtedly be ashamed!)
"We must be able to show people their need for a relationship w ith
Jesus Christ, w hich often comes through illuminating the sinfulness of
their behaviour that separates them from their loving God."
The Alliance Defense Fund has many connections w ith Christian ex-
gay organizations that claim that LGBT persons can change to
heterosexuality through prayer, intervention and psychological
counselling.
The Alliance Defense Fund receives funding from Focus on the
Fam ily, a group that also funds Exodus Ministries. ADF also lists
Exodus as an allied organization on their webpage.
Resources for the group’s ‘Day of Truth’ event were prepared by
Exodus Ministries, w hich claims to be able to help LGBT persons
become heterosexual, included in their "Homosexuality FAQ
Sheet."
The fact sheet reports a 52 percent success rate for treating
"unw anted homosexual attraction." (More debunked junk
science “ facts” please note!)
On the day of this years ‘Day of Silence’ American talk show host
Larry King m ade an emotional plea to viewers that Am ericans
m ust dem and tolerance for LGBT students.

170
The event was particularly poignant after the hom ophobic
m urder of a gay teenager.
Fifteen year old Lawrence King w as gunned dow n by 14-year-old
Brandon McInerney earlier this year in Oxnard, California
because he w as gay, and had allegedly asked McInerney to be
his valentine.”

So much for America – let’s see w hat they’ve been up to in Africa

lately – how about Uganda? If you haven’t been keeping up on the
internet GLBTIQ new s resources you may be quite surprised. After all,
it’s often the only place you can find it because often GBLT new s is
just “not important enough” to make the regular headlines – except of
course when w e threaten the “heterosexual and Christian institute of
marriage”!

From Pinknew s.co.uk.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/index.php?s=uganda

“Gays motivated by greed, Ugandan bishop tells

school Bishop of Mukono Eria Paul Luzinda claimed that
homosexuality is increasing in Uganda, and that this increase can be
blamed on a desire for wealth.(Right so people are turning gay to get
rich?? Come on that doesn’t make sense even w hen you’re drunk!)
Ugandan asylum seeker wins Sappho prize
The editor of a w ebsite that documents the violence and intimidation
suffered by the gay community in Uganda has w on a prestigious
prize.
MEPs concerned over state persecution of gays in
Uganda The European Parliament's Intergroup on Gay and
Lesbian Rights has expressed concern over the treatment of gay,
lesbian and trans people in Uganda.

Ugandan activists detained in "pattern of police

harassment" Tw o human rights advocates in Uganda w ere held
for a week w ithout charges after police accused them of "recruiting
homosexuals."
Two gay asylum seekers deported from UK In the
past tw o days tw o gay men w ho claimed their lives w ould be in

171
danger if they were returned to their home countries have been
forcibly repatriated.
Border agency accused of "illegal" deportation of
gay Ugandan A gay man has been removed from the UK and
deported back to his native Uganda in w hat his supporters call an
illegal act.

Home Secretary urged to spare gay man from

Uganda deportation A group campaigning for a gay man
denied asylum in the UK have said that next w eek' s Labour party
conference is a perfect opportunity to pressure the government.
Gay man refuses deportation to Uganda A gay
Ugandan man has refused to board his flight back to his country of
origin. John "Bosco" Nyombi, 38, w as due to be deported.
(And lastly my ow n personal favorite)
Ugandan AIDS Commission Chief says
homosexuality must be stamped out in schools Dr
Kihumuro Apuuli, the Ugandan AIDS Commission Chief, has w arned
the education ministry of that country that homosexuality is "rife" in
schools.“

• The Right Wing War On GLBT

People w ho purposefully set out to attack and do bodily har m to a

stereotypically w eak minority group, often w ith w eapons – be it fists,
bottles, knives, or baseball bats – cannot be GOOD people. This is an
act of raw HATE and EV IL – nothing more, nothing less. I don’t feel
any guilt in applying this assumption to ALL gay and transgender
bashers. They are insufferable assholes who lack compassion and
basic humanity.
So the right to not get beat up or victimized or slandered in the media
is a special right? The right to loving w ho you w ant or to marry w ho
you love is a special right? The right to not get fired because of who
you love or w ho you are is a special right?
Let’s see w hat they’ve done so far:

172
” The Thirty Years War
A timeline of the anti-ga y movement
Intelligence Report
Spring 2005

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=523
1977
Born-again singer Anita Bryant campaigns to overturn an anti-
discrimination law protecting gay men and lesbians in Dade County,
Fla. Inspired by her victory, Bryant founds the first national anti-gay
group, Save Our Children, draw ing unprecedented attention to gay
issues and motivating gay groups to organize in response.
James Dobson, author of 1969 pro-spanking book Dare To
Discipline, founds Focus on the Family in Arcadia, Calif. Focus w ill
move to Colorado Springs, Colo., in 1991, become A merica'
s
wealthiest fundamentalist ministry, and spearhead the campaign
against gay marriage.
1978
Gay activist Harvey Milk, elected to the San Francisco Board of
Supervisors in 1977, is assassinated on Nov. 27 (along w ith Mayor
George Moscone) by right-w ing religious zealot Dan White, a former
city supervisor who had resigned in protest after the board passed a
gay-rights ordinance.
John Birch Society trainer and "family activist" Tim LaHaye publishes
The Unhappy Gays (later retitled What Everyone Should Know About
Homosexuality). Calling gay people " militant, organized" and "vile,"
LaHaye anticipates anti-gay arguments to come.
California State Sen. John Briggs floats a ballot initiative allow ing local
school boards to ban gay teachers. "One third of San Francisco
teachers are homosexual," Briggs says. "I assume most of them are
seducing young boys in toilets." The initiative is defeated, but the
campaign inspires anti-gay crusaders like the Rev. Lou Sheldon, w ho
will found the Traditional Values Coalition in 1981.

1979
The Rev. Jerry Falw ell founds the Moral Majority, a national effort to
stimulate the fundamentalist vote and elect Christian Right
candidates. Early fundraising appeals include a "Declaration of
War" on homosexuality.
173
1980
Paul Cameron, former psychology instructor at University of
Nebraska, begins publishing pseudo-scientific pamphlets "proving"
that gay people commit more serial murders, molest more children,
and intentionally spread diseases. Expelled from the American
Psychological Association in 1983 for ethics violations, Cameron
w ill continue to produce bogus "studies" w idely cited by anti-gay
groups.

1981
Moral Majority allies in Congress propose the Family Protection Act,
which would bar giving federal funds to "any organization that
suggests that homosexuality can be an acceptable alternative
lifestyle." Despite President Reagan's endorsement, the bill is
defeated.
The Council for National Policy, a highly secretive club of America' s
most pow erful far-right religious activists, begins meeting quarterly at
undisclosed locations. A mong the members w ill be R.J. Rushdoony,
who calls for death penalty for homosexuals, and anti-gay crusaders
James Dobson, Beverly and Tim LaHaye, Jerry Falw ell, Tony Perkins
and Phyllis Schlafly. George W. Bush will meet w ith the Council
during his first campaign for president.
1982
The U.S. Department of Defense issues a policy stating that
homosexuality is "incompatible" w ith military service. Almost 17,000
gay soldiers w ill be discharged during the 1980s, though a 1989
Defense Department study w ill find gay recruits "just as good or
better" than heterosexuals.

1983
Pat Buchanan, communications director for President Ronald
Reagan, calls AIDS, first identified in 1981, "nature'
s revenge on gay
men."

1984
The Coalition on Revival is founded to promote "Christian
government" in the U.S. and to agree on theological tenets —
including anti-gay principles — that fundamentalists can rally around.
Board members include Tim LaHaye, D. James Kennedy of Coral
Ridge Ministries and Donald Wildmon of the American Family
174
Association. Founder Jay Grimstead later tells The Advocate,
"Homosexuality makes God vomit." (I w onder when God told him
that?)

1985
Addressing the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, Paul
Cameron uses the AIDS crisis to suggest that "the exterm ination
of hom osexuals" m ight become necessary. (Sachsenhausen,
anyone?) The follow ing year, Colorado' s Summit Ministries w ill
publish Special Report: AIDS. Co-authored by Cameron, the popular
pamphlet blames gay men for the epidem ic and calls for a
national crackdown on homosexuals. (Precisely the same thing is
happening in Uganda today in 2008 – only it is actually becoming
government policy there.)

1986
At the first Congressional hearings on anti-gay violence, Kathleen
Sarris of Indianapolis tells of being stalked and assaulted by a
"Christian soldier" who held her at gunpoint, beat and raped her
for three hours, explaining that "he w as acting for God; that what
he w as doing to me w as God' s revenge on me because I w as a
'queer' and getting rid of me w ould save children." (There is
something ver y, very w rong w ith these people!)
Anti-gay groups cheer the U.S. Supreme Court' s 5-4 decision in
Bowers v. Hardwick holding that state anti-sodomy statutes are
constitutional. Four years later, Justice Lew is Pow ell, the sw ing vote,
will tell New York University law students, "I probably made a mistake
in that one."

1987
Boston' s Gay Community News publishes a satire of anti-gay
propaganda, beginning: " Tremble, Hetero Sw ine! We shall sodomize
your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow
dreams and vulgar lives. We w ill raise vast private ar mies ... to defeat
... the family unit." Anti-gay groups seize on the article as proof of
a "secret homosexual agenda."
1988
After a ferocious campaign by the fundamentalist Oregon Citizens
Alliance (OCA), Oregon voters overturn their governor'
s executive

175
order banning anti-gay discrimination in state hiring. Led by anti-gay
crusader Lon Mabon, OCA claims "promiscuous sodomite activists"
have called for "the closing of all churches that oppose them and the
total destruction of the family." (What planet do these cretins come
from anyw ay? Were they bred under rocks?)

1989
U.S. Rep. William Dannemeyer ( R-Calif.) publishes a landmark anti-
gay tome, Shadow in the Land: Homosexuality in America. Calling
lesbians and gay men "the ultim ate enem y," Dannemeyer accuses
straight people of "surrendering to this grow ing army w ithout a shot,"
and predicts gay rights will "plunge our people, and indeed the entire
West, into a dar k night of the soul that could last hundreds of years."
1990
University of Colorado football coach Bill Mc Cartney founds Promise
Keepers, w hich holds all- male stadium revivals promoting "traditional
masculinity" throughout the 1990s.(Sound familiar, SA’s Angus
Buchan, the ‘potato prophet’?) Mc Cartney calls homosexuals "a group
of people w ho don' t reproduce, yet w ant to be compared w ith people
who do reproduce," and says, "Homosexuality is an abomination of
Almighty God." (Funny how it alw ays seems to come dow n to
reproduction, isn’t yet – yet there is one tiny flaw in these bigot’s
arguments – w hat about all the heterosexual folk w ho are due to
medical reasons unable to reproduce? Should they come and stand
alongside us GLBT in front of the right w ing firing squads? Also I find
it amusing how these folk can candidly speak for God as if they are
His officially appointed spokesmen and know the mind of the
Almighty. What tragic vanity and blatant arrogance!)

1991
Pat Robertson founds the Am erican Center for Law and Justice
(ACLJ), run by Christian Right attorney Jay Sekulow . ACLJ w ill be
instrumental in fighting gay marriage, calling it a cancerous
"perversion" that "directly attacks the family, w hich is the most vital
cell in society." (These idiots are clearly obsessed w ith their families
and marriage.)
1992
Colorado voters approve Amendment 2, overturning municipal
laws protecting lesbians and gay men from discrim ination. One
of the organizers, Tony Marco, hones a "special rights" argument,

176
claiming that gay people are inordinately w ealthy and politically
pow erful, and neither need nor deserve the rights they "demand."
(“Inordinately w ealthy”? Yet another Paul Cameron style fallacy! So
the right to not get beat up or victimized or slandered in public or the
media is a special right? The right to loving who you want or to marry
who you love is a special right? The right to not get fired or evicted
from your apartment because of who you love or who you are is a
special right? These people are so filled w ith hate it could almost be
called a religion on its ow n!)
"The Gay Agenda," 20-minute video featuring racy scenes filmed at
gay-pride marches, is released by Ty and Jeannette Beeson of the
Antelope Valley Springs of Life church in Lancaster, Calif. Aired by
Pat Robertson' s "The 700 Club," it w ill become one of the most w idely
view ed pieces of anti-gay propaganda.
At the Republican National Convention in Houston, Pat Buchanan
famously declares in a prime time speech, "There is a culture w ar
going on in our country for the soul of America." Cheering audience
members wave signs reading "Family Rights Forever, ' Gay'Rights
Never."
1993
The battle over gay marriage is ignited w hen the Haw aii Supreme
Court rules that denying same-sex couples marriage licenses violates
"basic human r ights" guaranteed in the state constitution — unless the
state legislature can show a "compelling reason" to prevent gay
marriage. Anti-gay groups begin a campaign to "defend marriage,"
with legal challenges led by ACLJ's Jay Sekulow .
President Clinton'
s proposal to lift the ban on openly gay military
personnel sends anti-gay activists into action, shutting dow n phone
lines to Congress w ith hundreds of thousands of calls in protest.
"Honestly," asks D. James Kennedy in a fundraising letter for Coral
Ridge Ministries, "w ould you w ant your son, daughter, or
grandchild sharing a shower, foxhole, or blood w ith a
homosexual?"
The Cobb County (Ga.) Commission passes a resolution calling
homosexuality "incompatible w ith the standards to which this
community subscribes." Organizer Gordon Wysong declares, "We
should blame them for every social problem in America." (Boy,
don’t they ever?) Cobb County w ill be dropped as a host for 1996
Atlanta Olympic events because of its anti-gay stance. (That’ll teach
‘em.)

177
1994
More than 40 fundamentalist groups, led by Focus on the Family,
hold a summit in Colorado to coordinate a "special rights" argument
to oppose gay rights. This strategy is also promoted by the
Traditional Values Coalition's "Gay Rights, Special Rights," a 40-
minute video claiming gay rights w ill erode the civil rights of African
Americans. (Boy, are these idiots ever grasping at straws… )
1995
The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, by
fundamentalist activists Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams, claims gays
weren' t victimized in the Holocaust, but instead helped mastermind
the extermination of Jew s (see story, p. 18). Repudiated by credible
historians, the book is nevertheless praised by the Family Research
Council and sold by several anti-gay organizations. ( How full of hate
and venom do you need to be to promote slanderous filth such as
this?)

1996
The National Pro-Family Forum, dedicated to "one man-one w oman"
marriage, holds its first secret meeting in a Mem phis church cellar
with representatives from more than 20 major anti-gay groups. Before
the end of the year, forum members successfully push the Defense
of Marriage Act, a symbolic measure defining marriage as betw een a
man and a w oman, through Congress.
The Southern Baptist Convention announces a boycott of Disney
parks and products because the com pany gives insurance
benefits to partners of gay w orkers and allows "Gay Days" at its
theme parks.(Next they’ll persecute Mickey Mouse for being gay.
Idiots.) "Bew are of the Magic Kingdom," Focus on the Family
advises parents. Gay Day protests become a staple of the anti-gay
movement.
In Romer v. Evans, the U.S. Supreme Court rules Colorado' s
Amendment 2 (see 1992) unconstitutional by a 6-3 vote. The
ruling puts an end to 20 years of state and local ballot initiatives aimed
at stripping gays of anti-discrimination protections, leaving same-sex
marriage as the main issue for anti-gay organizers.
1997
Ellen DeGeneres'character on the TV sitcom "Ellen" comes out as a
lesbian, initiating protests and boycotts of sponsors led by Donald
Wildmon and Jerry Falw ell, w ho calls the actor "Ellen Degenerate."
178
(That’s really quite clever, did he come up w ith that all by his little
onesy? I’m surprised they didn’t come up w ith “Ellengate”!))

1998
A coalition of fundamentalist groups led by Coral Ridge Ministries
sponsors "Truth in Love," a million-dollar advertising campaign
promoting "ex-gay ministries," w hich use discredited psychological
methods to "cure" gay people. One day before a second round of
"Truth in Love" ads is released, gay college student Matthew Shepard
dies after being savagely beaten and left tied to a fence in Wyoming.
The murder spurs a national debate about the connection
between anti-gay rhetoric and hate crimes.
In a TV interview , Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.)
compares gay people to alcoholics and "kleptom aniacs," earning
praise from anti-gay activists. "Leaders w illing to be set apart
and stand solidly in the truth are rare in today' s permissive
culture," says James Dobson.
1999
Vermont Democratic Gov. How ard Dean signs a law sanctioning
same-sex civil unions, entitling gay couples to marital rights and
benefits. Anti-gay leader Gary Bauer calls it "an unmitigated disaster"
that is "w orse than terrorism ." (I w onder if this cretin could point out
one single incident w here any harm, physical or otherw ise, has been
done directly as a result of same-sex marriage – w hile there is plenty
of evidence to show how much harm has been done by the anti-GLBT
religious right organizations. I w onder then, who w ill be show n to be
the “terrorists”?)
2000
"Teletubbies" cartoon character Tinky Winky is "outed" as gay in a
"Parents'Alert" in Jerry Falw ell'
s Liberty Journal, which asserts, "He is
purple — the gay-pride color; and his antenna is shaped like a triangle
— the gay-pride symbol."(How ridiculous can people get in their quest
to utterly demonize us in every possible aspect of life?)

The U.S. Supreme Court rules 5-4 that the Boy Scouts of America can
continue to ban gay scoutmasters. Anti-gay activists like Robert
Knight of the Family Research Council use the scouting controversy
to revive anti-gay "child molester" propaganda. After CBS m orning-
show host Bryant Gumbel interviews Knight, he is heard on air
commenting, "What a fucking idiot." Anti-gay groups label CBS the

179
"Christian Bashing System" and lobby unsuccessfully for Gumbel'
s
firing.

2001
On " The 700 Club" tw o days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Jerry
Falw ell blames the tragedy on "the Pagans, and the abortionists,
and the feminists and the gays and lesbians w ho are actively
trying to m ake that an alternative lifestyle." Host Pat Robertson
responds: "Well, I totally concur." (I can’t see the connection – can
you see the connection? Stupidity and hatefulness taken to new lows
of depravity! But I hope our feminist allies can see how w e are plainly
al in the same sniper scope together!)
2002
The Rev. Michael Bray, a convicted abortion clinic bom ber and
leading advocate of murdering abortion doctors, praises Saudi
Arabia for beheading three gay men on New Year' s Day. "Let us
give thanks," Bray proclaims. "Let us welcome these tools of
purification. Open the borders! Bring in some agents of
cleansing." (Should w e still w onder any further if these fiends in
human form - hate us? Or should w e be concerned about their sanity
and how much of a risk they pose to society?)

2003
Alan Sears, head of the Alliance Defense Fund, co-authors The
Homosexual Agenda, a book that asserts gay activists'ultim ate
goal is "silencing" conservative Christians. Sears also accuses
cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants of being gay. (Right. So a
cartoon character can also be gay. Wow . I didn’t know that.)
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules 4-3 that gay and
lesbian couples have a right to marry. In the Washington Dispatch,
legendary fundamentalist organizer Paul Weyrich declares marriage
"The Final Frontier for Civilization as We Know It."
The U.S. Supreme Court overturns state anti-sodomy statutes in
Lawrence v. Texas, ruling that gay people are entitled to "an
autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression,
and certain intimate conduct." Dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia
complains that "the court has largely signed onto the so-called
homosexual agenda."

180
2004
Constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage pass by
wide margins in all 11 states, including Ohio and Oregon. Anti-gay
groups meet in Washington, D.C., to plan for 10 more state initiatives
in 2005.
James Dobson' s Focus on the Family Action organizes "Mayday for
Marriage" rallies in six m ajor cities to promote anti-gay m arriage
ballot initiatives in 11 states. An estimated 150,000 turn out for Oct.
15 protest in Washington, D.C., w here Dobson declares, "[E]verything
we care about is on the line. It'
s now or never."

San Francisco officials begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex

couples in February, w ith a handful of other U.S. municipalities
follow ing suit. Later that month, President George W. Bush
announces his support for a Federal Marriage Am endment to the
Constitution. “

And so in 2008 the day before the US presidential election w e hope

for a Democrat victory in the USA and the end of the Republican
puppet president w ho was little more than a yes-man to the religious
right’s pow erhouse. Obama had better be ready for a smear
campaign of note from the right w ing if he w ins, just like Clinton faced.

• The So-Called ‘Homosexual Agenda’

Quoted from Wikipedia:

"Hom osexual agenda" (or "gay agenda") is a term used by social
conservatives primarily in the United States, referring to advocacy of
cultural acceptance and nor malization of non-heterosexual
orientations and relationships. Efforts referred to by the ter m include
changing government policies regarding LGBT issues — such as
same-sex marriage, LGBT adoption, anti-discrimination law s,
inclusion of LGBT people in the military, and inclusion of LGBT history
and issues in public education — as w ell as non-governmental
campaigns and individual actions to increase visibility and cultural
acceptance of LGBT people, relationships, and identities. Some
believe this agenda is a secret one.

Use of the term

The ter m "the gay agenda" w as first used for political purposes in
1992 w hen the Family Research Council published a video series
called The Gay Agenda as part of a pack of materials campaigning on
181
homosexual issues and the "hidden gay agenda". In the same year
the Oregon Citizens Alliance used this video as part of their campaign
for Ballot Measure 9 to amend the Oregon Constitution to prevent
what the OCA called "special rights" for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals.
Paul Cameron (co-founder of the Institute for the Scientific
Investigation of Sexuality in Lincoln, later to be renamed the Family
Research Institute) appeared as an expert in The Gay Agenda video,
his claims including that 75 percent of gay men regularly ingest fecal
mater ial and that 70-78 percent have had a sexually transmitted
disease. The Gay Agenda w as follow ed by three other video
publications; The Gay Agenda in Public Education (1993), The Gay
Agenda: March on Washington (1993) and a feature follow -up
Stonewall: 25 Years of Deception (1994). All these videos contain
interview s w ith anti-gay experts, and the series is w idely available
through Chr istian right organizations.
The similar phrase "homosexual agenda" appears in many forums
from political commentary to talk radio, and even once in 2003 by the
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, w ho wrote in his dissent
in the landmark case Lawrence v. Texas that the " law-profession
culture... has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda,
by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists
directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally
attached to homosexual conduct."
In 2005, Jam es Dobson, director of Focus on the Family, a Christian
non-profit organization based in the United States, and a social
Christian conservative commentator in Amer ican popular media,
described the homosexual agenda as follow s:
Those goals include universal acceptance of the gay lifestyle,
discrediting of scriptures that condemn homosexuality, muzzling of the
clergy and Christian media, granting of special privileges and rights in
the law , overturning laws prohibiting pedophilia, indoctrinating children
and future generations through public education, and securing all the
legal benefits of marriage for any tw o or more people w ho claim to
have homosexual tendencies.
The ter m is sometimes used satirically or sarcastically by those w ho
might nor mally be offended by a serious reference to this term. After
the Ball In 2003 Alan Sears and Craig Osten, president and vice-
president of the Alliance Defense Fund, an American conservative
Christian non-profit organization, offered another characteriz ation:
It is an agenda that they basically set in the late 1980s, in a book
called After the Ball, w here they laid out a six-point plan for how they

182
could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to
homosexual behavior — in a decade-long time frame.... They adm it it
privately, but they w ill not say that publicly. In their private
publications, homosexual activists m ake it very clear that there
is an agenda. The six-point agenda that they laid out in 1989 w as
explicit: Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as
possible... Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive
challengers... Give homosexual protectors a just cause... Make
gays look good... Make the victim izers look bad... Get funds from
corporate America.[1]
After the Ball is a book published in 1989 by Marshall Kirk and Hunter
Madsen. It argues that after the "gay liberation" phase of the '70s and
'
80s, gay rights groups should adopt more professional public
relations techniques to convey their message. It w as not a "private
publication", but w as publicly available, having been published
by Doubleday, one of the largest publishers in the world.
According to the Christian Broadcasting Netw ork, Sears and Osten
argue that After the Ball follow s from "a 1988 summit of gay leaders in
Warrenton, Virginia, w ho came together to agree on the agenda" and
that "the tw o men [Kirk and Madsen] proposed using tactics on
'straight'America that are remarkably similar to the brainw ashing
methods of Mao Tse-Tung' s Communist Chinese -- mixed w ith
Madison Avenue' s most persuasive selling techniques."[12] The article
goes on to claim that films such as Brokeback Mountain are part of
this "w ell-planned propaganda campaign".

Opposition to the term's use

Groups such as the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation
(GLAAD), an American non-profit organization, deny the existence of
any secret agenda. They state that their major goal is to end
discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations
and to achieve equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
(LGBT) persons. These groups describe the term as a "rhetorical
invention of anti-gay extremists seeking to create a climate of fear by
portraying the pursuit of civil rights for LGBT people as sinister". Some
members of the LGBT community consider their political goals to be
too heterogeneous to be grouped together into one single agenda.

Michael Swift's essay

Some commentators allege a more radical "homosexual agenda",
quoting a satirical article authored by Michael Sw if t which first
183
appeared in the Gay Community News in February 1987. Originally
titled " Gay Revolutionary", the article describes a scenario in w hich
homosexual men dominate American society and suppress all things
heterosexual. The article w as reprinted in Congressional Record
w ithout an opening disclaimer in which the author states that the
essay is intended as "outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an
eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of
being the oppressor", suggesting it is a satirical piece of literary
hyperbole, and is not intended by its author to be taken literally.
Nonetheless, the essay has been repeatedly cited by the Religious
Right and others w ho describe themselves as socially conservative or
philosophically traditional in their w orld view, as evidence that some
(or most) members of the gay community seek to dominate and
destroy traditional Amer ican family values.”

Chapter 9 : Know Thine Enemies

Aside from the run-of-the-mill bigots and classroom bullies, there are
a large number of folk out there w ho subscribe to various radical
beliefs w hich describe or motivate them to do more than just
persecute GLBT folk only in their sphere of life – these beliefs can
goad or motivate them into joining their hate together to make a
bigger stronger hate and to collectively w ork against the object of their
disaffection – US.

Heterosexist bigots come from a broad spectrum of society and

cultures. Like GLBT and alcoholics are born from all races, religions
and cultures, so neither is bigotry a respecter of persons (and in the
case of bigots I can say that w ith conviction). While culture may
contribute to heterosexist attitudes and prejudices, it is mainly religion
that can be seen as the biggest motivator to hate those w ho do not
appear to conform to its ideals – particularly w here those religions
precepts have been deliberately set up so as to persecute others,
such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

My main focus here how ever is Christianity w hich is the leading

religious force in the Western world. And within w hat is essentially a
peace-loving faith, there are violent fundamentalist elements very
similar to the fundamentalists in Islam w ho would put the entire w orld
to the sw ord if they could.
184
What? You thought the Crusades w ere an accident? It w as arrogant
pride and greed for riches and land that caused that w ar – and a large
slice of hate too – on the Christian side just as on the Muslim side.
This is not the first time, nor w ill it be the last time that I w ill maintain
that religion is the most blood soaked flag in the w orld. More crimes
against humanity have been committed against peoples out of
religious hate and mindless fanaticism than any mere political
disputes the w orld has ever know n.
Let’s take a look at some of the influences in the Western w orld today.
Naturally the USA is key to this as it is the single largest, most
influential entity in the Western bloc today, be it militarily,
economically or politically. And often w hat happens there, be it
culturally or religiously, filters down through to the rest of the world.
Know any countries in the w est where you can’t buy a hamburger or
fries?

• What Is Dominionism?

“Dom inionism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.w ikipedia.org/w iki/Dominionis m
This article is about the political-religious concept. For other uses, see
Dominion (disambiguation).
Dominionis m describes, in several distinct ways, a tendency among
some conservative politically-active Christians, especially in the
United States of America, to seek influence or control over secular
civil government through political action — aim ing either at a nation
governed by Christians, or a nation governed by a conservative
Christian understanding of biblical law. The use and application of
this terminology is a matter of controversy.”
“Origin and usage of the term
Although dominionis m is used in several distinct ways, the origin of
most usage can be traced back to a specific passage in the King
James Version of the Bible:
And God blessed [ Adam and Eve ] and God said unto them, "Be
fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have
dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and

185
over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." — Genesis 1:28
(KJV)
Christians typically interpret this verse as meaning that God gave
humankind responsibility over the Earth, but theologians do not all
agree on the nature and extent of that "dominion".”

“Dominion Theology
Dominion Theology is a grouping of theological systems[3] with the
common belief that society should be governed exclusively by the law
of God as codified in the Bible, to the exclusion of secular law, a view
also known as theonomy. The most prominent modern formulation of
Dominion Theology is Chr istian Reconstructionism, founded by R. J.
Rushdoony (Ring any bells?) the 1970s. Reconstructionists
themselves use the word dominionis m to refer to their belief that civil
government should be controlled by Christians alone and conducted
according to Biblical law .[4][5] Social scientists have used the word
"dominionis m" to refer to adherence to Dominion Theology[3][6][7] as
well as to the influence in the broader Christian Right of ideas inspired
by Dominion Theology.[3] Although such influence (particularly of
Reconstructionism) has been described by many authors,[8][9] full
adherents to Reconstructionism are few and marginalized among
conservative Christians.[8][10][11]”
“Dominionism as a broader movement
In the ear ly 1990s, sociologist Sara Diamond[12][13] and journalist
Frederick Clarkson[14][15] defined dominionis m as a movement that,
while including Dominion Theology and Reconstructionism as
subsets, is much broader in scope, extending to much of the Christian
Right.[16] In his 1992 study of Dominion Theology and its influence on
the Chr istian Right, Bruce Barron w rites,
In the context of Amer ican evangelical efforts to penetrate and
transform public life, the distinguishing mark of a dominionist is a
commitment to defining and carrying out an approach to building
society that is self-consciously defined as exclusively Christian,
and dependent specifically on the work of Christians, rather than
based on a broader consensus.[3] (p. 14, emphasis in original)
According to Diamond, the defining concept of dominionism is "that
Christians alone are Biblically mandated to occupy all secular
institutions until Chr ist returns". In 1989, Diamond declared that this
concept "has become the central unifying ideology for the
Christian Right"[12] (p.138, emphasis in original). In 1995, she

186
called it "prevalent on the Christian Right."[17] Journalist Chip Berlet
added in 1998 that, although they represent different theological and
political ideas, dom inionists assert a Christian duty to take
"control of a sinful secular society."[18]
In 2005, Clarkson enumerated the follow ing characteristics shared by
all forms of dominionis m:[19]
1. Dominionists celebrate Chr istian nationalism, in that they believe
that the United States once w as, and should once again be, a
Christian nation. In this w ay, they deny the Enlightenment roots of
American democracy.
2. Dominionists promote religious suprem acy, insofar as they
generally do not respect the equality of other religions, or even
other versions of Christianity.
3. Dominionists endorse theocratic visions, insofar as they believe
that the Ten Comm andments, or "biblical law ," should be the
foundation of American law , and that the U.S. Constitution
should be seen as a vehicle for im plementing Biblical
principles.[19]”
“Other terminology
Some authors have used the ter ms " Christianis m" or " Christianist" in
place of "dominionis m," a usage that began as early as 2003 in
certain media outlets, particularly liberal-oriented blogs.[33][34][35] By
alluding to the ter m " Islamist," this usage is intended to evoke the
spectre of theocracy and even terrorism (citing, for example, the
notorious bomber Eric Rudolph). Journalist Ruth Walker discussed
usage of the term to refer to political Christians in a 2005 Christian
Science Monitor essay,[36] and commentator Andrew Sullivan
advocated "Christianist" as a label for the Christian Right in a 2006
column in Time.[37]”

“Influences on the Christian Right

Abraham Kuyper and the "cultural mandate"
A common view among evangelical Chr istians is that the granting of
"dominion" in Genesis 1:28 includes a "cultural mandate" to influence
all aspects of the w orld w ith Christian principles.[43][44][45][46]
Contrary to the theocratic vision of Dominion Theology, this view calls
for Christians simply to "honor God as they promote truth and mercy
and apply scriptural principles to the affairs of life."[44](p.252) As
formulated by the Dutch Reformed theologian and prime minister
Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920), the "cultural mandate" view teaches
187
that all human endeavor, w hether ostensibly sacred or secular, is part
of building God' s kingdom. Kuyper energetically applied Christian
principles to the secular problems of his day, seeing his efforts as
extending "common grace" to all people. How ever, Kuyper firmly
rejected the idea that "dominion" could be taken to mean domination
of Christians over others.[47] Kuyper was a founding father of the
Christian Democratic movement, w hich remains an important political
influence in parts of Europe and Latin A merica and elsew here.

Francis Schaeffer
The w ork of Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984)
provided an important underpinning for the rise of the modern
Religious Right. Schaeffer, a follow er of Kuyper' s system of Neo-
Calvinis m, had founded L' Abri, a Christian community and study
center in Sw itzerland, in 1955. There he received evangelical
Christians and others from many parts of the w orld, encouraging them
that it w as not only good but important for Christians to intellectually
engage w ith and benefit from the Western cultural tradition (secular
though it may be) of art, literature, philosophy, and the like.[48][49][50]
In the 1970s, Schaeffer began to travel more often to his native United
States, w here he saw a need to w arn against w hat he saw as the
cultural decay of American society.[8] His book, film and lecture
series, Whatever Happened to the Human Race?,[51] co-authored
with C. Everett Koop, toured Chr istian colleges and churches in the
early 1980s. Panels of ethicists and scholars presented the films,
fielding questions from audiences and raising the alarm that, through
Christian inattention, Western Civilization had slipped its Judeo-
Christian moorings, drifting into a "post-Christian era", under the sw ay
of a secular civil religion that Schaeffer called "secular hum anism ".
The landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade
served as Schaeffer' s iconic portrait of the radical cheapening of
human life w hich he predicted must accompany this cultural shift,
producing a culture increasingly bent on self-destruction. In his tract A
Christian Manifesto,[52] he called upon Christians to directly resist
these influences in the public sphere, by means including civil
disobedience.
Though Schaeffer' s interests were primarily cultural and philosophical,
his doctrine of engagement w ith the public sphere influenced a
diverse spectrum of theological conservatives, including Jerry Falw ell,
Timothy LaHaye, John W. Whitehead, and others. Some of these
founded political and legal organizations that ignited w hat has come to
be called the culture w ar.
188
Rushdoony and Christian Reconstructionism
Main article: Chr istian Reconstructionism
Rousas John Rushdoony (1916-2001) w as the intellectual founder
of Christian Reconstructionism , a postm illennial form of
Theocratic Dom inion Theology. Most m ainstream Christians
reject Rushdoony' s views and other forms of Dom inion theology
as quite radical.[8]
According to Rushdoony and other Reconstructionists including Gary
North and Greg Bahnsen, the idea of dominion draw n from Genesis
1:28 implied a theonomy ("rule of the law of God"), in w hich
observation of their ow n strict form of Christianity w ould be required of
all citizens, and moral sins ranging from blasphem y to
hom osexuality would be punishable by death. Rushdoony wrote
that "[m]an is summoned to create the society God requires,"[53]
"bringing all things under the dominion of Christ the King."[54] A
significant influence on Rushdoony and the theonomists came from
Calvinist philosophers and theologians, including the
presuppositionalism of Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987), though Van Til
himself disavowed any entanglement of his w ork w ith political
movements.
In regard to the influence of Reconstructionism upon the broader
Christian Right, sociologist and professor of religion William Martin
wrote,
It is difficult to assess the influence of Reconstructionist thought w ith
any accuracy. Because it is so genuinely radical, most leaders of the
Religious Right are careful to distance themselves from it. At the
same time, it clearly holds some appeal for many of them. One
undoubtedly spoke for others when he confessed, ' Though w e hide
their books under the bed, w e read them just the same.'In addition,
several key leaders have acknow ledged an intellectual debt to the
theonomists. Jerry Falw ell and D. James Kennedy have endorsed
Reconstructionist books. Rushdoony has appeared on Kennedy' s
television program and the 700 Club several times. Pat Robertson
makes frequent use of ' dominion' language; his book, The Secret
Kingdom, has often been cited for its theonomy elements; and
pluralists w ere made uncomfortable w hen, during his presidential
campaign, he said he ' w ould only bring Christians and Jew s into the
government,'as w ell as w hen he later wrote, ' There will never be
world peace until God' s house and God' s people are given their
rightful place of leadership at the top of the w orld.' And Jay
Grimstead, w ho leads the Coalition on Revival, w hich brings
Reconstructionists together w ith more m ainstream evangelicals,
189
has said, ' I don't call myself [a Reconstructionist],'but 'A lot of us are
coming to realize that the Bible is God' s standard of morality . . . in all
points of history . . . and for all societies, Christian and non- Christian
alike. . . . It so happens that Rushdoony, Bahnsen, and North
understood that sooner.'He added, ' There are a lot of us floating
around in Christian leadership James Kennedy is one of them-w ho
don' t go all the w ay with the theonomy thing, but w ho want to rebuild
America based on the Bible.' [8](p. 354)

Reconstructionism and politics

Rushdoony' s Chalcedon Foundation, the flagship organization of
Reconstructionism, rejects the claim that they are orchestrators of a
clandestine, politically motivated conspiracy:
Our critics sometimes imply or state outright that w e are engaged in a
subtle, covert attempt to capture conservative, right-w ing politics in
order to gain political pow er, which w e will then use to "spring" Biblical
law on our nation. This is flatly false. We do not believe that politics or
the state are a chief sphere of dominion.[55]
Critics note that politics seems like the chief sphere in w hich
Reconstructionism' s influence is perceived, and consequently feel
justified in characterizing it as primarily political in fact, even if not in
ideal theory. Critics such as Clarkson identify it as totalitarian,
comparable to other right-w ing and political m ovements inspired
by religious fundamentalism . Proponents of Reconstructionism
claim that, on the contrary, they stand in opposition to tyranny:
The great problem w ith modern politics is that it is used as an
instrument of social change. We at Chalcedon passionately oppose
this. The role of the state is in essence to defend and protect, in the
words of the early American Republic, life, liberty, and property. It is to
rew ard the externally obedient by protecting them from the externally
disobedient (Romans 13:1-7). Its role is not to make men virtuous; w e
have a name for civil governments that attempt to create a virtuous
society: totalitarian.[55]

How ever, George Grant, a Reconstructionist[56][57] w ho also served

at one time as executive director of Coral Ridge Ministries, has stated
the movement' s aims in this w ay:

Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy

responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ -- to have dom inion
190
in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and
godliness. But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice. It is
dom inion w e are after. Not just influence. It is dom inion we are
after. Not just equal time. It is dom inion we are after. World
conquest. That' s w hat Christ has comm issioned us to
accom plish.".[58]” (LOL, So w hat are we going to do tonight, Brain?)

The spectrum of dominionism

Writers including Chip Berlet[63] and Frederick Clarkson[19]
distinguish betw een w hat they term "hard" and "soft" dominionis m.
"Soft" dominionists are defined as those w ho believe that A merica is a
Christian nation. " Hard" dominionists are defined as those who
advocate the establishment of a theocracy.”
The follow ing quote from the Religious Tolerance.Org w ebsite:
“DOMINIONISM (A.K.A. CHRISTIA N RECONSTRUCTIONISM,
DOMINION THEOLOGY, AND THEONOMY)
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm
History:
Dominionis m, Dominion Theology, Christian Reconstructionism,
Theocratic Dominionis m, and Theonomy are not denominations or
faith groups. Rather, they are interrelated beliefs which are follow ed
by members of a w ide range of Christian denominations. They have
no connection at all to Reconstructionist Judaism, w hich is a liberal
group w ithin Judaism.
Generally speaking:
Dominionis m & Dominion Theology are derived from Genesis 1:26 of
the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament):
"Then God said, ' Let us make man in our image, in our likeness and
let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the
livestock, over all the earth and over all the creatures that move along
the ground.'" (NIV)
Most Chr istians interpret this verse as meaning that God gave
mankind dominion over the animal kingdom. Dominion theologians
believe that that this verse commands Christians to bring all societies,
around the w orld, under the rule of the Word of God.
Theonomy (Greek for "God' s Law ") includes the concept that "God’s
revealed standing law s are a reflection of His immutable moral
character and, as such, are absolute in the sense of being

191
nonarbitrary, objective, universal, and established in advance of
particular circumstances (thus applicable to general types of moral
situations)." 6,7 Thus, each of the 613 laws given to Moses and
recorded in the Pentateuch (the first 5 books of the Hebrew
Scriptures) are binding on people of all nations, cultures, and religions
forever, except for those laws which have been specif ically rescinded
or modified by further revelation.
Christian Reconstructionism arose out of conservative
Presbyterianis m in the ear ly 1970's. Follow ers believe "that every
area dominated by sin must be ' reconstructed'in terms of the Bible." 1
The ter m Reconstructionis m has been used to refer to various
combinations of the preceding three ter ms. This type of confusion is
common in the field of religion. Many theological terms such as
Christian, Fundamentalist, Occult, New Age, Reconstructionism,
Unitarian etc. have been assigned so many different interpretations by
different groups in different eras that they are almost meaningless.
Its most common form , Dom inionism , represents one of the most
extreme forms of Fundamentalist Christianity thought. Its
follow ers, called Dominionists, are attempting to peacefully convert
the law s of United States so that they match those of the Hebrew
Scriptures. They intend to achieve this by using the freedom of
religion in the US to train a generation of children in private
Christian religious schools. Later, their graduates will be
charged with the responsibility of creating a new Bible-based
political, religious and social order. One of the first tasks of this
order w ill be to elim inate religious choice and freedom . Their
eventual goal is to achieve the "Kingdom of God" in w hich much of the
world is converted to Christianity. They feel that the pow er of God' s
word will bring about this conversion. No ar med force or insurrection
will be needed; in fact, they believe that there w ill be little opposition to
their plan. People w ill w illingly accept it. All that needs to be done is to
properly explain it to them.
All religious organizations, congregations etc. other than strictly
Fundamentalist Christianity w ould be suppressed. Nonconforming
Evangelical, main line and liberal Christian religious institutions w ould
no longer be allow ed to hold services, organize, proselytize, etc.
Society w ould revert to the laws and punishments of the Hebrew
Scriptures. Any person who advocated or practiced other religious
beliefs outside of their home w ould be tried for idolatry and executed.
Blasphemy, adultery and hom osexual behavior w ould be
crim inalized; those found guilty w ould also be executed. At that
time that this essay w as originally written, this w as the only
192
religious movement in North America of which we were aware
which advocates genocide for followers of m inority religions and
non-conform ing members of their own religion. Since then, w e
have learned of tw o conservative Christian pastors in Texas w ho have
advocated the execution of all Wiccans. Ralph Reed, the executive
director of the conservative public policy group the Christian
Coalition has criticized Reconstructionism as "an authoritarian
ideology that threatens the m ost basic civil liberties of a free and
democratic society." (How about that? If even one of their own can
see the dangers of this movement, w hy can’t we?)

Leading w riters in the movement are:

Greg L. Bahnsen of the Southern California Center for Christian
Studies.
David Chilton. He adopted hyper-preterism, (a.k.a. full or complete
perterism) a particular belief about end time events. He w as basic ally
ostracized from the Christian Reconstruction camp afterw ards.
Gary DeMar.
Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
Gary North of the Institute for Christian Economics. He is a prolific
author.
Larry Pratt: head of the Gun Ow ners of America and English First, a
group opposed to non-English speaking immigrants and bilingual
education. Author of "Armed People Victorious" w hich documents
Guatemalan and Philippine militias and para- military death squads.
He w as campaign co-chair of the Buchanan presidential campaign in
1996.
John Quade.
Rousas John Rushdoony of the Chalcedon Foundation is often
considered the founder of Christian Reconstructionism . Author of
Institutes of Biblical Law .
Rev. Andrew Sandlin.
Beliefs:
According to Gary DeMar, a popular Reconstructionist author, the
foundation of Reconstructionis m is a unique combination of three
Biblical doctrines:
Regeneration of the individual, through an intimate relationship w ith
Christ
193
Individuals guiding their lives closely by follow ing a specified subset of
Biblical law s
Prom oting of the world-wide Kingdom of God. 2 (Please note that
when these folk speak of the Kingdom of God, they don’t mean it
spiritually as most churches have in the past – they mean it literally as
a political, military fact on the world map!)
Specific beliefs include
A rejection of Antinom ianism : the belief that salvation is obtained
totally through faith and not through performing good w orks and living
a moral life (Is this not one of the main and crucial tenets of
Christianity? Yet they reject it? So these idiots think they can w ork
their w ay into heaven by spilling the blood of others as their “good
works”? They w ould bleed the w orld dry trying to prove this!)
Presuppositionalism: the acceptance on faith that the Bible is true.
They do not attempt to prove that God exists or that the Bible is true.
Inerrancy: the belief that the Bible, as originally written, is totally free
of error.
Postmillennialis m: the belief that Christ w ill not return to earth until
much of the w orld has converted to Christianity. This w ill not take
place for some considerable time; it w ill not be a painless transition.
Most Fundamentalists and other Evangelists hold to a different view .
They are Premillenialists and believe that all (or almost all) of the
preconditions of Christ's return have been met. They expect Jesus'
second coming to occur very soon.
The 613 laws contained in the Hebrew Scriptures'Mosaic Code can
be divided into tw o classes: moral and ceremonial. Chr istians are not
required to follow the ceremonial law s, because Jesus has liberated
them from that responsibility. How ever, all persons must follow those
moral law s which were not specifically modified or cancelled by further
revelation --generally in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament). In
contrast: Non-reconstructionist Chr istians generally divide these laws
into three classes: moral, civil and ceremonial law , and generally
believe that most Old Testament law s are no longer binding on
Christians.
Jews generally believe that the Mosaic Code is binding only on Jew s.

The moral laws given by God to the ancient Israelites reflect of God's
character, which is unchangeable. Most of the law s are intended for
all nations, cultures, societies, religions and all eras, including the
present time. How ever, there are a few laws, in such areas as
194
personal safety and sanitation, w hich are no longer applicable
because of changes in architecture and sewage disposal. These do
not need to be obeyed.
The primacy of the Hebrew Scriptures, relative to the Christian
Scriptures (New Testament). All of the Hebrew Scriptures' non-
ceremonial laws are still in force, unless they have been specifically
rescinded or modified by verses in the Christian Scriptures. "Only if
we find an explicit abandonment of an Old Testament law in the New
Testament, because of the historic fulfillment of the Old Testament
shadow , can we legitimately abandon a detail of the Mosaic law ." 3
This is largely supported by their interpretation of Matthew 5:17:
"Do you think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I
have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." ( NIV)
Civil laws must be changed to match the Bible' s moral rules. That is,
anything that is immoral (by their standards) is also to be criminalized.
The only valid legislation, social theory, spiritual beliefs, economic
theory are those derived from the Bible
In every aspect of life, there are only two options: God-centered or
man-centered; Theonomy or autonomy. Their political goal is to ban
the latter, everyw here. Each individual, fam ily, church,
government and society m ust be reconstructed to elim inate sin.
Each Christian has the responsibility to contribute to this
conversion.
They oppose inter-faith, inter-racial, and same-sex m arriages.
R.J. Rushdoony w rote about opposition to:
"inter-religious, inter-racial, and inter-cultural m arriages, in that
they norm ally go against the very community which m arriage is
designed to establish." 4
Rushdoony' s condemnation of inter-racial m arriage appears to
have been his ow n and unrelated to the biblical text. It w as not
shared by other Reconstructionists.
Reconstructionists regard the Gods and Goddesses of all other
religions to be "the devil," and their teachings to be false. They
would attempt to replace all religions w ith their version of Christianity.
For exam ple, David Chilton wrote about Judaism :
"The god of Judaism is the devil. The Jew will not be recognized
by God as one of His chosen people until he abandons his
demonic religion and returns to the faith of his fathers--the faith
which em braces Jesus Christ and His Gospel." 5

195
Of course, there exis ts diversity of opinion w ithin the
Reconstructionist movement. Not all follow ers will necessarily agree
with all the above statements of the movement's leaders

Practices:
If they gained control of the US or Canadian federal government,
there would be m any changes:

The use of the death penalty would be greatly expanded, when

the Hebrew Scriptures' laws are reapplied. People will be
executed for adultery, blasphemy, heresy, homosexual behavior,
idolatry, prostitution, evil sorcery (some translations say
Witchcraft), etc. The Bible requires those found guilty of these
"crim es" to be either stoned to death or burned alive.
Reconstructionists are divided on the execution method to be
used.
A church or congregation w hich does not accept the Mosaic Law has
another god before them, and is thus guilty of idolatry. That would be
punishable by death. That would include all non-Christian
religious organizations. At the present time, non-Christians total
tw o-thirds of the hum an race.
The status of w omen would be reduced to almost that of a slave
as described in the Hebrew Scriptures. A woman w ould initially be
considered the property of her father; after m arriage, she w ould
be considered the property of her husband.
It would be logical to assume that the institution of slavery
would be reintroduced, and regulated according to Biblical laws.
Fathers could sell their daughters into slavery. Fem ale slaves
would retain that status for life. Slave owners w ould be allowed
to physically abuse them , as long as the slaves lived for at least
a day before dying of the beating. 9
Polygyny and the keeping of concubines were permitted in the Old
Testament. How ever, Reconstructionists generally believe in
m arriage between one m an and one w om an only. Any other
sexual expression would be a capital crim e. Those found guilty
of engaging in same-sex, pre-m arital or extra-m arital sex w ould
be executed.
The Old Testament "Jubilee Year" system w ould be celebrated once
more. Every 50 years, the control of all land reverted to its original
ow ners. In theory, this w ould require every part of North American
196
land to be returned to the original Aboriginal ow ners (or perhaps to
those persons of Aboriginal descent w ho are now Christians). Haw aii
would be given back to the native Haw aiians.
Governments w ould all have balanced budgets.
Income taxes w ould be eliminated. (Well, now there’s a plus if I ever
saw one! Imagine the money you’d save! Not that you w ould be able
to buy any freedom w ith it though, unfortunately.)
The prison system w ould be eliminated. A system of just restitution
would be established for some crimes. The death penalty w ould be
practiced for many other crimes. There w ould be little need for
warehousing of convicted criminals.
Legal abortions w ould be banished; those found to be responsible for
abortions w ould be charged w ith murder and executed.

The reinstitution of slavery appears to be a hot button item among

Reconstructionists. We have received a few negative E- mails w hich
complained that the movement does not recommend the resumption
of human slavery. But w e have received many more Emails from
Reconstructionists claiming that legalizing slavery w ould be good for
North America.
Joseph Busche and Bill Curry have written a Tennessee Law Book.
Their intent w as to show that laws to implement various Old
Testament law s would sound extremely intrusive today. See:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/. “

Nice bunch of fellers, huh? Now I don’t know how you feel as a fellow
Souf Efrikin, but I w ouldn’t w ant blokes of that sort standing around
the braai fire w ith me and my mates, w ould you?

• The War In South Africa

Are we insecure in South Africa? Maybe. Are we paranoid? These

days I w ould have to ask: “are w e paranoid enough??”

If you look at the society and politics of the USA at large these days
you w ill see w hat I mean. With huge international corporations under
the control of the political right w ing (w hose most pow erful and
celebrated mouthpiece is James Dobson and Focus On The Family)
playing very influential roles in shaping American government policy,
197
affecting US state law s, supposedly even playing an important part in
choosing the next president – and powered by ignorant and blind
religious faith – you can begin to see w hy the socio-political situation
in the USA and countries influenced by the USA is the w ay it is.

