Surgeon General Nominee = Anti-gay Bigot [Archive]

Steven E. Webster

06-01-2007, 09:55 PM

Friends,

Bush's nominee for Surgeon General currently serves as the President of the United Methodist Judicial Council. Holsinger was part of a group of candidates elected to take over the United Methodist Judicial Council on behalf of right-wing groups in the United Methodist Church (namely, the Confessing Movement, the Good News Caucus and the Institute on Religion and Democracy).

The Judicial Council is a nine-member body, elected by General Conference, that we Methodists often describe as our "Supreme Court." They are the final arbiters on questions of church law. (General Conference acts as the legislature, establishing church law.)

A couple of years ago, a local United Methodist pastor defied his Bishop and refused to admit a gay man to membership in the United Methodist Church and the local congregation to which the pastor was appointed. The Bishop's ruling was overturned by the Judicial Council which declared that United Methodist pastors did not have to obey the orders of their Bishops on questions of church membership. The decision was particularly controversial because it appeared to "legislate from the bench"--making up new church law rather than sticking to the Judicial Council's proper role of interpretation of church law.

Here is the link to the decision.

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1098&JDMOD=VWD

Please read the dissenting opinions which occur after the decision and before the final concurring opinion. The more lengthy and scholarly dissenting opinion is written by Judge Jon R. Gray, a member of the Judicial Council who also happens to be a Judge in a secular court. It is not necessary to be trained as an attorney to sit on the Judicial Council. Holsinger (like many of the others) is not an attorney.

Judge Jon R. Gray's dissent begins with this biting paragraph:
Having fully mastered the difficult task of judicial interpretation, my colleagues in the majority have now chosen to direct their talents to the meticulous work of authoring legislation. I choose not to join them in that endeavor. Although I join in the dissenting statement filed by my colleague, I write separately to offer legal reasons why I differ with the majority opinion.

I'll end this post at this point, and I'll entertain questions. Also I'll post some additional information on the controversy over decision 1032 later. Briefly, let me say that decision 1032 will be one of the sources of controversy when General Conference next meets in the Spring of 2008. The Council of Bishops issued a letter immediately after decision 1032 was made public insisting that "homosexuality is no barrier to membership." However the Bishops do not trump a Judicial Council ruling--only General Conference can do that.

Underlying the legal reasoning of decision 1032 is the conviction which Holsinger and the majority seems to hold that homosexuality is "immorality." One can imagine that Holsinger will approach his job as Surgeon General with the same conviction, that "homosexuals are immoral." One has to wonder, if this man would bar homosexuals from his own church, how would he treat LGBT citizens as the nation's chief physician?

Steven Webster

Steven E. Webster

06-01-2007, 10:37 PM

Friends,

In post #8 in this thread Jamie links to a Focus on the Family response to the Holsinger controversy. Focus argues that Holsinger's actions as a President of the Judicial Council has no relevance to to his job as Surgeon General. I would argue that Holsinger's public behavior as a highly placed official in his church demonstrates personal biases and behaviors that suggest he might approach his job as Surgeon General in a biased way.

Holsinger was not merely following the law of his church--Holsinger was responsible for establishing the law of his church. Decision 1032 (discussed in a previous post) was and is highly controversial among United Methodists to the extent that United Methodist Bishops have raised strong objections to it. It will be a source of controversy and division at the United Methodist General Conference in 2008.

Focus is making an argument very similar to arguments made that nominees to the Supreme Court should not be asked about their religious views on abortion. The argument is made that a nominee is being persecuted or discriminated against because of his/her religious conviction. But we also do not want certain religious doctrines/practices/constraints imposed on us by public officials. Not all Roman Catholic public officials seek to deny women access to abortion--but we now have a Supreme Court with a Roman Catholic majority, and not just any kind of Roman Catholic, but those who identify with such right wing elements as Opus Dei.

We have no business concerning ourselves with a nominee's religious beliefs, but we have every reason, based on their prior behavior, to ask how they will apply their beliefs to public policy decisions, particularly if those public policy decisions could do harm to the life, liberty and happiness of American citizens.

LGBT American citizens have every right to know that their Surgeon General will view them and treat them without any bias. Surgeon General Koop, who was an evangelical Christian, was exemplary in facing the AIDS crisis with compassion and good sense--could we expect the same from a Surgeon General Holsinger?

Steven Webster

Progo35

06-02-2007, 12:14 AM

This is not meant to be offensive-but like I've said before, I urge those in the Soulforce community to openly consider the possibility that this man will not apply a religously-motivated decision in a church setting (that relates to the doctrine of his church) to a social responsibility like being Surgeon General. For instance, I know that I myself have been confused as to how I feel about homosexuality just because of some Scriptural passages, but I feel confident that I would not do that if I were running the program.

That being said, I do think it is very wrong of any church to bar someone from membership because they are gay. That is prejudice, as churches are supposed to be places were all people can come to seek the truth about Christ's death on the cross and his love, which they cannot do if they are not allowed into the building. I know that Jesus would not have done this. In terms of the associate pastor issue, I think that I need to learn more about the situation gay Christians have found themselves in. If it's not a sin, than I wouldn't want to bar someone with that orientation from joining the clergy. But, some committed, compassionate Christians make the difficult decision to decide that it is. Some are bigots but many are not, at least not on purpose. In terms of that particular decision, that could just as easily have been made by someone who was not happy about it what they felt they have to do.

I think it is good that the gay community has Soulforce to dialogue with Christian leaders. Perhaps Soulforce could schedule a meeting or hold a vigil outside the Surgeon General's office? Hopefully, he would be enthusiastic about listening to these concerns. If not, then I think there is a stronger case for bigotry. Also, I think that when I have time I'd like to do some research on this man's actions in other social spheres. If he has treated other "sinners" fairly, then I think it indicates that he will be fair to homosexuals despite his beliefs. If he hasn't, then it gives a clearer prediction of what his behavior might be.

Progo35

06-02-2007, 12:23 AM

Then again, I would freak if someone like Dr. Anglin, the Texas doctor who wanted to discontinue treatment for a disabled child against his mother's consent (which would have killed the child) were named Surgeon General, and I would call him an anti-disability bigot.

Progo35

06-02-2007, 12:25 AM

-Because I think he is-maybe without even knowing it-because he wanted to end this child's life out of "compassion." And, from a legal standpoint, he had the ability to do so.

Jamie McDaniel

06-02-2007, 10:50 AM

Steven, thanks for your very informative posts about decision 1032 and the further explanation of what the Judicial Council's role is within the United Methodist Church.

Also, I just received an email from Truth Wins Out, who partnered with Soulforce in the Focus on the Facts press teleconference call (http://www.soulforce.org/article/1189).

Truth Wins Out Strongly Opposes the Nomination of James Holsinger for U.S. Surgeon General (http://www.truthwinsout.org/uncategorized/truth-wins-out-strongly-opposes-the-nomination-of-james-holsinger-for-us-surgeon-general/)

Jamie McDaniel

06-02-2007, 11:25 AM

The Bible Belt Blogger (http://www.biblebeltblogger.com), who I believe first researched Holsinger's antigay past after Bush nominated him, shows that "Jim Holsinger" was on the board of directors for the Confessing Movement. His name is attached to a document (http://confessingumc.org/Newsletter/cmnewsma98.html) on Rev. Jimmy Creech that states:

THE CONFESSING MOVEMENT RESPONDS TO THE VERDICT IN CREECH TRIAL

The Confessing Movement within the United Methodist Church expresses disappointment and consternation that a technicality has been used to acquit the Rev. Jimmy Creech of the charges against him for performing a same-sex union. The General Conference of the United Methodist Church, the only body that can speak for the church, adopted language in 1996 prohibiting same-sex unions as performed by Creech. The Discipline of the United Methodist Church states clearly that "ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches."

The jury in the trial of Rev. Creech voted 11 to 2 in affirming that a same-sex union was performed in the First United Methodist Church by Rev. Creech in Omaha, Nebraska, on September 14, 1997. It then voted 8 to 5, that Rev. Creech was guilty of violation of the order and discipline of our Church. However, since a vote of at least "9 guilty" is required by church law for conviction, the legal result was that he was acquitted. The position and action of Rev. Creech is in clear violation of the language and intent of the General Conference.

The Confessing Movement position as stated in Our Doctrinal Standards and Sexuality ". . .challenges the misuse of the principle of tolerance to set aside the authority of Scripture and the Church’s teaching on human sexuality (and) . . .affirms and supports the balanced language of the 1972 and all subsequent United Methodist General Conferences and Disciplines. Our Discipline since 1972 has been right to affirm that homosexuals are ‘persons of sacred worth, who need the ministry and guidance of the church in their struggles for human fulfillment.’ . . .Our Discipline since 1972 has been right to hold unambiguously to the conviction that the practice of homosexuality is ‘incompatible with Christian teaching.’ . . .The 1984 and 1988 General Conferences were correct in adopting as a standard for ordained clergy the commitment to ‘fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness,’ and in stating clearly that ‘self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be accepted as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church.’ . . .Classic Christian teaching grounds sexual behavior and marriage in the creation story. Therefore, to ‘bless’ committed same-sex unions as if they were valid holy matrimony would be a departure from the biblical understanding of marriage. Such liaisons must not receive the Church’s blessing."

Classical biblical Christians in the Wesleyan tradition, within The United Methodist Church, have been long-suffering and patient in facing the repeated attempts of the radical homosexual/lesbian lobby to force the Church and the General Conference to grant approval to the practice of homosexuality and of homosexual unions. These actions, culminating in the Creech trial and the declaration by 92 United Methodist pastors that they will now openly and publicly officiate at same-sex unions, has precipitated a crisis in the United Methodist Church. We believe that this crisis is so severe that it threatens the connection and the ties that bind us together in worship and ministry.

We, therefore, as the Board of Directors of The Confessing Movement within the United Methodist Church, petition and request the council of Bishops to call a special session of the General Conference to convene immediately. The purpose of this special session would be to address the situation in which United Methodist pastors are disregarding the official position of the United Methodist Church, the express will of United Methodist people, the tradition of our Church, and the clear teaching of Scripture.

