The headline says “Chaz Bono: America really needs him on Dancing With the Stars”.

It goes on to quote Bono as saying:

“It’s made me realize I’m really glad I’m doing this, because America really needs to see this. You know, it just kind of shows why it’s important to be on the show, because so little still is known about what it means to be transgender. And there’s so many just completely inaccurate stereotypes and thoughts people have.”

(msn.com, 2011)

Most Americans would just bite this quote and take it or leave it. InfoRodeo is not most Americans, however, so I’m going to ask the question nobody really thinks to ask when given the canned “stereotypes and awareness” speech:

What stereotypes are you talking about, and how are they inaccurate?

I read an article on a CNN blog the other day that was shockingly clinical and accurate, and it was the first I’d heard of this Chaz Bono appearance. That probably shouldn’t be surprising that I hadn’t heard of it previously; I don’t watch television, especially so-called “reality television”, and I don’t generally bother with the celebrity gossip portions of “news” outlets.

Still, that name comes up – “Chaz Bono” – and you know there’s going to be all kinds of whining, politics, and old women dressed in thongs and leather chaps. Do you believe I could pass it up?

In the article, the author, a psychologist, graphically described the process in creating Chaz’ “manhood” – the hormones, the breast amputations, the artificial phallus fashioned from a flap of skin from her abdomen.

The author brought up two points I’d never even considered before. First, the assertion that Chaz Bono shouldn’t be on this “family” show is based on some sound concerns that parading transexualism in the masses, before impressionable schoolchildren, is going to cause a lot of normal kids, growing and questioning aspects of their gender identity to latch onto adult concepts that will not be healthy in their development. He mentioned boys who are overly emotional or like flowers being suckered into thinking they’re gay, when really they should be able to grow into the men they are instead of being railroaded into this special-interest faction of society.

Second, he made a bizarre comparison between people opting for so-called “gender reassignment surgery” being like people who think they should be allowed to be ‘who they are’ and have surgery to create a tail and amputate their arms. as outlandish as his example was, it is true. The politics of the LGBT support group deny this, but those who undergo such surgery and hormone treatments are really nothing more than mutilated and voided-gender versions of their old biological selves.

It is, of course, the religious who are most vocal in opposition to these individual’s decisions. They point to scripture that underscores the various hues of homosexuality as an “abomination”, they point out that God made us who we are and gifted our bodies, and that we are commanded to procreate. A person going the route of Chaz Bono chooses to live an abominable lifestyle, says God made a mistake, and then destroys their ability to procreate and tears apart the gift God gave them.

But this view isn’t a stereotype. It’s an interpretation of fact. Whether or not you believe in God, the fact are the same; the individual changed their body through some pretty gruesome means, and in the process destroyed some of its function. MtF transsexuals will never ovulate or carry a child, and FtM transsexuals will never have the true function a biological male will have. It’s all about the surface appearance, the look, the lie.

What stereotype is Chaz Bono and the legion of LGBT talking about then? Those not of that mind say things like, “I don’t know if i should call her a he or a she”, “that woman has an adam’s apple”, “most gay men talk with a lisp”, “many dykes shave their heads and ride motorcycles”, “she had her breasts cut off so she could look like a man”. Are any of these actually stereotypes? Are they stereotypes when they are true? 

It’s like saying “White people have pink skin” is a stereotype, and that we should be offended that anyone would dare stereotype.

It doesn’t matter if Chaz Bono exists or does not. While there may be some who don’t accept “them” because the notion creeps us out, or because religious belief doesn’t jive with that lifestyle, the larger, more accurate scenario is that most of us don’t care. I don’t care if all my neighbors are gay, straight, bi, transsexual or celibate – I do, however, care about whether or not they wave their bedroom lifestyle in my face, in front of my children. I do care about those ridiculous parades, the intrusion into my television set, and the sale and promotion of alternative lifestyles to my kids.

Most of us look at Chaz and think, “that doesn’t look like a man”, or “that dude is really unattractive.” Like it or not, no amount of propaganda, politics and threat is going to be able to convince people to enjoy looking at that individual, and that has nothing to do with “gender orientation discrimination”. Most of us are equally repulsed by her mother.

As for DWTS, I don’t think there should be an uproar (and suspect that the uproar was caused by the LGBT community itself to draw attention to the show) because DWTS is not a family-oriented show. The dance moves and outfits are immodest and not something I want my kids watching. The choreographers are all gay, so the “sin and perversion” element is already there, if you want to call it that.

Sources:

Chaz Bono: America ‘really needs’ him on ‘Dancing With the Stars’ by Tim Kenneally

“Interesting… If you cross the North Korean border illegally, you get 12 yrs. hard labor. If you cross the Afghanistan border illegally, you get shot. Two Americans just got eight years for crossing the Iranian border. If you cross the U. S. border illegally you get a job, a drivers license, food stamps, a place to live, health care, housing & child benefits, education,& a tax free business for 7 yrs…No wonder we are a country in debt. Re-post if you agree”

I don’t agree, at least, not completely.

NATIONAL DEBT

More of the national debt is due to ‘entitlement programs’ than to military spending. In 2011, for example, military spending made up 16% of the US expenditures, while Health and Welfare programs constituted 29%, pensions were an additional 16%, and education only got 14%. If it were true that only illegal immigrants benefitted from these programs, then that statement might be true.

Illegals do indeed benefit from some programs, but not to the extent some would have you imagine. Some benefits are not possible to obtain without breaking numerous other laws (stealing personal information, creating counterfeit documents, etc). Some benefit by living under the protective umbrella of a friend or family member with legal citizenship. Many, however, do not benefit. believe it or not, there are mostly honest and hard-working illegals. (I have to say “mostly” because they did, after all, break laws by entering or staying in the country in the first place).

Americans of all shapes and sizes benefit from government spending. Our militaries and law enforcement agencies keep us safe at home and abroad. Whether or not you trust our military’s objectives or the integrity of our police, it is their work (and therefore the spending to fund them) that lets you go shopping, blog your hatred or love of whatever suits your fancy, march in protest, get fat on the sofa in front of The Real Desperate Housewives of Jersey Shore Makeover – Island Edition Extreme, keeps bad guys from climbing in your window while you are passed out drunk on the floor, etc.

Some people do need welfare support to stay afloat long enough to stand on their own. Those are the people who, embarrassed, accept a couple utility bill payments or a few months of food stamps while they search for a new job. They are those who apply for a college grant to get marketable skills because their old job went away and they need a new one. These programs are good for the people who use them as a crutch – not those who use them as a chrome-trim electric wheelchair to get their fat butt to the local slurpee mart to buy some lotto tickets and a carton of cigarettes.