These bigots are made fun of and ridiculed by GLBT and Christian
liberals alike, even in their ow n country – but the simple truth is this:
they are largely in control of their country. Who do you think supported
George W' s election campaign? Who supported his re-election
campaign? Who do Unca George and the conservatives consult on
religious matters? Who do you think is supporting Mc Cain (w ho has
reportedly boasted that one of his good points is that he is anti-gay)?
James Dobson, also know n as the USA' s Kingmaker. That's w ho. And
not for nothing either – that man is becoming increasingly political w ith
each passing year. In fact, he is also rumored to have said that he w ill
never return to ministry but w ill continue his insidious w ork in
American politics instead.

Those people are not clow ning around. We make jokes about them,
we see how inept they are, how bigoted, mistaken and ignorant about
GLBT affairs – but the reality of it all is that they are chillingly
steadfast. And they are driven by an all-consuming hate for us –
because they believe that destroying GLBT people, by erasing us
from existence, they will make the w orld a better place. They creep
forwards at a rate of millimeters, minute by minute, edging closer.
They are like the Ter minator – w ho can’t be bargained w ith, cant be
bought, and absolutely w ill not stop... until w e are dead.

I know at first you may think ' bla-bla-bla she’s just paranoid...'Go do
some in depth research and start joining the dots. It' s scary w hen you
see little lines start crossing the globe. People shamelessly donate
money to their hateful cause in the name of their Christian faith and
charity. Christian companies shamelessly support them, blatantly
agreeing w ith and supporting their anti-GLBT agendas and goals,
even sharing in their interests. These people have lots of money
behind them – they ow n large corporations and Christian front
companies – all w ith branches in w estern countries around the world.
Even in humble little South Africa. A local radio station (Christian,
naturally) w hen requested in 2008 to cease supporting Focus On The
Family broadcasts on the basis that it w as anti-gay, recently stated:

198
"We totally agree with Mr Dobson and will definitely continue with his
programming. We only had positive response and many lives’s has
been changed because of his ministry." Well, from this it is pretty clear
what Radio Tygerberg 104fm thinks of GLBT and human rights.

Anybody hear anything about the DSM-V? The A merican psychiatric

diagnosis and treatment manual? The online petition nearly ten
thousand people signed against the objectionable and biased board
members w ho are trying to put homosexuality back in as a mental
illness – along w ith outdated and discredited aversion and reparative
therapy as viable treatments and snake-oil "cures" for homosexuality,
was stopped – never finished. As far as I can tell, it w as never
delivered. Nothing has happened – Zucker and his cronies are still
there deciding the fate of GLBT people around the w orld (in countries
who use the DSM and in those w ho use it as a basis of their own
manuals) – and I’m sure they are tied into the right w ing netw ork
because Zucker is a proponent of the discredited "ex-gay" movement
(decried and rejected by credible medical experts as w ell as by former
members and victims of its damaging programs) and supported
(naturally) by James Dobson. In fact, how many “ex-gay” rallies has
Dobson addressed? How many times has he praised the “w ork” of
these medievalist orgs? So as far as I’m concerned that’s w here we
seem to be headed – the rubber rooms and the funny farms, because
by 2010 or 12, w henever the new DSM is released, homosexuality w ill
be reclassified a mental illness as it w as up till 1973. Naturally this w ill
have severe repercussions as suddenly w e w ill be back w here we
started in our global fight for equal civil rights... Clever Right Wing
legal experts w ill exercise their latent prejudice and use the argument
that homosexuals are now medically classified as 'mentally ill'and
thus do not qualify for "special" civil rights such as equality before the
law , removing all legal protection against discrimination, hate crime or
hate speech based on sexual orientation or gender. All our legal
advances and laws fought so hard for in the last 35 years – and paid
for in GLBT blood and suffering – undone in one bold diabolical
stroke. Thus the w hole house of cards comes crashing dow n around
us...

The cry of the religious right in the US (follow ed and advocated by

anti-GLBT religious fanatics around the w orld) is the so-called
"Homosexual Agenda", a falsif ied invented fallacy substantiated by
fabricated and distorted propaganda and hearsay claiming GLBT are
trying to destroy the fabric of heterosexual society, religion and the
199
precious traditional family structure through organized means. They
do this w ith a purpose – seeking justification w hich excuses their
venomous vendetta against countless innocent people around the
world. And the devious genius behind this is that every time w e stop
arguing and disagreeing long enough to stand together and organize
ourselves to resist this insidious evil - we seem to prove them right to
the ignorant masses – w ho point at our picket lines and support
groups and say "see, told you there was an agenda". Pure
unadulterated genius. Absolutely w rong, bigoted and evil, but genius
of a sort, none-the-less.

They' ve been at this game since 1977 and w e' re only really becoming
aw are of the effects of their hate for GLBT in South Africa now ... And
already it’s almost too late. They influence people through religion.
Guess w ho is a nice little James Dobson clone in SA? Why Angus
Buchan of course, the faith like potatoes man. Preaching to crow ds of
men to "take back" the family, preaching fallacies that GLBT can be
"cured" through prayer, pushing the “ex-gay fallacy – fighting against
GLBT and feminism! The potato preacher w ith a red phone to God’s
desk. Preaching that " God" told him to go forth and in this sign
conquer, to incite men to “take back their rightful place as the god-
appointed head of the household” and to take a firm stand against the
secular state! It conjures up images of cavemen dragging their
knuckles on the cave floor bellow ing ‘begone ye w omen and get thee
hence to the kitchen, bare-foot and pregnant!’ He seems just like
Dobby in that respect, anti- GLBT, anti-libertarian and anti-feminist – in
fact he could be a clone, being just as hateful, arrogant and ignorant
about GLBT affairs.

Recently in South Africa w e have seen an increase in hate in the

media, a transw oman w as evicted from a caravan park for daring to
use the w omen’s lavatory (and she w as post-op btw, i.e. already
anatomically correct for the "legitimate" use of the facility). In the
Sunday Sun earlier this year (2008), a columnist cried for people to
remove our rights from the SA constitution and encouraged and
praised violence against GLBT. Nothing at all happened (despite letter
campaigns and appeals to the courts). A religious poem calling GLBT
"Lucifer’s Seed" and defaming GLBT in the Beeld w ent unpunished
but w as praised for its artistic flair. The key reason for the success of
the bigots in this regard and the failure of our cherished
constitutionally enshrined civil rights? Holes in the SA constitution so
big you could drive a hearse through them. It seems all hate speech
200
and discrimination in the media is illegal, unless of course it is directed
against GLBT folk – and specifically exempt is the little clause w hich
reads ‘on religious grounds’ (naturally). Until these obscene and
blatantly obvious engineered loopholes are plugged, that little scrap of
paper called the SA Constitution is w orthless to GLBT in South Africa.
Until that day no court in the country w ill act on any legitimate GLBT
complaint w rt hate speech in the media in our favor. And if you can
express hate against us through the gaps in the constitution, you can
incite hatred and violence through it as w ell. It is disgusting.

Recently how ever, a gay man w on a court case against the biggest
NG church in SA for unfair dismissal from his job as a music teacher
on the grounds that he w as fired because of his sexual orientation.
The church w as obliged to pay him a sum of money and to apologize,
which it did in a very visibly reluctant manner, w ithout actually
apologizing at all. Follow ing this came a lot of ‘w oe unto you’ and
gnashing of teeth in the local new spapers ' letters to the press'
sections – w ith Christian folk claiming the end w as nigh and all
manner of insulting hate speech against GLBT folk because the
Supreme Court dared to rule against the ‘mighty’ NG Church. Even
foreigners wrote in to express their misgivings that our state should
“fall so far” to expect a Christian Church to apologize to a low ly gay
man! Suddenly, according to some of these overtly and fanatically
religious gay bashers, the country was in crisis because the mighty
church had fallen so low as to be forced to recognize it was in the
wrong and had committed an actual injustice. IT w ould seem that for
once in this country justice had been done and every bigot in the
world had something to say against it! Numerous anti-GLBT letters
were thereafter published in several papers around the country and
on their w ebsites, notably the Citizen – in w hat seems like an ongoing
concerted media hate campaign against us all – and to my dismay
only a few – a very few even spoke out against it!

• Apathy, The 10th Province Of SA

What concerns and disgusts me is the apparent apathy of GLBT in

South Africa. For almost a year GLBT people have been getting this
info via email, Facebook groups, seeing the hate in the media,
hearing the calls for pickets of the offending parties offices and letter
writing campaigns – calls to boycott anti-GLBT companies and their
products, AND WHAT HA PPENS?
201
FUCKALL.

Typical Souf Efrika. Let one paper or person utter a racial slur and the
whole country, political parties included, are in an uproar and it makes
international headlines. How ever, let somebody utter the same
sentiments in the media against GLBT and dramatically NOTHING at
all happens. Nobody w ill cry out or protest or boycott or feel like doing
something until these bigots succeed in taking aw ay our rights,
criminalizing us or committing us to mental hospitals or even start
herding us into camps again – because until then, like a frog slow ly
boiling to death in a pot of boiling w ater – one degree up at a time – IT
SIMPLY "DOESNT AFFECT US". And by the time they realize how
wrong they are, it w ill be too late.
Yes, I’m preaching, w ith a strong sense that I’m w asting my breath.
But there it is – are you paranoid, brothers and sisters? ARE YOU
PA RANOID ENOUGH?

• The SA Constitution We Thought Was So Perfect

All South Africans know the constitution and the fact that it protects
everybody equally before the law , right? It made the w orld headlines
back in 1994 after it was released publicly, and received praise
internationally – except that it w as heavily criticized for decriminalizing
‘gay behavior’ and for offering protection to GLBT as a population
group. The vocal parties? Why, our conservative right w ing religious
friends of course, not forgetting every political party in the country
which shamefully has the w ord “Christian” in its name.
Even amongst us GLBT folk, there are those w ho do not realize the
harm built into the very same constitution. They argue that fighting for
equality is pointless because we already have it somehow . I also
thought so until some hateful columnist from the Sunday Sun called
Jon Qwelane published an article advocating hate and even violence
against us in 2008. And the result? A massive GLBT outcry, letter
writing campaign and – nothing. He got aw ay scott free. Why?
Because he knew the constitution didn’t cover the crime he
committed. That’s right buddy – just because the constitution doesn’t
call w hat you did a crime, doesn’t mean the rest of humanity doesn’t.
And w hat you’ve been engaging in is a crime against humanity.

202
"Those RIGHTS are already there - in the CONSTITUTION,” They
say, “The problem is that many people WILL break those law s and
protection and that is the QUESTION w e need to address ..........
WHY?"

Sorry to disappoint you girls, but for GLBT the SA Constitution

isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on....

That's because it has been carefully w orded to allow just specific ally
our rights to slip through some deviously engineered cracks. Let me
explain:

Constitutional protection is afforded to freedom of expression in

section 16 of the Constitution w hich provides:

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression w hich

includes –
(a) Freedom of the press and other media
(b) Freedom to receive or impart information or ideas.
(c) Freedom of artistic creativity; and
(d) Academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.

(2) The right in sub-section (1) does not extend to –

(a) Propaganda for w ar;
(b) Incitement of imminent violence; or
(c) Advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity,
gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to
cause harm ” .

Pay careful attention to section 2C if you w ill. See that? What that is
saying is that no one may express hate in the print media, digital
media, public spaces, churches – in fact, anywhere, against anybody
– if it is specif ically based on the victim'
s race, ethnicity, gender or
religion. Right – see any missing entries there? ' Sexual orientation'
ring a bell?

203
If hate speech is allow ed against us, w hich generates hate crimes
against us, w here are our rights?

Because these bigots see us all (GLBT) as sex-freaks, including the

transgendered, they often include us in their hate speech. They are
either too ignorant or too biased to see the differences betw een
sexual orientation and gender orientation – in fact they actively hate
us all equally.

Think any court or authority is going to seriously consider argument

that hate speech against transsexuals is in fact a gender issue and
not a sexual orientation one? I didn't think so either. As a matter of
interest there is NO PROVISO in the constitution to cover gender in
the w ay that we transgendered define it – those who change physical
gender or w ho hover between the fixed gender binary of current law .

So technically, inciting hate against GLBT people, even inciting

violence against them (as long as it is on the basis of sexual
orientation) is perfectly legal!

And just so you know , Qw elane and the brilliant "artist" w ho penned
that hateful poem in "By" both got off on just this technicality. And I’m
pretty sure our complaints lodged against radio stations for playing
Focus on the Family w ere disregarded for exactly the same reason –
the expression of hate against people on the basis of sexual
orientation.

There is another legal aspect to this matter, called the Promotion of

Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, 2000 (4 of 2000)
Find the act online here:
http://www.acts.co.za/prom_of_equality/index.htm
This act prohibit hate speech and harassment on these grounds:
prohibited grounds are-

a) race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social

origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience,
belief, culture, language and birth; or

204
b) any other ground where discrimination based on that other
ground-
i) causes or perpetuates systemic disadvantage;
ii) undermines human dignity; or
iii) adversely affects the equal enjoyment of a person' s
rights and freedoms in a serious manner that is comparable to
discrimination on a ground in paragraph (a).
Either the GLBTIQ parties missed this gem or they reasoned that the
enemy’s legal team w ould argue that the Act was unconstitutional
based on the loophole discussed earlier – and that w e wouldn’t have
a legal leg to stand on. Nevertheless no statement on this Act w as
ever made by the GLBTIQ advocacy groups leading the campaign.

In fact, no statement was ever made. Which makes me think they are
actively conspiring with the SAHRC to wait for the whole thing to “blow
over”! FIVE MONTHS AND NO NEWS? COM E ON, MAN – HOW
STUPID DO THEY THINK WE ARE?

And until this deviously designed “loophole” in the SA Constitution is

closed off, when it comes to legal action against these folk w ho largely
OWN the media as w ell as post their hate in it and use it as a tool of
persecution, there is precious little w e can do about it via the legal
system. In my view , the law s being set up to protect one group and
the persistence of another group in breaking them are tw o separate
issues. How long w ill w e have to wait before our wonderful GLBT
advocacy groups run by our invisible friends the “Gay elite” get off
their asses and stand together for once, long enough to run an
initiative to petition the Constitutional Court of SA to “fix” the holes in
the SA Constitution?

• The Apathy Of SA Government Watchdogs

People outraged by the content of the Jon Qw elane article published

in the Media24 new spaper Sunday Sun entitled " Call me names, but
gay is NOT okay" have been w riting letters of objection to the SA
Human Rights Commission and the SA Broadcasting Complaints
Commission since the 23rd of July. Thus far w e have had no new s or
response to neither our objections, nor any sign that they have even
received nor read them or are even considering them. In fact, the SA
205
HRC took to blocking some of our email addresses as spam. Queries
in this regard prompted the people handling public enquiries to
profess ignorance of this matter or to have the temerity to claim our
computers were infected with viruses!

The inept one-sided handling of this affront to GLBT people and the
cavalier w ay in w hich it has just been brushed aside and the attempt
to marginalize and cover it up has incensed us. We are citizens of this
country and our human rights and dignity have been infringed upon!

How do the Human Rights and Broadcasting Complaints

Commissions plan to address this, one day if they ever decides to
release findings on the matter? Or w ill it simply turn its back on the
precepts on w hich it w as founded, making a mockery out of the
constitution and civilized nor ms such as equality, fairness and justice?
It is now October and I fear it has already done all of the above.

• Home Education In Schools As Part Of The

Right Wing Agenda

Since 1994 in South Africa there has been a sudden mushrooming of

private schools, mostly religious based. Many parents have used lack
of confidence in the state education system, dropping standards,
falling Matric pass rates etc as an excuse to favor both these private
schools and home education programs. But I fear a large portion of
this is both based on racism – but perhaps my biggest fear is that the
true reason is CONTROL.

Christian right parents seek to have stricter control over their

children’s education without exposing them to what they call a
“permissive society”.

If w e look at the radical right w ing orgs in SA you w ill see how many
“home education” support w ebsites and orgs there are, providing
educational material and legal support to these parents in keeping
their children out of proper schools. They also link to w hat they call
“Christian academies” – euphemis ms for religious indoctrination
centers, where they will educate children to the educational standard

206
of the SA curriculum – but also infuse it with heavily accentuated
religious dogma. Many of these centers for education are featured on
the links pages of these radical orgs, while this alone does not make
them co-conspirators, it certainly reflects the intentions of these
radical orgs.

I can only imagine what would happen to some poor GLBT kid being
outed under circumstances such as this! He or she would probably
get packed off to some mental institute or forced to undergo “ex-gay
therapy” or even other punishments based on religious prejudice and
associated ignorance.

Schools such as this under the auspices of the religious right w ing can
hardly claim to foster any atmosphere of tolerance and acceptance.
Their entire aim is to CHANGE folk to fit their narrow little profiles. In
fact, nearly every single org w ebsite I visited for SA based “ministries”
used w ords like “reformation” and “revival”. And I’m telling you, since I
saw that I can truly see that some of these religious folk are
committed to some kind of “w ar” for the hearts and minds of the
populace and standing against the very principles of secularism, equal
rights and liberal democratic process.

Education and enlightenment can help reduce this problem – but

there are even educated bigots w ho still hate us anyw ay – and they
are mostly the same folk w ho lead the enemy in their w ar against us!

They reject education, scientific evidence and truth, even if you roll it
up and stick it up their noses. Even if the evidence as compelling as
fossilized bones frozen in the living rock they turn their pointy little
noses up at it and claim ' the devil put them there to trick us!'Why?
Because they are still convinced that their religion somehow negates
common sense and logic – as w ell as compassion! It' s ok to hate and
persecute – and even to kill GLBT because ' they make God vomit!'

I'm all in favor of getting unbiased education into schools to start

broadening minds and fighting prejudice and bigotry from an early age
– but w e need to start building the house from the foundations – you
can’t ‘put the roof on first, so if it rains we won'
t get wet!' What do you
think w ill happen if a school tries to introduce GLBT as a module in
sex education from an unbiased point of view ? The very same thing
207
as in the USA at the moment – religious bigot parents and gay-
bashers picketing and protesting that "teachers are telling our kids it’s
perfectly okay to change their sex!" and that “gay is ok!” So in order to
prevent this type of backlash – w e need to plug all these holes in the
SA Constitution.

Change is slow in coming, but it does come. And for the last 40 years
since Stonew all, the w heel has been turning.

Why do you think the bigots so vehemently oppose GLBT inclusion in

sex-education at schools? Because they realize that education in fact
and not prejudice is enlightenment and broadens the minds of young
people instead of narrowing them.

Enlightenment and education dispels the falsehoods of right-w ing

heterosexist rhetoric and propaganda.
In fact by mingling socially with folk from different cultures and
backgrounds (and sexual/gender orientations) these prejudices
become disproved and dispelled and friendships are formed. People
begin to see there is really nothing threatening about the “other” and
this weakens the bigot’s future strength in numbers. In short, the old
adage of children being the future – in this case as in others – is
absolutely true. If one - JUST ONE - generation could skip being
indoctrinated by bigotry, then the bigots unjust
war against us would be lost!

And this is precisely w hy home schooling is such a vital part of their

multi-fronted battle plan. To keep their supporters through enforced
ignorance and social isolation.

• Unity Among GLBTIQ

The group the heterosexist bigots label fags, queers, trannies and
also deviants, degenerates and other assorted w itticisms is made up
of a diverse group of people. In the past it has been an Achilles heel
for the Equal Rights Movement in the USA and particularly recently in
South Africa, because through our diversities w e have been divided.
Instead, considering the old adages “unity is strength” and “there is
strength in numbers” it only makes sense for all of us facing this
insidious assault on our civil r ights and dignity w ith a united front.
208
Differences are frequently pointed out by our ow n members – often
even on digital forums some folk don’t w ant to be “associated” w ith
other folk – and yet w e are all GLBTIQ! The enemy doesn’t care
whether you’re a cross dresser or a post-op transsexual – or a gay
hairdresser from Benoni, they’d just as soon have you throw n into
prison or make you disappear if they could!

So let’s concentrate on our similarities instead of our differences?

"If it ONLY means SURVIVAL w ithin our social communities then

there w ould be NO problem in finding common ground for those who
find themselves on the GLBTI side of the fence to stand together." TS
West, Transgender activist.

Yes indeed, it does come down to survival.

Common ground to justify standing together? Let' s see... how about

the right to not be discriminated against; to not get fired from your job;
to not be evicted from your church; to not be evicted from your
apartment; to not be targeted by hate speech in public places, the
media and press; the right to equality before the law ; the right to not
beaten up or murdered for who you are; the right to adopt children;
the right to marry w ho you want to marry... need I continue?

True, a gay man might not need surgery and a weekend cross
dresser might not need alterations to id documents – but don'
t both
need all of the above? Don'
t w e all?
Alas there will alw ays be the seedy side of life, the “shemale porn”
sites and the “tranny fan” sites. Why do the porn mongers have so
many people w illing to provide material for them? Why are there so
many ' tranny hookers' ? Because those poor girls cant find decent
work simply because they are what they are. Yes, they are
different – and even though they are different, they are part of our
group, being part of the transgendered "T". So the next time some
bigot attacks these people w ithout know ing the facts, kindly enlighten
them?

209
Yes, education plays a role here too. Highlighting our differences
need not be a negative thing, nor does it have to be done in a w ay
that sows dissent or causes friction or bad feelings. Done in a w ay
that educates both us and heterosexual "outsiders" it can stand to
benefit us all. I w ould add a note of caution in how this is done to not
generate misunderstandings and enmity as has happened so many
times before. Let' s be adult about this and not take umbrage at every
little w ord or term coming from somebody in the same part of the
gender/sexuality spectrum as ourselves – and when providing the
education, let' s bear in mind w hat we are trying to achieve, and
choose our w ords carefully and thoughtfully.

• Hate In The SA Media

A question from the peanut gallery:

“Can you provide any examples of how GLBT are being silenced in
the SA media?”

Examples? Well, let'

s see...

Take the Qw elane saga as a prime example. He made his post in the
Sunday Sun. Outraged GLBT practically revolted overnight, mounted
letter protest and email campaigns and yet w hat happened? Nothing –
we were completely ignored. How many articles about the issue
appeared in the press? If I saw three or four over that w hole period
(about a month) it w as plenty – and how many w ere even front page
new s? To this day our GLBT advocacy groups are still “w aiting” to
hear anything at all from the SAHRC and SA BCC. They are ignoring
us completely – In fact they even w ent so far as to block our emails as
spam! (Which, for such an org, is in fact illegal!)

Recently w hen GLBT supporters picketed Media24 offices (being the

parent company of the Sunday Sun) in Cape Tow n and
Johannesburg– NOT ONE TV station, or one newspaper I saw, ran
any articles or inserts on the events. It w as practically a non-event.

The only place it appeared was in online pro-GLBT newsletters like

Gayspeak and on international blogs on the web.
210
Do you know of one openly gay, lesbian, bi, transgendered or
intersexed person working on public TV or radio as presenters? I
know of a few closeted ones, one w as at high school w ith me and is
too scared to come out in case he loses his job or his female follow ing
(hence his popularity). I also know some journo’s personally and they
often tell me they are careful not to express open support for GLBT in
their articles – or at work, especially those who work for Media24
companies.

As another example take many local community stations w ho refuse

to play pro-GLBT material or even new s articles on the basis of their
being "family stations" (read religious mouthpieces) – In fact w hen
doing song dedications I have heard them cut people short w hen they
figure out the caller is gay and making a dedication to his/her partner.
How downright rude!

But yet these very same stations will persist in playing ANTI-GLBT
smut such as James Dobson’s Focus On The Family – which they
have point-blank refused to stop doing.

As a personal aside I can add that w hen the Qw elane and “Imorelleta
Par k” controversies were raging, I wrote letters in response to hateful
letters printed in “the Citizen” (a non- Media24 company) and posted
on their w ebsite blog. Despite my objections, on one occasion, the
letters editor kept changing the w ord "heterosexist" to "heterosexual",
making it look as though I w as attacking ALL heterosexuals and not
just the bigots posting on the blog!
And do you think the shrew d editors w ould pick a nice pro-GLBT or
unrelated letter for their daily columns? No, of course not – they
consistently picked hate filled religious conservative propaganda
letters to post instead. A clear trend is forming in the SA media lately,
and I don’t like the look of it. It is the pushing of hate and controversy
to sell a few more papers, w hile ' untouchable'bigots like Qw elane use
their craft as propaganda tools to incite hate and violence against
weak and defenseless minorities.

As another example, take the new s in mid October 2008 about the
racist Facebook group posted by students in Pr etoria. That issue
made radio news nationally and overnight, w as in all the papers. I

211
couldn’t turn on the radio w ithout hearing about it all day. It highlights
to me the sad state of affairs fro GLBT civil rights in SA:

Let one person use a hateful racial comment and the world cries out
about it and it makes the front page. But let a person say the same
thing about GLBT folk and nobody even cares, let alone takes notice.
We cry out, and it barely makes page 4, let alone the back page with
all the porn and smut!
A few weeks ago an associate of mine at an advocacy org w as
corresponding w ith a journo at the Beeld – all the journo' s mails had
an official header that read " Ekskuus – maar gay bly n'sonde!"
(“Excuse me, but gay is still a sin!”) on it! Complaints about this
brought a dismissive reply from the editor w ho said it was a pre-
programmed template referring to previous recent articles in that
paper and w asn’t his problem. Surely it w as removed soon after,
before w e could really take the matter further, but it provided a little
piece of evidence that sums up Media 24' s policy and attitude tow ards
us very succinctly, don't you think?

I suppose I can sum up my reply nicely in one point: If you feel

outraged about something related to your sexuality or gender identity,
or your civil rights – possibly you have been discriminated against...
who can you tell your story to? Who' s going to put it in the paper?

Unless it involves big players or lots of money like the " Imoreletta
Par k" debacle, I don’t think any paper is going to even take your calls.
Why? Because there simply aren' t enough GLBT folk representing our
interests in the industry, are there? How many GLBT or pro-GLBT
editors are there? How many of the media houses ow ners are GLBT
or GLBT friendly? Policy runs from the top – dow n, doesn’t it?

Just do a search on the internet for ' James Dobson anti gay bigotry' .
Take note of all the different references to right w ing 'ultra religious'
political activities, associations with groups such as the KKK, him and
his organizations declaring ' w ar' on gays, lesbians and the
transgendered.

Then go look at Focus on the Family'

s SA w ebsite Safamily.org. Click
on the link that shows which SA radio stations play Dobson’s tw o-

212
dimensional little radio show . I think you w ill find most of them listed
there. Now ask yourself this:

Why is SA radio playing this mans hate material, giving this

heterosexist bigot favorable media exposure and paying him and his
militant right wing group for using it – when the funds gathered from it
are being used to fund a political terror campaign against GLBT in the
USA and around the world? Especially when this has been pointed
out to them and they are still doing it?

While you're at it ask yourself w hy local radio stations I and several

others queried about this never did anything about it, even though
staff members I spoke to indicated that they w ere ' absolutely gob
smacked'by the truth and w ere investigating it. Just doesn’t add up,
does it? Happy investigating.

So much for the SA media. In fact I feel that the only reason w e have
any voice at all these days in SA is because of the internet!

• James Dobson On SA Radio

Has anybody heard a radio show on their local community radio

stations called "Focus On The Family"? The local radio here in PE
plays it every morning at around 550am, just about w hen I’m getting
ready for work. There' s a cheerful "Hello I’m 'Dr'James Dobson for
focus on the family..." and then this guy w ho sounds like a cheery
middle-aged American country doctor starts talking about family
issues in the strictly traditional sense – you know the type, men rule
the home and w omen belong in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant or
looking after the kids... being made to feel guilty for daring to assert
their ow n identities or desire to pursue a career.

Little do w e know (and little did I till I saw the furore in the US about
Dobson criticizing Barrack Obama) that innocent doctor James
Dobson (and just btw , this man is a doctor of psychology – not a
Christian minister !) is the main driving force behind the religious right
in the USA ! Who knew ?

213
Ever w onder w ho has been the kingpin in opposing GLBT issues in
the US government? Who has been sidling up to, backing and
supporting rightist politicians in fighting the gay marriage bill? What
about the bill that w as just passed against hate speech against gays
and the transgendered? Yup, he w as out there inspiring rallies and
quasi-Christian bigots of every persuasion. Even the KKK appeared in
pictures of the rallies! This bigot claims that GLBT have an agenda to
silence Christians and to remove their right to religious freedoms by
passing anti hate speech and hate crime laws across the USA!
Seeing as the ONLY aspect GLBT w ant to block is hate speech and
hate crime I assume Dobson means that these are integral to his idea
of religious freedom! The freedom to persecute others w ith impunity !
What an absolute tyrannical fascist bigot!

And my little local radio station plays this idiot’s bigotry every week
morning – and presumably pays his obscene little political
organization royalties for doing so and thereby supporting his w ar of
terror on me and my kind? That' s just not on! Granted, I’ve never
heard them play any really inflammatory anti-GLBT clips on non-
religious SA radio YET, but w e are often a few years behind in these
things. Apparently over in the US he is really openly vocal about his
bigotry against anybody w ho isn’t straight, w hite and Christian – and a
bigot too. Apparently in his w ay of thinking you can’t seem to be a
Christian w ithout being a bigot and being filled w ith hate for gay folk.
In fact he has even been attacking the US presidential candidate
Obama! Which just make me think Obama might be the right man for
the job after all. In fact, I’d vote for him just on the premise that
Dobson can’t stand him!
It is a complex and seedy story w hich has gone on for years and is
still unfolding daily in American politics. He calls himself a 'Christian
evangelist' and yet preaches hatred and persecution against gay
people in the name of Christianity at hate rallies w hich have included
far-right militantly anti-gay groups among his supporters! I personally
find this man to be an offensive presence, and object to him coming
into my home each morning as I listen to my favorite radio station
while getting ready for w ork – representing the hatred and intolerance
and cruelty that is directed towards GLBT people around the w orld,
and even here in South Africa!

Also it is insulting to GLBT people that our local radio stations are
paying this man and his lunatic heterosexist homophobic organization
royalties for it – and thereby indirectly helping to fund and promote
214
hate crimes, hate speech and other acts of terror and human rights
abuses around the w orld.

Bigotry and prejudice is by constitutional law not allow ed favorable

exposure in the South African media – THE BIGOTS THEMSELV ES
SHOULDNT BE EITHER! ( Except of course the bigots expressing
their hate against sexual orientation of course – part 16, section 2c) It
is the same principle as playing speeches by Bin Ladin or Hitler –
even if they're talking about spring days and Easter bunnies – I don’t
want to hear it!
Feel free to do a search for James Dobson on the w eb – w ithout even
typing in the w ord bigot or gay – and you w ill see the furor around him
and his ultra-right hate group called Focus On The Family. There is a
pretty little furor going on in the media and on the w eb around the
man and his bigot allies and likeminded groups like Mass Resistance.
His arguments against us are somew hat amusing, until you realize
these fruitcakes are being quite serious! They are quite damaging
because the religious sugar-coating fools the ignorant bigoted masses
– and they actually believe them because James Dobson is a
minister ! Excuse me? James Dobson is no minister of religion, he’s a
Doctor of child Psychology – and he’s using that trade very w ell in his
chosen field of manipulating the media and the masses to get w hat he
wants. Another man w ho w as famous for those same skills w as Josef
Goebels back in the 1930’s.

Dobson is know n for taking the credible research of eminent scientists

and distorting it to reflect his ow n evil agenda’s propaganda. Take for
example his claims that several European countries have experienced
an increase in divorce since legalizing same sex marriage! Bogus and
entirely untrue!

But don’t take my w ord for it, let’s take a look on the w eb:
“ James Dobson (Thanks again to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
http://en.w ikipedia.org/w iki/James_Dobson
James Clayton " Jim" Dobson (born April 21, 1936 in Shreveport,
Louisiana) is an American evangelical Christian and chair man of the
board of Focus on the Fam ily, a nonprofit organization he founded in
1977, from w hich he has never drawn a salary, but which has
promoted his related books and publications, yielding him royalties
only for sales through other venues.[1] As part of his role in the
215
organization, he produces the daily radio program Focus on the
Family, w hich is broadcast in more than a dozen languages and on
over 7,000 stations worldw ide, and heard daily by more than 220
million people in 164 countries, according to Focus on the Family' s
ow n statements.[2][3] Focus on the Family is also carried by about 60
U.S. television stations daily.[2] He founded the Fam ily Research
Council in 1981. He is an evangelical Christian[4] w ith
conservative views on theology and politics. He w as recently
named "The Most Influential Evangelical Leader in America" by
Christianity Today m agazine, and Slate has termed him the
successor to evangelical leaders Billy Graham , Jerry Falwell, and
Pat Robertson.[5] In January 24, 1989, he w as able to interview
notorious American serial killer Ted Bundy right before Bundy' s
execution.

James C. Dobson Jr. w as born to Myrtle and James Dobson, and

from his earliest childhood, religion w as a central part of his life. He
once told a reporter that he learned to pray before he learned to talk.
In fact, he says he gave his life to Jesus at the age of three, in
response to an altar call by his father.[7] He is the son, grandson, and
great-grandson of Nazarene evangelists. To this day, he remains a
member of this evangelical denomination, the largest denomination to
come out of the 19th century Holiness Movement.[8] His father,
James Dobson Sr., (1911-1977) never went to college, choosing
instead the life of a traveling evangelist. Pastor Dobson w as well-
know n in the southw est, and he and Mrs. Dobson often took their
young son along so that he could w atch his father preach. Theirs w as
a patriarchal home, in w hich Mrs. Dobson alw ays deferred to her
husband in every major decision.[citation needed] Like most
Nazarenes, they forbade dancing and going to movies, so young
"Jimmie Lee" (as he w as called) concentrated on his studies, and also
became good at tennis.[9]

But Dobson w as draw n to the study of psychology, w hich in the 50s

and 60s w as not looked upon favorably by most evangelical
Christians. He came to believe that he w as being called to become a
Christian counselor or perhaps a Christian psychologist.[7] He
decided to pursue a degree in psychology, and ultimately received his
doctorate in that field in 1967.

216
Dobson first became w ell-know n w ith the publication of Dare to
Discipline.[10] Dobson's social and political opinions are w idely read
among many evangelical church congregations in the United
States.[11] Dobson publishes monthly bulletins also called Focus on
the Family w hich are dispensed as inserts in some Sunday church
service bulletins.[12]

Dobson and his w ife Shirley have two children, Danae and Ryan.
Ryan Dobson, w ho graduated from Biola University in L.A., is a public
speaker in his ow n right, speaking on issues relating to youth, the
philosophical belief in ontological truth, and the pro-life movement.
Ryan Dobson was adopted by the Dobsons and is an ardent
supporter of adoption, especially adoption of troubled children.
He runs http://www.ryandobson.com /, also known as Kor
Ministries, w here he has hosted a podcast since 2005.

Degrees, positions, and aw ards

Dobson attended Pasadena College (now Point Loma Nazarene
University) where he w as team captain of the tennis team, most
valuable player in 1956 and 1958, and later returned to coach in
1968-1969.[13] Dobson earned a doctorate in child development from
the University of Southern California in 1967. He w as an Associate
Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Southern California
School of Medicine for fourteen years. He spent seventeen years on
the staff of the Children' s Hospital of Los Angeles in the Division
of Child Development and Medical Genetics. Dobson is a
licensed psychologist in the State of California.[14]

At the invitation of Presidents and Attorneys General,[3] Dobson

has also served on government advisory panels and testified at
several government hearings. Among m any other
aw ards[specify], he has been given the "Laym an of the Year"
aw ard by the National Association of Evangelicals in 1982, "The
Children's Friend" honor by Childhelp USA (an advocate agency
against child abuse) in 1987, and the Hum anitarian Aw ard by the
California Psychological Association in 1988. (WHAT AN INSULT
THAT IS – CALLING THAT PIG A HUMANITARIA N!) In 2005,
Dobson received an honorary doctorate (his 16th and most recent)
from Indiana Wesleyan University and was inducted into IWU' s
Society of World Changers, w hile speaking at the university' s
Academic Convocation.[2]
217
In 2008, Dobson' s "Focus on the Fam ily" program w as
nom inated for induction into the Radio Hall of Fam e.[15]
Nominations w ere made by the 157 members of the Hall of Fame and
voting on inductees w as handed over to the public using online
voting.[16] The nomination drew the ire of gay rights activists, who
launched efforts to have the program removed from the nominee list
and to vote for other nominees to prevent "Focus on the Family" from
winning.[17][18] However, on July 18, 2008, it w as announced that
the program had won and w ould be inducted into the Radio Hall
of Fame in a cerem ony on November 8, 2008.[19]
TruthWinsOut.org, a gay rights group, has said they w ill protest the
ceremony.[20]

Views on marriage
James Dobson is a strong proponent of what he calls "traditional
marriage."[21] According to his view , women are not deemed inferior
to men because both are created in God' s image, but each gender
has biblically-mandated roles.[22] He recommends that m arried
women w ith children under the age of 18 focus on m othering,
rather than work for income outside the home. He believes this
provides a stable environment for growing children.[ (Utter sexist
bollocks !)23]

In the 2004 book Marriage Under Fire: Why We Must Win This
Battle, Dobson explains w hat he believes to be the Bible' s view of
marriage. Dobson suggests that falling heterosexual marriage rates in
Denmar k, Norw ay, and Sw eden are due to the recognition of same-
sex relationships by those countries during the 1990s (pp. 8-9).[24]
He remarks that traditional marriage "is rapidly dying" in these
countries as a result, w ith most young people cohabiting or choosing
to remain single (living alone) and illegitimacy rates rising in some
Norw egian counties up to 80%.[24] How ever, at least one journalist
investigating the statistics Dobson cites claims he and others have
"misinterpreted the statistics w hile not supporting their interpretations
with any actual research."[24] Dobson writes that "every civilization in
the w orld has been built upon [heterosexual marriage]," (p. 7) and
describes the institution of marriage as "the bedrock of culture in Asia,
Africa, Europe, North A merica, South Amer ica, Australia, and even
Antarctica" (p. 8). He also believes that hom osexuality is a learned
m oral choice and he cites as evidence the life of actress Anne
Heche[25][26] w ho at one time claimed to be a lesbian but no
longer does so. Criticizing "the realities of judicial tyranny,"
218
Dobson has written that "[t]here is no issue today that is m ore
significant to our culture than the defense of the fam ily. Not even
the w ar on terror eclipses it" (pp. 84-85). (This bigot sees ordinary
people trying to live their lives in peace and har mony as more
threatening than terrorist attacks that kill thousands ! His hate is
legendary! What an ass!)

Critics, such as the Hum an Rights Cam paign point out that
Dobson' s views on homosexuality do not represent the
m ainstream views of the mental health community.[25] Mark
Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center opined that such
views prom pt violence, "We have reports that clearly show this
kind of rhetoric paves the w ay to violence. Without question, gay
men and lesbians are the m ost attacked group — and the hate
crimes tow ard them are m ore violent."[27]
Views on schooling
Dobson and Focus on the Fam ily support private school
vouchers and tax credits for religious schools, and they reject
education efforts that support or normalize hom osexuality.
According to Focus on the Family w ebsite, Dobson believes that
parents are ultimately responsible for their children's education. He
encourages parents to visit their children's schools to ask questions
and to join the PTA so that they may voice their opinions.[28] Dobson
opposes sex education curricula that are not abstinence-only.
According to People for the American Way, concerned citizens have
used Focus on the Family' s material w hen challenging a book or
curriculum in the public schools.[3] Critics, such as People for the
American Way, allege that Focus on the Fam ily encourages
Christian teachers to establish prayer groups in public
schools.[3][29] Dobson supports student-led prayer in public
schools.[3] Dobson does not believe allowing student-led
Christian prayer in schools violates the First Amendment to the
United States Constitution.[30]

Views on discipline w ithin the family

In his book Dare to Discipline, Dobson advocated the spanking of
children of up to eight years old w hen they misbehave, but w arns that
"corporal punishment should not be a frequent occurrence" and that
"discipline must not be harsh and destructive to the child' s spirit." He
does not advocate w hat he considers harsh spanking because he
thinks "It is not necessary to beat the child into submission; a little bit
219
of pain goes a long w ay for a young child. How ever, the spanking
should be of sufficient magnitude to cause the child to cry
genuinely."[31] Dobson recognizes the dangers of child abuse, and
therefore considers disciplining children to be a necessary but
unpleasant part of raising children that should only be carried out by
qualified parents: "Anyone who has ever abused a child— or has ever
felt himself losing control during a spanking— should not expose the
child to that tragedy. Anyone w ho has a violent temper that at times
becomes unmanageable should not use that approach. Anyone w ho
secretly ' enjoys'the administration of corporal punishment should not
be the one to implement it."[32] In his book The Strong-Willed Child,
Dobson suggests that if authority is portrayed correctly to a child, the
child w ill understand how to interact w ith other authority figures: "By
learning to yield to the loving authority... of his parents, a child learns
to submit to other forms of authority w hich w ill confront him later in his
life— his teachers, school principal, police, neighbors and
employers."[33]

Dobson stresses that parents must uphold their authority and do so

consistently, comparing the relationship betw een parents and
disobedient children to a battle: " When you are defiantly challenged,
win decisively."[31] In The Strong-Willed Child, Dobson draws an
analogy betw een the defiance of a family pet and that of a small child,
and concludes that "just as surely as a dog w ill occasionally challenge
the authority of his leaders, so w ill a little child — only more so.[31]
(emphasis in original) When asked " How long do you think a child
should be allow ed to cry after being punished? Is there a limit?"
Dobson responded: "Yes, I believe there should be a limit. As long as
the tears represent a genuine release of emotion, they should be
permitted to fall. But crying quickly changes from inner sobbing to an
expression of protest... Real crying usually lasts tw o minutes or less
but may continue for five. After that point, the child is merely
complaining, and the change can be recognized in the tone and
intensity of his voice. I would require him to stop the protest crying,
usually by offering him a little more of whatever caused the original
tears. In younger children, crying can easily be stopped by getting
them interested in something else."[34] Dobson' s position is
controversial; as early as 1985, The New York Times pronounced that
"most child-care experts today disapprove of physical
punishment."[35]

Views on tolerance and diversity

220
In the w inter of 2004-2005, the We Are Family Foundation sent
American elementary schools approximately 60,000 copies of a free
DVD using popular cartoon characters (most notably Sponge Bob) to
"promote tolerance and diversity."[36] Dobson contended that
"tolerance and diversity" are "buzzwords" that the We Are Family
Foundation misused as part of a hidden agenda to promote
homosexuality.[37] The New York Times noted Dobson asserting:
"tolerance and its first cousin, diversity, 'are alm ost alw ays
buzzw ords for hom osexual advocacy.'"[38] He stated on the
Focus on the Fam ily w ebsite that "childhood symbols are
apparently being hijacked to promote an agenda that involves
teaching homosexual propaganda to children."[39] He offered as
evidence the association of many leading LGBT rights organizations,
including GLAAD, GLSEN, HRC, and PFLAG, w ith the We Are Family
Foundation and the foundation' s distribution of elementary school
lesson plans w hich included discussions of compulsory
heterosexuality.[40]

The We Are Family Foundation countered that Dobson had mistaken

their organization w ith "an unrelated Web site belonging to another
group called ' We Are Family,' w hich supports gay youth."[41]
Foundation attorney Mark Barondess suggested that anyone w ho
thought the video promoted homosexuality "needs to visit their
doctor and get their medication increased."[36][41] Dobson
countered, "I w ant to be clear: the We Are Family Foundation — the
organization that sponsored the video featuring SpongeBob and the
other characters was, until this flap occurred, making available a
variety of explicitly pro-homosexual materials on its Web site. It has
since endeavored to hide that fact, but my concerns are as legitimate
today as they were when I first expressed them in January."[40] In
September 2005, Tolerance.org published a follow -up message
advertising the DV D' s continued availability, including We Are Family
Foundation president Nancy Hunt' s speculation that many of the
DVDs may be "still sitting in boxes, unused, because of Dobson' s
vitriolic attack."[37]

Views on homosexuality
Dobson believes that hom osexuality is but a preference that is
influenced through the child's environment. In his view any
sexual activity outside of m arriage including hom osexuality,
deviates from the God-ordained m ale-fem ale marriage, which he
describes as the central stabilizing institution of society. He
221
states that homosexual behavior has been and can be corrected
through some type of Conversion therapy, such as
counseling.[26] Despite Dobson being a formerly licensed
clinical psychologist[14] and expressing his views on
hom osexuality in psychological terms, his views are not
supported by the m ainstream mental health community. His
Focus on the Fam ily m inistry sponsors the m onthly conference
Love Won Out, w here participants hear "powerful stories of ex-
gay men and w omen."[25] However several gay and lesbians who
formerly participated in the Love Won Out conference have
spoken out against the conference, debunking both its
methodology and supposed success.[citation needed] In regards
to the conference, Dobson has said "Gay activists come w ith
pre-conceived notions about w ho we are and w hat we believe
and about the hate that boils from within, w hich is sim ply not
true. Regardless of what the media m ight say, Focus on the
Fam ily has no interest in promoting hatred tow ard hom osexuals
or anyone else. We also don't w ish to deprive them of their basic
constitutional rights." and "The Constitution applies to all of
us."[42] Dobson strongly opposes the m ovement to legitim ize
same-sex relationships. In his book Bringing Up Boys, Dobson
states that "Hom osexuals deeply resent being told that they
selected this same-sex inclination in pursuit of sexual
excitement or some other motive."[43]
Dobson has been quoted as saying that it is the responsibility of
a father to raise his son to be a "m an", and to encourage his
son's m asculinity.[citation needed]

Dobson has been criticized for claiming that sociological studies show
that gay couples do not make good couples; sociologist Judith
Stacey, the author of one such study, responded that Dobson' s
claim "is a direct m isrepresentation of m y research."[44] In
response to Dobson' s claim that "there have been more than ten
thousand studies that have show ed [sic] that children do best when
they are raised w ith a mother and a father w ho are committed to each
other," Stacey replied that "[a]ll of those studies that Dobson is
referring to are studies that did not include gay or lesbian
parents as part of the research base."[45]

Dobson believes that bills expanding the prohibition of sexual-

orientation-based discrim ination w ill lead to a situation where,
"every wom an and little girl w ill have to fear that a predator,
222
bisexual, cross-dresser or even a homosexual or heterosexual
m ale m ight walk in and relieve himself in their
presence."[46](This bigot is so disturbed by other people’s sex lives I
feel it is because he harbors the desperate need for one of his own… )
Views on the environment
Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information
might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (June
2008)

In 2007, Dobson w as one of 25 evangelicals who called for the

ouster of Rev. Richard Cizik from his position at the National
Association of Evangelicals because Cizik had taken a stance
urging evangelicals to take global w arm ing seriously.[47] (And he
seems to advocate gratuitous ignorance and living w ith your head in
the sand to boot!)

Political and social influence

Although Dobson initially remained somew hat distant from
Washington politics, in 1981 he founded the Family Research Council
as a political ar m through w hich "social conservative causes" could
achieve greater political influence.[48]

In late 2004, Dobson led a campaign to block the appointment of

Arlen Specter to head of the Senate Judiciary Committee because of
Specter' s stance on abortion.[49] Responding to a question by Alan
Colmes on w hether he w anted the Republican Party to be know n as a
"big-tent party," he replied, " I don'
t w ant to be in the big tent... I think
the party ought to stand for something."[50] In 2006, Fam ily
Research Council spent more than a half m illion dollars to
promote a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex m arriage
in its home state of Colorado.[51]

In a Salon interview, author Chris Hedges opined that he

believed Dobson wanted to impose a totalitarian system , and
referred to Dobson as a "really dark figure."[52]

A May 2005 article by Chris Hedges in Harpers described Dobson as

"perhaps the m ost powerful figure in the Dom inionist m ovement"

223
and "a crucial player in getting out the Christian vote for George W.
Bush."[53] Discernment Ministries, a site that describes
dom inionism as a heresy, characterized Dobson as belonging to
the Patriotic American brand of dom inionism, calling him "One of
its most powerful leaders.[54]

In November 2004, Dobson w as described by the online magazine

Slate.com as "America's m ost influential evangelical leader."[5]
The article explained "Forget Jerry Falw ell and Pat Robertson, w ho in
their dotage have marginalized themselves w ith gaffes... Dobson is
now America' s most influential evangelical leader, w ith a follow ing
reportedly greater than that of either Falw ell or Robertson at his
peak... Dobson m ay have delivered Bush his victories in Ohio
and Florida."[5] Further, "He' s already leveraging his new power.
When a thank-you call came from the White House, Dobson issued
the staffer a blunt w arning that Bush 'needs to be m ore aggressive'
about pressing the religious right' s pro-life, anti-gay rights
agenda, or it w ould 'pay a price in four years.'... Dobson has
sometimes complained that the Republican party may take the votes
of social conservatives for granted, and has suggested that
evangelicals may w ithhold support from the GOP if the party does not
more strongly support conservative family issues: "Does the
Republican Party w ant our votes, no string attached— to court us
every two years, and then to say, ' Don' t call me, I'll call you'
--and not
to care about the moral law of the universe? ... Is that w hat they w ant?
Is that the w ay the system w orks? Is this the w ay it' s going to be? If it
is, I'm gone, and if I go, I w ill do everything I can to take as many
people w ith me as possible."[3]

How ever, in 2006, Dobson said that, w hile "there is disillusionment

out there w ith Republicans" and "that w orries me greatly," he
nonetheless suggested voters turn out and vote Republican in 2006.
"My first inclination w as to sit this one out," but according to The New
York Times, Dobson then added that "he had changed his mind w hen
he looked at w ho would become the leaders of Congressional
committees if the Democrats took over."[48]

Dobson garnered national media attention once again in February

2008 after releasing a statement in the w ake of Senator John
Mc Cain'
s expected success in the so-called " Super Tuesday"
Republican primary elections. In his statement, Dobson said: "I

224
cannot, and w ill not, vote for Sen. John Mc Cain, as a matter of
conscience," and indicated that he w ould refrain from voting
altogether w ere Senator McCain to become the Republican
candidate, echoing other conservative commentators'concerns about
the Senator' s conservatism.[55] He has since endorsed Mike
Huckabee for president. On June 24, 2008, Dobson publicly
criticized statements m ade by U.S. Presidential candidate Barack
Obam a in Obam a' s 2006 "Call to Renew al"[56] address. Dobson
stated that Obam a w as "distorting the traditional understanding
of the Bible to fit his own w orldview."[57](Riiiiight – look w hat’s
talking, bigot boy.)

Dobson is an intelligent design supporter and has spoken at

conferences supporting the subject, and frequently criticizes
evolution."[58]

Dobson is a frequent guest on Fox New s Channel.[50]

Publications
Dobson has authored or co-authored 36 books”

Notable articles and reports

Dobson served on the committee that w rote the Meese Report on
pornography.[59]
Dobson, James C. (2006-12-12). "Tw o Mommies Is One Too Many".
TIME. Retrieved on 2008-06-21.

Books about Dobson

Alexander-Moegerle, Gil (1997). James Dobson's w ar on America.
Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-57392-122X.
Gilgoff, Dan (2008-04-29). The Jesus Machine: How James Dobson,
Focus on the Family, and Evangelical America are Winning the
Culture War. St. Martin'
s Press. ISBN 0312378440. “ (Been a busy
little boy hasn’t he?)
Let’s try another:

“ Know Your Right-Wing Speakers: James Dobson

225
Updated Friday June 15, 2007
http://www.campusprogress.org/tools/833/know -your-right-w ing-
speakers-james-dobson
We all know Dr. James Dobson as a frontrunner in the Christian
right’s crusade against all things tolerant and reasonable. Dobson
founded the über-conservative Focus on the Family and Family
Research Council, and broadcasts a radio address that reaches an
estimated 7 million American listeners each day. Utilizing Focus on
the Family’s w ebsite, radio show, books and more, consumers can fill
their heads w ith conservative advice on everything from movies to
figuring out their husbands.

