Christians should apologise to gay people — Pope Francis

I can only imagine the antigay religious fanatics such as Dr Wayne West, Shirley Richards and JCHS with Jamaica CAUSE, must be squirming in their skins when they saw this one; an appropriate start to reconciliation indeed and also the clerical abuse black eye that has smudged the Catholic church's image over hundreds of years.

a previous quote from the Pontiff 

ROME, Italy (AFP) — Pope Francis said Sunday that Christians and the Roman Catholic Church should apologise to gay people and seek their forgiveness for the way they have been treated.

Speaking to reporters as he flew back to Rome from Armenia, the pope was asked if he agreed with comments by German Cardinal Reinhard Marx that the Church needed to say sorry for the way it has treated the gay community.

"We Christians have to apologise for so many things, not just for this (treatment of gay people), but we must ask for forgiveness. Not just apologise — forgiveness," he said.

"The questions is: if a person who has that condition, who has good will, and who looks for God, who are we to judge?" the pope added, repeating his famous "Who am I to judge?" remark about homosexuality made early in his papacy.

That comment was one of the first indications that the Vatican under Pope Francis' leadership would take a more conciliatory approach to the gay community, but also prompted criticism from the Church's more conservative members. This is the healing that is so needed in these times to gain true tolerance as I think Jesus would approve and indeed extend to all.

Francis expanded his apology to also include other people who have faced discrimination.

"I think that the Church not only should apologise... to a gay person whom it offended but it must also apologise to the poor as well, to the women who have been exploited, to children who have been forced to work."

The comments come just two weeks after the Orlando massacre at a gay nightclub in which 49 people were killed.

At the time the Holy See condemned the attack as a "homicidal folly and senseless hatred".

The CNN carried the story as this in part:

Groundbreaking Moment

"I believe that the church not only should apologize to the person who is gay whom it has offended," he added, "but has to apologize to the poor, to exploited women, to children exploited for labor; it has to ask forgiveness for having blessed many weapons."

The Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest and editor at large of America magazine, called the Pope's apology to gays and lesbians "a groundbreaking moment."

"While St. John Paul II apologized to several groups in 2000 -- the Jewish people, indigenous peoples, immigrants and women, among them -- no pope has ever come close to apologizing to the LGBT community. And the Pope is correct of course. First, because forgiveness is an essential part of the Christian life. And second, because no group feels more marginalized in the church today than LGBT people."

The Pope's comments came in response to a question about a German Cardinal who said the Catholic Church should apologize for being "very negative" about gays. The Pope was also asked whether Christians bear some blame for hatred toward the LGBT community, as horrifically demonstrated in the Orlando massacre at a gay night club that killed 49 people on June 12.

'Immense Blessing'

Francis first uttered that rhetorical question -- Who am I to judge gay people? -- in 2013, also during a news conference on the papal plane. His comments were hailed as a breakthrough for a church that has historically condemned homosexuality, often in harsh terms. Francis has not changed church doctrine that calls homosexual acts sinful, but he has shown a more merciful approach to people on the margins, including gays and lesbians.

Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministry, a Catholic gay rights group, called the Pope's remarks "an immense blessing of healing."

"No pope has said more welcoming words to LGBT people than when Pope Francis today offered his recommendation that the Church -- indeed all Christians -- should apologize for the harm religious traditions have caused to LGBT people. The pope's statement was simple, yet powerful, and it fell from his lips so easily."

As is often the case, the Pope's press conference encompassed a number of controversial questions. Here are the Pope's answers about Brexit, former Pope Benedict XVI and why he used the word "genocide" to describe the murder of more than 1 million Armenians in the early 20th century.

Let us see if this pivotal moment in the Catholic church's history will resonate deeply especially here in Jamaica.

Peace & tolerance indeed

H

Ian Boyne on Grow Up On Gay Intolerance!

So Ian Boyne erudite commentator has hit the nail on the head again in what I see as a fair commentary; others in the LGBT circles are up in arms over his criticisms of the arrogance and reverse intolerance. It is not the first time though he had sought to point it out as posted here on Gay Jamaica Watch: The Intolerant View Of Tolerance .............

now comes his latest salvo:

flag at the US Embassy on Hope Road

No Jamaican law was violated or disrespected when the United States displayed the rainbow flag of the LGBT community on its own territory in Kingston. And rather than showing disrespect to Jamaica, the act indicated its acknowledgement of the vibrancy of our civil society and of our democratic 'articulate minority'.

Jamaicans have pointed out that the Americans dared not put up a rainbow flag in a country like Saudi Arabia or other Islamic states with Shari'a law. But that is precisely the point: The Americans know we have a strong democratic tradition and that no violent action would follow, despite the vast majority of Jamaicans' strident and visceral opposition to homosexuality (which, strictly, is not criminalized; only anal sex). They knew the dominant voices in media would push back against any popular dissent and that they could, of course, count on the visa-hungry masses to hold their tongues and violent implements in hope of entering paradise!

the tweet that started it all (not included in the Gleaner excerpt)

They were right. The attorney general has never regretted any action of hers as she has those few words proclaimed on Twitter. She has been clobbered internationally and everywhere in cyberspace. But some brave soldiers of the Gospel have come to her defence, though. I admire their courage but am less impressed with their reasoning. Helene Coley-Nicholson, president of Lawyers' Christian Fellowship (LCF), says the flying of the rainbow flag "sends an overt symbol that the United States Embassy in Jamaica is aligned with those who would break our laws".

First, Helene, embodied in the first principle of diplomacy and international relations - mutual respect - is the notion of tolerance for diversity. States do not only have relations with those whose laws, customs and ideologies are compatible with theirs. Jamaica did not break off relations with the United States when it legalized gay marriage, even though we are not aligned with that at all.

TOLERANCE, RESPECT

America has relations with countries with laws that penalise adultery, alcohol, and pork consumption, homosexuality, and which practise Internet censorship and a host of authoritarian laws. This is what happens every day among states. It is not disrespectful for friends to uphold their beliefs and practices in contradistinction to others. That's what tolerance and respect really mean: That I can freely engage my expression of preferences even when they clash with yours. This is at the heart of the democratic ethos and of respectful relationships.

LCF makes the following statement, which, on the surface, seems benign but which is deeply offensive: Conceding the fact that "the embassy is considered American territory in international law," the Fellowship nevertheless goes on to say in its release that "the LCF asks US Ambassador Luis Moreno to immediately take down the flag and in so doing eliminate potential misunderstanding", and - note this -"barriers to the natural outpouring of sympathy and support for the United States and those who have suffered". This is reprehensible and deplorable. Our people's "natural outpouring of sympathy" would be constrained by the presence of that gay flag? If that is true, we should hang our heads in shame. That is not complimentary and is not something we should broadcast. That is advertising our moral and cultural backwardness.

I submit we have a deeper problem not just in Jamaica but in the world: It is a problem of a deeply illiberal, anti-democratic, anti-pluralistic spirit. It not only afflicts conservative Christians.It afflicts supposed liberals, leftists and gay activists. The issue is not primarily hate. It is an abhorrence of tolerance, a despising of opposing views, a cherishing of bigotry. It is not only among fundamentalists. Some of these gays activists are among the most arrogant, bigoted, and democracy-averse people you can find. I declare a plague on all the houses.

The Christians in Jamaica who rightly recognise that this issue of gay rights is a political one must know how to fight political battles. They must be intellectually and strategically sharper than they have been and not keep playing into the hands of those who are enemies of the Church.

The Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society, like its sister organisation which Coley-Nicholson runs, also concedes that "the US Embassy is considered to be on US soil", but goes on to say in its release that "the embassy is still a guest of the Jamaican Government and is expected to conduct its affairs in a respectful manner".


GROW UP, JAMAICA!

No, it is the Jamaican people who must grow up and start respecting people's civil liberties and right to their own way of life. We don't have to force the Americans to agree with us that homosexuality is an abomination worthy of punishment in an eternal hellfire.

