Hmmmm....I reserve my opinion on this guy for now. Anybody who has changed this radically, I want to see what he does consistently in the future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's really frightening is that otherwise intelligent people seek spiritual guidance from a 2,000-year-old book that was cobbled together from the ravings and political screeds of Iron Age tribal leaders.

It's increasingly obvious that religion is a kind of public neurosis -- the result of our vulnerability to social and cultural imprinting on young minds. The content of the religious message is irrelevant; any wild ideas will do.

We must begin to call a spade a spade in these matters. People who believe in invisible spirits, satanic forces, magical processes, etc. are behaving irrationally. Our societies and our governments should treat them that way instead of rewarding their behavior with respect, praise and tax breaks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That sodomite-really-means-child-molester concept reallly seems like a stretch to me. As long as we're bringing up history, let's remeber that the Greeks and Romans would have no idea what the hell you were talking about if you said you were a "homosexual." Greek and Roman men would fool around with young men all the time. It was normal. And the idea that these young men might not be "consenting adults," well, um...that's pretty absurd. The whole idea of consent was pretty foreign then. Free men owned slaves and wives. There was no consent, per se. You ether owned men or you were owned.

Frankly, I often wonder about the whole concept of homosexuality. The idea that one simply is gay, was born that way, nothing can be done. I accept it, don't get me wrong. i just wonder about it. If the Greek and Romans saw sex with men as normal, and yet couldn't fathom men who only had sex with men...where did it come from?

The post-modern will say that the description of the homosexual created him, and maybe that's true. The modern will simply fall back on human rights; it's just who they are. But the ancients? I think they'd be utterly baffled.

Again, I don't agree with the right, not one iota, but we live in a world where your sexual preference is inborn, immovable, unbreakable. Yet our sex can be changed if we wish! What if I feel like I'm a gay man in a straight man's consciousness. Can I change it? Could I become gay if I chose to? Or vice versa? The answer is no. But we can reconstruct your body if you need us to! And give you prozac and ritalin!

It seems to me we should just go back to thinking that all sex that isn't for pro-creation is evil. That way, everybody's a sinner! We could relax! Can you imagine if you couldn't get into the army if you'd ever gotten a blowjob? THAT would be quite a don't ask-don't tell...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Joe,
It might be worth a look when you study Biblically for a Christian attitude toward the Gay and Lesbian community at the 8th chapter of Acts. Here Phillip meets the eunuch, who represents Candace the queen of the Ethiopians. This is Old Jewish culture coming into contact with someone completely outside their norm. Indeed, their old cultural norms of the supreme value of continuing their heritage with children, was denied to the eunuch. Its interesting to consider the backgrounds in Isaiah, from the texts that the eunuch was reading, and probably starting with chapter 53 and perhaps most connected in chapter 56 where the prophet directly addresses the eunuch.
Another story of the eunuch which comes to mind is the story of Esther, where again God works in a cultural situation that could only be described as at best “uncomfortable and unfamiliar” to their religious culture. It is a stretch, but there is a parallel between these biblical backgrounds culturally, and the acceptance of God for the people their society rejected, and our religious culture today and it’s rejection which the gay community experiences today. Could it be possible that the eunuch, dressed distinctively, working with women, powerful but cut off from having children, is in a similar situation to the gay person today? If so, and I think the question is appropriate, our reaction is like that of the culture almost 2000 years ago, and it is in direct conflict with God’s reaction!
As you correctly point out, there are examples of gay behavior and demonstration which fall outside the biblical accepted limits. It also is not difficult to find grossly unacceptable heterosexual behaviors far beyond the biblically acceptable limits. I have not written about this, nor was this a major theme in my preaching – this concept however, was a major help personally in my own attitudes helping me minister beyond my own cultural comfort zones. May God grant his church grace, that we fall not to the enemy within – our own pride and prejudice turned against our world and ourselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm going to take Joe Murray at his word, that he's no longer a homophobe, but I wonder how he feels about evangelical Christianity?

If born-agains weren't such hypocrites (on average), I would not only listen to them but engage in serious conversation on AlterNet. But it is clear to me that while they follow Old Testament teachings, evangelicals (again on average) consider the New Testament a book of suggestions.

President Bush is a sterling example of born-again hypocrisy. He obviously doesn't follow the Ten Commandments, at least the one about lying -- "Thou shall not bear false witness."

