When You're Wrong, Change
There was a letter in The New York Times yesterday that sort of summed up, in very few words, what's going to have to happen.To the Editor:
During the Enlightenment, people witnessed the creation of science as a distinct method of producing valid and reliable knowledge that is so fundamental to contemporary society. Today, we find that sentiment most keenly expressed by Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, when he writes, "If science proves some beliefs of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change" ("Our Faith in Science," Op-Ed, Nov. 12).
Imagine the possibilities for peace and progress if all religious leaders, the Kansas Board of Education and the president of the United States were as enlightened.
Andrew Pleasant
Highland Park, N.J., Nov. 12, 2005
Science is constantly testing the validity of knowledge, rejecting ideas and adopting new ones, with scientists building upon the work of their predecessors and colleagues in the quest to enhance the state of human knowledge.
Religion in the United States is attached to ancient texts, which are frequently ambiguous, metaphorical, and, in explaining observed features of the natural world, those ancient texts are frequently incorrect. I think truly devout believers realize this, and love the scriptures anyway for their vitality and wisdom, but some find themselves committed to the position of believing statements that are demonstrably false, and find themselves emphasizing some passages while ignoring others that are inconvenient -- when was the last time we stoned an adulterer?
People have the right in America to believe in such a way, and nobody really minds if people hold beliefs that contradict fact. But when it comes to developing classroom material for the public schools, this is not where we need to go for information. As MCPS develops curriculum on the topic of sexual variation, there is no place for anti-gay moralism which is based on a few biblical verses. There is, of course, no place for pro-gay sentiment, either, but no one has ever proposed that. The schools need to describe a situation where some people are attracted to members of their own gender, and those people, being people, deserve our empathy and respect just like anyone else. No more, and no less.
[Note: edited 11:27 for correctness, had the wrong paper.]
posted by JimK at 8:29 AM
63 Comments:
"Science is constantly testing the validity of knowledge, rejecting ideas and adopting new ones, with scientists building upon the work of their predecessors and colleagues in the quest to enhance the state of human knowledge."
I don't know about the various false religions but Christianity is always open to new knowledge. It's a theological concept called general revelation, which is God revealing himself through the physical universe. It's best explained in the first book of Romans. Special revelation, on the other hand, refers to God revealing himself through scripture. Evangelical Christians are constantly revising their views to reconcile the two ways God reveals himself.
"Religion in the United States is attached to ancient texts, which are frequently ambiguous, metaphorical"
Sometimes they are mysterious but that doesn't present a problem, does it?
" and, in explaining observed features of the natural world, those ancient texts are frequently incorrect."
If you're talking about the Bible, that's not true. It's not a science textbook and, thus, isn't detailed, but on areas where it speaks, it's inerrant.
"I think truly devout believers realize this, and love the scriptures anyway for their vitality and wisdom, but some find themselves committed to the position of believing statements that are demonstrably false, and find themselves emphasizing some passages while ignoring others that are inconvenient --"
So, to be truly devout, you must believe scripture is not true. Do I have to bring up that Rolling Stones song, again?
"when was the last time we stoned an adulterer?"
Well, we don't, but it's because of the teaching of Jesus. I wouldn't be surprised to find it happened in an Atheist state like Stalin's, or a Darwinist state like Hitler's or a Muslim state like Khomeini's. This has nothing to do with new scientific knowledge.
"People have the right in America to believe in such a way, and nobody really minds if people hold beliefs that contradict fact."
I mind.
"But when it comes to developing classroom material for the public schools, this is not where we need to go for information. As MCPS develops curriculum on the topic of sexual variation, there is no place for anti-gay moralism which is based on a few biblical verses. There is, of course, no place for pro-gay sentiment, either, but no one has ever proposed that. The schools need to describe a situation where some people are attracted to members of their own gender, and those people, being people, deserve our empathy and respect just like anyone else. No more, and no less."
Unfortunately, the MCPS proposed curriculum was not based on fact but instead on certain incorrect moral views. It went beyond describing facts and was colored by an ambition to change certain societal standards. This is America, and, obviously, we're free to argue for changes in society but it's offensive to try to appropriate the gravitas of science for this purpose.
Anonymous said:
Unfortunately, the MCPS proposed curriculum was not based on fact but instead on certain incorrect moral views. It went beyond describing facts and was colored by an ambition to change certain societal standards.
*************
Explain anon...with pure examples from old proposed curriculum.
"Incorrect moral views"? Unless you're willing to substantiate such a statement, do not post it. I despise posts that are structured in such a deceptive manner.
Answer:
"structured in such a deceptive manner"
In the form of a question:
what is the discarded curriculum?
Maybe I should go out for Jeopardy!
I would say that we now clearly have the differences in opinion before us. Anon's position is one of Biblical literalness from a particular Protestant point of view -- other religions, including other sects of Christianity, are "false religions," the "inerrant" Christian Bible, "incorrect moral views," etc.
That's ok. He's entitled to have those beliefs. But that leaves him simply with making the argument to the BoE and the citizens of Montgomery County that his particular brand of Biblical theology and morality should be incorporated into the curriculum. That's not going to happen, though I do appreciate his having made his premise clear.
Now we can simply debate whether Protestantism has any place in public schools, or Christianity, or religion in general. I expect that the vast majority of citizens who read this blog or hear these debates while understand quite well what is at stake here, and continue to reject the vicious attacks of the fundamentalist Protestant extremists, in all their inerrant glory.
No, Dana, there is something else to discuss. When Jim begins his attacks on religious belief, I'm going to present the counter-point but there is still society's moral point of view and the scientfic evidence to talk about.
Just because society's moral point of view has traditionally correlated closely with Judeo-Christian morality doesn't mean it's invalid. Also, discussing what the traditional position of various religions and societies is perfectly within bounds.
"the various false religions"-
wow, our anon has a direct line to God. Congrats, anon- how did the Lord converse with you? Still small voice in your ear, messengers that you knew were angels, burning bush that would not consume itself? Somehow I thought Christianity taught humility as a virtue- but you must have missed that lesson.
Anonymous said:
what is the discarded curriculum?
*********************
Come on anon... examples and not sweeping unsupported statements.
If you can please...
Anonymous wrote:
"Unfortunately, the MCPS proposed curriculum was not based on fact but instead on certain incorrect moral views. It went beyond describing facts and was colored by an ambition to change certain societal standards."
Kay called you out, and you could not cite a single example. Let's face it, the facts as understood by the mainstream medical community do not jibe with your particular theological views. That's fine, for as has already been stated on this thread, you are entitled to your views, but you cannot expect to impose a particular theology on the public schools.