They should be free to proclaim their solidarity with fellow citizens who are gay, some of whom lost their lives in the nation's biggest mass-shooting massacre. They chose to grieve by showing haters that they stand in solidarity with a community they see as oppressed and despised. We can disagree and feel those people should repent of their sinful ways. That is our right to believe that. But we can't impose that on our guests, Dr Wayne West. We must show some respect and regard to our guests.

I am a conservative Christian who follows a Bronze Age book written by nomadic tribes who deemed homosexual practice unethical. But I don't believe we have any right to impose the Kingdom of God on anyone in this age. I believe we must maintain this free, pluralistic society, and we have no right to ban non-Christian expressions.

We should strive to penetrate the society with Christian ethics and to convince people that our views are right. Lucien Jones is doing a valiant job in that regard. But we must resist the temptation to theonomy and theocracy. We must learn from the excesses of the fanatical Muslims who are a threat to civilisation everywhere. (Notice I did not say 'Muslims', but 'fanatical Muslims'.)

Pastor Al Miller, in his response, was equally flawed. He pleads in a letter in theObserver on Thursday that "diplomacy requires respect and the art of understanding the customs and beliefs of those with whom one engages. The diplomat makes every effort not to offend".

So a diplomat must show respect and honour to the custom of female circumcision, Indian caste traditions, child brides, Shari'a law? In earlier times, should respect have been shown to foot binding, duelling, etc? Should apartheid have been respected because it was law? Was Mandela immoral to defy it? Al Miller feels that the flying of the rainbow flag "can only be interpreted as a deliberate act of provocation". Provocation to what? You realise what you are saying, Rev? He says it was a "deliberate slap in the face of the Jamaican community". Well, again, we should be ashamed if that is so.

It's no slap in my face if someone wants to affirm his homosexuality or show solidarity with the gay community. As long as I am allowed to have my Stone Age belief that homosexuality is wrong and worship my Invisible Friend in the sky, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as the New Atheists would say, that's okay. Fly your gay flag anywhere but my premises and I am okay. Problem is that it is not just the Christian fundamentalists who pose a threat to liberal values. Increasingly, so-called liberal societies are free-speech terrorists.

The June 4-10 issue of The Economist has a cover story, 'Free Speech Under Attack', which makes interesting reading. In its editorial, it notes that "the idea has spread that people and groups have a right not to be offended. That may sound innocuous. But if I have a right not to be offended, that means someone must police what you say about me or about things I hold dear such as my ethnic group, my religion." Gays are principal offenders, wanting to insulate themselves against so-called hate speech and offensive language.

Some gays would just as soon shut down all opposition, citing homophobia and hate to mask their own intolerance. An illiberal, intolerant spirit is growing on all sides. It must be firmly resisted. Let a hundred flowers bloom - along with the weeds. Democracy detractors, go home!

- Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist working with the Jamaica Information Service. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and ianboyne1@yahoo.com.

also see:

Gays' Threat To Free Speech ........... veteran journalist Ian Boyne .. 2012

SCOTUS Strikes Down Abortion Clinic Regulations in Texas

download the judgement HERE

WASHINGTON (AP):

The Supreme Court struck down Texas' widely replicated regulation of abortion clinics yesterday in the court's biggest abortion case in nearly a quarter century.

The justices voted 5-3 in favour of Texas clinics that had argued the regulations were only a veiled attempt to make it harder for women to get abortions in the nation's second-most populous state.

Justice Stephen Breyer's majority opinion for the court held that the regulations are medically unnecessary and unconstitutionally limit a woman's right to an abortion.

Texas had argued that its 2013 law and subsequent regulations were needed to protect women's health. The rules required doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and forced clinics to meet hospital-like standards for outpatient surgery.

'UNDUE BURDEN'

Breyer wrote that "the surgical-centre requirement, like the admitting privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions and constitutes an 'undue burden' on their constitutional right to do so."

Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined Breyer.

Ginsburg wrote a short opinion noting that laws like Texas' "that do little or nothing for health, but rather strew impediments to abortion, cannot survive judicial inspection" under the court's earlier abortion-rights decisions. She pointed specifically to Roe v. Wade in 1973 and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Thomas wrote that the decision "exemplifies the court's troubling tendency 'to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion, or even to speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue.'" Thomas was quoting an earlier abortion dissent from Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February. Scalia has not yet been replaced, so only eight justices voted.

Alito, reading a summary of his dissent in court, said the clinics should have lost on technical, procedural grounds. Alito said the court was adopting a rule of, "If at first you don't succeed, sue, sue again."

Abortion providers said the rules would have cut the number of abortion clinics in Texas by three-fourths if they had been allowed to take full effect.

When then Governor Rick Perry signed the law in 2013, there were about 40 clinics throughout the state. That number dropped to under 20 and would have been cut in half again if the law had taken full effect, the clinics said.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the law "was an effort to improve minimum safety standards and ensure capable care for Texas women. It's exceedingly unfortunate that the court has taken the ability to protect women's health out of the hands of Texas citizens and their duly elected representatives."

ENDS

I can imagine the squirming yet again by antigay groups added to the apology call from the pope just days ago Dr Wayne West and others must be fuming. Things are slowly changing towards some sensibility and real Christians ought not to be paranoid and misguided as to tolerance and choice and leave all judgement to God.

Peace & tolerance

H

Truth or Not: Guidance counsellors not discriminatory

Now who are we to believe on this matter outside of the shouting match is has been made to be. Why has the Guidance Counselor Association President supposedly changed her tune since the original position.

Have a read a make some sense of this latest salvo, bearing in mind Ian Boyne's take on this and if counsellors do admit that they have refused engagement with any student then it is grounds for dismissal. Sadly it is stuff like this that just clouds the all important middle road needed for sensible discourse with truthfulness as part and parcel of it.

also see: Ian Boyne: Gay-Friendly Counsellors For Students?

now comes formerHIV ally turned LGBT opponent and President of Lawyers' Christian Fellowship Helen Coley Nicholson:

The firestorm over comments allegedly made recently by president of the Jamaica Association of Guidance Counsellors in Education (JAGCE), Nina Dixon, continues to blaze. Dixon reportedly said that some guidance counsellors in Jamaica’s public schools, who are of the Christian faith, are refusing to help gay and lesbian students who may be struggling with their sexual orientation. This prompted calls in expected quarters for the removal of “radicalised faith-based counsellors…whose continued presence pose a danger to school communities and individual students”. Others, quite reasonably, asked for the facts before rushing to judgement.

In an interview with me this week, Dixon set the record straight. This is the first of a two-part report.

Helene Coley Nicholson (HCN): Mrs Dixon, tell us the backdrop against which the controversial comments were published.

Nina Dixon (ND): We had a student commit suicide on Friday, and on Monday the article came out, so it was really a dark period grieving for the student and at the same time feeling as though guidance counsellors in Jamaica were put in a bad light based on how the article was constructed. It was twisted around and certain things were left out.

The interview was wide. We spoke about different issues: what counsellors are facing, the societal issues, how the JTA [Jamaica Teachers’ Association] negotiates for the counsellors, and what we want them to negotiate for us. We spoke about what initiatives we plan to take to the minister [of education] so that he can help the growth of guidance and counselling in education. We spoke about a myriad of topics, and the last question the writer asked was, “How does the JAGCE plan to deal with students in the LGBT community?” I think that’s what the question was, and I responded that we don’t see the students based on their sex or their gender, whether it’s male of female, or their sexual preference, or what have you, we look at the issues that the students come with and we deal with those issues. I went on to say that there are three levels of homosexuality and when it comes to the second and third, the experimental stage and the committed stage, some counsellors are uncomfortable dealing with the issues that come within that stage.

The first level is the curiosity stage, where children or teenagers during puberty go through an identity crisis. They’re trying to find themselves. So all teenagers go through that stage, and sometimes they may feel a particular way, and so, talking, you realise that this person was just curious, or this person has now changed his or her mind, or they no longer feel that way or have those feelings.

