Tomorrow (Tuesday) Stephen Bennett’s guest will be Jeff Tooley of the United Methodist committee at the Institute of Religion and Democracy will explain how “gay activist groups are planning on ‘crashing’ the [White House Egg Roll]– and politicizing it – to bring attention to GLBT individuals and their families.”
Wednesday, in a first for Straight Talk Radio, Bennett’s guest will be Robyn Murphy, Soulforce’s media contact for the egg roll event. After SIXTY FIVE air dates for the first time Bennett’s show will have a guest who is friendly to gay and lesbian Americans. (And for that matter isn’t bat-shit crazy either.)
Update: XGW and commenter Rick could not locate any information on “Jeff Tooley,” but there is a Mark Tooley at the Institute of Religion and Democracy.
Tooley’s right: gay families are using the Easter Egg roll to let America see them as normal loving families that do the same things as opposite-sex families. And it does have a political aspect to it.
However, there is no “crashing”. The White House lawn belongs equally to opposite-sex families, same-sex families, ex-gay families, and single parents. To black families, white families, and families chuck full of assorted ethnicities. The White House is our collective home. And it is telling that Tooley thinks that showing up at the American family reunion that is our Easter Egg roll is crashing. He’s expelled gays from “the family” and is offended that we aren’t staying expelled.
It is not some political statement that Tooley objects to, none are planned. No one will be marching, waving signs, carrying bullhorns or in any way disrupting the event. They will be rolling easter eggs.
It is the very existance of gay families that get’s Tooley’s undies in a bunch. We have the audacity to say “yep, we exist”. We have the gall to show up for family events and say “here we are, a family”. We are just downright ornory enough to show ourselves honestly and not as he claims us to be.
Now I just know he’s going to complain that children don’t need to be exposed to sex and he shouldn’t have to tell his children about sodomy. To which I say: well, then, don’t bring it up. The gay families are there to roll eggs, not make speaches. Maybe Mr. Tooley should consider doing the same.
Well I guess he would have to balance his programming out a bit, considering his four day rampage against the existence of “homosexuals” wrapped up today. I profess to being an openminded conservative gay and even I had to turn off his diatribes. Check STR archives and listen to “Reaching the Homosexual for Jesus Christ” if you wish to be called a ‘child playing house’ or other insults of that variety. Let us see how he fairs against an opposing viewpoint for once.
That Easter egg roll is so much fun! when I was dancing with Ringling Bros, the circus is always in town for that event and the White House invites the clowns and dancers to be there to participate.
You won’t be able to tell the gay headed families from the other families.
Nobody is checking orientations at the gate. If he tries to initiate a boycott and encourage other families not to be there because of the presence of gay people, he’s really the one sending a hateful message.
Which is to ruin a child’s good time, and they’ll be told it’s because GAY people ruined it!
Wow…
See, the more normal and healthy a gay family looks, the more the Tooley’s of the world resent it.
Their true colors: we want gay people to be as isolated and weird as possible, otherwise we won’t know who they are and therefore unable to treat them badly.
Yeesh…
I look forward to the egg-roll broadcasts. Last week’s shows on “Reaching the homosexual for Christ” included the same unsubstantiated statistics we’ve discussed here before (and which SB refused to provide resources for when I asked) – e.g. “75% of gay men were sexually abused in their youth” (oh – this time he said ‘as many as 75%’ – does that make it OK?!)
SB is obviously not allowing persons to comment on the STR discussion board unless they tow the line, and I suspect only persons known to SB are allowed to register. I was refused, and I don’t think he would remember that I wrote to him 2 yrs. ago.) The list of ‘rules’ for comments continues to grow.
I thought it was interesting that SB lists his upcoming guest from the IRD as “Jeff Tooley”. The correct name is MARK Tooley. You’d think he could get the name of such an apparently important guest correct. I checked out the IRD website to see what Tooley had to say about the egg roll, and was glad to see that I could participate in a poll. BUT, the question was stated like this:
“Do you think Soulforce, Reconciling Ministries and Family Pride, among other homosexuality advocacy groups, are right to urge their supporters to attend the annual White House Easter egg roll in order to advertise the cause of “lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender” parents?”
The question itself assumes the parents and children are coming to advertise a cause instead of take their rightful place as families. Ugh.
Stephen as been taking some good moves in lately. I think if nothing else we should appluad him when he does well. I think it is great that he is allowing the truth to come to his radio program. You have to wonder if the radio station that hosts the show is forcing him to do this, but wither way. If we do not recognize and applaud him when he does something noble he will feel as though we are unpleasable. Such is not the case. Send him an email and let him know, you are happy that he is allowing the other side to speak.
We are talking about a guy who doesn’t allow comments on his blog, because they may oppose him or show him the truth. You need an FIB, CIA Security check to post on the STR web discussion board. For him to allow opposing views on his show is a big move and we should applaud this baby step towards stopping the hate speech.
Joe Brummer at January 30, 2006 08:27 PM
“For him to allow opposing views on his show is a big move and we should applaud this baby step towards stopping the hate speech.”