As for your view of morality, I will simply quote Hillel when asked to explain the entire Torah (the Pentatuach) while standing on one foot: "What is hateful to you, do not do to another. The rest is commentary -- go and learn." I suspect you would like to call those who disagree with you "secular humanists." But Hillel's formulation -- which is similar to the later Christian "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" -- is a basis for morality which can and should be used by theists and non-theists alike. Indeed, in America, that largely is the civic ethos. We should hold fast to it.
"wow, our anon has a direct line to God. Congrats, anon- how did the Lord converse with you? Still small voice in your ear, messengers that you knew were angels, burning bush that would not consume itself? Somehow I thought Christianity taught humility as a virtue- but you must have missed that lesson."
The method by which I believe God has spoken to me is through scripture. It's available to anyone who wants to pay attention. I think you've got another definition problem with word, "humility". Look it up and see if I qualify.
By the way, no one here has been shy about calling my religion false.
anonymous said: "By the way, no one here has been shy about calling my religion false."
No anon..just your interpretation you are heaping on others who
are not buying it.
If you believe/think one way fine...but do not force others if you will by your opinions. That is the clear example of how CRC'rs behave. Their way ONLY and their way of deciding for all.
Never did answer "anon free" in another post as to whether you think sex ed should be taught in schools at all.
Do you?
"Kay called you out, and you could not cite a single example"
David,
Kay, who has been uncharacteristically civil today, was going to get a reply this evening. When a question requires a lengthy response, I tend to put it off.
You think, David, that it's uncharitable (to homosexuals, I guess) not teach kids about them. Why do you think Christians should not be taught about? From the sounds of some of you, you think Christianity is something kids should be sheltered from hearing about, almost like it's pornography.
"By the way, no one here has been shy about calling my religion false."
The only person calling any religions "false" is you. In the first comment on this blog you wrote: "I don't know about the various false religions but Christianity is ..."
Please show us a quote on this blog where someone other than you has called any religion "false."
Christine
"Kay, who has been uncharacteristically civil today,"
from that last one, it seems like she reverting to old form
somehow, my having an opinion represents me forcing it on others?
"but do not force others if you will by your opinions"
How do I "force others"?
"those ancient texts are frequently incorrect. I think truly devout believers realize this, and love the scriptures anyway for their vitality and wisdom, but some find themselves committed to the position of believing statements that are demonstrably false,"
how's that, Cilly?
Okay anon...how many ways have you tried to be insulting today over everyone's belief but your own?
What we would all like to know is why you are not playing this over on CRC's "public" message board? They would love it over there I bet.
Come on anon...say HOMOSEXUAL....
See not so bad..... They do exist and I bet you probably came in contact with them today and you survived.
anonymous said:
"From the sounds of some of you, you think Christianity is something kids should be sheltered from hearing about, almost like it's pornography."
Your opinion ...no one said that in this blog as it relates to public schools.
Are you wanting religion taught in public schools? Is that where you got that "sheltered" item opinion?
Speaking of pornography..which CRC'r had a book of pornography at a BOE meeting more than once?
Kay
Sadly, your comments are inane and inapplicable.
I guess I'm not over at the CRC site because I don't have the same need for affirmation that you do. I always think preaching to the choir is a waste of time. You apparently disagree.
Oh, Kay, this must have slipped your notice but I was looking for elaboration on my unfortunate tendency to force my beliefs on others. When did that happen? You weren't LYING, were you?
You guys need to lighten up or I'm going to start deleting stuff...
Get back on topic, please.
JimK
anonymous said...
"I don't know about the various false religions but Christianity is always open to new knowledge."
"False religions"..who exactly are you to make such a reprehensible judgement about other faiths. When my son was confirmed several years ago -- in a Presbyterian church, very mainstream, wouldn't you say? Are we Christian enough for you? --the Youth Minister escorted the confirmation class to other religious services. They went to a mosque, to a synagogue and to a Catholic mass, among others. His purpose was two fold: (1) that the kids know through exposure and by asking questions of other religious leaders what they were accepting when they professed their faith, and, (2) to fully appreciate that there are many ways to worship God, there are many faiths, and many expressions of adoration. After each visit he would discuss with them what they learned, and caution them to be careful with their judgements as they likely will get to the here after and discover they are not first in God's eyes but one of many.
It reminds me of a joke: it seems a man died and went to heavn. St. Peter met him at the gate. He took him by the arm and began to give him the tour. He pointed to clusters of people and said over here we have the Methodists...pointing again, and over here we have the Jews, and pointing again...you get the idea...then he pointed to a large group far off in the distance and moved very close to the man and whispered "Over there are the Catholics, but sshh, they think they're the only ones up here. Do you think you will be alone in the Kingdom of Heaven?
You see, this is the problem I have with fundamentalists. It is not their faith, it is their judgement of others. Judge not..and all that. There are many Christian and non-Christian faiths that take a much more inclusive view believing fundamentally that it is not possible to know the mind of God, and, therefore, we must be accepting of all God's people in every form they take.
"but on areas where it speaks, it's inerrant."
In your opinion. There are many biblical scholars who would not agree with you. Besides if that were true than all stories in the Bible would agree, and, as you know, they don't.
Anonymous said..
No, Dana, there is something else to discuss. When Jim begins his attacks on religious belief...
Anonymous, Jim has never attacked anyone's religious beliefs. Not on this strand or any other on the blog.
Anonymous said...
The method by which I believe God has spoken to me is through scripture. It's available to anyone who wants to pay attention.
Scripture is available to anyone who wants to pay attention, but, of course, it also is open to interpretation. How many "holy wars" have been fought over how the Bible is to be interpreted and who is qualified to do the interpretation. And, I suspect, each person who reads the Bible "hears" God's voice differently. So, you can pay attention all you like, but that won't necessarily make your interpretation any more accurate than mine.
Anonymous said..
Kay
Sadly, your comments are inane and inapplicable
**************
Example of....
"Hit a nerve" on anonymous who never answers a direct question. We all get it..seems you cannot. But alas anon we will accept you.
Now if you go over to CRC less than public message board..well we all know what happens there..NOTHING. No diverse opinions allowed.
Gee Andrea...seems quite similar to the behavior by anon on Einstein listerv.
Anon.. I ask you for examples and so did David. Instead of answering you fall back on quaint insults that we all think are typical when you cannot answer a question as usual.
Anon said "force my beliefs"
Anon you have yet to show us you are not doing this. Your actions speak volumes on how intolerant your beliefs are when it comes to others and their beliefs.
Your interpretation of scripture is just that..YOURS.
