Hmmm, I do believe perjury is a crime and bearing false witness is a sin, right? Does Eddie Long know that?On Monday [November 1], Long filed four separate responses, each about 30 pages and denying each accusation point by point. He admitted that he took the men on trips, but he denied the complaints of sexual contact. He did admit to hugging some of the men."Bishop Long admits that it is common among his church congregation for members to hug each other and hug the Bishop," the suit reads.Long also admitted to giving the plaintiffs gifts, including cars, and helping them financially, but he denied that it was in exchange for sex. He said he has "provided sporadic financial assistance," and he routinely pays for rent and other expenses for New Birth members, according to the filings.In the filings, Long also admitted to speaking on the phone with the men, but said he could not recall who initiated the calls. He also admitted that the men called him "Daddy," "Bishop" and "Granddaddy," but said many members of his congregation called him similar names."Bishop Long admits that he mentors many young men from challenged backgrounds who have often been without the benefit of a male role model," according to his filings.In his filings, Long said he is a "bold revolutionary spiritual leader," and Long has built a ministry that places "special emphasis on outreach to men, reinforcing to men the importance of partnering with a ministry that will grow them spiritually."
A plurality (43%) of Americans say the messages coming from places of worship are negative, and 4-in-10 Americans believe that these messages contribute “a lot” to negative perceptions of gay and lesbian people. One-third (33%) of the public also believe that messages from religious bodies are contributing “a lot” to higher rates of suicide among gay and lesbian youth, and another third (32%) say these message contribute “a little;” only 21% say they do not contribute at all.
[...].
The survey also found significant generational and partisan gaps on perceptions of the impact of messages about homosexuality from America’s places of worship. Nearly half (47%) of young adults (age 18 to 34) say that messages from places of worship are contributing “a lot” to negative views of gay and lesbian people. Among Americans age 65 and older, less than one-third (30%) say religious bodies are contributing a lot to negative perceptions of gay and lesbian people. Democrats are more than twice as likely as Republicans (42% to 17%) to say places of worship are contributing to higher rates of suicide among gay youth.
Same-sex attraction can be overcome and any type of union other than marriage between a man and a woman is morally wrong [emphasis added], an LDS apostle told millions of Mormons on Sunday.
“There are those today who not only tolerate but advocate voting to change laws that would legalize immorality, as if a vote would somehow alter the designs of God’s laws and nature,” Boyd K. Packer, president of the church’s Quorum of Twelve Apostles, said in a strongly worded sermon about the dangers of pornography and same-sex marriage. “A law against nature would be impossible to enforce. Do you think a vote to repeal the law of gravity would do any good?”
Packer, speaking from his seat because of his frail health, addressed more than 20,000 members gathered in the LDS Conference Center in downtown Salt Lake City and millions more watching the faith’s 180th Semiannual General Conference via satellite.
The senior apostle drew on the church’s 1995 declaration, “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” to support his view that the power to create offspring “is not an incidental part of the plan of happiness. It is the key — the very key.”
Some argue that “they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural,” he said. “Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember he is our father.”
Alluding to the Utah-based church’s support of laws such as California’s Proposition 8 that would define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman, Packer said, “Regardless of the opposition, we are determined to stay on course.”
“We cannot change; we will not change,” the senior apostle declared. “We quickly lose our way when we disobey the laws of God. If we do not protect and foster the family, civilization and our liberties must needs perish.”It should be noted that there is a direct (positive) correlation between the percentage of people who feel that homosexuality is a choice (as declared by Packer) and the percentage who disapprove of same-sex marriage.
Whether or not Long actually committed the acts of which he was recently accused, this much is true: He is assuredly guilty of engendering fear and hatred of LGBT people among thousands. He has convinced countless numbers of gays that they are sinners whose salvation rests on becoming "reconditioned" into heterosexuality. Such toxic teachings reinforce the stigma that compromises HIV-prevention efforts as well as our mental and physical health.
One who cannot face aspects of himself that he despises will train that animus on another whom he regards as his opposite. Did he sell out countless individuals in order to throw congregants off the scent of his own hunt, the exploitation of young men? Was there a point when, at first, a few and then many knew what was happening and said nothing? How long will we enable the abuse perpetrated in word and deed by our pastors? When will we dare to speak the ugly, inconvenient truth even when we are afraid?