We love our Church. We have been loyal pastors and lay-members. We believe the time has come for the Council of Bishops and other denominational leaders to take bold, decisive leadership consonant with the teaching of Scripture and the clear intent of every General Conference since 1972. We believe that a failure by those elected to leadership within the United Methodist Church to take significant corrective action immediately will deepen the crisis in the denomination, and will bring many United Methodists to their own crisis of conscience which would require them to re-examine their support for the national structures of the United Methodist Church.

Our ultimate commitment is to the Lordship of Jesus Christ as given to us in the Holy Scripture. Surely, if 15 bishops in Denver can act out of conscience, in support of homosexual practice and if 92 pastors can act in conscience in declaring that they will perform homosexual unions, we as committed biblical Christians must act in conscience to preserve the classical biblical faith and tradition in The United Methodist Church.

The Confessing Movement urges all United Methodists to join in the call to faithfulness to our Lord Jesus Christ and prayer for His Church.

Steven E. Webster

06-02-2007, 11:37 AM

Freinds,

The following statement from a newspaper story is incorrect

In his role on the nine-member Judicial Council, Holsinger has opposed a decision to allow a practicing lesbian to be an associate pastor, and he supported a pastor who would not permit an openly gay man to join the church. In both instances, Holsinger's supporters say, he was correctly interpreting and applying church policy. (The church's bishops voted later to allow the gay man to become a member.)

Here is the link to the full article: http://www.kentucky.com/news/state/v-print/story/85442.html

I'm referring in particular to Decision 1032 which has established that local United Methodist pastors can bar persons from membership in the United Methodist Church. Contrary to what the article implies, Judicial Council Decision 1032 remains the law of the church, despite the fact that our church legislature, the General Conference, has never passed such a law. It is not true, as the article states, that our United Methodist bishops "voted later to allow the gay man into membership." Bishops cannot overturn a ruling of our Judicial Council. Only the General Conference can do that by passing new legislation. General Conference meets in the Spring of 2008 and Decision 1032 will be a hot topic at that General Conference.

Bishops do have the power to appoint clergy, and Bishop Charlene Kammerer of Virginia, moved the pastor who refused the gay man membership to another congregation. The new pastor she appointed later admitted the gay man to membership in the United Methodist Church. The pastor who denied the man membership is free to continue his practice of denying LGBT persons membership in his new appointment, because the Judicial Council says United Methodist pastors have that authority.

Another matter in dispute in Decision 1032, obviously, is the authority of local pastors vs. Bishops. It is very unusal if not unheard of for local pastors to have the authority to ignore the wishes of Bishops--another reason Decision 1032 is highly questionable.

I stress "membership in the United Methodist Church," because membership in the United Methodist denomination is primarily membership in the *whole* church, not just in a local congregation. Unlike some fundamentalist denominations, pastors are not little dictators free to rule over their local kingdoms as they see fit. Holsinger seems to be confused on this point.

Whether Holsinger "was correctly interpreting and applying church policy" is very much in dispute within the United Methodist Church. Our Council of Bishops indicated that they disagree with Holsinger's ruling, and their was a scathing dissenting opinion (see some of my earlier posts in this thread) by a "real judge," a member of the Judicial Council who is a judge in a secular court. Holsinger is not an attorney.

Steven Webster

Emproph

06-02-2007, 11:41 AM

Bush's Pick for Surgeon General Makes Us Sick: Killed Veterans, Hates Gays, Loves Republicans

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS (http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/analysis/214)

Dr. James Holsinger was tapped by President Bush Thursday to be the nation's next Surgeon General. Sure enough, Holsinger's record is mired with incompetence, zealous conservatism, and, of course, sizable campaign contributions to Republicans.
___
Some notables from that article:

"several cases in which incompetence and neglect led to the deaths of patients." (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D0CEFD71F3DF931A15752C1A967958260)
Ms. Curran, a health-care investigator for the General Accounting Office who was assigned to the House Government Operations Subcommittee on Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations to conduct the investigation, told the subcommittee, "We discovered several cases of patients who had died because of errors made by unsupervised interns or residents."
At a briefing before the hearing, Dr. Holsinger denied that there were systemic problems and said veterans hospitals were improving in independent accreditation ratings.
"At this moment, we really do provide first-rate care," he said.

admit blame for the deaths of six patients (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D0CEFDE133DF934A35757C0A967958260)
After an extensive review of 15 deaths between June 1989 and March 1990, the agency acknowledged blame in six, said Dr. James Holsinger Jr., the agency's chief medical officer.

at the bottom of the nation for almost every health measure. (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/7/19/113833.shtml)
Kentuckians die at a rate of 18 percent above the national average, the newspaper reported. Its report said residents of all income levels are disabled and killed by cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes

trying to embezzle some $20 million (http://revmorgan.blogspot.com/2006/06/conference-is-in-lawsuit-with.html)
The Good Samaritan Hospital has a historic link to the Kentucky Conference of the United Methodist Church, and until Dr. Holsinger's tenure as chairman the Foundation reported to the Kentucky Annual Conference. When the hospital was sold, the Foundation's board placed the money--around $20 million--into a fund it controls. Now Dr. Holsinger maintains that the Foundation is an independent entity with no ties to Kentucky United Methodism. Fayette Circuit Judge Gary Payne disagreed, ruling that the hospital belonged to the Church and so does the fund.

resigned from church panel studying homosexuality (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,973264-4,00.html)
The church's panel on homosexuality is stirring a ruckus even before its report is written. James Holsinger, medical director of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, quit the study committee last February because he felt certain its conclusions would follow liberal lines.

Holsinger thinks Methodism could lose millions of members if an upheaval in church policy is ever approved.

Steven E. Webster

06-02-2007, 11:50 AM

Friends,

Jamie has just posted above on Holsinger's well-known connections to the Confessing Movement--a well-organized faction in the United Methodist Church with close ties to the neoconservative, Washington think-tank, the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD). Homophobia has been their favorite wedge-issue in the church, just as it has been one of Karl Rove's favorite wedge-issues in secular politics.

What the Confessing Movement is trying to do to the United Methodist Church is not unlike what the Christian Right (e.g. James Dobson, Falwell et. al.) has done to the Republican party. The involvement of IRD illustrates how religion and politics, church and state are being blended together by these power-grabbers.

The Holsinger appointment is part of an on-going pattern by the Bush White House. Bush no longer has a partisan GOP majority. Plenty of moderate GOP congresspersons are ready to "jump ship." We can and should stop the Holsinger nomination in the U.S. Senate!

I propose we keep at amassing the research and take Holsinger on when he goes to Senate hearings in D.C. I realize Bush's opponents have "a lot of fish to fry." This is one more to add to the pan!

Steven Webster

Steven E. Webster

06-02-2007, 12:35 PM

Friends,

The United Methodist Church's Book of Discipline (our "church law" legislated by our General Conference and which the Judicial Council has responsibility to intepret) states the following in a section on "Equal Rights Regardless of Sexual Orientation." (Please notice it says "sexual orientation" and not "lifestyle.")

Moreover, we support efforts to stop violence and other forms of coercion against gays and lesbians. (Book of Discipline 2004, paragraph 162 H)

Judicial Council President James Holsinger (now Surgeon General nominee) is clearly acting in violation of this part of our United Methodist Book of Discipline when he coerces persons to "leave the homosexual lifestyle" before they can be permitted to be church members. That's the picture I see presented in this news article where the pastor of Holsinger's local congregation (Hope Springs) in Lexington, KY says:

Hope Springs also ministers to people who no longer wish to be gay or lesbian, Calhoun said.

"We see that as an issue not of orientation but of lifestyle," he said. "We have people who seek to walk out of that lifestyle." (link to article http://www.kentucky.com/news/state/v-print/story/85442.html)

"You can't be a member of the United Methodist Church until you leave the gay lifestyle" seems to be Holsinger's position although it is not the position of the United Methodist General Conference or Book of Discipline. A position that he has sought to impose on the whole United Methodist denomination when he joined in writing Judicial Council Decision no. 1032. Decision 1032 is an act of "judicial activism" which has substituted the judgment of a right-wing faction of a nine-member committee for the judgment of the General Conference of the United Methodist Church.

If Holsinger cannot apply the law of his own church fairly to LGBT persons, how can we trust him to be fair to LGBT people in the office of Surgeon General of the United States? If he insists on rejecting all scientific evidence that supports his own Church's conviction that homosexuality is a "sexual orientation" and not a "lifestyle choice," then how can he be trusted to correctly apply scientific evidence to the problems of the nation's health?

Steven Webster

simpleman

06-02-2007, 12:44 PM

I really think that it is important to consider the evidence of how Holsinger does his job as a Surgeon General, not as a church leader. Nominated positions in government, such as Surgeon General, Attorney General, Supreme Court Justice, have been, and always should be based on merit of ability to perform his duties as a government leader.

However a trend towards relentless personal attacks on personal beliefs and policies has arisen in these confirmations. This trend has only been evident since the 1990s, about the time Justice Clarence Thomas was confirmed. Thomas, by many standards, was probably not the best candidate for the Supreme Court job, however, he was attacked relentlessly based on the fact that he was a conservative, and was constantly harassed about his opinion on Roe v. Wade in his confirmation hearings. A lot of the questioning was more along the lines of a maybe/maybe not affair he might/might not have had with a fellow law professor at Oklahoma State. Senate confirmation hearings are supposed to be about whether or not this person is a good jurist, not about personal politics. The same thing happened with the confirmation hearings of Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court. Even to the point where his own mother was harassed for answering that he was not "for abortion". I don't believe that even pro-choicers are actually "for abortion", but the Senate attempted to nail him to the wall on it. Nothing about his qualifications as a jurist, but again about his personal beliefs.

Therefore, I see it fit to judge Dr. Holsinger based on his abilities as a physician, not his beliefs on homosexuality. That's what confirmation hearings are about. Believe it or not, I don't necessarily agree with the personal politics of the likes of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but she was more than qualified to hold her position on the Supreme Court. Clinton nominated a liberal judge, and Bush will nominate a conservative Surgeon General. The positions are to be filled by qualified candidates, even if not everybody agrees on or with their personal beliefs. All presidents do this, not just Bush. Every administration tries to put people into power that agree with them, and believe me, there are qualified people of all political beliefs.

antonyh

06-02-2007, 12:49 PM

Therefore, I see it fit to judge Dr. Holsinger based on his abilities as a physician, not his beliefs on homosexuality. That's what confirmation hearings are about. Believe it or not, I don't necessarily agree with the personal politics of the likes of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but she was more than qualified to hold her position on the Supreme Court. Clinton nominated a liberal judge, and Bush will nominate a conservative Surgeon General. The positions are to be filled by qualified candidates, even if not everybody agrees on or with their personal beliefs. All presidents do this, not just Bush. Every administration tries to put people into power that agree with them, and believe me, there are qualified people of all political beliefs.