Anonymouse said..."When Jim begins his attacks on religious belief..."
Anon that is so laughable for you to say. Show us an example of Jim doing such.
We all know you will not have one example in your insult bag.
"False religions"
That kind of trash can only come out of a delusional Christian mouth.
Instead of saying how sorry they about this young person dying in such a horrific way-CRC Precious and company apparently think this somehow is caused by sex ed being taught in schools, etc.. Now does CRC think everything in the universe is tied to sex ed in schools?
"anon free"
*******************
CRC Message Board
CRC Precious (Retta Brown) hanging hat on http://www.beverlye.com/
The DEADLY CONSEQUENCES
of "EXPERT" ADVICE on CHILDREARING
By Beverly Eakman
November 12, 2005
NewsWithViews.com
By now, most people know about the 17-year-old Virginia Commonwealth University freshman, Taylor Marie Behl, whose decomposed body was found October 5th in a ravine on a farm owned by one of the primary suspect’s former girlfriends. The funeral took place October 14th. The suspect, 38-year-old Benjamin Fawley, confessed while under arrest on unrelated child pornography and firearms possession charges. He told police that Taylor Behl died accidentally during their sexual encounter and that he panicked, according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch. The couple’s relationship had been ongoing for an undisclosed length of time.
The victim’s mother, Janet Pelasara, commanded national attention with her smiling, upbeat demeanor during the search for her daughter, missing since September, and only in the aftermath of the funeral did she finally lash out against “the sick subhuman that murdered my beautiful daughter.” She said she does not believe Fawley’s claim of “accidental” death (although, given the popular forms of “kinky sex,” who knows?) and has called for the death penalty should he, or anyone else, be convicted of the crime.
Well, who can blame her?
But there is a more troubling aspect of this case, whether or not Miss Behl’s autopsy points to an accidental or deliberate act — the elephant in the living room nobody wants to talk about.
Specifically, what was a 17-year-old minor female doing consorting alone with a 38-year-old male, much less having a sexual relationship with him? And why was a 38-year-old man interested in this 17-year-old girl?
So far, none of her friends are talking, publicly at least, about any of her earlier dating relationships. No one has offered anything that is in any way negative about Miss Behl. Everything points to a normal, friendly, cheerful teenager who, according to her mother, had sex with Fawley “once out of curiosity,” but then apparently changed her mind about a further relationship. From news accounts, one can assume she had had sexual relationships with others fellows before this incident.
Unfortunately, this is the kind of result we get when children are tasked early on with “making their own decisions” and “discovering their own values” — things the child experts – psychologists — have been trying to “sell” to parents and teachers for decades. And they succeeded — through parents’ magazines, childrearing texts and university departments of teacher preparation.
As a young teacher in the late 1960s, on into the 70s and early 80s, I saw history made. I was there when child experts told parents and teachers to "take the XXXXs off" and let toddlers express themselves. I was there when psychologists admonished adults to stop "snooping" in kids' belongings and give them some "space." I was there when educational psychologists scrapped the dress codes, and advised educators and parents to be children’s pals instead of their superiors. I was there when school psychologists and counselors started advising adults to stop lecturing and moralizing, because kids wouldn't listen anyway. I was there when schools started sponsoring dances and dating for pre-pubescent youngsters — crushing tender egos and making peer pressure the end-all that it finally became.
I noticed now that the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) is sponsoring TV ads telling parents that they "have more influence than they think,” that they are the "anti-drug." A little late for that!
Where was the ONDCP in the mid-’80s, when all we heard was that "children have rights" — rights to sexual information and paraphernalia, rights to access porn on the Internet, rights to sue their parents for disciplining them.
But when the fire hit the fan at Little, CO; Paducah, KY; and Santee, CA — guess what? It was parents who got blamed for not doing all those things the “experts” had been lobbying against for some 40 years. By obliterating the lines between right and wrong and advising kids to discover their own values, youngsters like Taylor Behl are now dealing with horrific dangers never previously experienced, not even in the bad old days when students had to stoke the fire to heat up the classroom. Yet experts continue to call early sexual experimentation “normal” — and the resulting atrocities “mental health issues” instead of moral issues.
The logic goes like this: Guilt over supposed "sins" produces neurosis, as opposed to being a civilizing influence. Therefore, redefining "morality" will produce happier, guilt-free, and mentally healthy people. Guilt supposedly begins when youngsters feel forced to take responsibility for things beyond their control.
Eventually, of course, all behaviors have been deemed outside of individual control. If one’s genes and hormones predispose them to behave a certain way, then spiritual awareness is delusional; self-discipline unattainable.
Not content with early, graphic sexual training, child experts now are hot to push the rest of their agenda in schools, including exposure to homosexuality, sodomy, oral sex and even self-labeling.
I really do not blame Taylor Behl’s mother, Janet Pelasara, for what happened to her daughter. She is a Baby Boomer, after all. She followed the parenting advice doled out stridently and often to her age-group.
But an earlier generation would have recognized that Taylor Behl was not ready for college, that she needed a lot of oversight and guidance. She clearly lacked the maturity and judgment to be on her own.
Today’s parents mistake secondary sex characteristics for emotional maturity. The two do not necessarily go together.
I remember my own high school and college freshman experience. Neither was pleasant. In high school, I was not permitted to attend mixed-sex parties unless they were well-chaperoned, or to car date until I was 16 — and even then, not until my parents had met the fellow. I remember my mother complaining bitterly that even at the private school where I was enrolled, some parents in the 1950s and 60s would wait for folks like mine to put their foot down on unchaperoned events like beach parties before stepping up to the plate and saying “no” themselves.
As a 17-year-old college freshman, I started going out with a 25-year-old part-time student living at a nearby air force base. I was flattered, because he was handsome and treated me like an adult — and because he “rescued” me from a truly awful blind date at a college dance. When my parents met him, however, they put a stop to our romance — not because the fellow actually did anything particularly offensive or was unkempt or rude, but simply because he seemed too old for me, and something seemed “off.” They nipped our dating in the bud, certainly before it became anything even close to sexual. But they were extremely authoritarian about it and, I thought at the time, downright insulting.
I hated them for being what would be called “over-protective” and “paternalistic” today. But they were right. The fellow turned out to be frequenting strip clubs in his spare time. Had I married him (which we had discussed), it would not have been a year before I would have discovered that I “wasn’t enough” for him. My parents knew me well enough to know I was insecure and that I found it difficult to “hurt” someone by ending a even a friendship, much less a romance. So they did the hardest thing they ever had to do; they refused ever to let me see him again, at the threat of pulling me out of college. They checked on my whereabouts (“stalking?”) from 300 miles away.
