Here is the latest from Focus on the Family. I can agree with the idea that throwing a party does not have to be subsidized by taxpayers. I just wonder whether taxpayers foot-the-bill for other groups? If so, this is unjust in that it targets a single group of employees at the Justice Dept. to be treated differently than other groups. What does scripture say in Micah, “…what does the Lord require of you, of man, but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.” Anyway, I get a kick out of the glee expressed by prohibitionists who act unjustly, where have little mercy, and although they think they walk humbly, are quite full of self-righteous pride. Here is the article:

Justice Department Cancels 'Gay Pride' Event
By David Brody, Washington, D.C., correspondent
SUMMARY: There will be no "Gay Pride" celebration this
year at the Justice Department in Washington. Homosexual
activists are miffed.
The U.S. Department of Justice has decided that homosexual
employees this year may not hold their annual "Gay Pride"
event, thus nixing the 6-year-old observance.
"Gay Pride" at Justice goes back to the Clinton years,
when the liberal president proclaimed the first official
"Gay Pride" month. That set the tone, but didn't set the
event "in stone." This year, President Bush did not
formally recognize "Gay Pride" month, so Justice
Department officials said the party's off.
David Smith, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign
(HRC), the leading homosexual activist group in the
country, said you can be sure HRC will cause an uproar.
"There's no recourse except to speak out about it," Smith
said. "It's surprising to us that the agency responsible
for protecting the civil rights of all Americans is
actually singling out one specific group for unequal
treatment."
But conservatives say that is not the issue.
"The fundamental issue here is not saying that people
can't have a party or have an event, but they can't do it
on the taxpayer's dime," said Jesse Binnall, with Public
Advocate, a group that lobbies hard on pro-family issues.
While there may have been times in the past when the Bush
administration has given in to the gay lobby, Binnall said
hopefully that will begin to change.
"We are absolutely thrilled that it looks like this is a
sign of better things to come -- that they're finally
going to start taking a stand against the radical
homosexual lobby and those that want to attack the
American family, instead of standing up for it," Binnall
said.
Repeated calls to the Justice Department were not
returned.
Homosexual groups say this is the first time that a
federal agency has blocked one of their "Gay Pride"
events.
Last year, conservatives were the ones complaining. During
"Gay Pride" month in 2002, the second-ranking official at
the Justice Department, Deputy Attorney General Larry
Thompson, spoke at the "Gay Pride" event before about 150
people. Conservative groups complained loudly about the
involvement.
TAKE ACTION/FOR MORE INFORMATION: Please take a moment to
thank Attorney General John Ashcroft for refusing to allow
taxpayer dollars to be used to celebrate "Gay Pride" month
at the U.S. Justice Department. Refusing to host a "Gay
Pride" takes courage, and Attorney General Ashcroft needs
to be encouraged that he did the right thing.
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Send an e-mail via our Legislative Action Center:
http://capwiz.com/fof/dbq/officials/agencies/?id=4180&dir=fof&command=depresult&submit.x=17&submit.y=8
We suggest the following resource about homosexuality:
"Straight Answers: Exposing the Myths and Facts About
Homosexuality," by Mike Haley:
http://www.family.org/resources/itempg.cfm?itemid=1248&refcd=CE03FCZL&tvar=no
comments? e-mail me

Test. Switching to a new host…
comments? e-mail me

I came across this from St. Stephen’s Musings, a weblog from a guy named Karl who maintains a great weblog on Eastern Christianity (Orthodoxy). Being that Anglicanism is of the liturgical tradition, although a hybrid of Western Roman and Protestant expressions, the following can also be said – at least for me at this point.
Not Perfect but More Whole
“A liturgical Church has an advantage over one where worship is relatively spontaneous, in that people powered by religious emotion simply run out of steam. Where there is a Liturgy, you show up each week and merge into that stream, and allow the prayers to shape you. But where the test of successful worship is how much you felt moved, there’s always performance anxiety; even the audience has to perform.”
“I had been a Christian about ten years when I noticed to my dismay that my spiritual feelings were changing; the experience was growing quieter, less exciting. I feared that I was losing my faith…Then I came to sense that my faith had undergone a shift in location. It had moved deep inside and was glowing there like a little oil lamp; if I was swept away with emotionally noisy worship, it might tip and sputter. Silence and attentiveness were now key.” Frederica Mathewes-Green, “At the Corner of East and Now” (pg 170-171)
comments? e-mail me

I really do need to learn to write! It is one thing to scribble stuff down for myself, but another thing entirely when others read what I write.
comments? e-mail me

It is personally revealing when I go back and look at past posts. While I certainly don’t consider myself focused on gay issues much at all, other than for general reference, I have been making a whole heck of a lot of posts regarding the gay vs. ex-gay issue, and concerning the Christian Right’s anti-gay prohibitionist agenda. So, what is going on inside of me that causes so much attention and effort being put into this. I’ve been thinking and reading about this stuff for years, but not much else, aside from the personal herculean effort in reconciling my Christian faith and my orientation. I have a stake in this, of course, but I think it revolves more around being Christian than being gay. I am always and foremost a follower of Jesus Christ; being gay is just a characteristic (being, not behavior!). Is there something to this that will be reflected in my future?
comments? e-mail me

If you want to see the face of the Christian Religious Right regarding homosexuality in American life, the politicized anti-gay prohibitionist movement, then read this from Robert Knight and Concern Women for America.
comments? e-mail me

I came across this ad from P-FOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-gays) this morning.