His beliefs could dispose him to starve funding for HIV prevention through the distribution of condoms in favor of a message of abstinence. And that is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of LGBT health.

simpleman

06-02-2007, 01:17 PM

Is it really the government's responsibility to pass out condoms? If I go get AIDS because I use a dirty needle, can I blame the government for not subsidizing clean needles for my heroin addiction?

Emproph

06-02-2007, 02:31 PM

Clean needles? Is that your "final" argument?
_______
I really think that it is important to consider the evidence of how Holsinger does his job
You mean we haven't?

However a trend towards relentless personal attacks on personal beliefs and policies has arisen in these confirmations.

I AM against anti-American, anti-democracy, and anti-equality (supremacist) beliefs and policies. I think most here would agree with that. Has this NOT been established?

Nominated positions in government...should be based on merit of ability to perform his duties as a government leader.

Who here is disputing the “should be” part? Then why bring it up?

Therefore, I see it fit to judge Dr. Holsinger based on his abilities as a physician, not his beliefs on homosexuality.

Doctor = Hippocratic Oath = First Do No Harm

15 deaths (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D0CEFDE133DF934A35757C0A967958260)
Dr. Holsinger denied that there were systemic problems and said veterans hospitals were improving ..."At this moment, we really do provide first-rate care," he said

I can’t seem to figure out whether you’re a post-Hippocratic Oathian, or just a believer that the common presidential nominee can turn off their wake of death at will.

antonyh

06-02-2007, 03:05 PM

Is it really the government's responsibility to pass out condoms? If I go get AIDS because I use a dirty needle, can I blame the government for not subsidizing clean needles for my heroin addiction?

Let me make a parallel statement out of your statement above because I think you'd want to address both questions:

If I go get AIDS because I use a dirty needle, can I blame the government for not subsidizing clean needles for my heroin addiction?

If I go get AIDS because I have unprotected sex, can I blame the government for not subsidizing condoms for my sex addiction?

I used to volunteer with St. Louis Effort for AIDS and was a buddy to a guy with AIDS. He was dying and his life was saved with the new drugs that came onto the market (he was in the initial clinical trials). About five years later I volunteered for three years at Howard Brown in the largest HIV prevention study ever conducted with MSMs.

The reality is that there is a lot of risky sex going on (especially now that the AIDS scare has subsided) and making safer sex decisions (like using a condom) is more complex that you might think. People go clubbing or get online, they get drunk, they take drugs and it impairs their judgement in making important decisions about staying safe. Some people are depressed under the weight of circumstances in their personal life and the oppression they experience in society. People often don't know how to communicate about safer sex with someone they bring home from the bar or meet online. I am not making moral judgements here, just being descriptive of part of what goes on in both the straight and gay scenes.

There are three components to HIV prevention. First, people need to learn how to navigate the complexities surrounding safer sex decision making. Second, providing condoms is a good way to remind people about the importance of protecting themselves and may be mission critical in poorer communities where they can't afford condoms. Third, anyone who is sexually active outside of a monogamous relationship should be tested for HIV/STDs at least every six months. The reality is that the government is going to have to fund organizations with this type of social service mission.

If you want to take a practical view of the matter, HIV prevention is much more affordabe than the cost of helping someone with their HIV medications which can cost between $12,000 and $15,000 per year.

The problem with a Surgeon General that does not get this and goes with an "abstinence agenda" is that it does not deal with reality as it is. We need to protect people during this phase of their lives. I wish everyone could find a monogamous relationship, but that is not how it is.

As far as the idea of blaming a drug user or a sexually active person for contracting HIV, I think we need to say out of that mode of thinking. I think compassion and love would be the required response.

Steven E. Webster

06-02-2007, 04:11 PM

Is it really the government's responsibility to pass out condoms? If I go get AIDS because I use a dirty needle, can I blame the government for not subsidizing clean needles for my heroin addiction?

Simpleman, I believe this statement of yours betrays an ignorance of public health issues. Such ignorance of publich health issues should disqualify a nominee for the office of Surgeon General.

The public health issue involved in the matter of clean needle exchange programs for addicts is not simply a question of morals, or a matter of assessing "who's to blame." The public health issue is only to determine what program is effective in slowing the spread of HIV. A man who uses a clean needle is less likely to spread HIV to his wife or girl friend and less likely to spread HIV in turn to that woman's children, who by any kind of reasonable system of morals are blameless.

The issue is not whether or not the government is to blame for a particular addict's bad decisions--I don't believe government is responsible for that. But government is responsible under our Constitution to "promote the general welfare" and if needle exchange programs are effective (and there is evidence that they are), government is responsible to implement them.

Clean needle exchanges have been shown to be effective in slowing the spread of HIV and saving lives. A government or a public official who substitutes his/her own moral judgments for sound public health decisions is not fit to govern.

Holsinger, in his role as a United Methodist Judicial Council member, has shown that he has no hesitation to substitute his own moral judgments and those of his own right wing faction in the United Methodist Church, for the judgment of the United Methodist General Conference which he was responsible to uphold. Thus the relevance of this behavior to his role as a Public Health official.

The Bush Administration has heavily favored "Abstinence Only" programs in schools that do not include scientific education about condom use. There is evidence that these government-funded programs are ineffective. If they are ineffective, than the government and the Bush Administration is to blame for wasting public resources on a program that is ineffective or even harmful to the public health. Will Holsinger change the administration's course in this matter, or will he, again, substitute his personal morals for sound public health policy?

In some future posts, I think it would be good to look more closely at Holsinger's medical credentials. I gather from sources I've seen that he lacks certain certifications and certain actual clinical experience.

As for the President's right to nominate people who "think" like he does--that right is limited by the Senate's right to "advise and consent" under the Constitution. The Senate's right to "advise and consent" includes the right to advise against and reject nominees it feels are unfit. A smart President would have sought advice from the Democratic leadership of the Senate before bringing forth a nominee like Holsinger. Especially since this President has a record of cronyism and incompetence in his appointees.

I keep pointing to the positive example of Surgeon General Everett Koop who was a Reagan appointee and an Evangelical Christian, but who was not afraid to promote condom use to stop the AIDS epidemic. If Holsinger can show himself to be more like Koop, I could support him.

Koop also denounced the ignorance and bigotry of "Dr." Paul Cameron--I'd like to know where Holsinger stands on Cameron's so-called "research" on homosexuality. Maybe we should be developing questions that we want our Senators to ask this man.

Steven Webster

Jamie McDaniel

06-05-2007, 12:36 PM

From 365gay.com
Bush Nominee For Surgeon General Has Anti-Gay Record (http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/06/060507surGen.htm)

The article contains the first quotes I have seen from HRC on this.

"His writings suggest a scientific view rooted in anti-gay beliefs that are incompatible with the job of serving the medical health of all Americans," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.

"Although the church’s theology isn’t being nominated, this discredited practice purports to be a psychological and medical service, and if Dr. Holsinger is involved in any way, it conflicts with his duty to accept and promote sound science in the interest of public health," said Solmonese.

tdogg

06-05-2007, 02:49 PM

thank you steven, my computer is giving me heck on links today as it is.
when computers die do they go to heaven?

Only if they're gay ;)

Based on the information posted by Patrick, I would say that this was not a top-rate physician and would not make a top-rate Surgeon General. I don't think we should support someone and then see if he 'hopefully' leaves his religious opinions at the door. I say we do everything we can not to take that chance.

I think Holsinger's record speaks for itself, and it ain't that good folks.

Jamie McDaniel

06-05-2007, 04:46 PM

Attached is a PDF of Holsinger's report titled "Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality." Note that the report is 16 years old. Basically his argument against LGBT equality was due to male/female anatomy. After discussing various methods of anal stimulation, the report ends with "the thing speaks for itself!" Wow.

Zerbie

06-05-2007, 05:08 PM

Attached is a PDF of Holsinger's report titled "Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality." Note that the report is 16 years old.

Every time I click on this, I get a Soulforce login prompt. Okay. I'm logged in. I still get directed to the login prompt instead of to a report.

:confused:

BrentRichards

06-05-2007, 05:46 PM

Steven E. Webster

06-05-2007, 06:24 PM

Jamie,
Thanks for posting the PDF of Holsinger's paper! It is apparent that this is a paper that Holsinger prepared for the United Methodist Committee to Study Homosexuality that he was a member of during that time period (16 years ago). Holsinger ultimately resigned from that committee saying that he thought the Committee's conclusions would be "too liberal." (This was reported earlier in this thread and a link was given to a contemporary account in Time Magazine.)

Holsinger was probably included on the committee both because he was a physician and he represented a conservative point of view. The committee consulted outside experts, and so they did not rely only on the expertise of committee members. Indeed, the Committee did come forward with what might be considered "liberal" conclusions. Unfortunately, our General Conference adopted a "minority report" and rejected the main proposals of the majority of the committee. However, the Committee's report was published with a small-group study guide for the whole denomination to read, and it was a pretty-good resource that I've used for United Methodist classes.

Someone with access to a medical school library might check Holsinger's use of the studies that he cites. I suspect he is misusing some data. The statistics that he cites are given without little or no information about how those studies selected their samples, etc.

One example is this: "fist fornication . . . during the the 1970's was practiced by approximately 5% of the male homosexual population." [Holsinger defines "fist fornication" as "having the partner insert their hand and forearm into the rectum for erotic stimulation."] Which "homosexual population" does this study refer to? Holsinger seems to have it refer to 5% of all the homosexuals in the world in the 1970's, but it is more likely that the study he is quoting was dealing with a more select group. The question is how that group was selected. It may be, for instance, that the sample in this study consisted only of "homosexuals" who came to Emergency Rooms with some sexually related trauma.

This paper of Holsinger's could be picked apart for misuse or misrepresentation of other scientific studies.

My suspicion is that we have a member of the United Methodist Committee to Study Homosexuality to thank for pulling this old paper out of his/her files and making it public.