But most recently, Dobson has moved beyond his expertise

comparing embryonic stem cell research to Nazi torture and
supporting Roy Moore’s failed quest to display a 2.5-ton Ten
Commandments monument outside the Alabama Supreme Court. His
new est crusade is in favor of global w arming. Yep, Dobson has
openly criticized progressive evangelicals who believe that the
destruction of God’s Earth is actually a bad thing.

Richard Cizik, the vice president of government relations for the

National Association of Evangelicals, has repeatedly called on
Christians to address the issue of climate change. “To har m this w orld
by environmental degradation is an offense against God,” he has said.
Cizik’s focus on the issue has pissed Dobson off.

On March 1, 2007, Dobson and other right-w ing fundamentalists,

including Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council
(w hich, don’t forget, Dobson founded), sent a letter to Dr. Roy Taylor,
chairman of the board of the National Association of Evangelicals, in
which they asserted that “the issue that is dividing and demoralizing
the National Association of Evangelicals and its leaders is related to
global w arming.” This fissure is the result of “a relentless campaign
orchestrated by a single individual in the Washington office, Richard
Cizik.”

“Cizik and others,” says the letter, “are using the global w arming
controversy to shift the emphasis aw ay from the great moral issues of
our time, notably the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage,
and the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children.”
226
Cizik, much to Dobson’s dis may, survived the onslaught. Falling into
the same mindset as many other conservatives, Dobson does not
comprehend the importance of addressing global w arming now ,
before it leads to ecological and humanitar ian disasters. (The phrase
“one flew over the cuckoos nest” comes to mind here.)

Right-w ing parents around the w orld rejoiced w hen Dobson finally
revealed to them the key to child-rearing in Dare to Discipline. First
published in 1972, the tome proved so popular it’s now out in a new
and updated edition. Unlike m ost powerful Christian
conservatives, Dobson isn’t a m inister. He holds a Ph.D. in child
development from the University of Southern California and w orked in
the field for decades, both as a teaching professor and an attending
therapist at the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles. But if you
assumed Dobson would be prom oting peace, love, and
nonviolence w ith a background like that, you’d be wrong.
Dobson’s definition of discipline doesn’t mean threatening to w ithhold
allow ance, but spanking children as young as tw o years old w ith a belt
or a paddle. His advocacy of spanking is one example of how
Dobson’s books and advice place heavy emphasis on instilling
unquestioning obedience to “rightful” authority— bad news for future
activists who want to change the w orld and challenge the system.

In addition to hitting children, Dobson loves to compare those w ho

disagree w ith him to the most genocidal and evil organizations in
history. He has pulled the Nazi card on same-sex marriage
proponents and supporters of reproductive freedom. “While w e sleep,”
he w arns, “the Far Left is advancing a radical agenda” that Dr. Jim
can’t help but describe as the “Nazi-esque barbaris m know n as partial
birth abortion.” Aggrandizing the conservative misconception that
most dilation and extraction abortion procedures occur in the third
trimester, Dobson labels it “late-ter m murder.” But don’t fear if you
disagree w ith him ; he assures us that “everyone is entitled to
change his or her position as long as it’s in the direction of
preserving the sanctity of life.” Thanks, Dr. Dobson—it’s good to
know you leave room for people to think on their own.

Of course, another one of Dobson’s favorite targets is the

infam ous “gay agenda.” According to Dobson’s 2004 book Marriage
Under Fire, the homosexual agenda aims to “ implement a m aster
plan that has as its centerpiece the utter destruction of the

227
fam ily.” What’s in this “master plan”? Dobson says the evil scheme
includes “ overturning laws prohibiting pedophilia [and the]
indoctrination of children and future generations through public
education,” among other things.

Unsurprisingly, Dobson vehemently opposes m arriage equality,

calling it a slippery slope leading to polygam y, bestiality, and
general m ayhem . If w e perm it m arriage equality, he says, “ How
about group m arriage? Or m arriage between daddies and little
girls? Or m arriage between a m an and his donkey?” This guy sure
is sick. Needs help urgently. Pity he’s beyond earthly help though, too
far gone.)

Dobson’s attacks on homosexuals aren’t lim ited to flesh-and-

blood people—no, there’s also the w orld of cartoons to consider.
In 2005, Dobson railed against SpongeBob Squarepants.
Although Dobson insists he never called SpongeBob himself
gay, he’s all w orked up by the use of SpongeBob and his
adorable anim ated pals “ to prom ote the theme of ‘tolerance and
diversity,’ w hich are alm ost alw ays buzzwords for hom osexual
advocacy.”

Cam paigns like these signal Dobson’s move from child

development expert to political powerhouse. Nothing makes this
shift more obvious than Dobson’s heavy participation in the 2004
elections. Consciously flexing his political muscle, he did everything
from making the Biblical case for conservative positions to show ing up
at anti-gay marriage rallies in South Dakota. And it’s clear he’s not
ducking out of the political limelight any time soon. Dobson’s gearing
up for the 2008 elections. He cites the April 18 Supreme Court ruling
upholding the Bush administration’s “partial-birth” abortion ban as a
reminder “that elections matter.” In his new sletter, Dobson writes, “I
believe pro-life voters are more committed to traditional values than
ever and their participation w ill impact the outcome in 2008.” Heaven
forbid the Democrats take charge, says Dobson, because w hen they
do “they go straight for the jugular. They begin passing radical bills by
the hundreds and doing everything w ithin their pow er to stif le the
opposition. The result is a left-w ing revolution that turns the culture on
its ear.” To combat this “revolution,” Dobson’s got more political
capital than ever and aims to keep all ears in Washington, D.C. tuned
to his station.

228
-— Updated by Cara Boekeloo, Calvin College”

Seeing as this bloke is such a large figure in the gay hating w ar, let’s
add in some more:

“ James Dobson: Gay marriage is like slavery, only

worse Wednesday, June 28, 2006 16:45 EST
http://www.salon.com/politics/w ar_room/ (Note WAR ROOM!)
http://www.salon.com/politics/w ar_room/2006/06/28/dobson/index.htm
l
Plans for a constitutional amendment outlaw ing gay marriage came
and w ent again a few w eeks ago when supporters in the Senate fell
far short of the tw o-thirds majority they needed for passage. But the
amendment lives on as a political w eapon for 2006, and Focus on the
Family's James Dobson is already fanning the flames w ith a
commentary written for CNN.

Dobson says voters should remember how their senators voted on the
constitutional amendment w hen they go to the polls in November. We
don' t have any quarrel w ith him there; moderates in Missouri and
Montana and Virginia ought to remember in November that Jim
Talent, Conrad Burns and George Allen did the bidding of the
religious right in June. But that'
s about w here we stop agreeing w ith
Dobson.

The w ill of the people: Noting that the amendment got just 49 votes in
the Senate, Dobson says that there has "rarely ... been a greater
disconnect betw een members of the Senate and the A merican people
who put them in pow er." He' s w rong and ... he'
s w rong. An ABC News
poll taken earlier this month show ed that only 42 percent of the
American people favor amending the Constitution to ban gay
marriage. Thus, the 49 votes the amendment got in the Senate
actually overrepresented the amendment' s support among the
general public. As for the "disconnect"? Even if one existed, it w ouldn'
t
be as rare as Dobson suggests. Just last week, the Senate voted 60-
39 against a nonbinding resolution calling for a phased w ithdrawal of
U.S. troops from Iraq -- despite a USA Today/Gallup poll that shows
that 57 percent of the public w ants Congress to come up w ith some
kind of a w ithdrawal plan.

229
The courts: Dobson says that a better measure of public opinion
comes in the form of ballot initiatives that have outlawed gay
m arriage on a state-by-state basis -- but that "arrogant activist
judges, m ost of them appointed by President Bill Clinton or
President Jimm y Carter, w ill sim ply overturn the w ill of the
electorate." Well, let' s see. When the Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court ruled in favor of marriage rights in 2003, its 4-3 decision
was written by a justice appointed by tw o Republican governors, and
tw o of the three judges who joined in the decision w ere appointed by
Republicans, too. No Clinton or Carter nominees there. Dobson says
he's concerned about Anthony Kennedy, w ho, the last time w e
checked, w as nominated to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan. " It
has already happened in Nebraska, Georgia and Louisiana," Dobson
warns darkly. We' re not sure what "it" is, but if he means that Clinton
or Carter appointees have struck dow n gay marriage bans in those
states, he' s one-for-three. A Clinton appointee did the deed in
Nebraska, but Georgia' s ban w as invalidated by a judge placed on the
bench by former Gov. (and former Democrat) Zell Miller, and the
Louisiana ban fell at the hands of an elected Republican judge. The
Louisiana law has since been reinstated by that state' s Supreme
Court; the other rulings are on appeal.

The inevitable hyperbole: Dobson says that "time w ill tell" if the
religious right can save the institution of marriage in America, and he
notes -- gratuitous offensiv e comparison ahead -- that it took "William
Wilberforce more than 30 years to bring about an end to Britain' s
slave trade in the 1800s." By Dobson' s way of thinking, slaves
could w ait for their salvation, but the sanctity of m arriage cannot.
Referring back to Wilberforce's fight, Dobson says that m odern-
day m arriage crusaders "do not have the luxury of a protracted
victory." “

Here is a link that should help you find your local station that
broadcasts this bigot’s drivel: Ironically it is Dobby'
s ow n SAfamily
website that provides this info to us :
http://www.safamily.org.za/radio_station?PHPSESSID=507a1b367c4
65fbc75f6d359b40f11ab From this you can find their w ebsites and
email/contact details. Looking at the radio schedules for these
stations as shown on their site, I see a concerted effort at reaching a
vast audience, including commentary given in indigenous languages
and repetition several times daily in some cases. Naturally this bigot
and his rubbish w ill be most popular on religious Chr istian stations...
230
Naturally approaching THEM w ill be a fruitless exercise as w e have
already tried to appeal to their better natures – as if they had such a
thing! Of course their org also presents courses at venues around
South Africa, particularly in Durban where they seem to be based
along w ith several other notable heterosexist right w ing radical
Christian sect type orgs like African Enterprise for example.

"Nurturing and protecting families in Africa", indeed!

Against WHAT exactly?

From w hat I’ve seen in my time in activism circles, it is us who needs

the protection.

Dobson and his hate group have taken the lead in persecuting gays,
lesbians and the transgendered in a most vicious, calculated manner
by fighting legal battles to overturn state law s protecting GLBT from
discrimination ( mostly from Dobson and his group and allies), placing
conservative judges on the bench in the US, and using hate speech
and inciting violence – claiming that these anti-hate laws ' inhibit'their
'freedom of religion'and seek to silence Chr istianity ! How bizarre!
These claims should insult the intelligence of any person w ith an
average IQ!

Dobson (a child psychologist and self-ordained religious minister) has

personally crusaded against GLBT, leading " Christian" right w ing
marches and rallies, demonizing GLBT and threatening US politicians
(including the current presidential candidate Barrack Obama)
promoting hate and discrimination based simply on his ow n flaw ed
interpretation of his ow n religion. He has repeatedly tw isted the
message of the Bible and the facts of scientific papers and perverted
the w ork of eminent doctors w ith impunity to suit his ow n slanderous
propaganda machine. In fact, it is clear that his basis for his prejudice
and bigotry is all based on hate, lies, and deceit, w ith no scientific
backing w hatsoever.

It w as he and his organization that recently led the ultra right in their
fight against same-sex marriage in the USA – and still does w ith
Proposition 8.

231
In fact Focus On The Family and one of its subsidiaries ' the Family
Research Institute' are even listed on certain right w ing watch
websites as know n anti-GLBT hate groups in the USA – along w ith
the KKK (Klu Klux Klan), American National Socialist Workers Party
(Nazi), White Revolution and many, many other
racist/sexist/fundamentalist quasi-religious hate groups. What makes
this particular group so pow erful is its founder, a man w ho comes into
your home sounding like a w ell-meaning friend-of-the-family country
doctor giving advice on how to raise your children and address other
family issues. His honey sw eet voice belies his true nature and his
political agenda. It has been repeatedly stated in the press and media
that w hat this man and his vile group seek most is the utter
disempow erment, destruction and annihilation of all that (by simply
existing) counter his idea of a perfect Christian w orld... a w orld w ithout
imperfection, a w orld w ithout sin.

His organization has offic es in countries around the w orld, suitably

sugar-coating their agenda w ith ' Christian'hypocrisy, being in effect
wolves in sheep’s clothing. A suitable comparison w ould be a Trojan
horse. Even in South Africa so-called Chr istian radio stations play this
despicable mans material, (possibly unknow ingly, though unlikely)
supporting his group in its hate drive against the GLBT of the w orld.
Aside from receiving funding from w ealthy politicians in the US and
public donations, this is w here Focus on the Family gets most of its
funding from. The concept of intolerance is not native to South Africa
as it is today, but reminiscent of the old South Africa where all w ho did
not fit the 'Christian right'profile for w hat w as desirable or undesirable
faced persecution and intolerance.

SA Radio, please tell me you really don’t support this vile man and
what he and his vile organization stand for! Remove his program from
your schedule for good and renounce him for the hateful bigot and
hypocrite he truly is!

• Players In SA To Watch Out For:

Jon Qw elane – radical anti-GLBT columnist famed for such literary

humanist gems as “Call me names, but gay is not okay… ” w ho
advocates the removal of GLBT equal rights clauses from the SA
232
constitution, compares gay marriage to bestiality and praises the likes
of Robert Mugabe for his often violent oppression of GLBT in
Zimbabw e. He became famous for bragging that no human rights
watchdog in SA would put a stop to his hate speech – and for being
right about it. He is rumored to be treading lightly in his Media24
ow ned office at the “Sunday Sun” after bringing unw elcome attention
to the group, w hile said to be plotting his next hateful masterpiece.

Angus Buchan – Know n as the “potato preacher”, a former potato

farmer originally from Rhodesia ( modern Z imbabw e) who endures
jokes about his silly hat, claims to have a red phone to God and that
he had a vision of a better South Africa without feminists and gay
people and run by men w ho have ‘rightfully taken back’ w hat w as
never theirs to begin w ith. He advocates “reparative therapy” and
prayer for gay folk to make them straight and speaks against a
secular state just like a good little dominionist should. It is rumoured
that he and Michael Cassidy see eye to eye over a great many things
in their respective interpretations of dominionist policy and how to take
over the w orld, or at least South Africa. Narrf!

Michael Cassidy – CEO of African Enterprise, an org w ith offices

conveniently located throughout Africa, Europe, America and
Australasia doing nothing much at all but peddling Michaels DVD’s,
books and CD’s and other evangelistic material at “seminars” that
claim how concerned he is for the w orld’s poor lost and confused
unhappy homosexual population and urging them to “turn from their
sin” though prayer and meditation and to stop threatening the holy
family and marriage as created by God and other lunatic fringe ex-gay
snake oil. He features frequently on the boards of religious bodies in
SA and elsew here, some of them not appearing overtly radical or
hateful. This man is more connected than Eskom. His name is one of
those that send chills up your spine w henever you see it linked to
mainstream Christian churches and orgs and tends to inspire
conspiracy theories about dominionist plots to take over the w orld.
Narrf! Apparently he fancies himself a bit of a James Dobson Jnr in
2005 w hen he led a SACLA group called MASA to protest
unsuccessfully against the same sex marriage bill in SA and w as
shocked to find that his eight to ten protesters were heavily
outnumbered in the courtroom by the hundred or so opposition group
representatives already seated there. I can only imagine his
disappointment, zorrt! He reportedly has a regular radio spot on
Christian radio stations around the country, to tell everybody how far
233
from God they are. He is most associated w ith NIRSA these days and
seems to be appropriately as happy as a pig in shit about things going
his w ay, though I am sure he is still s marting from that stinging defeat
back in 2005 and news of his NGK allie’s loss of the Moreletta Park
case.

Peter Hammond – one of those interesting fanatically anti gay bigots

from SA (though British-born) that stand out like a badly placed bulge
in a Speedo. Through his Frontline Fellow ship “mission” he sits at the
head of arguably the biggest conglomerate of associated allied anti-
gay hate groups in South Africa, and maybe on the entire continent.
This “reverend” is anything but – he has led the anti-libertarian anti-
human rights, anti-gay campaign in various African countries for
decades now , preaching violent hate against gay folk among others,
and absolute adherence to biblical principles. He is a reformationist in
the extreme and has links to the radical extremist fundamentalist
groups in the USA – the ICCP (on w hose advisory board he has a
seat) the Chalcedon Foundation w hich advocates executions for all,
especially if you happen to be gay. He puts the “mental” back into
fundamentalis m. So many military and covert operation shadows
surround his SADF military past one can wonder what really goes on
behind the scenes in his “paramilitary” sounding dominionist group. To
appreciate the true depth of this holy man’s dementia you should read
some of his insane ranting on the Frontline Fellow ship articles site.
Nothing I could say here w ould ever do more harm to his public image
than w hat he has posted himself there. In fact, “Christians” such as
this fellow make me proud to call myself an agnostic. He is perhaps
best know n for his home-schooling and parenting technique as
demonstrated by himself taking one of his ten year old sons around
his neighborhood one anti- Hallow een eve to “harmlessly paintball”
other kids on their “trick or treat” rounds. Model citizen, model parent.
He also fancies himself as a candidate for the anti-christ by helping to
unite all the w orld churches under dominionis m and conquering the
world by usurping secular governments and replacing them w ith a
“w orld church” that w ill do a much better job of terrorizing people into
thinking his w ay and spilling blood than secular governments have
done so far.

Taryn Hodgson – currently the main speaker for Christian Action

Netw ork. She seems to be an up–and-coming thorn in the side for
South Africans with more than tw o brain cells w ho like to think for
themselves and don’t like others to tell them how to live, especially by
234
a 25 year old “snot-kop met ‘n groot bek”. She is a vehement
creationist and cites the bible at the drop of a hat (given how these
orgs interlink, it might even belong to uncle Angus). On her Facebook
profile she describes herself as “very conservative” and “Chrsitian”
and somew here amongst the plethora of bible quotes, religious
references and w eak attempts to prove to people she has a life
outside of “Christian activism”, “cell, dispcipleship, church” and
working for Frontline Fellow ship. She says she likes to spend time on
the beach. What a fun person she must be, once you get to know
her. No, really. Better to be the devil’s right hand than to he in his
path, eh Taryn?

Danie Van Den Heever – Founder of the South African branch of

Focus on the Family in 1992. A wannabe philanthropist w ho retired
from business making money to open a franchise of FOTF and to
make even more moola for God to protect the precious persecuted
family and poor persecuted church in Africa against all kinds of
dangerous perverts (such as ordinary people born different to himself,
including yours truly). Little about him can be found on the internet,
aside from reverent references on the FOTF sites and references to
Ithemba Mission (founded by van den Heever) and “generous
donations” to artists in the Durban area. I w onder w hat would happen
if he had to realize how many artists are gay? But ssssh – don’t tell
him, the joke w ill be on him in the end!

• Uganda Falls

Anybody hear the news about Uganda? Ironic that the Ugandan govt
should announce its bold civic minded plans to the w orld on THIS day
– Gay Pride Day, isn' t it? Interesting timing, or has it a deeper
meaning? I think it does.

Apparently Uganda officially blames its “societal and moral decline” on

its usual scapegoats – gays and lesbians.

• Henceforth police w ill be mobilized and empow ered to "deal

with" homosexuals for all intents and purposes anyw here in
Uganda.

235
 • A mandatory jail sentence for those convicted of
homosexuality (not even an ACT, simply a state of being!!) has
been set at LIFE!!

Funny how history repeats itself, innit? 70 years ago a madman called
Heinrich Himmler made a speech about how homosexuals w ere
undermining and w eakening the Ger man race. Laws were passed
against GLBT, gay-bashings and persecution began. People lost their
jobs, their homes, their civil rights. A month later gays w ere being
rounded up and carted of to concentration camps, outted and
betrayed by friends, family and co-w orkers – and even churches
(imagine that). A few short years ago another madman in Zimbabw e
delivered a speech on how “unafrican” gay (Zimbabw ean) people are!
And now a similar event in Uganda…

Gay people are being classified as “greedy” and already purges of

GLBT in schools and other institutions have begun. People are
harassed and detained by the authorities w ithout legitimate cause or
due process. Intimidation and violence have already force many
refugees to flee to the UK, only to be forcibly “repatriated”. Their
churches renounce them as “evil” and add to the voices of
condemnation and persecution against them. Their leaders speak
rhetorical nonsense against them. Not to long ago the very same
things w ere all directed against Jew ish folk in Europe… and w e know
where that led, don’t w e?
Interesting, innit? Funny how history repeats itself. And you thought it
was all boring?

There is an old Chinese curse that goes: "May you live in interesting
times". And this is precisely what it means. Interesting times are the
times when we walk thru pools of the blood of our own, amid fears of
our impending demise. Give me uninteresting times instead any day.

So Uganda... I did a little more digging. And I w as right too, care to

guess w hat I found? Anybody? Guess w hat their radio stations play
nationw ide? No, you tell me... ok, ok I’ll give you a little hint – they
focus on something... yeah, that’s right – I think you’ve got it. Add to
that the presence of other so-called “ministries” like “African
Enterprise” and In Touch Mission International (Christian Action

236
Netw ork). Crying wolf? I don'
t think so – maybe now you won’t either.
I could alw ays hope.

Coincidence? No, I don’t really think so. These rabble-rousing shit-

stirring malcontents have, aided and abetted by conservative religious
(naturally) elements in Uganda and the Ugandan government, raised
enough hatred against GLBT folk that for the past ten years they have
been fleeing Uganda as refugees. Just check on the w eb to see for
yourself. Try 'gay persecution Uganda' . How many straight folk even
know about the reason behind all the Ugandan refugees in their
countries? Do they really think the only reason they’re there is
economy? And now the pot is at the point of boiling over... the anti-
GLBT bigots in Uganda are about to tighten the noose around our
GLBT brothers and sisters necks. I pity the poor souls w ho cannot
make it through the nearest border post in time.

The Ugandan Anglican church expresses hate and indulges in

persecution of GLBT in their country. Bishops have taken part in anti-
gay marches baying for “homosexuals to be starved to death”! FOTF
gets air time in Uganda. Michael Cassidy’s org African Enterprise and
Peter Hammond’s forces ply thier “missionary w ork” there... ironic?
Definitely.

Coincidence? I don’t bloody think so!

Dobson and Cassidy both extend their influence in Z imbabw e and

look w hat’s been happening against GLBT there! And Dobson gets far
more exposure here in SA – and none of the official bodies w ill act to
stop it! I w onder why? I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but
this is the African Union, isn’t it? If the AU doesn’t act against Uganda
on this matter... w ell, then w e know w hat is waiting for us on this
continent, don’t w e? And in lovely Souf Efrika too, naturally.

As it is we can see how things are going here in merry old SA... Hate
speech against GLBT is perfectly legal under any circumstances – as
long as it’s on grounds of sexual orientation! And you thought that the
wonderful SA constitution w as worth the paper it w as printed on!!

NOT FOR US IT ISNT

237
And instead of taking on the bigots, fighting court battles to close the
holes in the constitution that are so big you could drive a hearse
through them – all the big GLBT orgs are nice and comfy in bed with
the bigots in power!!

Are they too damn scared to piss them off in case the govt stops
throw ing them the occasional scrap off the table? They even go so far
as to distance themselves from any other orgs trying to make a
difference! In fact, I know of several smaller orgs who have been
ignored and even opposed by them w hen they dared to take the
limelight and to inspire action from the GLBT populace!

Naturally the "Gay Elite" I’ve heard so much about lately (w hatever
the fuck that is) w ants to keep its good name and its nice cosy spot in
bed w ith the pow ers that be, so w ho cares if newspapers and TV
stations put out a few hateful articles against GLBT? It will blow over,
“it always has...” LOL. That’s w hat they think!

And yet have any of you noticed Angus Buchan, the faith like potatoes
man lately? Wrote a book, made a movie – now he' s using the money
he made off it to campaign voraciously against GLBT r ights and
feminis m! AND PEOPLE ACTUALLY FLOCK TO LISTEN TO THAT
CRETIN!! EV EN WOMEN!! But I guess I shouldn’t be surprised after
all. He w rote a book about faith and ' hy'
s a christen' (“he’s a
Christian”) so “naturally” the nut-bag knows what he'
s talking about!
There are dire times coming for GLBT in SA. Call me a doomsayer,
call me paranoid, call me an idiot if you like – but if w e as a minority
group continue to sit on the quiet side of the field, w aiting for
"somebody else" to fight our battles for us, then WE'RE MAKING IT
HA PPEN!

Why has this happened in Uganda? I'll tell you w hy. Because WE
GLBT let it happen.

• It happened because there are no or few GLBT people in the

Ugandan government.
• It happened because there are no or few GLBT people in the
Ugandan ruling party representation

238
 • It happened because there are no or few GLBT people in the
Ugandan opposition representation in their cabinet.
• It happened because there are no or few GLBT people
INVOLVED in the making of that country's laws.

IF WE IN SA SIT EVERY DANCE O UT, SOONER OR LATER THE

MUSIC IS GOING TO STOP FOR US AS WELL.

We need to be involved and represented at every level of government

– and w e need to take an interest in the affairs of state which concern
us directly. Failure to do this is SUICIDE.

And so my GLBT brothers and sisters in South Africa – Uganda has

fallen... Another victory for the religious right w ing bigots in their global
war on GLBT! I just can’t resist the satisfaction (and irony) in saying “I
FUCKING TOLD YOU SO!!!”

• Git Yer Snake Oil Here!

There is a new insidious evil rearing its head in SA these days. The
so-called ‘ex-gay’ movement that takes the false claim that being
GLBT is a choice a step further – claiming to be able to provide
“therapy” to gays in order to “make them straight”! Talk about
charlatans and junk science! Below is an article from the Alaska Daily
New s:
“Dangers of So-called "Ex-Gay" Programs
Illuminated by Op-Ed in the Anchorage Daily News
New sw eek WebEditors@new sweek.com
In light of the revelation that vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin' s
former church in Wasilla, Alaska promotes so-called "ex-gay"
conferences, the Anchorage Daily News published a September 22
op-ed titled, "Where is the love in trying to make gays go straight?"
This passionate opinion piece by Alaska American Civil Liberties
Union Policy Coordinator Tiffany McClain points out the concrete
harms that are caused by these anti-gay activists, referencing the
American Psychological Association' s findings that "ex-gay"
programs are harmful to those subjected to them , and cause
depression, anxiety and self-destructive behaviours. Mc Clain says
that they validate "social prejudices that lead to acts of discrimination,
239
harassment and violence." She goes on to communicate that,
"these acts cause far m ore mental harm to gays and lesbians –
and do m ore harm to our democracy – than allow ing law-abiding
citizens to live their lives equally, honestly, and w ithout fear –
regardless of their sexual orientation."
“ Where is the love in trying to make gays go
straight?
http://www.adn.com/opinion/compass/story/534077.html
By TIFFANY McCLAIN
Published: September 22nd, 2008 10:41 PM
One of my earliest memories is being told by the principal of my
Christian school that along w ith Prince fans and devotees of the rock
band, Kiss homosexuals w ere going to hell.
I w as only 6 years old and had never heard of a homosexual, but my
principal w as happy to spell it out for his elementary school audience:
“Homosexuals are men w ho have sex with men.” By the end of the
school day, I w as in tears, convinced that my mother’s love for Prince
had doomed us both for eternity.
At the time, homosexuality had no relevance to my life, and because
after this incident my mother promptly enrolled me in public school, I
was spared any additional attempts to prevent me from grow ing up to
be gay. But w hat about the children w hose parents weren’t aw are of
what their kids w ere being taught? Or w hose parents’ beliefs might
have been more in line w ith that of the principal’s? What about the
slightly older child, already aw are of his or her attraction to people of
the same sex, forced to come of age weighed dow n by this message
of condemnation? For years, these children remained vulnerable to
the harmful teachings of adults who used their authority and their
religious standing to promote an anti-gay agenda under the guise of
Christian righteousness. It is disheartening to know that some groups
continue to promote a philosophy that endangers peoples’ mental
health and validates social intolerance.
Over time, the homophobic discourse of Christian fundamentalis m
has grow n more benevolent in tone. Instead of threatening the
gates of hell, for exam ple, Focus on the Fam ily’s Love Won Out
m inistry claims to help people “ overcome” their same- sex
attractions with “ compassion and grace.” They claim to be able to
“transform” people’s lives w ith holistic therapies and counselling. But
just because the tone has changed doesn’t mean that the
consequences have disappeared. In a 1998 position statement the
240
American Psychiatric Association cited the numerous potential risks of
the “therapies” promoted by these ministries of so-called
“transformation,” including depression, anxiety and self-destructive
behaviour. The American Psychological Association, National
Association of Social Workers, and the American Academy of
Paediatrics have also expressed their concern about the harmful
consequences of these ministries on the w ell-being of lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender and questioning people and their families. For
all their talk of love, the Love Won Out m inistry blindly ignores
the love and affection that exists between gay and lesbian
couples. We are portrayed as emotionally stunted individuals
w ith no interest in each other beyond the physical, thereby
dim inishing public respect for and recognition of our
relationships and fam ilies.
If you look beneath the “self-help”-styled rhetoric, at the core of their
philosophy is the belief that if you’re gay or lesbian, there is something
fundamentally w rong with you that needs to be changed. Not only is
this belief m edically incorrect — psychiatrists dism issed it
alm ost 40 years ago — it also implicitly validates social prejudices
that lead to acts of discrimination, harassment and violence. These
acts cause far more mental har m to gays and lesbians — and do
more har m to our democracy — than allow ing law -abiding citizens to
live their lives equally, honestly, and w ithout fear — regardless of their
sexual orientation.
I w ork for the American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska, an
organization that protects the right of every citizen to believe in and
promote the religion of their choice. Focus on the Family has every
right to bring its Love Won Out conference all the w ay to Anchorage
and share its mission w ith whoever is w illing to listen. But our
Constitution also grants me the right to urge you — for the sake of
your loved ones’ mental w ell-being and happiness, for the sake of
promoting a more democratic and compassionate community, and in
the name of love — not to believe a w ord they say.
Tiffany McClain is Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Public Policy
Coordinator for ACLU of Alaska in Anchorage.”

241
 • Right Wing Anti-GLBTIQ Organizations (USA)
The follow ing is a list of radical religious right w ing groups based in
the USA, draw n from various sources on the w eb.

The Chalcedon Foundation

“Chalcedon Foundation From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.w ikipedia.org/w iki/Chalcedon_Foundation
The Chalcedon Foundation is a Christian Reconstructionist
organization founded by Rousas John Rushdoony. Named for the
Council of Chalcedon[1], it has also included w ell-know n theologians
such as Gary North, w ho later founded his ow n organization, the
Institute for Christian Economics.
The Chalcedon Foundation w as officially founded by R. J. Rushdoony
in the summer of 1965. In 1971, Gary North w as hired part time, and
tw o years later North w as hired full-time w hile Greg Bahnsen w as also
hired. Rushdoony founded Ross House Books in 1976, the same year
in w hich North and Bahnsen leave the Foundation to pursue careers
elsew here. In 1977, the Foundation' s first office building is built. A
decade later, the organization' s New sletter became a magazine, the
Chalcedon Report. On February 8, 2001, founder R. J.
Rushdoony died. He w as succeeded by his son Mark
Rushdoony, w ho continues to run the organization. In 2004, Ross
House Books merged w ith Chalcedon, and in 2005, the Chalcedon
Report w as renamed Faith for All of Life.
In presenting a theonom ic view of biblical law , the foundation is
often referred to as prom oting theocracy and dom inionism .
According to the group'
s w eb site:
"We believe that the w hole Word of God m ust be applied to all of
life. It is not only our duty as individuals, fam ilies and churches
to be Christian, but it is also the duty of the state, the school, the
arts and sciences, law , econom ics, and every other sphere to be
under Christ the King. Nothing is exempt from His dom inion. We
m ust live by His Word, not our own” .

"Focus on the Family http://www.fotf.org/ James Dobson's

ministry has turned into a business empire w hich takes in hundreds of
millions of dollars a year. Dobson' s radio programs and his folksy
advice are heard on thousands of radio stations. FOTF is perhaps
the most influential but least well known of the radical right

242
groups. Dobson himself is virulently hom ophobic and has used his
large audience as a bully pulpit to pass along his anti-gay view s to
millions w ho listen to him for child-rearing and family tips.
http://www.nndb.com/org/785/000041662/ Here, James Dobson is
listed as a member of the Promise Keepers, and here
http://www.nndb.com/org/769/000116421/ as a member of the
Arlington Group ( Conservative religious political action group, founded
2002).

Family Research Council http://www.frc.org/ Led by Gary

Bauer, the FRC w as a division of Focus on the Fam ily until it split
off for tax reasons. Today it is a major think tank and lobbying
organization, alw ays ready w ith an "expert w itness" for Congressional
testimony, or a quick press release condemning an advance in
equal rights.

Christian Action Network From their w ebsite: “About The

Christian Action Netw ork
http://www.christianaction.org/about/about.htm
CAN is an organization that takes action. We’re not about talk.
We’re not about TV programs. And we’re not about radio shows.
We’re about ACTION.
Christian Action Netw ork (CAN) w as founded in 1990 by Martin
Maw yer, who based the organization on biblical principles, values,
traditions and truths. Mr. Maw yer' s primary goal in establishing the
Christian Action Netw ork is to protect America' s religious and moral
heritage through intensive lobbying efforts — both in the nation' s
capital and at the grassroots level.
Homosexual Marriage And Emigration
CAN has been a leader in lobbying against same-sex marriage.
Through a national campaign of education and lobbying, CAN w as
instrumental in getting Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) pushed
through both houses of Congress in 1996. CA N is continuing to lobby
against initiatives that could grant homosexuals the right to marry.
CA N w on a major court victory in the fall of 1996 w hen a lawsuit
brought by the Federal Election Commission w as deemed baseless
by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on August 2, 1996.

243
 The suit or iginated in 1992 w hen the Democratic National
Committee filed a complaint saying that a 30-second TV commercial
produced by CAN violated federal election law s. The commercial
exposed then-candidate Bill Clinton's campaign promised to the gay
community. The court upheld an earlier District Court ruling in w hich
the FEC's case had been dismissed. The appeals court stated it
found "no error in the thorough opinion of the [low er] court," handing
CAN a major free-speech victory.
CA N has w orked to expose the true agenda of the radical
homosexual lobby. CAN w as instrumental in stopping a federal
policy that w ould allowed homosexuals w ith AIDS the right to
em igrate to the United States without restriction. (Oh, so what
about the heterosexuals w ho w ant to em igrate with AIDS? Oh,
sorry I forgot – they don’t exist, right?)
Disney’s Gay Day:
CAN has also lobbied against the Disney Corporation' s sponsorship
of pro-homosexual, anti-family projects, including its ABC-TV holding,
film companies and publishing projects. In recent years Mr. Mawyer
has gained national recognition for exposing Disney' s annual "Gay
Days" at Disney World. By going undercover during the annual event,
Mr. Mawyer has revealed that the Disney-sponsored events include
public lew dness and sex acts, and even open drug use at Disney
World events attended by homosexual groups.” (If this “brave hero”
had to go “under cover” to these events, then how could they possibly
have been “public”? Hmm?)
The follow ing info provided by http://www.turnleft.com :

Christian Coalition http://www.cc.org/ Founded by Pat

Robertson after his unsuccessful 1988 Presidential Campaign, the
Christian Coalition has become Americas most pow erful special
interest group. It contributes millions to candidates, and its less than
evenhanded voters guides, distributed at friendly churches days
before elections have swayed many major races. This is the public
(read: m ainstream) face of the Radical Right. The CC generally
tones its rhetoric and says "all the right things" w hen covered in the
media.
Promise Keepers http://www.promisekeepers.org/ Bill
Mc Cartney, former football coach for the University of Colorado
founded this men' s ministry in 1992. It has grow n into an impressive
force, and recently brought nearly 1 m illion men to Washington for
a rally. (Patriarchy again?) The Prom ise Keepers eschew harsh
rhetoric, and rather call for men to atone for their sins and treat their
244
families w ell. Additionally, PK has a strong multi-ethnic flavor to it. PK
is still a force to be concerned about, because its leader, McCartney,
is one of the US's leading hom ophobes.
http://www.nndb.com/org/785/000041662/ Here, James Dobson of
FotF is listed as a memer of this organization.

Concerned Women for America http://www.cwfa.org/ CWA

is the nation'
s largest conservative Christian w omen's organization
with chapters in 50 states. Led by Beverly LaHaye, this group is
virulently anti-gay. Its web site features numerous attacks on "the
gay teen suicide myth" same-sex marriage, and other issues of
concern to gays and lesbians.

American Family Association http://www.afa.net/ Led by

Donald Wildmon, the AFA specializes in leading corporate boycotts.
The AFA' s main interests are fighting pornography, depictions of
sexuality, and positive portrayals of gays in art and in the media.
They have led the attack on ABC for show ing "Ellen" as w ell as any
other com pany which dares acknowledge gay customers, such
as American Airlines. (And recently Mc Donalds and Walmart as w ell.)

Exodus International (and associates)

http://www.messiah.edu/hpages/facstaff/chase/h/exodus/ Located
ironically enough in very gay-friendly Seattle, Exodus bills itself as the
largest "gay reclamation" ministry. Exodus promotes the
conversion of gay men and lesbians to heterosexuals through
therapy and submission to Jesus Christ. Proving that turnabout is fair
play, the founders of Exodus have since denounced their
creation as a m istake and something which hurts thousands of
very vulnerable people.

The National Association for Research and

Therapy of Homosexuality http://www.narth.com/ NARTH is
the leading pseudo-scientific group claiming to be able to "cure"
gays and lesbians. Their mission statement reads: "A Non- Profit
Psychoanalytic, Educational Organization Dedicated to Research,
Therapy and Prevention of Homosexuality." They are led by
disbarred former psychiatrist Charles W. Socarides.

245
The Eagle Forum http://www.basenet.net/~eagle/eagle.html
Founded and led by Phyllis Schlafly, its best know n campaign w as
against the ERA. It is active across a w ide variety of conservative
causes, including opposition to equal rights for gays.

Traditional Values Coalition

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/Lou Sheldon leads this organization.
It places opposition to equal rights for gays high on its agenda.

American Center for Law and Justice

http://www.aclj.org/ The ACLJ is the conservative version of the
ACLU. Founded by Pat Robertson, the A CLJ files nuisance suits
against gay rights law s, and generally does as m uch as it can
through the legal system to hold up the cause of equal rights. For
example, in the Haw aii marriage case, it has files several "friend of
the court" briefs against same-sex marriages, and has filed suit
against San Francisco' s gay rights ordinance.

Heritage Foundation http://www.heritage.org/ The Her itage

Foundation is the right'
s primary think tank. It boasts an enormous
budget, and a ready supply of guest commentators on nearly every
issue for America'
s opinion pages. Opposing equal rights for gays
is one topic they are actively promoting.

The Report http://www.americansfortruth.com/ plus opposing

views at http://qrd.rdrop.com/qrd/religion/anti/the.lambda.report Peter
LaBarbera leads this sm all but influential publishing house. They
have produced the infamous "Gay Agenda" video, and put out a
monthly magazine called "The Lambda Report" w hich is singularly
vicious in how low it stoops with its attacks. For more on the Lambda
Report's tactics, follow the second URL above.

Westboro Baptist Church http://www.godhatesfags.com/

and http://revw hite.bestsites.net/ Far from being a real church,
Westoboro Baptist is actually a sm all cult consisting of the
extended fam ily of Fred Phelps, and are located in a compound in
246
Topeka, KS. They are perhaps best know n for flying around the
country picketing the funerals of AIDS victims and gay pride parades
holding signs saying "God Hates Fags" and other assorted witticisms.
While it may be tempting to dismiss Phelps as a buffoon, he actually
has considerable influence in the shadowy militia/reconstructionist
underground.

Rutherford Institute http://www.rutherford.org/ This is the

prim ary institution behind a form of Christianity know n as
Reconstuctionism. The primary tenet of this faith is a belief that
America must be remade as a pure w hite "Christian" nation w ith old-
testament Biblical law as the law of the land. Reconstructionis m is
very influential amongst the milita movement. John Rushdooney is
their patriarch. State-mandated executions of gays is amongst the
“Biblical law s” they w is h to implement.

Operation Rescue http://www.operationrescue.org/ Led by

Randall Terry, Operation Rescue is perhaps best know n for
blockading abortion clinics; how ever, w ith the decline of abortion as a
major issue, they are branching out into anti-gay activities as w ell.
They advocate the use of force against gays and lesbians,
including imprisonment and execution, and have considerable
influence amongst the far, far right.

American Life League www.all.org. Another violent anti-

abortion group that has added homosexuality to its list. Follow the link
above to visit the Pro Life Encyclopedia, a guide to their complete
belief system. It contains some very violently anti-gay material. (This
1700 page book sold from Catholic book vendors is loaded w ith
fanatically anti-gay and anti-feminist rhetoric designed to make your
blood boil and your skin craw l! While online access to this vile
document seems to have been removed from their site, the Pr o-Life
Activists Encyclopedia contents page can still be found here:
http://www.uiow a.edu/policult/politick/smithson/contents.htm and here:
http://www.ew tn.com/library/indexes/PROLENC.htm - the second url
works and w ill allow you access to some of the chapters – Chapter
116 is interesting if not disturbing to people w ith more than tw o brain
cells.)

247
 • Anti-GLBTIQ Organizations In SA
What? You thought these nut-jobs only lived in the USA? Take
another look – these fruitcakes are everyw here, even in sw eet little ol’
SA! We have braaivleis, boerewors and bigots as well! It w ould seem
that for every one of these orgs in the US of A, there is a little offshoot
or clone here in SA – and around the w orld. It is plainly obvious that
these folks don’t have lives of their ow n to live, and are clear ly
committed (they should be – to mental institutions) and serious about
fighting their little w ar on GLBT. Pay attention to the simlar sounding
names “Christian” this or that, usually w ith w ords like “Coalition”,
“Action”, “Institute” or “International, usually interspaced w ith w ord like
“family”, “traditional” and “values”. Rehetoric, bah! Even if those US
hate groups didn’t specifically plant off shoots in SA, then the local
entrepreneurs blatanly copied them. Why not? After all, nothing
succeeds like success.

Focus On The Family http://www.safamily.org.za/default

Focus on the Family Africa is a non-profit organisation, founded by
Durban businessman, Danie van den Heever in 1992. It claims to
have no political or denominational affiliations. They claim its
programs and services are “motivated and based on the Christian
ethics”. They hold “training conferences” nation w ide, spreading their
zealous hate for GLBT through w hat they call “The Truth Project” .
They promote the same policies of their parent organization in the
USA, using principles set by its founder James Dobson. One of their
“educational” programs “ No Apologies” has received extensive SA
government backing in especially rural SA schools, teaching
abstinence from sex and other religious related principles one can
only w onder at.
Let’s take a look at the history page of this nice little group:
“More than ten years ago, Focus on the Family w as opened in South
Africa by Danie and Judy van den Heever, each step accompanied by
much prayer. Betw een October 2002 and October 2003, w e
celebrated our tenth anniversary.

248
These are some of the milestones along the w ay: Focus On The
Family w as founded in 1977 by Dr James Dobson, a psychologist w ho
served 14 years as an associate clinical professor of paediatrics at the
University of Southern California and 17 years on the attending staff
of the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles.
Dr Dobson had observed the consequences of increasing pressures
on the family and recognised that this struggling institution needed
help. He started Focus On The Family from a tw o-room office in
California, assisted by a part-time secretary w ith a rented typewriter.
Since this humble beginning, Focus On The Family has grow n into an
international organisation w ith many different ministries, employing
thousands of employees.
Dr Dobson is recognised as America’s leading family expert and is the
author of more than a dozen best selling books on family issues.
Focus On The Family w as founded on Christian ideals the loss of
which, over the years, has lead to teen violence, substance abuse,
the breakdow n of the family, w omen and child abuse and countless
other problems.
Focus On the Family is a non-profit organisation that operates from
the financial support of those w ho w ant to help re-aw aken these
values. Focus On The Family does not stockpile its financial
resources. Instead, it invests these in its ongoing ministry.
The first South African contact betw een Focus in the United States
and its South African representatives took place in 1989. This marked
the start of a relationship that continues to this day.
Danie van den Heever, w ho helped set up Focus in South Africa knew
that Dr Dobson’s literature w as widely read in South Africa and
wished to not only make this more available, but distribute it more
widely in this region.
Mid-1992 saw the opening of Focus on the Fam ily Southern
Africa in the centre of Durban. Danie van den Heever w orked in a
voluntary capacity, w ith a half-day secretary. Over the next few
months, as the ministry reached out to hurting families, the team w as
increased to four, plus two volunteers. The m ain outreach w as
through radio broadcasts, w hich drew a good response. (This guy
seems to fancy himself as a clone of Dobby, doesn’t he? Or at least
trying to live “in his image”. All he needs now is his own radio show.)
In early 1993, the ministry relocated to Hillcrest and 18 months later
the move w as made to the present premises in Old Main Road,
Hillcrest.
249
In mid-1997 Dr James and Mrs Shirley Dobson visited South Africa –
a special event as Dr Dobson seldom found the time to visit Focus
affiliate offices.
January 1998 saw the opening of the present Bookroom in its prime
position fronting onto the main road in Hillcrest.
Just over a year later, through a donation to the ministry, a broadcast
studio w as added to the premises, to be used for producing Focus
broadcasts with a South African flavour. (Just what SA needed –
bigotry and narrow mindedness w ith a biltong flavor.)
2001 saw the launch of the No Apologies outreach. Focus
passionately believes that No Apologies is a life-saving
programme that w ill help com bat the AIDS crisis in Southern
Africa. Funding has been received from both the public and
private sectors. (Public sector? You mean the SA government is
doing business w ith these people now ?? Is tax payer’s money (pink
money included) being misused to fund hate against us?? What
supreme irony !)
Since then tw o new programmes have been added to the Focus on
the Family Southern Africa Outreach. Heritage Builders and the How
to Drug Proof Your Kids are growing and being used to strengthen
families in Southern Africa.
The ministry has grown tremendously over the years– Focus On The
Family now have over 30 employees and connect with over 20 000
people a month by telephone, mail, fax and email.”
Is that all?? So much damage caused by only 30 people?? I w ould
also like to point out that w hile this is in effect some kind of franchise,
this local branch of the Focus on the Family empire still falls firmly
under the branding and control of the FOTF HQ in the USA, and
regularly receives updates and even visits by high profile members
from the USA office. Jim Daly, the current CEO of FOTF in the USA
attended the opening ceremony of Danie van den heever’s next little
business venture called “Focus on Ithemba” a suitably social-
conscious AIDS orphan ministry (also in the Durban area and also
funnily enough a non-profit organization). While peddling James
Dobson’s anti-GLBT bicycle and political agenda across southern
Africa (remember that the name and badge of this org proclaims
“Focus on the Family AFRICA” and also says “Nurturing and
protecting the families of Africa”) this philanthropist has also
sponsored disadvantaged local artists in exhibitions in KZN.
I w ould like to note that since one of our SA advocacy orgs launched
a campaign to ban FOTF broadcasts from SA radio, (indicating the
250
evidence to be found on simple basic w eb searches and the hateful
mater ial in the books section on the SAfamily.org w ebsite) FOTF has
cleaned up its SA w ebsite’s act slightly – almost no reference to
homosexuality can now be found on it, w hereas only weeks before a
plethora of anti-gay literature w as easily visible on its book store page.
Much of it w as of the “Love Won Out” and “the truth about
homosexuality” common or garden variety ex-gay crap you can easily
trace across the internet. I can even remember references to “the Pink
Agenda”. Now there are only tw o items and these don’t even feature a
reference to this subject in their titles. Also, the only reference to
homosexuality I can now find is in the newsletters of one Dr James
Dobson, like this one: ( It’s quite long, but bear w ith me – it is w ell
worth the effort to see inside the mind of a tw isted genius and w orth a
few laughs too.)
“ June 2008 - Judicial Tyranny and California Lunacy
http://www.safamily.org.za/newsletter_dob?mode=content&id=56204
&refto=3644
“Dear Friends:
What a shocking lurch to the left has occurred in the state of California
where two imperious courts have recently forced themselves and their
biases into the institution of the family. The first of these unfortunate
decisions w as issued by the Los Angeles-based Second District Court
of Appeal, w hich declared it illegal for parents w ithout teaching
licenses to home school their ow n flesh and blood. Three judges
based this ruling on charges against a single family w hom they
considered to be dysfunctional and abusive. From this one case, they
ruled that uncredentialed parents w ho home school their children are
in violation of the law . The implications are that the state’s
estim ated 200,000 home-schooled students are being harmed by
the efforts of their parents. Does that make sense to anyone? (Only
to sane people, Dobby.) Obviously not, but the state’s home-schooling
parents w ere told they w ere acting in violation of the law .
Consider the arrogance of this court. It conducted no investigation
of home schools nor evaluated the children w ho are being educated
at home. The facts w ere obviously irrelevant. (What facts, Dobby?
You mean the homosexual agenda? Or the abortionist agenda? Or
your ow n?) The judges w ho issued this ruling believe they know more
about parenting techniques and the education of children than the
mothers and fathers who are sacrif icing mightily to raise them
properly. We have to ask, w hat transformed these three judges, w ho
are law yers, after all, into authorities on the issues at hand? (What
made you an authority, w hile w e’re at it?) Have they ever w orked w ith
251
children or completed graduate degrees in child development or
psychology or pediatrics or education or family life? I doubt it. (Have
90% of all parents?)
They might not even be parents, or if they are, w ho know s how
effectively they did the job w hen their children w ere young.
Regardless of their qualifications or lack of relevant training, they
review ed this one family and decreed that home-schooling parents
would be required to either funnel their kids into government schools
or enroll them in potentially cost-prohibitive private institutions. The
only other option for home-schooling parents w ould have been to
expend the money and time necessary to get a teaching license. This
is a dramatic example of judicial tyranny in action, and today’s legal
system seems to cherish it. Political pow er is a highly addictive drug.
(Yes, and it seems it’s bitten you, hasn’t it? Judicial tyranny is also a
right w ing catch phrase isn’t it, Phil Rosenthal? It’s dominionist code
talk for “w e didn’t get our w ay and w e lost”.)
Well, the court decided a w eek later to take another look at its hasty
decision, perhaps because of public outcry. It subsequently invited six
professional organizations and governmental agencies to submit
amicus briefs (or “friend of the court” position papers). They included
the California Superintendent of Public Instruction, the California
Department of Education, the Los Angeles Unified School District and
three California teacher unions. You’ll notice that each of these invited
groups is identified w ith government schools. The majority of them
have opposed home education. The court did not specifically invite a
response from the Home School Legal Defense Association or any
other home-school organizations. It w ould appear that the court is
seeking to stack the deck. Judicial tyranny continues.” (You’re just
whining because you can’t get to stack the deck this time yourself,
you sore loser.)
That is w hy it w ould be helpful for the judges to know your views
about their ruling. They are H. Walter Croskey, Joan D. Klein and Patti
S. Kitching. They can be reached at the Ronald Reagan State
Building, 300 South Spring Street, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90013.
Phone: 213-830-7000.
The second decision handed dow n from on high a few weeks ago w as
even more egregious. The California Supreme Court, by a vote of 4 to
3, overturned an electoral decision supported by 4,618,673 voters in
theyear 2000. It concerned Proposition 22, w hich defined marriage
exclusively as being betw een one man and one w oman. The margin
of victory for this affirmation of the traditional family w as 61 to 39
percent. There w ere many Californians w ho fought valiantly for w hat
252
they believed, sacrif iced to help buy advertising space and collect
signatures, mobilized their fellow citizens and then w ent to the polls to
register their preference for marriage betw een a man and a w oman.

