Follow the money: Pro-Family Charitable Trust

This post is mostly about information without much commentary. Recently, I noted that NARTH (National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) had removed references to Scott Lively from their website. In that post, I reported that Mr. Lively’s foundation, the Pro-Family Charitable Trust chose NARTH as one of the first recipients of grant funds.
While the amounts are not large, Lively’s organization has funded other groups, including Paul Cameron’s Family Research Institute. Here is the list.
According to Lively’s website, NARTH has received $2000 total. PFOX, Exodus, Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, JONAH, Mission America and Richard Cohen’s International Healing Foundation have all been recipients.
Discuss…

More strict than God

I recall reading an article as an undergraduate regarding legalism. I do not remember the name of the author, nor the title of the article. I do remember a line from the article. The author was noting that many churches have rules for behavior that are not derived from the Bible. The rules seem important to the creator of the rule but should not be imposed on others when such rules make one “more strict than God.”
I thought of that mostly forgotten article when I read a post by Brian Pengelly (“When You’re Told that What God Has Done Is Not Enough”)on Bridging the Gap, the blog of New Directions. In that post, Brian describes a speech to a local youth group where he acknowledges that he is same-sex attracted. Even though Brian has not been in a same-sex relationship since high school, is married with kids (corrected 3/23) and does not advocate same-sex relationships, he was criticized severely by several youth ministers who attended the meeting.
Brian attributed the reaction to a theological difference – one we have discussed here before – and that is the difference between charismatic and non-charismatic Protestant Christianity. Brian’s specific concern relates to “Word of Faith” theology, a view that

…God has promised to heal every area of a believer’s life right now and given them the authority to command that healing into existence.

Remember James Stabile? He was the young man that was supposedly delivered from homosexuality during a Pentecostal street meeting. Problem was, he wasn’t.
Brian elaborates:

Because of this, my testimony was a great threat to them because God had simply not done enough in my life. Despite the fact that I could testify that I had not been in a relationship with another male since high school, despite the fact that I was able to enjoy a happy marriage to a woman, despite the fact that God had clearly been using me in ministry for over a decade….my testimony was not acceptable because God had not completely taken away my attraction to men.

Brian knows the thinking because he used to be a part of the Word of Faith perspective.

The authors assumed that because I was telling my story and had my experiences, I had never confessed my sin or had prayer ministry to cast out the demons in my life that may have entered because of being abused. In fact they were so bold as to write:

“Had at any time in Brian’s life he cried out to God and taken his authority that he has been given as a believer and told his body “IN JESUS NAME I AM NOT GAY AND GOD DID NOT MAKE ME GAY AND I WILL NOT HAVE HOMOSEXUAL TENANDANCIES (sic) ANYMORE”, and then taken his mind captive when ever those thoughts came in, Brian most likely would not struggle with this anymore. Had he at anytime repented of that initial time when he was in the library and he spoke out I am gay, and then asked God to forgive him for all the rest of the times that he has thought thoughts or acted in a homosexual manner, asked God to forgive him for that initial self cursing and THEN had the spirit of sexual perversion cast out of him, Brian most likely would not still struggle with this sin.”

The truth is that I once attended a youth group where they taught such things, and believing that they were true, I did go forward to the altar, confess these very sins, and pray that very prayer meaning it with every cell of my body. I believed that God would heal me…… and then he didn’t. When it didn’t happen I was told it was because I lacked enough faith, or I was doing something wrong. The message I received was that it was my fault. And yet I knew in my heart that I had prayed with all the faith that I had and could do no more. When I said this, I was rejected by that group. I spent years believing that lie, that it was my fault and I just wasn’t good enough to make it all go away. As I grew older and studied the Bible I came to realize that this was a false teaching and turned away from it. But that teaching left me in shame and despair for years of my life.

Then he notes the damage is not reserved for the person who experiences SSA, but for their parents as well.

There has also been a sad legacy within the ex-gay movement of using this kind of teaching to burden parents as being at fault for their children’s sexual orientation. I do not know how many times over the years I heard about generational curses, mixed in with some pop psychology to explain the fact that I was attracted to men. My own story does include significant perceived rejection from my father. But the truth is that causation of sexual orientation is incredibly complex and that there is no good evidence to link it to parental behaviour. In fact, several of my best gay friends had wonderful relationships with their parents. But because of this kind of teaching, I have met with more parents than I can count who blame themselves for their children’s sexual orientation. I have listened to them as they examined every little thing they did or said in their lives wondering where they had spoken curses over their children!