A guidance counsellor can’t say this is right or this is wrong. You have to just let the students talk and express themselves. This curiosity stage is something that we can deal with. Now the experimental stage is somewhat sticky because I don’t remember in the teachers’ college getting in-depth in homosexuality and dealing with these stages. I learned all of this from a workshop that the JAGCE put on a couple years back at our annual conference.

I went to high school in New York and lived in Atlanta for years and I was exposed to a myriad of news reports, working with persons in that community. So counsellors would call me to say, ‘ Nina, how do you deal with this, or what steps do I take, who can I refer to?’ So that is why I know there is some level of discomfort when dealing with certain levels. It’s not that the counsellors don’t want to deal with them, sometimes we just don’t know how; and I know persons will probably get on me for saying that, but if we don’t know how to deal with it we just don’t know how; and this is where we need to do workshops and get other methods of sensitising the counsellors, so that the child can get the help that he or she needs.

HCN: Is there a problem of discrimination by guidance counsellors as it relates to students who are experimenting or who are at the committed stage of homosexuality?

ND: I wouldn’t use the word discrimination. I would use the word discomfort. I don’t know of one guidance counsellor who has discriminated. I’m a reporting queen. I report cuts and minor bruises, so there is no way that I’d have a guidance counsellor or know of a guidance counsellor who is being discriminatory or is shunning a student and not report that guidance counsellor.

I don’t know of a guidance counsellor who has ever victimised a student because he is curious or experimenting with homosexual behaviour. No one has ever reported that to me. I just know that they feel uncomfortable dealing with certain areas of homosexuality, and it’s not homosexuality alone.

We have guidance counsellors who are uncomfortable in other areas. For example, I have a difficulty dealing with grief when it happens in my school. We have guidance counsellors who can’t deal with a case of rape because maybe they were raped. We are human beings and things happen in life. It happens to the best of us; whether we are lawyers or doctors, guidance counsellor, priest, things happen in life, and sometimes certain things trigger and this is when the counsellor or teacher or whomever goes and gets the help that they need not that they should lose their job or be criticised or condemned, they are human beings.

In those situations, we have a referral system within the ministry because we have social workers assigned to the ministry in each region. We lean on them as well as our education officers sometimes when we are stuck. Then we have various agencies, depending on the situation, that we make referrals to and psychologists that work for the Child Guidance Clinic who offer their services privately. So we have a protocol and we’re trained in teachers’ college or wherever we went to school. Where there is discomfort or you have used up your requisite skills you refer.

 let us not forget her statement according to the Gleaner article

Meanwhile the implicated JAGCE President Nina Dixon in an interview on Nationwide radio with a counsellor Nadine Maloy, Ruel Reid Principal of Jamaica College and another Principal one Kassan Troupe on January 19, 2016 said the following practically changing her stance in my eyes when asked about her comment to the Gleaner:

“We notice that really some counsellors are uncomfortable dealing with issues that they were not trained to deal with; counsellors are well trained, we have well trained counsellors in our country but some counsellors are uncomfortable giving guidance without proper information dealing with that sensitive topic ....... it’s a taboo; it’s still a taboo topic.”

When asked if counsellors are refusing to counsel LGBT students she said:

“No, they would be fired, we work for the ministry of education and the ministry states that we look at students and listen to their issues, if we are uncomfortable or if we don’t feel that we can help that student fully we have a referral system that we utilize; and we have different agencies and different specialists that we turn to when things get difficult; you know that we can’t handle or deal with.”

She then made the definitive denial:

“A guidance counsellor has never refused to treat a student however they’ve stated that they are uncomfortable with some situations and sometimes it is based on their Christianity, what they’ve been taught in the church, how they’ve been raised; our culture."

Now I am even more befuddled than ever since this matter broke as where is the proof from Miss Nina that NO counsellor was dismissed due to non-engagement while not specifying LGBT students as the subject in the sessions and why didn’t Cliff Hughes and Dennis Brooks who interviewed her allowed that to simply fly pass in the wind? The JAGCE President did not mention the suicide matter as she did in another interview she gave to President of the anti gay group Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship LCF Helen Coley Nicholson and posted here. Given what transpired some years ago from as early as 2004 from memory when a male student was set upon by his own father who incited a mob at Dunoon High School and the subsequent discussions involving folks such as the late Dr Heather Little-White which resulted in some incremental changes to the referral systems as it was also unearthed that some counsellors were inappropriately using referrals as a cop-out or others were using a reparative therapy strategy for change while forcing students to suppress same gender desires with some transgender students allegedly being told they have a mental problem as well. Then came the ‘Lesbian learning matter’ and so called coercion on female students by other students as well as posted here; after the firestorm the Principals’ Association, guidance counsellors and other professionals also huddled sometimes in tense sessions to iron out the way forward and similar discomfort issues were mentioned which led to a further tightening of the referral systems etc.

So it seems both JFLAG and the JAGCE President need to heed some advice in terms of tracking what both entities have done regarding this business of counsellors, LGBTQ students and where or what actually happened so that we can avoid such firestorms as this again; foot in mouth seems a chronic re-infection for the goodly J especially when the new blood do not take the time review the files or remove previously published press releases on similar matters so as to plan how to tread when present issues arrive as a curve ball at the crease. In the same breath the JAGCE President in addressing the matter at the Gleaner forum should have been guarded in her answer not for to deceive or cover up but for clarity and issue a caution answer whilst reviewing her own organization’s file as to what preceded her tenure seeing she seems young.

When will we have the courage in the education systems and at policy despite mere tokenism from the MOE on tolerance? The HFLE matter is still fresh in my mind despite years have passed as nationally we missed a golden opportunity to address early initiation, homo-curiosity, sexual orientation issues, sexuality, gender identity and such regarding teens instead fear got the better or persons who were supposed to be rational.


Think on these things.

Peace & tolerance

H

Leighton Levy on Gays are not our problem .... JCHS told to check the mirror

Leighton Levy's sojourn from anti gay to reasonably tolerant and reflective is to be commended and I have been keeping my eye on his articles since three or so years now, here comes one more though some months behind I think it is worth revisiting as to the question of selectivity by antigay voices and groups.

Once again, I am being left to wonder if some of these so-called advocacy groups ever stop to take stock of the hypocrisy they practise each and every day in this country.

I direct my ire at the Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society that issued a release this week stating their objection to the visit of Randy Berry, the US Special Envoy for the Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) people, to Jamaica.

According to media reports, Berry is to visit the island from May 21- 23. USAID senior LGBT coordinator Todd Larson is also on the island and leaves this weekend.

According to the coalition, "Berry and Larson are here to get the Jamaican Government and people to accept that all sexual activities are to be considered as normal and good. This is the US Foreign Policy: Exporting Buggery and Sexual Confusion."

The kicker for me is when they say the visit represents a new form of imperialism to accept a lifestyle, which is "illogical and demonstrably harmful to our society and particularly to our children.

Jamaica's children are already suffering from the effects of poor family life. We do not need to add the further harms of experimenting with same-sex parenting."

Now, before I go on, let me say that I know that a large majority of Jamaicans agree with the coalition's stance, but that is not what annoys the hell out of me. Note the last thing they said:"Jamaica's children are already suffering from the effects of poor family life." If they believe that to be true, why are we only now hearing about this, and only in the context of homosexual influence?

Why are we not hearing about this in regards to the thousands of paedophiles among us, raping, impregnating and murdering our young girls? Those three pregnant 12-year-old school girls who were impregnated and murdered - was it gay people who did that to them? Those kids that were shot execution style in Clarendon recently - was that a part of the gay agenda?

What are we really saying?

A healthy society allows the raping and killing of our little girls?

Are we saying that a healthy society is one in which we have more than a thousand murders a year for more than 20 years now? Are we saying that rampant corruption within the halls of Government is a hallmark of a healthy society? Is the coalition saying that in a healthy society, people can't find decent jobs that will allow them to take care of their families?