It seems a fair and simple request that other people respect their decision to “chose to go from gay to straight.”
A couple comments:
First, I don’t know of anyone personally or anyone speaking publicly who is trying to deny anyone’s right to attempt a change or to participate in an ex-gay organization. Are some actually attempting to force people not to attempt a change or to participate in an ex-gay organization? P-FOX doesn’t want simply toleration for those wishing to change, they want respect. Ironic, isn’t it?
For the Religious Right and the politicized ex-gay movement, however, the request is not about simply accommodating and respecting ex-gays and their claims, but really to demanding that ex-gay ideology be the only option – no exceptions! They advocate for laws and social policies that do not respect gay people’s equal rights under the law. Heck, if they had their way, there would be no toleration for homosexuality anywhere in society. If they want respect and toleration, they must give respect and toleration, but they will not because to do so will violate their particular understanding of theology, and their theological dogma trumps anything! As a minority, the politicized ex-gay movement demands respect, but they will not accord the same to other minorities.
The second concern I have, which is not new by any means, is the claim by Chris that he simply “chose” to change from “gay to straight.” We all know that simply does not happen. Even honest ex-gay ministries publicly state that does not happen. Chris, if he is emotionally and mentally healthy, can certainly choose to change from being sexually active to not being sexually active, which of course is the claim of change from homosexuality to heterosexuality made by ex-gay ideology.
They also advocate that anyone wanting to change should not self-identify as being homosexual – as one thinks, so shall he be. In my twenties, if I received a call from a polling organization asking me whether I was gay or not, I would have said, “No!” I would have said “no” not because I no longer had homosexual feelings or had developed heterosexual feelings, but because I believed that God originally created me heterosexual and as I claimed heterosexuality as my self-identity, then heterosexual I would be. It was the idea of “things hoped for but yet not come.” There was no inner-conflict in admitting to my continued homosexual feelings and self-identifying as a heterosexual. I had faith in what I truly thought I was – straight – and the gay feelings were just residual effects of the original deception that I was homosexual. Of course, I could not sustain this way of thinking for very long, and neither can most ex-gay people. I wonder how long it will be before Chris has to admit, to God if no one else, that he cannot change the innate feelings going on within him. If he is constitutionally gay, he will have to admit that he cannot change his orientation, although he can certainly choose to be in a relationship or not or whether to engage in sex. He can choose to act like a heterosexual, but again we know that simply acting like one does not make us one.
I respect the intense struggle people go through trying to reconcile their orientation and their relationship with God. I would have much more respect for ex-gay organizations if their public face were as honest as their private face! Of course, that is the call of Christ to us all as we remove our masks and receive His freedom. They won’t do it, however. There is too much pain and failure. The face of Chris with his implied promise is compelling, but there is so much more involved.
comments? e-mail me

Here is a great article by Rederick Turner from Tech Central Station: The Liberal Trademark. I came across the article from a recent Andrew Sullivan post.
comments? e-mail me

Not that I support the Christian Religious Right in much of their political agenda, but there is also a Christian Religious Left that must be acknowledged. I do not support much of the Religious Left’s political agenda, either. Both the R.L. and the R.R. infuse their political goals with their theological or theocratic beliefs. While I support both sides in their attempts to express their beliefs and concerns in the political arena, I also know that politics coopts religion and not the other way around. Power tends to corrupt… Here is a news item from the Episcopal News Service:

Church officials meeting in Geneva reject legitimacy of G-8 summit
(ENI) Church officials and protestors who met during the summit of the Group of Eight nations in Evian, France, which ended on June 3, rejected the legitimacy of the grouping of the most industrialized nations, also known as the G-8.
"We see the G-8 as an illegitimate group because they were not elected by anybody to rule the world," said Rogate Mshana, economy and justice program executive for the World Council of Churches (WCC), at the Ecumenical Centre in Geneva, about 25 miles from the summit.
"On whose behalf are they speaking?" Mshana said at a meeting on Monday hosted by the general secretaries of four world church bodies headquartered in the Ecumenical Centre--the WCC, the Lutheran World Federation, the Conference of European Churches and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches.

Here is the Religious Left. They claim the meeting is illegitimate because the leaders were not elected to rule the world. Well, except for possibly Russia, all the leaders of the eight nations were duly and legitimately elected! Why does the WCC support the United Nations, since none of the representatives at the UN (the ambassadors) were elected? They were appointed by leaders of individual nations, whether the leaders were freely elected or whether the leaders are despotic dictators, yet the WCC is a big supporter of the UN. It can be argued that the very reason that these eight national leaders meeting together to coordinate world policy IS legitimate is because they were elected in a democratic political system! It is not an illegitimacy of structure, it is a perception of illegitimacy because of political and economic positions the Religious Left disagrees with. Remember, the Religious Left has just as much of an agenda and theological leanings as do those of the Religious Right (that the R.L. has a more tolerant disposition towards diverse beliefs is a theological leaning, although hypocritical because they do not tolerate conservatives at all!). If the G-8 concluded with policies supported by the Religious Left, they would be all over them with praise and support!
Okay, the next question: “On whose behalf are they speaking?” A legitimate question, I do believe. The implication is that they only speak for corrupt international corporate interests that wish to rape world society and destroy the earth. They may simply be speaking for the interests of the people of the individual eight nations. The fact is, if the people of the individual nations do not support what their leaders are doing at G-8 meetings, they can vote their leaders out of office. If the WCC can persuade the voting interests of the individual nations to install leaders who will champion their social and political policies, more power to them. They have not succeeded in doing so at this point.
I do not blame or hold in condescension those who champion and advocate for their political, theological, or economic positions. I support the WCC’s right to protest and to attempt to cause change even if I do not believe in some of their beliefs or positions. I do resent, however, that those who hold liberal positions feel justified in deriding those with conservative positions – it is hypocritical for those who espouse liberal beliefs of inclusion and toleration to do so. They act just like the Religious Right, except that the R.R. never claims to be accommodating to everyone.
comments? e-mail me