A MassNews Exclusive
In-Depth Feature Story 
Click Here to Order Printed Copies 
Article Creates a “Firestorm of Controversy!”
Homosexual Newspaper Profiles MassNews Publisher
- Bay Windows
Radio Station WBUR "Sets-Me-Up"
South Natick Resident Decries MassNews Homosexual Mailing - MetroWest Daily News
An Intelligent Discussion About Homosexuality
Will Massachusetts Listen?

By J. Edward Pawlick
Publisher, The Massachusetts News

We're teaching a lifestyle in the schools of Massachusetts which is deadlier than cigarettes. 

In homosexuality, 30% of our young men will be dead within ten years or they will be HIV positive. 

And yet, a serious discussion is not allowed. 

Hate is spewing forth from a small group of homosexual militant "activists" in an attempt to stop any conversation except their agenda.    They dominate The Boston Globe and the other media which strive so hard to be "inclusive." 
We also see hate from uninformed, judgmental persons.  But mostly we see apathy from an unknowing citizenry. 

Part I
.  Massachusetts' Policy Is Damaging Our Children 
2.   What Is Being Taught in Massachusetts Schools?
3.   Is the Traditional Response An Intelligent One?
   The Boston Globe Grovels 
   An Intelligent Discussion Is NecessaryPart II
   On A Spiritual Level
   Homosexual Activists Are Spreading Hate
   No Need To Believe the Bible 

Part I
1.  Massachusetts' Policy on Homosexuality 
Is Damaging Our Children
We're teaching an addictive  lifestyle in Massachusetts schools where: 

* 30% of homosexual men will be dead before age 30 or they will be HIV positive.[1] 

* If they survive the age of 30 and never get AIDS and have a stable relationship, they'll still live 30 years less than married men.[2] 

This lifestyle is being taught by us, especially to the most vulnerable of our boys.  These children  are the most vulnerable because of many factors, often including a poor relationship with their father.  Instead of helping these children when they need it most, we send them off with militant, homosexual activists, telling them, "Go!  Enjoy!  You were born to be a homosexual!" 

We are teaching this lifestyle because of two myths, which we will discuss briefly and then go into more detail later. 

MYTH #1    There is a "gay gene". 

This myth was first announced to the world on July 15, 1993.  The Wall Street Journal's headline was, "Research Points Toward a Gay Gene."[3]  The New York Times' headline was, "Report Suggests Homosexuality Is Linked to Genes."[4] 

Ever since that day in 1993, anyone in Massachusetts who suggests that homosexuality is not genetic is automatically known as a "homophobe." 

However, a panel at the American Society of Human Genetics came to the following conclusion at its meeting on October 30, 1996:  "No conclusions can be drawn from studies relating genetics to sexual orientation." 

In other words, there is no evidence of a genetic link. 

This was reported by a Massachusetts foundation that is run by the Kennedy family, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver Center,[5]  which is located at Route 128 on Trapelo Road in Waltham, Massachusetts. 

The Shriver Center also reported that the Chairman of the panel of geneticists said we have only "fragmentary and sometimes contradictory findings," and "several panelists underscored how little we know."  It continued: 

"At the very least, current themes are politically charged.  Some wish to believe that homosexuals are born, not made.  They see genetics as removing social stigma and possibly entitling homosexuals to protection under genetic privacy or disability laws...." 

Even The New York Times reported this same information in its original story in 1993, but everyone saw only the headlines.  It cautioned in the story against "taking it to mean anything so simplistic as that the ‘gay gene' had been found." 

At the very least, we must agree that a person can argue intelligently that there is not a "gay gene."  It would be extreme intolerance to label such a person as homophobic.  But they do in Massachusetts.  A homosexual activist would respond: 

"But we can't afford to wait until we find a gay gene.  We must act now to protect all the suffering homosexuals and to stop teen suicide." 

To which the obvious answer would be: 

But 25.9% of 12-year-olds are uncertain whether they are homosexual or straight.[6]  Who gave us the right to encourage them to experiment with this dangerous lifestyle under which so many will die?  We're terribly concerned about the health effect of cigarettes (as we should be).  Should we not be far more concerned about this much more serious addiction? 

One psychiatrist explains it this way: 

"Although he has ‘defensively detached' from his father, the young boy still carries silently within him a terrible longing for the warmth, love and encircling arms of the father he never did nor could have.  Early on, he develops intense, nonsexual attachment to older boys he admires — but at a distance, repeating with them the same experience of longing and unavailability.  When puberty sets in, sexual urges — which can attach themselves to any object, especially in males — rise to the surface and combine with his already intense need for masculine intimacy and warmth....  Psychotherapeutic intervention at this point and earlier can be successful in preventing the development of later homosexuality."[7] 

MYTH #2   Homosexuals Cannot Change. 

For an adult homosexual, there is ample evidence that they can, and do, change.  This means that the behavior is not innate. 

Although an activist will argue with this, they cannot deny that this is a rational, logical and reasonable belief.  Therefore, it is totally irresponsible to push a child into beginning such a dangerous lifestyle. 

It is cruel to tell a young child that we know that he is homosexual if he experiences any such feelings and that we know he cannot leave that lifestyle. To tell him that he should experiment is terrible advice.  The practice of homosexuality is strongly compulsive and becomes addictive after a period of time, just like a drug. The longer that a person chooses that lifestyle, the more difficult it becomes to break from it. 

Instead of leading a child into homosexuality, we should be giving him the mentoring and the guidance which he has not received from his father and others. 

Some of the studies which have shown a successful change in those adults who wish to change are the following: 
— Of 1275 patients, 23% changed to heterosexuality.[8] 

— Of 850 patients, only 13% remained exclusively or mostly homosexual and 33% declared themselves as exclusively or almost entirely heterosexual.  The director of the study, Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, a psychologist, said, "We should stop telling young people and others struggling with homosexuality that they're stuck with it.  We should instead be encouraging them that change is possible."[9] 

— Of the psychotherapists who participated in the above study, more than 82% believe that therapy can help change unwanted homosexuality.  When all of the participants in the above study were asked, 99% believe that treatment to change homosexuality can be effective and valuable. 

