In the April 2005 issue of Exodus’ Impact political newsletter, organization president Alan Chambers defends his involvement of Exodus in political extremism by claiming that “the enemy” — homosexuals? Satan? — is encroaching upon “our freedom to minister.”
That may be only half-true — and to the extent it is true, it may be for reasons traceable to both gay and antigay activists.
Chambers writes (in boldface print):
our Canadian ministries are in danger of being shut down because simply providing an alternative to homosexuality is considered ‘hateful’ and ‘harmful’ to gay identified people in Canada. That was the result of hate crimes legislation that continued to be amended until it ended up that even a pastor reading a passage like I Corinthians 6:9-10 from the pulpit on a Sunday morning is punishable by fine or imprisonment.
Google searches by XGW indicate that at least 15 additional pages of Exodus’ media blog make the allegation (most recently last week), and three pages of the Exodus official web site make use of the claim. Several other recent Exodus newsletters also repeat the allegation, but Exodus never substantiates it.
If it can’t be documented, then is the threat real?
An article at ReligiousTolerance.org suggests that Exodus is greatly exaggerating the threat in Canada, while a recent op-ed by George Will suggests that the religious right has begun to damage its credibility with runaway claims of victimhood.
According to RT.org, a “notwithstanding” clause in Canada’s hate-speech law allows religiously motivated hate speech. The remainder of the law was amended, with the approval of the Queen, to cover any sexual orientation (including heterosexuality).
Sponsor Svend Robinson is quoted saying:
“There’s not an attorney general in the country anywhere at any level who would consent to the prosecution of an individual for quoting from the Bible. An attorney general who tried something like that would be run out of town on a rail.” He said that the Progressive Conservatives, New Democratic Party and Bloc Québécois members support the bill, but that the extreme right-wing Canadian Alliance does not. He said that the Alliance has “…opposed every equality bill that’s come before the House for gays and lesbians.”
RT.org refers to “two passages in the Criminal Code that specifically allow religious individuals to legally engage in hate propaganda against gays and lesbians. … Section 308 already contains a passage that protects a person from prosecution if their statements are relevant to any subject of public interest, and if, on reasonable grounds, the person believes them to be true.”
In perhaps the latest case that will measure the scope of this law, antigay Catholic bishop Fred Henry said in a January pastoral letter and newspaper column:
“Since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine the foundations of the family, the basis of society, then the State must use its coercive power to proscribe or curtail them in the interests of the common good.”
Two complaints against these comments have prompted an investigation by the Alberta Human Rights Commission.
From Canadian Press:
Stephen Lock, regional director of Egale Canada, a gay rights lobby group, said he doesn’t dispute that Henry has an obligation to represent the views of his church, including on same-sex marriage.
But Lock said lumping homosexuality in with things like pornography and prostitution is going too far.
“When anyone starts calling for the coercive power of the State to suppress or curtail any legal activity, that’s really oppressive to be saying stuff like that,” Lock said.
In other words, Rev. Henry is complaining about threatened limitations on his own freedom of speech resulting from his own efforts to eradicate the freedoms of others.
What Exodus calls “freedom of speech with regard to a Biblical view of human sexuality” is not at issue here. What seems to be at issue is the right of rival factions to defame and suppress one another.
Tongue in cheek: Perhaps what Canada really needs is a new law that will silence both gay activists and antigay/exgay activists.
Google searches by XGW indicate that at least 15 additional pages of Exodus’ media blog make the allegation (most recently last week), and three pages of the Exodus official web site make use of the claim.
I’m not sure why you object to Exodus Media Blog listing news stories as reference/reading items. Don’t you do the same thing here? Its very clear that Exodus didn’t write the stories, so why criticize them for posting them? Its really a mischaracterization of the media blog…intentional perhaps?
You proceed to reference Tolerance.org as if they are keepers of the flame for truth. In whose book? TR.org is just as subjective and biased as you claim the EMB is. So, why conjure up a conflict when it amounts to nothing but perspective?
