It's Monday so it's time for another one of Harry Jackson's lies

Yet again, black minister Harry Jackson writes another column falsely claiming that adding lgbts to hate crimes legislation will lead to ministers being jailed for speaking out against homosexuality.

But his column this week is also a little bit more whiny than usual.

It seems that USA Today published an article Friday about his claims regarding hate crimes legislation. And the publication actually dared to present both sides of the issue.

This led to a huge smackdown of Jackson's claim by Harry Knox from HRC's director of Religion and Faith Program:

(Harry) Jackson's argument "is a lie, and it should not be told in the name of the Gospel," he said.

Now I like that. No big production, no corny "let's win the hearts and minds of America," and no mincing of words.

And the words struck Jackson to the heart apparently, as witnessed by what he wrote.

But for a better deconstruction of Jackson's latest lies, go here.


But sad to say, Jackson is not alone.

On this site, I found this thing to my left. I won't even try to analyze it.

I will just say the eight commandment - Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Just who does she think she is?

From an online buddy comes something I just couldn't resist talking about.

Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition took it upon herself to try and correct a legend in the African-American civil rights movement.

Angry because U.S. Representative John Lewis commemorated the anniversary of the historic Loving vs. Virginia decision (that made interracial marriages legal in the United States) to push a resolution that speaks out in favor of same-sex marriages, Lafferty said the following:

“Rep. Lewis is a member of the Old Guard of civil rights activists who have sold out to the homosexual movement . . ."

Okay this bothers me on so many levels.

And before anyone even tries to claim victimhood status for Mrs. Lafferty, I would like to say that she has a right to say whatever she wants. I do not want to silence her.

But I want to call attention to that fact when every time one opens his or her mouth to comment on something, there are such things as discernment and credibility.

Or in other words, you can say what you want but if someone can spot how you look like a damned fool for what you said, pointing out your ignorance is not censorship.

Or to simplify it more, just who in the heck is Andrea Lafferty to criticize John Lewis on matters of civil rights.

John Lewis has given his time, energy, and much of his blood (I've seen pictures of him after he was beaten bloody) to ensure that African-Americans have basic human rights. From the founding of SNCC (Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee) to the Freedom Riders to the 1963 March on Washington and finally to the halls of Congress, Lewis is the very epitome of a tireless worker for good.

It is more to Lewis's credit that he recognizes the similarities that we all have when it comes to wanting basic rights and the means for self-determination.

Andrea Lafferty, on the other hand, has been involved in a group that relies on bad studies and outright lies to demonize the lgbt community.

The most suffering for the "cause of civil rights" she probably had to undergo was having a hair out of place when throwing out soundbites on a pseudo news show that generously lets her ramble without courtesy of a rebuttal guest.

Or breaking a nail while writing a column due to the excitement of listing salicious details of "homosexual encounters" in attempts to scare the potential reader.

Or maybe breaking a heel when she is walking the halls of Congress and "monitoring" committee meetings.

Her criticizing Lewis on the state of civil rights is like a b-movie actor criticizing Meryl Streep on her performing skills.

Lastly, Lafferty has the nerve the say the following:

Homosexuals have no shame when it comes to exploiting every noble social movement in our culture. These radical groups routinely come up with a new ‘holiday’ or special week in order to push their agenda upon the rest of us—and if you protest against this callous exploitation of important historical events, you’re labeled a homophobic bigot.

Okay Andrea, I won't label you as a homophobic bigot.

But I will label you as confused.

Just because your father, Lou Sheldon, got some black ministers teamed up against gay marriage does not give you any credibility to start attacking a black man whose very life has been dedicated to fighting injustice.

If you had any sense, you would hush your mouth, pay attention, and take good notes while Lewis is talking.

But speaking of those black ministers aligned with your father, if you want to have a good conversation about selling out, I suggest you confer with them.

200 posts and over 10,000 hits later . . . .

Forgive me for bragging but today is a milestone. This is my 200th post and what a strange trip it has been.

When I initially started this blog, it was to publicize my upcoming book (out this fall). I had no idea that it would last this long.

But I am proud of the work I have done, however miniscule it is in the huge landscape of the lgbt community.

Which reminds me of the bad mood I am in.