—  In England, therapy was unsuccessful "only in a small number of patients of any age in whom a long habit is combined with psychopathic traits, heavy drinking, or lack of desire to change."[10] 

— A composite of nine studies with 341 patients who wished to change showed a success rate of 52%.[11] 

THE TRUTH   This is a habit that is compulsive and addictive. 

If we encourage a child to enter this lifestyle, he will become addicted to it.  One psychiatrist explains it thus: 

"Those people who have successfully left the gay lifestyle have done so with difficulty —  not because homosexuality is inborn, but because typical gay behavior is very compelling and, more precisely, compulsive.  All compulsive behaviors are very difficult, at times seemingly impossible, to change; they will also lead people to do things over and over, irrationally, that have an extremely high cost associated with them — even death."[12] 

Once such a pattern is learned, it will never be totally erased. 

"Behaviors become increasingly strengthened through repetition.  This strengthening physically alters the brain in a way that cannot be entirely undone, if at all; it is modified with great difficulty."[13] 

*      *      *     *     *

Although the activists will argue that the reason their health is so poor is because we are not spending enough money on AIDS research, that is not true.  We are spending an inordinate amount of money on AIDS research as we will see later. 

In addition, AIDS is not the only disease that comes with the practice of homosexuality.  The list is endless, including chronic liver disease, hepatitis which increases the risk of liver cancer, fatal rectal cancer, multiple bowel and other infectious diseases, and so forth.[14]  This is not a healthy lifestyle.  As we have already learned, the persons who practice it will live 30 years less than married men  —   even if they never get AIDS. 

2. What Is Being Taught In Massachusetts Schools?

On August 28, 1998, Acting Governor Paul Cellucci announced that he was quadrupling the amount of money going to provide "support" for homosexual students,  from $250,000 per year to a record $1 million.[15] 

(We are spending more than any other state in the country, and we are the only state that earmarks money in the budget for such a program.) 

What does he mean by "support" for homosexual students?  Why are we spending this $1 million?  These answers are revealed by Brian Camenker of Newton, President of the Parents' Rights Coalition of Massachusetts: 

"[This million dollars is used for] a program for homosexual adults to go into high schools across the Commonwealth.  They work directly with children to help them feel comfortable about homosexuality — and to persuade children that their parents' disdain for homosexual acts is wrongheaded.... 

"This tax-funded bankroll is used very effectively as a tool of intimidation as they expand the programs to more schools.  Gay activists are extremely adept at these methods, and I have witnessed it in district after district.  They find one or two friendly teachers, and then approach the school administration and/or the local school committee.  They announce that there is a terrible problem of ‘gay student safety' in their schools, and that they have state funding to stop it.  If the school officials decline free money for a safety program, they surely must be bigoted people — that is made very clear.  And if necessary, state officials and public relations people are ready to jump into the fray.  The schools and parents don't know what hit them. 

"Once they get a presence in a school, any and all criticism or questioning of homosexuality or the program's activity is met with an incredible amount of wrath.  Students and even teachers have been screamed at, called bigots and haters, and even had it suggested they were mentally ill for even slight suggestions of disapproval.  As a result, everyone from the highest officials on down, learns to keep quiet and just endure whatever happens."[16] 

He also states that these programs are appealing to the most vulnerable. 

"The real sad part is that [these homosexual clubs] tend to target kids who are genuinely confused and troubled — kids who are lost in the world, if you will, or are going through difficult teen years.  The [clubs] welcome them and give them an identity they never had.  They are now part of a select group — ‘gays.'  It is very intense and supportive, not unlike a cult in many ways.  Before long, most of these kids are acting out their new lifestyle, with the encouragement of their mentors." 

Is Camenker exaggerating? 

The Boston Phoenix, which is highly supportive of homosexuals, printed a story about teachers in Massachusetts who are advocating homosexuality to their students.[17] 

The author was exalted by the fact that there are more than 100 high schools with gay clubs.  At Newton-South High School, there is a Gay Awareness Day, "with lectures and other activities from the first bell to the end of the school day."  In Orange at the Ralph C. Mahar Regional High School a homosexual flag flies outside the school.  At Concord-Carlisle High School, there is a special shelf with books in the library where students can take "supportive" material without having to sign-out for it.  (Are there any books at Concord-Carlisle High School that discuss the many perils of homosexuality?  Or do they all glamorize it as a pleasurable alternative?) 

Despite their great success, the homosexual leaders are not satisfied. 

They want changes made in the curriculum.  The Phoenix lionized the teachers who are bringing this subject into the content of their teaching, such as Doug Matthews who during his classes at Algonquin Regional High School, just west of Framingham, passed out a "Heterosexuality Questionnaire," which asked the following, among other questions: 

— What do you think caused your heterosexuality? 
— When and how did you first decide that you were heterosexual? 
— Is it possible your heterosexuality is just a phase you will grow out of? 
— Isn't it possible that all you need is a good gay lover? 

The resulting pressure on Matthews from parents encouraged him to leave the school district but he merely moved over to the Attleboro schools. 

When forty teachers took a course at Framingham State College in multiculturalism, they found that their instructor, Sue Dargan, included homosexual studies in their curriculum.  She is the head of the Center for Global Education at the college. 

The article in the Phoenix continued: 

"Surprisingly, it's in the elementary grades that some of the most interesting steps toward integrating gay issues into the curriculum have been taking place. 

"In her classroom at the Cambridgeport School, a public elementary school in Cambridge where she taught for six years until last September, Mary Cronin would focus on a different theme every month.  One month was always devoted to the subject of family.  Students would bring in collages of family photos, which were displayed on the classroom walls.  A student with lesbian or gay parents would put up pictures of two moms or two dads. Cronin, who now works as a learning-disability specialist at the Harrington School in Cambridge, always brought in a picture of her female partner, whom she described as her family.  ‘It was a natural way to do it,' she said.... 

"Cronin [and Linda Croteau, a teacher in Rockport] believe that gay and lesbian issues can be made part of the elementary curriculum in age-appropriate ways." 

3.  Is The Traditional Response to Homosexuals
An Intelligent One?

Any group of responsible persons will be reaching out to homosexuals with love. In order to do so, they must ask the same two questions that we have asked, 1) Is this lifestyle a blessing [footnote] that came through genetics?  2) If not, can it be changed if a person wishes to do so? 