Steven Webster

Emproph

06-06-2007, 04:21 AM

Wow, plumbing and electrical fittings are called male and female ... well, that convinces me that homosexuality is obviously wrong. This guy has a doctorate? Can we make him the Plumber General instead?They prefer to be called "commode analysts." And given the subject matter of this particular commode analyst, I believe the especially correct pronunciation would be "commode ANALyst."
~~
And speaking of commodes, I'm about ready to pee my pants to send this out to everyone! I can't find it on Google anywhere and this is some GOOD stuff:Attached is a PDF of Holsinger's report titled "Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality." Note that the report is 16 years old. Basically his argument against LGBT equality was due to male/female anatomy. After discussing various methods of anal stimulation, the report ends with "the thing speaks for itself!" Wow.

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/images/attach/pdf.gifHolsinger on Homosexuality.pdf (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=419&d=1181080001) (326.9 KB, 8 views)
Can we share that, or is it about to come online, etc.?

Steven E. Webster

06-06-2007, 06:58 AM

Friends,

The Holsinger paper is now out in the papers:

http://www.kentucky.com/454/story/89732.html

Steven Webster

Emproph

06-06-2007, 07:54 AM

Friends,

The Holsinger paper is now out in the papers:

http://www.kentucky.com/454/story/89732.html

Steven Webster

I missed that it was under his picture. Thanks Steven.

BrentRichards

06-06-2007, 01:14 PM

They prefer to be called "commode analysts." And given the subject matter of this particular commode analyst, I believe the especially correct pronunciation would be "commode ANALyst."

Okay, I'll compromise and call him a Lavatory Optimization Specialist. If he's on the way, that would make him a Lavatory Optimization Specialist En Route ...

Steven E. Webster

06-06-2007, 08:54 PM

Folks,

This is the best article I've seen so far!

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3251663&page=1

Holsinger will need to explain this paper to Senators Kennedy, Clinton, Dodd and Obama

Steven Webster

Steven E. Webster

06-06-2007, 09:03 PM

Friends,

Here's Jeff's press release:

http://www.soulforce.org/article/1266

Steven Webster

Steven E. Webster

06-07-2007, 06:51 AM

Friends,
Troy Plummer is Executive Director of the LGBT United Methodist organization Reconcililng Ministries Network. I think he states the LGBT United Methodist point of view pretty well.

Here's the link:

http://www.sfbaytimes.com/?sec=article&article_id=6481

“For the last 20 years, James Holsinger has been the worst kind of bully inside the United Methodist Church. As a member of a sexuality study team in 1991, he used his position as a medical doctor to promote skewed and inaccurate information regarding gay men,” said the Rev. Troy Plummer, Executive Director of Reconciling Ministries Network of United Methodists and National Religious Leadership Roundtable member. “As the chair of the Judicial Council, the ‘Supreme Court’ of the United Methodist Church, he has used his power to disregard the Constitution of the Methodist Church and block from membership faithful gay and lesbian Christians. As a pastor, he has promoted ‘reparative therapy’ — a practice that is nothing short of torture of gay and lesbian people and is not condoned by any professional psychological association; in fact, many call it medical malpractice.” Plummer added, “In short, when he has been called to be a leader in the United Methodist Church, to offer the hand of Christian fellowship, he has slammed the door in the face of faithful gay and lesbian persons. What, then, might he do as Surgeon General?” He said, “As the primary medical educator of our nation, I have no faith that Holsinger would refrain from these practices, which are unscientific at best and torturous at worst. When Holsinger’s ‘all’ does not mean ‘all’ in the Methodist Church, can it mean ‘all’ for American citizens?” Plummer said he worried what kind of education from the Surgeon General could gay and lesbian families expect, and what could bisexual and transgender people expect. He concluded, “As a psychotherapist, a pastor, and an American citizen myself, I can only hope that James Holsinger will not be given the opportunity to use the office of the Surgeon General as a bully pulpit for hatred.”

Although there is much to criticize about Holsinger's work on the United Methodist Judicial Council, Troy is right, in my opinion, to point to Decision 1032 which gave the pastors of local United Methodist Churches the right (and encouragement) to deny membership to LGBT persons.

Steven E. Webster

Steven E. Webster

06-07-2007, 09:21 AM

Friends,

Here's a link to latest from ABC:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3251663&page=1

Here's the quote from a prominent GOP-friendly commentator, David Gergen:

"A confirmation fight is exactly what the administration does not need," said David Gergen, a former adviser to Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton, who predicted the paper would cause a "minor storm" among Democrats on Capitol Hill.

"You have to wonder given the quality of some of the nominations that have gone forward recently, whether the selection group in the White House has gone on vacation," Gergen said. "There has been a growing criticism the administration favoring ideology over competence, and this nomination smacks of that."

Things are definitely heating up in Washington for Dr. Holsinger.

Steven Webster

Jamie McDaniel

06-07-2007, 10:46 AM

The committee that is responsible for confirming the Surgeon General is the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. More information, including the full list of committee members, can be found at http://help.senate.gov/About.html

Also, one of the larger antigay organizations here in Kentucky has issued a press release stating that Holsinger "opposed ordaining a practicing lesbian." That's not correct is it Steve? Rev. Karen Dammann was already an ordained Methodist minister. It was about taking away her ordination when she chose not to hide her relationship with her partner of nine years. She was ordained in 1994. Her trial was in 2004. Same situation with Rev. Beth Stroud.

If this mistake was rare, that would be one thing, but it seems to me that antigay groups deliberately misinform in an effort to create a visual of gays trying to "get in the church" when we are already there, leading services, providing music, offering our talents.

revtj

06-07-2007, 12:15 PM

First, thank you Jamie for speaking OUT on this issue! I think we sometimes lose sight of the courage it takes, and the fallout that follows, when our own comrades at Soulforce step up to the plate. :rainbow:

Secondly, simpleman I cannot believe you do not see the connection between public health and HIV education and prevention. What if it turned out to be your spouse who used a dirty needle or had unsafe sex? These things happen to conservative christians too.

I also want to say that I have worked very closely with the United Methodists since coming to Atlanta in 2000, and I find there is less homophobia among their clergy and committees than there is in my own denomination which tends to think it's already 'past' those issues. So I am convinced denominations are not the problem...it's people.

This incompetent guy will fit right in with the Bush administration. The best we can hope for is that he's one more fubar ('Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job') in order for Americans to wake up and see why competence and public health matters. But it is sad to think of who/how many will suffer while this guy's in the position.

Jamie McDaniel

06-07-2007, 01:09 PM

Democrats by Rank

Senator Ted Kennedy (MA) (http://kennedy.senate.gov/senator/contact.cfm)
Senator Christopher Dodd (CT) (http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3130)
Tom Harkin (IA) (http://harkin.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm)
Barbara A. Mikulski (MD) (http://mikulski.senate.gov/mailform.html)
Jeff Bingaman (NM) (mailto:senator_bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov)
Patty Murray (WA) (http://murray.senate.gov/email/index.cfm)
Jack Reed (RI) (http://reed.senate.gov/contact/contact-share.cfm)
Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) (http://clinton.senate.gov/contact/)
Barack Obama (IL) (http://obama.senate.gov/contact/)
Bernard Sanders (I) (VT) (http://sanders.senate.gov/comments/)
Sherrod Brown (OH) (http://brown.senate.gov/contact.cfm)

Republicans by Rank

Michael B. Enzi (WY) (http://enzi.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInformation.EmailSenat orEnzi)
Judd Gregg (NH) (http://gregg.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm)
Lamar Alexander (TN) (http://alexander.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home)
Richard Burr (NC) (http://burr.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home)
Johnny Isakson (GA) (http://isakson.senate.gov/contact.cfm)
Lisa Murkowski (AK) (http://murkowski.senate.gov/contact.cfm)
Orrin G. Hatch (UT) (http://hatch.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Offices.Contact)
Pat Roberts (KS) (http://roberts.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInformation.EmailPat)
Wayne Allard (CO) (http://allard.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home)
Tom Coburn, M.D. (OK) (http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorCoburn.Home)

tdogg

06-07-2007, 02:18 PM

Are there any Democrats that are publicly supporting Holsinger?

Steven E. Webster

06-07-2007, 07:31 PM

Also, one of the larger antigay organizations here in Kentucky has issued a press release stating that Holsinger "opposed ordaining a practicing lesbian." That's not correct is it Steve? Rev. Karen Dammann was already an ordained Methodist minister. It was about taking away her ordination when she chose not to hide her relationship with her partner of nine years. She was ordained in 1994. Her trial was in 2004. Same situation with Rev. Beth Stroud.

If this mistake was rare, that would be one thing, but it seems to me that antigay groups deliberately misinform in an effort to create a visual of gays trying to "get in the church" when we are already there, leading services, providing music, offering our talents.

Jamie,
You are right--The Rev. Karen Dammann was a very experienced and highly respected pastor in her Annual (Regional) Conference. It might be good for someone to pull together a time-line on her case, because, as I recall, her Trial Court created a tremendous outrage from the right-wing of the United Methodist denomination by refusing to defrock her at first. (I need to look back at that myself to be sure of that.)

I do want to amend something I wrote earlier in response to one of your questions. It appears that Decision 930 (concerning the Dammann case) in which Holsinger was a dissenting vote was significant because of the following:

In a dissenting opinion to Judicial Council Decision 930, all three (dissenters Holsinger, Boyette and Daffin) wrote that the Bishop in the particular case should be required to suspend the pastor, even though the Discipline clearly reads that the decision about suspension is at the discretion of the Bishop, subject to the approval of the executive committee of the Board of Ordained Ministry.

The source for the above quote is from the progressive Methodist Federation for Social Action (MFSA). Here's the link to the full MFSA article (from the year 2004) regarding the performance of Holsinger and two other members of the Judicial Council elected in 2000 by a coalition of right-wing elements in the denomination:

http://www.mfsaweb.org/generalconference/2JudicialCouncil.html

United Methodism relies heavily on legalism--and I mean that in the good sense. The right wing in the church would rather deny all due process to "sinners" like homosexuals. They've often argued that LGBT people (or anyone they'd brand "heretics") should automatically be defrocked or cast out from the denomination without any due process.

