In today’s New York Times, an op-ed by Michael Hout and the Rev. Andrew M. Greeley finds that Christian evangelicals are “remarkably pluralistic in their political and social attitudes.” The authors, both sociologists, suggest evangelicals constitute a swing vote that won’t march in unanimity behind George W. Bush or the fundamentalists:
We are repeatedly told they form the president’s unshakeable electoral base. But in truth, this claim is vastly simplistic: the fashionable image of masses of white evangelical voters, stirred up by the tricks of Karl Rove and led by Bible-thumping clergymen, marching in lock step to deny rights to women and to gays, is hardly born out by the data.
It’s back-to-school season, and exgay Tim Wilkins is more than ready. He accuses tolerance and antiviolence advocates of using their silence during “Day of Silence” vigils to somehow silence antigay advocates. He calls gay organizations “militant”; imagines them to have “vast” resources without offering any financial stats to support the accusation; and labels “government public schools” as bastions of “pagan” belief where sexually confused students “are castigated if they fail to disclose their unwanted sexual feeling. All the while, impressionable teenagers are taught that homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality.” Again, Wilkins offers no examples to support his accusations.
Presbyterian exgay organization One By One seeks an executive director. It has not published a monthly newsletter since May 2004. They could simply be busy; Alan Chambers of Exodus has not blogged since May.
Pat Robertson’s 700 Club profiled exgay Andrew Comiskey on Aug. 25. (I hope to find time to say more about this later.)
Moderator’s note: This commenter used an obscene and fake e-mail address to spread DailyKos/Kitty Kelley rumors about Bush family immorality. Some of the rumors are reported to be lies by liberals seeking to combat the lies of the GOP convention. I’m not willing to let XGW be overtaken by warring liars of the left and right, nor am I willing to let anonymous commenters run amok here. Let’s keep the discussion on-topic and factual, please.
hmmmm… the build-up in the link you posted makes it sound like something from the National Enquirer or something equally slimey. I’d be interested to see if any of it is actually factually true, or if it is intended to be one of those ‘suggestive’ reads intended merely to cast doubt without offering proof — sorta like Pres. Bush, himself: “all hat, no cattle.” heck yeah, I pre-ordered it! 🙂
I went to Tim Wilkins’ weblog and read the piece referenced above. I also read his post concerning his observation that 100% of all homosexuals are physiologically heterosexual. He claims that no one can refute this notion he came up with and that the obvious logic of it all proves his claim. Does he know what the word “logic” means?
Um, is Wilkins serious?
All homosexuals are physiolically hetersexual – that is demonstrably false. The very systems he refers to in the male and female respond to the same gender when a 100% heterosexual would not – by definition that is a physiologic difference between homosexual/bisexual people and heterosexual ones.
The lengths these people will go to in order to justify their own prejudice – sheesh!