Today, I have been married 37 years — to someone else. I’ve never had to worry about my core values being different from my husband’s, or worse, getting some sexually transmitted disease from a philandering mate — thanks to my parents’ intervention some 40 years ago. For sure, they had better things to do with their time than deal with my indignation.
Today, it’s all the rage to make fun of anyone who applauds the values of the 1940s and 50s, or endorses monogamy within a marital context, or engages in “paternalism.” But Taylor Behl’s death — and the trauma of hundreds of young people like her — should stand as a lesson to us all. Before psychiatrists were considered childrearing experts, there were parents who took the difficult road. They risked alienating their children out of love for them, even if it meant scrutinizing the friendships, clothing and activities of their youngsters. Today, between Internet stalkers, mainstreamed pornography, vulgar “music” lyrics and “sexploitive” school curricula — not to mention virulent forms of the old sexually transmitted diseases — such oversight is more important than ever.
The Bible speaks to many people - somehow to anon it says that others are not true worshippers. I don't think many people come away with that message. I know what humility means- not proud or arrogant- that just isn't you!
As others pointed out, no one called Christianity false or compared teaching it to teaching kids pornography- except you. Teaching about religion is done in history classes and in English classes as part of what is read or as part of the period of history. Lying about what is said here is the hallmark of you and your CRC cronies- claiming we said something that is nowhere to be found. Accusing us of lying- but never saying what the lies are.
As to civility- you are known for your own incivility- here and elsewhere.
""False religions"..who exactly are you to make such a reprehensible judgement about other faiths. When my son was confirmed several years ago -- in a Presbyterian church, very mainstream, wouldn't you say? Are we Christian enough for you?"
Corrine, I happen to attend a Presbyterian Church myself. I believe in what's taught there. Any responsible person has to make judgments about what he believes in. I consider all faiths but mine to be false- that's why I chose mine. If the Bible is taught to your congregation, you'll know that there is not any equivocating about that. I don't know what other religions are compatible with one another, but Christianity is incompatible with all of them. I do know that atheists, by definition, believe all religions other than their own are false. I think I've said here before that I believe that most other religions have some truth in them, but in essentials, they are false.
"--the Youth Minister escorted the confirmation class to other religious services. They went to a mosque, to a synagogue and to a Catholic mass, among others. His purpose was two fold: (1) that the kids know through exposure and by asking questions of other religious leaders what they were accepting when they professed their faith,"
He could have taught them what other churches believe without travelling to them. Most evangelical churches do. It's really bizarre to have comparative religions as a part of a confirmation process. His job was to make sure they actually believed in the religion they were joining.
"and, (2) to fully appreciate that there are many ways to worship God, there are many faiths, and many expressions of adoration. After each visit he would discuss with them what they learned, and caution them to be careful with their judgements as they likely will get to the here after and discover they are not first in God's eyes but one of many."
I don't think I disagree with any of this. Maybe you mean something other than I'm seeing. Again, though, it doesn't seem a proper topic for confirmation class.
"It reminds me of a joke: it seems a man died and went to heavn. St. Peter met him at the gate. He took him by the arm and began to give him the tour. He pointed to clusters of people and said over here we have the Methodists...pointing again, and over here we have the Jews, and pointing again...you get the idea...then he pointed to a large group far off in the distance and moved very close to the man and whispered "Over there are the Catholics, but sshh, they think they're the only ones up here. Do you think you will be alone in the Kingdom of Heaven?"
No, all believers in Christ will be there. I don't think there will be any acknowledgment of denominations.
"You see, this is the problem I have with fundamentalists. It is not their faith, it is their judgement of others. Judge not..and all that."
When Christ said to not judge others, he meant people. Everyone has to make judgments about ideas. It's part of life. I'm not a fundamentalist, by the way.
"There are many Christian and non-Christian faiths that take a much more inclusive view believing fundamentally that it is not possible to know the mind of God, and, therefore, we must be accepting of all God's people in every form they take."
Not quite getting a handle on what you're saying here. If you think Christianity can be accepted at the same time as other religions though, you simply aren't familiar with the words of Christ.
""but on areas where it speaks, it's inerrant."
In your opinion. There are many biblical scholars who would not agree with you. Besides if that were true than all stories in the Bible would agree, and, as you know, they don't."
Of course it's my opinion- why else would I say it. There are many biblical scholars who believe just about anything. I think there's an explanation for any apparent Biblical inconsistencies- they've been explained in the past, as I hope you know.
"Anonymous said..
No, Dana, there is something else to discuss. When Jim begins his attacks on religious belief...
Anonymous, Jim has never attacked anyone's religious beliefs. Not on this strand or any other on the blog."
Cilly said this too and I quoted an example from today's post. I know it get's complex but look above.
"Anonymous said...
The method by which I believe God has spoken to me is through scripture. It's available to anyone who wants to pay attention.
Scripture is available to anyone who wants to pay attention, but, of course, it also is open to interpretation."
I made this comment in response to Andrea ridiculing the whole idea of God communicating with men.
"How many "holy wars" have been fought over how the Bible is to be interpreted and who is qualified to do the interpretation."
I don't know- have you counted? What's the implication anyway? Because someone once fought a war, we shouldn't try to correctly interpret the Bible? How many wars have been fought for independence? Does that make independence unjust?
"And, I suspect, each person who reads the Bible "hears" God's voice differently. So, you can pay attention all you like, but that won't necessarily make your interpretation any more accurate than mine."
No, but the Bible has one meaning. Honest and simple people will always come to the same answer. Here's a quote from Jesus: "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth because you hid these things from the wise and learned and revealed them to little children." So much for the biblical scholars- if they don't think scripture is inerrant, they've missed the boat.
"David S. Fishback said...
Anonymous wrote:
"Unfortunately, the MCPS proposed curriculum was not based on fact but instead on certain incorrect moral views. It went beyond describing facts and was colored by an ambition to change certain societal standards."
Kay called you out, and you could not cite a single example."
David, neither the statement that homosexuality is not a disease nor the statement that homosexuality is not a choice are facts. They are opinions, based on wish fulfillment. Advocate for a change in society's standards if you will but don't try to claim science as your justification.
"Let's face it, the facts as understood by the mainstream medical community do not jibe with your particular theological views."
I've already shown everyone an example of Jim saying my religious beliefs are false. Here's David doing it. Don't get wrong- I'm not complaining. If that's his opinion, he should say so. Just don't the rest of you be so hypocritical.