While I agree that going after Holsinger for bias, ignorance and malpractice in the field of medicine may be the most productive route to go, I also believe his behavior as a member of the Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church shows him to be a man whose judgment is governed by his prejudices and political partisanship rather than by reason, facts, science, law, due process or any appeal to fairness. As I asserted in the title to this thread--the man is a bigot.

Steven Webster

Steven E. Webster

06-07-2007, 07:41 PM

I also want to say that I have worked very closely with the United Methodists since coming to Atlanta in 2000, and I find there is less homophobia among their clergy and committees than there is in my own denomination which tends to think it's already 'past' those issues. So I am convinced denominations are not the problem...it's people.

Rev. TJ,
Thanks for your kind words about United Methodists! I'm still a United Methodist because I think the denomination is still worth fighting for (though it seems at times like a losing battle). Did you ever meet a sweet woman named Rev. Sally Daniel? She's an Atlanta United Methodist pastor (now retired and maybe a little frail now too) who was kind enough to visit my husband when he was stranded in Atlanta with a heart attack several years ago. She showed up in his hospital room all decked-out like Tammy Faye!

Steven Webster

Steven E. Webster

06-07-2007, 08:50 PM

Friends,

The Rev. Karen Dammann was a respected United Methodist Pastor who came out as a lesbian and was subjected to a Church Trial. Her case involved some rulings from the United Methodist "Supreme Court" (the Judicial Council) of which James W. Holsinger is a member and now President.

I mentioned a chronology would be nice in order to understand this complicated story. Dammann actually was aquitted (found "innocent") by the Church Trial Court, but was ultimately driven out of the ministry by the controversy. Here's a chronology I found on line:

http://trial.bethstroud.info/damman.shtml

The chronology is not perfect. It cites Desicion no. 920, but leaves out Decision 930 of the Judicial Council. 930 modifies an important part of 920. Holsinger dissented from 930 even though the majority was following the Book of Discipline. This is and example of Holsinger's bigotry--his professional judgment fits his prejudices rather than reason, the facts, the law, science or anything else.

Here's links to Decisions 920 and 930.

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=959&JDMOD=VWD&SN=901&EN=1000

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=969&JDMOD=VWD&SN=901&EN=1000

Holsinger essentially wanted to make Karen Dammann's suspension awaiting trial mandatory when church law "The Book of Discipline" left suspension up to the discretion of the Bishop.

Holsinger's dissent in 930 is one example of his desire to "legislate from the bench" and decision 1032 was another example. In 1032 the majority ruled that the pastor of a local church had unchecked authority to deny membership in the United Methodist Church to a gay man. Here's the link to Decision 1032.

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1098&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1001&EN=1072

Steven Webster

Steven E. Webster

06-07-2007, 08:55 PM

Friends,

We're talking Presidential politics now!

Sen. Barack Obama, an Illinois Democrat, said, "America's top doctor should be a doctor for all Americans, and so I have serious reservations about nominating someone who would inject his own anti-gay ideology into critical decisions about the health and well-being of our nation."

Obama added that "this administration must know that the United States Surgeon General's office is no place for bigotry or ideology that would trump sound science and good judgment."

Here's the link to the Washington Post article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/07/AR2007060701911.html

Steven Webster

suzer1013

06-07-2007, 09:31 PM

Emproph

06-08-2007, 05:08 AM

From the ABC article (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3251663&page=1):
Holsinger, 68, presented "The Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality" in January 1991 to a United Methodist Church's committee to study homosexuality.

In the context of the larger argument in his church as to whether homosexuality should be accepted, Holsinger presented a medical and scientific argument that anal intercourse was not natural.

Male anal sex; The #1 “Christian” argument against the “immorality” of homosexuality, no surprise there. Obviously Holsinger's paper is a bastion of false witness, in many ways, but I am wondering about the larger context that the paper was submitted in (what was the decision # for that?):

-To what extent was the committee itself focused on homosexual sex in regard to their determination?
-Was the "unnaturalness" of lesbian sex included?
-Were papers written/submitted on heterosexual practices for comparison?
-Was he asked to write it, or was it just offered?

~~
Warning, some graphic parts below.
In the paper he also mentions “sexual assault of the male patient” (?) as a “condition...in homosexually active men. (Page 3)

Now that struck me as an underhanded allusion to rape, but on pg 4 there is an even more explicit description that begins with “forceful penetration” and ends with "psychic trauma." -these examples are given in order to depict anal sex as physically damaging, the entire focus of the paper.

He also devotes half a page (p5, out of 6, not including footnotes) to making the assertion that because genital warts are more prevalent in homosexuals who engage in anal sex, so to is anal cancer.

Using that logic I could say that dirt bike racing should be banned. Dirt bike racers get cuts, cuts get infected, infection causes gangrene, gangrened limbs must be amputated. Therefore, dirt bike racing causes limb amputation. (That of course is the reigning logic behind the entire article though)

I’m sorry to be so graphic, but it’s points like those where the tenor of his paper turns from stereotypical anti-gay prejudice to intentional dishonesty at worst, or blatant disregard for accuracy at best.

And clearly the paper itself is anti-gay from the outset, as one look at the footnotes will tell you, not to mention the title: "The Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality"

Pathophysiology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathophysiology)
"the study of the biological and physical manifestations of disease as they correlate with the underlying abnormalities and physiological disturbances"

Steven E. Webster

06-08-2007, 06:58 AM

Emproph,

You seem to assume that Holsinger's view was accepted by the Committee. It wasn't and Holsinger resigned. Unfortunately, the denomination did not adopt the more progressive conclusions of the Committee. I'll try to dig out some more information abou the Committee later this weekend.

Steven Webster

Steven E. Webster

06-08-2007, 07:03 AM

I'm confused. The way I remember it, Dammaan was acquitted and continued her ministry. Has she since left the UMC?

It was Beth Stroud who was defrocked. That, plus the UMC's decision about the membership of a gay man was a large part of what caused me to leave the UMC.

Steven, you are made of stronger stuff than I am. :)

Susan

Susan,
I think you are mostly right about Dammann--but she did eventually step down from her ministry. I'll dig up the details later this weekend.

The gay man who was denied membership was later admitted into membership after the Bishop moved the excluding pastor from that local congregation and appointed a pastor who was more open.

Steven Webster

Steven E. Webster

06-08-2007, 09:15 AM

Friends,

Here's a link to an article at Talk 2 Action:

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/6/7/212325/0772

Holsinger is not an ordinary United Methodist, but a prominent member of a right-wing faction called the Confessing Movement with ties to the neo-conservative, theocon Washington think-tank, Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD).

Steven Webster

ladyinred

06-08-2007, 11:48 PM

Simpleman:Quote:
Dr. Holsinger denied that there were systemic problems and said veterans hospitals were improving ..."At this moment, we really do provide first-rate care," he said
(Paint a rosy picture ,I guess, this seems to be habitual with the Bush administration and his appointees, denial ...
Ok, reality check on the VA hospitals, My brother works at one, has seen it all, is thoroughly disgusted. Said as many as 1000 vets were on a waiting list to get treatment. Things are really improving??????? ( You would not want to be there and see what he sees) The fact that anywhere from 250,000 to a million of our vets are homeless and on the streets at any given time says something about the lack of care for our troops. SO I hate to burst you bubble and optimism, Simpleman, but statistics and the stories speak otherwise. The last thing I read is that the Pentagon was actually trying to thwart the effort of our troops from getting disability and other benefits, by minimizing their "disabilities"

ladyinred

06-09-2007, 12:20 AM

I know aids is a real and important issue, but the abstinence thing has been pushed on everyone. Bush's administration also apparently doesn't believe in planned parenthood and contraceptives for poor women either.

Aids is not just a gay problem it is everyone's problem and yes, a teenager or any heterosexual who is misled to believe that aids can't touch him , because it is a "gay disease" can get it just like any gay can. All it takes is the wrong partner, or the lack of protection. Heroin usage is also becoming a serious problem with teens today.

So Simpleman ,implying that gays are the primary drug users is a big misperception. I can tell you about stories where I live where there have been heterosexual teens who have overdosed on heroin and other drugs. It has been a huge concern.

So I guess just because a gay may get aids through a contaminated needle (as if heterosexuals don't or couldn't )and it doesn't seem to concern you , perhaps teenagers still in school would? Perhaps it should be illuminating for you to understand many teens are having sex and can be infected with stds and aids.. gay or straight, and many have picked up sexual diseases. Now who's problem is it???????

The religious right has spread it's campaign of fear and misinformation that aids is a gay disease.. Not only is it not true, it may give the impression to some hetrosexual teenaged boy who is ill informed who believed this , acted carelessly and didn't use protection, which could lead to him getting aids .Seems like certain "religious beliefs" can kill people...especially if they are founded on falsehoods and misinformation and lack of education.

ladyinred

06-09-2007, 12:40 AM

Now let's take a look at Africa, where aids is a HUGE problem, it is said that an estimated 10-12 million children are orphaned due to the aids epidemic in Africa, the problems sited were the lack of education and not using protection. So I guess that would be a big concern for Africa. Simpleman ,you may be knowledgable about legal and possibly political issues, but I question your sense of morality clarity and good judgment.

What would have happened in Africa, if people had the education and used protection to help prevent the spread of aids, you might have 12 million children who still had parents and didn't end up orphaned. "Ignorance is not bliss " It can be downright deadly .http://www.avert.org/aidsorphans.htm "Religious" ignorance and stupidity that fosters the illusions that it doesn't happen to "us" is helping to kill people.

ladyinred

06-09-2007, 01:09 AM

Now "abstinence only" might be an "ideal", but in reality is not always practical or realistic to assume that just because you tell a teen not to have sex ,they won't do it. I find in many cases it is the opposite, so if I were a mother, knowing I couldn't control my teenager's actions and there was a very likely possibility he may have sex, I'd definitely tell him to use protection.

Plus even if you are monogamous and don't sleep around on your partner, there is no guarantee that they wouldn't have sex with another.. We do not live in a perfect world. So preventive measures make alot more sense than trying to live in some dream world where you think everyone is going to "follow" the rules and do everything Mister Bush and his right wing buddies tell them to do.. or tells them not to do. Now really ,who is naive here?????? The surgeon general also tells people not to smoke, do they always heed his advice on smoking?

ladyinred

06-09-2007, 03:59 AM

So, Simpleman what is my beef with you. Ok I'll 'fess up. And I certainly cannot speak for SoulForce or anyone else on this forum, but reading your posts I have the distinct feeling that you marginalize us at every turn. There's very little I would see eye to eye with you on your writings on hate speech, religious morality or even SoulForce.

