Month: November 2005

This came today from the Alliance Defense Fund. Anyone care to comment?

This is about Pastor Ake Green, the Swedish pastor facing imprisonment for preaching a sermon on Bible and homosexual behavior. Argued before the Swedish Supreme Court last Wednesday, November 9th, this case has serious ramifications worldwide.As we told you, ADF sent chief counsel Benjamin Bull to Sweden to assist with last Wednesday’s trial. Unlike U.S. Supreme Court oral argument, this was an actual trial where Pastor Green was called to testify and grilled by the prosecuting attorney.

Ben reports:“Pastor Green’s trial before the Swedish Supreme Court was one of the most remarkable things I’ve ever seen. It was surreal. The case should have been called Sweden v.The Bible. It was like a cross between George Orwell’s 1984 and a Stalin Soviet show trial. It was hard to believe that this was happening in a “developed” Western country. The entire case was televised live in Sweden and Parliament stopped to watch the proceedings.The prosecutor made amazing arguments. He repeatedly mocked the Word of God. He ridiculed Biblical texts on homosexual behavior. The prosecutor asked Pastor Green several times what version of the Bible he was using. When Pastor Green politely replied that he used the New International Version, the prosecutor replied that Pastor Green was using a ‘bad translation’ and to ‘get a new Bible’ – one that does not question homosexual behavior. I sat in amazement as a government prosecutor was telling a minister to use another Bible translation. It was like a pastor telling the government that they need to use another law book. This was a case where the state was trying to dictate and reshape theology to fit its own agenda. The prosecutor demanded that the court convict Pastor Green so he would be an example to deter other pastors from preaching what the Bible says about homosexual behavior. He did concede – quite amazingly – that it is still legal to publish such Bibles in Sweden (for now). The radical homosexual activists demand that Pastor Green be made an example as the first person to be prosecuted under the ‘hate speech’ law since it added ‘sexual orientation’ in 2003.

Throughout the trial, the justices were almost completely silent. Percy Bratt, Pastor Green’s defense attorney – whom we helped prepare the day before at a moot court – did a fabulous job. He also mentioned the brief that ADF had filed and another we funded on behalf of Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council – and the chief justice acknowledged that he had read the brief and found it to be helpful.All people of faith need to continue to be in prayer for this decision – as three out of four people in Sweden (per a poll) believe that Pastor Green should be sent to prison for simply preaching the uncensored Gospel. If Pastor Green is convicted, it will open the floodgates – and the same thing will be happening in the United States and Canada – sooner than you think. It will be a precedent in international law that pastors can be targeted and prosecuted for engaging in ‘hate crimes’ and we will soon see this cited in American courts. This case must be won and it must be defended.” Please continue to be in prayer for Pastor Green and for this decision – which is expected in 3-4 weeks.

Ron Schlittler of PFLAG reacts to an email query about my article on Sheryl Swoopes. I was cc:ed in this exchange. I have removed email addresses.

—–Original Message—–
From: Andy Derksen
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 3:16 AM
To: Ron Schlittler
Cc:
Subject: RE: “Becoming out”
Dear Mr. Schlittler,

Hello. Please tell me how you compare the remarks of basketball player Sheryl Swoopes and Focus on the Family’s Bill Maier, re. the origins of individual homosexuality. I note from the article copied below that you disparaged Maier’s comments, but have apparently said nothing about Swoopes. How do you explain that?

Thanks and regards,

Andy Derksen

(This is Mr. Schlittler’s reply)

Hello Mr. Derksen,

Thank you for the opportunity to respond.

I have always maintained that women appear to have a bit more fluidity concerning their sexual orientation than men, as an honest interpretation of the research suggests. That, however, is not the same thing as “conversion” through the “therapy” advocated by religious ideologues.

Men, almost without exception the research also finds, experience their sexuality as hard-wired one way or the other.

So, it is disingenuous and self-serving of Warren Throckmorton to suggest that the Swoopes story is evidence that sexual orientation can flip like a switch.

I also have always maintained that some people are gay, some are lesbian, a few are bisexual and most are heterosexual. These are natural, healthy, normal variations of the human experience – also evidenced widely in the animal kingdom. And though individuals may
shift how they self-identify and express sexuality over time, as the evidence also indicates, basic innate sexual and affectional attractions do not change.

Though Throckmorton seems to insinuate I’ve been caught in an inconsistency by not commenting on Sheryl Swoopes, the fact of the matter is that I’ve simply not been asked – by him or anyone else until your note arrived.

Regards,
Ron Schlittler
Deputy Executive Director
Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays
1726 M Street NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
202-467-8180 ext. 226
www.pflag.org
“You Have a Home in PFLAG”
Join PFLAG today and help us make the world a better place!
Make a Contribution to PFLAG!http://www.pflag.org/donations.htm

After Mr. Schlittler’s response, Mr. Derksen answered some of the points as follows:

Schlittler: So, it is disingenuous and self-serving of Warren Throckmorton to suggest that the Swoopes story is evidence that sexual orientation can flip like a switch.

Derksen: Why should you assume Mr. Throckmorton is “self-serving” because he stands up for his convictions? Couldn’t I just as easily assume your email to me is self-serving? Why is pitching an argument self-serving on the other side but truth- and freedom-serving on *your* side? Are you suggesting the world’s selfless people are lined up on your side, while the other side as all the self-serving people?

Schlittler: These are natural, healthy, normal variations of the human experience
– also evidenced widely in the animal kingdom. >

Derksen: There are some animals that eat their young as well. Would you be okay with me killing and eating my baby (if I had one)? Why should we presume to take our moral cues from the animal kingdom?

Schlittler: And though individuals may shift how they self-identify and express sexuality over time, as the evidence also indicates, basic innate sexual and affectional attractions do not change.

Derksen: Isn’t it self-contradictory that you base part of your stance on what men “experience,” while at the same time refusing to consider the experiences of those who are now ex-gay? Isn’t that self-serving?

For the record, I do not know Mr. Derksen. I may have met him at a conference but I cannot place which one.

If anyone cares to take up the dialogue, feel free. I thought it was an interesting exchange.

Steve Irwin, baby Irwin and hungry friend.

Do you suppose this child will associate danger with fun?

I found the article in the Bay Windows newspaper interesting. There were apparently lots of protestors including the anti-war folks. I found the author’s candor refreshing regarding the fear he felt at the sight of the protestors. There are some other aspects of the article I am looking into. If Joe Nicolosi really made the “joke” about the boy cracking his head, I would be offended at that and worried that some parents would take all that stuff literally. This paragraph made me cringe:

One such joke came at the end of a discussion about what he sees as an essential lesson that fathers teach sons: that danger can be fun. He said fathers begin to teach that lesson by tossing their infant sons into the air and catching them, to help build up their courage (never mind that plenty of mothers play this game as well, and plenty of parents play it with their daughters). He followed this discussion by saying, “Even if the father drops his kid and cracks his head a little bit, at least he’ll be straight,” a line that generated thunderous laughter from the audience.

Infants!? I hope he did not say infants. Toddlers sure, but infants? Please not infants.

Michael Jackson’s kids will be straighter than straight then. If tossing them kids around is good, then dangling them from balconies must be better.

I do agree that danger can be fun. All my kids think so, and nary a one was tossed or dangled or sent out in the woods in a sweathouse. I think I will stop while I am ahead.