Apparently my publisher hasn't begun working on my corrections yet. This problem is compounded by the fact that if my corrections were worked on upon, they would have been finished and I would be receiving them now.

I'm not exactly a popular person at the publishing house right now. It's not like I used bad language or anything, but I let them know that I was very angry at their error.

My anger is a huge problem. I rarely get very upset but when I do, I get into scorched earth mode. This means I was so mad at my publisher, I was threatening to demand a refund and take my manuscript somewhere else.

But cooler emotions prevailed. It's too late in the game to pursue a new publisher. So I suffciently calmed down by cleaning my house (yeah I know, it's a Joan Crawford stereotype. So sue me already.)

And tomorrow I will have a nice polite conversation with my publishing house.

But for tonight, no talking about my book, no talking about James Holsinger or Peter LaBarbera, no railing on the anti-gay industry.

Just rest.

PFOX gets into the act. Does Holsinger really need this group as an ally?

Apparently James Holsinger has allies that maybe he does not need.

PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays) have gotten into knee deep into the argument, issuing a press release claiming that Holsinger and ex-gays in general are being discriminated against:

Ex-gays and Americans who support the right to self-determination of same-sex attraction are routinely ridiculed by the very people who claim to be victims themselves. “Gay activists lobby to be included in tolerance policies, hate crimes and employment non-discrimination legislation, but work hard to deny ex-gays the right to the same treatment,” said Regina Griggs, executive director of PFOX.

. . . “Americans need to face the growing issue of bigotry perpetrated upon ex-gays and their supporters. Gay activists cannot claim sympathy as victims when they attack ex-gays for political purposes of their own,” said Griggs. “Tolerance is not a one-way street. All individuals with unwanted same-sex attractions deserve the right to self-determination and happiness based on their own needs, and not the political inconvenience of others.”

Oh really?

Before PFOX contends itself to play Joan of Arc, I want to remind it of this press release from 1996:

FRC Creates PFOX To Counter PFLAG (fwd) WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 /PRNewswire/ --

"For too long, many people have come to believe that people with homosexual desires cannot change. The `once gay, always gay' fiction has persuaded more than a few Americans to support so- called `gay rights' out of a misdirected sense of compassion. But it is anything but compassionate to tell someone that have no hope of change and that they might as well indulge in sexual behavior that is unhealthy, immoral and in many cases, even fatal," Bob Knight said Thursday during a ground breaking news conference.

Knight, Family Research Council Director of Cultural Studies, participated in a 9:30 a.m. news event to unveil PFOX -- Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (Contact: Anthony Falzarano) -- a new, national parents group that will counter the pro-homosexual PFLAG. The news event, which included former homosexuals and lesbians, also highlighted the Second Annual National Coming OUT OF Homosexuality Day. (Contact: Michael Johnston)

Knight made the following comments during the news event at the National Press Club: "Over on the mall this week, the AIDS quilt is a silent and wrenching testimony to the hundreds of thousands of people struck down with premature death. The quilt also symbolizes tragic choices made by many people who were misled into believing they had no other option. How many of these sons, daughters, fathers, brothers or sisters would be alive today if they had had access to compassionate people like these around me who have been caught up in sexual or drug addiction but have broken the deadly pattern?

"Today's message is very simple: No one has to be `gay.' No one should reject a family member because that family member is `gay.' But love does not require accepting behavior that is harmful. In fact, real love in action is a conscious effort to steer someone away from behavior that can hurt or even kill. It isn't always easy, but it can be done, as evidenced by the many who have. "

Parents, Family and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX), which is being introduced today, has been formed to aid people who have family members struggling with homosexuality. PFOX is dedicated to correcting the many distortions and increasingly abusive assertions made by homosexual activist groups against those with whom they disagree.

The homosexual activist movement despises and attacks the ex-gay movement out of fear that these people are exactly who they say they are: people once in bondage to homosexuality but now freed to pursue a fuller life. But their lives are evidence of options rarely discussed by very real."

Let's look at the cast of characters mentioned in the 1996 press release:

Family Research Council - on more than one occasion cites bad studies and cherry picked research to demonize the gay community.