Dub-ya has made a career out of bearing false witness, as his history of deceptions shows. And forget the peaceful proclamations of Jesus; the president has mocked those gentle words as well -- such as turning one's cheek, forgiveness and loving other human beings.

For Bush loyalists who disagree, I suggest they research the Karl Rove-orchestrated smear campaigns against Vietnam War heroes John McCain, Max Clelland and John Kerry. Would Jesus have condoned those vicious actions? Absolutely not. But Shrub the Charlatan did.

A similar damning question can be asked about CIA torture. Who would Jesus water-board? No one, of course.

You can verify George W.’s two-faced charade by visiting websites that compare his behavior with the teachings of Jesus. There is no similarity. Bush talks the talk of a Christian, but when it comes to the walk, like all snake oil salesmen, he slithers. Hopefully, after shedding his homophobic skin, Joe Murray will walk upright,

Hugh E. Scott, editor of King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If Christians want to do something about homosexuality, they don’t even need to step out of church, just look to the altar, which, if the sex scandals involving the Catholic priesthood and Pastor Ted Haggard are to be believed, are a principal repository of it.

If elected Republicans think that homosexuality is not a family value, let them tell it to other Republicans first, not me. Apparently the House was condoning a gay brothel being run by one of their own for years. The Republican Party is so gay that it has a special gay unit called the Log Cabin Republicans. Even the Democrats don’t have a gay club.

Kettle to Pot, Kettle to Pot, come in Pot. This is Kettle. Over . . . . . Say what? Over.

Gay agenda? Project much, conservatives? There is no gay agenda, unless you consider the attempt to preserve equality and defy the *conservative* agenda to oppress homosexuals an agenda. I call it a justified reaction to an unprovoked assault, not an agenda. The right has the agenda.

It’s funny. Once homosexuality was considered a psychiatric condition, and being a Republicans was considered normal. Clearly, conservatism is nothing more or less than the pathological deficiency of a mature conscience and a normal sense of community. They lack the empathy of the more well-formed human beings, behaving instead more like our self-centered, cave-dwelling, Neanderthal ancestors than the more evolved Cro-Magnon man who supplanted him while inventing civilization, justice and sharing.

I don’t know if conservatism should be called a mental illness because, because. along with obesity, superstition and magical thinking, it is rampant in the United States. After all, *everybody* can’t be abnormal. But it is a personality defect and a character flaw and has been since the end of the last ice age when the brutes gained minority status.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why is the word "prolife" in quotes?

-JAK

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But he said plenty about the hypocrites!

JC was caustically sarcastic towards the teacher's of The Law; the high priests who added burden's, condemnation's and labeled the people: sinner's and in dire need of paying them to perform ritual baths and sacrificing livestock, so that they would be OK with God.

JC was consistently compassionate towards and never condemned a humble honest person,

JC had few fans in the Temple, for he taught the people they did NOT need to pay anyone to be OK with God!

JC taught the people that God loved them; just as they were; imperfect, diseased, outcast, sinners, refugees, prisoners, occupied people, who endured under the boot of the Roman forces.

Homophobia in antiquity is also rooted in the Hebrew hope that the Messiah was to come; and so, any 'wasted' seed-any sex without the hope to conceive, was anathema to them.

God is love and where ever there is love,

God is there.



e
http://www.wearewideawake.org/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So this man changes from a rabid gay hating bigot to some one repentent of his formerly vicious, prejuidiced ways. I'd like to believe this is genuinely true but somehow the man rings false to me. The Repubs sense a sea change against them in the nation's attitude about tolerating and electing gay bating politicos, especially since SO very many fundie preachers and high ranking Repubs have been outed as gay. I suspect that Mr. Murray is simply a trojan horse used to make the religious rights' eternal hypocrisy seem more platable to the mainstream on the issue of gay rights. In other words, it is image rehab time for the religious right. Even more disturbing to me is his still fanatically anti-abortion bent. So this guy has had a stunning revelation about male gays (he conveniently doesn't mention lesbians) and not about women's reproductive rights? Something isn't quite right here...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We're talking here about a culture where manhood was reached at 13. If you lived past 30 you were old, and 40 was ancient.

So our culture, that states that few under the age of 18 can give valid consent to sex, should have no trouble buying or understanding the concept that the boy prostitutes he's talking about in this article had to be WAY under 18 and certainly under 13, the age of manhood, not to mention coerced into their lives of slavery.

