It is no surprise to discover that the church attended by McCain VP candidate Sarah Palin is a supporter of anti-gay groups and ex-gay programs.
A Time Magazine article about the Wasilla Bible Church this week revealed:
The only sign of culture warring in the whole [service] is an insert in the day’s program advertising an upcoming Focus on the Family conference on homosexuality in Anchorage called Love Won Out. The group promises to teach attendees how to “respond to misinformation in our culture” and help them “overcome” homosexuality.
Last time Ex-Gay Watch checked, Love Won Out was still in the business of doublespeak on the issue of orientation change.
The last time that I checked the Clinton’s declared themselves to Southern Baptists, who are far from gay friendly.
While we are certainly interested in Ms Palin’s concern towards us, I am more concerned with the idea that she was associated with a seccessionist party in Alaska. Sorta screws up Country First.
Swampfox, the last time I checked, neither Clinton is running for president in this election. So what is the point of bringing them up?
Ms. Palin never belonged to the Alaska Independence Party (whose members do not all favor secession from the United States), but she did record a videotaped greeting for one of their conventions.
The Catholic Church is a supporter of many anti-gay programs and policies, so why not get on all the Catholics in Congress, including many liberal Democrats like Biden, Kerry and Pelosi, who belong?
Perhaps Ms. Palin can be asked her own opinion on this issue.
After all the baseless and unhinged attacks against Palin lately, this here is a legitimate question to ask her. No doubt it will be asked by the press or at the Veep debate. I doubt there is much to this though.
I would have to agree, John. A mention in the Sunday program of a Love Won Out conference does not necessarily indicate strong support, even by that congregation, much less Palin. It’s unfortunate, but FOTF has done an effective job over the last couple of decades so that many churches consider anything they do as worthy of mention. It would be different if, say, they were sponsoring a LWO event themselves.
However, the question of support for ex-gay and reparative organizations seems like a legitimate one to ask Palin in the proper venue. I would like to know.
David, I wonder if the church that Gov Sarah Palin attended is really quite as strong a supporter of ex-gay ministry efforts as maybe folks like WayneBensen WANT us all to believe in the gay community.
The church I attend with my partner of 14 yrs and our two young adopted sons is Catholic. The parish bullentin ran an ad for a carwash/bookstore/coffee shop that’s owned by a prominent gay non-parishioner here in Ann Arbor and the parish priest told me he was approached by Sunday Mass visitors asking him to remove the ad… he told them to buy an ad for their own preferred carwash store, bookstore or coffee shop and let the marketplace decide. He got no ad. He smiles when he tells that story.
Placing ads is hardly an “endorsement” of ex-gay ministries as WayneBensen and other fearful gayDemocrats would have us believe… no, need us to believe. I think this church, like many mainstream churches, is more interested in helping gay parishioners heal their souls and come into God’s love –whether or not they “recant” being gay (which isn’t possible). Why good-meaning gays would deny that spiritual solace to a gay brethern is a conundrum to me.
And I don’t mean “heal their souls” as in deprogramming or other silly inversions of reality. I mean it in the truest form of finding peace and balance inside their hearts, minds, souls and –yes, loins. It isn’t a crime or a sin to be gay. To argue that this church is, as WayneBensen does is demeaning of the effort to focus attention on those ill-operating churches that do think it a crime or a sin.
Sorry for the length. I enjoy reading your collobrative efforts here and the depth of thought this blog achieves.
I think Palin should address the question, however I don’t see much significance in the mention of LWO in the church bulletin or whatever it was. To a large degree (though I have noticed this is changing over the last few years), anything coming from Dobson is considered golden by a majority of protestant, evangelical congregations.
The mention of LWO could be as simple as a piece of mail from FOTF to the church, intercepted by the secretary who gladly used it as filler for the Sunday bulletin or dutifully passed it on in a mail out. I think it’s sloppy, and ill-advised, but that’s how it works in every church I have been associated with.
I’ve heard some say that Palin’s church is hosting LWO and obviously that is false. As much as we may deal with ex-gay issues here, many congregations are still not informed at all, certainly not on the troublesome details of Exodus’ history and that of those they espouse. But I do think we deserve a direct answer from Palin on this matter, even if it is a simple “I don’t know.”
No matter what her understanding or belief about gays and the ex-gay equation, I’m not sure it will make much difference either way, except by example. There is some value to having even a VP exhibit views which defend and/or identify with a vulnerable minority.
I don’t think at this point we have enough information to assign this intent to the congregation either. It may be so, but we don’t know just as we don’t really know if they believe gays can change. As to “spiritual solice,” no one here is denying anyone anything, but what many people get from Exodus and similar ministries is far from solace, and no individual can make an informed decision without all the facts.
Since Exodus tends to hide from those facts and obfuscate what they really do, we try to fill in the gaps. The choice is up to the individual. I suspect the only ones who deny choice are Exodus themselves, by inferring that one must follow their path to please God (holiness, created heterosexual potential, etc). For the faithful, that amounts to no choice at all. We use no such coercion, we just want the facts.