We obviously know where you stand on these issues, and it is evident that none of us can persuade you to change your mind. Your perogative. However, with the understanding that you don't particularly support us or agree with our views , why go on with the dialogue? Isn't the door basically closed on that? Haven't you already made up your mind about where you stand on these issues? What is your motive here anyway? Please do tell, because I feel these conversations aren't getting anywhere. Speaking for myself of course.

You may have differing views on what constitutes justice and injustice, fairness and unfairness, but by the same token, people here have their own religious convictions and views and feel very strongly about them.

What I found a little disturbing is, when the equality rides were going on, there was this sense that you were trying to discourage those who were involved from doing so. You basically made a point that what they were doing was "illegal", and trespassed on private property and why the heck were they doing it. You were actually trying to persuade them to stop. I will sum it up in this way , they were acting on their own deeply held moral convictions , just like you may have felt that the schools were acting on theirs.

So what is the deal here? It seems to me there is still the double standard with you where you feel those who oppose gay rights are perfectly righteous and moral in doing so, while gay people should just shut up and stop "whining", that is just the way things are,and will always be. I feel it is a pretty one-sided dialogue with you. Am I the only one who sees things this way? I don't know.Others can only speak for themselves.If everyone else thinks I should shut up here than please tell me. But to me oppression can also be very subtle and not always overt and obvious.What is the "real" message behind the words? I'm often told "appearances can be deceiving" that's why I tend to go beyond them. But what is the objective of your ongoing debate here?

Of course you have the right to say what you want it is a free country, but it doesn't seem on my part that the conversation should continue. To me it's like a merry-go-round of counter exchanges which go no-where. I personally will no longer respond to your posts , but I cannot again tell others what to do on this forum, or how to react, but to me the dialogue isn't an exchange that brings about any common ground or understanding,it just falls off a cliff . I have no hard feelings toward you, but when I run into the "brick wall syndrome" It just shows me my opinion or feelings aren't going to change your mind or be a catalyst for change. They can only be my views, others determine their own.

ladyinred

06-09-2007, 04:34 AM

"He also devotes half a page (p5, out of 6, not including footnotes) to making the assertion that because genital warts are more prevalent in homosexuals who engage in anal sex, so to is anal cancer. " and also :In the context of the larger argument in his church as to whether homosexuality should be accepted, Holsinger presented a medical and scientific argument that anal intercourse was not natural.

Anal sex is also practiced by heteros, remember. I've heard a few interesting stories told to me by a friend's mother who is a nurse,she worked in the emergency room and what she would find up a woman's vagina. It just seems here that they want to stigmatize gays for certain sex practices and are overlooking heterosexual sexual practices.

ladyinred

06-09-2007, 05:02 AM

Some interesting (though incomplete )statistics on heterorsexual sex practices, drug use and aids:http://www.springerlink.com/content/q541227173m5g4p5/ So we have some prejudicial factors here in singling out gay sex(unprotected) and drug use as a risk factor. It is an incomplete picture because it does just that singles out gays and their sexual practices and overlooking that the same risk factors also exist in heterosexuals. Also noted in his report:Urethral gonorrhea and/or chlamydia
infections were diagnosed in 39% of heterosexuals compared
to only 10% of homosexuals and bisexuals. Twelve percent of
the homosexuals had untreated early syphilis, whereas
syphilis was exceptional among heterosexuals. Seems there are some discrepencies in his research, syphilis is not uncommon or "exceptional for heterosexuals.http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/trends2005.htm Back in 1983,http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9B0DEEDA163AF930A35754C0A961948260;After declining for five years, syphilis cases in the United States increased 23 percent in the first quarter of this year, largely among heterosexuals, Federal health researchers reported today....In California and New York City, two areas that reported syphilis increases of more than 40 percent, the increases ''occurred exclusively among heterosexuals,'' the agency said. Syphilis among homosexual or bisexual men in California decreased 47 percent and 51 percent in New York City.

Trends just seem to fluctuate throughout the population. There is no consistent trend for one segment of the population though.Throughout the years this seems to have been true
Teens seem to have the highest rate of stds, so much for Mr. Bush's abstinence program working.http://www.coolnurse.com/std.htm,Teens and aids:http://www.coolnurse.com/hiv_teens.htm and of course aids and women.http://www.coolnurse.com/hiv_women.htm These statistics will shock you and blow the myth right out of the water, just how "gay" aids is. Another misconception is that aids isn't spread through oral sex, it is (many teens tend to think oral sex is safer)Excerpted from website:Studies have concluded that infected bodily fluids such as semen and vaginal secretions have high concentrations of HIV and can enter the blood stream through the mucous membranes of the mouth. One such study revealed that in one group of newly infected HIV positive young adults, many reported their only sexual contact was oral sex.
So the government better be funding a program for contraceptives. In 2003 an estimated 1,000,000 were said to have aids. There are plenty of misconceptions about the disease and you will find out about it on the coolnurse website.

Now let's see if you think that aids and other stds aren't EVERYONE'S problem after you read these statistics. Seems like the religious right and it's misinformation campaign and distortions is helping to mislead people and put many more at risk. And the risks could mean a matter of life or death.
When I was researching this information and read about teen sex, it is just shocking just how much ignorance prevails. Kids are being misled into believing that they probably won't be the ones to get aids. And whose interests are served? Neither the gay or straight community.It does a dis-service to both and it doesn't save lives or protect people.

Honest and correct information could. The right might think it can control people by trying to keep things under lock and key, by suppressing the medical evidence and science, but it obviously has tragic consequences for people, had they known better ,they might had acted differently, and it just may have saved their lives as well.This is not just a "gay" problem,it is a national tragedy.

ladyinred

06-09-2007, 07:14 AM

On Bush's abstinence only program:http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/02/24/abstinence/index.html A little dated , but it will infuriate you.So will this:http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/02/24/abstinence/index.html?pn=2 and this:http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/02/24/abstinence/index.html?pn=3 I am just stunned and shake my head. There is no rational basis to conclude that abstinence only has worked.

Below excerpted from article:While Christian abstinence-only groups are enjoying federal largesse, many medical organizations with expertise in protecting children from AIDS are ineligible. Chicago's Children's Memorial Hospital Section for Pediatric, Adolescent and Maternal HIV Infection, which does outreach and education in colleges and high schools in at-risk areas of the city, relies on private donations to finance its teaching. According to Tom Foster, the section's academic manager, teaching abstinence isn't an option. "What I've heard from the very beginning is that abstinence doesn't work, especially for our target market, high-risk adolescents," he says.

The Centers for Disease Control used to agree. "Until recently, a CDC initiative called 'Programs That Work' identified sex-education programs that have been found to be effective in scientific studies and provided this information through its web site to interested communities," says a report on the Web site of U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. "In 2002, all five 'Programs That Work' provided comprehensive sex education to teenagers, and none were 'abstinence-only.' In the last year, and without scientific justification, CDC has ended this initiative and erased information about these proven sex education programs from its web site."

ladyinred

06-09-2007, 09:32 AM

Apparently from past Bush appointees, with this surgeon general we are likely to get more of the same: Dr Eric Koroack who frowns on the use of contraceptives was appointed by Bush as the head of (All things) Federal family planning programs.

Steven E. Webster

06-09-2007, 10:31 AM

Friends,

The intent of this post is to give background on the United Methodist Committee to Study Homosexuality whose report was published as official United Methodist curriculum under the title The Church Studies Homosexuality--A Study for United Methodist Groups Using the Report of the Committee to Study Homosexuality (Nashville:Cokesbury, 1994). I have a hard copy of this curriculum (which includes the full text of the Committee report), but I've not found it on line anywhere.

The relevance of this background to this thread is the fact that James W. Holsinger was a member of this Committee and resigned from the Committee because he felt the Committee's final report would be "too liberal." (Reference:http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,973264-4,00.html) A paper submitted by Holsinger to this Committee has become central to the controversy over President Bush's nomination of Holsinger to be Surgeon General of the United States.

The General Conference, the highest legislative body of the United Methodist Church which meets every four years, voted in 1988 to establish the Committee to Study Homosexuality. The Committee issued it's report four years later to the 1992 General Conference. That General Conference "received" the report and authorized it's incorporation into a curriculum for study in local churches. However the General Conference did not adopt one of the Committee's main recommendations.

The Committee provided a majority and a minority report. The majority of the Committee recommended the following change to the United Methodist Book of Discipline (United Methodist Church law):

The present state of knowledge and insight in the biblical, theological, ethical, biological, psychological, and sociological fields does not provide a satisfactory basis upon which the church can responsibly maintain the condemnation of all homosexual practice.

The minority report proposed a similar statement, but the concluding clause was as follows:

The present state of knowledge . . . does not provide a satisfactory basis upon which the church can responsibly alter its previously held position that we do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching.

Those who have read James W. Holsinger's paper that he submitted to the Committee in 1991 know that Holsinger fixed his attention on the alleged "unnatural and unhealthy" nature of male-male anal intercourse.(Reference: http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Holsinger_on_Homosexuality.pdf) It might be interesting to note how that concern entered into the final report of the Committee. One small section of the report is titled "Life Patterns". I quote it here at length--the last part of it addresses anal intercourse:

Scholarly investigaton shows that there is as great a diversity of lifestyles among homosexual persons as among heterosexaul persons.
*Monogamy exists among hoomosexual as well as heterosexual couples, despite the obvious difficulties. Contemporary society places all committed, long-term relationships under considerable stress. Barriers to stable homosexual unions are more numerous, including social pressure and legal codes that make it especially difficult for two persons of the same sex to legitimate their relationship.
*According to current research results, there is no difference in parenting effectiveness that can be attributed to the sexual orientation of the parents.
*There is strong indication that culturally learned gender roles are more relevant to lifestyle choices than is sexual orientation. Thus gay men's lifestyles are more like straight men's than like lesbians'. Lesbians' lifestyles are more like straight women's than like gay men's.
*There is no indication that homosexual men are any more likely to commit sexual violence than heterosexual men. There is evidence that most sexual violence is committed by men and that the victims are usually women and children.
*There are strong indications that having multiple sexual partners exacerbates the spread of sexully transmitted disease. This is as true for heterosexuals as for homosexuals.
*Inherent in all forms of sexual behavior is the potential for physical as well as psychological abuse inflicted by one partner upon another. Public concern about male homosexual abuse focuses on abusive anal intercourse and on the spread of AIDS affecting the gay population.
Much of the concern about sexual abuse focuses on the practie of anal intercourse and potentially destructive consequences through abrasion, penetration of rectal lining, and sexually transmitted diseases. Due to the delicate nature of the anal canal and rectum, there are numerous problems that can arise from practices assoicated with anal erotic activity. Infections, trauma, and tumors are a definite risk for those who engage in these practices. Some medical authorities, however, report that consensual penial, anal intercourse can be performed safely when adequate precautions were taken. Multiple sexual partners and unsafe sex practices increase the health risk of the persons who engage in them.