"That's fine, for as has already been stated on this thread, you are entitled to your views, but you cannot expect to impose a particular theology on the public schools."
Not trying to do that. You are. I'd be happy if the school accurately told the students what different people believe and let the kids make up their own mind.
"As for your view of morality, I will simply quote Hillel when asked to explain the entire Torah (the Pentatuach) while standing on one foot: "What is hateful to you, do not do to another. The rest is commentary -- go and learn."
What hateful thing do you think I want to do to someone? I just want to live and let live. You're the pro-active ones. (Was Hillel BC or AD?)
"I suspect you would like to call those who disagree with you "secular humanists.""
If you mean disagree about the curriculum, it does seem they're mostly humanists but some of them keep saying they're not secular, though. I tend to take people's word for it. What do you think of humanism?
"But Hillel's formulation -- which is similar to the later Christian "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" -- is a basis for morality which can and should be used by theists and non-theists alike. Indeed, in America, that largely is the civic ethos. We should hold fast to it.""
Agreed.
"Anon said "force my beliefs"
Anon you have yet to show us you are not doing this. Your actions speak volumes on how intolerant your beliefs are when it comes to others and their beliefs."
Kay, you're talking yourself all into a dither. You first accuse me of forcing my beliefs on others and now you're saying it's my burden to prove I don't do that.
What actions do I take that "speak volumes"? I'm completely tolerant. Anyone can believe anything they want to. Not that I have any power to stop people from believing what they want anyway. Again, as I said before, an illogical idea has gained currency that failure to affirm others' beliefs is intolerant. A person could only hold such an illogical idea if they inconsistently apply it.
""Incorrect moral views"? Unless you're willing to substantiate such a statement, do not post it. I despise posts that are structured in such a deceptive manner."
Julian, who are you and why do you think my despicable post is deceptive? What kind of substantiation are you looking for in a statement about morality?
" "False religions"
That kind of trash can only come out of a delusional Christian mouth."
Amazing what a storm this caused. I didn't even say what religions I was referring to. Alex, do you believe any religions are false?
anonymous said: " I'm completely tolerant."
Yes anon..we all are laughing at this and at you and will be for quite a while.
You are tolerant of intolerance.
Let's see people have asked you for examples under old curriculum and as of yet you have produced NADA as usual.
Anonymous is just one of those schoolyard bullies that the programs on bullying in MCPS schools must address.
"anon free"
Anonymous said...
"those ancient texts are frequently incorrect. I think truly devout believers realize this, and love the scriptures anyway for their vitality and wisdom, but some find themselves committed to the position of believing statements that are demonstrably false,"
how's that, Cilly?
And later, Anon added...
"No, Dana, there is something else to discuss. When Jim begins his attacks on religious belief...
Anonymous, Jim has never attacked anyone's religious beliefs. Not on this strand or any other on the blog."
Cilly said this too and I quoted an example from today's post. I know it get's complex but look above."
I disagree, Anon. Jim didn't say any religions are false. You did.
In the statement you quoted, Jim said there are ancient religious texts that contain statements that can be proven to be false. He didn't say any religions were false; he said some statements in some ancient religious texts are false. Then you replied "If you're talking about the Bible, that's not true. It's not a science textbook and, thus, isn't detailed, but on areas where it speaks, it's inerrant."
Well, in fact, the Bible contains many false statements.
For example Leviticus 11:6 says "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud...." But the fact is that hares are not ruminants who chew their cud. They are lagomorphs who wiggle their noses.
Leviticus 11:13-19 says "These are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten , . . . the eagle, and . . . the bat." The non-egg laying, milk producing bat is mammal, not a fowl.
Mark 16:18 says, "Jesus said, They shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them..." Uh, you know, you can try this if you want to Anon, but I'm going to take my lesson from the Christians before me who have already tried and died.
Just because some ancient religious texts contain false statements doesn't mean religions themselves are false.
Christine
Christine
I can't spend all day playing idea tennis today. Let me just say that evangelical Christianity believes in the inerrancy of scripture so if you say that it's not true, your saying evangelical Christianity is false. I can think of many other examples of Jim calling basic Christian beliefs fairy tales, saying the KKK derives their racist beliefs from Christian doctrine, etc. He can believe that if he wants to but I can believe the same about his beliefs. The idea that no religions are false is ridiculous. A responsible person has to make decisions about what he believes. If you want to claim that you think that the Bible is wrong but not "false", I don't know how to respond to the ever-changing games you guys play with word definitions.
By the way, I can't respond to every thing but if any of you can think of any Biblical contradictions or false statements, please post them. I find that kind of stuff interesting.
"anonymous said: " I'm completely tolerant."
Yes anon..we all are laughing at this and at you and will be for quite a while.
You are tolerant of intolerance."
Free, what exactly do you think tolerance is?
"Let's see people have asked you for examples under old curriculum and as of yet you have produced NADA as usual."
I spent a ridculous amount of time last night answering these multiple posts and I think I answered what you're referring to.
"Anonymous is just one of those schoolyard bullies that the programs on bullying in MCPS schools must address."
Any chance you could tell me exactly what you're talking about here? I typically have a half dozen people barraging me at once- how am I a bully?
This is perfect: ...calling basic Christian beliefs fairy tales, saying the KKK derives their racist beliefs from Christian doctrine, etc.....
Yesterday I referred to intelligent design as a "ghost story." But you don't really think I.D. is a religious theory, do you? No mention of any deity, nothing, they have been very careful about that. They simply introject a ghost into the ... story ... where they don't have data.
And as far as the Klan goes, Anon, you have an interesting problem to address there. I didn't say they were Christians -- they say they're Christians. Everything they believe is derived from their Christianity. So your assignment is to explain how it is that when you say you're a Christian, and they say they're Christians, you're telling the truth and they're not. What measure, exactly, can we use to distinguish real Christians like you from fake Christians like the Klan?
And as far as my saying anything negative about your religion, I'm pretty careful not to. Grew up Presbyterian myself, don't have a problem with it, don't think it makes a very good excuse for bigotry.
JimK
Playing idea tennis? That's one interpretation. I was under the impression I was having a conversation with you.
Anon said....
"Let me just say that evangelical Christianity believes in the inerrancy of scripture so if you say that it's not true, your saying evangelical Christianity is false....The idea that no religions are false is ridiculous. A responsible person has to make decisions about what he believes."
That's one interpretation, but I do wish you'd do your interpreting without putting words in my mouth. I never said any religion is false.
You are entitled to your view that only one religion can be true and all others must be false based on decisions about your beliefs.