DOOR PRIZES

America is the land of opportunity. The promised land. A melting pot. It seems that many of us get so wrapped up in a desire to destroy those who follow in our own footsteps that we forget the core of what our forefathers were trying to build this land to be: a welcome home from the imperfect nations elsewhere in the world.

Most of America is here as a result of an invasion of some sort. Native Americans (cousins of native Mexicans, right?) were over-run by invasive Europeans. In my own ancestry there was a native man who wandered up into (what are now) the states from Mexico. His children and grandchildren made agreements with European settlers which eventually paved the way for a more accepting colonization of this land by those of the other.

America wasn’t ever meant to be a reward without price, though. You had to work hard, pull your weight, and be a value to this land. Throughout most of its existence, Ellis Island – the gateway to American citizenship – turned away the sick and other undesirables. We did not want, nor could we afford, to allow those who were incapable of or unwilling to work. While this position may seem harsh today, it was a matter of fact at the time. Eventually this hard line softened to be fair – a median position. Unfortunately, with the adoption of Socialist programs, we’ve swayed to a new extreme of unfair – we welcome, pull in and incubate worthless people. We do indeed provide free food, school, housing, clothing, money and other benefits.

The problem with the popular view is that it always points to South American immigrants (in the West and Southwest) or Blacks (in urban areas). While these stereotypes do have a very real genesis (as awkward as that is to admit), a third faction of abusers is often overlooked: Whites.

The leeches on the welfare system are not bonded by race: they come from all genetic and ethnic backgrounds. A discussion on welfare which centers on race is a waste of time and allows the problem to continue. The common bond between those who milk our nation for free sustenance is an individual ideal of entitlement, supported and directed by leftist politics and the very teat of the system that is being sucked dry.

A MORE ACCURATE PICTURE

It is important for all to remember, acknowledge, and use correct usage of the word “Illegal Immigrant”. The word “Illegal” is put there by unbiased true definition, not by some hateful agenda. People who cross the borders of a country in which they are not citizens, and in a way that is not officially recognized by the laws of that country are breaking the laws of their destination are, by obvious definition, breaking the law. That means they are criminals, regardless the reason they chose not to abide by the laws. Do we let vigilantes brandish weapons and shoot at targets they believe are bad guys? No, even if their prey are indeed out for no good. Intent does not usually relieve us of the penalty of a crime.

That said, many of the people who broke our laws to enter our country are not the kind we’d think of as “bad guys”. Some of the people who are in our country illegally

• are harder, more trustworthy workers, and for less pay, than most Americans. They come here seasonally to work the jobs we’re “too good’ for. It is because of these hard working “migrant workers” that we pay $1.99 for a bag of apples instead of $15.99. many of these immigrants have come to our country legally, but when they are unable to afford the trip back, or don’t want to miss out on next season’s work, they let their paperwork lapse.
• many come into our country after paying a year’s wages to a smuggler called a “coyote”. They’re trying to get here to seek medical treatment, to make more money in a few months than they would at home in a few years … often to support a needy family back home. Some are trying to reunite with family who are here legally. Some, unfamiliar with our complex red tape, think they can start a thriving business or go to a university. After the coyote gets them across our border, additional debts are sprung on them. They become slaves, drug traffickers, prostitutes or other criminals to satisfy those new demands.
• some enter the country on temporary visas. because of the complexity of our laws and the cost involved in navigating the system, their visas expire and they are supposed to leave. they don’t, as they try to find a way to stay in the country legally. Some have children or spouses who are citizens or who are not from the land to which they will be deported.
• Some come here to escape the drug cartels. I know of an attractive and intelligent young lady who can’t attend college here because of her “illegal” status. She’s lived here most of her life, but wants to go “home” to live with her father so she can go to college. He doesn’t want her to come back to Mexico because in their town the drug dealers will forcibly take attractive women and force them to be their girlfriends. If the woman refuses, the cartels will kill her family. If she accepts, she is eventually forced into prostitution.

Our jails and prisons are filled with illegal immigrants who lived the ways of their country (public intoxication, beating women) and were arrested in ours for breaking our rules. Even these people are not the immigrants we need to focus on. Those who are a danger are those who come here to commit crimes, to traffic drugs, to murder and slip away. The illegals we need to be hard with are those who are here to commit acts of terrorism on the American people. How do we know which is which?

GET THE BALANCE RIGHT

We cannot sway to either extreme in the illegal immigrant issue. It is wrong to forbid others to enter our country simply because they cannot afford the paperwork or lack the education to understand the process.

At the same time, the United States is far more accepting of newcomers than most other countries. It’s harder to gain citizenship in England, Japan or Germany. As the opening paste-it described, in many countries you can be shot and killed or jailed in terrible conditions for such a trespass.

We should not entertain the antics of vigilante border patrol groups, but we also need a presence on that border to slow the flow of drugs and crime into our country. There is a very real border war going on, yet we choose to ignore it.

We ought to have assistance (information, not cash) for those who legitimately seek to improve themselves and contribute to our society. We should make it easier for the useful to participate in our country, while making it harder for the useless – the criminal and the lazy – to survive here. That should apply to all people, not just our immigrants, not just certain races, ethnicities, education levels or economic statuses.

In this, and other areas, I advocate a “Socialist” approach to the equality in application of the law to all persons, while also advocating a “Capitalist” approach to the receipt of rewards and the necessity of work. We all want equality and fairness, but we should not demand that the bar be lowered to accommodate that standard. We should instead find ways to help the weak condition and strengthen themselves to rise to the bar. There should be access to education, not money. Access to work, not food stamps. Our doors should be open to those who want to be a part of society, but closed to those – including those who are already born – who wish to undermine and abuse our system. If an activist wants a Red America, let them go to a red country.

Resources:

1. USGovernmentSpending.com
2. The Devil’s Highway: A True Story by Luis Alberto Urrea

I realized the answer to a lot of this is “politics” and “campaigning”, and those subjects aren’t worth writing about.

I’m also not going to write about “the life of Osama bin Laden”, because we all know who he was, we all know what sort of evil he spread in the world. Yes, his ugly footprint is an eternal stain on our freedoms – we will never be able to wear our shoes through airport security or carry pocketknives on vacation again because he and his minions put that idea out there and it can’t be retracted.

What I am going to write about are some of my views on the ridiculousness of our reactions to his (alleged) death.

THE LOST and CONFUSED LEFT

There seem to be some who are in shock, namely the extreme Left that I’ve so often gone on about. These are they who oppose capital punishment, all wars, Bush for every reason, Republicans, “tea partiers”, the words “patriotism”, “Christianity”, “Glen Beck”, and “right”, and who love/crave/thrive on communism, atheism, homosexuality, and promoting all downtrodden or “unpopular” (in quotes because they make them popular) causes and organizations, like radical Islam and eco-terrorism, for examples.