Alas, it was all for naught. The Court sniffed, “Not so fast, common
people. We hold the trump card and you lose.” Proposition 22 w as
trashed in a single blow .
Abraham Lincoln said during the Gettysburg Address in 1863 that
ours is a system of government designed “of the people, by the
people, and for the people.” (Which is w hy it is so sad that you can
quote him but not apply it to your ow n life or accept that the w orld
doesn’t w ant what you w ant.) It is sad to note that this concept of self-
determination given to us by the Founding Fathers is no longer true,
at least not in the State of California. The justices there have a better
plan. I w onder how long Americans w ill permit themselves to be
bullied and their beliefs overridden by a few powermongers in black
robes. They have embarked upon a radical social experiment that
carries dangerous implications for society and for generations of
children yet to come. A last ditch effort to persuade the court to stay
its ruling w as summarily rejected by the same four judges w ho
created same-sex “marriage” in California. Arrogance has now been
heaped upon arrogance by these judicial tyrants. (Arrogance? You
mean like people prescribing w hat people should believe in? You
mean like piss-ant varmints like you telling me w ho I may not marry?
You mean like a court making a just decision based on fairness and
equality in defiance of religious dogma, persecution and in opposition
to prejudicial policies of orgs such as yours? You are full of arrogance
yourself, you heterosexist bigot!)
The justices w ho imposed same-sex “marriage” on California and, by
extension, on every other state in the nation, should be etched on the
minds of those inside and outside the Golden State. ( Funny that
people actually voted on these matters in a thoroughly democratic
fashion though, isn’t it? Sure had me fooled.) Once again, it w ould be
useful for you to express your opinions of the issues at hand.
Members of the State Supreme Court, composing the majority in this
case, are Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Justice Joyce L. Kennard,
Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Justice Carlos R. Moreno.
These four individuals can be reached at the Supreme Court of
California, 350 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102-4797, and
by phone at 415-865-7000. They should know that they have over-
stepped their authority and that their decision w ill not be forgotten.
Likew ise, the Governor of California, Arnold Schw arzenegger, should

253
hear from pro-family advocates around the country. He actually favors
the same-sex ruling, after saying for years that he believes in the
exclusivity of marriage betw een a man and a w oman. Well . . . he
changed his mind because the w inds changed directions. You can
reach him at the State Capitol Building, Sacramento, CA 95814, and
by phone at 916-445-2841. (This is precisely how Dobby bullies his
adversaries into capitulation – by sending his minions against them
enmasse in protests, telephone, email and letter campaigns.)
I w onder if any of my readers remember another liberal chief justice of
California’s Supreme Court w ho incurred the wrath of angry voters?
Her name w as Rose Bird, and she continually defied the w ill of the
people. ( Don’t you mean YOUR w ill, Dobby?) For example, she cast
61 reversal votes in 61 death penalty cases despite rigorous
disagreement. Finally, Californians had enough. In 1986, she and
three of her fellow justices were thrown out of office by statew ide
election. Off they went into oblivion. How did Rose Bird react to this
rebuke by the voters? She said that the electoral result w as
engineered by “pow erful interests” determined to “subvert the
judiciary.” Her arrogance w as breathtaking. (Not a patch on yours
Dobby – I’ll bet she w as referring to you as I am now .)
Has it occurred to Californians to consider w hat amounts to another
“recall election” for the four Justices w ho have disregarded the
institution of marriage? I believe it is w orth discussing. Marriage has
been honored in custom and in the law for more than 5000 years. It
has thrived everyw here humankind has resided. (And so has same
sex marriage.) Marriage is not simply a Judeo-Christian concept,
although it finds its origins in the Garden of Eden. The Creator said to
Adam and Eve, “For this reason a man w ill leave his father and
mother and be united to his w ife, and they w ill become one flesh”
(Genesis 2:24, NIV). That is the w ay it has alw ays been.
(BULLSHIT ! Sam e sex m arriages were known to exist in ancient
cultures before the advent of Judeo-Christianity! It is those who
think like you w ho oppressed GLBT through the ages w ith your
hate!) But now , four members of the California Supreme Court have
come to a different conclusion. They intend to jettison the divine plan
and, in so doing, have opened the door to polygamy, group marriage
and w ho know s what else. In his daily update follow ing the shocking
ruling, Gary Bauer, president of American Values, highlighted several
telling and provocative quotes related to the case. In the first one, he
noted that, to their credit, three justices vigorously opposed the same-
sex ruling. Writing for the minority, Justice Marvin Baxter stated
prophetically:

254
“The majority . . . simply does not have the right to erase, then recast,
the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have
understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of
equality and justice. The California Constitution says nothing about
the rights of same-sex couples to marry. On the contrary, as the
majority concedes, our original Constitution, effective from the
moment of statehood, evidenced an assumption that marriage w as
betw een partners of the opposite sex.”
How did the ACLU perceive the victory? Exactly as you w ould expect.
They are ecstatic. Challenges to state marriage amendments and the
federal Defense of Marriage Act are coming. Here are portions of a
message sent to supporters of the ACLU follow ing the California
decision:
“We w on the marriage case in California. No need for hyperbole here;
this is big. . . . And as The New York Times recently pointed out, the
California Supreme Court is the most influential state high court in
America. . . . Marriage in California w ill transform the discussion of
marriage nationw ide. . . . The fact that California is marrying same-sex
couples w ill put considerable pressure on the rest of the country to
recognize those marriages. Even more important, the rest of the
country recognizes that California is America’s cultural trendsetter,
that cultural change in California is usually a preview of what is to
come in the rest of the United States. . . . This w as a prize of
inestimable value.”
Homosexual activist Wayne Besen came up crow ing: (You mean like
you do w hen you take a podium, Dobby?)
“If same-sex marriage becomes a reality in America’s largest and
most influential state — and is not overturned by a Constitutional
Amendment — it w ill be the biggest earthquake to hit in years. The
sheer number of couples w ho will marry (and divorce, it is California,
after all), w ill forever change this debate. It w ill cause a legal mess, as
many of these married couples — often w ith children — migrate to
[other] states.”
So, chalk up another disastrous loss for the defenders of morality and
the family. There may be some good news on the horizon, how ever.
The battle may not be over. Due to months of very hard w ork and
sacrif ice by Ron Prentice and his colleagues at the California Family
Council, and a collaboration of numerous pastors including Jack
Hibbs at the Calvary Chapel Chino Hills Church, Jim Garlow of
Skyline Wesleyan Church, Chris Clark of East Clairemont Southern
Baptist Church, Miles Mc Pherson of The Rock Church, San Diego
Auxiliary Bishop Salvatore Cordileone and other concerned
255
Californians, there w ill be a state constitutional amendment on the
ballot in November. Voters in the Golden State w ill now have the
opportunity to reverse the court’s m omentous decision. I am
sending this urgent call to every church, every conservative
fam ily, and every supporter of m arriage in the state. Organize.
Plan. Give. Cam paign. Talk to neighbors and friends. Get out the
vote. Leave no stone unturned. Above all, pray for God’s w ill to be
done. Everything depends on the outcome. Do not be afraid of
criticism and ridicule. It goes w ith the territory. But what you are
doing is right. I am as certain of that as anything I have said in
the past 35 years.
Before closing this passionate message, let me remind you that
California and the rest of the country w ould not be in the mess it is in if
the U.S. Congress had not ignored and run from their duty to protect
the institution of the family. All three presidential candidates voted
against the Marriage Protection Amendment, and to my know ledge,
not a one of them has uttered a word about the preservation of the
traditional family. Honestly, w e have to assume that they don’t give a
hoot about marriage. (Well good for Obama!) Senator Barack Obama
agrees w ith the decision by the Supreme Court. Senator Hillary
Clinton has attempted to sidestep the issue by repeatedly saying she
supports one-man, one-w oman marriage, yet simultaneously
asserting that it should be left to the states to decide. Senator McCain
has taken basically the same position. Obviously, the states can’t
protect marriage because the courts can overrule them. Senator
Mc Cain’s ow n state of Arizona is considering another effort to pass a
constitutional amendment to protect marriage, but he has remained
ominously silent in response to it. In fact, Republican leadership in the
Arizona legislature has gotten cold feet and is holding up the
amendment. This is an exam ple of why a federal constitutional
amendment is needed to preserve this precious and critical
institution of m arriage. (If anything should be institutionalized,
Dobby – IT IS YOU!)
In 2006, numerous congressmen and senators in both parties issued
press releases saying, “A constitutional amendment is not needed.”
Well, as w e have seen, they continue to hide behind that phony
excuse. Today, California’s Supreme Court has permitted same-sex
“marriage.” Tomorrow , maybe every state in the nation w ill have its
ow n definition of w hat it means to be a family. Can you imagine being
legally married in Oklahoma or Pennsylvania and not married in New
Jersey or Oregon? (Since w hen has anybody petitioned to remove the
rights of heterosexuals to marry you fucking halfw it! All GLBT w ant is
equal rights to marry as well! This w ill take NOTHING aw ay from
256
heterosexual marriage!) It w ill create chaos in the family. New York
Governor David A. Paterson recently announced that he w as ordering
all governmental agencies to amend and revise more than 1,300 state
policies in order to recognize homosexual marriages performed
elsew here in the country. In other w ords, it’s technically still illegal for
homosexuals to marry in New York, but if they are legally w ed
elsew here, their marriages will be just as valid and accepted as the
heterosexual unions among its state residents.
We intend to fight for w hat we believe, and especially for the
fam ily, in the days betw een now and the national election. As an
organization, Focus on the Family remains committed not only to
preserving marriage, but also to fighting so-called hate crimes can
provide. I know the economy is shaky and many friends are unable to
give. If that is your situation, w e ask that you pray for us and the
institution of the family. Please do not contribute to us until you have
met your obligations to your local church. As alw ays, it is the front line
of defense for the Gospel and the defense of righteousness.
Blessings to you and yours. We hope to see you in Colorado Springs
sometime during the summer months. That w ould be a pleasure.
Your friend in Christ, (Like hell you are. You and your hate filled
fanatical kind are no friends of me and mine. And I have my doubts as
to w hether creatures such as you even know Christ at all; or He you
either.)
James C. Dobson, Ph.D.
Founder and Chair man
P.S. There are tw o other recent examples of social conservative
craziness that you should know about. First, the far-reaching nature of
homosexual activism w as recently highlighted w hen it w as announced
that fast-food giant Mc Donald’s — a chain that spends millions of
dollars marketing itself to families — has become a “corporate
partner” of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. The
next time you find yourself in one of their restaurants, I w is h you
would let management know how disgusted you are w ith this new
affiliation. As for me, I w ill patronize other food establishments. To
sign a national petition of objection, please log on to
http://www.frc.org/content/mcdonalds-is-funding-homosexual-
activism--and-im-not-lovin-it-1. “
(WRT the above, it is now October 2008 and in newspapers just last
week, the follow ing:

257
http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view /2008_10_10_Ant
i-gay_Christians_to_eat_McDonald_s_again/
"Anti-gay Christians to eat McDonald’s again
By Donna Goodison
Friday, October 10, 2008 - Updated 8d 17h ago
A right-wing Christian group has ended its boycott against
Mc Donald’s, claiming a victory after an executive of the hamburger
chain resigned from the board of the National Gay and Lesbian
Chamber of Commerce.
But Mc Donald’s says that vice president of communications Richard
Ellis’ decision to step dow n from the business group w as personal and
based on his relocation to Canada, w here he’s accepted a new
position w ith McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Ltd."
In checking the Fam ily Research Council url provided by our kind
benefactor, Dr Dobson – I found that the appeal no longer exists –
and w hy should it? It seems they achieved their aim. So I guess
Dobby w ill be stuffing his chops tonight w ith a sleaze burger from Mc
D’s. At least now we know who the “right w ing Christian group“ w as.
The Family Research Council – a little sideline of Focus on the Family
as you might recall. Like w e really had to guess?)
Back to Dobby’s insane ranting again:
“Brace yourself for the second shocking development. The far left now
controls the Colorado State Legislature, w hich is becoming similar to
the radical legislature in California. The Colorado version has now
come up w ith revolutionary changes in the law that are breathtaking.
Consider this: Senate Bill 200 w as passed recently and quickly signed
into law by Governor Bill Ritter. It defined one’s sexual inclinations as
“a person’s orientation tow ard heterosexuality, homosexuality,
bisexuality, or transgender status or another person’s perception
thereof.” This latter term includes cross-dressers, men who self-
identify as women, women who self-identify as men, and people
who are in the process of deciding.
Until now , establishments open to the public have been allow ed to
restrict certain restrooms and locker rooms to one sex if it made
sense to do so, as it almost alw ays does. With SB 200, how ever,
Colorado w ill no longer have tw o “sexes”; it specifies a myriad of
“sexual orientations” that must be granted access to these and other
facilities, upon pain of substantial civil and criminal penalties for those
who deny them. Those w ho would attem pt to protect fem ales from

258
this intrusion are subject to a fine of $5,000 and up to one year
behind bars. (What makes you think w omen – or anybody needs
protection in a restroom, you disgusting old pervert? What a load of
utter bullshit as usual!) Believe it or not, the ow ners of facilities for
women could be prosecuted even for denying access to men w ho are
dressed normally but simply “perceive” themselves to be female. How
on earth could a manager or ow ner know w hat is in a man’s mind if he
doesn’t reveal it by his clothing? This provision offers a great
opportunity for predators to use this law as “cover” to enter intimate
areas in search of young victims. I suppose Governor Ritter and
liberals in the state legislature haven’t thought of that, or perhaps they
don’t care! They w ere in such a hurry to pass SB 200 and to get it
signed that they ran past all the red flags. (For once they got there
before you did Dobby, and you’re full of sour grapes as usual!)
Restrooms are not the only problem w ith the new law . It adds a
prohibition against discrimination in “sexual orientation” to more than
23 separate provisions of Colorado law that already prohibit
discrimination in various areas of public life. Some of them threaten
the religious liberties of every Christian, Jew ish or Muslim business
ow ner who operates a business on faith-based principles. A refusal to
do business w ith someone based on a sincerely held religious belief
that homosexuality is wrong w ould violate the law . In addition to civil
fines and penalties, s mall-business ow ners can be prosecuted under
the criminal law s of Colorado and spend up to one year in jail for
trying to live according to their faith.
Those w ishing to express their outrage to the officials responsible for
this new law can reach Governor Bill Ritter at: 136 State Capitol,
Denver, CO 80203-1792; phone 303/866-2471; fax 303/866-2003.
State representatives and senators can be contacted by writing to:
Colorado State Capitol, 200 East Colfax, Denver, CO 80203. (Only
one Republican legislator voted for the bill, and only one Democrat
voted against it. For a list of Colorado legislators and how they voted,
please visit citizenlink.org. The Colorado Legislature is currently out of
session and w ill not reconvene until January 2009.)
This letter may be reproduced without change and in its entirety for
noncommercial and nonpolitical purposes w ithout prior per mission
from Focus on the Family.”
To w hom do I express my outrage at this man’s continued expression
of his sick tw isted fanatical hate against innocent people? Which SA
government org has the conscience or balls to listen and act against
you? You got an email or url address for that, Dobby?

259
An article straight (if you’ll pardon the pun) from the horses mouth.
See how this hateful individual manipulates the situation? See how he
fights his little w ar against innocent citizens of his ow n country (and
indirectly around the w orld) from the comfort of his neat leather
armchair behind his desk? Plainly this m ans idea of “religious
freedom” – is to HATE and persecute others! His smug demeanor
indicates to me that he feels good about w hat he has achieved, that
he enjoys his “life’s w ork” in making others miserable.
More on FOTF and Dobby, this time from
http://www.respectmyresearch.org/index1.html
“ Stand Up For Scientific Integrity
A few powerful and influential social conservative leaders have
recently turned to misquoting or co-opting legitimate scientific
research to support their political aims. The m ost prolific spinner of
science is the truth challenged James C. Dobson, leader of
Focus on the Fam ily. In the past year alone, Dobson has conflated,
purposely misconstrued or cherry picked research from at least six
esteemed academic scholars who have publicly condemned him for
misusing their w ork.
Sadly, the mainstream media has not held Dobson or others of his ilk
accountable. Right w ing prom oters of pseudoscience are
routinely offered a national platform to m islead the American
people and serially m isrepresent social and medical science.
Fortunately, an exciting new trend has emerged w here researchers
and academics are standing up to demand that their w ork no longer
be distorted for political gain. These thought and opinion leaders are
boldly stepping forw ard to renounce such deceit and demand a return
to scientific integrity.
If your research has been twisted or misused by Dobson or others,
please report these infractions. Only by shining a light on these lies,
can we a change this deplorable behavior. Together, w e can help put
an end to the dishonest practice of hijacking science in support of
extremis m. “
See, I w asn’t sucking it out of my thumb either – he’s been doing it for
years and getting aw ay w ith it and people have finally had enough of it
and are doing something about it. Perhaps they should w ork on Paul
Cameron next!
Right, enough of that little fascist hate group – on to the next one:

260
Christian Action Network (CAN)/Africa Christian
Action (ACA) also frequently referred to as simply Christian
Action. There is a US org w ith this name ( Christian Action) but a direct
link w ith this org is unclear and could not as yet be established by
myself. http://www.christianaction.org.za PO Box 23632, Claremont,
7735, South Africa. ACA seems to have once been know n as United
Christian Action, w hich is still an umbrella organization consisting of
several other smaller organizations: To support this, a quote from the
Gospel Defence League w ebsite hosted by ACA’s on w ebsite:
“One sign of a resurgent Christian vitality is the Christian Action
Conference which was held in Cape Tow n in November 2003.
Eighteen Christian Action organizations came together to build a
greater netw ork of Biblical activists. They w ant to address key issues
which face South Africa today. Among the participants w ere Africa
Christian Action, Christian View Network, Frontline Fellowship,
Gospel Defence League, In Touch Mission International,
Christians for Truth, Today Magazine, United Christian Action,
and others.” It is later mentioned that there are 40 CAN members
orgs, though I am sure there are more numbering allied orgs as well.
This is how this large body describes itself :
“The Christian Action Netw ork includes 40 m inistries, m issions
organisations and church denominations. Member organizations
stretch as far afield as Nigeria and Malaw i, Kenya and Uganda,
Zambia and Zim babwe, Burundi and South Africa and are all
committed to w orking for Reformation and praying for Revival.
CAN is an umbrella body w hich represents its mem ber
organisations to government and to the media. CAN puts out
press statements, m akes subm issions and representations to
Parliament, and presents a co-ordinated voice on mutual
concerns shared by the member organisations. CAN seeks to
uphold the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all areas of life.
Christian Action Netw ork, PO Box 23632, Claremont , 7335, South
Africa, Tel:021-689 4481 , Fax: 021- 688554. E- mail:
info@christianaction.org.za, Web: www.christianaction.org.za”

261
This is a violently anti-gay organization based in Cape Tow n, South
Africa. It already rehashed the already cliché’d tactic of w riting its ow n
variation of the “Homosexual Agenda” in 2000, calling it “the Pink
Agenda”. It claims it is “protecting the SA family” from rabid
“homosexualist activists” (they hate gay people so much they even
went to the trouble of inventing a new word to describe us) trying to
“take over” South Africa by gaining legal equality thereby removing
their God-given right to persecute GLBTIQ in the blood-stained name
of religious freedom. CAN is also fiercely anti-abortion, anti porn and
anti anything w hich is not strictly according to w hat it calls “traditional
biblical moral values.” They mount letter w riting and email campaigns
against TV stations and newspapers to protest various insignificant
things w hich to most nor mal people w ouldn’t even raise an eyebrow at
the breakfast table. Their chief and most vocal spokesman, Taryn
Hodgeson (a 25 year old Rhodes journalism graduate) is also on the
payroll of Frontline Fellowship as “National Coordinator”. Since their
epic failure to stop the same-sex marriage bill in 2005-6 they have
taken to advocating pro-life, anti-porn issues instead – making the
occasional press statement about the idiocy of science and evolution
vs. the perfect sense of creationism. (I’l bet they’re hoping Sarah Palin
makes it to President – oops, cant do that – she’s a w oman after all –
but then, these guys don’t practice w hat they preach – huh, Taryn and
Dorothea?) They also extensively support and advocate “home
schooling” as a means for Christian parents to keep full control over
their children’s Christian education in bigotry 101. Which indicates to
me they are probably smart enough to think gay people “recruit” in
schools (using secret handshakes and a secret code language called
“Lisp”!) I’d better w atch out, a similar parody in a 1987 US new spaper
resulted in the radical’s creation of “the Homosexual Agenda” and w e
really w ouldn’t w ant that now, w ould we? Enough people have died
over bad jokes in history as it is, thank you very much.
Despite the recent lull in the anti-gay hate speech market, (aside from
the Qw elane debacle of June 2008) they are not too shy to still drop in
as many anti-gay clichés as they can squeeze in w henever possible.
Aside from their extensive anti-abortion program (and ties to Doctors
for Life, w hose w ebsite is no longer accessible for reasons unknow n),
they have also mounted large public pressure campaigns against the
late hour soft-porn programming called Emmanuelle on ETV. While I
personally have no interest in pornography, I still find it rather
presumptuous of her and her supporters to presume to tell other folk
what to do w ith their time in the privacy and sanctity of their ow n
homes. If they’re so concerned about children’s w elfare in this regard
they should mount a campaign to see that children are in bed before

262
midnight anyw ay. The rule of thumb here should be simple enough so
even they could understand it: If you find it offensive, just don’t watch
it. While Hodgson appears to be employed by Frontline Fellowship
she is most frequently quoted as speaking for ACA, which logically
leads to the conclusion that these orgs w ork together under an
umbrella org of w hich Christian Action netw ork (CAN), Christian
Vision Netw ork, United Christian Action or the Christian League of
South Africa are examples. These associations seem to fluctuate in
popularity and vary in use with time. Some of these orgs spring up
seemingly overnight w hen issues such as same-sex marriage crop
up, and then fade aw ay again just as suddenly back into the mists of
obscurity where they belong.
“Christian Action has been involved in a w hole series of pro-family
events and actions in order to counter the relentless attack of the
homosexual lobby against the family.” Such tracts make you w onder
what the hell these people are s moking or snorting and w here I can
get some. Oh w ait, that’s right – they’re high on Jesus, no thanks ! The
follow ing extract from their w ebsite shows what they are all about:
“Since 1991 Africa Christian Action has been mobilizing and
equipping Christians to make a positive difference in society, working
for Reformation and Revival.

• ACA organised the first anti-pornography and pro-life

demonstrations in South Africa.

• ACA published the first South African booklet against

pornography - Finding Freedom from the Pornography Plague
(over 10 000 copies of 2 editions sold out).

• ACA initiated the first nationw ide campaign against

pornography in South Africa (which has succeeded in
persuading over 9 000 stores to no longer stock pornography).

• In 1995, ACA produced the first pro-life book to be published

in SA. Fight for Life - a pro-life handbook for Southern Africa.

• Since 1999, ACA has initiated and co-ordinated Sanctity Life

Sunday, the National Day of Repentance and the
Par liamentary Imprecatory Prayer Proclamation against
abortion.

• ACA has published the most comprehensive Christian Action

handbook for Southern Africa: Make a Difference!

263
 • In 2001 ACA published The Pink Agenda: Sexual
Revolution in South Africa and the Ruin of the Fam ily (by
Christine McCafferty and Peter Hammond) which exposed
radical the homosexual agenda for South Africa. The Pink
Agenda w as the first non-pornography book to be
censored in the new South Africa. The restriction w as
lifted by the Appeals Board after a lengthy battle with the
Film and Publications Board. (This vile pieceof slander is
still only to be found advertised on right wing book sites
run exclusively by right wing orgs – and no wonder!)
• ACA has opposed hom osexual ' m arriages' and other
attacks on the fam ily w ith prayer vigils, placard protests,
m arches, and through presentations at Parliament.”

Extract from: (Christian Action article.) “The Pink Agenda -

CENSORSHIP IN THE NEW SOUT H AFRICA By Robert McCafferty
(A relative of the co-author?)

"Amongst the many law s that have already been passed include
special protection on the basis of homosexual behaviour and
erotic attraction, the legalisation of sodom y, the right to access
donor sperm for single women and lesbians, access to the
defence force for men w ho are attracted to men and special
refugee status for people convicted of sodom y in other
countries. Pro-homosexual education has been introduced in
schools. The authors believe that parents should be informed that
children as young as nine years are being taught that homosexuality
is as normal and healthy as heterosexual marriage, and that tw elve-
year-olds are being taught the mechanics of lesbian oral sex. The
establishment of a right for tw o men or tw o women to have co-
adoption rights, a radical redefinition of the concept of marriage w hich
may include the establishment of "partnerships" and the possibility of
broadening the concept of marriage to include tw o men or tw o w omen
are imminent. These issues have aw akened concern around South
Africa, and across the w orld, and the purpose of this book is to
promote debate on these issues."
Notable personalities involved w ith this group: Peter Hamm ond
(co-author of “the Pink Agenda”, director of Frontline Fellow ship and
speaker for ACA, featured author on ReformationSA.org and Christian
Liberty Books), Charl van Wyk (director of ACA but also deputy
director of Frontline Fellowship), Christine McCafferty (co-author of
“the Pink Agenda” and speaker for ACA). Dorothea Scarborough
(Chair man of United Christian Action, Cape Tow n, now Christian
264
Action Netw ork) Taryn Hodgson, currently the main speaker for ACA
(Seemingly an up–and-coming thorn in the side for South Africans
who like to think for themselves and don’t like others to tell them how
to live.) It seems all these orgs are closely linked through Peter
Hammond, w ho seems to be in effect the “lynch-pin” in a group of
these little hate groups.
http://www.frontline.org.za/mission%20reports_prayer/africa_for_chris
t_BWS_2007.htm
“Tuesday, 3 July, included a conference w ithin a conference, w ith
the Christian Action Netw ork (CAN) Conference overlapping as part of
the BWS. With numerous ministry leaders, missionaries and pastors
affiliated w ith the Christian Action Netw ork participating in the BWS,
the CAN Conference w as integrated into the programme. The
Christian Action Netw ork now has over 40 m inistries, m ission
organisations and church denom inations affiliated. Member
organisations of CAN stretch as far afield as Niger ia and Malaw i,
Kenya and Uganda, Zambia and Zim babwe, Burundi and South
Africa - all committed to w orking for Biblical Reformation and praying
for Revival.
Under the conference theme of "For Reformation and Revival" the
CAN delegates prayerfully considered The Franschhoek Declaration
which was discussed and, w ith adaptations and additions, w as
unanimously adopted. The Franschhoek Declaration includes
statements on the authority of Scripture, the sanctity of life,
m arriage, education, homosexuality, econom ics and ethics. The
Declaration addresses, in a Biblical manner, the attacks on the
fam ily by those who are seeking to legitim ise hom osexual
perversion as "m arriage", ordain for the m inistry those w ho are
involved in un-repentant immoral lifestyles, and the state' s
interference in the parental responsibility of disciplining their
children.”
This book is getting really long now , but I just have to include this!
Sections and highlights as deemed relevant quoted from :
http://www.christianaction.org.za/articles/Draft%20Franschhoek%20D
eclaration.htm
“The Franschhoek Declaration
Christian Action Netw ork Conference
Adopted this 3rd day of July in the Year of Our Lord 2007 at the
Christian Action Netw ork Conference in Franschhoek as part of the
Reclaiming Africa for Christ Biblical Worldview Summit.

265
MARRIAGE, DIVORCE, AND REMA RRIAGE
We deny that members of the same sex can be m arried, in God's
eyes
We deny that marital partners should remain per manently childless by
choice or that marital partners should attempt, by unscriptural means,
to limit the hand of God in granting children to them
We deny that celibacy makes one holy or, in itself, elevates the
celibate'
s holiness above that of other saints (2) or that a married
person may practice celibacy.(3)
We affirm that the Bible condemns adultery, fornication, (1) incest,
(2) homosexual behavior, (3) rape, (4) bestiality, (5) and physic al and
emotional abuse.
We affirm that, as Christ is the Head of m an, the husband is the
head of the w ife; as the Church is subject to Christ, the w ife is to
be subject to her own husband. (Run for the hills – here comes the
mighty patriarchy!)
HOMOSEXUALITY*
We affirm that Scripture describes homosexuality, in thought (1)
or behavior, (2) as sin.

We deny that Scripture' s discussion of homosexuality is culture-

specific, (3) or relevant only to non-committed or "unnatural"
hom osexual relationships.*

We affirm that the Holy Spirit empowers homosexuals to change,

(1) meaning that, by the grace of Christ, those who were
hom osexual can learn holy love (2) for both men and w omen. We
further affirm that sanctif ication in Christlikeness is progressive (3)
and all Christians struggle against their inherent sinful nature until
they reach heaven. (4)
We deny that a person is truly converted to Christ if he or she
continues on in any homosexual practice.(5) (WHAT ARROGANT
SELF-DELUDING ASSHOLES!)
We affirm that spiritual change affects the w hole person: (1)
behavior, im agination, motives, beliefs, and affections. (2)

We deny that spiritual change targets behavior alone. (3)

266
We affirm that, like any sin, hom osexuality can be influenced by
innumerable factors, such as biology, (1) early hom osexual
m olestation, (2) cultural values, (3) opportunities for hom osexual
experimentation. (4) However, those who are homosexual are so
because they have made decisions to be homosexual(5).

We deny that homosexuality is ultimately caused by biology or

life circumstances. We also deny that homosexuality is
something other than a moral choice.(6)
We affirm that w e should devote as much attention to how we speak
with love and grace to homosexuals as to w hat we speak. (1) (Here
comes more ex-gay clap trap again!)
We deny that the clear teachings of Scripture on homosexuality
must be muted in order to reach homosexuals in a
compassionate manner. (2) (But w ait, does this not CONTRADICT
what these nice people said about “We affirm that w e should devote
as much attention to how we speak w ith love and grace to
hom osexuals as to what we speak”??)
We affirm that the preaching of the doctrines of grace and the
fervent worship of the Triune God should attract hom osexuals to
the Church, 1 that they m ight learn to trust, worship and obey
Jesus Christ, (2) (Yeah, to attract them through ex-gay charlatan
ministries and then toss them out when they w ake up to the truth that
they CANNOT change – or your false teachings lead them into
depression or suicide. What loving Christians you are!)
We deny that homosexuals who claim to be believers in Jesus
Christ, and who are committed to practice their homosexual
behavior, should be allowed to continue as communicant
members of the Church of Christ, (3) (Oh w ait, see – there it is!)
We affirm that the Bible teaches that practicing hom osexuals w ill
not inherit the Kingdom of God. (1)
We deny that the Bible offers any hope of salvation to an
unrepentant, practicing homosexual. (2) We further deny that one
who is a practicing homosexual is follow ing Jesus Christ, or that
such a one m ay properly be called Christian. (3)

We affirm that repentant homosexuals who, recognizing the

reality of their sin, call upon Jesus Christ for his salvation,
leaving off homosexual practices, and become born again, are
saved from eternal judgment, including judgment for
267
hom osexual sin, and m ay confidently expect to spend eternity
w ith God and His saints in Heaven. (1) (Thanks, but if it w ere left up
to you and your hateful lunatic kind I w ould choose the alternative
*w inks* - asswipes!)
We deny that practicing homosexuals have any Biblical reason
to suppose they are born again, or that they will not be
condemned for their sins, or that they have any reason to expect
to spend eternity with God, but may only reasonably expect to
spend eternity in hell, separated from God and His saints who
are in Heaven. (2) (Wait, w hat w as it these nice guys said about love
again just now ?)
We affirm that the Gospel of Jesus Christ holds prom ise of
eternal life for all repentant homosexuals. (1)

We deny that there is no hope for homosexuals, or that

homosexuals cannot be forgiven if they are repentant and
forsake homosexual practices. (2)

We affirm that God has called heterosexual men and women into
leadership in Christ's Church. (1)

We deny that a practicing homosexual may be a pastor, a

teacher, or hold any other office of service in Christ's Church, (2)
or be a communicate member. (3)

We affirm that Christians and Christian churches ought to

eagerly share Christ's love for the homosexual, urging them to
repent and be washed from their sins by the blood of Jesus
Christ. (1) (Yay! Ex-gay all the w ay! Fucktards!)
We deny that Christians ought to hate or reject hom osexuals,
(Wait, w hat was it you said again about” We deny that the clear
teachings of Scripture on homosexuality must be muted in order to
reach homosexuals in a compassionate manner.”??) (2) or that
Christians ought to ignore hom osexual sin as if it were a sin not
needing repentance. (3)
*It is our general understanding from Scripture that all of
Scripture’s condemnation of fornication would apply directly to
homosexual sex as well. And it is apparent that Scripture looks
at homosexual sex not only as sin deserving judgment, but also
268
sees it as particularly perverted, unnatural, detestable, and “an
abomination” (Lev. 18:22).”

I w onder who the signatories w ere on this lovely piece of humanitarian

work? I w ould love to know how many church representatives number
among them. Only a year ago. Very interesting, isn’t it?
The section quoted above on homosexuality is a direct quote from a
dow nloadable pdf file stored on a w ebsite of an org called the
International Church Council Project. http://www.churchcouncil.org/ .
Yet another org the FF and CAN tie into – this time an American one.
The pdf file can be found at
http://www.churchcouncil.org/ICCP_org/Document_Articles_Eugene_
Clingman/Topic_18_Homosexuality1_by_Eugene_Clingman.htm
Relevant entries on their w ebsite links page: Selected links only,
there are many more:
Christian Liberty Books www.chris tianlibertybooks.co.za; Christians
for Truth www.cft.org.za; Focus on the Family www.family.org
;Frontline Fellow ship www.frontline.org.za; Gospel Defence League
www.christianaction.org.za/GDL /index.htm ; Kw aSizabantu Mission
http://www.kw asizabantu.org ; Pro Life www.prolife.co.za ; Christian
Action Netw ork www.christianaction.org.za ; True Love Waits
www.truelovewaits.org.za ; Stott, Philip www.scriptureandscience.com
;Restoring Wholeness Ministries (ex-gay group)
www.trailblazerscape.org (ex-gay) ; The Bible' s Way to Victory over
ADHD and other Childhood Challenges www.christianparenting.
learninginfo.org ; The Reformation Society www.reformationSa.org ;
Theocentric Christian Education http://www.homeschool-tce.co.za/
International Christian Ministries American Family Association
www.afa.net ; American Life League www.all.org ; Boundless
Magazine www.boundless.org ; Christian Coalition www.cc.org
;Concerned Women for America www.cwfa.org ; Exodus International
(ex gay) www.exodusintl.org ; Family Research Council www.frc.org ;
Home School Legal Defence Association www.hslda.org ; National
Association for Research & Therapy on Homosexuality (ex gay) Vis it:
www.narth.com.
This site is current and has been updated since the beginning of this
month, October 2008. Any group that can proudly proclaim its
affiliation to such a load of sheer hate is in my sight, a blatant lunatic
fringe group w ith potentially violent undertones that any sane
Christian (and any sane human being) should find alar ming.

269
Christian View Network (MEMBER OF ACA)
www.ChristianView .org Another advocacy group, this one under the
leadership of Phil Rosenthal w ho often spoke out against the concept
at the beginning of the push for same sex marriage in South Africa.
Its founder is Phil Rosenthal. Since then they have been mounting a
mailing campaign from a yahoo group

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/christianview /messages .

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/christianview /message/432 It seems

they picked up on a campaign one of our SA GLBTIQ advocacy
groups in SA launched to have Focus on the Family removed from SA
radio in 2008 based on their clear record of inciting hate against
GLBTIQ and in fighting against equal r ights:

“(3 September 2008)Hom osexual activists threaten Christian radio

On Monday, homosexual activists encouraged by their victory at the

Pretoria High Court against Moreleta Par k NGK Church sent
threatening letters to Christian community radio stations hoping to
silence criticism of homosexuality. They even set up a facebook group
to promote their attack (See below).

The judgement does not imply that speaking against homosexuality is

illegal, but that is something that the homosexual activists w ould like
to promote achieve in future and one of their strategies is to try to
pretend they have already done so.

This kind of bullying by homosexual activists is common in North

America and Europe but is only starting in South Africa.

Please forward this email and ask your church pastor and/or home
group leader if your church can pray against this persecution of
Christianity by homosexual activists and activist judges.

Yours sincerely,

Philip Rosenthal”

270
Below is the letter they were discussing, as forwarded to Phil
Rosenthal by w hoever it w as who received it:

“Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 11:00 A M Subject: Focus on the

Family

>> To w hom it may concern

>> We appeal to your radio station today to stop supporting the Focus
on the Family foundation and to immediately quit playing their material
on your station. Note that the master mind behind the Focus on the
Family foundation is no religious scholar/reverend or minister/priest
but a child psychologist w ith a very clear ulterior motive. Since 1977
James Dobson has w aged a private w ar on GLBT and this is his main
vehicle to gather support and raise funds to wage this war. Note that
you are promoting and spreading religious intolerance and anti-
LGBT terrorism by supporting the aforementioned organisation
and playing their m aterial.

This leads us to question your station's and those entities

sposoring the playing of these inserts'corporate sense of social
responsibility. What m akes this m aterial even m ore insidious and
despicable is that it is disguised as religious m aterial when it is
in fact demeaning to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgendered population. It perpetuates hate and discrim ination
and w e as GLBT citizens of this country find your support of this
bigot and his hategroup offensive.

As you should know , the Constitution prohibits any discrimination

including discrimination based on sexual orientation. Note also the
recent GLBT victory against the NG Moreleta Park Church w hich once
again proved that no church is above the law .

We sincerely hope you heed our appeal, otherw ise we have no other
recourse as to institute formal complaints at the BCCSA and the SA
Human Rights Commission. Follow ing this, w e might also take action
against your advertisers for supporting your use of this hategroups'
mater ial and/or for sponsoring it. In hopeful anticipation of your co-
operation

>> SA GLAAD

>> (South African Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation)”

271
Here’s a nice tear-jerking letter from these model citizens appealing
for donations: “13 August 2008

Dear Friends of Christian View Netw ork

PLEASE HELP SUPPORT CHRISTIANV IEW NETWORK

You have been receiving Chr istianView Netw ork emails for some time
and may have w ondered w hat you might be able to do to help
advance the cause ofChristian values in society.

For many years, ChristianView Netw ork has been at the forefront of
the most controversial cultural battles facing South Africa - abortion,
hom osexual rights, sex education, Christian education in
schools, morality in ministry - ensuring that the Biblical Christian
perspective which is often marginalised by the mainstream media -
does get heard. We have also been fighting hard to protect the purity
of the church against scandalous leadership behaviour and heretical
teaching. In many of these areas, w ith God' s help, w e have made a
substantial impact. Those w ho are at the forefront of the battle are few
and they do face a lot of stress and opposition. Our emails give news
on some topical issues, but behind the scenes w e have been doing
much more to fight for moral values and a Christian view point.

God hasn' t called everyone to be at the frontline of these cultural

battles, but everyone can help in one w ay or other - through prayer,
donating or volunteering. I w ould ask you please to consider
supporting us in one of these three w ays.

* PRAYER: Christian leaders tend to face more attack from the enemy
than the average Christian. Controversies are often very stressful. We
have a prayer team, w hich is frequently updated w ith prayer needs. If
you w ant to join this group, please email back w ith ' Prayer team'in the
subject line and your telephone contact details. With almost every
controversy, things go smoothly for a while, and then we hit problems
that w ould be impossible to solve unless God did a miracle. And thank
God he has done lots of miracles. But right now we are needing some
more miracles. Even if you don' t want to be part of the regular prayer
team, I request please that you remember me and ChristianView
Netw ork in your prayers. Please consider w riting a note to remind
yourself to pray in your prayer or Bible study notebook (or just print
this email and put it w here it w ill remind you).

* DONATE: ChristianView Netw ork is supported by people like you.

(Lemmings.) Please consider making a monthly donation, or a
272
donation tow ards a specif ic issue (e.g. the pro-life cause, Christianity
in education, sexual pur ity, morality in ministry) or project that they
believe in (e.g. w e w ould like to start a current affairs radio
programme) or a once off donation tow ards the ministry. Please
phone me if you w ould like to discuss how you can partner on this or a
different project.

ChristianView Netw ork Banking Details

Bank: Standard Bank

Account name " ChristianView"

Account no "071482040"

Branch code "025009" (Rondebosch)

SWIFT code "SBZAZAJJ"

or at www.ChristianView .givengain.org

* VOLUNTEER: Most of our w ork is done on a voluntary basis. You

can help the advocacy team for example lobbying government or
writing letters to the newspaper or help in other ways such as by
contributing professional skills in for example medicine, accounting,
law , theology, translation, w eb design, editing, artw ork use their
abilities in w ays that help us promote Chr istian values in society. Such
people are often too busy to make a big impact on their ow n, but by
contributing to a team effort of the organisation, w e can together make
a big impact. If you w ould like to help in such w ays please let me
know .

Yours sincerely,

Philip Rosenthal

ChristianView Netw ork

Tel/fax: +2721 6854500

Mobile: +2782 6768966

Email: mail@...Mail: Postnet 114, P/Bag X18, Rondebosch, 7701,

South Africa Web: www.ChristianView .org”

Well, I don’t know about you folks – but I just feel all keen to empty my
pockets for THAT w orthy cause! What a bunch of w ankers!
273
Notable personalities involved w ith this org: Philip Rosenthal
(“the director of ChristianView Netw ork, writer, lobbyist and
experienced campaign organiser on many issues important to
Christian values”)
My assessment of them is they have a nice website, a couple of
volunteers and a big mailing list and some regular donors. I don’t think
other than Rosenthal the “experienced campaign organizer” they have
much else in their arsenal. How ever they do link to ACA and are part
of that group. Their yahoo mail group is active, sending one or tw o
email semi-new sletters per month. The content of these is of such a
radical “I saw a UFO, praise de law d” nature I don’t think anybody but
the most admiring fanatic follow ers w ill give them much support. Then
again, that describes the entire religious radical right w ing.

GOSPEL DEFENCE LEAGUE (MEMBER GROUP OF ACA)

http://www.christianaction.org.za/GDL/index.htm P O Box 587, Sea
Point 8060, RSA; Tel 021-510-6854; e- mail:
dscarborough@mw eb.co.za . Run by Dorothea Scarborough, a
minister’s daughter and a minister’s w if e. The Gospel Defence
League (GDL) seems to be an association of radical Christians of all
denominations. Its aims as stated on its webpage (hosted by Africa
Christian Action w ebsite) are:

• “To proclaim the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ as that

Gospel is set forth in Holy Scripture and generally affirmed in
the historic creeds of Christendom, and

• To oppose any attempts to secularise the Gospel, deny its

supernatural elements, or question the full substantial
deity of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

(Any wonder that the cross on its emblem is a stylized sw ord? It gives
me the shivers. Dominionists, oy!)

“ Background of the Gospel Defence League: Having w itnessed

first hand the effects of the Moratorium on Missions as promoted by
the World Council of Churches in the early seventies, Charles and
Dorothea Scarborough became alar med at the spread of revolutionary
274
humanis m by the Ecumenical Movement through its Liberation
Theology.

In 1974 they joined the Christian League of Southern Africa

founded by the Methodist Minister, Rev Fred Shaw . In 1980, after
the demise of the CLSA, they established the Gospel Defence
League in Cape Tow n. Rev Charles Scarborough w as elected
Chairman (serving for 11 years) and Dorothea Scarborough became
its Secretary. Through contact w ith theologians in Ger many the
League w as able to draw on the know ledge and experience of leading
missiologists and experts on the Ecumenical Movement.

The League furthered its w ork through meetings and conferences, a

New sletter and various Study Papers, w hic h examined ecumenical
concepts (such as Reconciliation, Justice, Oppression, Democracy,
Hum an Rights etc) in the light of the Bible. - As the Ecumenical
Movement moved ever further away from the Biblical Gospel, the GDL
published the series ' Law and Liberation' , a series of papers which
affirmed the Ten Commandments in South Africa' s revolutionary
situation. The quarterly 'Vox Afric ana'
, served to inform the German
Churches that their generous donations to the World Council of
Churches (44% of its total budget) w ere promoting insurrection and
violence in South Africa.

In the 'New South Africa'the GDL has limited its Ger man w ritings to
the UCA NEWS published on behalf of United Christian Action.

In the new Millennium the Gospel Defence League continues to warn

against Humanis m, be it secular, revolutionary, or cosmic. (“Cosmic”?
LOL these folk are so spaced out they’re ALL cosmic!) It affirms the
Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and ' contends for the faith w hich w as
once for all delivered to the saints.'
”

Dorothea Scarborough Born Olivet, 14.2.1936 in Stettin, Ger many.

Born and educated in Germ any, Dorothea m arried Rev Charles

Scarborough in 1958, w hen he w as m inister of Sheffield
Congregational Church, England. From 1964-1968 they served w ith
the London Missionary Society in the Gilbert Islands (now Kiribati).
In 1969 (until 1994) they ministered at Sea Point Congregational
Church, Cape Town.

In 1980 Mrs Scarborough became Secretary of the Gospel Defence

League and has edited the GDL Newsletter. From 1978-1991 she
also authored the quarterly Germ an language paper ' Vox
275
Africana' and since 1992 the German language Newsletter of
United Christian Action.

From 1982-2003 she w as also Honorary Secretary of the

Evangelical Fellowship of Congregational Churches, and from
1986-2004 a m em ber of the national Programme Comm ittee of
the Women' s World Day of Prayer.

In 2003 Mrs Scarborough w as elected Chairm an of United Christian

Action, Cape Tow n (now Christian Action Network) and Chair man-
elect of the Evangelical Fellowship of Congregational Churches.
She is also an executive member of the International Christian
Netw ork, Germ any, to w hich GDL/UCA are affiliated. (Should the
world be w orried? What do you think, Nor man?)

In 2006 Mrs Scarborough w as elected President of The Reformation

Society.”

Christians For Truth

http://www.cft.org.za/articles/masa_letter.htm ( MEMBER GROUP OF
ACA) Yet another Christian revivalist group that is anti-abortion, anti-
GLBT and virtually anti anything that is not authoritarian and Christian
in nature. There are so many crosslinks betw een this org and others
in this section it is almost impossible to notate all of them. Many other
groups freely use CFT material, w hile it also freely uses ACA material
and most often alludes to the material of a certain Dr. James Dobson
and Dr. Peet Botha and also provides much advertising for his hate
site “homosexuality.co.za”. Dr. Peter Hammonds ranting is also often
a favorite reference, often w ith links to the Frontline Fellow ship site.
They have so many “Doctors” on board they could start a hospital,
most likely a mental one. CFT seems to be linked to other CFT
branches in Belgium and the Netherlands (w here co-incidentally
quotes by Taryn Hodgson have appeared in Dutch media about
events in SA).
On its w ebsite (which is also current and up to date in some sections
and years out of date in others (just like their antiquated outlook and
mandate)) it suggests that AIDS is a “gay disease” only and says
that the “w ages of sin is death”, (never mind the millions of straight

276
folk w ho succumb to it each year, they “sinned” so they deserve it and
it w as the gay’s fault anyway – and don’t you forget it) also making the
standard rhetorical posts about homosexuality being wrong and
contra-biblical, along w ith the standard rhetorical bible quotes. The
overall literary attitude reminded me strongly of the latent homophobia
on the America “Conservapedia” w ebsite. CFT stands firmly against
same-sex marriage and still heavily promotes MASA, the Marriage
Alliance of South Africa (even though the battle for same sex marriage
ended in their defeat three years ago). They refer heavily to a site
called homosexuality.co.za (run by a certain Dr. Peet Botha who
expresses blatant hate speech against GLBT in his fanatically
promoted anti-gay religious m aterial in the form of books, DVD’s
and CD’s and even dow nloadable m aterials). The CFT w ebsite
describes Botha in the follow ing w ay on their w ebsite:
http://www.cft.org.za/Default.htm " The Empty Testament"; a brand
new book by CFT member, Dr Peet Botha.” ‘nuff said. This site is
current and w as updated this very morning, on the 29th October 2008!
Notable personalities involved w ith this group: Dr Peet Botha (of
Homosexuality.co.za infamy, also a missionary at Kw asazibantu
Mission and an ordained Dutch Reformed minister), Dorothea
Scarborough of Gospel Defence League (whose site is also hosted
on the CFT site.) Phil Rosenthal (of Fam ily Alliance International
and Christian View Netw ork fame). These same characters have on
various occasions appeared together at seminars for the public
hosted by SACLA – w hich seriously harms SACLA’s public image
and credibility in my view as certain of these folk seem to just scream
“lunatic fringe” at me.
In 2003 CFT badgered a Pride event in Pieter mar itzburg (near Durban
in KZN): This from the CFT w ebsite “Christians w itness at
Hom osexual Pageant
http://www.cft.org.za/actions/20031130_christians_w itness_gay_page
ant.htm About 100 CFT members and pastors from various churches
prayed and handed out 8000 pamphlets at the `Eighth Annual Mr Gay
SA and the Seventh Miss Drag SA Pageant' , w hich took place on 29
November 2003 at the Kismet Hotel in Pieter maritzburg.
CFT and 4 local pastors spoke to the ow ner of the Kismet hotel before
the function, w ho claimed that he w as horrif ied that the "public w ere
against" the pageant and said " I am a married man w ith w ife, children
and w edding ring." He w arned CFT to "be careful" as some of the
homosexuals "might become violent." He said that he doesn' t w ant to
host the pageant again.