One does not need to go to a Word of Faith church for this guilt, although it apparently helps. A NARTH conference will do. Or a well-meaning but errant Christian radio program.
In traditional Christianity, human nature is not perfectable. Perfect parenting, wonderful therapy or any other reparative concept cannot offset this condition. The causes of sexual orientation, while of scientific interest, should be relatively unimportant in a ministry domain. To require change in the direction of desire as a measure of spirituality seems to me to expect something more strict than God expects.

Uganda antigay group holds first meeting

The South African Independent Online reported recently that a new group opposed to homosexuality had been formed as a consequence of a March 5-8 conference held in Kampala. The article in full stated:

Kampala – Anti-gay activists in Uganda on Saturday formed a pressure group to discourage homosexuality, following a two-day conference of religious leaders, teachers and social workers in the capital Kampala.
The group, to be called the Anti-Gay Task Force, is intended to “fight against the spread of homosexuality and lesbianism in the country,” spokesperson for the group Stephen Langa told reporters.
Same sex-relationships and marriages are illegal in Uganda, and human rights groups have criticised the government for harassing homosexuals.
The task-force said that it would one day “wipe out” gay practices in the African state.

A meeting of this task force was held on March 15. An anonymous source provided a narrative of that meeting. I am putting excerpts here. Keep in mind that this is one eyewitness account and may not be completely accurate. I have asked Stephen Langa for confirmation and for comment on any discrepancies he believes are here. However, over the last several days all emails to Family Life Network are bouncing back as undeliverable.
Here are some excerpts…

Family Life Network – FLN Comes out Strong on Homosexuality in Uganda
To follow up the anti – gay training in Uganda from 5th to 7th March 2009 — Family Life Net work – FLN, organized a follow up meeting on Sunday 15th March 2009.
The meeting attracted an audience of over 60 people, mostly parents but who included civil servants, government workers, researchers, journalists, activists and students.
The assistant director FLN gave a brief back ground of Family Life Network that FLN deals with restoration of family values. Participants who attended the the previous anti – gay seminar were asked to give a recap.
After that, the audience gave testimonies of their encounter with homosexuals in Uganda and that the movement is strong hence the need for strong forces to deal with the gay movement in Uganda.
The assistant director FLN then introduced the director family Life Network Stephan Langa as the main facilitator of the day.
In his opening remarks, Stephan Langa said the Gay Agenda is controlling the debate, so it is time for the family to take over and start controlling the debate. He also emphasized terms like “Sexual Orientation and told participants not to allow such terms in our vocabulary, that these are terms or words introduced by homosexuals to fulfill their agenda. He warned participants that homosexuals in Uganda want the constitution to include no discrimination based on “sexual orientation”, he urged participants not to allow it.

If accurate, this demonstrates the mixed paradigm of this effort. This coalition is not dedicated to ministry but political engagement.

Presentation “Homosexuality in Uganda.” By Stephen Langa
What cause homosexuality.
In his presentation Stephan Langa said homosexuality is not about sex, it is about the search for a fatherly or motherly figure. Children with bad parenting end up becoming homosexuals as they search for mother’s or father’s love.

I wonder where he heard that?

He also mentioned another cause of homosexuality as child abuse; he said that the homosexuals he has counseled have been abused as children. He cited broken families as another cause of homosexuality.
He mentioned domineering mothers and abusive fathers as another cause of homosexuality, as well as negligent father who are emotionally off (away from?) with children.
Exposure to pornography as another cause of homosexuality.
He said some people are lured into homosexuality by money and other social favors. Rebellion, he said some children become homosexuals because they want to be rebellious, noting that homosexuality is some kind of rebellion.
He also said same sex attraction is a disorder and quoted: Richard Cohen MA. He emphasized the point that all homosexuals can change since all disorders can be changed. Homosexuality is not genetical, it is a learned behavior and what is learned can be unlearned. (Richard Cohen MA.)

Without no obvious awareness of the disconnect, the talk goes from describing homosexuality as a pathology to criticizing it as a political movement.