My leftist friends have been in an overnight scramble to find their equilibrium in their own required (by leftist ideology) commentary on the death of bin Laden. They’re tweeting peaceful quotes from the dalai lama, Gandhi, MLK Jr and others. They’re trying to find some way to exploit this and point their hatred toward Palin, Glen Beck or Republicans, and coming up short they’re just screaming, “I HATE REPUBLICANS”!

It’s as if they can’t fathom that their president – the “maybe-Muslim, certainly not Christian, left-loving, socialist, anti-war guy” is claiming he made the decisions and called the shots to murder their un-admitted hero.

THE REJOICING RIGHT

While the leftists are twitching with smoke coming out of their ears, trying to make sense of this conundrum, the Right is just blindly accepting it and cheering. They seem to have forgotten all that Obama stood for, and overlooked this curious change in action. They are standing in the streets, cheering and spreading the love over the death of some villain.

Myself a Christian, I wonder if it is really appropriate for this kind of excited rejoicing over the death of any individual. I agree he was a villain – perhaps the biggest flesh-and-blood villain of our time, and we are victorious in achieving the goal of his “capture”, but did his death really bring closure to the many thousands of families of his victims? The dead remain dead. The evil that this man spread is still there, still in the veins of his successors. We killed for revenge – any tactical benefit was lost long ago when he first went into hiding and others began commanding the cells. These others have now had ten years of on-the-job training to be his replacement. With their prophet of hatred and incivility now martyred, we are probably right in suspecting fierce retaliation. Are we unwittingly bouncing in the square with glee for a worse fate?

OUR SOLDIERS

Our military deserves to cheer. The death of bin Laden is indeed a “mission accomplished”. It is not, however, the end of the war. We were never “there” for the sole purpose of capturing bin Laden. We were (and are) to slow or stop the violent ideology that kills innocent people for power under the guise of religion. It’s true that we are not at war with Islam itself … but it is also true that we are not at war with Iraq or Pakistan or Afghanistan or Libya or Syria or any other country or people. We are at war with those who perpetrate evil on innocent people.

Osama bin Laden was an icon of such wickedness. He was not its only foundation.

Until my girlfriend became pregnant, I was also “pro-choice”. Because of my religious background, I felt “choice” was an important thing – without it we couldn’t choose between right and wrong, and if we couldn’t choose, what was the point of determining what is right or wrong?

When she announced our pregnancy, I freaked out. I was not prepared for the responsibility. I rushed around looking for a better paying job, began trying to sell my most valued “toys”, and made some huge commitments to myself in changing my lifestyle so I’d be a good father.

She waited a few days and then announced it was *her* choice, not mine, and she had made an appointment to go to (Planned Parenthood) for an abortion.

The next few days were some of the darkest moments of despair I’ve experienced in my life. I believed abortion was akin to murder, and I did not want to be party to such a horrific and irreversible act. I was convinced I was going to be thrust into damnation for allowing it to continue.

I am not and never have been a violent person, but for those few days I contemplated heavily various arguments to stop her, but knew in the end that she had a legal right under our laws to make that decision.

I brought up arguments anyway. She told me that a pregnancy wouldn’t affect me like it would her, that she “wouldn’t be able to still party” (not making that up!), and eventually added some arguments her friends made, including a strange quasi-religious argument about reincarnation and a threat that I “wouldn’t be a man” if I didn’t go to her appointment with her and hold her hand while the procedure was done.

The sickening day came, and I sat in what looked like a small dingy dentist’s office while a couple nurses explained the “procedure” and used a device called a “manual vacuum aspirator” (those words still make my stomach tense up) to kill and destroy our child. One of the nurses noticed the look of terror on my face and summoned a male nurse or doctor to enter the room, and I felt it was more for “security” than any kind of health reason.

I learned from this experience that “choice” is the most incorrect word to have been used to describe her decision.

• It was not my choice, as the father.
• It was not her mother or father’s choice as grandparents.
• It was not my parents’ choice as grandparents.
• It was not the choice of cousins, of future friends, of any of those years down the road who would have benefitted from association with the child,
• and it cannot be said that the child chose to have its physical body chopped up and tossed in the trash.

How is the choice of one, against the choice of many, “Pro-Choice”?

It took a lot of years, visits to my spiritual advisor and large amounts of hope to “forgive myself”. I no longer harbor ill feelings toward the ex-girlfriend, but my disgust at the sin will never be gone.

Don’t fool yourself with that word. It is a lie. It has no weight. It is meaningless and distracts from the grim reality of what it entails. If God wants us to have the freedom to choose and decide (and I believe he does), then go for the option that provides the most freedom to the most people, not the one that provides the least.

Her comment along with the posting indicated she thought the clip was funny.

I watched it, hoping to find humor, but instead found the bulk of the clip a line by line standard monologue of a liberal and their target.  Their representation of the “Tea Partier” spews off a handful of statements, some legitimate, most bizarre, and all unsubstantiated. “They are making our healthcare socialistic” is repeated, exaggerated, etc., in an attempt to make the Tea Partier look like a mindless robot.

To those who actually listen to and examine the ideologies of both segments, there is an irony in the liberal voice being calm and collected and the conservative voice being shallow and repetitive.

Toward the end, the monotone robo-voiced liberal begins matter-of-factly stringing together profanities. I suppose this is supposed to be the climax of this “funny” clip. Personally, I found it to be the only part of the clip vaguely attached to a truth: that the left loves the profane, the rude, the obscene, and the shocking.

I wanted to comment back against my friend’s post, but quickly realized that nothing I could say would educate her. She’s entrenched in this counterfeit philosophy.

As I explained in a prior post, the “Democratic Party” was conceived for the express purpose of winning elections. It had no underlying moral values, no consistent structure. It thrived (and thrives) on popular emotion – it exploits the lazy, the undereducated, the poor and the prideful. At a few times in its past it has slyfully re-written history: reversing the term “Federalism”, promoting slavery and later claiming racial equality as its platform, and more recently taking the “Blue” that has historically (and internationally) been reserved for conservative organizations and republics and leaving the “Red” – internationally the color of communists, radicals, and socialism – for their opposition. They continue to steal, misuse and eventually reverse meanings of other things: “Pro-Choice”, “bigot”, “diversity”, “rights”, “Separation of Church and State”.

Despite their cherry picking, violence, attacking people for their beliefs (or intelligence), their affiliation with the most scandal-ridden party ever to win a US election (Tammany Hall, Wilson’s “Great White Spirit”, the Japanese internment, Atomic Bombs, JFK, Carter’s deals with Housing, Clinton, anyone?), the Left is constantly pointing their bony, joint-stained fingers at the Right, tossing their own traits as accusations.

Why is this?