So the condemnation would have been to adult male-on-male child molestation and abuse. And why women wouldn't have been referenced is that it probably would have been unthinkable in that culture to prostitute girls younger than 13 since 13 year olds were regularly given in marriage to older men of 20 and older, not to mention polygamy, both practices which I'm sure made prostitution of women much less common than it is today, and probably an occupation based completely on a travel-base for men away from home.

Girls were too valuable as household help to be given away younger than 13, and even then had to fetch large dowries.

And then you have to consider the horror of Greek institutionalized pederasty (which continues, to this day, even in places like Texas where our Attorney General Roberto Gonzales turned a blind eye "because the boys were 'willing' participants".) A minor cannot EVER give willing mature understanding consent, PERIOD.

So the author makes a quite valid point when you analyze it in terms of the culture that produced it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm just elated that Alternet has found a former gay-basher who is now a born again gay-people-liker! That is too cool. However, it does seem Mr. Murray made a pretty good attempt at letting us know he felt gayness was inborn and something a person could do nothing about, which therefore would mean this person would have been created by god in god's gay image or whatever. The real question, and this question goes out to everybody who considers themselves to be "open-minded" or "tolerant" is what happens when someone like former WNBAer Sheryl Swoopes says she's in a lesbian relationship, but says she doesn't feel she was "born gay?" Is that kind of gay ok, you know the kind where for one reason or other, umm...it's a choice? As it is, with heterosexuality being advertised as "what people do" for so long, even those who are born gay it might take a while to figure that out. That's why the whole concept of a homosexual agenda is laughable because gay people have been coming out of an indoctrinated heterosexual culture forever now. Luckily, because of the dedicated work of many, the culture is more receptive, or at the very least indifferent, to the existence of people who have existed and will continue to exist whether or not anyone has an opinion about it or a label to attach to it. As for the born-or-made, nature-vs-nurture, choice-or-inclination debate, come on, everybody knows it's both, right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

He was deluded in the first place by placing his trust in religion. He has a psychological condition that is DSM-IV described. He believes in things that are clearly and evidently not true.

Then he changed his mind.

Do I really give a sh!t? No. Yet, I applaud him for actually thinking rather than believing. Too bad his brain engaged AFTER he joined the AFA.

Anyone with a thinking mind knows up front precisely what the AFA is all about. It is NOT about family values. It is nothing more than a right wing hate group that is publicly sanctioned by CHRISTIANS.

Really now. If Christianity were a religion of 'love', the 'real' Christians would have very vocally shut that group down long ago. But Christians have NOT done so and have made NO move to do so. Thus, Christianity is the root of this problem and Murray got sucked right into it.

Sorry, too little, too late.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"....so they must recruit!"

I've always enjoyed the stunning blindness and illogic of that line. Gay people, like 99.9% of the rest of us, are the product of a heterosexual act.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The problem with Pace's comments is so pervasive in conservative arguments that it makes all assertions based on the problem null and void.

The problem, as clearly seen in Pace's comments, is invested where he says homosexuality is "immoral." Thinking people's first response is to ask the question, "using whose moral system?" Catholics, Baptists, Jews, Muslims, Native Americans, Buddhists, Wiccans, Satanists? The question is actually absurd, but the impetus to ask keeps coming up, over and over and over.

No matter how firmly held, morals are personal beliefs, not facts. And beliefs are OPINIONS. Personal opinions can't be used as the basis of national policy. National policy affects all the Catholics, Baptists, Jews, Muslims, Native Americans, Buddhists, Wiccans, Satanists and their rights can't be abrogated by laws based on personal opinions.

Laws MUST show an indisputable federal or state need to even be proposed, much less passed. Laws are based on facts, concrete, objective, verifiable facts that will stand up in an objective court of law.

A person involved in any level of government, should not, may not, use OPINION as a basis for policy. That it happens anyway is a major shame of this country.

In my view, this problem requires legislation to solve it and it fits the criteria: there's a quantifiable need for the government to enact the law; there's an overabundance of verifiable evidence, especially from the Bush administration, to create a law or series of laws that prevent the use of personal opinions in matters of policy.

In England, legislators never bring religion into the debate as a matter of tradition. A law is unnecessary as they follow that tradition closely. (Yes, there have been recent isolated debate that breaks with that tradition.) Unfortunately, US legislative tradition changes with each switch in power, so a law is needed.