Let’s wait and see what actually gets broadcast first. As I understand it, his program is pre-taped. Stephen may well just play exerpts from Murphy followed by all the reasons she’s wrong, similar to a Rush Limbaugh rant. It may not be his allowing opposing views at all.
But if Bennett does allow opposing views and treats his guest with respect, I’ll gladly give him recognition.
I have it on very good sources that Murpy will be on the show, She is there to present the side of the Stroy for Soulforce. It isn’t just recordings of her, she will be there live. I know this for fact!
I also ask that you guys….do not listen to this show….don’t ive him the ratings…I promise you I will report back to you on this, and I hope to get an interview with Ms. Murphy after the experience with Stephen. Time will tell.
Rick said:
The question itself assumes the parents and children are coming to advertise a cause instead of take their rightful place as families. Ugh.
I’m sure some people in the beginning thought it would just be a cool thing to do but it’s definitely a cause now. I’m not assigning a negative or a positive to that, it’s just hard to avoid. I do hope they pull it off with the dignity with which it seems to have been planned, otherwise this could end up being a big, well reported black eye for gay family issues.
David
I’m more than willing to suspend judgment until after the show airs. Joe, my understanding is that even if Ms. Murphy is being interviewed ‘live’, the show itself is edited and broadcast at a later time.
Well, If by chance he turns this into another of his gay smear tactics, which is he so known for doing. I hope people will speak out against him. Contact the radio station and complain about the show. Sign the petition located on my blog. Speak up! Speak out!
We can’t just sit and listen to him, we need to speak out against injustice.
Hmmmm…. I listened in on the STR broadcast w/Mark Tooley (sorry, Joe, I couldn’t help myself – lol) and have a couple quick responses. Stephen and Irene certainly present the ‘debate’ here as an equal opportunity for IRD and Soulforce/Family Pride. Mark Tooley (whose name was corrected on the STR website) said what I expected him to say. I think there were legitimate questions raised about why Family Pride has urged secrecy about the event (so White House officials won’t find out – how silly/unrealistic is that?) Irene’s focus, though, was on how disturbing it would be for children to see women holding hands with other women or “men wearing dresses.” She seemed horrified that parents might actually have to answer questions about such things.
Robyn Murphy will be featured on the next two shows (Weds/Thurs). The Bennetts have a very folksy, kind way about their presentation, so I don’t expect them to skewer her outright. But I’d be surprised if the series intentionally leaves any question for the listeners that Murphy’s perspective could be legitimate.
For the Bennett’s this still marks an important move towards change, regardless how small. I am not expecting a miracle, but I can see change and that is more than I have seen in any of the religious hate speech against gays.
I find Irene’s comments about men in dresses inappropriate, but much more tame than her usual tone.
I have taken the petition off the blog for now, but it remains on my home page. I will remove it from there as well providing that I don’t listen to the show and wanna puke. As long as the Bennett’s are willing to come to a place where dialog can occurr, I support that. It is better than no dialog at all. I am even happier it is with Soulforce. I wish more ex-gays would follow this example.
If this all fails and it ends up being the same smear, I will beef up my efforts to bring the Bennetts the truth about the damage they do. I hope I don’t need to do that, but if I do, I hope you will all support that effort.
Joe said:
Contact the radio station and complain about the show.
I keep hearing people mention “the radio station”. As far as I know, STR is a podcast only. Has this changed? If not, let’s quit raising their stature, if only in the minds of XGW readers.
David
Joe said:
As long as the Bennett’s are willing to come to a place where dialog can occurr, I support that.
It’s a nice dream Joe, but I’m willing to bet that’s all it is in this case. One can alway hope.
David
That’s a good point, David, re: ‘radio show’ vs. ‘podcast.’ It was certainly promoted as a radio show when it began in October. The big scoop SB finally revealed after teasing for a while was that one of the most powerful radio stations in the country approached him about doing a show. I’ve just assumed it’s carried on various (mid-western, southern) conservative talk radio stations. Straight Talk Radio descibes itself this way: “a daily, half hour Conservative radio program broadcast Monday through Friday (also streaming on demand from the web.)” However, I see no reference on the site to actual stations that listeners can tune to. For all the clutter of self-promoting info on the SBMinistries site, there’s nothing there, either. I’d actually like to know what stations carry STR. Stephen, could you enlighten us on this or share a link?
Stephen seems to have some trouble with the truth. He’s good at subtle deception. I was curious one day and dug up the archives for his old web site “The Sign Source”. Here is an excerpt:
After deciding to leave school and later open his own art business, Stephen began designing for country star Crystal Gayle, and toured with her across the country. He also has done work of other superstars such as Michael Bolton, Cher, David Letterman, Bette Midler, Katharine Hepburn, Woody Allen, Randy Travis, Loretta Lynn, Dana Carvey and Diana Ross. [emphasis mine]
Now I know I’m picking nits here but he does have a pattern and I do have a point. Anyone reading this would rightly assume that he has done work for a number of very famous people (he paints portraits – not bad actually). However, on another page we find out that he simply painted those portraits from photographs, and on some he got autographs, but he wasn’t commissioned to do the work by those people; they are just props. The word “of” is the key, it lets him imply something while not quite lying about it.