HISTORY OF THE MODERN GAY MOVEMENT
He talked about Henry Garber, who was a German American soldier in 1924, that Henry Garber sodomized Champ Simmons and Champ Simmons sodomized Harry Hay. Then Harry Hay started the whole gay movement that gays follow to date. Source: The PINK SWASTIKA – Dr. Scott Lively.
GAY AGENDA.
Utopia meaning, the gay agenda has no sexual restrictions and they want the entire world to adapt to this trend of life — that homosexuals want total acceptance, that homosexuals want to over throw the marriage, family values and the moral base of society.
GAY STRATEGY
Homosexuals have redefined homosexuality as in- born and that it is gender irreversible.They focus on who they are and what they want. They are after your children…

According to the person attending the training, there were many more points presented that came from Scott Lively’s books and talks.
After the presentations, the participants brainstormed what could be done. Here are just some…

The laws on homosexuality are weak, hence the need to strengthen these laws.
Parents were encouraged to participant in law making decisions in Uganda so that to strengthen the laws on homosexuality.
To establish a unit at Police to deal with homosexuality.
Homosexuality is an abomination; it is evil and should be dealt with
strongly.
During the reactions a prominent pastor also said that they have been talking with an ex-gay activist who has given them a five year plan for dealing with the gay agenda in Uganda. And they have submitted this plan to the ministry concerned, that they await reactions.
Another participant told the audience that parliament is drafting a new law that will be tough on homosexuals.

I wonder who the ex-gay activist is?
Here is a chilling claim:

A participant asked a liberal question on issues of sexuality: You have associated homosexuality with all evils, defiles, child molesters, etc. Don’t you think that also heterosexuals defile or molest our children why don’t you address this issue as well. He was answered: We are here to talk about homosexuality, do not divert us. After this question he was intimated, almost thrown out of the meeting.

And then plans were made:

Way Forward
-Formation of a task force to deal with homosexuality
-Volunteers to educate children on the dangers of homosexuality
-Fund raising to facilitate the volunteers
-Collect signatures from Ugandans door to door to request parliament to tighten the law on homosexuality.
-Get information and knowledge about homosexuality
-Government should note gay funders, and scrutinize the funding or stop the funding for gay movements in Uganda.
-Rehabilitation of gays, we were told that a curriculum on rehabilitation is being developed and will be out in the next 3 months.
-To deal with homosexuality at local level and involve local councils
-Full up meeting on Sunday: 22nd March, 2009. People pledged to fund raise funds for follow-up meetings.

Let me repeat: I tried to reach Stephen Langa to verify this information but no one answered the phone and the emails have come back undeliverable. This seems plausible given the participants in the earlier ex-gay meeting and what they have suggested they discussed then. If anyone else who was there or Mr. Langa would like to offer a different view, I welcome the contact.
UPDATE: The GayUganda blog has the entire narrative. Short on details, this article reports on another group.

NARTH removes references to Scott Lively from website

Recently, Scott Lively, Director of Abiding Truth Ministries clarified his opinions presented in Uganda regarding criminalization of homosexuality and compulsory therapy, saying:

I did promote therapy as an option to imprisonment, citing my own experience benefitting from optional therapy after an arrest for drunk driving many years ago. In fact, it was during that period I accepted Christ and was spontaneously healed of alcoholism and drug addiction.
I don’t think under the circumstances homosexuality should be decriminalized in Uganda since it seems to be the only thing stopping the international “gay” juggernaut from turning Uganda into another Brazil.

These views are consistent with his public statements elsewhere, including this statement to the Russian people made in 2007.

Homosexuality is a personality disorder that involves various, often dangerous sexual addictions and aggressive, anti-social impulses. This combination of factors causes homosexuals to have an intense loyalty to each other and a common goal to change any society in which they live in organized “gay and lesbian” communities. They have no acceptance in a society that restricts sex to heterosexual marriage, so they work to eliminate sexual morality and remove all limitations on sexual conduct. Importantly, their initial strategy is not promote homosexuality, but to spread sexual immorality among heterosexuals, especially the young people. Only later, when the culture has become sexually corrupt, do they openly step forward to take power as the natural leaders of such a society.

In response to the “personality disorder,” Lively recommends a number of things. One is a limitation on free speech:

Third, criminalize the public advocacy of homosexuality. My philosophy is to leave homosexuals alone if they keep their lifestyle private, and not to force them into therapy if they don’t want it. However, homosexuality is destructive to individuals and to society and it should never publicly promoted. The easiest way to discourage “gay pride” parades and other homosexual advocacy is to make such activity illegal in the interest of public health and morality.