If this is so then ostensibly, according to the coalition, the only way our society becomes unhealthy is when same-sex couples are allowed to have sexual congress within the privacy of their own homes.

crime and corruption

Great! Just great! I guess we are an extremely healthy society then, because we have a healthy dose of unemployment and underemployment, healthy doses of crime and corruption, and extremely healthy doses of child abuse and human trafficking.

That is the only reason I can come up with why we haven't been hearing from

them all this time, while all these things have been happening in our society.

Now I understand why they have been silent on all these issues. All it took was for Mr Berry and Mr Larson to visit and, all of a sudden, our 'healthy' society is threatened.

This is the hypocrisy that sickens me. All this ridiculous chatter espousing hate against people just because they're different while deliberately ignoring the muck right underneath our noses. All of this to me is just another healthy dose of BS.

Here is a little secret I would like to share with the Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society: Homosexuals are not our problem. You want to know what our real problem is? Take a look in the mirror.

Previous Levy rantings:

Gay Hypocrisy in Jamaica 2011

Our children are at risk 2011

What goes on in the minds of the overly religious? 2013

Lyrics, not gays, tearing down reggae or dancehall 2015

Silent madness on the rise (Star feature) 2011

Al Jazeera's documentary on children in Jamaica

Peace and tolerance

H

Human Rights Protect Us From Each Other

Firstly Happy Independence Day Jamaica and hope we do reflect on our struggle as a nation and not just the usual handing out of Order of Jamaica and Festival or Grand Gala celebrations without some deep thinking on where were are now especially on rights which is timely for discussion given recent events.

The following is a column from a member of Jamaicans for Justice's membership given the recent meltdown and constitution of an interim board.

Also see if you can: Sodomy is an Issue for Teens says Jamaicans for Justice Interim Chairman

Rodje Malcolm, GUEST COLUMNIST

The protection of universal human rights and the separation of Church and State are foundational for a robust democracy. As a normative framework, a human-rights approach to law and governance, by design, protects the rights and freedoms of all groups - including Christians. Contrary to the divisive rhetoric coming from Jamaican religious leaders, the human-rights movement is not a war against the Church.

It has been argued that Jamaica is a majority-Christian country and as such, a Judaeo-Christian world view should dictate law, particularly in the context of Jamaica's buggery law. This is not new. Oftentimes, groups in positions of superiority find it difficult to consider the plight of disadvantaged groups. They either cannot identify with minority causes, have no real reason to care, or have an incentive to perpetuate thestatus quo.

In Jamaica, an archaic, strict majoritarian vision of democracy has been advanced as a solution to resolving social tensions. That is, the interests of minorities are unimportant because of their minority status. This approach is exclusionary.

The dangerous implications become clear when, in alternate cultural contexts, the roles are reversed, and these groups experience widespread discrimination and persecution at the hands of some other majority. They clamour for equality, human rights, and an end to the same discrimination they exhibit when they are in comfortable majority settings.

The pervasiveness of discrimination across societies demonstrates that discrimination, as a phenomenon, does not discriminate. Depending on the context, minorities, of any identity group, face the prospect of prejudice. Political systems should, therefore, be designed to protect against the tyranny of the majority. They should be secular, creating a neutral public sphere in which all people can exist on equal terms. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

This is why Steve Lyston's recent column, 'Religious freedom and global economy' (Gleaner, July 28, 2014), is so bizarre. Lyston was decrying the persecution of minority Christians in Iraq, Syria and Egypt, urging Christians to be vigilant. Lyston, a biblical economist - whatever that means - blasted the media and human-rights groups for remaining silent on the persecution of Christians, claiming, "Their only focus is 'freedom of sexual choice' - so sexual choice has now taken precedence over religious freedom."

He said:

"In light of what is happening, if the Caribbean believes that Christians are safe in this region, think again! ... If the Caribbean and the other Western nations are not vigilant, very shortly we will see our schools being infiltrated and freedom of choice will be taken away! ... Bibles will be banned and only Qur'ans will be in the schools."

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Discrimination against any group is tragic and inexcusable. This holds true for Muslims in Myanmar who face persecution at the hands of a majority Buddhist population; the Roma, a minority ethnic group who face displacement in parts of Europe; Christians and Buddhists, who face criminal sanctions for organising or preaching in North Korea - considered a threat to 'North Korean values'; and the LGBT community in Jamaica who live under discriminatory colonial laws. When there is a clash of values, only a system of universal human rights can limit the capacity for abuse.

PARANOIA

Christian advocates such as Lyston and those who gathered in Kingston to protest a loss of religious rights cannot, in one breath, decry the discrimination against Christians in minority settings and then, in another breath, advocate that Christian majority status gives them the right to call the shots in Jamaica. That is special pleading - having your cake and nyamming it, too.

Also, accepting the ability of differing world views and lifestyles to exist does not equate to support or endorsement for them. It simply recognises that diverse interests can coexist without 'the majority using criminal code to suppress others - even if they find each other absolutely disgusting.

Because such a system, when normalised, poses an inherent risk of injustice, and because no society is perfectly homogeneous across religious, ethnic and sexual lines, a secular, human rights approach to navigating differences is necessary.

The religious lobby is correct; LGBT rights must never stifle freedom of speech of Christians. In the same way, religious freedom cannot infringe upon the sexual rights and the right to privacy of LGBT people. We cannot become so entrenched in our positions that we become polarised.

When the only thing that (usually bickering) Christian denominations can find to unite around is the fight against 'the gay lobby', our priorities are warped. This national paranoia has led to division, when engagement and discourse are needed.

Let's re-evaluate the type of political system we desire - one that will protect, not subordinate, the interests of all.

Rodje Malcolm is a director of Jamaicans for Justice(JFJ. The views above do not necessarily reflect those of JFJ. Email: rodjemalcolm@outlook.com.

ENDS

also see:

Don't Mix Religion With Politics & The Ugandan Antigay Law Overturn

Ian Boyne on "Do Gays Threaten Free Speech?"

Former 'ex-gay' leaders publish open letter saying conversion therapy is damaging

Firstly I hope the folks at Jamaica CAUSE, Lawyers' Christian Fellowship and Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society are reading this or have heard the news, sensible persons have now realized that this business of conversion is a misnomer instead they insist on carrying out their brand of it locally while creating mass hysteria on maintaining an old buggery law while preying on the public's ignorance. They also intend as espoused in a press conference some time ago to block any attempt to make discrimination due to sexual orientation become so in the Charter of Rights or any other law of such, so much for true tolerance and embracing the outcast as it were. Now comes this news:

Source Christian Today

Some former leaders of the so-called ex-gay movement, that believes that change in sexual orientation can be brought about through faith, have come out in opposition to the controversial conversion therapy, acknowledging the "terrible" emotional and spiritual damage it can do.

They include Jeremy Marks, founder of Courage UK, which was an ex-gay ministry but is now a pro-gay evangelical movement re-christened Two:23 Network.

Other signatories include Michael Bussee, Brad Allen and Yvette Cantu Schneider, of Exodus International, the ex-gay organisation that ceased its activities in June last year and apologised to LGBT people for the harm it had done.

In their open letter, published on the website of the National Center for Lesbian Rights in the US, they explain that conversion therapy, also known as "reparative therapy", "ex-gay therapy," or "sexual orientation change efforts", professes to help lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people to change or overcome their sexual orientation or gender identity. They say that majority of those who practise this "therapy" often do so with little or no formal psychological training, operating instead from a strict religious perspective, believing homosexuality to be a sin.

"At one time, we were not only deeply involved in these 'ex-gay' programs, we were the founders, the leaders, and the promoters," they continue. Together they represent more than half a century of experience. They say that few can be more knowledgeable about the "ineffectiveness and harm" of conversion therapy.