Others at XGW know it isn’t my style to comment much on issues like this, but in Stephen’s case I think it’s important. He does the same thing when he casually mentions a large number of people calling him about certain issues (like leaving their wives because of BBM, when it wasn’t even released yet) in order to provide some credence to his comment of the moment. And in like manner, he makes it sound as though his show is being broadcast over real radio stations when instead it appears to be a podcast, as easily produced as the hundreds of thousands of others out there. Then there are all the former gay friends who supposedly died of AIDS – he has never once provided so much as a name or any of the kinds of details that would naturally go along with the recollections of such friendships. And apparently no one has seen a single photo of Stephen from “the gay old days”.
On and on it goes. In short, I think he is someone who finds it all to easy to lie about things, especially when it involves condemning the “evils of the homosexual lifestyle” where he feels so righteously justified to do so. I can respect someone who has character and the courage of their convictions even if we disagree strongly. But I am getting very tired of people playing around with other’s lives, starting a “ministry” as though it was another business out of his garage (which I firmly believe it is), and shaving the truth until it is no longer there. For Pete’s sake he has to practically bar the door of his forum to preserve that blissful kool aid atmosphere against the slightest dissenting view.
If I am wrong then I will be the first to sincerely apologize, but if Stephen wants to get personal enough to say that a gay couple are “playing house” then I think he owes us some explanations of these inconsistencies.
It occurs to me that through a couple of degrees of separation, I might have a link to Crystal Gayle. If I can, I’m going to ask her about Stephen. The truth has to be out there somewhere.
I apologize for the soap box, it’s just been one of those days.
David
David, I think your caution is well-founded, so don’t apologize :)It isn’t nit-picking to note that SB has a HABIT of saying things like “has done work of other superstars” rather than “has done work for other superstars”. Big difference. On that measure my 4 year old nephew has done work on The Wiggles.Or the addition of “up to 75%”, that his “radio broadcasts” are streamed from his kitchen table (?) etc etc etc. Added to the never-answered, always-claimed-by-never-verified questions about himself, his direct connection to the awful AFA/Wildmon… yes, I personally believe that a closer examination (which he does not allow) would prove Stephen Bennett to be a complete and utter fraud. But that would just my gay activist distortion of The Truth, right?My word of warning for any guest of such a person would be to consider what you will enable in the future, rather than what may or may not get said at the time.First up — in the future press release via Agape Press this will be presented as “proof” that Bennett is such a caring, sharing and respectable fellow that he even lowers himself to talk with gay activists. Got to love these confused children (otherwise known as gay adults) into submission of Him, remember.Next — any guest will in the future find their words cut and diced beyond any recognition, and applied, sometime/someway to something they were neither commenting on or possible even agree with. Even with one of their own; “they” were prepared to do that to Randy Thomas, and he was not happy about that fact (until the soothing balm of $ helped buy his silence, of course.)There’s an old expression….
In the case of Stephen Bennet and his anti-gay crowd, I’d suggest gaffer taping a spoon to the end of a 40ft barge pole.
David,
Don’t apologize for the soap box, I will give you one. Write this all down, and I will post it on my blof, provided that there hasnt
been a change. I haven’t heard today’s show, but I still hold that a change has happen. We must give Stephen the benefit of the doubt. We must leave room for change or it won’t happen.
Please give him a shot, He will never stop asking people to change for god, but at best he may stop his hate speech or tone it down greatly. If we have a shot at that, please give it a shot at happening. I realize you all think I just smoked a huge bong, but I didn’t and I am serious.
We cannot demand change from people like Stephen and hen critize them when they finally show any evidence of change. I know today’s show wasn’t perfect, but it is a major step….we can have more major steps if we work together with Stephen, not critize him. Please give this a try!
David: Please email me if you would like to write something about all this and post it. I will add it to “Replace the lies with Truth”. My email is on my site!
As for the comments about the station, I have ask before and will ask again that people contact the station manager and complain about the show STR. I ask you do the same. That canot hurt at this point. and may help to assure this change we see sticks around! The info about the station is here at this address…..
http://joebrummer.com/WordPress/?p=89
I would have made it a link but I do not know hoe to do that here…..
Just a quick note. Did anyone notice the very akward pauses between the interviewer and interviwee? Im worried that this entire schtick may just be heavy handed editing in a weak attempt to get their message out there. I wonder if SoulForce will be edited to come across as an extremist group that approves of polygamy as well.
I just listened to today’s show. In fact the headphone are still on my head.
It was not as bad as he has been in the past, but certainly the same untruths exist in his mantra.
Big Claims from todays show ( assuming I can read my own notes from the show)
1) First off: The opening of the show sounded like a commercial for the event. Very matter of fact and non-offensive. They read the email Soulforce sent out, as well as bits and pieces of the guests article about the eggroll.