This story of this sullied bishop serves overdue notice to Christians across the nation who have bought and sold snake oil presented as holy water. It is a foreclosure warning to every black male pastor who deems the church his castle, and the women, gays and young who build it as no more than chattel to serve his appetites. It is a subpoena, a calling to account for all black men who endorse patriarchy as the most legitimate form of power in our communities. It is a stained diary page brought to light. It is truth. Amen.
In lawsuits filed this week, three men who were members of the New Birth Missionary Baptist Church claimed Long coerced them into sexual relations with gifts including cars, cash and travel when they were 17 or 18 years old. The sprawling church in Lithonia, Ga., about 18 miles outside of Atlanta, counts politicians, celebrities and the county sheriff among its members and hosted four U.S. presidents during the 2006 funeral of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s widow, Coretta Scott King.
One of the claims in the lawsuits is that Long had sexual contact with the young men, who were enrolled in New Birth's ministry for teen boys, during trips he took them on in the U.S. and abroad. Gillen said the travel was part of a mentoring program that other young men also participated in.
Umm, Republican idiots? There's been a mosque "in the shadow" of Ground Zero before the Twin Towers were built in 1972! Masjid Manhattan was built in 1970.So here's the question for anti-mosquers:
- If the currently existing mosque is too close to Ground Zero, by what method should the congregants be removed? Arrest? Angry mob? Or maybe the building should be crushed to rubble by a wrecking ball? What would make you feel good?
- If it's not too close, where is the line of demarcation? How wide should the mosque exclusion zone be? 3 blocks? 2.2 blocks? 3.8 blocks? And on what basis is that line of demarcation drawn?
I guess I have one last question for them: how many of you anti-mosque yokels even knew there already was a mosque in the same general area?
What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" do you not understand? Clearly, people have the right to put a place of worship (which is only one part of what the proposed Cordoba Center is going to be) without government interference.
In the second most important case of the 2009-2010 Supreme Court term for LGBT people (last Thursday's Doe v. Reed 8-1 ruling that ballot proposition signers have no implicit right to anonymity was probably the most important) the court has ruled 5-4 in favor of the University of California Hastings Law School and against the Christian Legal Society to preserve the principle that a public university's discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation, gender identity and religion can compel any student group that wants official recognition and funding to abide by that nondiscrimination policy.The Supreme Court's decision, by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, found that the law school's policy was "a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition on access" that did not raise First Amendment issues in the way the Christian Legal Society argued.
The opinion explicitly rejects the argument of the Christian Legal Society that a public university has no business limiting its ability to be recognized and to apply its own rules to membership. "CLS’s analytical error lies in focusing on the benefits it must forgo while ignoring the interests of those it seeks to fence out: Exclusion, after all, has two sides," the decision says. "Hastings, caught in the crossfire between a group’s desire to exclude and students’ demand for equal access, may reasonably draw a line in the sand permitting all organizations to express what they wish but no groupto discriminate in membership."
A dissent, by Justice Samuel Alito, blasted the decision, saying that it set principle of "no freedom for expression that offends prevailing standards of political correctness in our country’s institutions of higher learning."
Many public colleges and universities have anti-bias policies similar to those of Hastings, so a ruling for the Christian Legal Society would have forced changes at many institutions. The issue has been particularly intense at public law schools (where the Christian Legal Society has sought recognition) and at undergraduate institutions with Greek systems (when Christian fraternities have sought recognition). Some public colleges and universities – faced with legal threats by supporters of the Christian Legal Society – have changed their policies to exempt religious groups, and those institutions could conceivably now reconsider.