In that same letter, Lively recommends therapy for gays and pointed people to NARTH (National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) as a referral source consistent with his ideas.

The homosexual movement tries to win public sympathy by claiming that homosexuals are “born that way” and cannot change. This is not true. There is a large association of doctors and therapists in the United States who help homosexuals to recover (see www.narth.com) and many thousands of former homosexuals who now live normal lives.

Lively’s referral to NARTH made me wonder if NARTH incorporated his views in a similar manner.
Until yesterday, the answer was yes. There were six references to Mr. Lively on the NARTH website. I asked Dave Pruden if NARTH supported the positions Mr. Lively stated above (criminalization, therapy as an option to jail and limits on free speech), and he reacted quickly to remove all but one reference to his past involvement with NARTH. According to Mr. Pruden, Mr. Lively asked to address the convention luncheon in order to make a donation. The 2005 conference report says:

Also during the luncheon, attorney Scott Lively noted that NARTH’s critics are supported by tens of millions of dollars from foundations on the left, which effectively permits them to “steer the culture through grants.” In an effort to begin reversing that trend, he recently created the Pro-Family Endowment, with one of its initial grants being made to NARTH.

If you search on the NARTH website for “Scott Lively,” you can see the links to articles which are either not there anymore or have the reference to Mr. Lively removed. In addition to the reference above, there was a reference to a book authored by Mr. Lively, another article on gays in schools which referred readers to Mr. Lively’s website and an interview with Brian Camenker which included a favorable reference to Lively’s books.
Mr. Pruden explained that Mr. Lively was not invited by NARTH to speak at the 2005 luncheon but instead asked for time to make the presentation and was granted permission. However, he indicated that this did not indicate NARTH’s agreement with Lively’s views as outlined above. Mr. Pruden said that after some investigation, he determined that Mr. Lively’s views are not consistent with the policies and views of NARTH. Consequenty, the articles and references were removed.
Exodus International also took a similar step recently….

Christianity, homosexuality and the law

I am repeating in full a post from August, 2008 regarding religious arguments for the separation of church and state. I do this in response to the calls from Stephen Langa, Caleb Brundidge and Scott Lively to maintain laws criminalizing homosexuality in Uganda (and elsewhere). First the post:

Sally Kern, with help from my friend and colleague at Grove City College, T. David Gordon provides today’s open forum discussion.
Mrs. Kern is in the news today about a speech she gave in Norman, OK about her entrance into government and her role as a “culture warrior.” She says:

“I started praying about whether or not the Lord wanted me to run,” Kern said. “And the more I prayed, the more I felt He did.”
Kern said she expected to “run, lose and just be a much better government teacher.”
“But lo and behold I won,” she said. “And so here I am, and I’m not the typical legislator. The Lord showed me right off the bat that I’m not supposed to be. As a matter of fact, my Lord made it very clear to me that I am a cultural warrior. And you know I tried to say ‘no’ to that, too, ’cause that’s pretty hard. But, anyway, that’s where I am.”

I cannot discern however, what Mrs. Kern believes government should do. On one hand, she talks about preserving the founders reliance on “one true religion” and on the other she indicates that

“Government cannot force people to change, and yet we see that’s what government is doing,” she said. “Every time government passes another law, they are taking away some of our freedoms.”

I do agree that government cannot force people to change, but I am unclear how government is making people change. If homosexuals pursuing the democratic process to elect legislators and pass laws is more threatening than terrorism, then what would winning the culture war against homosexuality look like? I have a clearer picture in my mind about winning over a foreign aggressor would look like. But if homosexuals are using the democratic process (elections, laws, courts) to pursue their interests, then how will the Christian culture warriors win? What will victory look like?
I fear that many colleagues on the religious right want the coercive power of the state to enforce a particular view of morality, one that comports with their understanding of Christianity. I might like others to believe like me but I surely think it is futile to seek the state to bring it about. Closer to the therapy world, where I usually labor, I do not believe that counselors should use the coercive power of the counseling relationship to attempt to inculcate religious fruit. We can provide information but the results are not in our hands.
On this point, last school year, Religion prof at GCC, T. David Gordon presented a paper titled, “Religious Arguments for Separating Church and State” at our annual Center for Vision and Values conference. I was edified by this presentation and link to it here. A couple of excerpts gives the tone and direction of the paper:

In the so-called “culture wars” of the late twentieth century, one commonly hears allegations that the separation of church and state reflects and promotes a “secularist” agenda. It is certainly true that most secularists (such as Paul Kurtz, in the 1973 Humanist Manifesto II) wish to separate church and state. However, many religious individuals and societies favor such separation also; therefore it is misleading to refer to separation of church and state as a secular or secularist idea. The purpose of this brief survey is to list some of the religious arguments that have been presented in favor of separation, so that religious people may consider those arguments as “friendly” to their faith-commitments, rather than hostile to them.

and regarding individual liberty:

For Protestant Christianity, the doctrine of the conscience plays a very important role. Unlike the Baltimore Catechism of the Catholic Church, where conscience normally appears only in sections dealing with Penance or Confession, some Protestant confessions have an entire chapter devoted to it, such as the Westminster Confession’s chapter on “Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience.” Within this understanding, an action or belief is only morally approved when it is a sincere act, an act that accords with conscientious faith. The conscience is thus “free” from false authority to serve God, the true Authority. Any professed faith or outwardly religious act that is merely done to avoid civil penalties is not an act of any true moral worth. When the beliefs and practices of the church are prescribed by the State with its coercive powers, this does not promote true religion, but hypocrisy. For many Protestants, therefore, one of the best ways to preserve true liberty of the individual conscience is to leave that conscience entirely free, in religious matters, from considerations of civil consequences.

Some laws which coerce moral behavior are needed to protect us all from each other. I am very glad when going to my car at night at the mall that the threat of punishment from the state might prevent some would be attackers from carrying out the desires of their evil hearts. However, as T. David states so well, some (many, which ones?) matters of personal liberty should be off limits from the state.
With that background, I will turn it over to the forum. I encourage you to read Dr. Gordon’s well-crafted paper. What is the proper role of a Christian in governance? How are legislators to govern in a plural society? Given that Christians were so involved in the founding of the nation, why did they create such protections for pluralism of belief, including the ability to believe nothing and pursue happiness via that worldview? How do we best advance the mission of the church? In which vision of governance is personal and religious liberty best achieved?

Here is another quote from Dr. Gordon’s paper which speaks to how religious people ordinarily confuse criminality and immorality.

Confusion on this point often centers around a misunderstanding of Paul’s comments about the civil magistrate in Romans 13, where he refers to the magistrate as one who is a terror to evil conduct. Many religious people conclude, therefore, that the magistrate’s duty is to punish all evil conduct, as the Bible describes “evil”. In its historical context, however, this interpretation is unlikely. The particular magistrate to whom Paul refers is the Roman authority, who knew nothing of the law of Moses or the commands of Christ, and yet Paul referred to this pagan Roman magistrate as a “minister of God for your good.” The “evil” spoken of by Paul is societal evil, evil of a public nature that threatens the well-being of the commonwealth or its
individual citizens. From what we know of first-century Roman law, it appears that Paul rightly assumed that the magistrate would punish crimes against persons and crimes against property. If the magistrate did this, Paul was content that he was serving his divinely-instituted role fine.
Many other behaviors might well be sinful and immoral, but they are not and need not be criminal. In the late eighteenth century, John Leland, the Massachusetts Baptist, addressed this important distinction:

What leads legislators into this error, is confounding sins and crimes together — making no difference between moral evil and state rebellion: not considering that a man may be infected with moral evil, and yet be guilty of no crime, punishable by law. If a man worships one God, three Gods, twenty Gods, or no God — if he pays adoration one day in a week, seven days or no day — wherein does he injure the life, liberty or property of another? Let any or all these actions be supposed to be religious evils of an enormous size, yet they are not crimes to be punished by laws of state, which extend no further, in justice, than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor.

Leland reflected common views in his day: That states exist to preserve the natural or inalienable rights of humans, frequently considered to be life, liberty and property as referred to by Leland. Thus, an act is criminal when it harms another’s person or property, or restrains his liberty; but other acts are tolerable by the state.

It will not impair the Church for homosexuality to be legal but nations which attempt to coerce moral sexual behavior will impair the free exercise of conscience by same-sex attracted people. To repeat from Dr. Gordon’s paper:

Any professed faith or outwardly religious act that is merely done to avoid civil penalties is not an act of any true moral worth. When the beliefs and practices of the church are prescribed by the State with its coercive powers, this does not promote true religion, but hypocrisy. For many Protestants, therefore, one of the best ways to preserve true liberty of the individual conscience is to leave that conscience entirely free, in religious matters, from considerations of civil consequences.