277
It w as a moving scene as Christians prayed on their knees outside the
hotel, including Pastor Saul Paul w ho w ept as he prayed for the
people going into the pageant. (Brings tears to my eyes – how
pathetic !)
Some of the contestants displayed their bodies on the hotel balcony.
Some men had `enhanced' parts of their bodies to appear like
women. The praying Christians w ere jeered at by some but other
homosexuals w ere willing to discuss the issue and accepted
pamphlets. Most of the 8000 pamphlets w ere handed out in the
vicinity of the hotel, including taxi ranks.
CFT chairperson in Pieter maritzburg, Pastor Derrick King, says that
he held a discussion w ith a homosexual w ho said he w as already
saved. When challenged about the the need to be saved from the sin
of homosexuality he retorted that he doesn' t want to be saved from
this as "God made me this w ay." (Funny how these bible bashing
idiots simply can’t understand this simple concept!)
Despite the fact that the SABC interview ed the protesters, they chose
to broadcast the gay pageant only and ignore the Christians.” (You
bring shame and dishonor upon real Christians.)
This gem from November 2006:
“http://www.cft.org.za/articles/200611_protesting_perversion_at_parlia
m.htm
Protesting Perversion at Parliament (Article from Africa Christian
Action)
Christian Action has been involved in a whole series of pro-family
events and actions in order to counter the relentless attack of the
homosexual lobby against the family.
The Paganisation of South Africa
The ANC has been railroading through Parliament the legalisation of
homosexual “marriages” in South Africa . The betrayal of this country
into the hands of Marxist mass murderers has led to the paganisation
of this once strongly Christian nation. Once babies w ere protected
from abortion, all foul language, sex scenes and blasphemy w ere
censored out of Hollyw ood films before they could be shown in our
country, Sundays w ere honoured w ith no commercial activity or
cinemas open, in honour of the Lord’s Day, schools started w ith Bible
reading, hymn singing and prayer in the Name of our Lord Jesus
Christ. But, today, w e have legalised gambling, legalised prostitution,
legalised abortion, and now even legalised hom osexual
“m arriages.”
278
Forew arned
Five years ago, Africa Christian Action published the landmark book:
The Pink Agenda – Sexual Revolution and the Ruin of the Family in
South Africa. Even before the book had been published, it w as being
denounced by radical homosexual groups as: “The w orst homophobic
hate speech ever w ritten!” And they w ere calling for its banning.
How ever, author Christine McCafferty’s impeccable research
(Should I laugh out loud now or later??) , with over 400 footnotes
and documentation draw n from over 80 different sources, has now
been fully vindicated. Everything that Africa Christian Action warned
about in The Pink Agenda has been show n to be a clear and present
danger to the family, churches and civilisation itself. (These morons
actually believe this bullshit!)
Social Engineering
The hom osexualists own writings m ake it abundantly clear that,
as part of a vast social engineering project, the pink agenda w ill
not settle for the deviant being declared norm al. They insist that
the norm al m ust be declared deviant. (Yeah right. Only somebody
deluded and paranoid beyond the point of no return w ould swallow
such utter KAK!) The stated goal of radical homosexualists is to force
all of society – beginning in primary schools - to conform to sexual
deviancy.
The Battle for the Family
The gay agenda strategy has been to first pose as “victims of
discrimination”, but once their special rights have been achieved, their
goal is to move aw ay from the defensive “victim” argument to an
offensive “social constructivism” role that attacks the traditional family
and attempts to redefine the basic building block of society. By
demanding government funding and public sanction of homosexuality,
homosexualists are forcing their beliefs on all of society. Even more
than this, they are trying to w in unrestricted access to schools to
promote their perverse behaviour.
Redefining Marriage
Even more than w anting taxpayer funding for their propaganda and
recruitment cam paigns in schools, the homosexualists
(“Homosexualists”? Where do these creative people come up w ith
these interesting new names for us?) want to redefine the social
institution of marriage itself. All the major religions in South Africa ,
including Chr istianity, Islam and Judaism teach that homosexuality is
a perversion. Every religious and ethnic group in South Africa accepts
that marriage should be a life long commitment betw een a man and a
279
woman. (Further more they still think GLBT are made or “recruited” not
born – how bloody ignorant AND stupid can people be deter mined to
make themselves??)
Ignor ing the Electorate
Even though w ell over 90% of the thousands of submissions made to
Par liament w ere overwhelmingly against this perversion of the basic
building block of society, the ruling ANC government has arrogantly
ignored the strong convictions of the vast majority of the electorate
and forced all their members to vote the party line, no conscience vote
allow ed. (Funny how it was VOTED DEMOCRATICALLY into law ,
innit then? Perhaps you should go back to school to learn to count
votes.)
Mobilising for Marriage
By God’s grace, thousands of South African Christians mobilised and
marched against this blatant defiance of God’s Law . On 16
September, Africa Christian Action, along w ith thousands of other
Christians, united under the banner of the Marriage Alliance,
marched for marriage. Christians protested the radical
hom osexual agenda to redefine m arriage and legalise so-called
hom osexual “m arriages” w ith m arches in Cape Town , Durban ,
Johannesburg , Bloemfontein and Port Elizabeth . In Cape Town ,
over three thousand Christians m arched to Parliament and
handed over a Mem orandum to the Chairm an of the Home Affairs
Portfolio Comm ittee. The Marriage Alliance is m ade up of about
100 Christian denom inations and organisations, representing
over 20 m illion Christians. (And these fools still lost – w hy?
Because none of their arguments, spoken or written and
especially in their vile little hate book, MAKE NO SENSE
WHAT EV ER!)
Par liamentary Presentations
The National Co-ordinator of the Christian Action Network, Taryn
Hodgson, went to Parliament to present a w ritten and oral
submission at the public hearings concerning this Bill. Later, on 23
November, I ( Peter Hammond) joined Taryn to present the Christian
Action Netw ork’s objections to the Civil Unions Bill at the Select
Committee on Social Services of the National Council of Provinces
(the old Senate) at Parliament.
Misleading the Masses (You mean as you have been doing?)
We testified that marriage is the basic building block of society. It
provides stability, nurture, training and protection for the next

280
generation. That is w hy m arriage has alw ays been protected in
law . (Since fucking w hen???) It has NEV ER been defined only as a
heterosexual union in SA law !) Any undermining of this foundational
institution w ill have disastrous and far-reaching implications for
civilisation. We w itnessed firsthand the absolute contempt w hich ANC
members of Parliament hold for God, His Law , the Bible and even the
voters. They chuckled w hen we pointed out that the vast m ajority
of voters opposed this Bill and challenged them to hold a
Referendum on the issue.(That is because they, their assertions – as
their entire org and cause are LAUGHABLE.) “We don’t need to follow
the electorate, w e must lead the masses – in a creative w ay!”
declared one of the ANC members in the National Council of
Provinces w hen I challenged him.
A Preference for Paganis m
Although the Parliamentarians listened respectfully, and w ith obvious
agreement and nodding of heads, to the pagan archpriestess Donna
Vos of the Circle of the African Moon, they reacted with great hostility
to the Christian presentations opposing the Bill. ( Possibly because the
pagans w eren’t advocating hate speech and the curtailing of the equal
rights of a social group, you hypocrites!)
A Pagan Perspective
Archpriestess Donna ‘Dark Wolf’ testified that “the pagans, w ho
represent the oldest religion in the w orld, that of the Ancient Greeks,
Romans and Druids, w hole-heartedly support same-sex marriages
and the Civil Union Bill/Act.” She asserted that, as people fall in love
with a soul, it is irrelevant w hat body, gender or parts thereof their
partners had. She asserted: “True democracy must respect all
religions, including paganism.” The pagan presentation claimed that it
was “unthinkable that Christianity should continue to manipulate
legislation” as Christianity w as the “new religion”, paganis m as “the
oldest religion” should have pre-eminence. “We are bound by nature,
trees, plants, hills… not by the Bible or by the Christian God.” (The
principles of a secular state outline freedom of religion and separation
of religion and state. You assholes don’t have any say in government
anymore – get used to it!)
Hostility to Christianity (Your brand of Christianity is nothing but
hostile.)
While the Parliamentarians seemed very happy to accept the pagan
presentation, they vitriolicly attacked the Christian presentations and
representatives. I heard ANC members of Parliament say in response
to our presentation: “We don’t believe in your God. We don’t live by

281
the Bible or by the Christian God. It’s no good quoting to us w hat Paul
or Isaiah said. We don’t believe in your Paul or Isaiah.” Another
Par liamentarian claimed that he had been raised as “a strong
Christian” but that he w ould not impose his ow n religious view s on his
children. They had not been baptised and he does not allow his
religious view s to interfere w ith his politics! “We leave the Bible in
church, here in Parliament, the Constitution is supreme!” (What a load
of trumped up, thumb sucked balderdash designed to drum up
Christian anger against the state just because these little bigots
couldn’t get their w ay!)
One A NC member declared: “The Bible w as used to justify Apartheid,
so we cannot use the Bible to stop homosexuals from getting
married.” ( It w as used to justify slavery too, and now heterosexism!)
What Do Children Have to Do w ith Marriage?
“ Is it right for you Christians to im pose your m orals on everyone
else? Do you expect us to defy the Constitutional Court?” Another
ANC member berated us: “Why drag children into this Bill? What do
children have to do w ith m arriage? This Bill says nothing about
children. We are only talking about a union betw een tw o people. If
children result or are adopted that is another matter. It is not an issue
in this Bill. So w hy are you talking about the children? What do
children have to do about m arriage?” (Precisely, you bunch of
paranoid delusional bigots. You’re grasping at straws as usual.)
When, after these and many other points w ere raised in objection,
challenging us, w e were finally allow ed to respond, I said that children
have everything to do w ith marriage. Every one of us is the product of
a male and female, father and mother - a family. One of the primary
purposes of marriage is the procreation of children. It doesn’t matter
what we call it, or how much social engineering legislation is passed,
hom osexual couples cannot produce children. They are barren.
Hom osexual unions are against the Law of God, and the laws of
nature. (Prove it.)
Victims of Atheism
If some Christians have abused the Bible to justify evil, (You
mean as you are doing here?) that does not vindicate those who
use Atheism, evolutionis m, and situation ethics to justify killing babies
by abortion, exploiting w omen made in the image of God for the
industry of pornography, or using our schools as recruitment
centres for homosexual perverts. As the members had claimed that
thousands had been killed in the name of Christianity, w e need to
remind the house of the tens of millions, in fact hundreds of millions,

282
of people who have been killed in the name of Secular Hum anism
and Atheism – such as in Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao Tse Tung’s
Red China, Pol Pot’s Cam bodia, Mengistu’s Ethiopia, Machel’s
Mozam bique and just across the border in Mugabe’s Communist
Zimbabwe. (Not nearly as much as in the name of religion.)
The Blood of the Innocent Babies Cries Out (Oh, please! You folk
aren’t adverse to spilling innocent blood yourselves!)
At this I w as ruled out of order and told to confine my comments to
South Africa . In response to the Chairlady’s instruction I proceeded to
discuss the over 600,000 pre-born babies w ho have been legally
killed by abortion in South Africa since this house and ruling party had
legalised abortion in 1997. The Chairlady again interrupted me and
told me that the Term ination of Pregnancy Act w as not the
subject at hand, and I m ust confine m y comments to the Civil
Unions Bill.
Double Standards
So apparently, it is acceptable for pagans and parliamentar ians to
attack Christianity, even the Roman Catholic manifestations in Europe
in the Middle Ages, but not appropriate for Christians to respond by
evaluating the fruit of Atheis m in the 20 th Century, nor even in our
immediate neighbouring states. They could attack the Bible, and even
God Himself, but w e were not allow ed to question their legislation or
constitution, or even remind them of the human loss of life resulting
from their policies. (Or yours.)
Freedom is a Fruit of Christianity (Yes, like all the GLBT folk w ho were
tortured to death in the Inquisition – or burned at the stake as
“w itches” for being gay. Or murdered in modern times for being
“sinners” or “perverts” – isn’t that the w ord you use, Peter Hammond?
You gotta love Christian freedom.) I pointed out that Christians
were not seeking to impose their beliefs on anyone else. (WHAT
THE FUCK?? IF THAT ISN’T A TOTAL CONTRADICTION OR
DENIAL OF T HEIR ENTIRE BASIS FOR T HEIR EXIST ENCE AS A
Reconstructionist/Dom inionist ORG I DON’T KNOW WHAT IS!!)
In fact, religious freedom is a fruit of Christianity. It is Protestant
Christianity w hich introduced the concept of freedom of conscience,
freedom of speech, freedom of religion. Liberty is a fruit of Christianity.
No, it is the secular Hum anists, evolutionists, communists,
abortionists, pornographers and hom osexuals who are seeking
to im pose their agenda on the vast m ajority of South Africans
who want nothing to do w ith their perversions and paganism .”
(Yes im sure it is *w ink*, you blame it all on everybody else – you’re
blameless and the good guys in this sordid affair of your own making.)
283
“Defying the Laws of God and Nature (Yeah sure – just more
theoretical “law s” that have no basis in fact – just like religion, opinion
based. As far as these idiots are concerned creationism = 1,
evolution, science and logic = 0. The Devil put those fossils into the
rock to fool us, right?)
I pointed out that their legislation is defying the voters, defying the
clearly expressed w ill of the electorate as seen in over 90% of the
submissions to Par liament, and, most importantly, defying the laws of
nature and of Almighty God. I pointed out that homosexuality is a
crime throughout the rest of Africa . That only seven countries in
the whole w orld have legalised homosexual “m arriages” , and if
we were to introduce it here, we w ould be out of step, not only
w ith nature itself, God’s Law , the legislation of m ost nations
worldw ide, but w ith every other country in Africa as well.
In response, an ANC Parliamentarian declared that he is proud
that the ANC is leading South Africa to become the first country
in Africa to legalise hom osexual unions: “ We are trail blazers in
Africa !” he declared.(Suddenly I have newfound respect for
some of the ANC m embers!)
Contempt for the Voters
Another ANC member mocked us saying: “We passed abortion a long
time ago here in this house, yet we are still here. The voters still vote
for us, even though they oppose abortion.”
Private Ow nership of Women?
Another ANC Parliamentarian declared that it w as “not true that
fam ilies and marriage had alw ays existed. Marriage came into
being w ith private property. To privatise the ownership of
women!” (True, at least in African history. And in some middle
eastern cultures too.)
Marxis m Vs Marriage
I pointed out that that w as the Marxist Leninist theory, but the fact is
that every civilisation and religion had practiced marriage, as being
betw een one man and one w oman, and this w as not the creation of
any government or economic system, but the ordinance of God.
(Nevermind all the civilizations that practiced same sex marriage too,
without their Chr istian god lke Egypt, Rome, Greece, China, Japan
etc.) No government had the authority or pow er to redefine the
creation ordinance of marriage. (Why yes it does. That’s w hat makes
it the government. Perhaps you should study democracy instead of
dominionis m – it’s stunting your capacity for free thought and

284
intelligent reasoning.) Marriage is a religious ordinance, one w hich
was initiated by Almighty God at the very beginning, in the Garden of
Eden.
“So you say!” retorted one ANC parliamentarian.
“No,” I replied, “that is w hat the Bible says.”
“Well, w e don’t believe in your Bible,” declared another ANC member.
(I don’t either – it is fraudulent and corrupt – you’re using the w rong
one!)
“Evidently not, but the day w ill come w hen you w ill have to stand
before Almighty God and give an account of your actions on
Judgment Day.” (Yes, Peter Hammond, and if that is w hat you
believe, then so w ill you – and I w ouldn’t w ant to be in your shoes
then.)
A Cover for Corruption
I challenged the parliamentarians that this homosexual marriage bill is
nothing but a financial scam for hom osexual couples to seek tax
benefits and em ployee benefits, such as pensions, etc. for their
live-in lovers. Several Parliamentarians nodded and expressed
agreement that “yes” that was their intention. (Isnt that the financial
side to every marriage including heterosexual ones? I dare anyone to
deny it w ith a straight face.)
Parenthood Vs Perversion
In response I pointed out that homosexual relationships are barren. It
doesn’t matter w hat you call it, homosexuality cannot produce
children. But true marriages can. (Once again the procreation theory.
Not every heterosexual marriage can produce children you fuckw it.
And children are not the reason for marriage – I thought people got
married for love?) And the reason w hy countries and companies have
extended financial benefits, tax breaks and support to married couples
has been to assist them in the immensely important and sacrificial
task of raising the next generation.(Really? Show me w here it says
that. Tax breaks are simply on the side of medical schemes w hich
also coincidentally cover the spouse of the pr imary member, w ith or
without children. Stop trying to manipulate the facts!) It takes real
sacrif ice, in terms of time and money, to raise children. And as these
children are the life blood of any society, parents, particularly mothers
who are w idowed, need benefits to enable them to raise those
children w ho would be the next consumers, producers, employers and
employees, tax payers and citizens.
Sacrifice Vs Selfishness
285
It is irrelevant w ho one happens to be sleeping w ith, or shacking up
with. That has absolutely no economic benefit to the society. It is
parents raising children w ho need employee benefits from businesses
and tax benefits from governments. It is nothing more than a
financial scam for homosexuals to seek financial benefits for
their immoral lifestyle. And this is not only true for hom osexual
relationships, but for adulterous ones as well. These selfish
relationships cannot in any w ay be compared w ith the sacrificial
dem ands of parenthood. (Who the hell are you to judge the
relationships of others as “self ish”? Especially w hen you have shown
no reason to not regard your entire hate campaign or your life as
anything but “selfish”! Your economic theories are bogus and founded
on sham theories you make up as you go along!)

What a Man Sows that Shall He Reap ( Indeed – and may you reap
what you sow.) In these, and many other w ords, the Gospel of
Repentance w as clearly proclaimed to these parliamentarians. They
cannot say that they w ere not w arned of the consequences of
violating God’s Commands and natural order in such a blatant w ay.”
“ The Pink Agenda
Five years ago, w hen we published The Pink Agenda, I wrote in the
Introduction: “Freedom of speech and toleration of dissent are a fruit
of Christianity. Homosexual activists have used this freedom of
speech to promote their pink agenda to the exclusion of any other.
The homosexual lobby is jealous for the loyalty and approval of all. No
longer satisfied w ith freedom or tolerance, they now demand approval
and conformity. If you think that the homosexual agenda w on’t affect
you or your family – you’re w rong. As this book, The Pink Agenda,
documents, the homosexualists w ant to transform the very fabric of
society. They w ant to homosexualise the schools and the next
generation, and they w ant government funding (your taxes) to do
it.
“Unfortunately, m any in the homosexual movement are intolerant
of any views opposing their ow n. Name-calling is a poor
alternative to debate and those who dare to disagree w ith the
pink agenda are liable to be labeled as ‘bigots’, ‘hom ophobes’
and w orse. Like economic freedom, intellectual freedom is good,
necessary and healthy. We need a free and open debate on the
homosexual agenda.”(You need an intellect to indulge in intellectual
discussion you hateful bigot.)
Repentance and Resistance

286
Unfortunately, instead of a free and open debate, this homosexual
“marriage” bill has been railroaded through Parliament in unseemly
haste, (It took more than TWO Y EARS to pass it – how is that
‘unseemly haste’? You’re just trying to place the blame for your utter
failure on those w ho put you in your place.) running roughshod over
the submissions, protests and legitimate concerns of an overw helming
majority of citizens. As a result, the Christian Action Netw ork is calling
for a National Day of Mourning and Repentance and renew ing its call
for a Referendum on a Constitutional A mendment that w ould protect
the Biblical and traditional definition of marriage as being betw een one
man and one w oman – for life.”
“What You Can Do
If you w ant to do something positive to resist the homosexualisation of
South Africa: forw ard this E-mail: Protesting Perversion in Parliament
to as many friends and contacts as possible; Obtain a copy of The
Pink Agenda book from Africa Christian Action; Write letters to the
editor of your local newspaper and favourite magazine expressing
your concerns; Write to your elected representative at Parliament;
Encourage your pastor to preach on what the Bible teaches on these
issues; Request copies of Hom osexuality and the Bible leaflets
from Africa Christian Action. Be informed. Be interceding. Be
involved. (Sounds kinda like Dobby, huh? Perhaps all these nice
people appear in a class photo together, you know , from the School
Of Bigotry And Mad Science.)
Dr. Peter Hamm ond“ Remember this “philanthropist’s” name – he
comes up elsew here, Frontline Fellowship, Christians For Truth,
Africa Christian Action, Reform ation SA, United Christian Action,
ICCP, he even has ties to the violently dom inionist US group the
Chalcedon Foundation (of former senator J. Rushdoony) which
advocates the death penalty for being GLBT! The more I search,
the more places I find him – like the proverbial cockroach (or bad
penny, but I like cockroach better) he really gets around. In fact his
name and his material’s presence alone affirms their classification as
a lunatic fringe hate group. Add to that the fact that this nice man w as
co-author of the Pink Agenda (lest w e forget). Now how about that?
And these people w onder why the South African public laugh at
them?
CFT also completely oppose the teaching of evolution in schools,
even denouncing (read: viciously attacking) the logical and
reasonable compromise of ‘creationist evolution’ (evolution simply
explaining the w ay God created the universe). Their site is current and
their last news items w ere posted on Oct 15 2008.
287
The overall impression I go is that these people are paranoid beyond
belief – they claim the Christian church is under attack in an all-out
war by “God-haters”, (the “persecuted church” as often quoted in
other sites w herever our friend Hammond appears) in fact I left their
website w ith the impression of having just been in the presence of a
dangerous religious cult! Take a look at their affiliate org Frontline
Fellowship. More of Peter Hammond on http://www.reformationsa.org
a site also peddling primarily other books by the “good doctor.”
Christians For “Truth”? Yet another tongue-in-cheek misnomer, an
oxymoron like “peace-keeping force” or “military intelligence”!

Frontline Fellowship http://www.frontline.org.za/ A

homophobic org specializing in “evangelizing in w ar zones, assisting
“persecuted” churches and working for reformation and revival in
Africa”. This org based in New lands, Cape Tow n has a presence in
Angola, Mozambique, Zambia, Cape Verde islands and the Sudan.
The Founder and Director of Frontline Fellowship is Dr. Peter
Hammond (Co-Author of the anti-GLBT hate m anual entitled “The
Pink Agenda”. It seems “missionaries” do voluntary work for them in
Africa It claims in assorted articles that “There is a battle for the
m ind, a w ar being w aged against m arriage and against the
fam ily” (wonder what they could possibly mean by that?) also echoing
sentiments similar to many of the other groups show n in this section –
and linked to many of them too. It adds: “We need to recognise the
serious threats to Christian Civilisation: The threats of confuse, divide
and conquer, corrupt and conquer, guilt manipulation, the rewriting of
history, the lawlessness of antinomianism, the poison of secularism,
the corruption of worldliness, the covetousness of materialism, the
disastrous consequences of egalitarianism, the confusion of
multiculturalism, the idolatry of the interfaith movement, and so many
other seeds of destruction. Any of these ideologies work like termites
in a wooden house.” And am azingly enough, this “ Christian
m inistry” also advertises “ the Pink Agenda” in its books section.
Strange how this “ministry” also has a pretty little sw ord in its crest. I
hope it rains real hard real quick so these visionaries don’t build their
ark for nothing.

“Ministries” listed as being part of Frontline Fellow ship:

288
http://www.frontline.org.za/about%20us/ministries.htm
Notable personalities involved w ith this group: Peter Hamm ond
(co-author of “the Pink Agenda”, director of Frontline Fellow ship and
speaker for ACA, featured author on ReformationSA.org and Christian
Liberty Books), Charl van Wyk (director of ACA but also deputy
director of Frontline Fellowship), Christine McCafferty (co-author of
“the Pink Agenda” and speaker for ACA). Robert McCafferty
(Communications Director of United Christian Action), Taryn
Hodgson, currently the main speaker for ACA (but on the payroll as
their “international coordinator” (shudder)). It seems all these orgs are
closely linked through Peter Hammond.

Christian Liberty Books

http://www.christianlibertybooks.co.za/ “Christian Liberty Books
specialises in books on Missions, the Persecuted Church, Christian
Action, Home Schooling, Social issues, Church history,
Reform ation and Revival. Christian Liberty Books is a m inistry of
Frontline Fellowship” Christian Liberty Books claims to be “a
ministry dedicated to providing quality books at low prices”. They are
surprisingly (!) only an internet store front, w ith a PO Box in Cape
Tow n as an address. They operate from a w ebsite w hich is replete
with links to the venomous Frontline Fellowship site’s articles by the
way, and proudly advertises the “Pink Agenda”. Funny, I must be in
the w rong business. I w ould’ve thought indoctrination and
disinformation w ould come for free, but it seems even that sordid
“privilege” of thought control costs money these days. Talk about “a
penny for my thoughts”.

From there w e supposedly see the exploded myths that homosexuals

are "born that way" and "cannot change” as part of the rabid
threatening “homosexual agenda”. We learn how marriage, the family
and the child are being completely redefined in law.” Very, very
interesting indeed.

289
Reformation SA http://www.reformationsa.org a.k.a. The
Reformation Society
“Aims to restore and preserve appreciation for our Protestant and
Reformed Christian heritage; and to w ork for Biblical Reformation in
our hearts and homes, congregations and communities.”
Tel: 021-689 4480 E-mail: info@reformationSa.org
www.reformationSa.org
A pretty recent up to date w ebsite which seems to sell mainly Dr Peter
Hammonds little literary gems attacking those w ho dare to differ from
his religious liturgy (such as Moslems and GLBT, how dare they?) I
take it that he is the leading man there because somebody on the site
placed a neat little prayer there “blessing” his radical brand of
Christianity, (probably himself or one of his brow n-nose buddies) w hile
other featured authors books are displayed lower down and silently.
The theme of reformation, family transformation and the “persecuted
church” are practically displayed in lights. Also the link and especially
links to Hammonds latest book are prominently displayed on the orgs
front page. This entity is listed among Frontline Fellowship’s
“Leadership Ministries” on
http://www.frontline.org.za/about%20us/ministries.htm The last know n
director or chairman of this org is listed as Dorothea Scarborough of
Gospel Defence League, another CAN biddy – I mean, body.

Homosexuality.co.za and Peet Botha

http://www.homosexuality.co.za
A one man w ebsite run democratically by Dr Peet Botha and for Dr
Peet Botha, w ho as a listed member of Christians For Truth has
written a plethora of articles and books on homosexuality (and a
virtual sound and video library as well), in fact this site is all about his
works and the hate for GLBT he expresses in them in the name of the
Church and his “God of truth. In fact, it w ould seem he is some sort of
290
self proclaimed “expert” on the subject. This makes me w onder w hy
certain folk w ho hate GLBT so much become focused on their
obsession w ith w hat other people do in the pr ivacy of their ow n
relationships, that they devote a considerable portion of their lives to
condemning it and touring the country to make prejudicial speeches
against it (thereby increasing the homophobic response to it).
As part of his literary contribution to the noble w ar against equal rights
and tolerance tow ards fellow human beings (and often fellow
Christians) this expert rejects all current scientific corroborating that
people are born to homosexuality and transgenderism and do not in
fact “choose” what these people like to call a “lifestyle” as sinful
perverts. This loving Christian minister claim s that the revelation of
errors in translation of bible texts w hich counter his biblically
“ substantiated” hate is part of the “ homosexual agenda” . He
therefore has the point of view that already altered and inaccurate
translations of the Bible should not be corrected because these frauds
are in his view the ‘true Bible’. This in itself should provide clues to his
(and his affiliate orgs) true intentions:
These people don’t like the original texts BECAUSE THEY DON’T
CONDEMN GLBT – they prefer the corrupted erroneous ones that do
and claim that the corrupted copies are the true “original”!
He also claims in one of his articles: “Homosexual orientation - a clear
No from the bible and science” that science “somehow” backs up
religious hate of hom osexuals. (I w ould like to see w hat junk-
science he uses to back up his medievalist ideas.) In another about
gay marriage he proclaims “ The Church cannot tolerate
homosexual marriage and remain faithful to the God of truth” .
What God w ould that be, Peet? This hypocrite lauds fraudulent
orgs like Ex-Gay International for ‘converting gays into
straights’! His site pedals his hate on CD and as electronic
dow nloads – and his mater ial is almost EXCLUSIV ELY and fanatically
anti-gay! In fact in reading tw o of his hateful articles, the hate w as
virtually tangible and felt the need to go and w ash afterwards! The
follow ing w as found on
http://www.pechurchnet.co.za/calendar/cm2510.htm : “ SEMINAR -
“ THE BIBL E AND HOMOSEXUALITY” (28/10/2005) Dr. Peet Botha
is visiting Uitenhage on Fri 28th and Sat 29th of October to present a
seminar on the topic of “The Bible and Homosexuality”. (This person
has nothing good to say on the subject, so w hy invite him to present a
seminar or advertise his seminar if you know this and don’t agree w ith
his views?) Dr Botha is adm inistrator of Cedar College of
Education in Kw azulu-Natal and visiting senior lecture at the
291
North West University of Potchefstroom , faculty of Theology and
Education. He is a m inister in the Dutch Reformed Church since
1994 and a m issionary in Kw azulu-Natal at Kw asizabantu
Mission. (See the dots joining here in SA yet?) He travels extensively
and visited many overseas countries. Topics that w ill be addressed at
the seminar cover a wide spectrum of issues related to the current
debate as w ell as a Biblical and extra Biblical exegesis of the topic. “ I
wish I could have been a fly on the w all at that little “seminar”!

Kwasizabantu Mission http://www.kw asiz abantu.com/

Described as a multifaceted mission to the Zulus and a Domini Servite
School. Their w ebsite has the follow ing gem on it: “An open letter by
Dr James Dobson regarding South Africa and homosexuality:” "If
your Constitutional Court rules in favour of homosexual
marriage, and if South Africans accept that decision passively,
the issue will never be in question again..."” Now how could any
poor Zulu not understand that being GLBT is sinful? Monstrously
insidious indoctrination. This org to m y latest inform ation is run by
Dr Peet Botha who runs the hateful anti-gay Homosexuality.co.za
org and is a listed member of Christians For Truth and w ho writed
books w hich they peddle as part of their doctrine. And as w e know ,
CFT is a part of the ACA or CAN.

How does it tie in? Let’s look at this article from Frontline Fellowship:
“THE SUMMIT IN CAPE TOWN 2004

By God' s Grace, the Summ it Youth Leadership and Worldview

Training Course in Cape Tow n has been a great success. The
Summit w as launched by Dr David Noebel in Colorado Springs over
40 years ago. Frontline Fellowship has been conducting Summits in
South Africa since 1997.

Young people travelled from as far afield as Botsw ana and Northern
Ireland. Many came through from Kw aZulu, the Free State, the
Transvaal and Eastern Cape. A contingent of 9 travelled through
from Kw aSizabantu Mission in Kw aZulu. (Here’s w here it gets
interesting and political) The President of the African Christian
Dem ocratic Party sent his Personal Assistant and the head of his
Youth League. Numerous other ministries, including Waym akers,
The Ark and SACLA sent staff members to participate in the
292
programme. Over 100 registered for the Summit in Cape Tow n.
(SACLA’s participation also ties that org to the A CA/CAN group!)

The Summit in Cape Tow n had 16 lecturers, including: one of South

Africa's finest Creation Science lecturers, Philip Stott; Dr. Fritz Haus
(a veteran of the Second World War who fought on the Eastern Front
and in the Africa Corp under Rommel, later becoming the Protestant
Chaplain in a prison of w ar camp. Rev Haus w as the Old Testament
professor at Baptist Theological College Cape Tow n and an
experienced Baptist missionary); Mrs Dorothea Scarborough (who
served with the London Missionary Society in the Gilbert Islands and
is now the head of the Gospel Defence League); Rev. Bill
Bathm an (the Founder and President of In Touch Mission
International, a missionary with over 50 years experience, mostly
ministering in Europe, and behind the Iron Curtain to persecuted
Christians in restricted access areas), Rev. Stephen Sm yth (a
Church of England in South Africa pastor, who used to be a
policeman w ith the British South Africa Police in Rhodesia); Carl
Fourie (a teacher and music critic); Joe Rice (an American
missionary involved in church planting); Lawren Guldem ond from
Canada, Roy Reddy (an Indian evangelist w ith a pow erful testimony
of his conversion from Hinduis m); Charl van Wyk (the Director of
Africa Christian Action); Tim Keller (Field Director of Frontline
Fellowship); Jeanine McGill (National Co-ordinator of Africa
Christian Action), Rob McCafferty (Communications Director of
United Christian Action), and Dr Peter Hammond (Founder and
Director of Frontline Fellowship. (Hey the only ones missing from
the party is Michael Cassidy and Peet Botha!) The PT and sports w as
run by John Michael Tawse (a paratrooper veteran of the South
West Africa and Angola War w ho is now involved in m inistry in
the Eastern Cape.) It w as a great programme w ith dynamic
presentations.” Apparently these nice people all paddled in the sea
with some penguins afterwards too. How sweet and innocent.

Let’s sum up, w ho w as there: Personal Assistant of the President

and the Youth Leader of the African Christian Democratic Party;
representatives of Kwasizabantu Mission; Way makers; The Ark;
SACLA; Philip Stott; Dr Fritz Haus; Mrs Dorothea Scarborough (head
of the Gospel Defence League); Rev. Bill Bathman (Founder and
President of In Touch Mission International); Rev. Stephen Smyth
(Church of England SA pastor); Carl Fourie (teacher, music critic);
Law ren Guldemond from Canada; Roy Reddy (Indian evangelist); Tim
Keller (Field Director Frontline Fellowship); Jeanine McGill ( National
Co-ordinator Africa Christian Action), Rob McCafferty
293
(Communications Director United Christian Action); and last but not to
be outdone, Dr Peter Hammond (Founder, Director of Frontline
Fellowship). This is a veritable w ho’s who of the religious right fanatic
groups in SA in 2004! And all together in the same place attending the
same event arranged by Dr Peter Hammond and Forntline Fellowship.
If this doesn’t tie these groups together nothing short of guy
ropes w ill!

http://www.christianaction.org.za/articles_ca/2004-3-
theChristianAndMusic.htm The Christian And Music by Carl Fourie.
"Carl Fourie is a m usic critic, High School Teacher and Church
Elder" And papprently he writes VERY critical reviews of music for
CAN too. Well I can agree that he is critical of all music that isn’t for
church use, but that is about all – though I w ould be mortified w ere my
children at a school under this man w ith his connections to and
support for such a dangerous radical fundamentalist organization! The
same could be said for any church that w ould have him as an elder !

Law ren Guldemond. Unfortunately the only thing I could find on Mr

Guldemond w as a quote being, "I am distressed that [women' s]
valuable talents are being lost to the Christian home and
squandered in the workplace, which is far less worthy of their
attention." --Lawren Guldemond, on feminis m. Notably an
appropriately critical comment posted immediately below it said: " Hi-
diddly-ho, neighbor ! – Flanders".

Restoring Wholeness Ministries

http://www.restoringwholeness.org ”Gives help to people w ho want to
leave the homosexual lifestyle.”Our ow n local little “ex-gay factory” in
Seapoint, Cape Tow n. In SA w e say “local is lekker” – I should be
proud, but instead I am disgusted and vilified.

The follow ing quoted directly off their website: ”Restoring Wholeness
shares the same philosophy of church, life and relationship w ith Jesus
Christ as the follow ing affiliations: Desert Stream Ministries,
Exodus-International & Life Church.” Condemned as charlatans
from their ow n mouths. Also on their site, the follow ing gem:

294
“DONATE ON-LINE! Click here to make a donation now . You can now
make a donation to our ministry via the convenient GivenGain online
service.” Given Gain is an affiliate org part of Christian Vision
Netw ork!

Life Matters http://www.lifematters.co.za/ An affiliate of

Restoring Wholeness Ministries, w hich by connection defines it as
part of the Christian Action Netw ork. Yet another group of ex-gay
snake charmers spoiling lovely Cape Tow n. This site is linked to by
the “Education” link on the Restoring Wholeness Ministries ( RWM)
site. Check out the gem on their courses page:

What a load of ex-gay baloney! Courtesy of:

“Ps. WYNN CAMERON THOMPSON
http://www.lifematters.co.za/lecturers.htm
grew up in the streets of Hollyw ood. Sex, drugs and the entertainment
industry w as his w ay of life, until he turned his life over to God in
295
1985. After years of healing he became a missionary in Europe w ith
Youth With A Mission. Wynn has travelled to many countries
ministering and teaching in the area of sexual and relational
brokenness. In 1997 he founded the now know n RESTORING
WHOLENESS MINISTRIES, for w hich he is the Executive Director.
He is an ordained minister, international teacher, speaker, RW-LIFE
therapist and is currently completing an additional diploma in
counselling, a Living Waters co-ordinator, author, and former member
of the International Exodus Europe, Africa, and Middle East Board.”

They come across as so loving and accepting saying gays “ don’t

need to change – God loves you as you are!” And then on this
page http://www.restoringw holeness.org/articles.htm theres a link
marked “born gay?” and guess w here it takes you? HERE -
http://narth.com/menus/born.html NARTH!!! A page loaded w ith
pseudoscience designed to show you how “wrong and unnatural” it is
to be GLBT! If there is any proof of their malicious intent then it is their
direct link to NARTH!

Living Waters a.k.a. Desert Stream Ministries

http://www.desertstream.org/ Yet another disturbingly “friendly” and
dangerous “ex-gay clone”. Based in Missouri this time, but w ith
offices around the w orld, even in South Africa – Johan du Toit, Living
Waters South Africa, PO Box 2901, Paarl 7620,
LWSA@telkomsa.net. Paarl is very near Cape Town. A disturbing
trend is form ing before m y very eyes…

They link to the Desert Stream Ministries and Living Waters groups
in the US… and also to Exodus, Narth and Focus On The Fam ily.

296
JASON Ex-Gay Ministry
http://www.freewebs.com/jason-online/afrika.htm A religious ex-gay
tragedy waiting to perpetuate itself! An ex-gay org based in Cape
Tow n area, seemingly founded on the tragic suicide of a young gay
man called Jason w ho killed himself because he believed his
Christian faith condemened his sexuality. His touching tragic story is
told in this quote:

” My Hero Of All Time

My hero of all time is Jesus Christ. I am a comm itted Born Again

Christian, and although I follow Jesus Christ I am finding it
increasingly difficult to reconcile m y Christian faith w ith that of
being gay and a Christian at the sam e time, not w ithstanding all of
the homophobic attitudes in Chr istian circles these days. I have been
persecuted for m y faith and for also being gay, but nothing w ill
cause me to faulter in m y w alk w ith alm ighty God. Perhaps it
might be strange or difficult to understand, but w hen I am under
physical, emotional or verbal attack, I continue to have a peace that
only He can give me. Who else w ould I have as my hero other than
JESUS?

Jason killed himself 2005”

“ About us

What does JASON w ant?

- Reach out to people w ith unwanted ssa and offer them a

helping hand and go this long and hard road to recovery side by
side w ith them.

- We offer a safe and anonymous haven.

- Inform about Homosexuality, how it occurs, its causes and results.

- Counsel also loved ones, relatives, schools, authorities, the police,

the army and everybody interested.

297
- Take a bold and public stand for the truth of the Bible - even if
some might not like this.

- Confront those who tell people you can be both Christian and
live a hom osexual life.

- Help people w ith unw anted ssa as well as w ith other sexual
problems (masturbation, porn, pedophiles...) restoring their broken
relationship w ith the Lord.

- Check the roots of a Gender Identity Disorder (like ssa), give

practical advices and help building up a structure plan for your daily
life.

What is it that JASON does not w ant?

Make heteros out of people w ith ssa. We see hom osexuality as

sinful (if you act out or look for tem ptation on purpose) and thus
the opposite of hom osexuality is not heterosexuality but
obedience. For some this means a heterosexual life - but that is not
goal number one. We didn' t choose to have that orientation - but w e
do choose to act upon it. (These people are deluding themselves –
they are clearly admitting they cannot help being born GLBT and yet
they cannot see that their precious Lord made them that w ay – how
could they even conceive that a loving God w ould make them to
suffer? It is this suffering which cause their hero to kill himself!)

JASON sees homosexuals as human beings - as God' s children. We

love them and that' s why we w ant to help them leave this wrong
w ay. If the Bible strongly w arns us of something, then for good
reason. And God does not w ant us to suffer any harm, so w e better
listen and obey.

We don' t force ourselves upon someone and w e do not tell anyone

what to do. We offer those who want it our help - for free. It is not our
job to decide if people accept that offer. Our job is to sow .”

And as they sow so shall they reap, as their Lord says. So these poor
fools are going about the w hole thing all crabbed – instead of trying to
rid people of their GLBT natures they should be preventing such
tragedies from occurring by eliminating the real cause of the young
man’s suicide – homosphobia and religious persecution!

On their links page:

298
“A. Dean Byrd et al., Ist Homosexualität angeboren und
unveränderbar?

Is 10% of the population really gay? (No, probably more.)

Biological Research On SSA: Is SSA An Abnormality Or A Part Of

Human Design?

No scientific basis for 'born gay'theory

2002 Study Shows The Importance Of Social Factors, Cannot Detect

Genetic Factors In SSA (Clearly outdated – w hat about the current
research from 2008?)

Opposite-Sex Tw ins and Adolescent Same-Sex Attraction

Aardweg: Homosexuality And Biological Factors.”

Who features on this group? There are many, but among the
notable ones listed on their resources page are: Paarl Church
Counsellors Johan du Toit - 082 562 7580

Atlantic Sea Board Church Disciplers/(Lay-Counsellors) Pastor Wynn

Cameron Thompson – (Sea Point) – 021 439 0505 ( men only)

This org is now linked to both Restoring Wholeness Ministries

through its affiliation w ith Ps Thompson; and to Desert Stream
Ministries through Johan du Toit.

Below a selection from the Christian Action Netw ork again: "If you
have not got a copy of THE PINK AGENDA - get one now ! Send a
cheque for R58 to Christian Liberty Books, PO Box 358, How ard
Place, 7450. A percentage of every book sold lovingly gets
donated to ministries that help people who w ant to leave the
hom osexual lifestyle. The authors have urged people not to be
sw ayed by the ruling and not to judge the book before they have
read it themselves." – show ing how local "ex-gay" quack
organizations link to and fit in to the great big spider w eb that is the
Anti-GLBTIQ hate netw ork in South Africa.

299
PE CHURCH NET http://www.pechurchnet.co.za
A Port Elizabeth based internet presence that striv es to connect
“transformation” oriented churches in the Port Elizabeth area. While
they lay claim to impartiality w hy then do they only display anti-GLBT
new s articles on their site and none that reflect the positive sentiments
present in religious circles, particularly in Port Elizabeth? I quote as
examples:
“HOMOSEXUALITY (heading)
Why you should support the Marriage Alliance of South Africa (11 Apr
2005)
Doctors for Life International submits evidence in Constitutional Court
against the recognition of Same Sex Marriages (30 Mar 2005)
Progress on Same-Sex Marriage Representation (20 Jan 2005)
Judgement fundamentally flaw ed - recent SA court decis on allow ing
same-sex marriages (2 Dec 2004)
For those w ho want to study it, here is the recent SA court ruling on
homosexual marriage: (Know any people w ho don’t hate gay folk w ho
use that term “homosexual marriage”?)
http://wwwserver.law .w its.ac.za/sca/files/2322003/2322003.pdf (1 Dec
2004)
Statement by Bishop Bethlehem Nopece regarding consecration of
gay bishop (9 Nov 2003)
Court Application for Homosexual Marriages (20 Sep 2002)”
There are articles by the hate group Christian Action (SA), about the
“Gay Agenda” and claiming that it’s book “the Pink Agenda” w as spot
on about same sex marriage being a part of this so-called agenda.The
article (dd2006)
http://www.pechurchnet.co.za/news/report.php?ID=86 calls for action
of readers to put pressure on government to overturn the same sex
marriage bill and to “be informed” by reading their hate manual “the
Pink Agenda”. Now here is there any apparent affirmation or displayed
tolerance of GLBT issues visible on this site. The overall sentiment on
this site appears to be anti-choice and pro-life – a trend w hich

300
normally goes hand-in-hand w ith anti-gay rhetoric in other parts of the
world.
Their site disclaimer reads:
“P.E. Church Net w as started by me, Shaun Gouw s, under the
oversight of Bluewater Bay Community Church; I believe in response
to w hat God laid on my heart. While it is our desire for our ministry
and this w ebsite to be representative of the true Christian church of
Port Elizabeth (Nelson Mandela Metropole), it does not necessarily
reflect the views of any other persons or organisations w hom w e have
linked here. View s expressed on these w ebpages may likew ise not
necessarily be the views of PE Church Net, its director, advisory body
or associates. (How extremely convenient.)
All material on this site is copyright © P.E. Church Net 1999 - 2008. In
general material (excluding links to external sites) may be used freely
for non-commercial purposes except where expressly stated
otherw ise; please give accreditation as follow s: "Source: © P.E.
Church Net - www.pechurchnet.co.za". and where appropriate please
provide a link back to this w ebsite. If you have any queries in this
regard please email us.
While at all times taking reasonable care and acting in good faith, w e
make no representations and can accept no liability for the accuracy
of information presented on this w ebsite.
Please note: We reserve the right to filter content deemed
inappropriate for this w ebsite.”
You forgot to filter out all the right w ing quasi-religious dominionist
crap though, Shaun. This site is absolutely current and active. Let’s
look at some of the orgs linked to from here:

Family Alliance International (formerly Christian

Coalition)
Sound familiar? “Christian Coalition” Another copycat name from the
USA, presumalbly changed for that reason. This site is by far the one
that stands out the most on this site as being accorded web space all

301
of its own. “The Christian Coalition is the answ er to much prayer and
was born during March 1996 in Durban, South Africa. A co-operative
m ovement w as formed standing for the restoration of the
Christian Fam ily Value System in society. A national structure w as
established w hich was further broken dow n into provincial, regional
and district representation. This has enabled us to work through
ministers fraternals, churches, and other individual Christian Family
Value Subscribers whereby we can be relevant and sensitive to
people at grassroots level.”
It provides links to voters guides for SA – kindly provided by charitable
orgs like Christian Action out of their unbounded love for Gay folk –
not! This from the page on the PE Church Net site w hich appears to
not have been updated since 2000. They still list office addresses
though in tw o cities in South Africa, Durban and Port Elizabeth. Many
of the other orgs listed here link to the Family Alliance International
site on PE Church Net, also based in Port Elizabeth – although the
address indicated is now occupied by a Bed and Breakfast business.
It w ould seem that the “Christian Coalition” or “Family Alliance
International” has moved on and its ow ners joined other orgs w ith
other cute American conservative sounding names.
Who ran the FA I? Does it still exist? Did it change names again? After
all it w as already the Christian Coaltion before it w as Family Alliance
International. Is it the ancestor of the Christian View Netw ork? Why
would I ask that? Have a look at the item below and then guess for
yourself:
““If you want to help w in the South African culture war of values, this
book w ill help you. While homosexual militants may be a tiny minority,
their agenda threatens your rights, your family and others around you.
This book exposes that agenda, strategies to promote it, the myths
fed to the media and the language used to disguise it. All arguments
used in defence of tolerating this agenda are refuted with the latest
legal and scientific information and the very writings of the militant
homosexual movement. We can thw art the homosexual agenda for
South Africa if we fight back now, but if we wait another generation, it
may be very difficult to reverse. Placed in the right hands, this book is
political dynamite. You can help stop the homosexual agenda by
buying extra copies and giving them to your political representative,
church minister, newspaper editor and school headmaster.”
- Philip Rosenthal, Fam ily Alliance International” – Taken from the
Christian Action w ebsite describing religious leader’s favorable
coments on their little hate manual, including one Philip Rosenthal –

302
speaking for FAI. While there seems to be no further mention of FAI
since about 2004, there is plenty of CVN.
By the by, thought I’d throw this in: quoted from the bottom of the
Family Alliance page in the PE Church Net site – “P.E. Church Net
has posted this page to support Fam ily Alliance International in
their w ork of upholding Christian Family Values.” So I guess there is
no more doubt about their “agenda” or their affiliation. Besides this is
the only w eb presence I could find for this little org – here on PE
CHURCH NET. By the w ay, why the capitals in “Christian Family
Values”? Another reference to yet another shadowy and sinister hate
group? Let’s check it out: Nope, not an org, but a philosphy. Look
back in Part 1 under the section about the Bible as an authority.

African Enterprise - “A world group” from South Africa!