So Holsinger's concern about anal intercourse was reflected in the Committee's report, however the Committee made no comment on whether anal intercourse was either "natural" or "unnatural." Further, the committee indicated (as highlighted above) that "some medical authorities" indicated that "anal intercourse can be performed safely."

Additional comments on the Committee's report: The whole report is about 33 pages long, fine print, no pictures. Anal intercourse was a very small concern relative to the total report. Although General Conference did not liberalize it's position that "homosexual practice is incompatible with Christian teaching," it did adopt another recommendation of the Committee:

Rights of Homosexual Persons. Certain basic human rights and civil liberties are due all persons. We are committed to support those rights and liberties for homosexual persons. We see a clear issue of simple justice in protecting their rightful claims where they have: shared material resources, pensions, guardian relationships, mutual powers of attorney and other such lawful claims typically attendant to contractual relationships which involve shared contributions, responsibilities and liabilities, and equal protection before the law. Moreover, we support efforts to stop violence and other forms of coercion against gays and lesbians.

So, it would appear that the United Methodist Church supports domestic partnership legislation though it opposes same-gender marriage.

Steven Webster

Steven E. Webster

06-09-2007, 02:20 PM

Friends,

Today's LA Times reports the following Senators have spoken out on their concerns re: James W. Holsinger:

Sen. Barak Obama, Sen. Hillary Clinton, former Senator John Edwards, Sen. Christopher Dodd, Sen. Edward Kennedy

Here's the link:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-surgeon9jun09,1,403944.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

Steven Webster

Steven E. Webster

06-09-2007, 02:37 PM

Friends,

An article from today's N.Y. Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/09/washington/09surgeon.html

Maria Kemplin, a former colleague of Dr. Holsinger’s who is a lesbian, is familiar with the 1991 report. But in a letter she sent to Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, she wrote of Dr. Holsinger as a friend who helped without judging her.

“I am a liberal Democrat and a member of gay and women’s rights organizations,” Ms. Kemplin wrote. “Still, I strongly support Dr. Jim Holsinger as a leader and administrator who is able to see across divisive issues and relate with integrity to people, no matter their life circumstance.”

Ms. Kemplin's comments don't address Holsinger's current position on his 1991 paper (which dealt exclusively with male homosexuals). It also doesn't explain Holsinger's membership and leadership in a far-right wing (and anti-LGBT) faction of the United Methodist Church (he was a board member of the so-called "Confessing Movement), nor does it explain his $23,000 in political contributions to members of a political party (the GOP) which has made itself the "anti-LGBT" party in American politics.

There certainly are questions to be asked when his nomination comes before the Senate. Those questions should not be limited to the issue of homosexuality. Many questions could be raised about Holsinger's leadership in the Veterans Administration.

Steven Webster

ladyinred

06-09-2007, 10:51 PM

I'll have to apologize Steve if I invaded the space here and got a little off track of what this thread is wanting to focus on. I guess I was just posting my response to comments made by several other members and Simpleman and certain discussions on the issue of aids. I tried to find more info on Hossinger and it all seems to say the same thing. And there is a strong belief that he is antigay.

I don't really think you can separate a person from their beliefs and expect them to act contrary to those convictions and beliefs. Bush appointees though I wanted to point out tend to mirror his policies and line of thinking. I don't really think they serve to help or benefit the gay community. The articles and information I found seem to indicate a pattern here, Bush appointees tend to lean to the right and reflect their moral convictions ,most of whom will not be strong advocates of gay rights.
Anyway, I'll leave this thread to the other members who feel they want to discuss what they feel is more relevant on this thread.

Steven E. Webster

06-10-2007, 12:38 AM

Lady in Red,

I thought your remarks were on topic. Holsinger does fit the pattern for Bush nominees. I don't think it's so much that Holsinger reflects Bush's personal views as that Holsinger represents what Andrew Sullivan would call the "Christianist" wing of the GOP base. Holsinger is being rewarded for his service to the party of Bush.

Steven Webster

Jamie McDaniel

06-10-2007, 08:17 AM

Friends,

An article from today's N.Y. Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/09/washington/09surgeon.html

Maria Kemplin, a former colleague of Dr. Holsinger’s who is a lesbian, is familiar with the 1991 report. But in a letter she sent to Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, she wrote of Dr. Holsinger as a friend who helped without judging her.

“I am a liberal Democrat and a member of gay and women’s rights organizations,” Ms. Kemplin wrote. “Still, I strongly support Dr. Jim Holsinger as a leader and administrator who is able to see across divisive issues and relate with integrity to people, no matter their life circumstance.”

Problem: Strong opposition to your nomination/confirmation/promotion from a group of people (and their allies) who have evidence that you are prejudiced and have done injustice to them.

Solution: Find an individual who belongs to the group, have him or her first claim the "labels" that fit an ideal member, and yet draw the exact opposite conclusion. For an added measure, lavish praise and support.

Interesting that a "liberal Democrat" who is "a member of gay and women's rights organizations" not merely supports, but strongly supports, Holsinger (by writing a letter to Mitch McConnell no less) yet the Log Cabin Republicans urge the Senate to reject his nomination (http://online.logcabin.org/news_views/reading-room-back-up/log-cabin-republicans-urge-1.html).

Also, a new article:

Criticism surprises Holsinger colleagues: Surgeon General Pick's Views on Gays at Issue (http://www.kentucky.com/454/story/93637.html)

ladyinred

06-10-2007, 06:57 PM

Whatever happened to separation of church and state? I would ask should those with certain religious views be allowed to impose those views on the rest of the population. I would say, no. And this seems to be the problem with Bush nominees,imposing their ideology and religious convictions on the rest of America.

While I believe in religious freedom I also believe in upholding the constitution. And it seems religious morality is becoming more and more the law of the land,with these people being appointed to office.

Steven E. Webster

06-10-2007, 07:11 PM

Whatever happened to separation of church and state? I would ask should those with certain religious views be allowed to impose those views on the rest of the population. I would say, no.

I suspect that Holsinger's supporters in the Senate are going to argue that "separation of church and state" means that Holsinger's private views of religion should be off limits in the confirmation hearing. They will try to paint Democratic criticism as an impermissable attack on a man's private religious beliefs.

Holsinger's problem is that he expressed his *medical* opinion against homosexuality in his 1991 paper. He's going to have to show that his medical knowledge and thinking has progressed beyond his documented 1991 views.

I suspect there will be need to be more focus on his actual performance as a medical professional. Has he performed well? I've seen at least some evidence that previous media reports indicated that the Veterans Administration Hospitals gave substandard care under Holsinger's watch. That is the kind of thing that needs to be examined closely.

Steven Webster

Steven E. Webster

06-10-2007, 08:21 PM

Also, a new article:

Criticism surprises Holsinger colleagues: Surgeon General Pick's Views on Gays at Issue (http://www.kentucky.com/454/story/93637.html)

Thanks, Jamie for the reference to this article from Kentucky.com. This looks like an effort at damage control on the part of Holsinger's friends and allies. I'm quoting part of that artlcle below and commenting on it.

In Lexington, Holsinger and his wife, Barbara, were asked to be part of a team that founded Hope Springs Community Church, which has a Hispanic ministry and recovery ministries for those with addictions to drugs, alcohol and sex. The recovery ministry includes some who no longer wish to be gay, the Rev. David Calhoun has said.

However, Calhoun said in an e-mail last week that the church does not have a specific ministry targeted at "curing" gays -- as some gay-rights groups have charged.

I noticed this past week that Rev. Calhoun is now back-pedaling from his original statement that caused the uproar about his church trying to "cure" gays. I looked at the church's website and it appeared to me that they just have a Christian version of a 12-step program. There was no mention of ministry with LGBT persons. My suspicion is that this church simply lumps homosexuality in with "sexual addiction." 12-step programs are basically "self-help" programs. I suspect many of the folks in Holsinger's camp in the United Methodist Church take the attitude that gays need to "pull themselves up by the boot straps" and just work their own way out of the "gay lifestyle." I doubt they really give much thought to "curing" homosexuals.

In 2000, Holsinger was elected to the United Methodist Church's Judicial Council, which rules on disputes involving church doctrine. As one of the nine members of the court, Holsinger ruled with others that a lesbian in a committed relationship could not continue to be a minister and that a pastor could withhold church membership from a gay man.

The Rev. Keith Boyette, a friend of Holsinger's and a member of the Judicial Council, says that Holsinger's personal views of gays and lesbians cannot be ascertained from the rulings. The council does not have the power to establish church doctrine, only to apply it to the cases that come before it.

"The Judicial Council's decisions were simply applying a provision of the church's discipline," Boyette said.

Boyette is a member of the same right-wing faction on the Judicial Council to which Holsinger belongs. A critique of this highly partisan faction in the Judicial Council from a progressive Methodist viewpoint can be found here: http://www.mfsaweb.org/generalconference/2JudicialCouncil.html) As a partisan ally of Holsinger, I'd expect this view from Boyette. Boyette has written a concurring opinion for the United Methodist Judicial Council suggesting that LGBT lay members of the United Methodist Church should be charged with "immorality" in United Methodist Church Courts and, if convicted, should be expelled from the denomination.) However here is a quote from a dissenting opinion by Judicial Council member Judge Jon Gray (who is an actual judge in a secular court).