Personal opinions are not facts. Our laws are and should be based on facts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm not swallowing the pill entirely. As far as the AFA (and all other "conservatives") goes, until they are the most rabid opponents of the war in Iraq, they can keep their bullshit messages to themselves.

Though no one asked, if that general really wanted to call something immoral, how about the colonialist war (Iraq/Afghanistan) which is paying his bills and committing genocide and degradation here and abroad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"I believe that America has a duty to protect her borders and preserve her cultural identity."

What does the full statement mean, taken in context? The "protect [our] borders" part is unambiguous. But what does it have to do with "preserving" America's "cultural identity"? What does Murray think of as American "cultural identity"? Just wondering, because:

My maternal grandfather was from Goa, my maternal grandmother was from Puerto Rico (where her grandparents settled after leaving Spain). My father is African-American. He was a foster child who never knew his real parents. My late husband was Jewish. We had one child, a daughter, now a grown woman with a husband. For the past 7 years I've been in a loving relationship with a butch lesbian whose father's great-grandparents bought ranch land in Montana when they emigrated from Germany. Her mother married her father when they met in her native Copenhagen.

Furthermore: my maternal grandparent's marriage started as one of convenience. They didn't even have any languages in common. But she was divorced, broke with 2 children and he wanted to stay in the U.S. after retiring from the Merchant Marine. I owe my very existence to immigration fraud and illegal immigration. Xenophobia baffles me, but I know it must be real. Otherwise it couldn't be exploited so readily.

Without further clarification, Mr. Murray's statement leaves me feeling a bit wary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

this never ceases to amaze me. The selective bible (or Koran or what have you) quotes to justify the most obscene lack of compassion or true kindness. The condemnation of abortion, gays, other religions, while concealing the absolute depravity within their so-called 'spiritual' leaders, I particularly refer to the continuous assault on helpless children within the Catholic church. I'm cynical enough in my more advanced years to follow the money on anyone preaching an offensive and repressive policy. Then it all becomes clear. Religion is all about the money, tithing your hard earned few bucks to placate the bejewelled and beskirted almighty clergy. My father's family was publicly cursed out of church from a frothing parish priest on a pulpit because one of his sisters had dared to question her Catholicism and converted to a less radical form of Christianity.
Compassion and kindness? Rarely have I seen anything approaching this in organized anything. Just messages of hate from often closeted homosexuals or paedophiles. Haggard is the tip of the iceberg.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

While Joe Murray might be changing his views about gays, the American Bishops are increasingly aggressive in their resistance to change in the Catholic Church's official views on gays, contraception, abortion, masturbation, etc.

Bishops Denounce Writings of a Catholic Theologian "There is no one Catholic view on contraception, abortion or same-sex marriage. There's a diversity of views. And it's not just Dan Maguire versus the bishops. There's a large school of thought that agrees with everything I've said in these pamphlets." - Daniel C. Maguire, Catholic Theologian at Marquette University

And here is Daniel Maguire's letter to the U.S. Bishops mentioned in the article, as well as the two denounced pamphlets:

Letter from a Catholic Theologian to All 270 U.S. Catholic Bishops "In what may be considered an act of undefeatable hope, I decided to write to all 270 U.S. bishops. Beyond a doubt they could be among the most influential religious leaders in the nation if only they could get off what I call the pelvic issues and address, in prophetic style, the basic biblical concerns of poverty, justice, and peace on an imperilled earth."

Moderate Roman Catholic Position on Contraception and Abortion "Catholic teaching on contraception and abortion has been anything but consistent."

A Catholic Defense of Same Sex Marriage "In the past, the Church accepted homosexuality more openly and even had liturgies to celebrate same sex unions. There was a recognition that different sexual orientations are clearly part of God's plan for creation..."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is interesting that General Pace, who I am assumming would call himself a Christian, condemns Homosexuals as immoral when his job is to direct people to kill other people. The first of the 10 Commandmants is "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and not one of the 10 say "Thou Shalt Not Be A Homosexual". This is the hypocrisy of modern day Christians that people like myself, who think the lessons attributed to Jesus are beautiful (especially the casting stones lesson), find distasteful.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Certain comments concerning the homophobe issue by Joe Murray and commentators show a complete lack of knowledge Bibilically as well as Christian ethics, specifically the Roman Catholic Religion. It is specifically stated for anyone to read homosexuality (the act) is an offense to God - man shall not lie with another man and the same with women to women. Men and women were not created for the nonpropagation of the planet. On another level in the Catholic religion it is openly assuaged "the act of homosexuality " is abhorrent (the actual sexual act) of which there is tolerance for the sexually inactive homosexual/lesbian.
One writer comments about the Bible being concocted by some near stone age cave dwellers and discounts any part of such literature. Actually this is so typical of our present society to wash away what they deem unecessary in any historical theater so it makes their lifestyle fit into a "safe" niche.
On still another level if one would truly read the Bible you would also note the reason for the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah was due directly for the sins of homosexuality.