Origins: “In 1962, Michael Cassidy founds African Enterprise, an
evangelical, m ultiracial organization "open to charism atic
experiences" that is m odeled on the Billy Graham Evangelistic
Association. Cassidy considers apartheid anti-Christian, and he
organizes major multiracial Christian events during the apartheid era.”
(http://pewforum.org/surveys/pentecostal/countries/?CountryID=193 )
This found on the Canadian AE w ebsite:
http://aeinternational.org/canada/index.php?option=com_content&task
=view &id=80&Itemid=59 “Billy Graham gives Michael the podium
during St Louis, Missouri Crusade in 1973....that a South African
student in his tw enties w ould be a counsellor at a Billy Graham
crusade at Madison Square Garden in New York in 1957. That he
would be inspired by Dr. Graham to start an outreach m inistry to
cities in AFRICA! Four years later, w ith the encouragement and initial
support of Dr. Fuller of Fuller Seminary in California, Michael Cassidy
launched African Enterprise. With the help of seminary buddies from
Vancouver, Canada and the USA the first team w as formed in 1961.
The follow ing year a ‘discerning’ group of South African Pastors
invited these rookies to lead their first outreach to the city of
Pieter maritzburg, the provincial capital of Natal, a short distance
inland from the East coast city of Durban. Five years later… the North
Americans w ent home to help w ith support for this budding new
ministry. Michael Cassidy invited South Africans of all races and
churches to join him in evangelising the cities and tow ns of Africa and
303
the leaders w ithin those fast-grow ing urban complexes. The decades
roll out… This first focus on urban ministry and on reaching
leadership, has remained central to A E’s calling and mission. New
teams w ere added in East Africa (Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania)
during the first decade after the founding of AE and by 1980 A E had 7
teams across the African continent. By 1990 AE had 10 teams
situated in national or provincial capital cities w here leaders can be
reached: Kinshasa, Congo; Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; Accra, Ghana;
Nairobi, Kenya; Lilongw e, Malaw i; Kigali, Rw anda; Pieter maritzburg;
South Africa; Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; Kampala, Uganda and
Harare, Zimbabwe.
AE’s support partners, that started in the mid 1960’s in the USA and
Canada, have spread around the world to include: Australia,
Belgium , Canada, Germ any, Ireland, New Zealand, Norw ay,
Sw itzerland, UK and USA. African Enterprise Today… By 1995 A E
had developed 4 distinct ministries that w ere blended into the major
outreaches to African cities and tow ns. This produced a unique
ministry designed to reach the urban centres of Africa through both
preaching and social action. AE sat at the feet of a Christian w ho is a
consultant to major denominations and “Fortune Five Hundred”
corporations. What emerged w as greater clarity about the 4 ministries
that AE had developed and w ith it an expanded Mission Statement:
“To Evangelise the Cities of Africa Through Word and Deed in
Partnership w ith The Church” The four ministries are City Reaching;
Social Action; Reconciliation; and Leadership Development. “
http://www.africanenterprise.org.za/index.htm P.O. Box 13140,
Cascades, 3202, South Africa. This org has offices worldw ide, in
South Africa, Australia, Belgium, Canada, DRC, Ethiopia, Ger many,
Ghana, Kenya, Malaw i, New Zealand, Norw ay, Rw anda, Tanzania,
UK, USA, Zimbabwe and Uganda (surprise, surprise). Michael
Cassidy is the leader of this evangelistic organization w ith a campus
based in Pieter maritzburg, Kw aZulu/Natal, South Africa, named after
himself, naturally. He is also on the board of SACLA and co-convenor
of its presumed replacement, NIRSA. It seems he also records and
sells religious messages. The site also links to SACLA and sells
religious CD’s, DVD’s and books and witticisms like “Searching for
the roots of the homosexual tendency”. This man’s material seems
to take an “ex-gay” kind of approach appealing to GLBT to turn from
‘their lifestyles of excess and debauchery’. How ever benign his
references to GLBT may seem he has taken a lead role in actively
trying to oppose GLBT achieving equality in South Africa, which belies
his passive appearance. In fact most of the material seems to echo
the religious right’s rhetoric of the “homosexual agenda” revised for
304
SA and African audiences. I found it obscene and distasteful in a
creepy cultist fashion. On one of the sites resource pages I found the
follow ing article:
DAYWATCH RA DIO PROGRA MME #02 - 0203 - February 2002
week 3 Freedom of Expression Restricted, by Michael Cassidy
http://www.africanenterprise.org.za/data/11resources/daywatch/dayw
atch_02-02-03.htm ( I quoted three paragraphs from it here:
"After the book’s (The Pink Agenda) publication there w as an
immediate and outraged response from the Gay and Lesbian Equality
Project, saying the book " instills hatred" and is "the w orst homophobic
hate speech ever published in South Africa." Claiming that the book
"instills hatred" is of course a direct plea to consider The Pink Agenda
as one of the few types of speech that is specif ically not protected in
our constitution. Our constitutional freedom of expression does not
extend to: "propaganda for war, incitement of imminent violence, or
advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion
and that constitutes incitement to cause harm." Therefore, if The Pink
Agenda had officially been declared as "hate speech" it w ould not
have been protected by our constitutional right to freedom of
expression.
Now I don’t w ant to take time now to discuss the increasing, and in
m y view unfortunate, influence of the hom osexual lobby in our
country. Rather, read The Pink Agenda for yourself to become
informed about that. And I don’t think we need to review why
Bible-believing Christians state, and rightly, I believe, that the
hom osexual lifestyle is a wrong and unbiblical lifestyle. What I do
want us to think about today is the grave danger I see in having our
government deter mine w hat information, w hat ideas, even what
beliefs are appropriate for public consumption. If a book that is
based on the Biblical understanding that hom osexuality is a sin
can now be restricted in our country, w hat is to protect the Bible
itself from one day being restricted?
As the authors of The Pink Agenda work to contest the
restrictions that have now been placed on the book, let us also
determ ine that we w ill educate ourselves on the rights we hold
as citizens of South Africa. The better we know the rights we
have, the harder it w ill be for any group of protesters to cause
them to be taken aw ay. Let’s also ask the Lord to intervene and not
allow our government once again to become the self-appointed
censors of ideas and information. May the right to freedom of
expression continue to act as a guardian of truth in South Africa. ""
Blah, blah, blah.
305
Once again the old “gays are restricting our Christian freedom of
religious expression” bullshit. No mention (of course) that their
freedom of religious expression seems to be oriented around
expressing and generating HATE for other people and their fight
against our equal rights deprives everyone of their freedom of
expression! Well that helps explain this man’s fierce involvement in
the SACLA group and the unsuccessful MASA campaign against
same gender marriage in 2006-6. But let’s look at some other
interesting facts surrounding the honorable Mister Michael Cassidy.
Let’s start w ith his associate Gary Haugen:
(http://www.ijminstitute.org/index.php/bio/ ) “Gary Haugen serves as
President and CEO of International Justice Mission. IJM is a human
rights agency that secures justice for victims of slavery, sexual
exploitation and other forms of violent oppression. IJM law yers,
investigators and aftercare professionals work w ith local governments
to ensure victim rescue, to prosecute perpetrators and to strengthen
the community and civic factors that promote functioning public justice
systems.”
"In the mid-1980's, Mr. Haugen served on the executive committee of
the National Initiative for Reconciliation in South Africa. The NIR,
chaired by then-Bishop Desm ond Tutu and Michael Cassidy of
African Enterprise, w as a m ovement of Christian leaders devoted
to the cause of political reform and racial reconciliation."
And from: http://en.w ikipedia.org/w iki/Gary_Haugen “Career before
International Justice Mission.: In the m id-1980s, Haugen served on
the executive comm ittee of the National Initiative for
Reconciliation in South Africa. Chaired by then-Bishop Desm ond
Tutu and Michael Cassidy of African Enterprise, the NIR consisted
of Christian leaders proactively devoted to political reform and racial
reconciliation.” Another NIRSA? There is a striking similarity of org
names? NIRSA v/s NIRSA?? Cassidy has repeated himself here -
National Initiative for Reconciliation in South Africa v/s National
Initiative for the Reformation of South Africa? He has been on both
after all. Is this new NIRSA phase tw o of some hidden agenda?
Michael Cassidy, Gary Haugen and Bishop Tutu? Considering the
perceived nature of their work and Bishop Tutu’s recent open support
for GLBT equal rights in SA it is strange to see Cassidy in the
company of human rights advocates, isn’t it? But it goes to show the
extent to w hich this man has been involved in our past and the role he
has played in changing SA society thus far. It is pretty clear he’s not
finished yet though – this sordid little tale is far from over – there’s
plenty of future left – or is there?
306
Gary Haugen is the president of the International Justice Mission
which claims to be a human rights organization – but dig a little
deeper on their w ebsite and see what comes up! The WIllow creek
leadership meetings are a conundrum for every person w ho consider
themselves a follow er of Christ for example – let’s see w hat it’s all
about, being heavily supported on IJM by Gary Haugen and Andy
Crouch: “A Line Has Been Crossed ... No Turning Back?
http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/index.php?m=200703
Category: * Signs of the Times Source: Editors at Lighthouse Trails
Right before our very eyes m ainstream Christendom is
converging w ith the New Age m ovement. In 2007, tw o events are
scheduled, and if they actually occur w ithout a public outcry by
Christian leaders then w e will have entered into a full-fledged
paradigm shift, and a line w ill have been crossed that w ill very
likely mean no turning back.
The first event w ill take place in August. It is the Willow Creek
Leadership Summ it. It is no news that Willow Creek has been
plunging head first into mystical spirituality (know n also as spiritual
formation or contemplative) for some time. Ruth Haley Barton and
John Ortberg's spiritual formation curriculum for Willow Creek has
helped to immerse thousands in contemplative spirituality. Willow
Creek has also been a catalyst for the emerging church
m ovement. But by all outw ard appearances they have at least w orn a
cloak of evangelical Christianity. That might be changing. While the
speaker line up for the Leadership Summit this year includes
contemplative proponent John Ortberg, it also includes former
president Jimmy Carter. Carter' s message for the event is "Building
Humanity." According to an interview, Carter believes that
everyone w ill be saved, with or without faith in Christ, so
"building hum anity" has an interspiritual prem ise for Carter.
In the past, Willow Creek has not hesitated in lining itself up w ith
those w ho promote m ystical spirituality. In their 2005 Leadership
Summit, speakers included Rick Warren and Ken Blanchard.
Warren promotes contemplative spirituality as w ell as the emerging
church.”
This sort of material seems to be a recurring theme on IJM. Though it
seems to be remarkably similar to w hat Cassidy and his groups seem
to be pushing in South Africa. Coincidence? Cassidy and Haugen do
know each other after all.
Another note on IJM: From w ilkipedia: “He described International
Justice Mission in a 1999 interview as existing w ithin the Christian
307
community and attempting to rekindle the social engagement of
evangelical Christians“ – what happened to plain old Human
Rights? Not so impartial now are we?
Then there is a little more on our Mr Haugen: he belonged to the
National Association of Evangelicals in the USA until the Ted
Haggard affair broke in 2006 – presumably this w as the reason he
left. Homophobic? You tell me. What w as the Ted Haggard affair? To
give you an idea, Ted Haggard sat on the board of the Arlington
Group w ith James Dobson and w as also involved w ith numerous
right w ing radical US groups and their anti-gay initiatives. (And the
noble Gary Haugen w as a member of the same National
Association of Evangelicals, know n for its anti-gay stance. The
follow ing from a blog on
http://www.americablog.com/2006/11/president-of-national-
association-of.html “Thursday, November 02, 2006 President of
National Association of Evangelicals accused of 3-year sexual
relationship w ith gay hooker, and of taking drugs John Aravosis
(DC) · 11/02/2006 11:03:00 AM ET · Link UPDATE: This guy is
reportedly as important as James Dobson:
The press tends to regard Dobson as the m ost powerful
evangelical Christian in America, but Pastor Ted is at least his
equal.
UPDATE: Here is how big this story is.
Christian evangelical leader Ted Haggard... one of the nation'
s
m ost influential evangelical Christians, whose overstuffed
agenda includes a weekly conference call to the White House.
He also claims to have direct access to George Bush:
"We have direct access," says Mr. Haggard, senior pastor of the giant
New Life Church in Colorado Spr ings, Colo. "I can call [Mr.
Goeglein], he'll take m y concern to the president and get back to
me in 24 hours."
And he' s virulently anti-gay. This guy w as on TIME's list of the 25
m ost influential evangelicals in America. It doesn't get any bigger
than this. And he' s from Colorado. Wonder w hat Marilyn Musgrave
has to say about this?
From 9News in Denver:
A gay m an and adm itted m ale escort claims he has had an
ongoing sexual relationship w ith a well-known Evangelical
pastor from Colorado Springs.

308
Mike Jones told '9 Wants to Know'Investigative Reporter Paula
Woodw ard he has had a "sexual business" relationship w ith
Pastor Ted Haggard for the past three years.
Haggard is the founder and senior leader of the New Life Church
in Colorado Springs. The church has 14,000 mem bers.
He is also president of the National Association of Evangelicals,
an organization that represents millions of people.
Haggard is m arried w ith five children and an outspoken critic of
gay m arriage....(Internalized homophobia strikes again!)
Jones started talking to 9 Wants to Know two months ago. He claim s
Haggard has been paying him for sex over the past three years,
even though Haggard preaches that hom osexuality is a sin.
Jones also claims Haggard used metham phetam ine in his
presence on several occasions....
For mer NBC New s anchor Tom Brokaw profiled Haggard in 2005 in a
series on mega-churches. Haggard w as also listed by Time magazine
as one of the 25 most influential Evangelicals in Amer ica last year.”
And even more to link Cassidy and Haugen together at least in the
evangelis m business: on page 11 of the pdf file linked off "IJM
Annual Report 2006, http://www.ecfa.org/Files/00000940.pdf
Michael Cassidy of African Entrprise is listed on the Board of
Advisors of the International Justice Mission. (And just out of
interest, Jaqueline Cobb Fuller of the Bill and Melinda Gates
foundation is listed among the board members - and the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation is listed among their sponsors. No I’m not
kidding, go have a look for yourself! If IJM is such a noble
hum anitarian organization then w hy is Michael Cassidy, a m an
w ith so m any other nefarious affiliations and opposition to basic
hum an rights a part of it? What does he stand to gain from this
affiliation? What does Haugen stand to gain? I cannot find anything
outw ardly obvious to link him to the condemnation of GLBT or even to
mark him as homophobic – other than his link to the National
Association of Evangelicals and Ted Haggard – and Michael Cassidy.
Though there is enough to pin this charge on Cassidy. While this is all
very interesting, Haugen seems to have an outw ardly respectable
career in the protection of human rights mixed w ith Christian
evangelis m. The question is, does he really? Why does he associate
himself and his ministry w ith Cassidy then? Does he know w hat
Michael is up to in sunny SA? As he has an international “ministry”
and links to many foreign orgs, I am sure I only need to keep looking
to find w here Mr. Cassidy links in to a larger organization like our
309
esteemed friend Peter Hammond does. Keep looking, maybe you w ill
find it before me.

Marriage Alliance of South Africa (MASA)

http://www.marriagealliancesa.com , “Many of you, w e know , have
been follow ing and praying for the Constitutional Court case on May
17th in w hich the Marriage Alliance of SA, which though not a formal
project of SACLA, of course is a child of SACLA” Michael Cassidy as
quoted from a John Mark Ministries (Australia) posting
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/15391.htm MASA w as opposed to the
court case w hich legalized same sex marriage in South Africa.
SACLA is the South African Christian Leadership Assem bly, of
which he is a board member. He also fronts the African Enterprise
organization. This org seems to have become defunct since its epic
failure to defeat the same sex marriage motion in South Africa. From
the SACLA w ebsite’s page on MASA:
http://www.sacla.za.net/?component=ddb&operation=page&page=24
&PHPSESSID=ba062b23923a6335215659bd7d130f72
“Mission Statement: The Marriage Alliance of South Africa exists to
serve the Church and society as a platform for constructive
engagement in the current debate on the definition of m arriage. It
aims to raise support to put its case for monogam ous,
heterosexual m arriage to the Constitutional Court in May 2005. It
w ill engage in the dem ocratic processes of South Africa to
ensure that m arriage, fam ily and religious freedoms are
protected by both parliamentary legislation and the courts.
www.marriagealliancesa.com Same Sex Marriage New s” Clearly this
has not been updated for some time.

South African Christian Leadership Assembly

(SACLA)
http://www.sacla.za.net/public_html/4saclaii/4resources.htm The

310
vision of this org as stated on its website is “ Christian leaders
working together to support a spiritual renew al that w ill bring
about a m easurable m oral and social transform ation of our
nation by 2010.” Links to Michael Cassidy being a board member
“co-convenor” (which in itself raises my eyebrows) seriously brings
into doubt their credibility as a genuine Christian organization) and
also links to his cult-style African Enterprise campus. Representatives
from all mainstream SA denominations can be found among those in
SACLA – w hich to me is a w orrisome fact.
Interesting stuff found on the SACLA website front page: “The Family
In Cr isis” a “family conference” presented by none other than Focus
on the Family of course. An update on the activities of MASA (not
updated since its defeat in 2005).
The follow ing found on the “SACLA Call To Prayer” page – Point
number 8: “
8.THE WAR AGAINST THE L EGALISATION OF SAME-SEX
MARRIAGES:The battle in the Constitutional Court w as lost on 1
December 2005. Parliament has been instructed to do the necessary
legislative changes. (Note they used the w ord “WAR” here for the first
time that I have seen in SA – and also it indicates to me the strength
of their resolve. I imagine this is not over, not by a long shot. Not even
after 3 years. They will try to reverse this by slipping some new bill
through government w hile w e’re not looking, first chance they get!)
So the w ar now shifts to Parliam ent and that is where our
intercessory focus should be from now on. Pray for the Lord’s
wisdom for our political authorities as the subject of same-sex
marriages is debated in the parliamentary process on its w ay to
becoming law . Pray for the Lord’s intervention on behalf of His
Church. Pray for the Marriage Alliance of South Africa (MASA)
under the Co-chairm anship of Dr Michael Cassidy, Cardinal
Wilfrid Napier, and Rev Moss Nthla as they contemplate further
action in their work to preserve the Biblical and traditional
definition of m arriage.”
Identificational Repentance: Pray that God will forgive sin in South
Africa. Let us in this period specifically continue to repent of the
sin of SEXUAL IMMORALITY in all its forms in South Africa.
Specifically repent of the w ay Christians in SA have sinned
against the covenant of m arriage as introduced by the Lord –
fornication outside of m arriage and adultery in m arriage.”
(Sounds like all the familiar rhetoric, w e hear from the USA, doesn’t it?
These blokes have been left out of the fridge too long. Not very fresh.)

311
Here’s the crow ning glory – a link to Focus on the Fam ily’s SA
website saying “ THANKS TO FOCUS ON THE FAMILY FOR
SPONSORING THE SACLA WEBSIT E” ! WHAT MORE PROOF DO
YOU NEED THAT FOTF IS UP TO THE SA ME TRICKS HERE AS IT
IS IN THE USA??? As far as I’m concerned, ‘nuf said! Its w ebsite
slogan says “ Being real Christians in the real South Africa” !! I beg
to differ! Still, this w ebsite does not appear to have been updated
since 2006, at w hich point their projected calendar ends. What I
wonder, could be the reason for that? Coincidentally another similar
church unif ication group headed up by Cassidy called Nirsa seems to
have sprung up at the same time.

National Initiative for the Reformation of South

Africa (NIRSA) http://www.nirsa.co.za/ So new they haven’t
even had time to finish building their w ebsite yet! Their logo on the
final draft of their letter of intent states ”A Christian Coalition For
National Renewal And Integrity”. Michael Cassidy is again listed as
one of the co-conveners. What concerns me is that there seems to be
a large mainstream participation, notably for me from the Methodist
Church of SA. Considering that the nature of this man’s activities
would cast a distinct conservative and radical light on any org
associating itself w ith him for any purpose, I am indeed surprised.
This quoted from Deaf Sw ord http://www.deaf.org.za/news.htm : “22 -
23 April 2008 hundreds of South Africa church leaders gathered in
Boksburg for The National Initiative for the Reformation of South
Africa (NIRSA) w hich was convened by Michael Cassidy, Founder of
African Enterprise and Rev. Moss Ntlha, the General Secretary of
the Evangelical Alliance of SA. Michael Cassidy emphasized the
seriousness of the crises confronting us in South Africa, namely
poverty, AIDS, crime, corruption, the undermining of marriage,
racism, sexism, xenophobia and the electricity crises.” NIRSA in my
opnion is simply taking up w here SACLA seems to have left off. In fact
I am concluding (perhaps erroneously) that SACLA faded out and w as
replaced by NIRSA. Can you see the dots in SA starting to join
up? Should South Africa be worried? I think so.

312
Shalom Ministries http://www.shalomtrust.co.za/pages/view
Angus Buchan’s personal little online soap box from w here he
advertises his “visions”, messages from his red phone to God, his
men’s meetings and events around the country, and his CD’s and
DVD’s, books, new sletters and coffee table books peddling his
coservatismo and radical far right brand of Christianity, supporting the
patriarchy and Reconstructionist view of his little SA potato patch.
People w ho have so far resisted the urge to join thousands of
lemmings in flocking to listen to his rhetoric have managed to come
up w ith fairly good comments about his hat. It also advertises links to
some other orgs listed here, including the radical Christian Action
Netw ork. Not only does the “Potato Prophet” consistently seem to
appear on the same w eb search results as Michael Cassidy, but
much of their dogma, particularly w ith reference to GLBT and “prayer
healing” and “ex-gay” rhetoric seems to correspond as well.
In fact in 2008 Angus Buchan is said to have attended a NIRSA
conference:
http://discernmentdirectory.com/discerningthew orld/articles/TheDomin
ionistFaithOfAngusBuchan.htm “The num ber of Wolves out num ber
the Sheep. I w ould also like you to read this: National Initiative for
the Reformation of South Africa (NIRSA)
This conference where 450 bishops/pastors/reverends/ministers came
together to draw up a plan – a one w orld religion plan. The m an
who hosted this conference is Michael Cassidy who is in full
support of Angus Buchan.
The problem here in lies this, w hy w ould Michael Cassidy w ho is
bent on bringing all faiths together into one big pot under a
'Christ', be promoting so vigorously Angus' gatherings? For
surely if Angus was teaching the Gospel truth, Michael would not
support him because it contradicts his end game plan.
We are then only left w ith one other answ er and that is this; Michael
Cassidy promotes Angus so much because what Angus teaches falls
in alignment w ith his plans to usher in a one w orld religion. They both
preach the same message - revival, transformation, reformation, faith,
hope, prosperity, and Kingdom Values. Read that article, it' s a bit of
a shocker w hen you see w hat they w ant to try set up in South Africa.
Here' s a teaser - try fit your mind around this one: ' Biblical economic
system...”

313
NOW WE COME T O THE CULMINATION OF EV ERYT HING SO
FAR:

The International Church Council Project.

http://www.churchcouncil.org/ . The pdf file used by the CAN at the
Franschhoek Declaration can be found at
http://www.churchcouncil.org/ICCP_org/Document_Articles_Eugene_
Clingman/Topic_18_Homosexuality1_by_Eugene_Clingman.htm

The International Church Council Project

What is the ICCP? “Mission Statement

"To establish for the Tw enty First Century A biblical-theological

standard of doctrine For the Body of Christ in eighty targeted
countries, Which is consistent w ith The mainstream orthodox
theology (REA D: A ONE STANDARD RELIGION IN 80 COUNTRIES
– and since they invite others to join they don’t w ant it to stop at 80)

Of the first twenty centuries.

Some of the battles w e are fighting today have been fought in the
past. Yet, “It is not enough, in dealing w ith a present danger to avoid it
by citing the fact that someone dealt w ith the matter in the past. If an
enemy attacks today the enemy must be fought today, but w ithout a
surrender of past victories.” (Dr. R.J. Rushdoony)

Tw enty-Tw o Areas Under Attack Being Addressed

The International Church Council Project has identified tw enty-two

areas of comprom ise or unbiblical innovation which Christ’s
Church needs to address. Some of these areas are mainly doctrinal
(examples: The Trinity; The Substitutionary Atonement of Christ’s
Death; The Pelagian Controversy). Others of the tw enty-two, though
certainly doctrinal, especially address areas of practice w ithin the
Church (examples: Marriage, Divorce, and Rem arriage; Biblical
Distinctives Between Males and Fem ales; A Biblical Approach to

314
Counseling; Education of Christian Children; The Sanctity of
Hum an Life).

http://www.churchcouncil.org/ICCP_org/Pages_General/Targeted_Co
untries.htm “Eighty Targeted Countries

The International Church Council Project is m aking efforts to

establish theological comm ittees in these "targeted countries."
Representatives from the theological comm ittees w ill be asked to
join in the International Church Council Projects to be held on
different continents by 2012. Participants must fund their ow n travel
and accommodations.

LATIN AMERICA: Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Costa Rica,

Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Columbia, Venezuela, Ecuador,
Brazil, Bolivia, Peru, Argentina, Chile

EUROPE: England, Scotland, Ireland, Norw ay, Sw eden, Finland,

Denmar k, The Netherlands, Ger many, Sw itzerland, France, Spain,
Italy, Austria, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Bosnia-
Herzegovina, Hungary, The Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Latvia,
Russia/Ukraine

AFRICA AND THE MIDDLE EAST: South Africa, Zambia, Zaire,

Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Ethiopia, Sudan,
Chad, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Turkey, Syria, Jordan Iraq, Saudi Arabia,
Iran, Afghanistan

ASIA AND OCEA NIA: Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, Malaysia,

The Philippines, Japan, Korea, China, India,
Vietnam/Cambodia/Thailand, Pacific Islands

NORTH A MERICA: Canada, United States of America”

There is an interesting “Statement on Homosexuality” here:

http://www.churchcouncil.org/ICCP_org/Pages_General/Homosexualit
y_Statement,%20text.htm if you’re interested.

Here is the ICCP links page:

“There are a number of organizations on the Internet that are

working for reform ation and revival of church and society. Here
are a few of those sites.

American Vision. Resources to help recover America'

s Christian
history. The ministry of Gary DeMar.
315
The Chalcedon Foundation. The Reconstructionist "think tank."
Hom e of the online version of the Chalcedon Report.

Focus on the Fam ily. Helping to preserve and restore traditional

values and the institution of the fam ily. The ministry of James
Dobson.

Intercessors for America. Encouraging effective prayer and fasting for

the Church, our nation, and their leaders.

The Kuyper Foundation. Rebuilding Christian civilization in

Britain. Hom e of Christianity & Society.

The Forerunner. Reformation resources from Jay Rogers.

Reform ation South Africa. Frontline Ministries and Peter

Ham mond.

Christian Action for reformation and revival! Frontline Ministries

and Peter Hamm ond. Think that’s shocking? But w ait, there’s more:

http://www.churchcouncil.org/Reformation_net/Pages/COR_Steer ing_
Committee.htm

“National Coalition On Revival (COR) Steering Committee members

include:

Dr. Jay Grim stead, D.Min., Found. Dir. Coalition on Revival

Dr. R.J. Rushdoony, Ph.D., President, Council of Chalcedon

This effectively ties both Grimstead and Rushdoony together –

and then both of them to the ICCP by the obvious extensive use
of Rushdoony’s m aterial and Grimsteads mem bership of that
steering comm ittee. Rushdoony’s son Mark runs the Chalcedon
Institute in his stead since his death in 2001. This site is current and
up to date as w itnessed by the date at the bottom of every page –
2008.

Guess who’s on the ICCP Steering Committee & Advisory

Board? There are more than tw enty on this page:

http://www.churchcouncil.org/ICCP_org/Pages_General/ICCP_Steerin
g_Committee.htm but these are the ones that stand out to me:

Dr. Jay Grim stead Director, Coalition on Revival

316
Rev. Peter Hammond Director, Frontline Fellowship, South Africa

Dr. D. James Kennedy Chancellor, Knox Theological Seminary.

Peter Hamm ond and Frontline Fellowship on the board of a USA

RECONST RUCTIONIST/DOMINIONIST org – w ith clearly stated
designs on little old South Africa! Now how about that? Then
there’s the small matter of the origin of this behemoth. So far I have
been unable to find anything more on it. This is a shadow y and
mysterious organization, I suspect w ith good reason. Be afraid – be
very afraid. But w ith characters such as Grimstead, Hamm ond
and Rushdoony involved it can’t be good, not at all.

South Africa is a “targeted country” suddenly I am somew hat

nervous – the dominionists have clear designs on SA – and this
little man w ho fancies himself King, Peter Hammond is sitting up there
with the big dogs hoping to bring about some kind of revelationary
apocalypse? Well these fucking idiots are trying hard to make it
happen!

Let me say this again – because I can scarcely believe it m yself:

Dr Peter Hammond of Frontline Fellowship and the kingpin of all
the m yriad of hate orgs in South Africa under the Christian
Action Network umbrella is on the board of a large religious body
based in the USA and run by know n DOMINIONIST and
RECONST RUCTIONIST radicals – who have a clear intention of
something sinister towards the world iro control of churches,
beliefs and through that CONTROL. And that to me is blatantly
obvious – they seek to change the w orld to conform to their
narrow m inded view. And the allusions to Dr R.J Rushdoony (from
our nice little Wikipedia secion on Dominionis m) don’t bring me any
comfort – instead I am settling into a state of mild panic. How about
you?

So far I have managed to link every internal SA hategroup I found w ith

another and formed larger groups, in the end I came up w ith two
larger SA orgs under Michael Cassidy and Peter Hammond. Then I
linked the tw o of them through SACLA and Christian Action Netw ork.
Angus – he' s small potatoes (bad pun, but true). Even the s maller little
orgs like the ex-gay groups in Cape Tow n link up through simple
common denominators like donations links to a Christian View
Netw ork (part of CAN) and book proceeds from "the Pink Agenda" to
ex-gay orgs in SA. So one big SA group w ith external links to foreign
orgs... and I thought NIRSA w as the threat. I w as wrong.

317
Tonight i follow ed a minor lead and discovered that there is a large
org in the USA called International Church Council Project w hich w as
formed by men like RJ Rushdoony and Jay Grimstead. Rushdoony
was the founder dominionist so radical even other reconstructionists
distanced themselves from him. He died in 2001 but his son now runs
his org the Chalcedon Institute. And it’s far from over.

This thing is a monster, w ith pow eful members from the USA and
around the w orld. The steering committee and board of ICCP and
COR are a w ho' s who of the radical right w ing of the USA. Who sits
on the steering committee of the ICCP? Why, none other than our
friend Peter Hammond!

The ICCP has listed 88 targeted nations to "transform" by 2012 – and

SA is one of them. And the site is current from 2008! Are they
serious? They sure look it to me. All these sites do. Serious and
seriously disturbed. Will they succeed in their crafty plan to take over
the w orld? Will Pinky and the Brain feature anyw here? Ask me in
2009. Or rather, don’t. This is scary shit of note. The deeper i dig, the
darker the hole. I dont w ant to dig anymore.

I dont ever w ant this book traced back to me. This is milenial end
times shit and these fucks are fucking making it happen. I just w ant to
wrap this thing up and get it out on the w eb ASAP. Who know s, our
actions may scupper these peoples plans for a few more decades?
Then again maybe not. Sometimes ignorance is bliss, but now the
genie is out the bottle and I cannot put it back.

Conclusions?
There seem to be several concentrations of small groups run by the
same group of people in co-operation w ith each other. KZN, Cape
Tow n appear to be the two most prolific groups. These are then
seemingly w orking together under the guidance of larger umbrella
organizations, often led by members of these same member groups
i.e Peter Hammond and Michael Cassidy. These people have links
and communications (and most likely the support and training of
overseas orgs on hand (such as the the ICCP, COR and Chalcedon
Foundation and other violently anti gay American groups.) Of course
they also have the logistical (and moral) support of the local Focus on
the Family org to provide letters of moral support from James Dobson,
coughing up sponsorship of their websites and who only know s what
else I haven’t found yet.
I just can’t go on listing these local radical orgs, there are far too
many ! But let me point out that these sites link and cross link to each
318
other, (w hether by means of w eb links or the material on them) back
and forth, weaving a web of hatefulness, deceitful lies and
disinformation. It is most disturbing. And to cap it all off, m any of
these also link and refer to foreign orgs, based in the USA – well
known for their irrational hate and persecution of GLBT,
including those who advocate dom inionism and also the m urder
of all those who stand in their way. They even give them credit as
legitim ate Christian bodies, despite their radical revolutionary
stance – here is an example from the Christian Action links page:
American Family Association; American Life League; Christian
Coalition; Concerned Women For America; Exodus International;
Family Research Council (!!) National Association for Research and
Therapy on Homosexuality NARTH ( !!) Recognize any of them? I
sure as hell do! The list just goes on and on!
Also it is sure a hell of a coincidence that orgs w hich are part of this
above massive spider w eb of sinister intent have “ministries” or
“missions” or “offices” in specif ic countries that have experienced a
recent upsw ing in hate crime, hate speech and anti-GLBT persecution
in the last ten to fifteen years! Uganda is a prime example. African
Enterprise, Focus on the Family, In Touch Missions International
(affiliated to Frontline Fellow ship and ACA) all have branches or
offices which represent their interests in Uganda, providing Christian
“leadership training”, religious education and other often government
assisted (read: funded) services there. No doubt it is a s mall step from
there to make the logical conclusion that they are pushing their anti-
gay dominionist agenda at every convenient occasion, in cooperation
with the local churches – w ho it is alleged in the rapidly diminishing
independent Ugandan media and local Ugandan blog sites, are
signing up for the foreign aid offered by these organizations in return
for their support!
And these people have the brass balls to claim with a straight
and innocent face that they are “Christians” ??? LIKE HELL
THEY ARE!

You may think I am some kind of conspiracy theorist, but you are
mistaken. It doesn’t take a genius to look at the evidence on the
internet and to figure it out. These sites are there – at least until they
catch w ind of this book and start cleaning up their act (as some
already have) and try to wipe out their little trails of breadcrumbs that
link them to their partners in hate crime. Go and see for yourself and
see if I am exaggerating.

319
As I have quoted them directly and show n the url links to my
information sources – if this book makes them look bad as
organizations then it is of their own doing and they have none to
blame but themselves. I hope this book exposes them for w hat they
are and removes their threat to peace, safety and human rights,
dignity and true religious freedom w orldw ide. As I have said before,
silence gives consent, and I w ill be silent no longer.

Let'
s just sum up a few interesting facts here:

Peter Hammond - born in England, former soldier and covert

operative for SA govt in the apartheid regime.

Angus Buchan - A Rhodesian ex-pat farmer in SA

Dorothea Scarborough - a Germ an by birth, UK citizen by m arriage

to her missionary husband.

Rev Stephen Smyth - a Rhodesian ex-pat (formerly policeman) w ith

the Anglican church in SA, taking part in the FF Sumit 2004

Joe Rice - an American m issionary involved in church planting also

at the Sumit 2004 meeting.

So w hat is happening in South Africa? Are w e being infiltrated and

invaded by foreign pow ers? Why is the religious landscape in South
Africa being transformed by foreigners? Why are foreiners like
Ham mond being allowed to to ply their trade here?

What does all this evidence tell m e? I’ll tell you – it shows that
the radical bigots here in South Africa have been receiving
training, assistance and support from their American
counterparts for at least the last 25 years! And even worse, that
foreign groups are conspiring in the vein of some dark age
religious nationalist movement to extend through underhanded
concerted means, their dom inion over all the w orld. Before you
call me a crazy conspiracy theorist, remem ber I’m not the one
saying it – THEY ARE. At the very least many of these local hate
groups have emulated and in many cases blatantly copied formulas of
successful counterparts in the USA, modeling themselves on them.
Of course, they still manage to add a distinctive “local is lekker” flavor,
but the concept is the same. All the support gfarnered under the
guise of ‘w ell-meaning’ religious fervor of course.

320
I can tell you now that the average South African knows nothing about
these orgs, that they even exist or that they are so well connected, nor
a w hisper about their anti-GLBT agenda, (or even their anti-non-
Christian agenda) w hich in some cases is not even stated – but
blithely referred to by means of suitably vague Christian scripture, or
in careful wording and inuendo – or demonstrated in their providing
links to orgs that blatantly make their hate of GLBT clear and instantly
blow their cover.

Forew arned is fore armed.

These revelations also leave me in no doubt w hatever that these

people are w aging an all-out “cold w ar” (at the very least) against both
feminists and GLBT as w ell as those w ho defy their opinions. Many of
these orgs follow ing the teachings and political dominionist assertions
of the Rushdooney faction w ould like to make it into a “hot” full-on w ar
against those who oppose them. Sooner or later they could try to
make it happen. Considering the massive nation w ide (indeed
worldw ide) boom in the “reformation” business in mainstream
Christianity, often called the “emerging church movement” this is
reaching the point w here soon it will become a real threat. And if you
can’t see this, then you must be blind.

• The Enemy Within

Wolves In The Fold: Apathy – Doing Nothing Aids The Enem y

The origins of Stonew all: “The Stonew all riots w ere a series of
spontaneous, violent demonstrations against a police raid that took
place in the early morning hours of June 28, 1969 at the Stonew all
Inn, in the Greenw ich Village neighborhood of New York City. They
are frequently cited as the first instance in American history when
gays and lesbians fought back against a government-sponsored
system that persecuted homosexuals, and they have become the
defining event that marked the start of the gay rights movement in the
United States and around the w orld.
The Stonew all Inn, at the time, w as owned by the Mafia. It catered to
an assortment of patrons, but it w as known to be popular w ith the
most marginalized people in the gay community: transvestites,
effeminate young men, hustlers, and homeless youth. Police raids on
gay bars were routine in the 1960s, but officers quickly lost control of
the situation at the Stonew all Inn, and attracted a crowd that w as
incited to riot. Tensions betw een New York City police and gay
321
residents of Greenw ich Village erupted into more protests the next
evening, and again several nights later. Within w eeks, Village
residents quickly organized into activist groups to concentrate efforts
on establishing places for gays and lesbians to be open about their
sexual orientation w ithout fear of being arrested.
After the Stonew all riots, gays and lesbians in New York City faced
gender, class, and generational obstacles to becoming a cohesive
community. Within six months, tw o gay activis t organizations were
formed in New York, concentrating on confrontational tactics, and
three newspapers were established to promote rights for gays and
lesbians. Within a few years, gay rights organizations were founded
across the U.S. and the w orld. On June 28, 1970, the first Gay Pride
marches took place in New York City and Los Angeles,
commemorating the anniversary of the riots. Similar marches w ere
organized in other cities; today Gay Pride events are held annually
throughout the w orld toward the end of June to mark the Stonew all
riots.” (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Stonew all UK. http://www.stonewall.org.uk/ This UK group w as
formed in 1989 and only promotes the rights of gays, lesbians, and
bisexuals. It therefore in no w ay supports or advances the cause of
equality for the transgendered, intersexed or questioning portion of
the GLBTIQ alliance.

“ Toiletgate” : In-house Phobias Taken To A New Low

The so-called “Toiletgate” scandal that made w orld-wide news of a

London Pr ide event in 2008, w here transgendered attendees w ere
forced to use “disabled” toilet facilities instead of the appropriate
“male” or “female” facilities. It w as alleged that inadequate training led
to the stew ards in charge of the Trafalgar Square toilets at Pride
insisting that transw omen use the disabled toilets, and that a LGBT
liaison officer from the Metropolitan Police backed them up, (illegally)
asking to see GRC certificates, claiming that those transfolk “w ho
have not applied for a Gender Recognition Certificate have only
themselves to blame if they experience discrimination.” Subsequently
the w hole issue got out of hand and later some allegations of assault
were made. I don’t know what the issues surrounding toilets are –
honestly!

322
 At gay clubs, toilet facilities are most often unisex anyway, so what’s
the deal with Pride events?

I feel this scandal was an example of downright spite and pettiness

(w hether on the part of the organizers or the individuals – um,
manning the toilets) w hich simply highlights some elements in the
GLBTIQ community’s blatant disregard for even the existence of the
transgendered – or for our fairly simple and straight forward needs!

“ Stonew all Syndrome”

This has resulted in w hat some folk have called “Stonew all
syndrome”, defining it as: “The act of ignoring and/or sidelining
bisexual or transgender issues w ithin LGBT affected issues. This is
often applied to such instances by people offended by the presence of
biphobia and/or transphobia in the GLBTIQ community, usually by
people w ho feel ignored by organizations which should be
representing them. The ter m stonew all syndrome is derived from the
LGB organization stonew all, w hich has named itself after a riot in
which transgendered persons played a key role, yet does not provide
services to members of the trans community. This is not a group
specifically attacking Stonew all, more addressing a problem w ithin the
GLBTIQ community as a whole, of which, Stonewall happens to be a
prominent example.” Quoted from a Facebook group called “No To
Stonewall Syndrome!” I thoroughly and completely concur.
These instances of “Stonew all syndrome” are in no way limited to the
UK – take for example w hat happened a short w hile ago in the USA:
“ Activists to boycott gay-rights group dinner Wyatt Buchanan,
Chronicle Staff Writer, San Francisco Chronicle, Wednesday, June
25, 2008
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/25/BA4J11ECVE.DTL& hwActivists +
to+boycott+gay+rights+group+dinner&sn=001&sc=1000

As gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people prepare to celebrate

gay pride in San Francisco this w eekend, many of them also are
organizing a boycott and protest of the country' s largest gay rights
organization.

323
Activists plan to be on the streets during the festivities to inform
people of the boycott and protest of the Human Rights Campaign' s
annual fundraising dinner in San Francisco next month, a major event
that raises tens of thousands of dollars for the organization.

Similar actions took place at fundraising dinners in Philadelphia and

New York City earlier this year.
The controversy stems from the Hum an Rights Cam paign' s decision
last fall to support a bill in Congress that would bar employers from
firing a person because of his or her sexual orientation. The bill,
which passed the House but has stalled in the Senate, did not
include the same protections for transgender people. More than
370 gay rights organizations opposed the bill for that reason.
On Tuesday, San Francisco Supervisors Tom A mmiano and Bevan
Dufty introduced a resolution at City Hall calling for a bill that includes
transgender people and recognizing the boycott.
"The Human Rights Campaign should not be human rights cow ards,"
Ammiano said at a news conference at the San Francisco Lesbian
Gay Bisexual Transgender Community Center. He said the
organization seems uneasy w ith transgender issues.
Dufty said he w ill skip the fundraising dinner for the first time in 23
years and instead w ill make dinner at his home for people protesting
outside the event.
The city'
s two LGBT Democratic clubs support the boycott, as does
the San Francisco Labor Council. Assembly man Mark Leno and state
Sen. Carole Migden, both of San Francisco, also are not attending the
event.
The Human Rights Campaign issued a statement from its leaders
defending the organization' s actions and saying they w ant to "put to
rest any remaining misconceptions about HRC' s commitment to an
all-inclusive Employ ment Non- Discrimination Act."
The letter says the organization "exhausted every resource" in
supporting a bill that included protections for transgender people.
(Blah, blah, blah)
"HRC' s position is that w e could not oppose - and, in fact, should
support - legislation to provide crucial civil rights protections that
would be brought to the House floor for a vote, even though w e did
not and, certainly, w ould not have chosen that course," according to
the statement signed by Joe Solmonese, the organization' s president,
and the co-chairs of the group' s board of directors.
324
The statement also makes reference to the November election, w hen
California voters will decide w hether to ban same-sex marriage in the
state's constitution.

"At a time w hen our community is threatened, once again, w ith a

cynical election-year ploy that could hurt our families, w e believe that
it'
s time to set aside our differences and fight for what we all w ant," it
reads.
A chairman of the San Francisco fundraising event, w hich will take
place at the Westin St. Francis and costs $225 per person, said the
national organization asked him not to comment on the boycott.
Matt Forem an, who w as executive director of the National Gay
and Lesbian Task Force w hen the congressional vote took place,
called the actions of the Hum an Rights Cam paign "a m onumental
betrayal."
Foreman said it raises questions about the effectiveness of the
organization, w hich raised $28 million last year.
"What is going on here is an emperor-has-no-clothes moment," said
Foreman, w ho said he w ill be outside protesting but is "pained" to be
doing so. "We still don't have one single federal law that protects
gay people, let alone transgender people."
Theresa Sparks, w ho is president of the San Francisco Police
Commission and is transgender, said she returned an aw ard she
received from the Human Rights Campaign.
Sparks, w ho attended the news conference with Dufty and Ammiano,
noted the contributions of transgender people to the LGBT
m ovement. The 1969 Stonew all riots in New York that sparked
the modern LGBT rights m ovement were promulgated by
transgender people, she said.
She dism issed the political argument that the nondiscrim ination
bill w as m ore likely to pass Congress if it didn' t mention
transgender people.
"To me, this is less about strategy and more about integrity,"
Sparks said.”

So now that we have looked at the attack on GLBTIQ, feminis m and

human rights from the quarter of the right w ing radical Christian
peanut gallery, let’s look at w hat the military w ould call “dissention in
the ranks” or even treason:
325
 A Wolf In Wolf’s Clothing – Going Beyond Mere Apathy

In October 2008 I received news of Stonew all UK’s nomination of

Julie Bindel for Journalist of the year. Know ing the significance of the
name Stonew all and taking into consideration the hate and contempt
that so-called journalist hate monger has expressed against the
transgender portion of the community, herself supposedly being a
lesbian and a fem inist, (w ho should know better to cast stones
against folk who like her seek equality for her own kind) this
utterly appalled me!
It would seem that in the minds of some of our “allies” that “all animals
are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
I am shocked and reviled that Stonew all could consider this shocking
parody of a human rights activist for an honor of any kind w hatsoever.
What she has done here is hammer a chisel into w hat was just a tiny
crack. In fact she has contributed to an action w hich threatens to
divide us further and it amazes me that STONEWALL could even
consider her actions fitting for a representative of their group’s award!
It could only serve to indicate w here their ow n loyalties and prejudices
lie!
From the LJ trans feminist community:
“ Transphobe Bindel Nom inated as Stonew all’s Journalist of the
Year
http://questioningtransphobia.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/julie-bindel-
nominated-as-stone
walls-journalist-of-the-year/ (Comments in pink are my own)
LGB campaigning organisation, Stonew all are hosting a glitzy event
on November 6th at the Victoria and Albert in London, w here they w ill
announce the w inners of their annual aw ards.
Nominated under the “Journalist of the Year” category is Julie Bindel,
who is well know n for her transphobic writing. In 2007, I sat in the
audience of Radio 4’s “Hecklers debate” on sex reassignment surgery
and listened to Bindel explain how she wanted hormonal and
surgical treatment of transpeople replaced with reparative
therapy (which she euphemistically referred to as “talking cures”).
(Does this rocket scientist even understand the DOCUMENTED
damage done to gay folk by so-called “reparative therapy”? If she
does, how then can she advocate such a violation of human
rights if she doesn’t believe it should be used against gay people?

326
But it’s okay to use it on the transgendered because she plainly
shows such obvious hate tow ards us!)
Stonew all, despite being named after a riot in w hich trans people w ere
instrumental, has achieved a certain notoriety w ithin the UK Trans
community for the apparent low regard in which it holds trans issues,
but nom inating an actively transphobic journalist for this aw ard
could be seen as a direct slap in the face for the UK’s trans
community.
Stonew all can be contacted by email on: info@stonew all.org.uk
Julie Bindel pushes the belief that trans people are tricked and
coerced into surgery, rather than seeking it out ourselves, and
would like all such medical treatment to be banned.
She shouldn’t be rew arded for not being a bigot to everyone, but
should be called out on her bigotry!”
Gender benders, bew are by Julie Bindel, The Guardian,
Saturday January
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jan/31/gender.weekend7

I am not the only one w ho worried that the introduction of the Human
Rights Act might backfire on those of us who worry about little things
like rape, murder, child abuse and prostitution. Certainly some of the
fears m any fem inists had about fancy law yers defending all sorts
of scum in the name of "rights" proved well founded. HRA cases
have included the right of a man accused of rape to hear details of a
complainant' s sexual history for the benefit of his defence and - turned
dow n only after serious deliberation - serial killer Dennis Nielsen to be
allow ed gay pornography in prison, based on the argument that
heterosexual serial killers are allow ed theirs.
In countries in w hich real human rights violations blight the lives of
millions, there is confusion about w hy we westerners are using the act
to argue, for example, that a man has the right to sunbathe naked in
his ow n garden. Is that really the best w e can do?
It's not all bad news, however. The British Columbia supreme
court in Vancouver recently overturned an earlier decision of the
human rights tribunal that Vancouver Rape Relief had breached
the human rights code when it refused to allow Kimberley Nixon,
a male to female transsexual, to train as a counsellor of female
rape victims. In 2002, Nixon had won $7,500, the highest amount
ever awarded by the tribunal, for injury to "her dignity".

327
The arrogance is staggering: having not experienced life as a
"woman" until middle age, Nixon assumed "she" would be
suitable to counsel women who have chosen to access a service
that offers support from women who have suffered similar
experiences, not from a man in a dress! The Rape Relief sisters,
who do not believe a surgically constructed vagina and
hormonally grown breasts make you a woman, successfully
challenged the ruling and, for now at least, the law says that to
suffer discrimination as a woman you have to be, er, a woman.
The Equal Opportunities Commission, your best friend if you are
a man wanting to get into nightclubs free on Ladies'Nights, has
a lot to learn from this. Last summer, it supported the case of five
male to female transsexuals, only one of w hom had disposed of his
meat and tw o veg, on the grounds of sex discrimination after a pub
landlord objected to one of them using the w omen' s toilets. The claim
was rejected, w ith the judge stating that although he accepted the
claimants'w ish to regard themselves as w omen, a person' s w ish
"doesn' t deter mine w hat he is". Quite. Call me old-fashioned, but I
thought the one battle w e feminists w on fair and square w as to
convince at least those left of centre that gender roles are made up.
They are not real. We play at them. We develop traditional masculine
or feminine traits by being indoctrinated, not because w e are
biologically programmed to behave in those w ays.
Feminis m is supposed to be based on the premise that prescriptive
gender roles are a cause of w omen' s oppression. When I w ere a lass,
new to feminism and lesbianis m, I w as among the brigade w ho would
sit in the w omen' s disco wearing vegetarian shoes and staring in
disbelief at the butch/femme couples, mainly because they were
having a better time than me. " Oh, but they' re emulating
heterosexuality!" w e would gasp in horror as the butch ran her Zippo
up the femme' s fishnets. "What'
s the point of being a lesbian if you'
re
going to behave like that?"
I look back on them w ith affection and, yes, nostalgia. At least those
women were women, and hadn't gone to gender reassignment
clinics to have their breasts sliced off and a penis made out of
their beer bellies. (It seems she is still stuck in the 1970's w hen so-
called lesbian feminists regarded transvestites and the transgendered
as a mockery of womanhood. That faction supposedly later
apologized for their ignorance and lack of tolerance and compassion.
That fringe basically hated gay men as w ell.) Their attitude w as, we'
re
comfortable in our ow n skin, let' s be w omen but subvert w hat that
means. Could we really have imagined back then that unpicking

328
constructions of gender would result in Kwik-Fit sex changes on
offer to all and sundry?
Tw enty years ago, w hen I w orked on an advice line for lesbians, I
would take call after call from self-hating, suicidal w omen w ho had
experienced horrific homophobia. Thanks to feminis m and gay
liberation, that situation has altered radically. What a disgrace,
therefore, that our legacy amounts to this: if you are unhappy
with the constraints of your gender, don't challenge them. If you
are tired of being stared at for snogging your same-sex partner
in the street, have a sex change. Where are those who go berserk
about the ethics of genetic engineering yet seem not to w orry about
major, irreversible surgery on healthy bodies? Also, those who
"transition" seem to become stereotypical in their appearance -
fuck-me shoes and birds'-nest hair for the boys; beards, muscles
and tattoos for the girls. Think about a world inhabited just by
transsexuals. It would look like the set of Grease.
When feminists suggested that the true "gender outlaws" were those
who didn' t give a toss about conforming to masculine or feminine
norms, it sounded so persuasive that even some straight people took
it up. When it got to the stage w here my mum w as w earing jeans and
trainers rather than her usual skirts and heels, I started to feel a bit
like the w onderful Daffyd from Little Britain. Too many straight w omen
looked like they might be lesbians, and I w anted to be the only gay in
the village!
To go back to my five men and a toilet, I don't have a problem with
men disposing of their genitals, but it does not make them
women, in the same way that shoving a bit of vacuum hose down
your 501s does not make you a man.”
This article w ritten by Julie Bindell is the most hate filled vile load of
bullshit I have ever read coming from a person belonging to one group
of the GLBT collective for another!
People like her are the reason GLBT can never seem to agree on
anything, or stand together on anything. She couldn’t do better if she
was on the conservative payroll herself ! In fact I w ouldn’t be the least
bit surprised! That org is a disgrace and dishonors the memory of
those w ho were part of the original Stonew all – a name w e GLBT
remember w ith pride, even as far aw ay as South Africa – especially to
the transgendered community w ho took the lead in the matter that
founded the GLBT rights movement!
I am a post op transgendered w oman w ho fights for the rights and
equality of ALL groups in GLBTIQ in South Africa, and sometimes in

329
the rest of the world via the internet as w ell. And I find that shameful
article an affront, an insult and UNWORTHY of someone w ho should
quite fucking frankly, know better! Her attitude and prejudice shames
herself, it shames me and it shames all of us as a group – because
through her w ords and actions she has done nothing less than to help
divide us still further and to make us w eaker before the onslaught of
those w ho wage w ar on us ALL. She is utterly despicable!
What people had to say about the issue of awarding this transphobic
malcontent for her contributions to exacerbating the divisions w ithin
GLBTIQ:
“I w ouldn’t call people like Bindel feminists myself - they just know
some of the w ords.” Sarah, UK.
“When I spoke to someone on Stonew all UK’s support and
information line I asked her w hat their policy on trans people w as. She
replied that although they only deal w ith “sexuality and not gender
identity” they pass on all requests for support to appropriate
organizations and that they are sympathetic to the needs of trans
people.
When I told her that her organization had nominated for an aw ard
someone w ho had described SRS as “mutilation” she got a little
embarrassed; when I told her that I w as at home recovering from SRS
right now , and that it’s as far from mutilation as I can imagine, she got
very embarrassed, and promised to pass my comments up the chain.
Whether my comments w ill actually go anyw here I don’t know , but I’m
surprised that the people answ ering the phones on their support line
don’t know how transphobic Stonew all are; maybe now one of them
does she’ll start asking questions.” Allyson, UK.
“It seems that not all people are accepting. I' ve heard lesbians
spouting hateful drivel about gay men calling them misogynist by
design and just hating men in general, be they gay, straight or
bisexual and for no apparent reason but their otherness.

Conversely I have heard gay men saying the most hateful things
about lesbians, calling them everything from “diesel dykes” etc also
for no other reason as their otherness. In fact many gay men are
misogynists. But they are in the minority, remember that.
And of course ignorance and miseducation plays a huge role. Once
you understand the ' other'you develop a compassion for the '
other'
. It
is how it has w orked for me.