If anyone believes that it came as a blessing and that it cannot be changed, then he will approve the lifestyle. 

If he believes that it is not a blessing and it can be changed, it would be totally reprehensible for him to do anything except to try to help homosexuals who wish to leave that lifestyle. 

It is not illogical or unintelligent to believe that homosexuality is not a blessing and that homosexuality can be changed.  In fact, the unemotional, non-political evidence points overwhelmingly in that direction. 

There is no question that homosexuality was viewed as an unnatural disorder by doctors until force and violence were used by activists.  The accepted view was stated by the New York Academy of Medicine in 1963: 

"[H]omosexuality is indeed an illness. The homosexual is an emotionally disturbed individual who has not acquired the normal capacity to develop satisfying heterosexual relations."[18] 

However, beginning in 1970, the activists began to use violence to disrupt the meetings of the American Psychiatric Association and they gained their success in 1973 when the Association voted that homosexuality would no longer be considered a disorder.  But only one-third of the psychiatrists voted; and four years later, 69% of psychiatrists disagreed with the vote.[19] 

A serious problem is that most families in Massachusetts ignore the situation and hope it will just "go away."  They believe it will not touch their family because only about 2.8% of men and 1.4% of women are homosexual.[20]  In addition, it is not a very interesting subject and most people would rather avoid it.  But it is obvious that it is not going away, and we are not being fair to our children by ignoring it and allowing the aggressive activists to control our society. 

What Is The Cause of Homosexuality? 

What is the cause of homosexuality?  A psychiatrist explains: 

"First, like all complex, behavioral and mental states, homosexuality is multifactorial.  It is neither exclusively biological nor exclusively psychological, but results from an as-yet-difficult-to-quantitate mixture of genetic factors, intrauterine influences (some innate to the mother and thus present in every pregnancy, and others incidental to a given pregnancy), postnatal environment (such as parental, sibling, and cultural behavior), and a complex series of repeatedly reinforced choices occurring at critical phases in development. 

"Second, male and female homosexuality are probably different conditions that arise from a different composite of influences.  Nonetheless, they have some similarities. 

"Third, ‘homosexuality' is very poorly defined.  Our use of this one term creates the false impression of a uniform ‘gay' or ‘lesbian' condition and culture.  It obscures the reality that what we are studying is a complex set of variable mental, emotional, and behavioral states that are caused by differing proportions of numerous influences.  Indeed, one of the chief characteristics of the gay lifestyle is its efflorescence of styles and types of sexuality."[21] 

What are the causes?  As this psychiatrist says, "What did the psychoanalysts learn that activists want us to forget?"[22]  He explains the causes that have been learned over the years: 

1)   An emotional mismatch between the child and same-sex parent (such as a father who subtly or overtly rejects a son who has many "feminine" traits), or 

2)   An emotional mismatch between the child and the opposite sex parent, or 

3)   Sexual abuse of a child by either the same sex or opposite sex parent, or 

4)   Most often, the rejection of a child by same-sex peers. 

How Does the "Gay Gene" Fit In? 

How does the "gay gene" fit in with all of this.  Geneticists say that it is extremely doubtful that they will ever find a "gay gene" anymore than they will find a "basketball gene," but there can be a correlation.  For example, there are genes for height, quick reflexes, favorable bone structure, height-to-weight ratio, muscle strength and refresh rate, metabolism and energy efficiency, etc.  However, no one is genetically programmed or forced to become a basketball player.  Or to put this in the words of a psychiatrist: 

"It is much easier to ask the meaningless, but subtly bias-inducing, soundbite question, ‘Isn't homosexuality genetic?' than to ask the much more realistic  — but frustratingly complex — question, 'To what degree is homosexuality (or any other behavioral trait) genetic and nongenetic, innate and acquired, familial and non familial, intrauterine influenced and extrauterine-influenced, affected by the environment and independent of the environment, responsive to social cues and unresponsive to those cues, and when and in what sequence do these various influences emerge to generate their effects and how do they interact with each other; and after we have put all these together, how much is left over to attribute to choice, repetition, and habit?'" [23]] 

In other words, we have succumbed to the soundbite in dealing with homosexuality, even to the point of damaging our children, because we have been too lazy to make the effort to discover the real causes. 

"Consenting Adults In Their Own Bedroom"? 

The standard reply is that homosexuality is performed by "consenting adults in their own bedrooms." 

But we all know that is not our problem. 

The damage to the blood supply in our hospitals is in large part due to homosexuality.   Many innocent hemophiliacs and others, including children, have died a terrible death from AIDS.  The militant activists in our schools are teaching this lifestyle to our children, including the most vulnerable.  The activists are attacking those adult homosexuals who wish to change.    Also, many a judge has been heard to say that he hates to send a young man to jail because he knows that he will be raped in prison. We are sending our criminals to a jail that we no longer control.  Is this not the most blatant violation of a prisoner's Constitutional rights?  The list could go on and on about how this lifestyle has escaped the bedroom. 

The activists are now trying to take away the civil rights of any homosexual who wishes to leave the lifestyle.  They are seeking to make it unethical and illegal for a psychotherapist to help a person accomplish that, even though requested by the person.[24]  This would raise a civil rights issue for any dissatisfied homosexual who was forbidden any help in trying to leave. 

We must also consider the issue of adults having sex with children, known as pedophilia.   Although most homosexuals are not pedophiles, it is three times more common among homosexuals than heterosexuals.[25]  More important, the normalization of homosexuality is being followed by a move to normalize all forms of sexuality, pedophilia included, and to lower the age of consent laws.[26]  Activist homosexuals are in the forefront in this push, including the organization, North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), a very sophisticated organization which states on its website, "We support the rights of youth as well as adults to choose the partners with whom they wish to share and enjoy their bodies," with supporting statements from children as young as 11-years-old.[27]   Cornell University now has a course called "The Sexual Child" and New York University Press publishes Out of the Closets, a text widely used in homosexual studies courses, which says, "Face it, nice bodies and young bodies are attributes, they're groovy."[28] 