2) The guest: His article if you haven’t read it is also matter of fact. If a pro-gay person read it they would want to go, if an anti-gay person read it they would just shake their heads.. (Not that offensive for a change)
you can read the article here.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten…6/596bqyrw.asp
3) They talked about SoulForce and Mel White. WHo he is and how he got started. This was a bit slanted as they felt it neccesary to point out “Mel left his wife and kids as he announced he was a homosexual” I don’t see where that point matters since many heterosexuals leave their wife and kids for any number of reasons and Stephen doesn’t point that out, but if a gay man does it, it is a greater sin? Sure, okay /sarcasm
4)Made a point of pointing out that SoulForce engages in civil disobedience. Made that sound like a bad thing by repeating it often ( and general tone). MLK and Gandhi both engaged in civil disobedience and it was noble. In this case Stephen and Irene made it sound rather”bad”. That is simply not the case, but I doubt their listeners will know or get that unless they are familiar with MLK or gandhi.
5) (feel like I am doing minutes of a meeting, I hate doing minutes, we are about midway through the show at this point for those of you wondering where we are) Irene talked about Robyn coming on the show. I will note that on the STR website Robyn is noted as a “Lesbian Minister” on the show I was glad to hear they referred to her as a “minister”. I think on a show like this such labels are used to degrade. I am happy to hear that label wasn’t used on the air. I would be happy if they took it off the site, but hey, I guess I am demanding.
6) I will note that at this point I noticed as a musician and a former sound engineer this sounded very scripted and edited from here on in the show. You can hear the chnge in th background noise. I will note that Mark was doing this by phone. Of course this is only my opinion and could be wrong.
7) At this point the Guest “Mark Tooley”, was asked by Stepehen what if the scenario was reversed and christians were doing this exact scenario, with Christian t-shirts, etc….. He replied by saying “There would be mass indignation” I cant’ agree with this. Christians have always been welcome at such an event just as they are. Gays and lesbians, unannounced as such as event, holding hands or being an openly gay family would be shunned from the lawn of the house their tax dollars pay to maintain.
8) (my favorite part, /sarcasm) Irene goes on next to say that she wouldn’t want to have to answer questions from her children as to why those two women are holding hands, or why those two men are holding hands, or “why that man is wearing a dress”. Okay shock value on Irene’s part, but that is fine. I don’t know that any men will be there in a dress. I think she had to get something in there about sterotypes or it wouldn’t be Straight Talk Radio. I would much prefer that they could do this show without all the old, inaccurate sterotypes. Sterotypes are based on untruths and breed hate. That is a widely known wisdom.
I will also add, how is this different than your kids asking why that other kid is in a wheel chair, or why is that kids wearing a beanie on his head, or why is that kids wearing a scarf on her head. (kids will phrase it different) Kids ask tough questions, parents should be prepared to answer those questions. What if one of the boys there had a doll in his hand, would that be a problem?
10) Mark Tooley spoke at this point on how children are “exposed” to homosexuality at younger ages these days. He called this event an exploitation and a stunt. This is more of the homos are shoving the sexuality down our throats stuff. More sterotypes and untruths.
11) Irene asked about what gays and lesbians mean when they say they want a place at the table. I am assuming she has not ever heard this old saying. Sad for her, I rather like it. Mark Tooley replied by saying that this is no longer about tolerance that gays and lesbians want approval of their “lifestyle” and that gays want to silence anyone who disagrees with their agenda.
12) In the finale, They talk about the Soulforce agenda, how gays are always trying to shock, push the envelope, and be edgy. Irene Bennett explained about Robyn being on the show tomorrow. Apparently they are making this a 3 day special. I am not sure what day 3 will be.
Overall, this show was far less offensive then previous shows. So if pieces of this made you angry, know that earlier shows would have cause you to have a siezure.
I will update you more later! Yes I know there is no #9. It was late and I lost track, too tired to fix it. Sorry! I will do better tomorrow.
Hugs, peace and love!
Robyn Murphy came across on today’s show as winsome, articulate, and noteably non-defensive. Stephen and Irene were the perfect hosts and the dialogue seemed to be a natural conversation rather than cut-and-pasted. I’ll be interested to see how things continue on tomorrow’s broadcast. I noted on the STR discussion board that Robyn Murphy agreed to be part of a theological panel discussing for a future show, so I’m guessing she must have felt fairly positive about the outcome.
One of the questions Robyn was asked was “Do you believe people can change from gay to straight” (or words to that affect). She responded by speaking about the Kinsey scale, differing degrees of gayness, etc. and suggested that people can change their behavior based on that. It was a good answer, but I thought SB played up the CHANGE part of her response rather than the BEHAVIOR, and the water got muddied.
I did like the conciliatory tone of today’s show — but also have huge trust issues because of SB’s record as described above by David and Grantdale.
The question doesn’t lie in whether or not gays and lesbians can change.