And yes there is a natural order whether or not anyone out there being a "practicing homosexual" wants to believe it or not. It does not include bashing our your children with legislature to translate homosexuality is okay, so they are influenced to actually partake in it as a a vogue thing to do as is being introduced in a lot of the Candian provinces. It is not wrong for heterosexual individuals to express their viewpoints when it concerns there own childrens rights, specifically about how they want their children to be raised. It is not bigotry it is an embracement, a beautiful embracement for all to share in God's plan. Happy Easter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gay activity is dangerous. Any complete research has been stifled in the mainstream for the past few decades.

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/Home/tabid/36/Default.aspx

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Deep down in their dark hearts, the churches of fear and hate, and that includes the Roman Catholic, So. Baptists, and some other non-denominational Protestants, realize that gay marriage and acceptance of gays threaten the house of cards they have constructed. These are blind fundamentalists, who have lost their way despite the mind God gave them. Their religions are one of fear, hope and hate, e.g. the do as I say, you don't really die, don't do as I say and you burn (what worse way to die btw) in hell for eternity. All they are is a power structure intent on continuing their institution's, and their God is not named Jesus, it is named Fearme. Of course, hatred against gays becomes part of that because hate is the first cousin of fear, and it is an outlet for fear of the unknown. Just look at how hitler used hatred during a time of terrible economic collapse and fear for the future by his people to turn a cultured people into the monsters that gave us the holocaust of the Jews (Jesus own people) and btw the ashes of Germany's gays mingled in the smokestack with those of the Jews. Its interesting to note two things - Hitler was born a Catholic, and there is an out of print book called "I was Hitlers doctor" that said that he actually was an illegitimate child of a Jew. Mix in the absolutism of the church, a grand self hatred that Psychology teaches often gets externalized onto someone else as an attempt at escape of the holders own suppressed from consciousness self hatred and look at what happened.

It's interesting to look at Bush in this light, for he is A right wing southern Methodist. (A NY methodist church btw was involved in trying to help get gay marriage in NY) - the south still has to have a whipping boy, it isn't fashionable to use Afro-Americans any more, who is next - Gays of course.
Why does Bush, the absolute example of lying and hypocrisy in America, cause so much anguish for Gays? Because his God is named Greed, and he uses fear and hate to advance his and his right wing agenda of greed - the poor die in a war based on lies, ignorance, and arrogance, the middle class gets destroyed, and current statistics say that the top 0.2% of the income earners receive the same total income as the bottom 50% of Americans. Bush and co. is defined by the (go google it) '12 signs of fascism', where he scores about 80%. Of course his grandfather Prescott was director of a bank that helped fund the nazi war machine in the 30's, and the bank was fined $3 million (an enormous sum at that time) for those activities. Isn't it so important to look at ones family background.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As for General Pace, what else would you expect from someone whose sole goal is building and running a military killing machine. My only request is that every gay person in the military immediately come out. There are an estimated 65000 gays in the military - what a wonderful way to put a crimp in Bush's war agenda. It would also lead to a lot of people claiming to be gay to get out - they just need an example to be set, and we can be sure that the Iraq debacle will be brought to an end, and maybe Bush will get back to a war I do support - Afghanistan, and killing off the #@'s of 9/11. We must also note that it isn't a war against terrorism, it is a war against religious extremism, and we've got plenty of that here at home. I remember seeing a college age girl wearing a jacket that said "we are all warriors for Christ". Was Christ into killing, HUH? THINK THINK THINK!