I realized today that the Right comes from tradition, from moral codes, from structure. Of course much of the Right is “religious”. Of course much of the right is “Traditional”. Of course much of it is “conservative” or “slow” – it has history behind it, reminding of patience and virtue and caution and truth. Truth is a consistency between past, present and future.

The Left, on the (literally) other hand, is “Here, now!”, "quick”, largely unplanned. The Left uses “last night” to justify the “now”. With the Left, it is always someone else’s fault … Reagan, Bush … the rich, big oil … religion or tradition. They want change NOW, and don’t bother with those dusty old conventions – honesty, planning, right/wrong, sometimes even legality – to accomplish it. In all – and I mean ALL – things liberal, there is always fallout. Someone always has to clean up the mess. The grand plan always creates a bigger mess than existed before it. This is the consistent and natural consequence of rushing into something.

I do realize all of this is too much of a simplification, but that brings me to my next point: Those things which drive the right – religion, history, tradition, values, ethics, culture – are incredibly complex. Each of these parts is, itself, complex. Some, contrary to contemporary belief, require and acceptance of a concept before the mechanisms supporting that concept become apparent. Because of this, those raised “Right” study before they judge, and judge before they leap. There is an order for all things. There are moments when faith is required and moments where tolerance and patience are required. There are elements of self-sacrifice, love, and obedience. This list doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface.

In contrast, the philosophy of the left is simple: Selfishness. All parts of the liberal ideology are rooted in individual selfishness. Abortion is the mother’s want of an uninterrupted life through the act of murder. Welfare is the want of something for nothing. Even “volunteerism” in the liberal realm is an act of selfishness – it is a way to prove “selflessness”. Where a true religious conservative would do the job and move on, a liberal “volunteer” wears a T-shirt, sports a mug, proclaims on their website their act of “kindness”. Ever notice most liberal volunteers volunteer in another country? That’s because the travel benefit of going to India is more interesting than helping the elderly widow next door. Third-world countries are especially appealing because many things considered inappropriate or illegal in our own land are accepted or permitted elsewhere. Liberals always want to volunteer to work in South America and backpack Europe. Why is that?

You can’t argue “our rights are in danger” to a person on the Left. As is mentioned in the clip, few are aware their rights are in danger. They can’t see history as recent as 30 years ago. Few have read the Constitution objectively or with historical context. They may have a few passages memorized, but those were sought for to prove a point that was already firm in their mind. Though many vocal liberals sport a nice degree and a thick resume, few can be bothered to research the contentious political points if it is going to use much of their time.

There was a recent book, “The Roots of Obama’s rage”, which suggests the President has “anti-colonialist” ideals. In the Amazon.com reviews of the book, one reviewer points out that the bulk of the reviews (122 at this writing) are favorable for the book, while the second-highest set of reviews (47) rated it only one star. The reviewer further points out an interesting point – something that won’t shock anyone who has gone through the trouble to review material posted online: those who rated the book unfavorably were not “verified purchasers” of the book, while those who rated it favorably were. While this could mean that it “just happened that” people who didn’t like the book bought it elsewhere (and those who did like it all bought it on Amazon), it’s not too hard to see that it is more likely that those most vocal in opposition to the book simply hadn’t read it, and are instead blindly defending an icon of their faith.

“just sayin”.

A “Tea Partier” cannot defend themselves in the small amount of time a “Liberal” needs in order to concentrate.

A few weeks ago, President Boyd K. Packer, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, delivered a message in the October 2010 General Conference called “Cleansing the Inner Vessel”.   In the talk, Pres. Packer talks about the miracle of repentance, it’s ability to uplift the soul, and that our loving Father in Heaven sent us to this earth with the freedom to choose between right and wrong – that none of us were born incapable of choosing the right.

Though he never specifically pointed at homosexuality (the plain and simple truths of the gospel make these concepts applicable to all temptations), the LGBT organizations – those who had been violently opposed to the LDS church since the 2008 elections – jumped all over the speech, protesting, writing offensive and accusation-laden articles, and attempting to hold up the Church of Jesus Christ as the guilty part in a number of “gay suicides”.

There is certainly a tragedy in attacking the very message of hope and of deliverance from pain that seems to be lost on the LGBT crowd. Suicide itself is a choice most often made in the despair of thinking that there is “no way out”, and if any community wishes to rid itself of this ugly specter, the task might best be accomplished through messages of hope, of the power to overcome, and of a loving God who knows each of us and our struggles individually.

These organizations rallied to have a message of God changed to be more favorable to their lifestyle. They protested, they sent letters, they attacked from all angles. They sought to displace a loving gift of God – “agency” – with the despair of Satan: “You have no choice, there is no hope for you. You were born this way and you need to make do.”

These demands fly in the face of scripture:

1 Corinthians 10:13 (New Testament, KJV)
There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

1 Nephi 3:7 (Book of Mormon)
And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said unto my father: I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.

President Packer was simply stating these truths, within a general statement about repentance.

Though the news tends to focus on the sensational – the protestors and those who were “easily offended” – read the following statement, posted on a blog by someone who had formerly participated in a homosexual relationship, and who is LDS:

“… I’d like to share what I heard from Boyd K. Packer’s talk on Sunday.  These are not quotes but my experience of what he said.  If anyone wants to hear quotes they should listen to the talk themselves.

I heard that we are all given free agency to do what we choose to do in this life.  That we will never be given a trial we are not able to handle.  He said that the LDS Church believes marriage to be ordained of God and that it is to be between a man and woman.  I heard him say that acting on same-sex attraction is not in alignment with the teachings of the Church and that if one does act on these attractions or one does have an addiction to some type of drugs or pornography that those actions and or addictions can be handled and if desired that person can over-come them and live the teachings of the Church and find the happiness that those teachings promise.

His comment referring to someone not being born gay, to me says we have a choice.  I firmly believe that to be true, I feel I lived it.  I also made the choice as to what I acted on.  He stated our Heavenly Father would not do this to someone, what I feel that statement means is that our Heavenly Father would not send us to this life and have a “condition” be placed upon us that we could not change and then tell us we are wrong for it.

There was nothing in the talk that said anyone is hated, that anyone should be looked down on or cast out.  It was a talk that reminded us that no matter what struggles we have in life there is hope, there is a way to overcome them and there is a way to be our whole selves.” – Janine McCauley, Another View of President Packer’s Talk

This morning I came across an article where a mother accused Packer’s talk of “re-opening a wound”. The woman’s son had committed suicide, presumably a result of difficulties he experienced while identifying himself as “gay”. It is truly a sad story, but I question some of the “facts” in the Salt Lake Tribune article.