Another tragic problem is that our medical research is becoming politicized, with the largest contributors to the latest presidential campaign receiving the largest amount of federal money for medical research.  Everyone has seen the inordinate amount of money that is going to research for AIDS and now other groups are trying the same tactic.  The amount of money currently spent on breast cancer is larger than prostate cancer by about five times per case and four times per death.   According to a branch of the National Academy of Sciences, we have had a cut in "basic research funding for leukemia, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and cancers of the colon, bladder, kidney, and brain, as well as for public information and chemoprevention" in order to pay for these political projects.  In September 1998, 150,000 marched in Washington to protest the lack of attention to other forms of cancer.[29] 

We must not forget that the homosexuals are not a monolith.  1)   Some suppress their feelings.  2)   Others "stay in the closet," practicing homosexual acts in private.  3)   Many are openly homosexual but do not press an agenda to change society's heterosexual norms, calling only for "tolerance."  4)   The most vocal and visible are the militant "activists"  who seek not just tolerance but affirmation of homosexuality and who will attack anyone, including another homosexual, who stands in the way of their agenda.  They have often "outed" many homosexuals in the first two categories. 

But we must also remember, so that we do not become judgmental, that this lifestyle is very addictive.  A psychiatrist explains: 

"[T]he oversimplification on the traditionalist side is also wrong — not only scientifically, but morally, because it leads to the harsh condemnation of homosexuals.  For it is ... untrue to claim that people ‘choose to become homosexual' in the simple and simplistic sense that such a phrase inevitably evokes."[30] 

4.    The Boston Globe Grovels to Activists

We have oppression and censorship occurring at our most important source of information, The Boston Globe.  It bubbled to the surface in 1997. 

A columnist for the paper reported that signs had been torn down at Harvard Law School by homosexual activists after a Christian group of students announced a meeting featuring a young man who had stopped practicing homosexuality. 

The signs were replaced with others such as, "For those struggling with Judaism, there is hope in the truth. You can walk away.  (To the gas chambers.)" 

The Globe's token conservative, Jeff Jacoby, who is Jewish,  wrote in a column: "There is no hate in [the young speaker's] story.  He doesn't berate gays, or mock them, or demand that they renounce homosexuality.  He knows that many gays are content and happy with their lives.  He also knows that many are not ...."[31]   Jacoby continued: 

"How was inviting this man to speak at Harvard analogous to sending Jews to gas chambers?  Isn't his experience also an element of human ‘diversity?'  What does it say about gay advocates, who so loudly champion tolerance and freedom of sexual choice, that they are so poisonously intolerant of people who make a choice different from theirs?" 

Because of this column, Jacoby was publicly attacked by the Globe's Ombudsman a few weeks later.[32] 

The Ombudsman inadvertently revealed that Jacoby's column had almost been totally censored.  There had been great conflict in the newsroom about it.  He also revealed that both of Jacoby's editors are "gay activists," who were adamant that the column should not be printed.  The Ombudsman opined that Jacoby had written "homophobic" columns before. 

He chastised Jacoby for using "rhetorical devices" which "left some readers with an impression the meeting had been unruly."  Here's what Jacoby wrote that allegedly gave that impression. 

"When the event took place, gay activists thronged the entrance, many wearing T-shirts or holding signs demanding, ‘Stop the hate!'  But why is it hate to propose that people ‘struggling with homosexuality' may be able, with the help of friends and religious faith, to live a non-homosexual life?  ‘Because it isn't possible' shout the activists." 

That was the entire paragraph with "rhetorical devices."  The Ombudsman went on to make much of the fact the event itself was "noisy" but "peaceful."  Everyone should be very appreciative of the fact that the activists allowed it to take place, according to him. 

Jacoby reported that what  happened at the Globe did have a chilling effect upon him.  Is it just coincidence that both of his editors are homosexual activists? 

The Ombudsman concluded that the editor was correct in running the column even though it was "offensive," and even though it's a "high price to pay for freedom of the press."    In the future, "Jacoby's articles about homosexuality will be judged case by case." 

Of course, what is happening at The Boston Globe is inevitable because of the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act.  Unlike the federal law, it includes homosexuals as one of its protected groups.  Therefore, no newspaper in Massachusetts would dare to print the article which you are presently reading.  It would be sued immediately either in or by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.  Even if a newspaper had large amounts of time and money to spend with their lawyers in court to fight such a suit and they won, they would still be  branded as "homophobes" by the other media across the state.  It is not worth the effort.  And what chance would the paper  have to win when the "court" where they would present their case would be composed of the members of the "Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination?"  Any business with six or more employees is covered under the Massachusetts law.  This means that we at The Massachusetts News must limit the number of our employees to five or less or else we will lose our right of free speech and freedom of the press, which supposedly is assured to us under both the state and U.S. Constitutions.  This severely limits our freedom of speech.[footnote

5. We Need An Intelligent Discussion 

Most people will agree on the following civil rights and public health issues of homosexuality. 

Civil Rights  —   If a homosexual wishes to change his behavior, he should have the right to try to do so — with the help of any person he chooses.  His civil rights are important. 

Civil Rights  —   If any person believes that the health of our children is in danger because of homosexuality, he should have the right, and the duty, to say so without fear of reprisal. 

Public Health of Children  —   Once the behavior of homosexuality is begun, it becomes compulsive and then addictive.  It is a habit that should not be started without a great deal of thought and information. We would never advise any child to "try" an addictive substance such as heroin or cocaine to "see if they like it."  It is also cruel to advise them to "try" homosexuality or enter into that lifestyle without being well informed on all sides of the issue. 

Most of us will agree with the above three points, but we are not allowed to discuss them.  Even a columnist at the Boston Globe can not do so without being vilified as "homophobic." 

It is clear that the practice of homosexuality in many young men is caused by the lack of an older mentor, and it is also clear that we are not providing that mentoring to many of our young men as we should.  For example, if a young man doesn't make the varsity in high school, is he looked down upon?  Does any coach talk with him?  Must he be an outstanding "jock" to get any attention?  We know it is devastating to a young boy to be raised without a father; therefore, should we be encouraging single women to have children?  Should we be encouraging a lifestyle where so many young men are getting girls pregnant without taking any responsibility for their sons?  How many "marginal" sports for men have been eliminated because of the newly imposed requirements of the federal government which demand "equal funding" for women? 

Those are just a few of the questions we should be asking. 