"We know first-hand the terrible emotional and spiritual damage it can cause, especially for LGBT youth. We once believed that there was something morally wrong and psychologically 'broken' about being LGBT. We know better now. We once believed that sexual orientation or gender identity were somehow chosen or could be changed. We know better now. We once thought it was impossible to embrace our sexual orientation or sexual identity as an intrinsic, healthy part of who we are and who we were created to be. We know better now."

They explain that they were simply teaching what they had been taught, that their identity needed mending. "We grew up being told that being LGBT was disordered, sick, mentally ill, sinful, and displeasing to God. We grew up being told that loving, same-sex relationships were shallow, lust-driven, deceived, disordered, and impossible."

Condemning conversion therapy as "ineffective and harmful", the leaders say they are now aligning themselves with every major mainstream professional medical and mental health organisation in denouncing attempts to change sexual orientation or gender identity. "We beseech the church to accept, embrace, and affirm LGBT persons with full equality and inclusion."

Mr Marks told Christian Today that in 1965, at the age of 13 when he first began to be aware of feelings that he was attracted to the same sex, there was no doubt in his mind that this was a terrible thing. "As a young man growing into puberty, I felt a deep sickening paralysing fear over my sexuality. I definitely did NOT want to be gay. So for at least the next 40 years of my life, I made every conceivable effort not to be."

This meant being born again, Christian discipleship and the way of the cross – crucifying the flesh. Hence he founded Courage in 1988, with the full backing of his local church.

"It took us about nine years to realise that all our efforts weren't achieving anything other than disillusionment with the process and disappointment with the long term results. But to change our theology to accommodate same-sex partnerships was absolutely out of the question. It took a further four years to realise that to doggedly pursue the same path was doing far more harm than good. It was not until about 1999 that I finally realised we must have got something terribly wrong and needed to start accepting loving committed same-sex partnerships – the only healthy viable way forwards that was demonstrating good fruit."

When he published his conclusions in 2000 he was expelled from Exodus International, his membership of the Evangelical Alliance was withdrawn, and, he says, was welcomed nowhere among the churches that had been his community since 1973 when he gave his life to Christ.

"Since then, gradually, I have been vindicated. Today I am proud to stand united with many fellow gay Christians and ex-ex-gay Christian leaders who have walked that same tortuous journey towards discovering that God simply makes some of us differently."

Tracey Byrne, chief executive of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, welcomed the letter. "While the letter claims it's not an apology, it's hard not to be struck by the humility of the writers and by their powerful witness to the heartbreaking reality of these discredited and damaging programmes," she said. But she said there could be no cause for complacency. "Our mainstream churches, whenever they deny the identities, relationships and ministries of gay and lesbian people, wherever they demand celibacy or tell us were not quite what God had in mind, are playing into exactly the same culture which made reparative therapy, 'ex-gay' ministries, seem respectable and sensible responses."

Rev Sally Hitchiner, founder of Diverse Church, a movement for young LGBT people, said: "We are happy to read that so many respected Christian leaders have realised that trying to change someone's sexual orientation is neither safe nor effective. Many young people in our movement experienced prayer and counselling to change their sexual orientation and have suffered serious consequences for their mental health and relationships with church and family members who encouraged this. When it hasn't worked it has left the young people feeling they have to give up on God or sometimes even life. Whatever we may believe about gay relationships, accepting our young people as they are and looking for how God might want to use this for the wider church enables them to live a hope filled life with Jesus at the centre."

also see: Discredited ‘Ex-Gay’ Therapy Group, NARTH, Undergoes Major Rebranding Effort

Ian Boyne on "Do Gays Threaten Free Speech?"

Another decent article from veteran journalist and theologian Ian Boyne at least some reasoning is coming through despite the hysteria from other religious fanatics. Similar to last week's article he examines the present realities especially the perception of stifling of free speech in relation to those who "oppose homosexuality" as it were.

also see: War Over Buggery Law from Gay Jamaica Watch and antigay voice Shirley Richards' response: Can You Stop The Bolting Horse, Mr Boyne?

Ian Boyne

This debate on homosexuality is so polarised and politicised that there is diminished space for reason. It's largely a dialogue of the deaf. There is hardly any genuine desire for dialogue. It's easier to attack, accuse, malign, distort and rock back on old prejudices and stereotypes.

For those who are still capable of thinking rationally on this issue, perhaps a few points can be made. The first prerequisite for any dialogue is understanding the various points of view. There are some gay people who can't understand why Shirley Richards and Wayne West are constantly talking about the threats of the gay lobby. They see their talk as sheer hysteria-mongering. These persons ask how are gay people any threat to as Christians.

One online writer responded to my piece last week by saying: "While the Bible categorically condemns homosexuality (with many other things), their simple position on the matter should be: Christians are separate from the world, therefore they have no authority to set standards for the world outside the Christian congregation. Just as they benefit from laws set by Government to allow them freedom of worship, they should not interfere with whatever law the Government may grant to others with whom they are scripturally displeased. Their only concern should be to make sure those they accept as members of their churches are not people practising things the Bible condemns (homosexuality being one of them)."

Well, that's the first major misunderstanding. Once the State passes non-discrimination laws, religious institutions can't exempt themselves. There is increasing rejection of any religious exceptionalism. There was, indeed, an earlier period when the US courts, for example, were sympathetic to religious exceptionalism, but that has been coming under increasing pressure. President Obama just signed an executive order last month prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in federal hiring that might have implications for religious institutions.

LIVE AND LET LIVE

This 'live-and-let-live' view that some moderates hold might not apply if some gay-rights activists have their way. There are some who hold that just as religious organisations should not be accorded the right to discriminate on race, they shouldn't have the right to discriminate on sexual orientation.

So just as how it would be abominable for any church to openly declare it would never appoint a black man as a minister or a bishop, so some believe the Church should not have the right to declare that it won't hire an openly gay minister or bishop. When gay rights are framed as human rights, and when discrimination against gays is equated with discrimination against black people, it's hard to maintain any religious exceptionalism.

So my online respondent's view that Christians should just concern themselves with setting standards for their members is naïve.

If some gays have their way with legislation, Christians won't be able to live their lives based on their understanding of Scripture. This is not outrage-mongering. And it is a fact that on many university campuses (of all places) in North America, hate-speech codes are so restrictive that even mild criticism of homosexuality is banned. In Scandinavia, political correctness vis-á-vis homosexuality has reached absurd proportions, and in Britain, there have been scandalous violations of people's free-speech rights as well as their right to practise their religious convictions. Shirley Richards and Wayne West have not been manufacturing these cases.

If you think conservative Christians who fear the squelching of their rights are just fearmongers, note the British House of Lords and House of Commons Human Rights report a few years ago titled Legislative Scrutiny: Sexual Orientation Regulations. It says explicitly that for even private religious schools: "We do not consider that the right to freedom of conscience and religion requires the school curriculum to be exempted from the scope of sexual orientation regulations." It is saying schools should not be free to teach homosexuality is a sin or is abnormal.

"In our view, the regulations prohibiting sexual-orientation discrimination should clearly apply to the curriculum, so homosexual pupils are not subjected to teaching as part of the religious education or other curriculum that their sexual orientation is sinful or morally wrong." Now if this is not an attack on freedom of religion, I don't know what is.

If conservative Christians are not free to teach in their own schools their views on homosexuality - however misguided or wrong-headed the State might think - their free speech is severely compromised.

MINDFUL OF OTHERS

If I were a gay man, I would not, as a free-speech libertarian, care one heck if people want to teach in schools, churches, media and on the streets that my behaviour is abominable and worthy of a lifetime in hellfire. If people want to take out ads and run public campaigns against my lifestyle, I might deplore it, but as someone committed to liberal democracy, I would do nothing to impair the right of those persons.

Yes, it's stigmatisation, but so what? A liberal democracy has to tolerate such messiness. This desire to sanitise everything is what leads to autocracy.