330
Julie Bindel doesn't deserve the right to call herself a feminist, she is
obviously a de facto man-hater, hence her hate of men becoming
women. She clearly doesn' t get feminis m; it w as because of
feminis m'
s fight for equality that we have LGBT rights today. In fact
I’m horribly ashamed that she is a lesbian and that w e have the
commonality of being gay. If I could I w ould become straight just to
completely distance myself from that hateful w oman!” C.F.
Johannesburg, South Africa.
In fact, Ms. Bindel’s hateful statements indicate tw o things to me,
being a) blatant intolerance and hate for transgendered folk (who
have been both allies and integral to the freedom movement since the
original Stonew all riots; and b) her all too obvious IGNORANCE
surrounding core gay matters surrounding the ‘nature v/s nurture’
issue and of what transgender folk truly are – and the resulting
arrogance radiating from her opinions is per meable and nauseating!
She blatantly confuses people’s ow n sexual/gender self image w ith
her apparent assertion that ‘if women want to be lesbians then they
should look and behave like women’ – w hich to me indicates that
she has obviously confused lesbians differentiating themselves into
“butch” or “fem” appearances/behavior with the transgendered
process of transition – w hich if anything, is NOT the same thing at all!
She obviously has no regard w hatever for people’s right to be happy
with how they look or to structure their appearances according to their
tastes. She comes across as heavily anti-freedom and dictatorial.
If she herself is gay, she expect s other people to respect her
sexuality, or as a feminist, she expect s others to respect her
gender – but will not afford others the same courtesy. There is a
word for such people – hypocrites.
It seems to me she is attacking those physically male for daring to
change gender (somehow “insulting” the feminine gender) and to be
women as w ell as born females for transitioning and (somehow
“betraying” the feminine gender) becoming physically male – I can
agree w ith statements made that such people are in fact bona fide
man-haters and in fact, not true feminists at all. But w hat do I know ?
I’m only a transsexual “man” desperately in need of “reparative
therapy”! What a fucking idiot!
Bindel comes across as one of those folk w ho assert ‘you can have it
in any color you want as long as it’s black’ – anti-freedom, anti-choice
and utterly draconian. Instead of focusing on issues w hic h affect her
as a gay woman – or even as a w oman – she launches vicious
unw arranted attacks on people w ho, like her, are simply trying to exist

331
and assert their civil liberties as best they can in a w orld that
condemns us all equally.
The transgendered contingent of GLBTIQ is quite frankly more hard-
pressed by their personal circumstances to find acceptance than the
GLB members of the group. In fact I find that to me as a lay man
(sorry, Julie – a layperson) she appears to have an enor mous chip on
her shoulder, possibly even an inferiority complex – indicated by her
need to pick on others w hom she feels are low er dow n on the pecking
order than herself. Apparently such folk w ere found in the Nazi
concentration camps, fellow inmates w ho picked on those w earing the
pink triangle so they could at least feel superior to somebody.
Bindel is not unique in her hatred of the transgendered. In fact I have
seen similar transphobic sentiments being expressed by both lesbian
feminists as well as hetero feminists on websites from around the
world. Usually these originate from the more radical feminists know n
as “rad-fems”. In fact, their radical militant version of “feminism” is
about as dangerous to the GLBTIQ group as a w hole as the religious
right w ing is. In fact I’m sure the only reason these two haven’t really
linked up before is because (duh) – they’re feminists – and therefore
enemies of the almighty patr iarchy. These genii unfortunately do not
understand that they, as much as us (and as much as they hate other
components of GLBTIQ) are in the target sights of the patriarchy
movement. They do not realize or accept that there is strength in
numbers and unity in strength. They, as much as the virulently
homophobic patriarchy and radical religious right w ing seem to detest
any strain of diversity or deviation from w hat they consider to be w ithin
their “acceptable norms”. Fortunately these violently
trans/homophobic idiots seem to be a minority among our feminist
allies. Though the few there (such as Bindel and her supporters such
as Stonew all UK) are can often cause mountains of damage through
their ow n hate of others in the same target groups of our common
enemies.

Chapter 10: Propaganda Matters

• The Internet Used Against Us

The internet is information and communication. In the 21st century we

are at the start of the digital age, w here communication is instant.
Tw enty fiv e years ago it w asn’t as quick or as easy, but today the

332
enemy can organize, hold web-conferences, send documents,
strategize and – co-ordinate their global w ar on GLBT.

Just looking at w hat is posted above; show ing how each of these
disgusting and threatening draconian quasi- Christian orgs all have
websites, internet domains and email addresses should be an
indication of how neutral the internet itself is. It doesn’t care w ho uses
it or to w hat end. The main threat w e face from the internet is its
anonymity, and the fact that most people w ill believe almost anything
because “I saw it on the net”. I suppose I should insert a lengthy
lecture on the similarity of this attitude to the statement “because the
Bible tells me so”, but I’m just not going to bother. If you don’t get it
by now , then I’ve w asted my time. But let me add this: because of
this assumed authority and anony mity it has become easy for people
of all persuasions to post websites and information w hich is
slanderous, defamatory, inaccurate, unreliable and dow nright false.
How can you tell?
Well here’s a tip – if you see a site posting hate or negativity about
GLBT and you see “coalition, family, values, reformation, renewal,
conservative, patriotic, moral this or that” in the title, it’s a sure bet its
going to feature anti-GLBT propaganda somew here and it’s about as
accurate as a cheap watch. And the most masterful stroke of genius
of the w hole scheme is this: You can post an item of propaganda in
the USA and it can be advertised and view ed from ANYWHERE AND
EV ERYWHERE ELSE!
Take this site for example: www.conservapedia.com. This shrew dly
conceived brainchild of the conservative bodies in the USA cleverly
mimics the concept of the highly successful and credible on line
encyclopedia www.w ikipedia.com. I just love how Conservapedia
calls their product the "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" and actually
criticizes Wikipedia for “not needing” scientific facts to back up their
articles. Funny they can’t seem to produce any scientific facts to back
their ow n quoted ‘junk science’. Why? Because none exists. That’s
why. Not so ‘trustworthy’ after all, are w e now ?
Conservapedia’s w riters cleverly manipulate disinformation to link for
example “evolution” w ith “Nazism”. What a picture of uncle Adolf on a
podium has to do w ith evolution is quite beyond me. The “expert” also
tries to convince the reader that people w ho believe in evolution are
also likely to be atheists! Clever but blatantly obvious to the educated
and w ell prepare mind.

333
On homosexuality it says this: “Homosexuality is "sexual desire or
behavior directed toward a person or persons of one' s own sex."[1]
Homosexuality has a number of causal factors that influence its
ultimate origination in individuals which will be addressed
shortly. (What the hell is that supposed to mean? “Addressed
shortly”? Do they have scores of rocket scientists working in genetics
labs trying to snip out GLBT from the human genome? Or do they
refer to the Reconstructionist aims of “taking over the w orld”?) In
addition, homosexuality has a variety of effects on individuals and
society at large which will be subsequently elaborated on. Next, some
of the historical events, religious matters, and legal matters relating to
homosexuality will also be covered. In regards to homosexuality
research, much of the research that has been in regards to the
causes of homosexuality and the effects of homosexuality has been
done since the latter part of the 20th century.”
If you read low er dow n to the bottom of the page you can see w hat
tw isted bullshit these brigands post, claiming it is authoritative fact!
What I cannot understand is that these bastards get aw ay w ith
proudly displaying the Amer ican flag as part of their logo design –
thereby soiling it and dishonoring it w ith their blatantly false and
manufactured draconian dictatorial crap. Does this not offend the rest
of the American nation? It w ould offend me if it w as my flag – or my
country!
But this also goes to prove the international nature of the internet. It
truly points the w ay to the cliché’d “global village” concept. The w orld
gets smaller and smaller – w e all get closer, in some cases too close
– and in other cases not far aw ay enough for my liking! And
conversely, while the internet can be used effectively against us – we
can use it just as effectively against them – w itness the evidence
gathered here from the internet!

• Propaganda And Other Agendas

Here I w ill post tw o book reviews. Both books are violently anti-GLBT
referred to in several places in this document. The first is “The
Homosexual Agenda” and the second is “The Pink Agenda” w hich
centers on South Africa, but largely sounds like it draws on the
American example.

“Book Review of The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing The Principal

Threat To Religious Freedom Today
334
by Alan Sears and Craig Osten
Review ed by Sandra Alexander
13 June 2004
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3520.html
This book reveals where the hom osexual m ovement is taking us,
w ith its "six-point strategy" for changing societal perception of
hom osexuality. This strategy takes society through four stages,
and we are now past the third stage and into the final and fourth
stage leading to the m oral dem ise of a culture.

In the Introduction to their book, The Homosexual Agenda, Mr.

Sears and Mr. Osten ask the question, “ How far dow n the road
have homosexual activists taken us toward their goal of
unbridled sexual behavior and silencing of the church?” (p. 14)
They then describe the four stages which lead to the m oral
dem ise of a culture, stating that the hom osexuals, after quickly
passing through the first two stages, are now finishing the third
stage, (‘The Mobilization Stage’) developing a common language
and strategy for presenting their case to the public.

“They [homosexual advocates] reframed the issue, taking it out of the

moral realm, and presented it as a ‘hum an rights’ issue. Those
who opposed their argument w ere deemed ‘hateful’ or ‘intolerant’
tow ard those that are ‘different’ - even though the group’s only
identification is that of a chosen sexual behavior.” (p. 14) This
strategy is w orking, because “once an issue has been redefined
from a moral absolute to an individual choice, society starts to
be reprogrammed that the arguments of the group are valid and
therefore special privileges for previous ‘injustices’ and for the
affirm ation of the behavior occur.” This is stage four, “The
Legitimization Stage.” (p. 14) The authors w arn us that we have now
reached stage four and they ask the question, “How has one to tw o
percent of the population achieved so much success in transforming
American culture and restricting religious freedom?” (p. 17)
Part of the answ er to the question is found in tw o publications (1987
and 1989) by homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen.
Their strategy to change A merica’s perception of homosexual
behavior included the follow ing six points:
1. Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and often as possible.
(Through sheer perseverance the opposition w ill be w orn down)
335
(Right – that’s w hy you control the media and silence GLBT w herever
possible)
2. Portray gays as victims, not aggressive challengers. (If there is
aggression it is from your side, not ours – and yes, you make us
unw illing victims of your persecution and hate of us)
3. Give homosexual protectors a “ just” cause. (You fruitcakes
already do that on your ow n)
4. Make gays look good. (Notice that the media alw ays m akes the
“ gay” character the hero) (Suuure they do – how many “gay heroes”
have you seen in movies in the last ten years? BTW, notice the
quotation marks around “gay”? These creatures hate us so much they
can’t even bring themselves to use the ter m as it is supposed to be!)
5. Make the victim izers look bad. (That’s because they ARE bad,
duh)
6. Solicit funds: the buck stops here (i.e., get corporate America and
major foundations to financially support the homosexual cause). (p.
18) (As opposed to the BILLIONS of US dollars being channeled into
conservative right w ing religious coffers each year through donations
and other corporate and political funding?)
Kirk and Madsen knew that Bible-believing Christians w ould be the
major opponents of legitimizing homosexuality because of their belief
in the Biblical teaching that homosexuality is “unnatural” and “vile.” To
counteract this, they stated, “We can under mine the moral authority of
homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backw aters,
badly out of step w ith the times and w ith the latest findings of
psychology. Against the mighty pull of institutional religion, one must
set the mightier draw of science and public opinion… .Such an unholy
alliance has w orked w ell against churches before, on such topics as
divorce and abortion.” (p. 20) In addition to this Kirk and Madsen
wrote, “We intend to make the antigays look so nasty that average
Americans w ill w ant to disassociate themselves from such types.” (p.
23)
Hom osexuals have m ade deep inroads into corporate America.
In the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) training
m anual, activists are advised, “ Before attempting to get
domestic partner benefits from your em ployer, it is im perative
that the com pany’s nondiscrimination policy include sexual
orientation….. “ (p. 153) The strategy has w orked w ell. “… the
addition of sexual orientation to company antidiscrimination policies is
the Trojan horse that leads to domestic-partner benefits… ” (p. 153)
Mr. Sears and Mr. Osten report that “31 percent of Fortune 500
336
companies now offer domestic-partner benefits, including 82 percent
of the Fortune 50.” (p. 151)
“It is w ell-documented that homosexuals as a group “have a much
higher level of disposable income than most families.” (More utter ly
false clap-trap borrowed from Paul Cameron and his propaganda
factory that produces blatantly false “facts” and “studies”.) (p. 156)
Therefore, corporations are lining up to get their share of the
homosexual dollars. “Subaru, for example, proudly states that it is the
number one choice of lesbian households.” (p. 159) United Airlines,
under pressure, in 2000 forged a new three-year partnership w ith the
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. Benefits of this
partnership included “underw riting of all staff air travel for Lambda for
the next three years.” (p. 160) The authors ask the question, “Can you
imagine the uproar in the media and from radical homosexual activists
if, for example, Delta Airlines gave three years of (benefits) to the first
Baptist Church to facilitate their opposition of Lambda?” (p. 160)
But monetary benefits are not the only goal of the hom osexuals.
Through “diversity training” sessions for employees in many
corporations and government entities, “biblical beliefs on homosexual
behavior and marriage are openly ridiculed.” (As w ell they should be.)
(p. 156) “The radical homosexual agenda is definitely not about
tolerance; it is about acceptance and an in-your-face desire to
flaunt homosexuals’ sexuality and related behavior at the
expense of others.” (p. 156) (Can you believe this shit? Whoever
heard about GLBT complaining about straight folk “flaunting their
sexuality and related behavior at the expense of others”? They clear ly
want to rule the roost and keep it so!)
Another target of the homosexuals is the public schools.
“ According to the National Education Association and its allies,
children must be taught that sexual orientation is fluid (which is
an interesting contradiction since homosexual activists are
intent on proving a genetic link to their behavior), that only
‘intolerant religions’ do not affirm homosexual behavior, and that
once you are entrapped in homosexual behavior, there is no
escape. No dissenting views are perm itted. Thus, the gospel is
silenced, parental values are underm ined, and an im pressionable
child is doomed to engage in behavior that w ill often result in his
or her eventual self-destruction.” (p. 51) As New sweek writer,
David Gelman, puts it, “ At high schools around the country,
m ulticulturalism has begun to em brace m ultisexualism …m ore
students seem to be com ing out, and they’re com ing out
younger.” (p. 50)

337
“ The indoctrination that takes place in our public schools has
definitely had an effect in shaping teens’ attitudes tow ard
hom osexual behavior. (As opposed to the indoctrination that takes
place in most churches, for example w hich “definitely has an effect in
shaping teens’ attitudes tow ard homosexual behavior” and turning
them into little bigot lemmings?) In 2001, Zogby International
released a poll that found that 85 percent of high school seniors
thought homosexual men and lesbians should be accepted by
society…….two-thirds thought same-sex m arriage should be
allowed. Even 80 percent of evangelical Christian students
supported hate-crimes legislation, w hich in its m any proposed
forms, w ill be used to silence religious speech about
hom osexual behavior.” (p. 67)
Universities are now actively recruiting homosexuals, in some
cases “ tailoring their student housing policies to support
hom osexual behavior and preferences.” (p. 76) At the same time,
Steve Hayner, former president of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship
reports, “We have had more challenges to our basic right to exist on
campus settings during the past tw o years than in the previous fifty-
five combined. It’s not just us— this is hitting Catholics and Muslims
and others. What w e are seeing is a growing challenge to religious
free speech.” (p. 72) “While people of faith find themselves forced to
put up w ith behavior that offends them, those w ho practice
homosexual behavior are catered to, at the expense of everyone
else.” (p. 77)
“ Lately homosexual behavior on college cam puses is taking a
dangerous new turn - the promotion of sexual relations between
adults and children, known as pedophilia.” (p. 83) U.S. New s and
World Report columnist John Leo noted that he had "seen a
trend toward the promotion of pedophilia am ong academ ics as
early as 1981.” (p. 85) Professor Harris Mirkin of the University of
Missouri-Kansas City published a study (funded w ith taxpayer money)
that compared the ‘moral panic’ about pedophilia to previous ‘panics’
about feminism and homosexuality.” Sheldon Steinbach of the
American Council on Education adds his comment, “Today’s heresy
often becomes tomorrow ’s orthodoxy.” (p. 85) “This statement is
extremely chilling but also very true. Just as homosexual behavior has
now become accepted orthodoxy on many university campuses and
Christians and Orthodox Jew s have become the heretics, w e are
going down the same road w ith pedophilia. As the homosexual
agenda continues to sexualize our culture, other once-forbidden
behaviors are exalted as just more alternative lifestyles. The result is
that the w ell-being of millions of children is at risk, along w ith the right
338
of parents to protect their children from sexual exploitation.” (SINCE
WHEN HAS PEDOPHILIA EVER BEEN “EXHALTED AS AN
ALTERNATIV E LIFESTYLE”?! And especially by gay advocacy orgs?
What utter bullshit! Another typical example of these idiots trying to
equate same sex relationships w ith pedophilia and bestiality !) (p. 86)
The authors begin their chapter entitled “The Family under Attack”
with a quote from Stanley Kurtz, w riting in National Review . He
predicts, in part, that “As soon as even a single state legalizes
same-sex m arriage, the nation w ill be plunged into a furious
legal, political, and cultural struggle…As legal and political battles
over traveling couples spread from state-to-state, the chaos w ill
multiply and the courts, already inclined to mandate same-sex
marriage, w ill grow increasingly receptive to arguments that the Full
Faith and Credit Clause demands national gay marriage. And the
even stronger arguments for nationally mandated gay marriage under
the Constitution’s equal-protection clause w ill also find favor in the
courts.” (Same sex marriage has been legal in some US states and
other countries around the world for some years now – HAS ANY OF
THIS HA PPENED AS THEY PREDICTED? No? Well okay then – just
thought I’d clear that up.) (p. 89) “Once marriage is redefined for
same-sex partners, it opens the Pandora’s box to be redefined for any
assortment of individuals. After all, if tw o men or tw o w omen have the
right to be married, w hy not two men and three w omen, or tw o men,
one w oman, and a dog and a chimpanzee?” (p. 94) The authors point
out that granting marital rights to same-sex and other partnerships
will quickly change the traditional view of m arriage in w hich
m onogam y and fidelity to your spouse are valued. (Oh, so
according to these clever folk, gay people w ho marry will not be
faithful or monogamous? See once again how they manipulate fact to
become fiction!) In a study conducted by UV M psychologists
Rothbaum and Solomon, they found the follow ing: “While 79 percent
of married heterosexuals felt that nonmonogamy w as wrong, only 34
percent of homosexual men not in civil unions and 50 percent in civil
unions thought it w as wrong to engage in nonmonogamous sexual
behavior.” (So where did they suck this drivel out of again?) (p. 95)
Openly homosexual author Andrew Sullivan w rites that
“… homosexuals have a ‘need for extramarital outlets’ and therefore
same-sex marriage w ill make adultery more acceptable for all married
couples.” (p. 95)
With such a threat w ashing over American society and particular ly
challenging the religious freedom of the Christian church, (You mean
the freedom to persecute other folk, don’t you? Nobody is threatening

339
your “Christian churches” or to take aw ay your religious freedoms.
Just to stop you from taking aw ay the same rights from others, you
bunch of fascists!) how is the church responding? Mr. Sears and Mr.
Osten cites examples of churches w ho have attempted to remain true
to the teaching of the Bible. In early December 1989, members of the
militant homosexual group A CT- UP disrupted the service in New York
City’s St. Patrick’s Cathedral, yelling and chaining themselves to
pew s. “One irate individual made his w ay to the altar for Communion,
took a w afer, and threw it on the ground.” (p. 117) At First
Presbyterian Church of Orlando, Florida, the Rev. How ard Edington
“w as forced to retire under pressure from some members of his
congregation and the Central Flor ida Presbytery because of his vocal
opposition to the ordination of homosexual pastors, same-sex
marriage, and preaching a sermon against the city’s sexual orientation
anti-discrimination policy.” (GOOD!) (p. 122) “These examples are just
a microcosm of the w ar that radical homosexual activists have staged
against the church. (If it is a war, then it is in response to the war you
fuckheads declared on us, remember? Can’t stand the heat? Then get
the hell out of the kitchen!) It has been a w ar in w hich the church
has either totally capitulated on the issue and em braced
hom osexual behavior w hile rejecting biblical teaching, or found
herself under increasing attack from inside and outside the
sanctuary for taking a biblical stand on the issue.” (p. 118)
One of the m ost insidious attacks on religious freedom has come
under the guise of so-called “ hate crimes legislation.” (p. 202) “In
municipalities w ith an assortment of hate crime law s or similar speech
limiting law s, religious freedom is already at peril. In 1998, the San
Francisco Board of Supervisors took the unusual action of
denouncing an advertising campaign sponsored by a national
m inistry that said homosexual behavior was sinful and that
hom osexuals can change. … Although the ministry took the board
to court over the matter, the Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals in San
Francisco rejected the claim, stating, ‘The m ain purpose and effect
of the Supervisors’ actions w as to prom ote equality and
condem n hate crimes, not to attack or inhibit religious beliefs.’
Yet that is exactly w hat the resolutions did.” (There it is folks – a
blatant adm ission!!! The religious right believes its RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM entails persecuting GLBT folk and engaging in hate
speech and hate crime! Condem ned by their own words! And
then naturally any attempt to stand up to them and to prevent this is
“persecuting the church!” and “challenging the religious freedom of the
church!” These people are SICK!!!) (p. 203)

340
The authors state, “Many Christians are unaw are of the threats posed
to their religious freedoms. Because of this, either because of
ignorance or laziness, sadly, many Christians w ill come to realize the
famous lament of the Ger man pastor, Martin Niemoeller, is true for
them as w ell: ‘First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing
because I am not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I
did nothing because I am not a socialist. Then they cam e for the
Catholics, but I did nothing because I am not a Catholic. Finally,
they came for me, but by then there w as no one left to help me.”
(Funny they w ould equate themselves w ith VICTIMS when it is
US GL BT w hich THEY are com ing for!! Hypocrisy!) (p. 204) This
book is an excellent read if you w ant to see clearly the chilling path
where the homosexual movement is really taking us. (Not nearly as
chilling as the path you lunatic dominionist reconstructionist fanatics
would drag us dow n in chains!)
A note from the Authors: "While this book deals w ith a difficult and
contentious issue, we want to state up front that both authors and the
ministry of the Alliance Defense Fund have nothing but respect,
compassion, and sensitivity toward those ensnared in
hom osexual behavior. (WHAT THE FUCK???? After ALL those
blatant defam ations and character assassinations and blatant
hate speech intended to incite a veritable revolt against innocent
people, you have the brass face to slip that in? Compassion?
Respect?? Suuuure you do – I can see the “ compassion” and
“ respect” in the tone of this abom ination you pedal as “ truth” ! It
is false, slanderous and filled w ith nothing but prejudice, hate
and intolerant bullshit designed to generate m ore of the same
against folk who m ostly don’t even know how to put
“ homosexual” and “ agenda” in the same sentence and mean it!)
Both of us have family members, respected acquaintances, and
friends who have been trapped in this behavior and know something
of the incredible pain and sorrow it has brought to them and their
families. (I w eep for your “friends and fam ily members” w ho have
to bear the shame of having hateful ignorant bigots such as
yourselves in their bloodline! Your comments here have proven
your ignorance of GLBT m atters – as well as your unintelligible
hate!) With God' s grace we carefully balance this love and respect
for these individuals w ith warnings about the carrying out, promotion,
and demand for legal approval for homosexual behavior that w ill stif le
religious freedom and trap millions of more people in its deadly grip."
(p. viii)“ (They dare to involve God as an accomplice in this hateful
document filled w ith bile and dripping acid? How many more crimes
against humanity are to be committed in the name of this God?)

341
A book w as written in reply to this horrible artifact of hatefulness,
called “ The Gay Agenda: Talking Back to the Fundamentalists”
by Jack Nicholls, Oct 1996. You can see it here:
http://www.amazon.com/Gay-Agenda-Talking-Back-
Fundamentalists/dp/1573921033
There w as another called "The Antigay Agenda: Orthodox Vision
and the Christian Right" by Didi Her man 1998. You can view it
here:
http://www.amazon.com/Antigay-Agenda-Orthodox-Vision-
Christian/dp/0226327655/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=12239
26336&sr=1-12
But let’s move on to South Africa, where a disturbingly similar book
was published (and banned) back in 2002. In fact I could find it listed
now here on the internet at all – except on one or two violently anti-
gay dom inionist book sites. Remember, this book w as co-written by
South African residents, for and about South Africa from the view point
of the radical right orgs here. Although it w as banned from public sale
at ordinary bookshops and to under 18s, it is still pedaled from radical
dominionist sites along w ith other radical (and disreputable) items of
religious Reconstructionist nature.
“ The Pink Agenda - Sexual Revolution in South Africa and the
Ruin of the Fam ily” by Christine McCafferty with Peter Hammond
(Founder of the homophobic Frontline Fellowship org.)
http://www.frontline.org.za/books_videos/pink_agenda.htm
If you think that the homosexual agenda w on’t affect you or your
family - you’re wrong. As The Pink Agenda documents, the sexual
revolutionaries want to transform the very fabric of society, they
want to reconstruct the family, and homosexualise the schools -
and they want government funding (your taxes) to do it!
Freedom of speech and toleration of dissent are a fruit of
Christianity, (SINCE WHEN? Ju st more hypocrisy in your attempt
to remove our civil rights and also our freedom of speech?) and
seldom in history have these freedoms been more at r isk. We need an
open and intelligent debate (Well, that cuts these idiots out from the
start!) on the homosexual agenda:

• Does medical science support the claim that people w ho get

involved in homosexuality are born that w ay and cannot
change? (“ Invoved in” Pfff! I like how they m ake it seem
like w e joined a club or something! And yes, science

342
 DOES show we are born GLBTIQ and cannot change or be
changed!)

• Are homosexual activists really just w anting the same rights as

everyone else or are they after special rights and
privileges? (So the right to not get fired, m urdered,
persecuted, to love w ho you choose, to m arry w ho you
love and to not be discrim inated against are SPECIAL
RIGHTS?? You people are SICK! Somebody is overdue
back at the lab to get their bolts tightened!)

• What w ould be the economic implications for businesses and

taxpayers if homosexual partnerships w ere entitled to the
same benefits as marriages? ( NONE – Do w e not all pay tax
or have medical aid schemes? Talk sense, for heaven’s
sake!)

• What health risks are involved in homosexual and lesbian

activities? (No more or less than heterosexual activities,
both of w hich include fellatio and anal sex for your
inform ation!)

• Why do men involved in homosexuality and sodomy have an

average life expectancy of 42 compared to 73 for other men?
(An allusion to Paul Cameron perhaps? “ Cameron' s
degree in psychology is useful in providing credibility for
his claims; but a close exam ination of Cameron' s
publications and statements reveals that not only is
Cameron' s "research" deeply flawed, but Cameron
himself has a very dangerous policy agenda.” Read
further here: http://www.geocities.com/ninure/cameron.html -
at least get credible sources for your bogus claims eh?
You bunch of clowns!)

• Why are homosexuals 24 times more likely to commit suicide

than other people? ( Duh – m aybe because of the prejudice
and persecution leveled against them by you sweet loving
Christian philanthropist folk!)

• Why are those involved in homosexuality more likely to

sexually molest a child? (Absolutely false and proven so in
numerous scientific studies using credible statistics!)

• Does the international "gay" movement include the low ering of

the age of consent for sex with children, especially boys, and
343
 the normalisation of paedophilia? (Funny how
heterosexuals can have sex at certain ages, but let gay
folk ask for the SAME treatment before the law ! As for
pedophilia, what has that to do with the lowering of the
age of consent to the same level as in heterosexual
individuals of the same sex? Interesting how these bigots
alw ays seem to find space for pedophilia – I’m sure
bestiality will crop up next!)

• What is being taught to 10-year-olds in South Afric an schools

about homosexuality and bisexuality? (Tolerance of the
diversity of others and not to hate them for it – I guess
that’s w hy you don’t like it, methinks.)

• Have politicians, radio stations, Christian ministers and others

been sued, fined and imprisoned in other countries for
speaking against homosexuality, and is there a similar agenda
for South Africa? (I have never heard of any such incidents
in SA – see m y comments on the next point – and in any
case, people such as James Dobson have been getting
aw ay with their hate and heterosexist bigotry for
decades!)

• South Africa is the only country in the w orld w ith a constitution

that specifically protects "sexual orientation". Legally and
politically, w hat does this mean for our country? (Nothing, if
you bigots refer to the constitution w hich allows you to
stand on a soapbox and scream your lungs out w ith your
hatred of us – simply because you bastards had a hand in
writing it in 1994 – hence para 16 sec2c.)
All these questions are clearly dealt w ith and well documented in The
Pink Agenda. The homosexual activists ow n writings make it
abundantly clear that, as part of a vast social engineering project, the
pink agenda will not settle for the deviant being declared normal.
They insist that the normal must be declared deviant. (THIS IS
BLATANT AND UTT ER FALLICY! HOW DO THESE PEOPL E EV EN
SLEEP AT NIGHT SPOUTING SUCH UTT ER BULLSHIT YOU
COUL D SM ELL FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PLANET? HOW
CAN ANY SANE RIGHT THINKING PERSON EV EN BELIEV E T HIS
GARBAGE – AND SUPPORT IT? I guess that answers m y
question.)
With the government considering homosexual pseudo- marriage right
now , you need to be equipped w ith the facts, and an understanding of

344
where it will all end - if we don’t stop the tidal wave! This book w ill
equip you w ith w ays to ensure that w e do not only resist the
homosexualisation for the future generation, but that w e turn back the
tide of sexual revolution in our country.
Articles about the controversy surrounding this book:
The Journalist'
s agenda
Threats to Ban Christian Book in South Africa
What other Christian Leaders say:
"The Pink Agenda is one of the most readable and comprehensive
books ever w ritten on the challenge that homosexuality poses to
society and to its ow n practitioners. Before public officials approve any
more "gay" affirming laws, they need to read this. The sections on
health r isks alone w ould give anyone pause before promoting
homosexual behavior as a ' civil right.'
" - Robert H. Knight, Director of
the Culture and Fam ily Institute, Washington DC and author of
Homosexual Activists Work to Low er the Age of Sexual Consent.
“The authors of The Pink Agenda have allow ed the facts to speak for
themselves. Every advance for the homosexual agenda is a further
crack in the already w eakened family structure. For those w ho are
shocked by some of the details about homosexual behaviour, let us
hope that this w ill be a rude aw akening for them to support campaigns
aimed at upholding family values.” - Rev. Fano Sibisi, President of
Christians For Truth International see entries on Right Wing Orgs
In SA, pg
“Somebody once said that tolerance is the virtue of people w ho do not
believe in anything. I could not agree more. Having had the dubious
honour of incurring the wrath of the homosexual lobby for merely
questioning Cape Tow n Tourism’s right to promote the city as “the
premier gay touris m destination”, I have come to the conclusion that
never before in our nation’s history has it become so necessary to
understand that the conflict betw een the Biblical Christian and the
Secular Humanist w orldviews is essentially a battle to shape the
minds of society, and ultimately the moral climate of our future.
Be sure that you are fully informed about the threat w e face as
humanis m encroaches on areas of life w e once considered sacred
and safe. This book gives a comprehensive and startling insight into
the insidious and often depraved w orld of homosexual activity. It lifts
the lid on the covert operations of the homosexual lobby, the havoc it
has w reaked internationally and its nefarious agenda for South Africa.

345
Let this book equip and encourage you to stand strong for Biblical
morality and righteous living.” - Errol Naidoo
“The authors are probably in for a lot of flack for being brave enough
to speak w ith authority on a subject where political correctness is
considered more important than truth. How ever, The Pink Agenda w ill
empow er those w ho are sexually confused w ith the hope that they are
not condemned to a life over which they have no control. Secondly, it
gives Christians valuable information to expose the lie about “sexual
orientation”. Thirdly, The Pink Agenda provides irrefutable
academ ic research, w ith hundreds of references, on w hich
authorities (law makers and the justice system) can make sound
decisions.” - Rev. Kjell Olsen, Deputy President of Christians For
Truth International see entries on Right Wing Orgs In SA, pg
“If you w ant to help w in the South African culture w ar of values, this
book w ill help you. While homosexual militants may be a tiny minority,
their agenda threatens your rights, your family and others around you.
This book exposes that agenda, strategies to promote it, the myths
fed to the media and the language used to disguise it. All arguments
used in defence of tolerating this agenda are refuted with the latest
legal and scientific information and the very writings of the militant
homosexual movement. We can thw art the homosexual agenda for
South Africa if we fight back now, but if we wait another generation, it
may be very difficult to reverse. Placed in the right hands, this book is
political dynamite. You can help stop the homosexual agenda by
buying extra copies and giving them to your political representative,
church minister, new spaper editor and school headmaster.” - Philip
Rosenthal, Fam ily Alliance International see entries on Right Wing
Orgs In SA, pg
“Very seldom in history do w e find such mischievous spiritual and
political opportunis m as amongst the rebellious perverse pink, and
very seldom in history do w e find such a book, w ritten for the
strategist, the scholar and the avid reader w ho confess Jesus as their
Saviour. It is extremely w ell researched and written.” Dr Robbie
Cairncross, President of Fam ily Alliance International (SA) see
entries on Right Wing Orgs In SA, pg
“This is a w ell w ritten and factually w ell researched book. The
statistics are shocking and the information revealed is profoundly
disturbing. It is a very timely book for a South African society adrift
from any clear source of moral authority other than its ow n whims.
The w arning and the implications for our society are made
frighteningly clear. It is time for the church to fight back, w ith truth,
with courage and w ith compassion. This book w ill help us all in that
346
task and w e are greatly indebted to the authors.” - Dr Neil Beatson,
Medical practitioner and pastor in the Church of England in South
Africa
“This book is a must for any thoughtful South African. Christine Mc
Cafferty has done an intensive study, faithfully documenting the
homosexualist movement and its agenda. Anyone w ho is concerned
about the future of our children, our families, our society and even
Western civilisation, w ill be w ell advised to read this book. As the first
step in w inning a battle is understanding the nature of the conflict in
which w e are engaged, as w ell as the enemy w hom w e are opposing,
it is absolutely necessary to inform ourselves by reading this book if
we are to defeat the homosexualist onslaught in our day.” - Alison
Shortridge, Director of Theocentric Christian Education
“There can be little doubt that the South African Constitution offers
little or no real protection for the innocent and those w ho choose to
obey God. Instead, it seeks to protect those who kill the innocent and
unborn and those w ho commit w hat is an abomination before God.
According to Rom ans 1 the homosexuals and lesbians have
been given over to their lusts because they refuse to w ant to
know God. (Aha – gotcha! The article from the gay and lesbian
bible - “in Romans 1, Paul speaks of those who “exchanged God’s
truth for the lie, the idol, and w orshipped and served the creation other
than the Creator.. the females exchanged natural sex for what is other
than nature. And the same goes for males too. The males got rid of
natural sex w ith the female and burned w ith their mutual yearning –
males producing indecency w ith one another, and as a result got w hat
was coming to them for their mistake. They didn’t think it fit to
acknow ledge God, so he gave them an unfit mind, to do things that
are not appropriate. They have been filled w ith every kind of
wrongdoing, evil, greedy grasping behavior, malice - full to the utmost
with jealousy, murder, quarrels, deceit, nasty dispositions. They are
people w ho give out information, w hether true or false, which is
detrimental to the character or w elf are of others. They are slanderers,
God haters, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of bad deeds. They
are not obedient to parents, they don’t have intelligence, they do not
keep covenant, they do not have natural affection, they do not have
mercy.”
The context in Romans 1 and Jude is angels having sex w ith humans,
as w ell as committing other crimes. In fact, the context cannot be
more obvious in Jude 6-7, “6 And as for the Messengers who did not
uphold their ow n office but deserted their own places, he (the Lord)
has held them fir mly in eternal ropes dow n in the gloom, w aiting for

347
the Judgment of the Great Day. 7 Just like these, Sodom and
Gomorrah as w ell as the surrounding cities, w hich in a similar w ay
committed porneia and w ent after different flesh, serve as an example
of those who undergo punishment in the eternal fire.” 1 Enoch 10 says
the main angel w ho was responsible for abandoning his office in this
way w as bound hand and foot and cast into in darkness w here he
would remain until the Great Day of Judgement.
Note the “just like these” in verse 7. Jude is spelling it out very clearly,
Messengers (angels) did not uphold their ow n office, are held w ith
ropes in darkness/gloom, and just like these, Sodom and Gomorrah
went after strange flesh (angels having sex w ith human w omen). This
is most certainly nothing to do w ith homosexuality: it is not even
anything at all to do w ith sex betw een human beings.”)
Those w ho even (only) endorse these abom inations are taken to
be equally guilty. I congratulate the authors for their vision and
thank them for their labours in researching and revealing The
Pink Agenda for South Africa. May this w ork serve its purpose of
helping South Africa to turn from its wicked ways and resultant
death, back to the God of abundant Life!” - Advocate Fanus
Louw , Member of the Christian Law yers Association see entries on
Right Wing Orgs In SA, pg
Let’s examine the authors of this vile little hate manual under a
microscope:
Christine McCafferty
Aside from a book for sale on Amazon.com about female genital
mutilation in South Africa written by a Christine Mc Cafferty, almost
nothing can be found about this person on the web. I am of course
assuming that this is the same Christine McCafferty, but I could be
wrong. On another site: http://www.cft.org.za/news/2001/31-10-
2001.html, I found the follow ing annotation: “ the author of The Pink
Agenda, Christine McCafferty of Africa Christian Action (ACA)…”
So w hoever this person is, she is up to her neck in radical right-w ing
religious rhetorical rubbish (and all other things that rhyme w ith ‘r’). If
she has shrunk from the limelight after the public ridicule she endured
in w riting this hateful book then w ho can blame her? Though it may
seem a low profile is not a new thing to the delightful Christine as
show n in the follow ing quote from the Christian Action w ebsite, a
new sletter titled: “The Pink Agenda – CENSORSHIP IN THE NEW
SOUTH AFRICA”.
"Since a web search could find little on Christine Mc Cafferty, she
w as lamely accused of being "no angel" because she w as

348
formerly employed as a media spokesperson for the African
Christian Dem ocratic Party, w hich w as described as "the only
party that opposed the Equality Clause in the South African
Constitution." Thank you, Rob McCafferty. Connections w ith political
parties, groups w ith heavy religious conservative influence and
resulting interference in politics – could almost be middle America,
don’t you think? The plot certainly thickens.
As evidenced by my ow n almost fruitless w eb search on Christine
Mc Cafferty It seems she is playing it smart and keeping a very low
internet presence. The same cannot be said of the co-author w ho has
generated a stream of hate speech both before and since “the Pink
Agenda” a plethora of “expert” books on subjects anti-everything, from
communism, secularism, humanism, Islam, GLBTIQ – and even other
Christians. His speciality is to group all his victims together and place
the entire subject of their disagreement (or opposition) to his opinions
under the heading of the “persecuted church”. Shame, poor guy –
must be tough living w ith a persecution complex. Let’s see w hat a
nice guy he is:

Peter Hammond:
From: http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/12/2/65451/3761
“Peter Hammond and Christian Reconstuctionism
in Africa By Richard Bartholomew Sat Dec 02, 2006 at 06:54:51
AM EST
World Net Daily is currently promoting a book on Christians and guns:
What w ould you do if armed terrorists broke into your church and
starting attacking your friends w ith automatic w eapons in the middle of
a w orship service? Would you be prepared to defend yourself and
other innocents?
...There is one man in the w orld w ho can address these questions
with first-hand experience.
His name is Charl van Wyck - a South African w ho was faced w ith
just such a shocking scenario.
...In "Shooting Back: The Right and Duty of Self-Defense," van
Wyk makes a biblical, Christian case for individuals arm ing
themselves w ith guns, and does so more persuasively than perhaps
any other author because he found himself in a church attacked by
terrorists.
This w as the 1993 St. James Church Massacre, in w hich eleven
people w ere killed and 58 w ounded in a church in Kenilw orth. (An
349
attack later claimed to have been carried out by disguised NP
government/ security force operatives attempting to stir up an anti-
ANC reaction just prior to the historic 1994 elections in South Africa.
Nobody w as ever tried or convicted of this vicious attack, in w hich
automatic rigles and hand-grenades w ere used inside the church
building.)
Van Wyck is a long-time sidekick of evangelist Peter Hammond - he' s
the Deputy Director of Ham mond' s Frontline Fellowship, the
Director of his African Christian Action, and a missionary w ith his In
Touch Mission International organisation. Van Wyck' s book w as
originally published in 2001 by Christian Liberty Books, which is
m ostly a platform for Hamm ond.
Hammond and his ministries have a controversial history, and his
perspective is one of belligerent fundamentalism , anti-
Communis m and anti- Islamicism. Here'
s a taster from the African
Christian Action Newsletter:
“When the President of South Africa calls for "an African
Renaissance", what exactly does he mean? Is he calling us to
the humanis m of the European Renaissance that culminated
in the French Revolution and the Soviet Gulags? Or is he
merely desiring a return to the pre-Christian Paganis m and
Animism that afflicted Africa prior to the spread of the Gospel?
...We w ant God to bless South Africa. How ever, w e cannot
expect God to bless a nation w hich is in rebellion to His Law s.
...The consequences that flow from Atheism ,
Evolutionism , situation ethics and other cardinal tenants
of hum anism are very tangible and very tragic: euthanasia,
abortion, gun control, hum anistic education in state
schools, concentration cam ps, massacres and marxist
tyranny.
...The other choice before us is for a Biblical Reform ation.
The Bible contains the Law of God, the absolute and
unchanging principles by w hich all areas of life must be
governed. History records that w here nations are built upon
the principles of God's Word, true freedom and justice
flourishes.”
Naturally, Hammond has links w ith the hard-core Christian
dominionists of the Chalcedon Foundation.

350
Hammond is Br itish, but he served in the South African National
"Defence Force" in the 1980s. An essay by Jeffrey Marishane (1) has
some background:
...Foremost among such [right-w ing Chrisitan] groups is Frontline
Fellowship, formerly know n as the Motorbike Mission. For med in
1981 as a prayer fellow ship w ithin SADF ranks, Frontline Fellowship
is led by its founder, Peter Christopher Hammond...and is one of the
groups affiliated w ith [United Christian Action].
The UCA is an umbrella body for several Christian groups, and at that
time w as headed by Ed Cain, w ho w as also associated w ith Fred
Shaw 's Christian League of Southern Africa. CLSA w as named as
a secret beneficiary of state funding by Eschel Rhoodie before his
death in 1993, although Hammond rejects similar accusations against
the UCA ("The Truth and Reconciliation Comm ission of South
Africa, Volume two, Chapter six is entitled 'Special Investigation
into Secret State Funding'. It deals exhaustively w ith the former
government' s secret projects, nam ing the projects of the defence
force, foreign affairs, the police, national intelligence and the
education department. Now here does United Christian Action
appear.").
Frontline Fellowship at this time w as particularly concerned w ith
"persecuted churches in Mozambique, Angola and the Cape Verde
Islands"; critics charged that it w as a front for the deployment of South
African military men in Southern Africa under the guise of being
"missionaries", and in October 1988 Hammond and some associates
were detained for a week in Mozambique.
This w as exactly a year after an arrest in Zambia; this undated essay
by Brian M. Abshire has some details, w hich I'll quote at length:
Peter Hammond, South African missionary to the persecuted church
and director of Frontline Fellowship, recently briefed me on one of
the most exciting developments in central Africa, the Christian
Reconstruction of Zambia.
...In October 1987, Peter Hammond and three other Frontline
Fellowship missionaries, experienced first hand the hospitality of this
Marxist miracle w hen they w ere arrested for bringing Bibles into the
country...They w ere finally confined in Lusaka Central Pr ison, the
maximum security facility...
... What Peter and his colleagues did not realize w as that they w ere
sharing their cells w ith the next government of Zambia! During the
follow ing w eeks of Bible study, prayer and vigorous discussions in the
prison, they w ere able to teach Biblical pr inciples of government to the
351
very men God w ould raise up after He deposed the Marxists; the
future vice-president of Zambia - General Godfrey Miyanda - and a
few cells away, Frederick Chiluba, the future Christian President of
Zambia.
...The first freely elected President, Frederick Chiluba, promptly
testified to the saving pow er of Christ and called for a day of prayer.
At a simple ceremony in December 1991, the new President publicly
confessed the national sins of witchcraft and corruption and
committed Zambia to becoming a Christian nation! When he w as
asked if he intended w riting a new Constitution, Chiluba replied that
he didn' t have to. It w as already written - the Bible. He held up the
Bible to the full view of the w orld press.
... They distributed tens of thousands of Christian
Reconstructionist booklets, tracts, Bibles and Christian books in
prisons, government departments, schools and churches
throughout Zambia. They then launched a "Salt Shakers"
m inistry, sm all groups committed to prayer, strategy and action
throughout Zam bia. They presented Christian Reconstructionist,
pro-life, pro-fam ily, messages on national radio and TV, in
schools and churches. Zambia Christian Action w as launched
under the leadership of Pastor John Jere. Frontline also held
Biblical Worldview Sem inars in Ndola and Lusaka, took part in
delegations to the various government departments and
presented copies of Reformed and Reconstructionist books to
the vice-president...
Pastor John Jere, incidentally, now runs a church which is part of the
Every Nation neo-Pentecostal organization; w e discussed this
grouping on Talk to Action here. There' s no space here to discuss
Chiluba and Zambia as a " Christian nation"; I w ould advise all those
interested to read Paul Gifford' s book Afric an Christianity: Its Public
Role. The "Biblical Worldview Sem inars" (BWS) have become a
particular strategy used in by Hammond and his team in various
African countries, along w ith the w ide distribution of his book
Biblical Principles for Africa.
Ham mond has m aintained a public profile in the post-Cold War
world; his m any books have been praised by the likes of Joseph
Farah and D. Jam es Kennedy. One publication, however, became
the focus of a free-speech debate in 2002:
At the end of January, the new ly released book The Pink Agenda
became the first non-pornographic book since 1994 to be lobbied for
banning. Written with the underlying Biblical belief that the
hom osexual lifestyle is wrong in God' s eyes, author Christine
352
McCafferty, along w ith Peter Hamm ond, wrote The Pink Agenda
in an attem pt to engage South African society in an open debate
concerning w hat they outline in the book to be a hom osexual
agenda in South Africa....After the book's publication there w as
an immediate and outraged response from the Gay and Lesbian
Equality Project, saying the book "instills hatred" and is "the
worst homophobic hate speech ever published in South Africa."
Claim ing that the book "instills hatred" is of course a direct plea
to consider The Pink Agenda as one of the few types of speech
that is specifically not protected in our constitution... (I assume
they refer here to the holes in the SA Constitution I mentioned
elsew here in this book.) The book w as brought up for review by the
Film and Publications Board at the end of January, w ith their final
ruling being that the book should be sold with an adults-only age
restriction. Those under 18 w ould not be allowed to read it since
it promotes a viewpoint, and draws conclusions from research,
that are considered, as one reviewer put it, "close to constituting
hate speech."
Hammond and Van Wyk' s newsletter claimed that this w as "homo-
fascism ", and that the legalisation of sodomy w as just one of many
"privileges for perverts".
A few months later, Hammond w as arrested in the Sudan w hile giving
a "Biblical Worldview Sem inar"; WND reported:
Rebel forces in southern Sudan detained an Anglican bishop and a
missionary on charges of "treason and insurrection," according to a
U.S.-based evangelical Protestant group.
... Rev. Peter Hammond, director of Frontline Fellow ship, and Bishop
Bullen Dolli of the Episcopal Church of Sudan w ere arrested Saturday
in Yei Province by the Public Security Office of the SPLM, the Sudan
People' s Liberation Movement... Kristi Messick, ITMI administrator of
African affairs, told WorldNetDaily she believes the arrests w ere made
by junior officers of the SPLA, against the w ishes of senior officials.
That's probably the case; the SPLA has no problem in principle w ith
foreign missionaries, and I blogged a w hile back on the case of Sam
Childers, a pastor from Florida w ho is also an SPLA commander.
Hammond w as released a few days later, and he claims the incident
was a conspiracy orchestrated by Khartoum.
Last year, Hammond w as arrested yet again - this time in South
Africa, and in circumstances not lacking in bathos:

353
Controversial Christian evangelist Peter Hammond confirmed on
Wednesday that he has been charged w ith assault follow ing w hat he
said w as a Hallow een "accident" w ith a paintball gun.
... He said his family -- he has a w if e and four children -- do not
approve of Hallow een, which they see as an "occult holiday
celebrating human sacrifice, witches and goblins".
His children had w anted to do a "counter-Hallow een", and he had
agreed to drive tw o of them around to "do paintballing" on trick-or-
treating youngsters on October 31.
... He said his 10-year-old son initially paintballed (i.e. SHOT – ever
feel how much a paintball pellet stings? If you’re not w earing real thick
clothing or protection, it can cause major bruising, let alone the
danger of hitting a person in an eye!) some youngsters w ho appeared
to have just strewn rubbish across the road as a Hallow een prank,
shooting low and from a distance, and then called out to another child,
asking w hether he was a trick-or-treater.
The boy came over to the car, saw the paintball gun, sw ore at
Hammond's son and tried to pull it out of his hands.
The gun w ent off, and Hammond drove aw ay. The victim apparently
hurt his jaw .”
Very responsible behavior for any parent, huh? Gee, such a nice guy.
Let’s nominate him for the next Nobel Peace Prize! Let’s look at this
congenial guy still further: On the newsletter quoted above I found the
follow ing:
http://www.christianaction.org.za/articles/homofascisminsa.htm
“Privileges for Perverts
Amongst those privileges have been:

- The legalisation of sodomy

- The acceptance of openly practicing homosexuals into the

armed forces and police

- Special labour law s that advance their interests

- Pension, medical aid and inheritance benefits that recognises

homosexual partners virtually as spouses.

- Access to donor sperm for lesbians

354
Adoption for homosexual or lesbian singles and co-adoption for
homosexual couples.
The ANC government is currently in the process of lowering the
age of consent for sodom y and is equalizing sodom y & natural
intercourse in law .
And, special refugee status for those convicted of sodomy in
other countries (Virtually all other African governments do not accept
homosexuality. South Africa stands out as a misnomer on a continent
in w hich homosexuality is largely regarded as shameful, unnatural
sinful and criminal.)
Unfortunately, homosexual activists are not only using our
young democracy as a social engineering experiment, but they
are now also using South Africa as a springboard for prom oting
their perverted activities and its legal recognition in the rest of
Africa. In South Africa, where the vast m ajority of people,
especially Africans, regard hom osexuality as an abom ination,
how has the ANC m anaged to do all this and still stay in power?
Well it controls the national TV and radio broadcasting and it
relies on an uneducated populace. Most of the changes to these
laws have taken place without the knowledge, let alone consent,
of the general public.”
It just goes on and on, adlibbing greatly from the Pink Agenda itself.
Both this article and the Pink Agenda have the same authors – Peter
Hammond (surprise, surprise.) It is amazing – you should go and
read it further yourself and be prepared for the thick coating of hate
you w ill find there! (I can virtually guarantee you w ill still find yourself
ill-prepared for w hat you will find!)
What Actual Sane People Sa y About This Vile Book :
“If your blood is boiling the same w ay mine did, then you need read no
further. How ever, if it's not it is either because you don'
t understand,
or because you belong in the days of apartheid. Apartheid w as all
about separating people. Yes, by colour but also by language, religion
and sexuality. Building a new South Africa means getting rid of all
kinds of discrimination and not just those w hich suit us.
So What makes a gay person different from a straight one?
Something must be different in order for them to be attracted to the
same sex right? There' s something unnatural isn'
t there? I mean, tw o
men can' t reproduce can they? These are the questions behind the
ones that the Frontline Fellow ship asks.