Brief post: Scott Lively on criminalization of homosexuality and compulsory therapy

I have posted several times on the Ugandan conference on homosexuality last weekend. In researching this, I wrote to Exodus International, International Healing Foundation and Scott Lively to ask if they were quoted accurately regarding calls for criminalization of homosexuals and forced therapy as an option to jail. Exodus International issued a statement for today’s Christian Post article on the subject. Neither Richard Cohen nor Caleb Brundidge have issued statements; Extreme Prophetic – Mr. Brundidge’s other affiliation has not issued a statement. However, Scott Lively did answer my request for a statement. I asked him if he favored criminal penalties for homosexuality in Uganda and if he favored compulsory therapy as an option. He requested that I present it exactly as written so here goes:

I did promote therapy as an option to imprisonment, citing my own experience benefitting from optional therapy after an arrest for drunk driving many years ago. In fact, it was during that period I accepted Christ and was spontaneously healed of alcoholism and drug addiction.
I don’t think under the circumstances homosexuality should be decriminalized in Uganda since it seems to be the only thing stopping the international “gay” juggernaut from turning Uganda into another Brazil.

It is hard to know where to start here. The assumptions are that an analogy to drunk driving is reasonable (nope) and that disagreement with homosexuality should be enforced via the coercive power of the state (we can’t go there – what other ideas and beliefs might states want to coerce?).
For now, how about readers taking over…

Christian Post article on the Ugandan homosexuality conference

Michelle Vu, reporter for the Christian Post, penned an article regarding the Ugandan anti-gay conference.
Exodus International is quoted in this article, I think for the first time since the controversy began:

In response, Exodus International said it applauds its board member Don Schmierer, who attended the Uganda conference, for his effort to convey an “alternative message that encompasses a compassionate, biblical view of homosexuality,” according to a statement by Exodus International president Alan Chambers to The Christian Post on Wednesday.
Exodus says neither Schmierer nor the ministry agrees or endorses Uganda’s criminalization of homosexuality law, imprisonment of homosexuals or compulsory therapy. Rather, the ministry says it “unequivocally denounces” the positions the government of Uganda has towards homosexuality.

The full statement is here:

Alan Chambers, President of Exodus International, responded to reports about an Exodus board member’s participation at a conference in Uganda on homosexuality:
“Unfortunately, Uganda as a country has demonstrated severe hostility towards homosexuals supporting criminalization of homosexual behavior and proposing compulsory therapy – positions that Exodus International unequivocally denounces. It is our sincere desire to offer an alternative message that encompasses a compassionate, biblical view of homosexuality not just here in America, but around the world. We applaud our board member’s attempt to convey these truths to a country in need.”
###

There is nothing in this statement that changes my view of this conference. It was ill-advised for several reasons, some of which were described in this Christian Post article. Another issue, largely undiscussed, is the collaboration of Exodus with Richard Cohen’s associate, Caleb Brundidge. Mr. Brundidge believes he can raise people from the dead by God’s power but he can’t heal gays without beating pillows with a tennis raquet and getting in touch with the inner child. Is this the kind of compulsory therapy Ugandan gays might have in their future?
On this subject, I highly recommend thoughtful posts by Wendy Gritter at Bridging the Gap and Karen Keen on her Pursue God blog
Also, Scott Lively provides a quote regarding his views on the Ugandan conference here…

PANDAS article in the Christian Post

The Christian Post has published my feature on PANDAS – Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorder Associated with Streptococci.
There are some great quotes from Susan Swedo, MD, who is often credited with discovering the relationship between psychiatric symptoms and strep throat. I don’t say much about it but I also report some new research regarding the mechanism of action for the strep antibodies in the brain. Crosswalk.com will put it up next week.

Report from the Uganda conference on homosexuality: Open forum

Frank Mugisha is the chairperson of a gay advocacy group in Uganda called Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG). An unnamed person from his group attended all of the meetings in Kampala and filed this report. Obviously, I cannot vouch for the accuracy of it and I think it should be considered one person’s impressions of the event. There are some issues raised in it however, which I am exploring and will probably post about in the future. For now, I am just going to post a link to the report and open the floor for comments.