If EMB wants to use stories from a conservative perspective, it doesnt make them wrong. But you seem to want them to be. If they are, the RT and all the other sources you cite to “justify” your positions are just as wrong. If substantiation is based on ONE person’s remarks (a point you make quite often), then MikeA you have an exceedingly long way to go to prove that your referring to RT.org and by extension Svend Robinson’s remarks as acceptable refutation of the EMB articles.
My suggestion: Be fair or be quiet.
RT.org is, indeed, biased in favor of tolerance and respect for a diversity of viewpoints. I don’t view them as a paragon of impartiality, but they do raise substantive, factual objections to the religious-right accusations against Canada.
I then noted that both gay and antigay activists in Canada are, in fact, seeking to use the government to silence one another — and I ridiculed both factions.
Sounds fair to me.
Recently the Sheaf a student newspaper fron U of Sakatchewan printed a cartoon of jesus having sex with a pig. This is very disgusting for ex-gays to see their Lord engaging in sinful activity from which Jesus just saved them Asan exgay I wonder if you understand the depth of hatred towards exgays in canada. What protection do we have? will the Sasketchewan Human Rights rule that the Sheaf commited a bigoted act. This actcausedme agreat deal of anguish.
Mark52, a cartoon of Jesus having sex with a pig has nothing directly to do with “exgays”. If that’s the best example you’ve got of Canadian hatred towards exgays…it ain’t much.
Contrast that to my home in Saskatchewan where I regularly hear comments like “that guys’s got breasts, I hate that faggot”.
Having breasts is a somewhat common condition for men especially these days when our weight is higher.Breast reduction is used to reduce the size. I really do not see the connection between breasts and gayness,are you saying more gays then nongays suffer from breast enlargement? Look as a exgay I do know that many do not believe that it is possible to be ex-gay how much more intolerence do I need to show you. Denying my experience as a exgay is intolerance and this intolerance of denying ex-gays experience is almost universal in some quarters. thanks mark
Mark,
You say that you were disgusted by seeing your Lord engaging in sinful activity from which Jesus just saved you, having sex with a pig. Since you’ve just been saved from having sex with pigs, I can certainly see how watching Jesus have sex with a pig would be disconcerting.
Let me congratulate you. I’m sure you are much happier now that your are no longer a pig-lover.
Incidentally, the same laws that protect gay people are written so that they also protect heterosexuals, ex-gays, re-gays, etc. (however I doubt they protect pig-loving so you be careful).
Mark,
The problem with that example was that a cartoon of Jesus having sex with a pig is (and I guess should be)offensive to Christians, but not specifically ex-gays.
Also, I don’t think bringing a connection between male breasts and homosexuality was the point. Randi was trying to say that intolerance towards gay people still exists in some places.
I was a gay not a individual who engaged in beastality.
Yes and by the comments above intolerance towards ex-gays as well.
Ex gay not ex beastality.
Mark, who specifically has expressed intolerance toward exgays or denied your experience? And how specifically did they do so?
Posted by: mark52 at March 25, 2006 05:01 PM
“Look as a exgay I do know that many do not believe that it is possible to be ex-gay how much more intolerence do I need to show you. Denying my experience as a exgay is intolerance and this intolerance of denying ex-gays experience is almost universal in some quarters.”
People doubting the success of a process that is being actively supported as a solution for others and has at best a miniscule success rate is not intolerance, its pragmatism.
To quote our president:
“Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again” — George W. Bush.
Mark52, no I’m saying I have breasts because I take female hormone therapy. The people in my community first knew me as man and now that I have breasts and am obviously feminizing they assume (and correctly so) its because I’m physically attracted to men and they hate me for that. Not believing you have changed same sex attractions into opposite sex attractions is not intolerance in that no one is trying to control your life in a way you don’t want. Contrast that with “exgays” who, to the best of my knowledge, all want to prevent people from having loving same sex marriages, protection from discrimination, and so on.