Instead, we are doing exactly the opposite by encouraging our young boys to be mentored by those homosexuals who have already fallen prey to this addictive habit. 
We cannot "blame" the men who have become compulsive and addicted.   It is very difficult for them and very understandable why they believe it was a "gay gene" that "did it."  It is understandable why so many become hostile and angry at a society that has deserted them.   They are the militant activists. 

Particularly, we must protect our children and no longer allow the liberals to brand as a "homophobe" anyone who dares to even question their agenda. 

Part II
6. On A Spiritual Level
Up to this point, we have been talking on a secular level.  Even those who agree with what has been written so far may not concur with the following analysis about a spiritual level, for it is deeply personal. 

Many religious people, both Christians and Jews, believe that the real "sexual revolution" began 4000 years ago when the Jewish people broke with paganism and began a new paradigm.   They started the concept of a modern family with a cornerstone of one man and one woman. 

They would say that what we witnessed since the 1960's is not a "revolution" but a "regression" —   a regression to the old pagan customs which idealized sex and all of its perversions.  They would say that this regression has seriously damaged our society and is the cause for violence against women, sexual molestation of children, and many other problems. 

They believe that the great interest that we see in homosexuality is merely a manifestation of a sexual lifestyle which has no boundaries and is causing great damage to our families and our society. 

This view is clearly stated by a Reform Jewish cultural commentator: 

"Man's nature, undisciplined by values, will allow sex to dominate his life and the life of society....  It is not overstated to say that the Torah's prohibition of non-marital sex made the creation of Western civilization possible.  Societies that did not place boundaries around sexuality were stymied in their development.  The subsequent dominance of the Western world can, to a significant extent, be attributed to the sexual revolution, initiated by Judaism and later carried forward by Christianity."[33] 

And a Jewish psychiatrist carries forward that thought: 

"What is true of men, the Bible claims, is equally true of whole civilizations. Thus in its repeated — compulsive — falls into the snare of idolatry, the spiritual history of Israel tells much the same story as that of all nations.  And the idolatry warned against in both Hebrew and Christian Scripture is not some vague intellectual nodding to a wood or stone model, but rather the repeated attraction to an ecstatic, pagan, orgiastic form of nature-worship — involving both male and female ritual prostitution in an unlimited variety of sexual forms.  The overwhelming power of sexual gratification is what makes it so susceptible to become a true compulsion.  The Bible therefore most often condemns ritualized sexual compulsion as a quintessential act of idolatry.  God's great patience in deferring judgment on Israel reflects his understanding that sin is more like an addiction than a simple choice — people cannot conquer it through mere moral suasion. 

"In Old Testament times in the Near East this idolatry took the form of the worship of Baal and Ashtoreth; in New Testament times in the Mediterranean basin it became the worship of other female deities, for instance Aphrodite. A biblically informed perspective on our own era would consider it to be similarly idolatrous: dominated by materialistic sexual hedonism undergirded by a secularized, skeptical, or pop-spiritual, quasi-occult theology. 

"In the Christian continuation of the Hebrew Bible's presentation of sin, a unique and specific role is outlined for a savior: His atoning sacrifice is capable of effecting not only forgiveness, but genuine liberation from the compulsive grip of sin.  This story makes even more explicit sin's power and the impossibility of mere willful change, first described in the eighth century B.C. by the prophet Jeremiah: 

          "Can the Ethiopian change his skin
     or the leopard its spots?
Neither can you do good
     who are accustomed to doing evil.
  Jeremiah 13:23"[34]
 7.  Homosexual Activists Are Spreading Hate

We are all damaged when hate is hurled at anyone who does not agree with the aggressive, homosexual activists. 

What caused the daily newspaper in New Bedford to react so violently against Christians in October 1998?  What was it that caused this ferocious anger? 
It resulted from an advertisement that had appeared in papers across the country from fifteen Christian organizations, including the Christian Coalition, which pointed out that homosexuals can change.[footnote]  The headlines of the advertisement said, 

We're standing for the truth that homosexuals can change
Thousands of former homosexuals can celebrate a new life
because someone cared enough to share with them the truth of God's healing love.

The article in the New Bedford paper said, "There is no bigot like a Christian bigot.... When it comes to bigotry, Christians have the copyright."[35] 

Why was that advertisement an example of "hate?"  I would not have written the advertisement as these Christians did.  But what they wrote was truth, not hate: Homosexuals can and do change.  Who has the arrogance to categorically say this is not true?  An activist certainly has the right to argue that those homosexuals who have "changed" are merely repressing their true feelings and they can not really change because of the "gay gene."  The activists have the right to argue,  but they have no right to force their opinions on other homosexuals who say they have changed.  Or upon other homosexuals who say they want help in changing now. 

A short time after the advertisement appeared, the gruesome murder of Matthew Shepard occurred in Wyoming after he went to a bar looking for sex and was killed by two psychopaths who were out to rob him.  After they robbed and murdered Shepard, these two men returned to the bar and attacked two other men, hitting one of them with a pistol and opening a wound in his head which required 22 stitches to close.  They stopped only when one of the others hit one of them with a stick, giving him a hair-line skull fracture.  Because of this psychopathic display in Wyoming, the New Bedford paper (and many others across the country) would blame "Christian bigots." 

Many friends have advised me that I should stop this article at the end of Section I and not mention that I am a Christian. They believe that no one will give the article any credibility if it is written by a Christian. I find it difficult to believe that is true. 

Because of the multiplicity and the seriousness of these attacks against Christians across Massachusetts and the nation, and because such attacks limit the freedom of speech of everyone, Christian or not, and because this is an attempt to silence any discussion about homosexuality by focusing the debate on Christians instead, it is necessary to answer these charges in detail. 

Before we examine the article's "History of Christian Bigotry," we should agree on a few basic caveats: 

1)  Christianity is not a monolith.  Christians are divided on homosexuality.  And they should be!  No group that is so large as Christians are in the United States can be monolithic about anything.  Many Christians have accepted the "gay gene" theory, just like many other people have.  Other Christians do not believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God; and they are therefore able to believe what they wish.  Others believe that this is a poor lifestyle and people should be helped to leave it.  And there are some people who call themselves Christians who are filled with hate for homosexuals. 