The mother in the story claims she grew up in a small “Mormon community” where no one “ever even thought about people being gay”. She says her thoughts and feelings were ignored because she was a “dutiful little Mormon wife” and “that’s how you do things.”  These kinds of statements are typical of people who are against the church for any reason. They follow the usual unfounded accusation that the church is riddled with ignorance and that some sort of traditional patriarchal abuse exists. These assumptions or claims are offensive to those who actually follow the gospel of Jesus Christ as members of his church. They are kin to claims that people are “brainwashed” or “don’t question their church leaders.” In truth, any behavior of “conformity” comes as a result of following a strait and undeviating path, a simple and consistent gospel, and from having a perspective of life that is uncommon elsewhere. Those who make claims against this either “never got it” in the first place, or they refuse to abandon some ugly habit or mindset that prevents them from feeling the spirit, such as adultery, alcoholism, or promiscuity, and their own conscience pricks at them until they run away to try to find peace in the shadows of a culture that lacks a higher standard. The gospel requires effort, and though no one can or will claim “perfection”, the true gospel demands that we make every effort to live the commandments and teachings of Jesus Christ to our best ability. “Endure to the end”, “walk the extra mile”, “turn the other cheek”, etc.

It is not surprising, then, that this mother later divorced the boy’s father, left the church and is now atheist.

She makes the sensational claim that her son was sent by the Mormon church to have electroshock therapy “and was shown pornography with electrodes attached to his penis.”

I can say without any doubt whatsoever that the “Mormon church” did not show pornography to this young man or attach electrodes to his penis. The church is consistent, as God is consistent. Pornography is never good, it is never a “tool” for anything other than evil. Our bodies are sacred and this sort of thing would have never (nor will ever) happen at the hands of the LDS church. I cannot vouch for any other institution the boy may have gone to.

Finally, the paper itself claims that “Packer later made substantive changes to the speech to soften and correct it.”

To my knowledge, from the comparisons made by numerous news organizations, blogs, etc, these “substantive” changes were:

1. He revised the talk to use the word “temptations” instead of the word “tendencies.”
2. He dropped the phrase, “Why would our Heavenly father do that to anyone?”

Hardly “substantive changes”. The talk still says the same thing. Perhaps there is a slight difference between “tendency” and “temptation” -   the former indicates a “drift” while the latter indicates a “pull”.

so the original statement was:

“Some suppose that they were pre- set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies (drifts, inclinations, leanings) toward the impure and unnatural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, he is our Father.”

and the revision is:

“Some suppose that they were pre- set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations (pulls, lures, attractions) toward the impure and unnatural. Not so. Remember, he is our Father.”

* italicized words my additions.

The LDS Church’s official comment is as follows:

“The Monday following every General Conference, each speaker has the opportunity to make any edits necessary to clarify differences between what was written and what was delivered or to clarify the speaker’s intent. President Packer has simply clarified his intent. As we have said repeatedly, the Church’s position on marriage and family is clear and consistent. It is based on respect and love for all of God’s children.”

Was the talk changed as a result of the protests? I really don’t think so. I feel that changing the word “Tendencies”, which indicate an “inclination’ to do something to “Temptations”, which indicate an attraction to do something and has the added weight of the “sin” aspect actually increases the straightforward seriousness of his message. Dropping the rhetorical question, “Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?” simply streamlines the message and increases its clarity. i believe that these “last minute changes before publication” are as they are said to be. If the church were bowing to external pressure or if they were trying to “re-write history”, the original video and audio of the talk would not be available online, it would not be pressed into inexpensive DVDs for members to purchase in a few months, etc.

Do I care that the protestors claim they got their way? No. It serves no purpose. These are they who won’t listen to reason, ignore God, and “heap unto themselves teachers, having itching ears”. They only want to hear what justifies them, and they can’t weather the truth.

Yes, God loves his children. That’s why he handed us so many easy-to-follow instructions to get back to Him. That’s why we have commandments, scriptures, churches, the Holy Ghost and living prophets. He’s made it incredibly easy to get back to him.

He wants us to learn, though – to prove ourselves through obedience. We all will have struggles. We are veiled or “blindfolded” from being able to see Him because we must learn to make these choices to strengthen what is within us – not merely to satisfy the requirements to get us to the shiny reward at the end of the field.

We must seek to conform to God, not to mold him into the form which pleases us.

“There is also an age-old excuse: “The devil made me do it.” Not so! He can deceive you and mislead you, but he does not have the power to force you or anyone else to transgress or to keep you in transgression.” – Boyd K. Packer

SOURCES

• Boyd K. Packer, “Cleansing the Inner Vessel”, October 2010 LDS General Conference
• Janine McCauley, “Another View of President Packer’s Talk”, Facebook 10/05/2010 4:10pm
• Paul the Apostle, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians 10:13, The Holy Bible (KJV)
• Nephi, First Book of Nephi 3:7, The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ
• Peg McEntee, “Harsh Words About Gays Rekindle a Mother’s Anger”, The Salt Lake Tribune 10/23/2010 10:06pm
• ABC4.com, “Packer Makes Changes To Sermon Regarding Homosexuality”
• KSL.com, “LDS Church Addresses Changes Made to Pres. Packer’s Talk”, 10/08/2010 4:59pm

As is most often the case, the abrupt and reflexive change of direction caused the car to fishtail, and eventually the car went out of the driver’s control and they went off the road, flipped the vehicle and came to a stop.

The difference between true “conservatives” and other breeds of politicians is illustrated by this story. A true conservative doesn’t overreact, doesn’t overcorrect, and doesn’t raise their voice and scream. Conservatives are cautious, and though they may seem to sometimes move too slowly for a handful of people, their actions are well-thought, weighed, and wise.

Not all Republicans or Tea Partiers are conservatives. A small number suffer from the same pig-headed selfish myopia as their opposition. Still, where is the historical evidence of Liberal policies ever creating lasting success? Democrats brought us the Civil War, helped to promote abortion as a part of Eugenics, oppressed Native Americans during the 1900s, put Japanese-Americans into concentration camps in WW2, dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, supported segregation (and to be fair, changed their position once enough Americans thought otherwise and ended it), put and kept Americans in Vietnam, raised taxes (a number of times), “broke” the economy during Carter, and under Carter and Clinton created the arrangements that caused the housing crisis in the 1980s and in the 2000’s.

The fact is, liberal policies rarely (if ever) work. Everywhere they create anti-gun laws, violent crime increases. When they created the welfare system they created a whole new breed of lazy and opportunistic citizens. When they let killers out of prison early and erase capital punishment, murders rise.

I don’t think it is a part of a (conscious) conspiracy. I think they just move too quickly. As mentioned in a prior post, the Democratic Party is a political machine. It is the most flexible because it exists only to get people elected. It pushes laws that offer a quick fix, something to hold people over just long enough for the next election. Ever look at why our legal system is so complex? It is because someone rushes through a stupid law that has holes, and as those holes prove to be a problem, new laws are made to patch those up. They satisfy the people but have no underlying structure or code, and the superficial nature of those policies does not weather well.