Each American citizen is free to interpret religion as s/he sees fit. It is for this very reason that health class should not discuss religious views other than to say there are many different such views.
As to false statements in the Bible and other religious texts, there are entire websites devoted to them. If such study interests you, seek them out.
Christine
"You are entitled to your view that only one religion can be true and all others must be false based on decisions about your beliefs."
Well, thanks. It didn't seem like everyone else felt the same way yesterday.
Alex, I've got to call you on that last one. I'm afraid that you are making statements that sound as though you think all Christians are delusional. If that is not what you mean, please choose your words with more care. Furthermore, the claim that one's own faith is true while all others are false is certainly not one that comes only from Christians. Your World Studies classes should have covered several theocracies, and you should be aware of the frequency of that claim.
I don't want to shut you up. I'm glad you are here and that you feel free to join in the discussion. Please remember that some of your staunches allies here are Christian, and please think carefully before clicking on the "send" button.
Anonymous said...I spent a ridculous amount of time last night answering these multiple posts and I think I answered what you're referring to.
Anonymouse also said...Unfortunately, the MCPS proposed curriculum was not based on fact but instead on certain incorrect moral views. It went beyond describing facts and was colored by an ambition to change certain societal standards.
*******************************
You were asked....Explain anon...with pure examples from old proposed curriculum.
************************
Well anon you spent time answering a few tangent things but you clearly are avoiding the direct currciulum examples asked of you....why?
No, I answered that.
Kay, you're a bored troublemaker. I won't respond to anything else you post.
anon, I didn't ridicule God talking to people- just to you. in your surety that you have the one true faith- I thought surely you thought it came directly from God to you. I merely stated some of the ways God is said to have been revealed in the past. I do not have your humility so I do not expect God will ever speak directly to me. The instances recorded in most holy books were few in number and to very special people.
Okay anon...point us to those examples you supposedly gave to this statement you sweepingly made yesterday to all....."Unfortunately, the MCPS proposed curriculum was not based on fact but instead on certain incorrect moral views. It went beyond describing facts and was colored by an ambition to change certain societal standards."
Funny how you responded to Kay...do you hate being called out? She won that round and so did David who called you out on it as well. You folded when direct questions came your way as usual.
Either you have examples or you do not.
Otherwise quite pretending you have actually read the old proposed curriculum and have responded to anything when asked about it.
Lying is not a virtue for one such as as you who thinks they have the one true faith and everyone elses's is false. Lying is apparently a vice for you.
"anon free"
Anonymous said...
No, I answered that.
Kay, you're a bored troublemaker. I won't respond to anything else you post.
*************
Oh Boo Hoo anonymous... I am so sad.
Apparently you have no examples..just as we all thought.
1. Anonymous said:
"David, neither the statement that homosexuality is not a disease nor the statement that homosexuality is not a choice are facts. They are opinions, based on wish fulfillment. Advocate for a change in society's standards if you will but don't try to claim science as your justification."
Here is precisely what the revised curriculum said: "All major professional mental health organizations affirm that homosexuality is not a mental disorder." "Most experts in the field have concluded that sexual orientation is not a choice." Those are facts. You may disagree with those organizations and experts, but the curriculum set forth the factual statements of their conclusions.
2. Anonymous also said:
"I've already shown everyone an example of Jim saying my religious beliefs are false. Here's David doing it. Don't get wrong- I'm not complaining. If that's his opinion, he should say so. Just don't the rest of you be so hypocritical."
A little humility is in order here. The world is filled with many religious faiths and the details of the doctrines of each one is different from all the others. Orthodox Jews believe that homosexual activity is a sin against God; Reform Jews do not. Southern Baptists believe that homosexual activity is a sin against God; the United Church of Christ does not. Southern Baptists and the United Church of Christ believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God. Orthodox Jews and Reform Jews do not. How can anyone be totally confident that the doctrines of his/her faith are unerring and that everyone else's faith is wrong?
In a diverse society, we must, in order to survive as a society, set such theological doctrines aside when it comes to government activity. That is why the Founders put the First Amendment in the Constitution. They were well aware that in the preceding century, about 1/3 of the population of Central Europe was slaughtered during the Thirty Years War, a war that was fought among Christians with differing theological views regarding the role of the Church as the intermediary between people and God and over whether priests should be celibate.
"Funny how you responded to Kay...do you hate being called out? She won that round and so did David who called you out on it as well. You folded when direct questions came your way as usual."
Free, here's the statement I made to David last night. Read it slowly. There's a chance it might sink in:
"David, neither the statement that homosexuality is not a disease nor the statement that homosexuality is not a choice are facts. They are opinions, based on wish fulfillment. Advocate for a change in society's standards if you will but don't try to claim science as your justification."
P.S. Free, how many rounds do you think I've won?
Anonymous said---P.S. Free, how many rounds do you think I've won?
None as the your nuttiness shines through. Would you like to tell us all that homsexuality is a
disease or it is not a choice?
Anonymous I think you are afraid you are a closeted homosexual that has to come out swinging to hide that apparent fact.
"anon free"
"Here is precisely what the revised curriculum said: "All major professional mental health organizations affirm that homosexuality is not a mental disorder." "Most experts in the field have concluded that sexual orientation is not a choice." Those are facts. You may disagree with those organizations and experts, but the curriculum set forth the factual statements of their conclusions."
Let me get this straight, David: you don't think the curriculum implies that these organizations and experts are correct?
"A little humility is in order here."
Yes, among associations and experts. They shouldn't make these "probably" statements until they have evidence to base it on.
"The world is filled with many religious faiths and the details of the doctrines of each one is different from all the others. Orthodox Jews believe that homosexual activity is a sin against God; Reform Jews do not. Southern Baptists believe that homosexual activity is a sin against God; the United Church of Christ does not. Southern Baptists and the United Church of Christ believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God. Orthodox Jews and Reform Jews do not. How can anyone be totally confident that the doctrines of his/her faith are unerring and that everyone else's faith is wrong?"
David, a rational person has to make these decisions. If I didn't think Islam or Zoroastrianism were false, I'd be a disciple of those religions.
"In a diverse society, we must, in order to survive as a society, set such theological doctrines aside when it comes to government activity. That is why the Founders put the First Amendment in the Constitution."
That would be great if the government was still the type it was back then and hadn't slowly taken over every aspect of our lives. They never meant to seperate religion and education- and it hasn't worked well in our time.
"They were well aware that in the preceding century, about 1/3 of the population of Central Europe was slaughtered during the Thirty Years War, a war that was fought among Christians with differing theological views regarding the role of the Church as the intermediary between people and God and over whether priests should be celibate."