I believe that too many people on both sides of this propaganda war - gays and Christians - are deeply hostile to liberal democratic values. There are Christians who want to impose their religious dogmas on the whole society, adapting a Christian Shari'a. Left to them, they would ban Sunday racing, carnival, casino gambling and all forms of gambling, drinking and they would close down all exotic clubs. They don't hold that Christians are exiles. Rather they are theonomists who feel Christians must impose the Kingdom on the heathens now. I believe in a pluralistic democracy; people have a right to resist this.

We need a new, fresh discourse on this Christian-gay debate. It's time for rational voices like those of gay-rights advocate Brian-Paul Welsh to emerge. I have corresponded with him and I have found him to be eminently reasonable, charitable, conciliatory, gracious and humble. The arrogance of so many gay people repels me. It's one thing to have contempt for religion and for "silly, Stone Age religious dogmas", as the enlightened gaytheists would put it.

I am not offended if you think I hold preposterous ideas. I can understand if you have contempt for my ideas. But you should not have contempt for me because I am brainwashed.

There is an excellent article on the Christianity Today website (July 16, 2014) titled 'Religious Freedom vs LGBT rights? It's more complicated'. The author calls for a reframing of this dialogue. He tells Christians that, increasingly, people are abandoning the idea of religious exceptionalism. They are also having less regard for religious liberty. They don't see why Christians should have the right to discriminate against women and gays in religious appointments and they don't be believe Christians should be exempt from discrimination laws.

As Christian intellectuals, we have to fight our battles on the ground of pluralism, not religious exceptionalism. "The pluralist argument is not clothed in the language of religious liberty, but extends to religious groups and institutions ... - the idea that in a society that lacks a shared vision of a deeply held common good, we can and must live with deep difference among groups and their beliefs, values and identities."

He goes on to say: "More pointed, every one of us holds beliefs that others find morally reprehensible. Pluralism rests on three interrelated aspirations: Tolerance, humility and patience. Tolerance means a willingness to accept genuine difference, including profound moral difference." Tolerance permits differences to coexist.

Significantly, he says, "Pluralism does not impose the fiction of assuming that all ideas are equally valid or morally benign. It does mean respecting people and allowing for the right to differ among serious matters." And I end by reminding both the Christian and gay-rights Taliban that "patience reminds us that the best means to a better end is through persuasion and dialogue, not coercion and bullying".

Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist working with the Jamaica Information Service. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and ianboyne1@yahoo.com.

ENDS

Also see:

A Response to a Gleaner Commentary: 'CAUSE' Editorials And The Culture War

The False Dichotomy of the religious right on the LGBT advocacy Godlessness

Blakka Ellis on "Jamaica a christian country?"

Don't crucify gay-rights activists, Boyne pleads 2010

Anti Gay Voice & 'Child Rights' Advocate Betty-Ann Blaine Taken to Task on Public Advocacy

Ian Boyne: Bain exercised terribly poor strategic judgement ..

Atheism, Secularism and Buggery . 2012

Church claims future victimization if buggery is decriminalized in Jamaica

It's The Church That Needs Salvation - Attack on Gays 

Perception of Jamaican LGBTQ lobby bullying continues

Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society continues its “HIV is a gay disease” campaign with more deception

Letters & Opinions: Anti-gay Christians threaten free speech ............Christian Ethics And The UTech Beating 2012

Group braces for costly fight against gays ......... Church must be passionate in fight against homosexuality

Lawyers' Christian Fellowship's Shirley Richards says lesbian sex should be criminalized as buggery

Shirley Richards & The Jamaican UK Foster Parents (The Johns) on Love 101 FM ............. on buggery

Ian Boyne on ....... Storm Brewing Over Gay Ad 2011

The elephant is the room (Pt 1) subscription to the Gleaner may be required

Let the dialogue continue.

Peace and tolerance

H

Jamaica Observer’s ‘reasoned stance’ on homosexuality applauded?

See what you make of this..........

Jamaica Observer online readers reacted with strong interest to their July 16, 2014 editorial titled "Homosexuality: the long, painful search for workable rules of engagement". Here are some of the many comments received:

* Gwoods: Thank you Mr Editor for your more nuanced views on homosexuality. It is a far cry from a former very strident homily that you delivered a short while ago when you described it as a 'beast amongst us'. I hope that the zealots on whatever side of the fence will see your more reasoned stance on the subject as something to be applauded. But, the key thing in this debate is for all to study and reflect on this topic; for, when we do, we will come to understand that there are some powerful assumptions driving both the homosexual debate, and human sexuality. Keep up the otherwise excellent standard of your newspaper.

* Obeah_Man: As a Jamaican of African descent, who has lived abroad and felt the whip of discrimination, I must strongly object to the right you would give church leaders and entertainers to discriminate openly, without non-governmental repercussions. The point is the distance between a negative characterisation and the action that supports it is vanishingly small. This is why the slogan, "love the sinner, hate the sin," makes no sense at all. The workable rule of engagement should be to embrace the words of Confucius, and later by Jesus: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If we did that, Jamaica would be a much better place to live.

* TK46: Obeah_Man, repercusions against the church/entertainers by govt? Freedom of opinion Obeah_man, gays don't discriminate?

* PhilOiseaubay: Mr Editor, your words are welcome but they don't match some of your recent works. Like America's Fox News' claim to be 'Fair & Balanced' you sometimes appear anything but. Take the recent article about the hunt for the gully-living gay murderer. It appeared that you let the homophobe commenters run rampant while refusing to post any nuanced pieces like mine on how these boys came to be homeless in the 1st place - kicked from home and community by over-zealous religious bigots. Did you feel that any critical assessment like that lacked 'decency' or did you just want to whip up more hate for the gays? Perhaps gays in tolerant, developed countries do not suffer any different rates of crime than the general population because they are not forced to the streets by their parents. Your claim for holding the high ground is, at times, sadly off mark.

* CArlton Reynolds: PhilOiseaubay, you are off mark. I bet you never watched Fox News to determine whether they are fair or balanced! There are many homeless people who do not behave like those homos, and homosexual children are not chased from their homes by religious bigots as you claim, otherwise there would not be so many well placed and powerful defenders of the cause.

* PhilOiseaubay: CArlton Reynolds, you are wrong on all counts! The well-placed gays are most likely from loving, accepting families - not many of those evidently in J'ca. If you cannot see the fallacy of Fox News, then you are beyond hope...probably fodder for their Tea Party loyalists...and probably believe the gully-residing gays chose to live a feral existence in abject poverty.

* CArlton Reynolds: PhilOiseaubay, you are just repeating the propaganda of your failed idol Obama! Is it only gays living on the streets?

* Chantelle Brady: CArlton Reynolds, you've got to be kidding me. Where do u live? U really don't live in Jamaica. A father helped guys in his community to beat his gay son. Get ur head out the clouds and back to the reality of Jamaica and their dangerous homophobia.

* CArlton Reynolds: Chantelle Brady, the danger is you guys or is it gays telling lies about the dangers gays face from homophobic Jamaica!

* BlackBritish: You are being disingenuous, CArlton. What would be the purpose of lying? Did the father help the mob beat his son, or not? That's a yes or no question...I know of gays who have been harassed for no reason, except that they are gay - one having a fire extinguisher sprayed in his eyes; others beaten...Things will not get better until people like you are able to hear the truth. What are you afraid of?

* Chuckl3s: BlackBritish, your story of a gay having a fire extinguisher discharged in his face, is not verified, and could be a one-sided story as well.

* BlackBritish: Ok, you got me... I made it up. And this is why the country will not move forward. The editorial is about reconciliation and respect. That cannot happen while people like you are in denial. As I asked the other person, what would be the purpose in lying? I am a heterosexual woman with ZERO desire to conquer the world with homosexuality! As someone who knows gay persons in my private and professional life, my only concern is with their mental health, which is impaired by the discrimination and bigotry they endure.

* kittywally: As long as tolerance is not synonymous with acceptance!

* Chantelle Brady: kittywally, a part of tolerance is accepting things you can't change. U don't have to like it or even understand it but give people the freedom to choose their partners the same way we get to be intimate with who we want to be intimate with. Let's not create a whole new Jim Crow.