“Today, the Court upheld an important principle for all Americans, that government should not be forced to subsidize discrimination,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “UC Hastings and schools like it all over the country have worked hard to create welcoming spaces for all students, including those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender. Today’s decision bolsters those efforts, while recognizing that Christian Legal Society, and groups like it, are free exclude whomever they want – without the financial support of their fellow students or taxpayers.”Amazingly, Justice Ginsburg, who wrote the majority opinion (joined by Stevens, Kennedy, Sotomayor and Breyer), read parts of her opinion before the Court aloud, the day after her husband of 56 years(!) died. Thank you Justice Ginsburg for your service to our country. May you enjoy serving on a supreme court (for at least one year) that is one-third female!
|
“The Supreme Court ruled correctly in rejecting the challenge from the Christian Legal Society, which sought school funding and recognition despite being in clear violation of the college’s nondiscrimination policy. The court rightly found that the First Amendment rights of association, free speech and free exercise were not violated by Hastings’ decision. It simply said the college did not have to fund a group that violated the school policy requiring all recognized student groups to be open to every student. Schools all across the country are working to create welcoming environments for all students. This ruling supports that important effort. No school group or organization should be given public money to discriminate against other students.”
The city of Logan, Utah (where Utah State University is located) became the second city in the Mormon-dominated, religiously conservative state to enact an ordinance banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in employment and housing on Tuesday night.However, as I have blogged about before, there are plenty of examples of ignorance in this monochromatic state about the nature of civil rights:In one motion, the Logan City Council on Tuesday night mandated that employers and landlords cannot discriminate against gays, lesbians or transgendered people in the city limits.
Modeled after anti-discrimination laws recently adopted in Salt Lake City, Logan's housing and employment ordinances passed with four votes and one abstention, by Councilman Dean Quayle. A crowd, which filled the City Council Chambers halls and an overflow room, was mostly subdued throughout a one-hour public hearing. Following the tally though, the crowd erupted in applause and rewarded the council with a standing ovation.
In the days leading up to Tuesday's meeting, Council Chairman Jay Monson said he received more than 250 calls and e-mails "for" and only 10 "against" the ordinances, all from Logan residents and business owners.
[...]"The [LDS] church supports nondiscrimination ordinances, period. Certainly, I was told that this applies to Logan as much as any other place in the world," Monson said Tuesday before calling for the vote. "They do and I do and I agree that this is not the answer for everything ... But it is a step in the right direction and it is long overdue in my thinking
Logan resident James Gibson, a business owner and landlord, disagreed saying the City Council is overstepping its bounds.
"I don't feel that it is the place of the government to step in and say who I can and can't hire," Gibson said, adding that, if anything, it should be a state matter. "If anybody feels like they've been discriminated against on behalf of any landlord or business owner, that becomes a civil matter. "
Joshua Frazier added, "The problem is a lack of compassion, not a lack of laws. You cannot legislate compassion and attempting to do so only creates resentment."
Frazier said the ordinances are unconstitutional because employment and property rentals feature a private contract.
"It's wrong for governments to interfere with contracts between individuals," Frazier said. "I see this as the government forcing moral decisions on private individuals. I do not want the government determining and defining what is moral and what is not."
Of course, he is saying that as a white, Mormon man who is currently protected under federal, state and local ordinances which prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, gender and religion.
Q. What is adoration?This was the beginning of my musings on these two songs. First, there was Michael Jordan by Five for Fighting. (I actually hadn't heard the song in some time; it just came into my head.) In it John Ondrasik sings about his adoration for Michael Jordan and lists off the many seemingly outrageous things he would be willing to do in order to be Michael Jordan. At one point in the song he says "my god, my Jordan" and if you think about it, it is apparent that Michael Jordan really is his god, at least in the context of the song. And I thought about it in context of the previously quoted excerpt from the Catechism. It seems to me that this is the type of adoration that God wants us to have for him. Then I have to ask myself, do we? Do we just adore God and wish to do anything to simply be in his presence, or do we always want something in return.
A. Adoration is the lifting up of the heart and mind to God,
asking nothing but to enjoy God’s presence.
Q. Why do we praise God?
A. We praise God, not to obtain anything, but because
God’s Being draws praise from us.
on my deathbed i will prayThe truth in this song has struck me for a quite a while now. Do we really just pray to God because we believe that doing so will get us to heaven? To get to some great reward that is often even depicted in a material, worldly fashion (streets paved with gold, pearly gates, etc.)? Is it about the chance to be with God, or is it simply a chance to reunite with loved ones who we have lost?
to the gods and the angels
like a pagan to anyone
who will take me to heaven