Robert Knight - freely used Paul Cameron's work as well as other cherry picked work to demonize the gay and lesbian community. He has also been known to verbally attack physicians who complain about the distortion of their work (i.e. Dr. Robert Garafalo - as mentioned in my upcoming book)

Michael Johnston - traveled the country talking about how he was delivered from the "evils of homosexuality" while at the same time having clandestine hotel encounters with gay men and exposing them to the HIV virus.

PFOX was created not to preserve the right of self-determination of ex-gays, but to act as a stumbling block for those of us who are comfortable with our lgbt orientation.

For the group to try and claim victimhood status in the case of James Holsinger defies all logic.

And the fact that the group got involved in this matter demonstrates why gay community's concerns about Holsinger are valid.

You can't run away from your past, no matter how you try to pretty yourself up.

Box Turtle Bulletin nails Holsinger paper

Just as I knew they would, Jim Burroway and Box Turtle Bulletin revealed James Holsinger's paper on homosexuality for the farce that it is.

Burroway reveals things about the paper that I didn't even notice:

The whole point of Holsinger’s paper is to draw a sharp contrast between gay relationships and heterosexual relationships.

But to do so, he he culls his evidence largely from papers which describe injuries from nonconsensual intercourse to denigrate consensual relationships, he describes odd sexual practices that are enjoyed by heterosexual couples to denigrate the minority of gay couples who indulge in those same practices, and he misleads his readers by padding his bibliography with more references to papers explicitly describing injuries experienced by heterosexual men and women to imply that they describe gay men instead.
In other words, to describe gay sexual acts, more often than not he turned to papers which describe injuries sustained through heterosexual activity.

And then he used this evidence from heterosexual activity to say that “when the complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and diseases may occur as noted above.” But what does this evidence suggest about “complementarity” in heterosexual relationships? Holsinger doesn’t answer.

Now some folks have continued to try and make the case one of Holsinger's religious beliefs but don't be fooled by such platitudes.

Holsinger manipulated credible scientific work to denigrate gay males. His paper appealed to bad stereotypes and urban legends about gay men and anal sex. I'm surprised he didn't try to prove the notorious "gerbil" story.

Is this the man we want as surgeon general?

And speaking of Holsinger's defenders, I noticed that One News Now hasn't said a thing about the story.

In that past when the news service was Agape Press, it freely reported Paul Cameron's studies and other notorious bits of junk science regarding the lgbt community.

For that matter, has the Family Research Council made a statement about Holsinger? I don't see why the group shouldn't. In the past, members such as Robert Knight and Timothy Dailey published a bunch of studies about the lgbt community.

Some of these studies still exist on the FRC web page.

Why so silent, boys?

James Holsinger has some explaining to do

It seems that the controversy over Bush's surgeon general nominee, James Holsinger, continues unabated.

And the issue is getting more cloudy.

Several of his defenders are coming out of the woodwork defending Holsinger, making it seem that he is a latter-day Mother Teresa. These defenders include a lesbian:

Maria Kemplin, a former colleague of Dr. Holsinger’s who is a lesbian, is familiar with the 1991 report. But in a letter she sent to Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, she wrote of Dr. Holsinger as a friend who helped without judging her.

“I am a liberal Democrat and a member of gay and women’s rights organizations,” Ms. Kemplin wrote. “Still, I strongly support Dr. Jim Holsinger as a leader and administrator who is able to see across divisive issues and relate with integrity to people, no matter their life circumstance.”

Good, then Holsinger won't have any problems answering questions about that paper he wrote demonizing gay men.

One of the biggest calamities of the American media is the abject laziness of our journalists. Sometimes in pursuit of "popular" stories, they miss the stories that, with a little time and effort given to them, can bring much needed attention to important issues.

And to me, one of the biggest underreported stories have been how the anti-gay create phony scientific studies to push forth a religious point of view, much like Holsinger did in 1991.

The lgbt community has had to deal with "scientific papers" put out by groups like the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, etc. accusing us of molesting children, having a short life span, and other assorted ills.

These papers either use bad sources or cherry pick credible information to reach a conclusion already frought in the author's mind - that gays and lesbians are sick people and anything that protects us is a bad thing.