Activism Against Free Speech

Today I saw a news story about the LGBT protests against his talk. They are demanding that he “apologize” or “re-state” what he said in conference. One quote from that article sums up the general opposition:

"Our message is very simple. It’s hate speech equal LGBT suicides," said Eric Ethington, Pride in Utah blogger and organizer of the event. "You can not tell kids for their entire lives there is something wrong with them."

I will ignore the obvious point about such activism being against “free speech” and “freedom of religion”, and the hypocrisy of a “diversity group” demanding a person change their opinion and go with the crowd, but it seems the LGBT community is now blaming prophetic counsel on the latest buzzword “gay suicides”.

Suicide Needs to be Addressed Without Pointing Fingers

I wrote a long article on “gay suicides” the other day but decided not to post it. I didn’t want to disrespect those who are suffering from the loss of a loved one, and couldn’t find a clear way not to group all suicides together. I wanted to point out that the handful of cases the LGBT community is waving around as their banner in this new strategy are generally one of two kinds: “Gay –> Bullying –> Suicide” or “Mentally Ill –> Gay –> Suicide”. The latter is certainly not a popular or socially “correct” way to label something, but good examples of the mental illness-LGBT tie are the transsexual pipe-bomber in Payette Idaho and the transsexual fire-breather on the Tacoma bridge (not that “transsexual” necessarily means “crazy”, but those stories are a lot easier to call up from memory than “gay religious man molests young boy” or than trying to drag out some big explanation of homosexual serial killers Henry Lee Lucas or Ed Gein or something.)

The point I was trying to make in the article is that suicide is more taboo than any of the other factors (including homosexuality), so it is the least addressed and the most tip-toed around, and subsequently too little effort is being spent on actually identifying or educating against suicide itself. Suicide is, after all, a choice regardless the circumstances. When we spend all our time pointing fingers (“he did it because he was gay and couldn’t handle this homophobic world!” “she did it because she was bullied!”), we effectively promote the suicidal behavior itself as an acceptable solution, and it becomes romanticized and made “ok” in the minds of those who will later face the difficulties of life and choices.

God Gives Us Choice and Equips Us with the Ability to Succeed

Packer’s talk addresses the important factor in these equations: that our loving and eternal God has given us the ability to choose our paths in life – right or wrong – and that there is always a way back to the right path. Packer reminded us that it is

“… a doctrinal certainty that our agency is more powerful than the adversary’s will. Agency is precious. We can foolishly, blindly give it away, but it cannot be forcibly taken from us.

There is also an age-old excuse: “The devil made me do it.” Not so! He can deceive you and mislead you, but he does not have the power to force you or anyone else to transgress or to keep you in transgression.”

These words are directly in line with one of my favorite scriptures, 1 Corinthians 10:13:

“There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way for you to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.”

Along with it, another favorite of mine, 1 Nephi 3:7 from the Book of Mormon, conveys a similar comfort:

“… I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may be able to accomplish the thing which he commanded them.”

In the first scripture it shows that there is no difficulty that a person can ever go through that is beyond that of any difficulty ever suffered by man. It says that God only allows us to be faced with those trials that we are capable of enduring. It says that there is always a way to rise above those trials and succeed. In the second scripture it says that when we do the things the Lord commands us to do he will provide a way for us to accomplish those things.

God Gave Commandments to Help Us

We are commanded not to murder, not to worship false gods, not to steal, to lie, to commit adultery, and many other things. Some commandments are listed in the ten commandments God gave to Moses for Israel. Many others are found throughout the scriptures, and are perhaps ‘sub-commandments” of more specific wording, having already been covered by the others. We’re not to have sexual relations outside of marriage. Men are not to “lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman” (Leviticus 20:13). We have sex as husband and wife, in part, because it is within this arrangement that we procreate.

We who believe in God believe that He is a perfect God and a just God. He makes no mistakes. We are not accidentally born into the wrong body. We are not born with the impossibility of following God’s laws. We might be born with a physical disability, but we are never born with a spiritual disability. This is the message of Packer’s talk: that it is a vicious and destructive lie of the adversary to believe that you have feelings you cannot control, whether they be addictions to substances, pornography or gambling or whether they be other sins of activities that have long been outlined and warned against in holy scripture.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints doesn’t “have it out for gays”. As has been said a million times before, “love the sinner, hate the sin”. These sins are not limited to homosexuals. Any kind of sexual relations outside a marriage between a husband and wife is unlawful as far as God is concerned. Transgressions are often spelled out in scripture, but sometimes they are not. There are a multitude of other things that are just as serious as having homosexual relations. We are commanded not to participate in any of those things.

Those who are angry at Packer for “his choice of words” are angry because those things which he was inspired to say lift many from bondage. His message was one of hope, of a pathway to escaping something some have wrongly felt they are bound to because of “nature”. His words were not only directed at those who are part of the LGBT community – his words are valid and true for persons suffering from any kind of behavior for which they have wrongly been convinced is inescapable.

God is Consistent, Man is Not

There is a growing divide in the world, even among churches, which contributes to many of these debates. Some churches will not budge, and others bend over backwards to gain new followers. Before we start hurling insults at the immovable religions, we have to ask ourselves “who are we trying to please, man or God?”

There are two scriptures in the Bible that are of importance to this argument:

“Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.” (Heb. 13:8)

“I am the Lord, I change not.” (Mal. 3:6)

Mormons firmly believe in an unchanging and eternal God, and in additional scripture we have the following statements reaffirming Gods perfect and eternal nature:

"For he is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever; and the way is prepared for all men from the foundation of the world, if it so be that they repent and come unto him." (1 Nephi 10: 18)

"And thou hast beheld in thy youth his glory; wherefore, thou art blessed even as they unto whom he shall minister in the flesh; for the Spirit is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. And the way is prepared from the fall of man, and salvation is free." (2 Nephi 2: 4)

"For behold, I am God; and I am a God of miracles; and I will show unto the world that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and I work not among the children of men save it be according to their faith." (2 Nephi 27: 23)

"And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever." (2 Nephi 29: 9)

"But thou art the same yesterday, today, and forever; and thou hast elected us that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast by thy wrath down to hell; for the which holiness, O God, we thank thee; and we also thank thee that thou hast elected us, that we may not be led away after the foolish traditions of our brethren, which doth bind them down to a belief of Christ, which doth lead their hearts to wander far from thee, our God." (Alma 31: 17)

"For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?" (Mormon 9: 9)

"And I would exhort you, my beloved brethren, that ye remember that He is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and that all these gifts of which I have spoken, which are spiritual, never will be done away, even as long as the world shall stand, only according to the unbelief of the children of men." (Moroni 10: 19)

"Thereby showing that He is the same God yesterday, today, and forever. Amen." (D&C 20: 12)

"Listen to the voice of the Lord your God, even Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, whose course is one eternal round, the same today as yesterday, and forever." (D&C 35: 1)

Offended by Hope or by Conscience?