* kittywally: Chantelle Brady, you are free to be with whomever (you can claim that as your right) the same way in which I have the right to not being accepting of it. I have no problem being the friend of someone who is gay (and in fact have a friend who will remain my dear friend until death do us part)...But we have agreed to disagree on the gay lifestyle, yet civility reigns in our relationship.

* F Young: "But what we can reasonably expect is tolerance of the different lifestyles..." Is heterosexuality a lifestyle? Of course not, heterosexuals have countless different lifestyles, and they are usually the same homosexuals have. Retirement is a lifestyle, for example, but neither homosexuality or heterosexuality is a lifestyle, since lifestyle implies choice, even eccentricity. However, homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality are inborn and immutable, like race. The only correct medical and legal term to refer to them is sexual orientation. It is an easy word to remember and use. On the other hand, "lifestyle" is an insulting term used only by those who are ignorant or anti-gay. "...all Jamaicans must be free to choose to live their sexuality in conformity with the laws of the land..." Why do you support oppressive laws that imprison people for victimless crimes?

"We uphold the right of the Jamaican church to take a stand against homosexuality..." So, are you okay with preachers and singers that incite murder by stoning? Does religion make it right?

* Chantelle Brady: Good editorial. Dats what I've been saying too. You don't have to understand homosexuality but you can be balanced and fair. Allow people to make their own choices and determine their own destiny very much the same way you want to. Equality and freedom for one, equality and freedom for all.

* Pete: Chantelle Brady, uhm...yes, but the only "choices" people make is who they sleep with...the gender they are sexually attracted to is not a choice. Neither homosexuality, bisexuality, or heterosexuality and anything else in betweeen are choices. They are part of the makeup of human beings.

* Jumpy1: The singular problem is that although everyone, theoretically, has a voice and ought to be heard, homosexuals are in the minority and greatly outnumbered on all sides. Their situation is not unlike that of black people in the American states where Bible-thumping masses quoted from the shared Bible that, non-whites, being "lesser" children of a shared-God should capitulate and accept their God-assigned place in life. Any equality, would, assumedly, come after the grave. Definitely not before; since even mortuaries were segregated! The issue of pith and moment is, "should the buggery law be repealed"? And, concomitantly, "if not, why not? Most of those who speak articulately in favour of non-repeal underscore that they believe that if Government gives in, to whomsoever, and passes a repeal, these lesser citizens will want more: much more; like the right to wed and share in rights enshrined for all other citizens. This, they say is wrong. Very wrong! How so?

* Reggie: Clap, Clap, Clap. Bravo. Great Editorial. Now answer your own questions and do your own analysis of your own journalists and your own paper. What do you get, you may share your results too.

* African_Chief Reggie: Last week in the observer — "JCSC response to anti-gay mass meeting comes late in the day". Does the Observer not see the irony of today's editorial?

* BlackBritish: African_Chief, at least they're trying now. Yes, it's a bit late, but better late than never. When someone is trying to give an olive branch, the thing to do is to accept it (albeit sceptically). Some of us who are vehement advocates for the LGBT pop were once the biggest bigots and homophobes.

* kidd: Romans 1:25-28

* BlackBritish: In the 19th Century, the church started evolving in its teaching about slavery. In the 20th Century, the teachings on the role of women was re-evaluated. Could the Church's 21st Century issue be homosexuality? Many scholars believe so.

* speakthetruth: Matthew Vines has been advocating his position on gay Christians. I disagree with his position because it is inconsistent with the scriptures. One of the key requirements of becoming a Christian is self denial. Denying self means embracing what God requires of us....not what we require or desire for ourselves. Homosexuality is a sin as is adultery and fornication. None of these sins will ever be deemed acceptable by God simple because God is not evolving.

* Kirk: Red Alert! If homosexual nomenclature is given credence, then we're all fighting a losing battle. It merely reflects the levity and conspiratorialism of a few. Political correctness only promotes discrimination and bias; it doesn't uphold truth, decency, honour, civility, and sanity. In other words, homosexuality does not produce longevity, nor is it sustainable foundations for progeny. "Man to man is so unjust, you don't even know who to trust" (Bob Marley) - Do any of these relationships promote true independence, cultural bliss, or harmony of a community? If it is difficult enough to discipline our children as they grow into adults, imagine a generation of sexual rebels mirroring what adults do...There are those in society today functioning similarly to the 14th Century Italian Niccolo Machiavelli, who guide the elites in dominating the populations around them, but unlike De la Fuente who discovered that people can be free from mind control when they withdraw their consent, I choose likewise.

* BlackBritish: And that's fine, Kirk. You have the freedom to do so. However, you are under the misconception that the Government is manipulating a "crisis" for their own expediency...Do you really believe the Government wants this headache — doing what they know to be right, but at GREAT political risk? No, Kirk. What you are witnessing is a minority group, tired and fed up with the way they are treated by people who are prejudiced and discriminatory because they are ill-informed. The LGBT population, with their allies, are finally speaking out! You may quote a man who was reared in this prejudiced country, but I quote those who were the recipients of the prejudice: "We shall overcome. We shall overcome some day."

* Pete: I had to read this (editorial) twice...just to make sure I was reading correctly, on the Ja Observer website. You are absolutely correct, though the trend in your paper over the past several months would suggest you had a homophobic agenda, Shout out to your columnist Karyl, how are you?

Hardened Positions by Religious Fanatics & Their LGBT Detractors Will Only Leave More Blood on the Floor

also see from Gay Jamaica Watch: The Deliberate Misuse of the “Sexual Grooming” Term by Antigay Fanatics to Promote Their Hysteria and Reverend Al Miller continues his antigay advocacy while his integrity is severely damaged

We already have subtly supported condoning of violence towards LGBT persons committed by non Christians for the most part when such acts occur, the outrage that rightly ought to come from real Christians who are concerned about balance, fairness and respect while espousing God’s over-arching principles despite who are involved does not; as if there is a serve them right psychological snicker in the deafening silence from the now loud church fanatics on the Bain/JFJ Sex Education matter. So much blood has been spilt on that account with dozens of near misses in years the most recent one in Clarendon as shown on TVJ News last week on Fathers' Day yet no word from the hysteria making crew on concern or their so called love the sinner hate the sin posture or their pretentious non support of violence when they really do not mean it.

After seeing last night’s news on CVM TV (video immediately above) and the hysterical fever that is being propped up as a public education campaign by Jamaica CAUSE to include the old anti gay group the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship for some upcoming mass meeting in Half Way Tree to supposedly oppose some anti-Christian pro-gay agenda that has swept the rest of world, where I do not know when it is more Islamic and other sects that have used intimidation, Sharia law and even murder via torture, church bombings as in Nigeria and some Arab states and such to do so yet I do not hear those concerns coming from groups such as this fly by night Jamaica CAUSE a hurry-come-up coalition of zealots. This group consist of older and newer mostly uninformed Christian lawyers and their young protégés of the Love March Movement who often confuse same gender sex with abuse and since atheism has been added to the Jamaican leg of LGBT public advocacy the misnomer is that the move is now to stop or silence Christians albeit from the confusion coming out of the Professor Bain University of the West Indies conflict of interest matter.

The real essence of that Bain matter has been lost after its hijacking by hysterical Christian mostly led groups and has been for all intents and purposes reinterpreted and misrepresented as punishment for his testimony in Belize two years ago in actual support of the retention of the buggery law in principle when he is head of a program in CHART which is also a part of a greater initiative of PANCAP to actually repeal or decriminalize problematic laws that criminalizes some sexual activity linked to male homosexuals. It is not the content of the testimony/affidavit that is the problem it is the reason for the action taken by Professor Bain via the affidavit that is the bigger issue although some other professors across the region have said that Professor Bain did not go further by using Caribbean statistics and addressing HIV infections, anal sex overall while not limiting his thesis to just gay men.