People can acknowledge they disagree without going to war. The last thing a Christian following Christ's example would do is kill somebody over their beliefs. Jesus told people their religious ideas were false all the time and yet he told his disciples to put away their swords when the Romans came to arrest him. Further, if we wiped out all religious belief, people would find other things to fight about. Indeed, probably more.
"None as the your nuttiness shines through."
Nuttiness is eccentricity. I think I've got a view shared by more people than you. Not that that means anything- just I don't nutty is a proper adjective in this case.
"Would you like to tell us all that homsexuality is a
disease or it is not a choice?"
I think we can agree that science hasn't proved either of these controversies one way or another. Right?
"Anonymous I think you are afraid you are a closeted homosexual that has to come out swinging to hide that apparent fact."
Yes, well, a few weeks ago some of you said I was latently homosexual and struggling with my feelings. Now, apparently you think I'm a full-fledged practitioner, leading a secret life. What can I say?
Wait, I know. If I'm posting anonymously, who am I trying to fool? I knew that anonymous thing was a chip I should keep.
I have it now- Anon is a true Christian professing the only true faith- all of the other Christians who disagree with him, who fought wars over dogma, whose Christianity he disavows-they are not Christians- and we are wrong for suggesting they are(Although what aren't we wrong about?). Also a fact is a fact if he says so- or a statement only correct if vetted by him. So we can't say that all major medical associations agree - even if they do- because he says that isn't correct. I would certainly not want to take anything the AMA or APA says over this person's view of things. What the CRC and their sort say are okay because they support his view. Ruth Jacobs knows better than the entire AMA.
"So we can't say that all major medical associations agree - even if they do- because he says that isn't correct. I would certainly not want to take anything the AMA or APA says over this person's view of things. What the CRC and their sort say are okay because they support his view. Ruth Jacobs knows better than the entire AMA."
You could say what the organizations thought as long as you explain that there decision didn't originally represent their members and wasn't based on any scientific data.
I'm not asking anyone to tell kids my opinion is fact- just don't tell them the facts are a bunch of organization political types' opinions. (even, that's being charitable.)
Julian, who are you and why do you think my despicable post is deceptive? What kind of substantiation are you looking for in a statement about morality?
Oh please, you're asking who I am when you're posting as Anonymous? Why does it even matter?
Your post simply finished with your opinion, but you stated it as fact, and you didn't cite any examples whatsoever. What am I supposed to think?
When it comes to morality on issues such as these, it's all relative.
Andrea said:
Ruth Jacobs knows better than the entire AMA."
**********
Or she tells patient info that I seriously doubt patients know she is doing in her hoisting them up as examples in public in her quest to get on CAC.
Excuse me, Anon. Let's do a little history here. During the 1870's, during the Second Reich, "homosexuality" as a concept was created. Before that time, men had been having sex with men, and women with women. There were cultures that accepted it, others that didn't, and others that simply ignored it all. There was no medical pathologization to that point.
So the Germans pathologized same-sex relationships. That became the norm in Western society. The Germans took it to the extreme in a program and pogrom of annihilation. The rest of the West did not, but it still remained on the books in psychiatry as a pathology, and was treated as such.
What the APA did in 1973 was review all the literature, and conclude there never was any good reason to have labeled the state of being homosexual a disease in the first place. They acknowldged an error.
So I believe one can clearly state that it is a fact that homosexuality is not a disease. 19th century Germans thought so, then the Nazis acted on it, but that is it. So much for your "facts," and the 1970's "opinion" overturning those "facts."
I've said the same about intersex conditions, of which transsexualism is one kind. All the evidence points to their biological reality. It was only the psychiatric profession that chose to pathologize those conditions because they were different and difficult to understand at the time.
"Excuse me, Anon. Let's do a little history here. During the 1870's, during the Second Reich, "homosexuality" as a concept was created. Before that time, men had been having sex with men, and women with women. There were cultures that accepted it, others that didn't, and others that simply ignored it all. There was no medical pathologization to that point.
So the Germans pathologized same-sex relationships. That became the norm in Western society. The Germans took it to the extreme in a program and pogrom of annihilation. The rest of the West did not, but it still remained on the books in psychiatry as a pathology, and was treated as such."
I've heard you say this stuff before and must admit I've never heard about it. A couple questions, though. Was th
That's strange. Only half of my post took last night. Had a lot of sagcious comments but little time this morning. Maybe I'll repost this evening.
"Excuse me, Anon. Let's do a little history here. During the 1870's, during the Second Reich, "homosexuality" as a concept was created. Before that time, men had been having sex with men, and women with women. There were cultures that accepted it, others that didn't, and others that simply ignored it all. There was no medical pathologization to that point.
So the Germans pathologized same-sex relationships. That became the norm in Western society. The Germans took it to the extreme in a program and pogrom of annihilation. The rest of the West did not, but it still remained on the books in psychiatry as a pathology, and was treated as such."
My questions were: Was there any real concept of mental illness before this period? Which cultures tolerated homosexuality?
"What the APA did in 1973 was review all the literature, and conclude there never was any good reason to have labeled the state of being homosexual a disease in the first place. They acknowldged an error."
Do you know if there are any accounts of the process? I work with professional associations, read their minutes as part of my work and, from what I've seen, most of their decisions are heavily influenced by politics.
"So I believe one can clearly state that it is a fact that homosexuality is not a disease. 19th century Germans thought so, then the Nazis acted on it, but that is it. So much for your "facts," and the 1970's "opinion" overturning those "facts.""
Remember, the Nazis always preyed on the weak. They were Darwinists, committed to survival of the fittest for the betterment of mankind. Hopefully, their brand of evil won't return. But isn't actually illogical to say the identification of illness is uncharitable.
I wasn't claiming any facts. I'm just saying that science hasn't found any in this area either. Mental illness could be defined as irrational behavior that causes self-harm. Even the APA's statement, which you guys often excerpt, says gay teens have higher rates of suicidal tendencies, alcoholism, drug abuse, promiscuity, more partners when promiscuous and are more likely to have been sexually abused. It's hard to believe with this list of influences, they become perfectly stable a few years later as adults.
Nor is society's stigmatization the only factor that might causing these problems. Other stresses that might contribute are inability to form a spiritual life, risk of uncurable fatal illness and painful and unhygienic sexual practices. Also stressful is the unlikelihood of fulfillment since homosexuals are not really attracted to other homosexuals but to heterosexuals.
"I've said the same about intersex conditions, of which transsexualism is one kind. All the evidence points to their biological reality. It was only the psychiatric profession that chose to pathologize those conditions because they were different and difficult to understand at the time."