The question is, in a secular society, where religion and faith are protected as individual pursuits, and not bound by law to any degree of adherence, are gays and lesbians forced to be obligated to change.
This change they speak of is discussed as if homosexuality is a culture. A process similar to that of the religious choices a person makes.
That is, if it’s not also spoken of as an emotional disorder, addiction or moral failure of character.
This is what I mean by the schizophrenia around the anti gay definition of homosexuality itself.
Because THEIR definintions are so fractured, the real definition of homosexuality and how the current results figure in discrimination gets lost to them.
Forever, it’s been heterosexuals who have demanded to define gay people.
This has been inappropriate from the start. And it’s the mere fact that heterosexuals make up a political and social majority that these stereotypical definitions remain.
When I see gays and lesbians being criticized, silenced, isolated and forced or outright punished for all other conforming, just shy of the bedroom door, one SHOULD wonder at the irrationality of demanding that gay people BE straight, not just behave like straight people in everything else that really matters.
So I would have to ask, in what way does being homosexual, compromise and betray another human being?
That’s a HUMAN BEING, not what a human being thinks God is.
The answer is, it doesn’t.
But I doubt they’d be forthright about answering that way.
Well, I was very skeptical at first; however, I do believe that show was balanced and fair. Both sides got their respective messages out and corrected gross press filings. I am so glad Soulforce has such an articulate spokeswoman who deftly handled exgay questions with ease. The exgay couple has done a good show and were forced to check their rhetoric when reason was spoken.
Posted by: Rick at February 1, 2006 02:53 PM
Ditto to everything you said Rick. I have to say, I was utterly shocked by the substance and attitude of today’s show. I too am waiting to see if the other shoe will drop but as Joe said, one has to acknowledge a step in the right direction. Today’s show definitely seemed to be that at least. I will be listening tomorrow to find out how this concludes.
Credit where credit is due: kudos to Stephen Bennett for making what appears to be a sincere effort to change the tone of the discussion. And here is hoping that you will continue, realizing that one does not have to compromise one’s own beliefs to acknowledge another’s in a civil fashion.
We’ll be watching to see if it sticks!
David
Thanks for that Joe — saved me the trouble :)I don’t think you were strong enough on your point 8) though. Following Irene’s comments, Stephen Bennett jumped in agitated and said something that, when you think of it, is rather chilling:
Stephen made this statement not because “groups or individuals” were busting into their home and disrupting bible time, or even standing on a street corner with a bullhorn and screaming out sex ed. details for all and sundry.No. This was how SB responded to the idea that gay men and women were in public view. Irene had referred to “holding hands” and “public displays of affection and expression”. And being in public view may cause children to notice you.It is highly appropriate that Stephen made these comments not long after pounding out an advert for an anti-gay publication… “Closing the Closet”.Right… so it’s the closet. That’s where we belong…
There is a video store frequented by gay folks (as well as all kinds of other folks) in a strip mall.
One of my closest friends worked at a dry cleaners in the same mall.
Often her sons would meet her at the store before she closed up.
When her twin boys were six years old, they witnessed two men peck each other on the lips just outside the vid store.
At first, she wondered how she would explain that, but she said that God handled it for her.
Her boys said ‘oh, mommy look, those men love each other don’t they!’
So she said simply, ‘yes sweethearts, they do.’
End of issue.
Open displays of affection, mean and simply signal to children that there is love there, because children themselves are also part of those displays.
This is what we teach them and rightly so.
Children will not be bothered at all by the sight of simple displays of affection.
Gays and lesbians are parents too and equally concerned with what THEIR children witness as well.
But what the Bennetts and Bill O Reilly and Sean Hannity keep NOT saying is that THEY are bothered more than their children will be.
And they KNOW their children won’t be unless and until they TEACH their children to be bothered by these sightings.
And all these people with their own broadcast forums precisely in which to EXPLAIN everything as a full time job…totally set off my bullsh** meter when all of a sudden it comes to same gender displays of affection they don’t feel like explaining it to their young.
And let’s remember Larry Miller, owner of the Utah Jazz. He refuses to screen “Brokeback Mountain” in his cineplex, but the horrifically violent movie “Hostel” about the protracted torture of young travelers, gets to screen in the same complex.
Witnessing and becoming desensitized to violence, or witnessing and becoming used to same sex affection?
Which of these is really damaging to society’s young minds and hearts?
Would any of you like to take a cruise over to
http://www.quackwatch.org
It’s mostly about medical issues.
But I wonder if there isn’t a lot analyzed there that has some similarities to ex gay therapy or ministry.
Your thoughts?
Regan said:
But what the Bennetts and Bill O Reilly and Sean Hannity keep NOT saying is that THEY are bothered more than their children will be. And they KNOW their children won’t be unless and until they TEACH their children to be bothered by these sightings.
Bingo! I fully support parent’s rights to decide when and how their children will be exposed to complex sexual issues, but saying that has anything to do with acknowledging that two gay men (or women) love eachother is a Red Herring. Does acknowledging the same of a man and a women require a class in sex education?