2)  The truism that any group is not a monolith is especially true when the group is in the majority.  When a country is predominately composed of one religion, most people in that country will say that they are a member of that religion. 

3)  The United States allows freedom of thought.  Because we are a free country with freedom of religion, anyone can say, "I am a Muslim," a New Ager, Buddhist or whatever.    He can also say, "I am a Christian," and start his own church.  Even a huckster who has no religious values at all can do that.  However, that does not mean he speaks for anyone other than himself.   Unlike other countries, we have no government regulation of churches. 

4)  No human or human organization is without fault.  Any good Christian will be the first to admit that he has many serious faults as does his church. 

Let's examine "The Long Sorry History of Christian Bigotry," which was presented as fact in the New Bedford paper. 

"Was it not Christians who burned ‘witches' at the stake
becausethey didn't conform to Christian tenets?" 

The burning of witches pre-dated Christianity and is still practiced in many parts of the world.  Among Christians, it was much worse in Europe than it ever was in America. 

The burning of witches by Christians stopped a long time ago, but it continues to this day in many parts of the world by other people and other religions. 

On the very day that the article appeared in New Bedford, the New York Times reported that it is happening in Indonesia at the present time.  Over 150 people were brutally murdered in that Muslim country in the last few months of 1998 by "religious fanatics" who believe that the victims are sorcerers with supernatural powers.  The victims were beaten to death, beheaded or burned.  Many of them were Muslim leaders who were affiliated with another sect.[37] 
In November 1988, four youths in Uganda were sentenced to death for their part in the killing of more than 50 people suspected of being witches.  The youths had been recruited by local tribal elders and instructed to kill those elders suspected of practicing witchcraft.  The hatred and slaughter continues.  This is not unusual in other parts of the world.[38] 

In the United States, the famous witch trials of Salem occurred in 1692 after a nine-year-old and an eleven-year-old girl began to exhibit strange behavior in the middle of the winter, such as blasphemous screaming, convulsive seizures, trance-like states and mysterious spells.    Within a short time, several other girls began to demonstrate similar behavior.  When they were unable to find a physical cause, the doctors concluded that the girls were under the influence of Satan.  Some now speculate that moldy grain was the cause. 

Some of the accused said that they were witches.  The Encyclopedia Britannica says: 

"The famous Salem witch trials of 1692 may be regarded as one of the last fitful flares of the witch mania.  They have been studied anew by Chadwick Hansen, an American historian, who concluded that witchcraft was practiced in Salem, that it did harm to persons claimed to be victims, and that it posed a real threat to the community.  The indiscriminate accusations that resulted in the execution of innocent people were the result of a general public panic in response to the psychosocial situation, not to the exhortations of clerical bigots.  This fear sprang from a system of beliefs held by most Westerners at the time and also accounted for the harm done to the ‘afflicted' persons.  Witchcraft worked in Salem because the persons involved believed in it."[39] 

It further states, "By September, however, the climate of mass hysteria had begun to abate, and public opinion first stopped, and then condemned, the trials.  Governor Phips dissolved the special court in October and released the remaining prisoners.  The Massachusetts General Court (legislature) later annulled the witch trials' convictions and granted indemnities to the families of those who had been executed."[40] 

In Massachusetts today, there are many men and women who claim to be warlocks and witches with supernatural powers.  They say, however, that they do not use their power for evil and any witch who does will be in serious trouble. They are even protected under Massachusetts law, according to Attorney General Scott Harshbarger.[41] 

"Was it not Christians who slaughtered the American Indians and imprisoned them in reservations?  Was it not Puritans, who after massacring Indian men, women and children, gave thanks to the Lord for allowing them to send the heathens to Hell?" 

When the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620, they found many tribes of Native Americans who battled with each other, the same as other civilizations do.  The newcomers were another "tribe" with a different color of skin and a much different type of civilization, who attempted to live in peace with their neighbors and were successful for a time. 

They signed a treaty with Massasoit, the chief of the Neponsets.  Ten years later, the chief signed a treaty with the new Bay Colony.  During his lifetime until 1661, he lived in peace with this new tribe.  When he became dangerously ill in 1623, he was nursed back to health by the Pilgrims.  When the later settlers in Boston were short of food, he brought corn to them.  As new towns were settled they all were ordered to buy their land from the Indians.[42] 

In the Rhode Island-Connecticut area, both the Mohegans and the Pequots were ruled by a Mohegan chief until the Pequots rebelled and gained their independence.  Both tribes lived in peace with the English until more settlers arrived.  When an Englishman was murdered on Block Island, the Pequots were blamed and a short but vicious war ensued during which the Pequots were decimated. The Mohegans took control of their land. 

In 1635, many of the local Indians went to war against the Mohawks of the Iroquois nation in New York state, and an important leader was killed in the battle. 

The relations between the two cultures remained good, but a conflict between the new "tribe" and the old "tribes" was probably inevitable. 

The conflict came in 1675 when three Indians were executed by the English for the murder of another Indian, who had been an informer for the English.  This caused the son of Massasoit to gather a large force of warriors and attack various towns on the frontier.  After that, the trouble really began and a large force of settlers marched through ice and snow to successfully attack the Indian stronghold in Rhode Island.  The Indians retaliated the following year in small bands but they lost heart when Massasoit's son was killed by an angry Indian. 

There is no question but that there were excesses and atrocities on both sides, but this type of excess happens in every war.  More than one-half of the 90 white settlements had been attacked and a dozen destroyed.  Some 600 settlers and 3000 Indians were killed. 

Later, in the 1700's, the Indians did not create many friends with the whites when they marched as marauding mercenaries into Northern New England, New York and Ohio, killing men, women and children, first with the French during the French and Indian War and then with the English during the American Revolution. 

The whole episode is a sad one, but it is absurd to put all of the blame on "Christians."    The Pilgrims in New England tried very hard to be fair to the other "tribes," but their increasing numbers and their very different type of society made it difficult. 
Certainly, what happened in later years to Indians in the West was a combination of a large bureaucracy, a different lifestyle that was in direct conflict with a modern society, and some greedy people who could not be labeled as Christians (even though some of them would probably claim to be). 

           "Was it not Christians hiding behind white sheets and hoods
who murdered blacks?