Don't know much about this but if it exists and is a biologically caused condition that can be treated, why is it incorrect to call it an illness?
You were cut off last night and I don't have much time right now, but my point about intersex is two-fold.
One, it is not a MENTAL illness.
Two, there are illnesses and there are conditions and there are variations. Calling something an illness is a value judgment in most eyes, as most people would like their illnesses to be cured. Conditions and variations (sometimes also called anomalies or birth defects) are differences which can simply be accepted or they can be resolved (to varying degrees), but they are not in need of a cure.
I agree with you, Dana, calling something an illness is a value judgment. We're still talking about that first point in the curriculum. You can't say science has proved something is not an illness because the determination of what constitutes an illness is a value judgment.
You have a reductio ad absurdum here. Science deals with facts which are then packaged into theories, which are tested with more facts. In these cases, we have biological facts about human sexuality. Wertsch mentioned some, I've mentioned others, there are more, and there would be much more if the Christian fundamentalists allowed more research to be done. As it is, most of the good work is being done in Europe.
Medicine then takes those facts as they apply to the human organism and characterize certain groups of facts as normal and abnormal. When I was growing up anything other than bread and butter white heterosexuality was classified as "abnormal psych." That was a value judgment. Reversing that is also a value judgment, one which the medical community is free to make. The facts either exist or do not; what we make of them can change.
Now, you obviously don't care for the medical community's judgment, deeming it "political." But as I've pointed out, characterization of homosexuality and transsexualism and intersex as deviant was also political. And the facts remain, and accumulate. There are no facts to justify claiming sexual variations as mental illnesses; on the contrary.
You don't have a medical case. You could try to make one, as others have, and they've become less and less common. But that is not what motivates you. You have admitted you are motivated by your religious beliefs. Again, that's your right, but in a secular society religious dogma should not be imposed on the medical magesterium nor on the secular public schools. You may not like it, but that's simply too bad. And the more you push, the more everyone else will push back. And, as the study Jim just blogged points out, you don't even have the support of your "own" children.
I just went back through Wertsch's presentation and I see him presenting evidence that he thinks makes a case for a biological cause of homosexuality but he doesn't mention if or how or why it should be classfied as pathological or normal.
Moreover all the studies he mentions, other than Kinsey, were conducted after these associations declared homosexuality normal. I've shown that most practitioners did not agree with the associations at the time. It's hard to see how any studies could be objective now, when the mere thought that homosexuality could be an illness is considered unmentionably hateful and bigoted. Studies that start off by deciding where they want to go aren't really scientifically valid. From the 90s on, unfortunately, academic freedom in this field is non-existent. The professions made their value judgment long before any objective research was available. They were merely trying to ride the wave of what they saw as an inevitable social trend. Same as the school board today.
"There are no facts to justify claiming sexual variations as mental illnesses; on the contrary."
Again, where's the contrary? There are reasons to believe homosexuality is a mental disorder. It impedes a normal human function, that of reproduction, leads to harm for the individual who participates in it and raises unreasonable expectations in those individuals. None of this has been disproven. On the contrary. You can agree with this without any religious rationale. Indeed, there have been atheist states in the past and they have usually considered homosexuality abnormal.
"And, as the study Jim just blogged points out, you don't even have the support of your "own" children."
That poll Jim put up dealt with theological positions. I only know the kids at my church, most of whom are more consistently orthodox and traditional in belief than I. But, in any case, I don't recall any questions about homosexuality so I don't know why you bring it up. You'd be surprised how little time we spend talking about this at our church. We're hardly the obsessed persecutors you make us out to be. If it comes up, it's usually along the lines of don't be homophobic, we need to bring the gospel to everyone.
There you go again, changing the subject. You keep implying that somehow science can determine what is normal and what isn't. It can, from a statistical standpoint, about which no one here has any disagreement. You are using "normal" in a value-laden sense, and your position is derived not from science or an understanding of the diversity of human life, but from your theological roots. That's fine, but you need to be clear about it and say you don't care what science shows.
I pointed out that many practitioners back in the 40s and 50s thought homosexuality and transsexualism were mental illnesses. I'm not denying that. I'm just stating that they did so for cultural and religious reasons. They ignored the scientific data that existed, and admittedly, much had been destroyed. They acted on assumptions about human nature and human sexuality that had no basis in the science. So recognizing that and changing the official position is perfectly valid. It has no impact on the facts, one way or the other. Your position is that you don't care about scientific facts; ours is that we do and they trump religious belief in the secular poublic schools. We also believe that everyone, regardless of their identity, deserves to be treated fairly and equally.
Homosexuality does not impair normal human functioning. Who are you to declare what is normal? Must everyone reproduce, or desire to reproduce, to be considered normal? (Not that gays don't reproduce a great deal anyway). The problems are a function of a hostile society; I know this from personal experience. If you take someone out of society, and condemn them to a life without family, without a profession, without a job, then, yes, they will develop mental distress. So would you in a similar circumstance.
Atheists agreeing with you? Sure. The main drive for the pathologization of sexual variance over the past 100 years has been Freudianism. That qualifies as "non-religious" in my book.
I'm glad your church is different. I know there are many that are, but they don't speak out so it is as if they didn't exist. That's a sad fact, but it's a fact, nonetheless.
It's also really silly, considering the real history, that you believe academia made its mind up in the 90s before there was any objective research. I can't speak now for the debate on orientation, but I can about sexual identity. I personally had no sense that societal acceptance of gender issues was possible, even probable, until 2000. The scientific research had proceeded under the radar in the 1990s as new molecular tools had been developed. That research spurred people like me to take the chance to become myself. In the 1990s even the gay community was generally ignorant of, or hostile to, trans issues. It's taken the efforts of many to bring about that change. And in spite of all the science, there are still bigots like Emeritus Professor Paul McHugh of Johns Hopkins, the poster boy for the Christian extremists, whose response to transsexualism is that it is mutilation and a mental illness. Why? Has he been able to cure anyone as a psychiatrist? No. Has he personally seen people who've transitioned who are still "mentally ill." No. As he explained to me, very scientifically, "I can't understand why a man would cut off his penis just so he can be with a woman as a lesbian." Now that's a scientific opinion for you.
To his credit, he ignored all the data about a brain-based gender identity until his colleague, Bill Reiner, was able to prove it existed a few years ago. So now he accepts that intersex persons have a sexual identity independent of their genitalia, or complete lack thereof. But he still considers me mentally ill. You will note that he has never published any of his musings on this topic in a medical journal.
Progress occurs slowly.
Post a Comment
<< Home