Packer and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and the Lord himself don’t say these things to “pick a fight” or to “trample down” or hurt those who are taking offense. The offense taken is one of conscience. The discomfort as a sign that the ideology is not of God and that it leads to a dead end. This discomfort happens any time we pridefully put our own will above that of God’s. Like those bumps on the side of a freeway, it is the initial warning to let us know we’re veering off the strait and narrow path, and that we are in danger.

"Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;" (1 Timothy 4:2)

"And it came to pass that by so doing they kept them from being destroyed upon the face of the land; for they did prick their hearts with the word, continually stirring them up unto repentance." (Jarom 1:12)

Another View of Packer’s Talk

Those who oppose these things have an agenda. Those who have no agenda heard the joy, hope and freedom from bondage in Packer’s talk.  A good example is a note written on Facebook Tuesday, October 5th by Janine McCauley, titled “Another View of President Packer’s Talk”. McCauley had joined the LDS church when she was 19, and a few years later became involved in a same-sex relationship. Several years later she felt something missing, and chose to return to the LDS church. She abandoned the lifestyle in order to abide by the teachings of the church. She says the following:

“With that being said I’d like to share what I heard from Boyd K. Packer’s talk on Sunday.  These are not quotes but my experience of what he said.  If anyone wants to hear quotes they should listen to the talk themselves. 

"I heard that we are all given free agency to do what we choose to do in this life.  That we will never be given a trial we are not able to handle. 

He said that the LDS Church believes marriage to be ordained of God and that it is to be between a man and woman. 

I heard him say that acting on same-sex attraction is not in alignment with the teachings of the Church and that if one does act on these attractions or one does have an addiction to some type of drugs or pornography that those actions and or addictions can be handled and if desired that person can over-come them and live the teachings of the Church and find the happiness that those teachings promise. 

His comment referring to someone not being born gay, to me says we have a choice.  I firmly believe that to be true, I feel I lived it.  I also made the choice as to what I acted on. 

He stated our Heavenly Father would not do this to someone, what I feel that statement means is that our Heavenly Father would not send us to this life and have a “condition” be placed upon us that we could not change and then tell us we are wrong for it. 

There was nothing in the talk that said anyone is hated, that anyone should be looked down on or cast out.  It was a talk that reminded us that no matter what struggles we have in life there is hope, there is a way to overcome them and there is a way to be our whole selves.  If someone doesn’t feel their lifestyle is wrong, no one is saying they HAVE to change.  That is the beauty of have the freedom to choose. 

What if the message got to that one teen who has been struggling with wanting to change because they completely believed the message of the Church but feeling he or she can’t because “they were born this way” what if the message was to them and it was a message of hope to them that they can change just as our agency allows us to choose to live one lifestyle that same agency can be used to choose to live another?”

The Adversary Wants You to Cave In

I don’t hate people who identify with the LGBT community. Many of my friends have chosen the lifestyle. I personally believe that some are predisposed to an attitude that makes such activity more appealing, but I believe in the true and everlasting God, and I know he is just and would not place us on the earth with no hope of passing our test of mortality. I believe that the notion that one is “born that way” (regardless of what “that” might be) is a device of the adversary to drag more down to destruction. He wants us to feel helpless and cave in, while God wants us to have hope, to be of good cheer, and to know that we can win against the tide of evil and wickedness if we choose to.

Resources:

Boyd K Packer “Cleansing the Inner Vessel.” http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-1298-23,00.html

Jared Preisz, Fox13 News “Thousands of Gay Activists Protest at Mormon Church Headquarters.” http://www.fox13now.com/news/local/kstu-ut-gay-protest-set-on-mormon-leaders-remarks,0,2412632.story

Janine McCauley “Another View of President Packer’s Talk.” http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=157010880987998#!/note.php?note_id=437973979211&id=651614501

“All gay people, and I’m sure even this kid, want is the same thing everyone wants: To grow up, get through school, get a good job, meet someone and spend the rest of our lives together. That’s hardly a “lifestyle” to be ashamed of. The only problem is people like you who call it a “lifestyle” that not even the Catholic Church thinks that being gay is a choice.
If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.”

I don’t disagree with his point that gays want “the same thing everybody wants”, but I strongly disagree with his claim that homosexuality isn’t a lifestyle.

I have several friends who indulge in homosexuality. When I say “several friends”, I mean probably over 1/3 of my closest associates claim affiliation with homosexuality. They are gay men, lesbian women, and a couple who practice “bisexuality”. The high percentage of my friends who live that lifestyle is due, in part, to my years in the entertainment industry.

Why are so many gay people in the entertainment industry? Why do so many gay men talk with a lisp and a flamboyant whine? Why are so many into interior design, fashion and hairstyling? How come they all know entire repertoires of disco diva material and all the words to every Broadway musical ever made? Why do gay women ride motorcycles? Why are so many of them fat?

A few of my friends “turned gay” after I knew them. They’d never say that – it’s against the gay code to admit you turned against the opposite sex after your ex-wife cheated on you or you got tired of all the boys in school making fun of how fat you are. It’s true though. ALL my friends who were once straight and are now flamers used to date girls, play sports, and do all the other boy stuff. ALL my female friends who now claim to be lesbians were fat and got made fun of or they were raped or abused by some idiot and they (rightfully so) don’t trust men anymore. ALL my friends who claim to be “bisexual” are either fat girls-gone-dyke-but-still-hoping-for-a-guy or they all proclaimed this new label in unison when it became fashionable twelve years ago (or during the resurgence 5 years ago).

Transsexuals, who are not technically “gay”, had an advantage when claiming they “always felt this way”. In the beginning,  surgeons and endocrinologists were less likely to aid someone in permanently breaking and disfiguring their body who said “I just decided last month this is something I really want to do.” To avoid the inevitable lawsuits, they created criteria designed to slow the pace of such life-changing decisions. Even then, few agreed to assist those TS in reaching their goal unless they made the claim that they’d “felt this way since birth”. Accordingly, TS began to adopt the “ever since I was three” story, which spawned numerous psychologists to come up with theories about the age at which our gender is “set”, and that it was environmental rather than biological (later disproven, as readers of “As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised As a Girl” are aware). More recently psychologists began pushing for a new term, “autogynephilia” to describe those TS who were preoccupied with surgery and hormones as a fetish, and though the diagnosis is still controversial, more and more TS are identifying with that and being accepted by the doctors who formerly shunned them. I believe this is because scores of people were not “born that way” or “felt this way since childhood”, but instead had a fetishistic preoccupation with those forms of sexual mutilation and body modification.