David
I just saw on DL Fosters website the He’s gonna be a guest on “Straight Talk” tomorrow. (Feb 7)
I want to join in on complementing Bennett for presenting a resonable and non-reactionary episode of his show.
Today’s re-run
The fact the web discussion board is cloed for repair or whatever
The fact DL is the guest for tomorrow saddens me.
I am hoping these things are just bad image and that the truth is that he invited DL on the show to discuss DL’s hatefuol message. Somehow I think I am in dreamland. I just want to believe that Stephen has changed and the show will not be so hateful togats, but only time will tell. I am willing to give him a chance. I do believe that bother Stephen and DL are good people who are just victimsd of the untruth as Gandhi would have taught us.
I have put the petition about Stephen back online due to his closure of the web discussion Board (oppostion) and his replay of a very anti-gay episode where he has a mother on who is horrified her child is a lesbian when she was raised in such a christian home. This send the anti-gay messahe that gays cannot and are not christian which is just not true.
If you haven’t already and want to sign the petition, and tell Stephen how although his intentions are good he is hurting more people than he helps. Sign here!
http://www.petitiononline.com/StopSTR/petition.html
“I do believe that bother Stephen and DL are good people who are just victimsd of the untruth as Gandhi would have taught us.”
After the incredible nastiness that DL demonstrated here recently, I can’t think of him as “good people”. Regardless of one’s views about anything, there is never a need to be incivil, arrogant, vicious, or cruel. He was all of the above. I don’t care whether he’s gay, ex-gay, or asexual. I don’t care if he’s Christian, satanist, or athiest. What I do care is that he’s not a nice person.
Joe Brummer said:
I do believe that bother Stephen and DL are good people who are just victimsd of the untruth as Gandhi would have taught us.
I mean no disrespect, but may I humbly suggest that you take a break from Gandhi? People do make choices, and those who make bad ones are not all “victims of untruth”.
David
Thank you David.I was getting to same point, but would be less diplomatic.There are nasty, vile, violent, stupid, abusive and manipulative people in this world. Some of them are an act, but they harm people on their way to that Academy Award. They deserve roasting over a slow fire. Others need to be challenged, and exposed. One need not be polite to them.PS: you may have guessed, but neither of us will be nominated Polly Anna 2006… or 2007. And our “other cheek” will often not involve our face :)For Joe: good luck — really — but don’t be pissed with people who wont “get wth the program”. OK?
The two shows with Robyn Murphy were extremely well done and showed a side of Stephen Bennett we don’t normally see. We saw a gracious, tolerant approach to a woman who we can assume disagrees with the whole basis for SB’s ministry. We also heard touching stories of SB’s ongoing friendships with lesbian and gay men.
What does this mean? Does it mean that SB has changed and that a new spirit will characterize STR? If the answer is yes, then I will be among the first to acknowledge it.
What bothers me is not the immediate shift in programming back to the ‘same ole’ (that disturbing show with the unaccepting mother of a wonderful lesbian teacher and the showcasing of DL Foster.) What I found troubling was how easily Stephen and Irene engaged in genuinely-open-minded-sounding conversation with Robyn Murphy and shared how sad it is that people believe stereotypes about GLBT people and how unfortunate it is that people don’t listen to and respect one another. If they had said ‘we used to be like that, too; we have especially erred in presenting mis-information about GLBT persons and have engaged in the worst forms of stereotyping’ then I would be moved and at least partly convinced. But I didn’t hear that, and I really don’t expect to. The fact that they ‘said all the right things’, though, in their shows with Robyn makes me believe that they know exactly what they’re doing – how hurtful and wrong it is – and yet consciously continue to do so. And that kind of willful duplicity is not merely wrong – I believe it is genuinely evil.
“I do believe that bother Stephen and DL are good people who are just victimsd of the untruth as Gandhi would have taught us.
I will concede this applies to some (many, even) of those who are antigay. But I agree with Timothy, David, and grantdale on this one.
I’m always willing to go the extra mile to defend those who are vicimized by untruths. Usually my defense is against those who would bash all Christians with broad brushstrokes, which I find to be surprisingly controversial among many GLBT’s. But my defense stops at the leaders, those who are spreading the lies. Especially those who either maintain a willful ignorance or actively promote “facts” that they know to be false. Stephen and DL, in my opinion, fall into the latter category.
Rick,
I think you put that well and I agree. I am curious what you all would propose to bring these two into the light. Let people on a larger scale see them for what they are…”lying” daily.
I would be happyy make something happen, but what? I did the petition thing, you think it would be filled with signatures of people who are tired of being dehumanized by these people, but sadly it stopped at 358 signatures. I would have loved to have had thousands of signatures, but it didn’t happen.
How do we expose these guys for what that are, and stop more people from being hurt by them?
I think you put that well and I agree. I am curious what you all would propose to bring these two into the light. Let people on a larger scale see them for what they are…”lying” daily.
I think simply taking what they’re saying — especially when they claim that “studies” and “research” support what they’re saying — and going to the original source material and demonstrating that what they’re saying isn’t true. Show exactly how they’re either taking things out of context, or otherwise distorting what the research actually says.