In offering such testimony even allegedly at the intervention of others linked to the CHART and other HIV prevention initiatives not to do so is indeed problematic as it goes against the greater imperative of the Caribbean HIV prevention thrust, problem is over these many years is it in essence the LGBT groups wearing another hat that also run these programs and agitations so the mistrust is bound to happen and cause more problems than they solve. The tangled web that has been woven seems to have enmeshed the very groups struggling for LGBT recognition and legal coverage with deceptions or perceptions of it the glue that binds the hysterical response, a thinking response from concerned religious folk would be to actually talk to the people who they have a problem with especially owing to the fact that the latter Jamaicans for Justice Sex Education manual/course allegedly snuck in through the back door as it were and not made known to the Child Development Agency although reporting mechanisms from the very privately run children’s homes would have brought it to their attention plus unannounced visits by the monitoring officers and investigators also must have made known the project activities through the monitoring system, I fail to see with that kind of monitoring and find it hard to believe that the CDA was not aware of this activity for so long.

I had described the fears expressed by religious anti gay groups and churches of some kind of persecution of faith because of opposition to “the homosexual lifestyle” as a false dichotomy some years ago but after the events of the last four weeks since the story went public and the hardened positions taken by some via hysteria I might add with no sight of dialogue then there is bound to be action of some sort taken in retaliation as squared off factions take turns in inflicting bigger blows until the knockout I imagine; and to think churches who are supposed to espouse respect, togetherness and such are the actual agents of divisiveness in this matter and the JFJ sex ed matter as well. There is bound to be a causality as in any “war” since the churches or some more worked up groups who are at this and anther added element to the divisive nature of this snide remarks towards more traditional and older churches who have not joined this newly constituted wave of opposition to supposed homosexual imposition but religious history has taught us this when lesser denominations want power they simply demonise the more established ones to gain traction; case in point the very matter of buggery & traditional churches (Catholics in this case) which is the centrepiece of all this as in 1533 under King Henry VIII the buggery act was reconstituted from the French version some two hundred years before under Philip IV and in both instances the law was used to wipe out religious and theological opposition to the dominant order of the day. In Philip’s case it was used to target the Knights Templar allegedly as they were seen as a threat to his reign and to the Catholic Church’s power as well so it was used alongside “spiritual” weapons as well to target them.

Under Henry’s reign of course it was used to assist in the dissolution of the monasteries transferring the enormous wealth from a corrupt church while propping up his own monarchic power and the church of England of which he made himself head on earth after the pope then in Rome who all other monarchs were beholden to did not grant him the divorce of his first wife Catherine of Aragon as she did not bear a male heir. The Catholic Church was declared a den of homosexuals by the chief henchman for King Henry VIII Thomas Cromwell and a law based on an opinion was put into effect with several Bishops going to the gallows for alleged sodomy when many of them were not even homosexuals to begin with.

It seems every time the sodomy laws when enacted since around 390 BC in Rome they were not used for the intended purpose instead it is used as a legal device to belittle or wipe out political and religious opponents, fast forward to now we see the twinning of the Bain matter and the JFJ matter alongside cancellations of shows of Queen Ifrica described freedom of speech so the retention of the buggery laws here in the minds of some is to:

Keep the HIV spreaders at bay as part of the HIV is a gay disease ploy

Protect children from predators and paedophiles when there is a clear conflation between same gender sex and abuse whilst devoid of education on sex and sexuality

Limit the power of LGBT groups to persecute supposed Christians who oppose homosexuality

And not to actually stop homosexuality or in essence homosexual sex for the public good as it were as if we are to follow their logic they would be standing at all our doors to peek through our keyholes to see who is putting what into where.

There was an actual case in England in the 1800s involving James Pratt, John Smith and another male who had left to purchase ale and whose house the keyhole peeking took place as the landlord of the latter person who suspected strange activity and just by his word and that of his wife all three men were humiliated and charged, the ale buyer who returned was charged for being an accessory to the act; the two men who were seen allegedly making love were tried and eventually hung despite the change of opinion and appeal by the very judge who sentenced them and despite the commuting of other harsh criminal charges commuted to life as the death penalty debate raged “sodomites” did not benefit from such commutation. The trial judge in hindsight found the matter or privacy an over-arching principle as others were not exposed save and except for prying eyes by inquisitive persons violating their rights within a threshold. These two men were the last persons to be hung for the crime before the relaxing of aspects of the act in 1861 and then conditional consent and privacy in 1967 although starting at age 21 and not the 16 for everyone else. The equal age of consent came some years later then full removal hence gay marriage rights in 2005 to now.

Our former colonial masters did the right thing in removing this persecution of persons just because of who they are and their private personal choices yet our governments claim they want to leave the privy council as our final court of appeal under the guise of the Lords expression of wanting to be relieved of taking overseas cases (using the country of origin’s laws) and use the Caribbean Court of Justice, the CCJ instead but hysterical groups want to hold on to old visages of colonial rule long removed from their own books.

What is even more disturbing is that this hysteria non thinking response from these groups the very abusers that they are concerned about as we all should be are in the very churches who are involved in this mess and they like other abusers find this public furore as cloud cover to continue their actions undetected with very little vigilance as attentions are diverted to the smoke screen. If one should look even further into the very church itself that’s where the more egregious sexual abuse takes place be it same sexed, opposite sexed or paedophile in nature so this convenient distraction from none thinking or proactive child rights advocates often devoid of any real qualifications for same (including a lack of understanding of sex and sexuality) yet they want to control and sanitise what goes out there to society and as the JFJ sex education matter shows even to our young without any proper proof of where the actual offense lies, some questions come to mind.

Why was the CDA bypassed by JFJ/CVCC?

Why are these groups so quiet on other societal ills, namely corruption or murders of youths? ..... but have so much strength for homosexuals(ity).

What actually was presented to the intended 13 to 18 year olds from the 147 paged instructor’s manual?

Would the CDA have approved this course especially in public run homes if they were approached given the sensitivities involved?

Why hasn’t the CVCC with persons on its board linked to JFLAG and such divert some needed attention to homeless LGBT youth especially instead of landing the rights struggle demonised by mistrust?

Did the privately run homes use their privileged of autonomy to edit or remove some the elements in the multi-module course to suit their comfort level and concerns? (One home’s administrator on radio said they asked some sections to be removed)

What other psycho social measuring or monitoring device were employed either in house by the homes or otherwise prior to or after the delivery of the materials?

Has any of the noise makers actually read the materials involved in this course to actually see what else dominated the course’s outline?

What has been learnt from this pilot project despite the furore emanating from it albeit from uninformed fear-mongering fanatics?

If the dubious anti Christian, pro gay factions as it were are really about persecuting Christians hiding in the LGBT rights lobby then I am sure they are planning their next move as hysterics rule the day but may loose the war in the long run, it seems these groups have not learned the strategy if there is one as the atheists seem more calculated and measured in their thesis or rhetoric and not paranoid or hysterical. These groups are only making the church ripe for the plucking if and when the anti faith opposition chooses to strike as they can use this latest episode to belittle and insult them into a cowering position in terms of public perception even as more persons find the church fast becoming irrelevant and even belief systems on Christian faith are ridiculed and where are LGBT Christians in all of this?

I guess there is blood on already the floor in terms of the Bain issue in the eyes of some although that to me seems more an act of professional suicide on his part and his advisors when he may very well look like a fool in the end if and when the funders decides to pull the plug on funding the CHART initiative in its current dispensation; we must remember the word of the so called groups defending this is that they have no confidence in working with him and if they do not want to be led by him then all the court action and injunctions and even an full contract once reinstated can all be made to fizzle if the CHART project is ended or changed and a new person placed as its head with reconstituted funding. Bain may very well be left holding useless contract papers in his hands with dead injunctions and isolation from the rest of the academic community and the international HIV response core and do not forget a bitter LGBT grouping Caribbean-wide.

Meanwhile my latest podcast:

a previous podcast where I warned of this fallout twinning LGBT rights with secularism:

Think on these things

Peace and tolerance

H