“Traditional” gays and lesbians didn’t normally claim they felt this way since birth. For years there was no reason to – it gained nothing. Most (if they admitted their slant) acknowledged an “experimentation” period in their life or could point to the pivotal moment in their decision to indulge in homosexual behavior. Among my associates there was only one male who displayed that inclination from an early age, but he never mentioned “always feeling that way”, and I’d wondered if his effeminate mannerisms cornered him into accepting that lifestyle.

While it is debatable whether there is actually a “gay gene”, all persons are born with the abilities to overcome any difficulties and temptations they might have in their lives. From a religious point of view, the act of homosexuality is a sin. This would lead me to believe that it is possible that some are born with more of a temptation toward this kind of activity, but that none is born with the inescapable and uncontrollable urge to participate in those sorts of activities (just as none is born with the uncontrollable urge to kill, steal, or drink alcohol).

I believe that homosexuality is a predisposition to an unnatural sexual activity and that it gains acceptance through its culture, aka “lifestyle”.

In response to the gentleman’s comments against calling it a “lifestyle”, I want to point to one of the most glaring examples of “lifestyle” over “natural inclination”.  As pointed out to me by a supervisor in 1998 who was a practicing homosexual, people who are following their natural inclinations have no need to prove anything through a parade, film, or publications. Clubs use parades, demonstrations and publications, but biological truths need no such endorsement or “proofs”. He refused to participate in the “pride parades” because he felt it cheapened what he believed was a biological truth for him.

If there wasn’t a gay “lifestyle”, there wouldn’t need to be gay parades, gay bingo, gay disco, gay clothing, gay bumper stickers, gay music festivals, gay lingo, gay books, gay television, etc. If these were all “natural parts of being gay”, then men who decide they are homosexual when they’re 25 wouldn’t suddenly develop a lisp and an affection for show tunes – they would have had it since birth, right?

I’m not “against” people who identify themselves as LGBT.  I am, however, against the practice of those inclinations, as they are, have been and will continue to be against God. I peacefully oppose legislation to require this kind of abnormal behavior to be “accepted”. I am also strongly against violence toward people who succumb to those inclinations. For me, the issue of homosexuality is “hate the sin, love the sinner”.

I have friends who were stranded in Las Vegas as a result of the terrorist attacks and friends who were serving religious missions across the water from the WTC and were unaware.

The date was a pivotal moment in my political identity and awareness.

Until that day I didn’t really care. I watched the news when big scary events happened, like Union Carbide, Chernobyl, WACO and Oklahoma City. I’d lived through the WTO riots and the Seattle (Nisqually) Earthquake a year later. I’d had nightmares my entire life of planes falling from the sky. I never really cared about anything politically, though.

I thought I cared. I pretended to care. I jokingly plastered my Jr. High with home-made posters of an unpopular President. I joined Amnesty International when I was in high school because all the cool and weird girls were involved. I joined PETA. I read all the WWF brochures, and was “anti war” enough not to join the military when I was old enough, despite it being my childhood dream.

On 9/11 I was living in sin with my feminist hippie girlfriend. Her man-hating friends were Caucasian Buddhist bike-riding bisexual women, one of which was a political activist who worked for the green party. I bought into a lot of their beliefs and was quite the raging liberal myself at one point, though firsthand experience during the WTO riots in Seattle had begun to erode my faith in the faithless.

The night of 9/10 I began watching several videocassettes of the television show, The X Files. I couldn’t sleep, partly because we were starving and partly because I was stressed out about some things, so I watched all night and into the morning.

Sometime around 6am the VHS tape stopped and began to rewind. When it stopped, the VCR switched to television, which happened to be on a national news channel. The news was airing footage of a large building burning, and said an aircraft had flown into it. Someone suggested a navigational error, but it still seemed suspicious. As I was watching the live feed, wondering myself what may have happened, I glanced up to see a second aircraft fly into the building. At that moment I, like most Americans watching the drama unfold, knew it was not an accident and something terrible and life-altering was about to unfold.

I remember repeating “no … no … no … no …” over and over. Eventually my girlfriend woke up and I told her what was going on. When they mentioned later in the morning that Osama Bin Laden may be involved, I’d never heard of him, but she rattled off a whole history (which, of course, included the whole “we trained him” bit in verbal boldface).

I couldn’t sleep that morning, and I was glued to the television and internet all day. In the late afternoon we were scheduled to work at a car-parts store (think NASCAR, confederate flags, etc) with our Sikh supervisor and his brother and cousins. Though I knew they were good people, I was a little worried about going somewhere with a crowd of bearded guys who were wearing turbans on a day when much of America was in shock and anger over what was already being viewed as a “Muslim” attack.

While working we were almost all silent. I think they knew we were uncomfortable, because it was one of them who brought up the attacks. We all started talking, and they told us that an organization they belonged to was going to set up an emergency blood drive and they would be donating blood.

That whole day was strange and “off”, in part because of the national shock and in part because I had not slept. The following weeks and months were also strange to me. For a few days no aircraft were permitted to fly. I remember looking out over Seattle and Puget Sound, seeing the sky silent and still. I looked out there often, thinking about how Native Americans of a couple hundred years before might have seen the landscape. I looked out there in the mornings and evenings when the jets began making their patrols, circling the area. It was strange.

Our laundry room had a table where people would leave junk for others to take. I found an aircraft scanner there shortly after the attacks, and began using it to listen to air traffic. I found myself on edge, constantly aware of my surroundings. In my morning commute I would run under the Space Needle to the bus stop, and I remember so many mornings wondering if someone was going to set a bomb off at that symbol as I ran by. Stupid, I know, but I was still part-liberal, and subject to paranoia and conspiracy.  I quit taking the monorail. I started to look at all foreigners suspiciously.

The conspiracies started almost immediately. Green Party girl called to say the attacks were orchestrated by George Bush so we could go to war and make his friends rich over oil. I thought that was ridiculous – an extension of the “the election was rigged” conspiracy – and began listening to his speeches to see if he was as dumb as people said.

When I realized he wasn’t – that he was sincere and just as concerned as the rest of America – I began moving away from the dark side and into the light. When I got a job the following month I began listening to talk radio on my walkman during the long bus commutes.

Over time, having this curious and open mind has allowed me to see many facets to political issues, where previously I was only motivated by the prideful aspect of liberalism (“we’re smarter than you are/ we know what’s REALLY going on”). I see so clearly now that some people are humble and realistic while others are proud and march behind stolen concepts and abused values like “free speech” and “diversity”.

9/11 changed the way I look at the world. I think it did that for a lot of people. I hope everyone can remember that day and how they felt before the political vultures arrived. It was a real event. We were really attacked by a corrupt ideology on American soil. Lives really were lost. It was not an “inside job”.