I said “simply” but that glosses over the fact that this is extremely time-consuming work, and represents a commitment that is exceptionally difficult for most of us.
But I’ve added my own two cents to that effort with my new website. I know it’s barely a drop in the ocean, but I’m very happy so far with the google searches people are using to find it. It shows to me anyway that people really are interested in determining whether the DL’s and Bennets of the world are really telling the truth or not.
But the problem is a matter of scale. My tiny little yawp isn’t going to change a whole lot very quickly. That’s why I express my frustration sometimes that the larger gay advocacy groups aren’t doing this sort of thing. It’s not enough for us to whine about how “they” are lying. We need to prove it.
Well, I have been doing that on my site daily. I take Straight Talk Radio apart on a daily basis. I was doing that on his web discussion bard until he kicked me off. That is when I started a blog, where I try to refute the crazy claims and also keep myslef up in the seach engines.
I have also purchased Straighttalkradio.net and redirected it to my site to help with the search engine stuff.
If other people are interested in writing refutes of any of the claims of the ex-gay ministries, I am happy to let you post it on my site.
I wish these people needed to be licensed by the states as doing therapy. There should be laws that anyone doing therapy or counseling needs a license to do it. They slip by it when they say they are ministering….if that is what you want to call it.
I just hate the lies, it what feeds the culture of violence gays live in these days. Ya know, where people feel it is okay and justified to shoot up a gay bar.
Joe said:
I have also purchased Straighttalkradio.net and redirected it to my site to help with the search engine stuff.
I was about to say that might come across as deceptive but then I realized I have done the same thing 🙂 Maybe we are both wrong, I don’t know.
I think perhaps you should change how you measure your success. It is unlikely you are going to see immediate and substantial results that you can point to and say, “wow, he has changed”. Even this recent apparent turnabout at STR could very well not be as it seems. I’ve listened to those recent podcasts (it’s not a radio show folks) with Robyn Murphy and I’m detecting a hint of insincerity. Perhaps I am just jaded, or perhaps I am only too well acquainted with this kind of deception to be completely fooled. Only time will tell.
You are never going to be more than one piece of the puzzle that is the reply to this sort of thing. For what it’s worth, I suspect Jim’s advice is the best – just keep documenting the facts that illustrate any deception at STR. Let that become part of the record when someone searches on the subject. It will help but it may not be immediately apparent.
David
Posted by: Jim Burroway at February 7, 2006 01:48 PM
Jim I agree with your post and had come across this Jan 27th article in WorldNetDaily “Homosexuality, a public health disaster” but neglected to bring it up at exgaywatch as I perhaps erroneously assumed others were well aware of it. This merits refuting and I strongly suspect exgaywatch would do an excellent job. You’ll have to cut and paste this into your browser address line as I don’t know how to put an actual link in these posts. If someone is willing to explain that to me please email me at randi.schimnosky@sasktel.net
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48542
I love these artilces that say we have 500 partners etc….where on earth would we find the time for this and still be able to take over the schools, infultrate hollywood, and recruit enough children to get a toaster. No wonder we are all on meth and live in coffee houses. We can’t sleep with so much to do!
/sarcasm
Joe said:
I love these artilces that say we have 500 partners etc
There must be about 495 guys out there that owe me!
David
Randi — here you go 🙂Sexually transmitted diseasesNo source/s given. Note the claims are about male homosexuals. Female heterosexuals have higher rates than lesbians — so, being consistent, this proves the heterosexual lifestyle is a public danger. No?Risky behaviorsNo source/s given for a claim that every reputable study has found otherwise. Behaviour has altered markedly since the early 1980’s.PromiscuityOnly a small percentage of heteosexuals also have only a single sexual partner “throughout their lifetime”. Even heard of divorce and remarriage?Such studies rarely make any note (because they do not ask) if these men are 1) gay and in a committed relationship or 2) heterosexually married but sneaking off to parks/arcades etc and hooking up with a different man each time. Guess who has the highest # of “partners”…Domestic abuseNo source/s given, but what is “abuse” defined as? When you see rates that high you can be certain that “verbal abuse” (ie cussing at one another) has been included. On that definition, 50% to 100% of any relationships are “abusive”…The comparison of “married heterosexual” to “all gay relationships” causes self-selection for lower abuse relationships. (Durh, that’s why those two are married…) You must compare married heterosexual, to married homosexual. Or all heterosexual to all homosexual.Using the Dept. of Justice figures often quoted by anti-gay writers… the following may sound contradictory, but it’s actually not. It includes all relationships — married, cohabiting, boy/girlsfriends, exes.heterosexual men are the most ABUSIVE toward their partners, heterosexual women are the least.heterosexual women are the most ABUSED, heterosexual men are the least.
gay males make up 1.3% of cases. Even allowing for non-reporting this indicates the rate is lower than heterosexual couples.lesbians make up 1.6% of cases. So, about on par.I will publish the results at XGW, one day…Life spanThis study has updated, by me, at ExGayWatch :)You may read it here.