Thanks,I hope I did not sound harsh, the reason I responded about breasts is that I did have a breast reduction but because I was overweight. Sorry,ofcourse you are only wanting a happy relationship. thank you mark
Thankyou, Mark52
Mark52 — you haven’t seen that cartoon, have you?It wasn’t a slam on Christianity per se, but it was a very crude undergrad attempt to illustrate the grotesque intimacy between right-wing christians leaders and greed. The pig was, of course, that well known capitalist pig. The sex act was, according to a former President, not actually sex. The cartoon failed as a cartoon, least of all because “the point” was completely lost.Here’s the first site that popped up that carries it. (don’t, people, complain if you will be offended but decide to click on the link anyway.)You, and others, have every right to consider the cartoon offensive; for any number of reasons.But I see no evidence that you are being persecuted because it exists.And are you seriously suggesting that straight people are not tolerated, in Canada, or anywhere else??? Because that is what an exgay is — 100% heterosexual, correct?That should give you a clue to what is intolerable about the political exgay movement, or those people who make testimonies about themself that they know will mislead people.It’s not heterosexuals that bother “us”. You’re perfectly free to be one. Knock yourself out. Last I heard, it’s not a crime to be heterosexual anywhere in the World. You’re also perfectly free to be as celibate as you want to be — you’ll get no arguments here about that.Rather: it’s the deceipt behind the very invention and promotion of “exgay” by religious conservatives that bothers us, and the way the dishonesty is used to attack ourselves.
Grantdale,yes I did see the cartoon,but this will be my last reply as I am unfamiliar with the ex-gay political movement so I cannot respond in a intelligent manner about them. Bye,Mark
Grantdale,
I think I’m beginning to realize that regardless of claims made by their leaders, ex-gays don’t see themselves as heterosexual. They aren’t idiots and they know that they are still attracted to the same sex and not the opposite sex (or at least the vast majority realizes this).
In some ways they probably are subject to more discrimination. After all, the heteros see them as gay and treat them as such, while the gay community isn’t going to bat to protect them.
If I get fired because my boss thinks I’m gay, I can get Lamda Legal or the ACLU to sue. But who does the ex-gay person turn to if they’re fired for being a little light in the loafers? The homophobes don’t care that he no longer has sex (or tries not to) – they’re still going to fire his butt.
The ex-gay distrusts the “homosexual lifestyle” so he’s not calling Lamda, and the holy warriors at Liberty aren’t going to defend him for being fired for appearing gay – they support firing gay people.
Then consider, from reading the ex-gay bloggers, it seems that they can’t tell the good folks at church about their struggles because they’d be outcast. Yet they also can’t tell gay friends either. And the secular folk look at them like they’re nuts when they say that they are trying to not be gay because of their religion. And we all know that Exodus isn’t going to be there for them… not unless they’re testifying to legislators trying to pass anti-gay laws.
So I can feel a little bad for folks like Mark52 (though that didn’t seem to stop me from mocking him a little – sorry, Mark52).
Mark,Should you wish, you are more than welcome to continue here at ExGayWatch and learn.And Timothy — yep, we know. And so do they, mostly. Hence the the deception around permitting the “public perception” to continue. Still waiting for the day when exgays come out and, against the wishes of their leaders, take out a full page advert or a billboard and make the reality clear to those who think going exgay turns you into a heterosexual.But, all that’s nothing new for you either 🙂
grantdale said:
It wasn’t a slam on Christianity per se, but it was a very crude undergrad attempt to illustrate the grotesque intimacy between right-wing christians leaders and greed.
Speaking for myself (who else), I certainly understand why someone would consider this type of thing offensive. As a Christian, Christ is very precious to me. I guess one with a different (or no) faith might imagine their mother (or other person they hold dear) in place of Christ and get a general idea of how it might be offensive. The intention or message of the cartoon is really irrelevant at that point. I’m not saying that someone doesn’t have the right to create it, just that it hurts me just like any number of things another might say or do could hurt me. In fact, I don’t think I fully understood the objection to the Dutch cartoons until just now – although the reaction to them was certainly wrong as well.
Posted by: Timothy Kincaid at March 27, 2006 10:34 PM
I hadn’t really considered the ex-gay dilemma in quite that way. Seems even more depressing than I thought – sad really. Combine the lack of a social network to share that struggle with the enormous energy and force of will involved in redirecting something so fundamental as one’s sex drive and you get a real picture of bondage.
David