Some of the people who rode in those white robes would tell you they were Christians. 

Other people who were Christians gave their lives to defeat slavery and to protect blacks. 

There has been slavery throughout the world for thousands of years. The Old Testament even has laws for Jews telling how they should treat the fellow Jews who were their slaves.  All the ancient civilizations enslaved their own people, as well as their enemies. 

The practice of slavery flourished as ships became better and trade increased among the nations. The chiefs of Africa were eager to sell their slaves to anyone who would buy them.   And many countries responded. 

As the President of Uganda said in 1998 when President Clinton apologized for the slave trade, "African chiefs were the ones waging war on each other and capturing their own people and selling them.  If anyone should apologize, it should be the African chiefs."[43] 

It should also be pointed out that thousands of blacks in the United States owned slaves before the Civil War, many of them owning over a hundred slaves.[44] 

It was Christians who brought an end to this practice across the entire world.  One of the first steps was in 1783 when the Quakers in England presented the first important anti-slavery petition to Parliament, following the Quakers of Pennsylvania who had voiced opposition to slavery in 1688.   The evangelical English Christian, William Wilberforce, is credited with outlawing slavery throughout most of the world, beginning with the end of the slave trade in 1807 in the West Indies and the freedom of all those slaves in 1825. 

In the United States, it was the Christian abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison, and clergymen Theodore D. Weld and Theodore Parker, and authors John Greenleaf Whittier, James Russell Lowell and Lydia Marie Child who brought an end to this practice.  The list also included Harriet Beecher Stowe, the author of Uncle Tom's Cabin, which turned so many people against slavery and Julia Ward Howe who composed the Battle Hymn of the Republic, stirring the hearts of so many during the Civil War. 

We must not forget the little-known Solomon Northrup, a free, black Christian who was tricked and kidnapped from his home in upper New York in 1841 and sold into slavery in Louisiana before being rescued twelve years later.   He wrote a best-selling book that sold 30,000 copies, telling about his experiences and about the atrocities of slavery.  He was beaten, whipped and chased with dogs.  He said of one master, "He could have stood unmoved and seen the tongues of his poor slaves torn out by the roots -- he could have seen them burned to ashes over a slow fire, or gnawed to death by dogs, if it only brought him profit.  Such a hard, cruel, unjust man ...."  However, Northrup never gave way to hate or racism.   He said of one master, "...in my opinion, there never was a more kind, noble, candid Christian man...."  This Christian man's book also was mportant in ending this terrible system.[45] 

In many other parts of the world, particularly Africa, there is still slavery today,  especially in the Congo, Mauritania, Sudan and Ethiopia. 

"Was it not Pope Pius XII who kept silent during the Holocaust,
never lifting a finger in protest to Hitler?" 

One must not forget that six million "others" died in the Holocaust along with six million Jews.  These "others" included many Christians, who died because they had the courage to fight Hitler. 

One of the best books about this subject is The Hiding Place [46] by Corrie ten Boom, a devout Dutch woman, who narrates her imprisonment in German concentration camps, along with her sister and father both of whom died there because they were also a part of the Dutch underground which had hidden and protected Jews. 

Another is The Pastors' Barracks [47], which tells the story of a German minister who survived the Dachau Concentration Camp in a barracks which was totally made up of Christian clergymen.   At least 10% of the inmates at that camp were clergy.  One-third of all the Catholic priests in Poland died there. 

The camp at Dachau was liberated by American soldiers, most of whom were Christians. 

Another famous Christian of this period was Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who considered taking refuge in the United States in 1939 when invited by Reinhold Niebuhr, but he returned after only two weeks in order to lead the resistance to Hitler.  He was executed in 1944. 

There is no one who believes that Hitler was a Christian.  He told his confidants, "One is either a Christian or a German.  You can't be both."  He also said, "Do you believe the masses will ever be Christian again?  Nonsense.  Never again. The tale is finished . . . but we can hasten matters.  The parsons will be made to dig their own graves. They will betray their God to us."[48] 

As William L. Shirer said, "Some 807 other pastors and leading laymen of [a Protestant church] were arrested in 1937, and hundreds more in the next couple of years.... As for the majority of Protestant pastors, they, like everyone else in Germany, submitted in the face of Nazi terror."[49] 

The Nazis had their own religion.   "[I]t was a blasphemous parody of Christianity, with racialism substituted for God, and German ‘blood' [substituted] for Christ."[50] 

As for Pope Pius XII, if he was in error, why did the World Jewish Congress cable its thanks to him for his efforts on behalf of Jews in 1944? Why did thousands of Jews make a pilgrimage to the Vatican in 1955 to pay thanks for the help of the Church?  Why did the Israeli Philharmonic play at the Papal Consistory Hall in gratitude?  Why did Foreign Minister Golda Meir say upon his death, "He upheld the highest ideals of peace and compassion....  When fearful martyrdom came to our people in the decade of Nazi terror, the voice of the Pope was raised for the victims."[51] 

          "Was it not Christians who were killing each other in 
Northern Ireland over religion?" 

Most people will agree that this conflict has the Irish against the English and Scotsmen who invaded their country hundreds of years ago.  The Irish happen to be Catholic and the others are Protestant.  However, the conflict is not about religion. 

*          *          *          *          * 

The fact that such hate can emanate from our media in Massachusetts is sad to see. 

The article by Jeff Jacoby and the efforts of Brian Camenker indicate that many Jews agree with those Christians who believe that homosexuality is a poor lifestyle.  The Rabbinical Council recently said the following: 

"Everyone is welcome within the community, but no one is welcome to show contempt for the community by publicly proclaiming any private proclivity that is inconsistent with community standards, be it homosexuality, adultery, or other deviations from Torah norms. 

"The Rabbinical Council of America firmly believes that true compassion in this most sensitive issue is manifested in doing whatever possible to help individuals affirm and actualize Torah values."[52] 

Does the media also believe that the Rabbis are full of hate? 

      * * * * 

What is ironic is that it is Christians around the world who are being persecuted by the millions in the 1990's — with an estimated 200 million suffering today.[53] 

It is two Jewish men who are awakening the U.S. and the world to this sad story. 