Thankyou grantdale, you are truly the masters at this sort of thing.
I am physically sick from listening to that STR podcast from today. I wouldn’t know where to begin. I do finally understand what a “Dominionist” is. I’m having a hard time believing that a real Christian would gloss over the fundamental problems with DL’s actions. Yet SB claims to have known him for “some time” and says he is the “real deal”. DL regularly hauls off and slams others in what a good Southern Baptist would call (at best) being “in the flesh” yet he calls that “going toe to toe” with the opposition. I can tell you right now, he rationalizes doing that because he considers those he treats that way – you and me – to be speaking for Satan. How convenient.
Apparently SB thinks of those here who listen to him as his “mission field”. He can’t conceive of anyone being gay and Christian. What arrogance – utter, complete, disgusting arrogance. If I don’t pray for him I’m going to hate him. Man I have to stop thinking about this for a while.
Joe, good luck man – you are wasting your time trying to talk directly to SB – just document the error. That’s the last one of his “shows” I will listen to. I only started because I wanted to know if his recent change of attitude was genuine.
David
While I can never give up on trying to talk with him, I am also ready to beef up my campaign. I just haven’t figured out my next move. I am considering a website aimed completely at straight talk radio and promoting that with a few press releases. Their needs to be a more public address of this.
I am also looking for radio stations that carry the show and their advertisers. If you have any ifo on this please send it to me.
Joe said:
I am also looking for radio stations that carry the show and their advertisers. If you have any ifo on this please send it to me.
I honestly don’t think it is carried (yet?) on any actual radio stations. He has a login protected section where presumably a station could get their own feed (probably just a higher quality file) but one would assume they would promote stations actually carrying the show heavily on the STR web site. I googled a bit but got no where except to find that there is another completely different and genuine radio show named Straight Talk. Let us know if you find out otherwise.
I might consider contributing some material to your effort if you still want it. I don’t have a lot of time available right now but for that I would certainly make an effort. You can reach me at reasonable@xemaps.com.
This whole “dominionist” thing is very weird. It seems to be entirely un-Christian and just an excuse to bully others. It certainly goes against everything I know about Jesus and His teachings to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”, “the meek shall inherit the earth” and a lot of very specific scripture on just who has dominion over this world. Then again, why let God’s Word get in the way of a good little heresy.
David
I was surprised that DL stated his dominionist views so clearly on the show. I guess it all makes sense to him, but listening from an outside point of view is truly frightening. He’s basically saying that since Christians hold correct beliefs about what is right and wrong and have been promised they will reign with Christ, the world is theirs for the taking. DL stated his dominionist views in the context of explaining his (anti-gay) political activism. There is no way to reasonably dialogue with people who believe they’re on a mission from God to subdue the earth.
I have done the breakdown of the show on my blog. I didn’t comment on some of the stuff you guys are talk about, but you are more than welcome to add your contrabutions.
I made sure to put a trackback to DL’s site on the post. Wanna make sure he knows what is being said. Want to make sure he reads how he is hurting people.
http://joebrummer.com/WordPress/?p=120
When Stephen Bennett interviewed Robyn Murphy, a lesbian pastor, we commended him for his reasoned and gentle approach to her. Some even wondered if this was evidence of a ‘new’ Stephen and a new era for STR. Anyone who has checked in with STR since then has seen that it’s back to ‘same ol’, with the usual list of guest ‘experts’ and heavy emphasis on anti-gay politics.
This week SB has expounded on the Romans 1 ‘clobber verses’ from Scripture. In today’s wrap-up, he could not possibly be more clear how he really feels about Robyn Murphy and others like her. The term ‘damnation’ was used repeatedly and there is no question that Robyn is bound for eternal torment in hell. No, he didn’t mention her by name, but he stated in extreme terms that the idea of being a ‘gay Christian’ is a fiction and one of the most ‘dangerous deceptions’. He’s welcome to that belief, but the conciliatory remarks from Feb. 1 fall flat in light of what he has said since. No surprise.
Interestingly, Stephen describes in great detail how he and his former partner attended church every Sunday and were involved in all kinds of good works (‘filthy rags in God’s sight’), even several mission trips to Appalachia while he identified as gay. It has frequently been stated here that SB has no past – no reports from anyone who actually knew Stephen when he was gay (other than Irene and ‘Cathy.’) Wouldn’t you think an openly gay man who actually went to church every Sunday with his male partner would be recalled by someone?? Maybe SB could provide the name of the church he attended and someone there could confirm his story – since no one has come forward on their own so far.
Considering that he’s one of the few to claim that he’s completely hetero now, and since his claims to date about his past are fairly high profile (include being a houseboy in Provincetown, a church member and missionary, etc.) none of which is confirmed by anyone at all, I’m tending to suspect an imaginary life.
But, at some point Stephen is going to have provided so much detail that we will be able to conclusively determine if his “testimony” is completely bogus or if it’s legit.