355
A scientist called Kinsey argues that the idea that gay people are
abnormal is flawed. He states that there aren' t just gay and
straight people but that *all* hum an beings fall along a
continuum of w ho they' re attracted to. Most people, therefore,
are a little bit homosexual (you have to be in order to appreciate
others of the same sex, don' t you?). Klein took this idea one step
further by developing a grid that included desire and not just
preference. Another flawed idea is that the idea that sex is for
reproduction. In this day and age of overpopulation, it is still
assumed that the meaning of life is to have children. Yet, m any
straight couples also rem ain kid-less. As you see, any logical
argument as to why homosexual, bisexual or transgendered
people are unnatural can be shot down easily... but emotional
arguments prevail.
The Frontline Fellowship, a Christian organisation (oh the irony...
loving thy neighbour is obviously not followed by this particular
sect), argue that God said we must fill the earth and have
kiddies, and that the place called Soddom was destroyed for a
reason. What they don't see is that a) the Bible is contextual -
we've already filled the earth and b) the story of Sodom w as not
about men having sex with men, it w as about a town where
people showed complete disregard for each other by raping,
stealing, killing and basically going against all the
comm andments.

If being gay is so wrong, w hy isn't it one of the comm andments?

And if it all com es down to w hat'

s natural and not natural then
why did God m ake people gay?
Ah, now this is w here the em otional brings in the scientific and
argues that there is no proof that people are born gay. They' re
wrong, however. Experiments have been done w ith genes and
hormones that indicate (if not prove) that being gay is something
determ ined at birth. It is only a m atter of time before there is
conclusive evidence. But even when there is, w ill hom osexual,
bisexual and transgendered people continue to be frowned upon
as some lesser beings?
Most of the w orld seems to have a problem w ith accepting
homosexuality as natural. Yet it must be remembered that the "w hole
world" once saw black people as unnatural and strange. View points

356
have to change w ith the times and it'
s our duty as the rainbow nation
to head that global movement.” – From a blog found on the internet.
These authoritarians forget that according to the Word of their God,
He gave us free w ill. In short people cannot be forced to accept
salvation – this doesn’t count. Good w orks cannot buy your way into
heaven. It is by accepting the sacrif ice Jesus made on his cross that
we are saved – that is, by his grace alone. So by making the Bible into
a strict government law that rules the country – or the world, they will
be forcing their beliefs dow n onto all of mankind, effectively negating
free w ill completely as a Christian concept. Which in itself negates the
possibility of them being true believers in Christ as their Lord – and
the Chr istian God as their God.

Wheter you are a Christian and believe either side of the conundrum
of GLBT being loved by God or not is not the point. Neither is w hether
you believe in the “end times” scenario really relevant – the point is
thet THEY believe it. And they are trying very hard to make it happen
by precipitating this “one w orld church” or religion. I’m sure it doesn’t
take a genius to see that regardless of whether or not there is a God –
having these obsessed fanatics in power would be very, very bad for
everybody. They have to be stopped at all or any cost!

357
 Part 3: The GLBT Counter-Offensive: What We’re
Doing About It

358
 Chapter 11: Scientific Research In Support Of GLBT

Legitim ate scientific research into the nature of sexuality and

gender issues is probably one of the greatest advances to our
cause for equality and justice there is right now. It dispels
centuries of misplaced faith, unfounded superstitious, unjust and
unjustifiable hate and prejudice. It enlightens people and educates
them, freeing them from the bonds and oppression of mindless
ignorance. But this education and research and burden of proof come
at a great cost. For at every step the opposition badgers and blocks
such attempts to dispel their assertions – for w ith each stone knocked
out of their defenses, their grip on pow er over the masses w eakens,
slipping aw ay.

Let’s start with the assertion that GLBT is a choice. This is a key
element in the religious right wing’s war on us. It seems to excuse
their hate of us because they believe we choose to "sin".

This is precisely w hy the religious right refuses to acknowledge

or accept any evidence presented which refutes their ideology
because it instantly disarms them .

They are ignorant of matters that affect us, they know this and they
are adamant to remain so – they are therefore gratuitiously ignorant.
Ignorant and grateful for it!
They argue that we choose to be GLBT, we argue that we are
born GLBT. If they are proved right through credible science,
then they can claim propagandistic 'legitim acy'to persecute us
on religious grounds. However, if w e are proved right, it shows
(if you are religious) that GOD m ade us as we are, and this w ill
openly tar and feather them as hypocrites and bigots – as well as
to remove most of their popular support - w hich they desperately
w ant to avoid. Now can you see why we find this "choice"
assertion both insulting and threatening?

On the other hand, the Nazis persecuted, dehumanized and

exterminated nearly the entire Jewish population of Europe – and yet I
am fairly sure not even the worst, most hateful Nazis had a single
doubt that Jewish people were born Jewish.

359
Most of the bigots I have confronted w ith proof in hand have either
blatantly ignored these items – or read it and claimed it w as all lies
and propaganda! They prefer to hate us, they are taught to, and they
like it. It is far easier to hate us than to show us concern and tolerance
as fellow human beings, as people instead of the animals and
monsters they think w e are – and consequently treat us as. Interesting
that so many folk w ould choose to be persecuted by mindless
fanatical hate instead of just choosing to be “nor mal” isn’t it? No, w e
just choose to be ‘promiscuous sinners’ and w e are trying to destroy
their “peaceful religions” and their “perfect societies”! Funny, I have
noticed how logic completely escapes the minds of the bigots, most
especially the religious ones.

How ever, if scientific proof to support our long-time assertion in favor

of Nature vs. Nurture is brought to light and made know n to the world
and they none the less persist in persecuting us on religious grounds,
it w ill absolutely show up our religious right persecutors to be both
gratuitously ignorant as w ell as being truly hateful to their fellow
“sinners” and human beings. In fact, I daresay the w orld w ill unite in
laughing these halfw it idiots off more than they already do.

So the argument that it is natural or a fact that w e are born GLBT is

still not really something that w ill stop the religious based hate for
GLBT. If they cannot hate us on that one little item on their agenda,
they w ill simply use something else. I have even seen some people
using hygiene as an excuse to vent their hate against GLBT. I kid you
not!

They quote reams of scientific research in support of their hateful

biased fallacies wrt to “gay” anal sex, “gay” venereal diseases etc, etc
– yet they never ever bring up the plethora of similar and identical
issues and identical diseases when it comes to heterosexual sex and
other sexual activities, which surprisingly enough include both fellatio
and anal sex! So their issues in this regard are a purely hygienic one
– and not simply a matter unique to GLBT.

And their tw is ted PROPAGANDISTIC use of matters common to both

heterosexual and homosexual people simply proves, once again, their
desperate attempts to cast GLBT in as bad a light as possible w hen in
fact we are no worse on the “hygiene (or any other) scale” or receiving

360
end of venereal disease than heterosexuals. Hypocrisy, plain and
simple. In fact, most gay people I have know n are on average cleaner
about their personal hygiene than many straight folk I have compared
them to in my time. So, let’s get this road on the show – w hat does
science say about GLBT?
“Non-sex genes ' link to gay trait'Monday, 31 January,
2005
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi
/health/4215427.stm

Multiple genes - and not just the sex chromosomes - are important in
sexual orientation, say US scientists. A University of Illinois team,
which has screened the entire human genome, say there is no one
'
gay' gene. Writing in the journal Human Genetics, they said
environmental factors are also likely to be involved.

The findings add to the debate over whether sexual orientation is a

matter of choice. Campaigners say equality is the more important
issue.
Much of the past genetic research into male homosexuality had
focused solely on the X chromosome, passed dow n to boys by their
mother, according to lead researcher Dr Brian Mustanski. His team
looked at all 22 pairs of non-sex chromosomes of 456 individuals from
146 families w ith two or more gay brothers.

They found several identical stretches of DNA that were shared

am ong gay siblings on chromosomes other than the fem ale X.
About 60% of these brothers shared identical DNA on three
chromosomes - chromosome 7, 8 and 10. Complex trait If it w ere
dow n to chance, only 50% of these stretches would be shared, said
the authors. The region found on chromosome 10 correlated w ith
sexual orientation only w hen it w as inherited from the mother.

Dr Mustanski said the next step w ould be to see if the findings could
be confirmed by further studies, and to identify the particular genes
within the new ly discovered sequences that are linked to sexual
orientation.

361
"Our study helps to establish that genes play an im portant role in
determ ining whether a m an is gay or heterosexual," he said, but
added that other factors were also important.
"Sexual orientation is a complex trait. There is no one '
gay'gene. Our
best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting w ith
environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation."
Alan Wardle from the gay rights charity Stonew all said: "It' s an
interesting study that contributes further to the debate. " Regardless of
whether sexual orientation is determined by nature or nurture or both,
the most important thing is that lesbians and gay men are treated
equally and are allow ed to live their life w ithout discrimination." “

“Womb environment '

makes men gay'Last Updated:
Tuesday, 27 June 2006
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5120004.stm

A man' s sexual orientation may be determined by conditions in the

womb, according to a study. Previous research had revealed the more
older brothers a boy has, the more likely he is to be gay, but the
reason for this phenomenon w as unknow n.
But a Canadian study has show n that the effect is most likely due to
biological rather than social factors. The research is published in the
journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Professor Anthony Bogaert from Brock University in Ontario, Canada,
studied 944 heterosexual and homosexual men w ith either "biological"
brothers, in this case those w ho share the same mother, or "non-
biological" brothers, that is, adopted, step or half siblings.
He found the link betw een the number of older brothers and
homosexuality only existed w hen the siblings shared the same
mother. The amount of time the individual spent being raised w ith
older brothers did not affect their sexual orientation.
'
Maternal memory'
Writing in the journal, Professor Bogaert said: "If rearing or social
factors associated w ith older male siblings underlies the fraternal
birth-order effect [the link betw een the number of older brothers and
male homosexuality], then the number of non-biological older brothers
should predict men' s sexual orientation, but they do not.

362
"These results support a prenatal origin to sexual orientation
development in men."
He suggests the effect is probably the result of a "maternal memory"
in the w omb for male births. A w oman'
s body may see a male foetus
as "foreign", he says, prompting an immune reaction w hich may grow
progressively stronger with each male child. The antibodies created
may affect the developing male brain.
In an accompanying article, scientists from Michigan State University
said: "These data strengthen the notion that the common denominator
betw een biological brothers, the mother, provides a prenatal
environment that fosters homosexuality in her younger sons."
"But the question of mechanis m remains."
Andy Forrest, a spokesman for gay rights group Stonew all,
commenting on this and other studies, said: " Increasingly, credible
evidence appears to indicate that being gay is genetically determined
rather than being a so-called lifestyle choice.
"It adds further weight to the argument that lesbian and gay people
should be treated equally in society and not discriminated against for
something that's just as inherent as skin colour." “

“ Scans see '

gay brain differences'Page last updated at
23:28 GMT, Monday, 16 June 2008
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm

The brains of gay men and w omen look like those found in
heterosexual people of the opposite sex, research suggests.
The Sw edish study, published in the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences journal, compared the size of the brain' s halves
in 90 adults. Gay men and heterosexual w omen had halves of a
similar size, w hile the right side w as bigger in lesbian w omen and
heterosexual men.
A UK scientist said this w as evidence sexual orientation w as set in the
womb. Scientists have noticed for some time that homosexual people
of both sexes have differences in certain cognitive abilities,
suggesting there may be subtle differences in their brain structure.
This is the first time, how ever, that scientists have used brain
scanners to try to look for the source of those differences.

363
A group of 90 healthy gay and heterosexual adults, men and w omen,
were scanned by the Karolinska Institute scientists to measure the
volume of both sides, or hemispheres, of their brain. When these
results w ere collected, it w as found that lesbians and heterosexual
men shared a particular "asymmetry" in their hem isphere size,
while heterosexual women and gay men had no difference
between the size of the different halves of their brain. In other
words, structurally, at least, the brains of gay men were more like
heterosexual women, and gay w omen m ore like heterosexual
men.

A further experiment found that in one particular area of the brain, the
amygdala, there w ere other significant differences. In heterosexual
men and gay w omen, there w ere more nerve "connections" in the
right side of the amygdala, compared w ith the left. The reverse, w ith
more neural connections in the left amygdala, w as the case in
homosexual men and heterosexual w omen. The Karolinska team
said that these differences could not be m ainly explained by
"learned" effects, but needed another mechanism to set them ,
either before or after birth.

'
Fight, flight or mate'
Dr Qazi Rahman, a lecturer in cognitive biology at Queen Mary,
University of London, said that he believed that these brain
differences were laid dow n early in foetal development.

"As far as I'

m concerned there is no argument any
more - if you are gay, you are born gay," he said.
(Aside from fitting light bulbs to this book I can’t highlight this
paragraph any more than it is already!)
The amygdala, he said, w as important because of its role in
"orientating", or directing, the rest of the brain in response to an
emotional stimulus - be it during the "fight or flight" response, or the
presence of a potential mate.

"In other w ords, the brain netw ork w hich determines w hat sexual
orientation actually 'orients'tow ards is similar betw een gay men and
straight w omen, and betw een gay w omen and straight men.

364
"This makes sense given that gay men have a sexual preference
which is like that of w omen in general, that is, preferring men, and
vice versa for lesbian w omen."”

There is a plethora of scientific evidence out there that GLBT are

BORN and not MA DE as the religious right suggest. Each link you
click on shows you a page w ith even more links to even more
information to prove it. Funny isn’t it, that the only places you can find
“evidence” to the contrary is on sponsored sites run by right w ing anti-
GLBT groups?
The ‘arguments’ these idiots present to back them up are either
tw isted religious rhetoric or manipulated and tw isted ‘junk science’
and thumb-sucked statistics that realistically shouldn’t fool even a
monkey !

“ Experts identify gene linked to transsexuality

http://in.reuters.com/article/w orldNews/idINIndia-36158020081026
Sun Oct 26, 2008 7:30pm IST
HONG KONG (Reuters) - Scientists in Australia said they have
identified a gene w hich may explain w hy some people are
transsexuals.
For decades, there has been debate over the origins of transexuality,
with some recent studies indicating that family history and genetics
may be linked to gender identity.
In the largest genetic study involving transsexuals to date,
researchers in Australia said they found that transexuality may be
linked to the androgen receptor (AR) gene -- w hich is know n to modify
the effect of the male sex hormone testosterone.
"There is a social stigma that transsexualis m is simply a lifestyle
choice, how ever our findings support a biological basis of how gender
identity develops," said lead researcher Vincent Harley of Monash
University's Prince Henry's Institute of Medical Research.
The scientists collected DNA samples from 112 male-to-female
transsexuals and found that they w ere more likely to have a longer
version of the AR gene than another group of 258 non-transsexual
men.

365
The longer AR gene w as found in 55.4 percent of people in the
transsexual group and 47.6 percent of the non-transsexual men, they
wrote in an article published in Biological Psychiatry.
Samples w ere also analysed for two other genes, but no significant
differences were found betw een both groups.
The researchers said the longer AR variant gene may have resulted in
less effective testosterone signalling, a mechanis m that masculinises
the brain during early development.
"It is possible that a decrease in testosterone levels in the brain during
development might result in incomplete masculinisation of the brain in
male-to-female transsexuals, resulting in a more feminized brain and
a female gender identity," they w rote.”

From

“Daily effects of straight privilege:

http://www.cs.earlham.edu/~hyrax/personal/files/student_res/straightp
rivilege.htm
This article is based on Peggy Mc Intosh’s article on w hite privilege
and w as written by a number of straight-identified students at Ear lham
College w ho got together to look at some examples of straight
privilege. These dynamics are but a few examples of the privilege
which straight people have. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer-
identified folk have a range of different experiences, but cannot count
on most of these conditions in their lives.

On a daily basis as a straight person…

• I can be pretty sure that my roomate, hallmates and

classmates w ill be comfortable w ith my sexual orientation.
• If I pick up a magazine, w atch TV, or play music, I can be
certain my sexual orientation w ill be represented.
• When I talk about my heterosexuality (such as in a joke or
talking about my relationships), I w ill not be accused of
pushing my sexual orientation onto others.
• I do not have to fear that if my family or friends find out about
my sexual orientation there w ill be economic, emotional,
physical or psychological consequences.

366
• I did not grow up with games that attack my sexual orientation
(IE fag tag or smear the queer).
• I am not accused of being abused, w arped or psychologically
confused because of my sexual orientation.
• I can go home from most meetings, classes, and
conversations without feeling excluded, fearful, attacked,
isolated, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance,
stereotyped or feared because of my sexual orientation.
• I am never asked to speak for everyone who is heterosexual.
• I can be sure that my classes w ill require curricular materials
that testify to the existence of people w ith my sexual
orientation.
• People don'
t ask w hy I made my choice of sexual orientation.
• People don' t ask w hy I made my choice to be public about my
sexual orientation.
• I do not have to fear revealing my sexual orientation to friends
or family. It's assumed.
• My sexual orientation w as never associated w ith a closet.
• People of m y gender do not try to convince me to change
m y sexual orientation.
• I don'
t have to defend my heterosexuality.
• I can easily find a religious community that w ill not exclude me
for being heterosexual.
• I can count on finding a therapist or doctor w illing and able to
talk about my sexuality.
• I am guaranteed to find sex education literature for couples
with my sexual orientation.
• Because of my sexual orientation, I do not need to w orry that
people w ill harass me.
• I have no need to qualify my straight identity.
• My masculinity/femininity is not challenged because of my
sexual orientation.
• I am not identified by m y sexual orientation.
• I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help my sexual
orientation w ill not w ork against me.

367
 • If my day, w eek, or year is going badly, I need not ask of each
negative episode or situation w hether it has sexual
orientation overtones.
• Whether I rent or I go to a theater, Blockbuster, an EFS or
TOFS movie, I can be sure I w ill not have trouble finding my
sexual orientation represented.
• I am guaranteed to find people of my sexual orientation
represented in the Earlham curriculum, faculty, and
administration.
• I can w alk in public w ith m y significant other and not have
people double-take or stare.
• I can choose to not think politically about my sexual
orientation.
• I do not have to w orry about telling my roommate about my
sexuality. It is assumed I am a heterosexual.
• I can remain oblivious of the language and culture of LGBTQ
folk w ithout feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.
• I can go for months w ithout being called straight.
• I'm not grouped because of my sexual orientation.
• My individual behavior does not reflect on people w ho identity
as heterosexual.
• In everyday conversation, the language my friends and I use
generally assumes my sexual orientation. For example, sex
inappropriately referring to only heterosexual sex or family
meaning heterosexual relationships w ith kids.
• People do not assume I am experienced in sex (or that I
even have it!) merely because of m y sexual orientation.
• I can kiss a person of the opposite gender on the heart or in
the cafeteria w ithout being w atched and stared at.
• Nobody calls me straight with m aliciousness.
• People can use terms that describe m y sexual orientation
and mean positive things (IE "straight as an arrow ",
"standing up straight" or "straightened out") instead of
demeaning terms (IE "ewww, that' s gay" or being
"queer").
• I am not asked to think about w hy I am straight.

368
 • I can be open about my sexual orientation w ithout w orrying
about my job.”
If that doesn’t open you straight folk’s eyes about w hy we need
acceptance and equality, then nothing w ill!

Chapter 12: Ga y Pride Events : Good Or Bad For GLBT?

”At Pride this year all of us w ere one, w hether w e w ere skinny, not so
skinny, overdressed, or underdressed, i.e. underw ear only, gay,
lesbian, bisexual, straight, transvestite, transgender, white, back,
colored, Asian or w hatever. That is the prevailing spirit here. Luckily.

The more w e use the inclusive term of LGBT the more people w ill
become used to the unity in diversity.” C.F. Johannesburg, South Africa.

I think it is obvious from this statemtn w hy it is we need Pride – Pride

unites! It br ings us together in a physical demonstration of our identity
and an outlet for our desire to express our unity before the world.

• Pride – What Is It?

From Wikipedia – the free encyclopedia).
http://en.w ikipedia.org/w iki/Gay_pride
“LGBT pride or gay pride refers to a w orld w ide movement and
philosophy asserting that LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and
Transgender) individuals should be proud of their sexual
orientation and gender identity.
The w ord pride is in this case an antonym for shame, which has
been used to control and oppress LGBT persons throughout
history.
LGBT pride advocates work for equal "rights and benefits" for
LGBT people.[1][2][3] The m ovement has three m ain prem ises:
that people should be proud of their sexual orientation and
gender identity, that diversity is a gift, and that sexual orientation
and gender identity are inherent and cannot be intentionally
altered.[4]
Marches celebrating Pr ide (pride parades) are celebrated w orldw ide.

369
Symbols of LGBT pride include the LGBT rainbow flag, butterfly, the
Greek lambda symbol, and the pink as w ell as black tr iangles
reclaimed from their past use.[5]
History
Advocates of gay pride have used history to point to oppression
as well as differing levels of acceptance of hom osexuality
throughout history.[6] The ancient Greeks did not conceive of
sexual orientation as a social identifier, as Western societies
have done for the past century. Greek society did not distinguish
sexual desire or behavior by the gender of the participants, but
by the extent to which such desire or behavior conformed to
social norms. These nor ms w ere based on gender, age and social
status.[7] "Lesbian" derives from the name of the island of
Lesbos,[8][9] w hich was famous for the poet Sappho, w ho wrote love
poetry to female lovers.[10] Homosexuality in the ancient Roman
Empire is considered to have been w idespread but w as tempered by
the complex social systems of the society.[citation needed]

During Medieval times all forms of sexuality began to be

repressed by the church as the idea of heaven and hell gained
popularity.[11] As technology fell behind simple luxuries such as
clean running w ater and proper sew age became a thing of the
past. This caused horrible conditions and disease. People began
to believe that they w ere suffering from the wrath of God,
blam ing imm orality.[12] Any and all forms of hom osexuality
became not only shameful but punishable by death. (Sounds to
me like the only thing “immoral” around here is mainstream
Christianity – past and present!)

19th century movement in Ger many

At the turn of the century in Ger many there w as an early gay rights
movement akin to today' s Gay Pride movement. Lead by Magnus
Hirschfeld, this movement sought to educate the public and to bring
about the repeal of Paragraph 175, a provision of the Ger man
Criminal Code begun on the 15th May, 1871, w hich made
homosexual acts betw een males a crime.

The Holocaust
During World War II as Nazi Ger many began its domination of Europe
many people found themselves being rounded up and sent to
370
concentration camps. Genocide or the mass murder of numerous
groups was undertaken. Homosexuals were one of these groups w ith
gay men being marked w ith a pink tr iangle badge w hile lesbians w ere
designated w ith a black triangle for "antisocial behavior".[14]

Post-Stonew all (Modern gay rights movement)

Stonew all riots

On 28 June 1969, a group of LGBT people rioted follow ing a
police raid on the Stonew all Inn, a gay bar at 43 Christopher
Street, New York City. Sylvia Rivera, a transgender rights activist
and founding mem ber of both the Gay Liberation Front and the
Gay Activists Alliance, is credited by m any as the first to actually
strike back at the police and, in so doing, spark the rebellion.
Further protests and rioting continued for several nights
follow ing the raid.
The Stonewall riots are generally considered to be the beginning
of the modern gay rights m ovement.
1970s
Gay Liberation Front and Gay Activists Alliance in the early post-
Stonew all era, coordinated the first anniversary rally and then the
"Christopher Street Gay Liberation Day March" (Archival footage of
March[15]) on June 28, 1970 to commemorate the first anniversary of
the Stonew all Rebellion.[16] First anniversary marches organized by
other groups w ere also held in San Francisco and Los Angeles in
1970.
Brenda How ard also originated the idea for a week-long series of
events around what is now know n as Pride Day; this became the first
of the extended annual LGBT Pride celebrations that are now held
around the w orld.
In New York and Atlanta the annual day of celebration to
commemorate the Stonew all Riot came to be called Gay Liberation
Day; in San Francisco and Los Angeles it was called Gay Freedom
Day. Both names spread as more and more cities and tow ns started
holding similar celebrations.
1980s to present
Front line of PASTT at Gay Pride at Paris in France, June 2005In the
1980s there w as a major cultural shift in the Stonew all Riot
commemorations. The previous loosely organized, bottom-up
371
marches and parades were taken over by more organised and less
radical elements of the gay community. The marches began dropping
"Liberation" and " Freedom" from their names under pressure from
more conservative members of the community, replacing them w ith
the philosophy of "Gay Pride"[citation needed] (in the more liberal city
of San Francisco, the name of the gay parade and celebration w as
not changed from Gay Freedom Day Parade to Gay Pride Day
Parade until 1994). The Greek lambda symbol and the pink triangle
which had been revolutionary symbols of the Gay Liberation
Movement w ere tidied up and incorporated into the Gay Pride, or
Pride, movement, providing some symbolic continuity w ith its more
radical beginnings.”

• Pride Parades
From Wikipedia – the free encyclopedia).
“Pride parades for the LGBT community (also know n as gay pride
parades, pride events and pride festivals) are events celebrating
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) culture. The events
also at times serve as dem onstrations for legal rights such as
same-sex m arriage. Most pride events occur annually and m any
take place around June to commemorate the Stonewall riots, a
pivotal m oment in the modern LGBT rights movement.
Opposition
There is opposition to pride events both w ithin LGBT and
m ainstream populations. Critics charge the parades w ith an undue
emphasis on sex and fetish-related interests w hic h they see as
counter-productive to LGBT interests. The argument is sometimes
taken further, arguing that they expose the " gay community" to
ridicule.
Those w ho take socially conservative political positions are
sometimes opposed to such events because they view them to
be indecent and contrary to public m orality. This belief is partly
based on certain things often found in the parades, such as
public nudity, S & M paraphernalia, and other highly sexualized
features.”

Chapter 13: Small Gradual Victories

Some examples of small victories from the w eb:

372
From: “The Homo Politico - One gay man, lots of opinions… ”

“Transgender Woman wins Election in Tennessee

http://fightoutloud.org/blog/2008/02/12/transgender-w oman-w ins-
election-in-tennessee/

Marisa Richmond has become Tennessee’s first openly transgender

person to w in an election in the history of the state.

Richm ond won over 99% of the vote to become the Davidson
County Democratic Comm itteewom an to represent District 23.
She is also a candidate to be a delegate to the Democratic National
Convention this summer in Denver.

Richmond says, “I w ant to see Tennessee be part of an even larger

GLBT, and especially transgender, caucus in 2008 in Denver.”

Richmond also serves on the Board of Directors of the Tennessee

Equality Project and is President of the Tennessee Transgender
Political Coalition. She serves on the Board of Directors of the
National Transgender Advocacy Coalition (NTAC) as the
Congressional Lobbying Coordinator, and on the Board of Advisors of
the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE). “

“ Principal outs gay kids, ACLU steps in

http://pageoneq.com/news/2008/aclu_042908.html
by Nick Langew is

Daphne Beasley, principal of Hollis F. Price Middle College in

Memphis, Tennessee, is under fire for outing at least one gay couple
in her student body, according to the ACLU-backed couple and their
parents.

In Septem ber of 2007, Beasley sought out couples of all kinds to

m onitor them for public displays of affection. She compiled a list
of nam es, which included students Andrew and Nicholas (last
names om itted), based on inform ation she received from
teachers and students; the list w as clearly visible to anyone who
visited her office.

Of those that saw this list was Andrew' s mother, Andrea. "I couldn' t
believe it w hen I w ent to meet w ith the principal and that list w as right
373
there by her desk where anyone could see it," she said. "African
American people face enough obstacles to succeeding in this w orld
and I w ant my son to have every opportunity he'
s w orked so hard for.
Our schools should be helping our children do w ell, not tearing them
dow n for something like this."

"This is a public high school that runs on taxpayer dollars," said

attorney Bruce Kramer. "As such, it is part of the government and
must obey the Constitution in dealing w ith the students entrusted to its
care each day."

According to Nicholas'mother Nichole, the principal said that she

didn' t tolerate homosexuality in the school and repeatedly asked
if she knew her son w as gay. The honor student underwent
further hum iliation, in addition to verbal harassment, w hen taken
out of the running for a class trip to New Orleans related to
rebuilding efforts, as a risk to the school' s im age; Nicholas w as
told that there were fears he'd em barrass the school by engaging
in "inappropriate behavior."

"This school has no business singling these boys out and taking aw ay
educational opportunities against them simply because they w ere
dating," added Mr. Kramer.

"We never bothered anyone or did a single thing at school that broke
any of the rules," Nicholas, a junior, said. " Every day I feel like they'
re
still punishing me, and I'm w orried that this is going to hurt my
chances to get into a good college."

"The principal's outing of these two students to their fam ilies,

classmates, and teachers is unacceptable," said Hedy Weinberg,
ACLU of Tennessee' s Executive Director. "Its only purpose w as
to intim idate not only these students but all gay students at
Hollis Price.

"Educators," Weinberg continued, "should be focused on

educating their students and not on harassing them because of
their sexual orientation or the people w ith w hom they associate."

Since private talks w ith the Office of General Counsel failed, the
ACLU has issued a letter to Mem phis school board officials
today, dem anding that Beasley be reprim anded, and that school
policies be put in place to ensure a learning environment free of

374
discrim ination based on a student'
s actual or perceived sexual
orientation.

Also called for is an apology to every person on Beasley's 2007

list.”

“ House
subcommittee kills Campfield bill banning
homosexual discussion
http://www.knoxnews.com/new s/2008/feb/19/house-subcommittee-
kills-campfield-bill-banning-ho/ By Tom Humphrey (Contact) Originally
published 01:33 p.m., February 19, 2008

NASHVILLE - A House subcommittee today killed legislation

proposed by state Rep. Stacey Campfield to prohibit discussion of
homosexuality in Tennessee elementary and middle schools.

The move came after spokes men for the Tennessee Education
Association, the American Civil Liberties Union and the state
Department all spoke against the Knoxville Republican'
s bill.

Basically, they said it is not needed and puts the Legislature in the
business of dictating school curriculum – decisions best left to the
State Board of Education. Hedy Weinberg of the ACLU also said the
measure "a clear attack on one community, the lesbian and gay
community."

Campfield said the ban is needed to leave parents in charge of w hat

their children learn about sexuality. The legislators has heard reports
from parents of homosexuality discussions being conducted in
schools - one in Knox County and one in Sevier County - though he
declined to name them, saying the reports w ere not verified.

He also said a National Education Association resolution adopted in

2006 advocated acceptance of homosexuality - a contention that Jerry
Winters, TEA spokes man, said w as "a gross misstatement of fact."

Officially, the bill died w hen Rep. Les Winningham, D-Huntsville,

moved that the bill be sent to the state Department of Education. The
chairman of the K-12 Subcommittee, state Rep. Joe Tow ns, D-
Memphis, declared the motion approved by voice vote.

375
Campfield protested that Tow ns should have taken a roll call vote, as
Campfield had requested. Tow ns refused, meaning there is no record
of who voted for and against the Campfield bill.

“ FBI hate crimes stats show rise in homophobic

attacks By Staff Writer, PinkNew s.co.uk October 27, 2008 - 19:25
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/

The 2007 Hate Crime statistics released today in the US indicate a

rise in the number of gay and lesbian people reporting incidents of
homophobic attacks.

Of the 1,512 victims targeted due to a sexual-orientation bias,

58.9&percnt; w ere victims of an offender’s anti-male homosexual bias,
according to the FBI.

24.8% w ere victims of an anti-homosexual bias, 13.0% w ere victims

of an anti-female homosexual bias.

1.8% w ere victims of an anti-heterosexual bias and 1.5 percent w ere

victims of an anti-bisexual bias.

While hate crimes w ere dow n one percent on 2006, there w as a 6%

increase in crimes against LGB people.

Overall, 7,624 hate crime incidents involving 9,006 offences were

reported to the FBI that involved bias tow ards a particular race,
religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, or disability.

52% w ere targeted because of their race, 17.1% because of their

religious belief, 15.9% because of their sexual orientation and 14.1%
were targeted because of their ethnicity or national origin.

Of crimes against persons, nine people w ere murdered and tw o were

raped. Intimidation accounted for 47.4% of crimes against persons.
Simple assaults accounted for 31.1% and aggravated assaults
accounted for 20.6%.

In May the US House of Representatives passed the Local Law

Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act w ith a strong bipartisan vote
of 237-180. It w ould add sexual orientation to the federal hate crimes
law .

376
The Senate then approved the nearly-identical Matthew Shepard Act
as an amendment to the Department of Defence Authorisation bill on
a voice vote.

President Bush has indicated he w ould use his veto to block any
attempt to extend federal hate crimes laws to LGBT people. (And
so many people, including someGLBT, their friends and families are
voting for that bigot and his bigot party WHY?)

The Democratic candidate for President of the US, Barack Obama,

has promised to "place the w eight of my administration behind the
enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act."

The legislation gives the Justice Department the pow er to investigate

and prosecute bias-motivated violence w here the perpetrator has
selected the victim because of the person'
s actual or perceived sexual
orientation or gender identity.

It w ould also require the FBI to track statistics on hate crimes

against transgender people and provides the Justice Department
w ith the ability to take over investigations and prosecutions of
violent crimes resulting in death or serious bodily injury that
were m otivated by bias.

It also makes grants available to state and local communities to

combat violent crimes committed by juveniles, train law enforcement
officers or assist in state and local investigations and prosecution of
bias-motivated crimes.”

Chapter 14: Anything Less Is Not Equal!

“South African court clears way for gay marriage

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/south-african-court-
clears-way-for-gay-marriage-517834.html
By Elizabeth Davies
Friday, 2 December 2005

South Africa'
s highest court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to
deny gay people the right to m arry. The country is now on track to
become the first to permit same-sex marriage on a continent w here
homosexuality remains largely taboo.

377
The Constitutional Court in Johannesburg ordered parliament to
amend existing legislation w ithin a year. It w ill make South Africa the
fifth country in the world to legalise gay marriage after Belgium, the
Netherlands, Spain and Canada.

"The exclusion of same-sex couples from the benefits and

responsibilities of m arriage ... signifies that their capacity for
love, comm itment and accepting responsibility is by definition
less w orthy of regard than that of heterosexual couples," Justice
Albie Sachs said yesterday.
The ruling, w hich ordered that the definition of marriage w ritten in the
South African constitution be changed from a "union betw een a man
and a w oman" to a "union between tw o persons", is a major victory
in the battle to outlaw discrimination in a country w hich has seen more
than its fair share of oppression and human rights violations.

Post-apartheid South Africa, in reaction to the bloody years of its

recent history, has one of the most progressive constitutions in the
world. It w as the first such document in the w orld to enshrine equal
rights for gays and lesbians w hen it w as drawn up in 1996. In contrast
to many African countries w here gays and lesbians are persecuted,
activists in South Africa have won many legal victories in recent years,
including the right to adopt children and inherit from partners'w ills.

The ruling African National Congress, w hich under Nelson Mandela

led the country from apartheid to democracy, said that the
developments confirmed the government w ould not tolerate
discrimination against its citizens.

"Today' s ruling, like others before it, is an important step forward in

aligning the laws of the country with the rights and freedoms
contained in the South African constitution," the ANC said.

The ruling w as the culmination of a long-running battle by a South

African lesbian couple to have their right to marriage recognized.
Marie Fourie and Cecilia Bonthuys, both from Pretoria, thought they
had succeeded in gaining equal status w ith heterosexuals last
November w hen the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled they should be
allow ed to w ed. They had previously, in October 2002, been
refused the right to m arry on the basis of the common law
interpretation of m arriage.

The w omen later discovered that they were unable to register for a
church wedding and w ere told that the department of home affairs
378
had refused their application, arguing that only parliam ent could
change the law . Neither Ms Fourie nor Ms Bonthuys were present at
the court proceedings.

Reaction to the ruling w as not universally positive. Though largely

welcomed by rights activists, it w as also condem ned in some
quarters for being too slow-m oving. Keketso Maema, a lawyer for
the Lesbian and Gay Equality project, explained his dis may that the
Constitutional Court had not ordered the amendment to be put into
action immediately. "It's a bit disappointing. It feels like it'
s one step
forward and still another one step backw ards," he said.

Another protester w ho had been w aiting for the verdict in

Johannesburg also felt impatient. "We w ould' ve liked to get married as
soon as w e could," said Fikile Vilakazi, w earing a yellow T-shirt w ith
the w ords "Marriage - anything less is not equal".

The only one of the court's 11 judges to dissent from the ruling,
Kate O'Regan, did so precisely because she argued for the
immediate legalisation of same-sex m arriage instead of allow ing
for a 12-month delay.

Opposition to the change in legislation w as led by the church and the

African Christian Democratic Party.

"Studies of previous civilizations reveal that when a society strays

from the sexual ethic of marriage, it deteriorates and eventually
disintegrates," the party claimed yesterday.”

So once again, gay marriage signifies that “the end is nigh”! What a
load of codswallop!

“MARRIAGE – ANYTHING LESS IS NOT EQUAL!”

“South Africa Legalizes Gay Marriage

14 November 2006
http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2006/11/sa_legalizes_sa.html

It'
s now official. The United States is less progressive and tolerant
than South Africa, which today became the first nation in Africa to
recognize same-sex marriage.

379
By a vote of 230 to 41, the National Assembly passed the Civil Union
Bill. The bill provides for the "voluntary union of two persons, which is
solemnized and registered by either a marriage or civil union."

"When w e attained our democracy, we sought to distinguish ourselves

from an unjust painful past, by declaring that never again shall it be
that any South African w ill be discriminated against on the basis of
color, creed culture and sex," Home Affairs Minister Nosiviw e Mapisa-
Nqakula told the Assembly.

The bill w as drawn in order to comply w ith a Constitutional Court

ruling last December that said existing marriage legislation w as
unconstitutional because it discriminated against same-sex couples.
The court gave the government a December 1 deadline to change the
laws.”

“Now That It'

s Legal ... Who is Getting Married in
South Africa?
15 November 2006
http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2006/11/now _that_its_le.html

Contrary to some opinions, newspapers in South Africa and Britain

suggest that many African gay and lesbian couples w ould like to be
among the first to legally w ed in South Africa.

Lindiw e Radebe and Bathini Dambuza are from Sow eto, have been
engaged for a year, and, hope to be among the first to take advantage
of the Civil Unions Bill. " For some people marriage means nothing, it
is just a piece of paper," says Radebe (right, short hair). "But, w e want
that symbolism of having a legally binding document of our love."

Another couple, Mpumi Mathabela and Asanda Mjobo, planned to tie

the knot regardless of the decision. "Not necessarily in a year, but as
soon as w e're ready. Maybe in tw o years, maybe less," says Mpumi
(right).

Mpumi is an activist and says both of their families are quite

accepting, apparently major factors in their decisions. How ever, some
African gays say they w ill not w ed because there is too much
homophobia w ithin their churches and families. From the BBC: " The
church does not recognise their union. And for many gay couples, the
problem is that they w ant to be w ed with the blessing of their church."
380
If a church blessing is that important and their congregation w ill never
allow it— and many churches in South Africa will grant them— some
couples w ill never take this step. That' s the exact same frustration
expressed by some black gays and lesbians in this country— even
though w e don' t have their options”

“Churches get nod for gay marriages

http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=139&art_id=vn20
070518120037621C257749 May 18 2007 at 05:13PM By Leila
Samodien

Seventeen churches across South Africa have applied to, and been
accepted by, the department of home affairs to officiate gay
marriages.

A list of the churches, released to the Cape Argus on Thursday by the

department of home affairs, excludes the major church groupings.
The 17 institutions had applied to solemnise same-sex unions after
the Civil Union Act, w hich legalised gay marriages, w as implemented
on December 1. All w ere approved by Home Affairs Minister Nosiviw e
Mapisa-Nqakula, said department spokesperson Mantshele Tau.

Ministers at these churches, are, how ever, still required to write an

examination - w hich tests their know ledge of the Civil Union Act - but
this process has been considerably delayed. A pastor at the Unitarian
Church, Gordon Oliver, applied for his licence on December 5 and is
still w aiting for material to prepare for the exam.

On Thursday, the Cape Argus reported that four leading

denominations – the Anglican Church, the Baptist Church, the
Presbyterian Church and the Catholic Church – had instituted policies
that barred their ministers from officiating at gay marriages. It w as
also reported that individual officials at religious institutions w ere
obliged to submit letters to Home Affairs Minister Nosiviw e Mapisa-
Nqakula if they did not w ish to officiate over gay marriage ceremonies.

How ever, Tau said that, according to the Civil Union Act, "churches
make their ow n decisions on w hether to marry same-sex couples".

He said the rule of submitting letters to the Home Affairs Department

applied to Home Affairs marriage officers only, if they did not w ant to
marry gay couples. In the meantime, the policies barring gay

381
marriages at larger churches have not gone dow n w ell w ith certain
ministers.

Nineteen ministers in the Methodist Church Cape of Good Hope

District recently challenged the decision not to marry homosexual
couples. A minister of the church, the Reverend Timothy Attw ell, said
the church was in discussion w ith those ministers.

At another church, a gay minister, w ho did not w ant to be named for

fear of reprisals, told the Cape Argus that he planned to leave his
church denomination to move to a s maller denomination that
supported same-sex marriages.

He said w hile he felt strongly about offic iating at gay marriages, his
church, which is one of the country'
s largest denominations, w ould fire
him for even considering it. The church is not aw are of his sexual
orientation.

"I am definitely going to change my denomination because of the

church'
s views towards same-sex couples.

"There are s maller churches that don' t seem to be as unfriendly about

it and encourage it, but they are in the minority."

leila.samodien@inl.co.za

Green light

The churches that have been approved to officiate same-sex

marriages are:

The Unitarian Church

The African Church of Truth
The Church of Gloria
The African Church
Renaissance Gemeente
The Reforming Church
St Mark's Church
Reformed Church of South Africa
Metropolitan Community Church
Glorius Light MMC
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in South Africa
Agape Bedieninge
Deo Gloria Family Church
382
Jacaranda Church
Ex-Animo Ministries
The Dhar ma Centre
Light House“

Chapter 15: The Way Forward

The loopholes in the SA Constitution are what is currently
allow ing hetrosexist bigots to openly proclaim their hate of us in
the m ainstream media and to generate support which is often
also visible in the media. As long as these loopholes remain w e will
never be able to successfully defend ourselves in the court-room
when trying to fight these attacks on us and they w ill continue
unabated. It is therefore necessary to see that this problem is
addressed by amending the constitution in a suitable fashion to close
these loopholes, preventing hate speech or incitement to violence in
the media against any population group of SA for any reason
whatever.

The m ainstream Christian churches have unjustly persecuted us

for centuries, using deliberately altered and m istranslated
editions of the Bible as both “evidence” and a weapon against
us. Bigoted religious factions have resisted the correction of this
through both historically violent and corporate means. It is therefore
imperative that w e ensure that the historically accurate and correct
version of this item replaces the flawed and corrupted one currently
widely in use that propagates misunderstanding, diseducation and
conflict w ith the Bibles professed true intent of fostering tolerance and
brotherly love. It is by restoring the true meaning of Christian love for
the other that w e w ill ensure a lasting atmosphere of peaceful
coexistence and tolerance in a culture of diversity and mutual respect.

Although same-sex m arriage has now been legal in SA since

2006, m any churches still actively refuse to perform such
ceremonies, and others still to perform them w ithin their church
buildings. Some church bodies still seek w ays to get around this
or even to reverse the constitutional amendments of 2006, even
by associating w ith characters of ill repute w ho advocate fanatical
dominionist policies. On the other hand, many ministers sympathetic
to GLBT are quite w illing to “bend” or even ignore these rules and
perform gay weddings anyway, even in other locations. As same-sex
weddings are a relatively new social development in SA it w ill take a

383
little time for global acceptance of it to take root, but I am sure this w ill
happen w ithin the next ten years. The more w idespread people see
gay couples getting married or hear of gay married couples, the w ider
the acceptance of this fact will be.

Hom e schooling needs to be addressed as a ploy of the religious

right w ing to rem ove children from healthy nurturing educational
environments and to indoctrinate them in the w ays of bigotry
and intolerance and as a threat to the future in the w ay that
children are the future.

Anti-gay violence and particularly such violence in the

“ townships” has to be addressed. Education of the population
wrt what GLBTIQ people are should reduce levels of superstition
and ignorance which lie at the root of the hate which causes
such attacks.

Mainstream media largely ignores GLBT oriented m atters. For

exam ple gay and lesbian “ corrective rape” and other incidents
go largely unreported as it is considered “ not newsworthy” to
the public in general. The only w ay such news is disseminated is via
the internet on GLBT forums and newsletters. Many GLBT folk have
suggested the creation of even more of these groups and publications
– even some GLBT radio stations, but I don’t think this w ill help our
aims any – in the end, w ho is going to read it anyw ay? The
heterosexual population? I don’t think so. The only w ay we can
ensure increasing straight aw areness of GLBT issues is to ensure
mainstream inclusion and representivity in both broadcast (radio, TV)
and print media new s and actuality arenas.

Increased GLBT interest and representation in social and

political forums is a hot issue. Taking w hat happened in Uganda
recently as a case in point, I think this is the best thing we can
do. Join and support pro-GLBT political parties and get involved
in pro-GLBT comm unity projects. Just your being there w ill
strengthen our numbers and increase aw areness of our
existence in the straight community. If we are involved and
actively participate in legislative affairs it will be far more difficult for
discriminatory law s to slip through the law-making process without us
know ing about it or having a voice in the matter. Why should w e not
participate in the decision making progress as role players on an
equal footing w ith our straight counterparts? We shouldn’t shy aw ay
from the responsibility of helping to make decisions w hich affect all of

384
SA ‘s citizens, including us – and leave that in the hands of people
who may not necessarily have our best interests at heart.

A sense of pride in being GLBTIQ should be nurtured in us, both

young and old in opposition to the prevailing social opinion
which forces needless shame and guilt upon us. We are citizens
of this country and have (by our gender and/or sexual identities
or orientations alone) done no wrong. Why should we be made to
feel ashamed of who and what we are? Have we not overcome great
obstacles such as prejudice and discrimination in our personal
circumstances alone, as w ell as our social climate to achieve that
which we have achieved in this country in the last 15 years? We
should remember all those of our kind w ho have contributed positively
to the arts, culture, technology and other aspects of the world’s history
and development w ith honor and pride and strive to dedicate
ourselves to continuing this w orthy tradition.

Conclusion
Mainstream Christianity has condemned and persecuted GLBTIQ for
centuries based on a flaw ed and misunderstood dogma w hich in its
original form never condemned us in the first place. This single great
injustice alone cries out to the heavens and to almighty God himself
for justice and restitution. Their intolerance reaches far beyond simple
dislike of one group, but encompasses all groups w ho are not
dominionist Christians.

How can homosexuality in itself be a sin? If I am gay or

transgendered, then I w as born gay or transgendered, not ' made’ gay
or transgendered by any other factors, or by choice. Science that put
men on the moon and split the atom has already proved this.
Logically, you believe there is a Christian god and you believe he
made us all, then if I w as born gay, then God made me this w ay.

Taking this a step further, w hy w ould God make me GLBT if he w ould

then condemn me for ' my'specific ' sin' ? That w ould not be the act of
an all loving, accepting deity, w ould it? In fact it is in no w ay logical at
all!
The answer to me is fairly plain... It is not God who condemns me,
but people who do that.

385
And they through the ages they have perpetuated their hatred and
persecution of us by “writing us out” of God’s kingdom and his holy
word, except to demonize and to curse us as “sinnful” and perverse
monsters akin to the anti-christ.
It is by remaining silent in the face of bigotry that w e GLBT make a
silent minority of ourselves and become victims of persecution, bigotry
and prejudice.
Silence gives consent. We can’t afford to be invisible any more. I
for one, w ill be silent no longer.
I have no fear of standing up and being counted w ith GLBT. I’m
not ashamed of m y life, nor afraid of who knows m y nature or
what they think they can do about it. Because I didn’t ask to be
born transgendered, because there is nothing wrong w ith being
transgendered; and because I have done no harm to anyone by
being transgendered.
In being silent and invisible we give consent to the hate directed
against us. Being visible shows those w ho hate and persecute
us that we are here, in num bers, and w ill be silent or fearful of
them no longer.
Heterosexual society has, by accident or design, had centuries of
dominance over the GLBT minority through cultures, misuse of
religion as a control system, a w eapon and the heterosexist element’s
mindless hate of us. And now because in the late 20th and early 21st
century we are rising to true socio-political equality the
heterosexist bigots find it offensive and threatening – causing
them to invent all sorts of crap to somehow justify keeping us
dow n. Too bad for them . So sorry for your tears. We have cried
enough. We have bled enough. We're not lying down for you
bigots anym ore!

How ever nice it is to see the noble effort of various groups in tackling
the subject of racism in South Afric a, there still remains the other
great evil of this society. I refer to homophobia and heterosexism,
naturally. I find it funny how quickly the media latched onto the
Facebook hate group “ek hou nie van houtkop nie, sou w at?” (Literaly
“I don’t like niggers, so w hat?”) because it was racist – but how many
homophobic hate groups are there on FB – and how much hate
speech has there been in the SA media this year alone against GLBT
citizens? Did any good citizens rush off to report these other sites on
Facebook? Did anything happen about the hate speech in the media?
No?
386
Did the Human Rights Commission speak out against it in our
defense? No? Still FOUR MONT HS later and the great HRC that
had a big mouth THE VERY NEXT DAY after the racist group
m ade the news is STILL keeping silent and hoping it w ill go aw ay –
hoping WE w ill go aw ay.
It seems racism is somehow a worse abomination than homophobia -
that w e are somehow less worthy of their – and your attention. It
seems that GLBT are the second class citizens in the "new" SA. That
it’s all ok because it'
s only "queers" and “trannies” anyw ay – and not
"real" people like the rest of you...
It is rather amusing to note that many champions w ho fought for the
civil liberties of non-w hites in SA yesterday make hypocrites of
themselves and their organizations w hen they speak against, conspire
against and oppress others w ho today are the w eak and pow erless. It
puts their morality, heroism and praisew orthiness under a rather bad
light, don't you think?
Standing against GLBT equal rights, opposing same-sex marriage,
demonizing GLBT in the name of some plastic tw o-dimensional
religion... In fact, such people are unfit to be called role models and
heroes and are no better than the racist fascists who kept them dow n
for all those years. If they fought for racial equality but engage in
prejudice against people on the grounds of the sexual/gender
orientation then they are no more than vile hypocrites, no better than
those bigot fascists they opposed.

Equal Rights For ALL – and

anything less is not equal!

This book has done its job in w arning you. I – and it, have done all
that w e can do here through mere w ritten w ords alone. Now it is up
to YOU, the leaders, the follow ers, the teachers, the pupils, the
parents, the children, the saints, the soldiers, the friends, the families
and the ordinary people that are the pow erbase for those out there
who would mislead us all and to spill innocent blood in your name – to
go forth and to learn more about this growing threatening presence in
the w orld around us, inside and out of South Africa.
Question, study, feel, but most of all T HINK for yourselves and do not
simply accept the word of those who say you should “because they
387
said so!” And w hen you are done thinking, ACT! Don’t just sit there –
DO something! Say something! Get involved! Make a difference! Fight
bigotry! Fight tyranny and oppression and oppose those who would
enslave all of us. For even those w ho support these bigot
organizations cannot see their ow n chains and bonds!
Yes, let's stand together – but ALL of us, not just certain groups who
feel that other certain groups are not important enough to be counted
among the ranks of those who face prejudice and discrimination for
something as immutable as sexual or gender orientation and identity,
which can no more be helped by the individual than somebody has
control over w hat race they w ere born into! Let' s stand together
against this tyranny and make a better South Africa – and a better,
AFRICA – and a better, safer WORLD for ALL.

388