As for people talking about the bible and God's plan, wouldn't be nice if they kept their religion to themselves. This is a free country, and we have an absolute right to keep faith out of our Government, for look what faith did during the middle ages e.g. the Catholic churches crusades that murdered tens of millions of Muslims in the name of God, but really just to plunder their riches and steal from the trade caravans that passed thru the middle east. No wonder some Muslims have a cultural- religious proclivity toward hatred. Look at what faith mixed with government has brought the middle east - their only exports are oil (till its gone) and murderers.

More on the Catholic church, and please don't accuse me of bashing Catholics, whom I feel are victims of the church, and of course the lucky ones who ignore it or see it as a cafeteria plan, e.g. 94% of Catholics use birth control, and the other group who wanted to maximize children had a goal creating more soldiers for the third reich. A newspaper editor said that the new Pope has slammed the door on the 21st century, a priest told me that society has slammed the door on the church. Either way, that is wonderful, for they will either change or die. Churches in Europe are empty, Gay marriage or civil unions have come to Spain, Mexico city and the Mexican state of Cuhiula, and some municipalities in South America. Same for Canada, Spain, all Scandinavian countries, England, Israel, Republic of South Africa, and New Zealand. Most other western European countries, e.g. France, Germany have some kind of partial civil unions, usually called domestic partnerships. In the developed world, only America stands mostly alone, except for a few states, in supporting gay unions. Once America changes, and it will over time, the church is out to pasture, or the dustbin of history.

As for the ex AFA guy, maybe he is finally seeing through his prejudices, those which are so embedded in childhood from our culture, poisoned by right wing religions, that they cannot even be fathomed on the part of so many of its victims. But people can learn and change and realize how their prejudices at at total odds with what Jesus' life on earth was about.

I'll note the So. Baptist leader who now says that maybe being gay is inborn. Ever so slowly they are moving, but when you live in a house of cards, you have to move slowly so that it doesn't come tumbling down. Of course his next idea is maybe hormonal treatments to a fetus to "correct it". Thank you, Doctor Mengele. Has the Fuhrer been talking to you in your dreams?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bigotry against gays is one of the great shames of our nation, as slavery and Jim Crow were it's worst crimes, also 'justified' by the bible. I could go on and on, but I'll close now with a simple request, from a str8 guy with 3 str8 kids, married 39 years to the same woman. You must go out, gay and str8 alike, and get involved in politics. If Bush, Cheney, Rove, Gingrich, and others like him are not stopped, the future of this nation as a beacon of hope for all, a nation with a middle class to which all should and so many have aspired in in grave danger. This gang of thieves, bent on greed, are a danger as bad if not worse then Islamic extremism to our nation, for they are here, they and their corrupt cronies sit in the White House (should be painted red with the blood of innocent Iraqis) and the congress, etc. The enemy is here in our midst, they are little different then the blinded Islamic extremists who kissed the Koran in the last moments of their lives as the WTC filled an ever larger and large field of their view while they sat in the pilots seats. Bush's war of lies, ignorance, and arrogance makes him guilty of Genocide against our troops amd the Iraqi people, who are worse off then under Saddam although he certainly was another Stalin, egomanic monster. To hell with them, you can make it happen, the 2008 election campaign has already started.

Get involved.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here is an intelligent individual who has evolved. More power to him!

I hope he keeps speaking up for Christians who are usually drowned out by the reactionary idiot troglodytes and the power-hungry fear mongers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Peace, life, truth. These are the things that true Christianity teaches. NOT judgmentalism.

If you find a person who purports to be a "Christian", and they DON'T stand for peace, life, and the truth, then they are merely 'perpetratin'" like they're Christians. If they read their Bible to figure out what YOU are doing wrong, then they have probably missed the point.

You know, I had an acquaintance tell me once that he didn't believe in anything he couldn't touch, taste, see, or smell...

It occurs to me that this is one of the most ridiculous statements that I've ever heard. Why would you need to build up a belief system around the OBVIOUS?

It's the not-so-obvious that one has to build up beliefs about.

Case in point: the electron.

No one has ever touched, tasted, seen, or smelled an electron... If you touch a live wire, and ground yourself, ostensibly, you feel the effects of many electrons coursing through your body.

But how is that different from a person telling you that they "feel" something when they pray?

Is it possible that maybe YOU haven't touched the "live wire" yet?

Maybe we'll successfully photograph an electron one day. We get closer and closer. But even if we could do that TODAY, it wouldn't change the fact that, for the past one hundred years or so, we have built an entire society based upon something that we couldn't touch, taste, see, or smell, but merely trusted our faith in math and science to create.