One is Michael J. Horowitz, who calls himself "rootedly Jewish."  He was a top budget official during the Reagan administration and is now a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.      He told The Washington Post that Jews are the most safe from the world's Hitlers when the populace is worshiping a God of faith rather than a God of politics. 

"The fact of the matter is, the Holocaust really began after religious faith died in Europe.  I would be a bar of soap, a lampshade were it not for the rooted faith of churchgoing Americans."[54] 

However, the reaction from the establishment has not been good.  As The Washington Post said, "The reaction to Horowitz is particularly acidic among some mainstream human rights advocates, who are furious over his accusation that their elitist attitudes have caused them to ignore the plight of oppressed Christians." 

Horowitz' motivation came in 1994 when he hired a domestic helper from Ethiopia who revealed that he had been imprisoned several times for preaching and that he had been tortured by having boiling oil poured on the soles of his feet while being whipped by metal cables. 

The other whistleblower is A. M. Rosenthal of the New York Times who has written many columns about this subject, his first being on February 11, 1997.  He cited the following: 

"[M]ore Christians have died this century simply for being Christian than in the first nineteen centuries after the birth of Christ.  They have been persecuted and martyred before an unknowing, indifferent world and a largely silent Christian community."[55] 

According to him the eleven worst countries include some of our trading partners which our businesses are loathe to anger.  They are China, Sudan, Pakistan, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Egypt, Nigeria, Cuba, Laos and Uzbekistan. 

In the town of Beer Sheva, Israel, in November 1998, about 1000 Haredim Jews threw stones at forty fellow Jews who were believers in Jesus Christ.  The men, women and children were freed by local police who escorted them to safety.  A lecturer in history at Ben-Gurion University, who had no connection with either group, said it reminded him of Eastern Europe.    "I witnessed a pogrom, there can be no other word for it," he said.[56] 

 8.  No Need To Believe the Bible 

There is no requirement for anyone to believe the Bible, whether a Jew, a Christian or anyone. 

But if it is quoted, it should be done accurately.  The New Bedford paper is just plain wrong when it tries to leave the impression that the Bible does not condemn the practice of homosexuality.  The Old Testament condemnations of homosexuality are almost too numerous to list and too clear to elucidate. 

The most obvious are in the book of Leviticus which, according to the Bible, was given directly to Moses from God himself: 

"You shall not lie with a male as with a 
woman; it is an abomination."  Lev. 18:22
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have
committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, 
their blood is upon them."    Lev. 20:13 
The New Testament also has many references.  Paul condemns the practice in Romans 1:26-27: 
"[E]ven the women pervert the natural use of their sex by unnatural acts.  In the same way the men give up natural sexual relations with women and burn with passion for each other.  Men do shameful things with each other, and as a result they themselves are punished as they deserve for their wrongdoing."  Romans 1:26-27 
 However, Paul is not the only one to condemn the practice, as the New Bedford article claims.  Jude condemns the practice in Verse 7: 
"Remember Sodom and Gomorrah, and the nearby towns, whose people acted as those [fallen] angels did and committed sexual immorality and perversion: they suffer the punishment of eternal fire as a plain warning to all."  Jude 7 
Peter says: 
"God condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, destroying them with fire, and made them an example of what will happen to the godless... keep the wicked under punishment for the Day of Judgment, especially those who follow their filthy bodily lusts and despise God's authority."
2 Peter 2:6 
Despite all of the above, some homosexuals make an effort to deny what is in the Bible or to rationalize it. 

—  The homosexual activists admit that the quotation from Leviticus clearly condemns homosexuality.  Their retort is that the Bible also told the Jews to do many mundane things which would be ridiculous today.  For example, they were forbidden to wear clothing that was made of both wool and linen.  The problem with that argument is that the injunction against homosexuality carried a penalty of death, which shows the tremendous importance that was attached to it.  In addition, these commands were given during the time of the Exodus from Egypt when the Jews would be spending forty years traveling around the desert when God was first attempting to make a nation out of them.  He even had to advise them on their dietary habits during that period if they were to survive those forty years.  Other instructions, such as that they should have only one God, were to prevail forever. 

— The homosexuals say that the sin of Sodom was "pride and inhospitality," not homosexuality.  Yet, it is clear that the homosexual men in that city were trying to knock down the door to Lot's home because they wanted to rape the two male visitors in his home.  They did not know that these men were angels who had come to judge the city.  The sin of homosexuality was considered to be so bad that poor Lot even tried to save the homosexuals from this sin by offering them two of his daughters instead.  After this event, the city was destroyed. 

— They also say that David was a homosexual because the Bible talks about his friendship with Jonathan, the son of King Saul.  They cite a section in the Bible,  where David is grief stricken to discover that both King Saul and Jonathan were killed in battle.   He sang a lament for all of the dead soldiers, including those two and included the following at 2 Samuel 126: 

The brave soldiers have fallen, 
   they were killed in battle, 
 Jonathan lies dead in the hills. 
 I grieve for you, my brother Jonathan, 
   how dear you were to me! 
 How wonderful was your love for me 
   better even than the love of women. 

It is patently ridiculous to say that a man's affection for another man shows that homosexuality is present.  This would make homosexuals out of the U.S. Marines, all fraternity brothers, or members of the Masons or Knights of Columbus. 

A person may believe that the Bible is immaterial, a useless book or even a dangerous one.   But one cannot deny that it condemns homosexual behavior. 

However, we do not need to discuss religion in order to agree that homosexuality is a topic that demands serious discussion in Massachusetts without hate from anyone. 


Further Discussion 

If you wish to have a speaker come to a meeting in your town or if you need help in dealing with your school system or the media, you should contact The Parents Rights Coalition of Massachusetts, PO Box 175, Newton, MA 02466.  Tel 781 433 7106.  This group also works with the state government on Beacon Hill. 

If you wish to learn more about homosexuality, we highly recommend two sources.  One is a book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (ISBN 0-8010-5625-X), by a psychiatrist, Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., who has extensive experience in this area.  The other is an Internet site, National Association for Research and Treatment of Homosexuality (NARTH), which is comprised of psychiatrists, psychologists and other professionals, at www.narth.com 

If you wish to read the materials of homosexual activists, you should start with The Human Rights Campaign (www.hrc.org) and People for the American Way (www.pfaw.org).