Case in point is a recent article talking about gays adopting children:

Judith Stacey, a sociology professor at New York University and co-author with Tim Biblarz of "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" in the American Sociological Review, says conservative groups distorted the findings of her 2001 study, which found some slight differences in children of lesbian mothers in terms of career choices and sexual experimentation. And while some of her ongoing work is finding "minor differences in sexuality and possibly in the range of comfort, but just barely, with non heterosexual behavior," a European study of daughters of lesbians has found a skew toward more heterosexual partners. . .

When Dr. (James) Dobson, in his Time magazine essay criticizing Ms. Cheney, cited research from Kyle Pruett at Yale University to state that children need fathers, Dr. Pruett, author of "Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child," was furious, claiming Dr. Dobson had misrepresented his findings to suggest that children of gay parents would somehow suffer developmentally. After attempts to contact Dr. Dobson proved fruitless, he taped an interview and posted it on YouTube.com excoriating the conservative leader.

. . . Mr. (Peter) Spriggs (from the Family Research Council) remains unrepentant about his and Dr. Dobson's use of research to bolster their contention that children do best with a mother and a father.

"No scholar has the right to dictate how another person will use his data, just because he happens to disagree from a political point of view," he said.

On the contrary Mr. Spriggs. If a scholar's work is being used incorrectly, he or she has a right to call foul.

And a community who has been maligned by usage of said work has a right to complain and demand answers, particularly if the alleged perpetrator is vying for a position to represent this community.

So Holsinger's defenders can trot as many lesbians as they want out of the woodwork. And I don't even care if it's discovered that Holsinger was the one who really parted the Red Sea and performed the miracle of the loaves and the fishes.

If he wants to be my surgeon general, he needs to answer for his attempts to call me and mine sick people.

Anything you don't want to do, let the black folks do it for you

(Sidebar - If you haven't already, please read yesterday's post on Bush's surgeon general nominee)

I guess Kenneth Blackwell considers himself a lone wolf. No doubt it's not easy being a black conservative in today's environment.

But I am sure it can get quite lucrative when it comes to what you can get away with.

His column in Townhall is a good example of what I am talking about. It is yet another diatribe filled with lies about hate crimes legislation:

A bill making it illegal for people of various faiths to freely hold and profess their respective religion's teaching on sexual morality is working its way through Congress. Regardless of your politics, every American who cares about free speech and religious liberty should tell their U.S. senators to oppose this legislation. This bill has already passed the House of Representatives on a largely party-line vote with a Democrat majority. It is now pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and is expected to be voted on by the entire Senate in a month.

This bill would criminalize beliefs. If signed into law, H.R. 1592 would create a new class of crimes.

He also says the following:

As a country, do we want to be in the business of "proving" what someone thinks or denying them freedom of conscience? Do we want to rip the heart out of the First Amendment of our Constitution? Do we want to deconstruct our public square where progress has been advanced by a dialogue between faith and reason? Do we really want to embolden a 21st century secular fundamentalism by forcing religious expression from the public square?

The answer to these questions is a simple and emphatic no! What is driving the controversy associated with this bill ultimately comes down to one issue: Can the government punish a person for a "thought crime" whose religious faith includes the belief that homosexual behavior is immoral, and same sex marriage is morally objectionable?

Hate crimes legislation covers violent action not thought, as I am sure Blackwell knows. Also bear in mind that hate crimes legislation already exists in cases of race and religion. Nothing in Blackwell's column talks about those two distinctions. He only talks about hate crimes legislation being wrong when it comes to sexual orientation.

How dare lgbts want the protections that African-Americans enjoy!

Blackwell's being duplicitious. But it seems to be the role that some black conservatives want. They allow their heritage to be exploited for the status quo. They seem to be saying "we got our rights, now we will use the same prejudices, duplicitious arguments and lies that held us down to hold others down."

"And if we do it well enough, the white conservatives will give us status."

First you have Harry Jackson raging against hate crimes legislation in four or five consecutive columns. Now Blackwell is into the act as the designated black man out to put gays in their place for daring to compare themselves to black folks. Who is next to talk about it? Alan Keyes? LaShawn Barber?

With Jackson's recent columns comes the advertisement to buy his book, Black Contract with America. By accident? I don't think so.

Blackwell and Jackson may seem like men standing up for what they believe in. But I disagree.

Sounds like two guys who found a nice racket.