Having fully mastered the difficult task of judicial interpretation, my colleagues in the majority have now chosen to direct their talents to the meticulous work of authoring legislation. I choose not to join them in that endeavor. Although I join in the dissenting statement filed by my colleague, I write separately to offer legal reasons why I differ with the majority opinion.

The Book of Discipline is the book of law of The United Methodist Church that covers nearly every aspect of church governance. There are, however, gaps that exist in the Discipline because there are issues that the General Conference has not addressed. Where the General Conference has not spoken, the Judicial Council is not imbued with creative license to engage in conjectural improvisation. Legislative power resides exclusively with the General Conference. Para. 26. The responsibility of the Judicial Council is to interpret the law of our church from a strictly legal standpoint. Decision 59. The Judicial Council has no authority other than as specified in Paragraphs 55 through 58.

The above quote is from the dissent to Decision 1032 found here: http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1098&JDMOD=VWD

What Judge Jon Gray is saying here is that the Holsinger-Boyette faction have been right-wing judicial activists. They are "legislating from the bench." In other words, they have gone beyond the letter of Church law to make up law to suit themselves when the General Conference (which has the power to legislate under the Church's constitution) has been silent.

In 1988, Holsinger began serving on a national church committee to study homosexuality and make recommendations on whether church doctrine should be changed.

The committee took four years to consider the issue, and, in 1991, Holsinger wrote a paper entitled the Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality. In it, he makes a biological argument that gay sex is unnatural and unhealthy. He argues that, like male and female pipe fittings, certain body parts are designed for one another.

The paper has drawn wide criticism from gay-rights groups. They say it represents an out-dated view, even for 1991, of gay sex. The American Psychological Association, for example, removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in 1973.

Christina Pearson, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, said Holsinger had been asked by the committee to compile peer-reviewed scientific data on health issues facing gays.

"Since then, the science has deepened with continued research on these issues," Pearson said in a statement.

Pearson seems to suggest that Holsinger's paper reflected the state of knowledge in 1991, and that his current views have kept up with scientific progress. I wouldn't bet on it! Holsinger's paper was no better in 1991 than it is now. The Senate should focus on this paper, and insist that Holsinger explain where he stands at present on the issues he raised in the paper. A closer examination of the paper should be made in order to show how Holsinger may have misused and abused his sources.

Shortly after he submitted the paper, Holsinger withdrew from the committee. At the time, the committee was beginning to form its opinion, said the Rev. Phil Wogaman, who served on the committee and is now retired.

Most of the members wanted to remove language from church doctrine that said the church did not condone homosexuality and "considered its practice incompatible with Christian teaching," Wogaman said.

The majority believed that homosexuality, if practiced in a caring, committed relationship, was acceptable, Wogaman said. "When the majority was beginning to form its views, Dr. Holsinger was in strong disagreement with that and chose to leave the committee, in some anger," Wogaman said.

Holsinger opposed any recognition of homosexuality as normal, Wogaman said. "He took the view that it's pathological, that homosexuality is both sin and a kind of mental sickness," Wogaman said. "He was quite vocal about it."

Wogaman is also a very distinguished United Methodist Professor and clergy person. Wogaman is a voice from the "progressive wing" of the United Methodist Church. I believe Wogaman's perceptions of Holsinger and his views are accurate.

I believe a strong case can be made that Holsinger allowed his personal biases to get the better of sound judgment when he wrote the 1991 paper. The same thing happened when Holsinger and his faction overstepped their authority in making rulings on the Judicial Council. They are so sure that they are right that they don't need to follow the ordinary rules of legal procedure, or the ordinary procedures of scientific inquiry. "The thing speaks for itself" as Holsinger said in his 1991 paper.

Steven E. Webster

Steven E. Webster

06-10-2007, 09:46 PM

Friends,

It just so happens that United Methodists are now gearing up for our once-in-four-years General Conference in the Spring of 2008. That means that our "Annual" (Regional) Conferences that meet this Spring and Summer are in the process of electing delegates to General Conference and proposing legislation to be taken up by that General Conference which will meet in Fort Worth in late April and early May of 2008.

The North Texas Annual Conference has just voted the following:

Local United Methodist representatives also narrowly approved a
resolution critical of the denomination's Judicial Council, or high
court, for upholding a Virginia pastor's authority to forbid church
membership to an openly gay man. . . .

At the Plano meeting, the vote was 373 to 332 in favor of a
resolution stating that in 2005, the Judicial Council
misinterpreted "the authority of clergy" in upholding the Virginia
pastor's right to bar church membership to the gay man.

The episode has been back in the news because the Judicial Council
president was Methodist layman James Holsinger, a Kentucky physician
nominated by President Bush to be surgeon general. Gay rights groups
are opposing the nomination.

The North Texas Conference resolution declares that "all people,
without exception, shall be allowed to attend its [UMC] worship
services, participate in its programs, receive the sacraments and
become members in any local church."

The resolution's passage cheered local gay rights advocates,
including the Rev. Eric Folkerth of Northaven United Methodist Church
in North Dallas.

"It absolutely is in favor of inclusiveness," he said of the
resolution. "I am certain that not everybody who voted for it is
supportive of all the rights for gay and lesbian people, but they
were still willing to affirm that we should be an open church. I
think that is historic. We really haven't had that kind of statement
before."

Here's the link to the full article:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-methodists_09met.ART.South.Edition1.439b3e6.html

As I've indicated in other posts, the majority opinion of the Judicial Council in Decision 1032, allowing a local church pastor to deny homosexual persons membership in the United Methodist Church, was a highly controversial decision. It has been viewed by many, including other members of the Judicial Council, as "legislating from the bench," i.e. making up Church law when they had no authority to do so.

In order to right the wrong committed by Holsinger's Judicial Council, the General Conference will need to write legislation that overturns the Judicial Council's ruling. Resolutions like this coming from Annual (Regional) Conferences like North Texas bode well for such change at the next General Conference.

This is also an indication that James Holsinger's views are not only out of step with medical science, but also out of step with the majority of his fellow Methodists--at least in North Texas.

Other Annual Conferences will be passing similar legislation.

Steven Webster

ladyinred

06-11-2007, 06:09 AM

"The North Texas Conference resolution declares that "all people,
without exception, shall be allowed to attend its [UMC] worship
services, participate in its programs, receive the sacraments and
become members in any local church."
Good news, I'd say.

ladyinred

06-11-2007, 06:45 AM

But what if his religious views interfere with his performance as a competent medical professional? As is often the case with Bush nominees ,we see it does. They impose their ideology and morality on the rest of America, to the point of trying to deny women contraception , or the morning after pill if it goes against their " religious beliefs" or "morality." I don't feel it is the government's duty to legislate religious morality or impose it on the general population,it is obviously discriminatory. Let the churches deal with the morality issues from their own pulpits.It goes against separation of church and state again.

The problem with "morality" is often people of differing faiths have differing views on morality, there are those who do not believe sex education is a sin or the use of contraceptives or birth control are either.Nor would they agree with denying funds to hospitals who are treating children with aids and trying to provide outreach to prevent the spread of aids by teaching responsible sex education and practices. As the Bush administration has done.
Below:
"While Christian abstinence-only groups are enjoying federal largesse, many medical organizations with expertise in protecting children from AIDS are ineligible. Chicago's Children's Memorial Hospital Section for Pediatric, Adolescent and Maternal HIV Infection, which does outreach and education in colleges and high schools in at-risk areas of the city, relies on private donations to finance its teaching. According to Tom Foster, the section's academic manager, teaching abstinence isn't an option. "What I've heard from the very beginning is that abstinence doesn't work, especially for our target market, high-risk adolescents," he says.

This obviously shows discrimination against secular or possibly other faith based organizations who don't agree .It seems there is blatant favortism shown to Christian groups that favor Bush's policies on abstinence and other things. This isn't democracy , this is tyranny.

Steven E. Webster

06-11-2007, 07:18 AM

But what if his religious views interfere with his performance as a competent medical professional? As is often the case with Bush nominees ,we see it does. They impose their ideology and morality on the rest of America, to the point of trying to deny women contraception , or the morning after pill if it goes against their " religious beliefs or "morality." I don't feel it is the government's duty to legislate religious morality or impose it on the general population,it is obviously discriminatory. Let the churches deal with the morality issues from their own pulpits.
The problem with "morality" is often people of differing faiths have differing views on morality, there are those who do not believe sex education is a sin or the use of contraceptives or birth control are either.Nor would they agree with denying funds to hospitals who are treating children with aids. As the Bush administration has done.

Ladyinred,
This is all true. However, Holsinger's supporters appear to be trying to argue that Holsinger's religious views are entirely his private business and that these views do not affect his work as a physician or a scientist. That could all be true, and if it is then Holsinger's religion does not matter. On the other hand the now notorious 1991 paper is evidence that Holsinger's religious views *do* influence his professional judgment.

The danger for the Democrats is getting painted as hostile to religion. Some have suggested that this nomination is another "smart move" by Karl Rove to try to discredit the Democrats in front of religious people.

The World Methodist Council (http://www.worldmethodistcouncil.org has just released a statement that read, in part:

"[Holsinger] has worked with the leadership of Churches from around the world on behalf of the Council and is appreciated for his competency, intellect and concern for all persons, irrespective of their ethnicity, race, religion, wealth status, gender or sexual orientation."

"Holsinger's] sense of fairness and commitment to justice are evident in all his contributions to our work together through the World Methodist Council.

That last sentence is doubtful in light of the fact that Holsinger's performance on the Judicial Council reveal how his personal bias caused Holsinger to support decisions that exceeded the Council's authority. This could be a tough argument to make.

Steven Webster

ladyinred

06-11-2007, 07:25 AM

Here is something also problematic with Bush's appointees. After Bush became governor, Texas had one of the highest rate of pregnancy in spite of his insistence on abstinence only programs,getting back on track his appointees seem to shun sound medical science in favor of imposing religious morality, his appointees are picked based on their religious convictions not necessarily sound medical science.

In 1995, the Texas Department of Health wrote a letter to McIlhaney's institute criticizing a slide presentation he'd been showing throughout the state. It included a detailed slide-by-slide critique, prepared by two doctors, a registered nurse and the director of the state's HIV/STD Epidemiology Division, that pointed out a number of distorted, downright false and "ridiculous" statements in McIlhaney's lesson. "Some of the data presented suffers from investigator bias," the letter said. "Dr. McIlhaney's presentation tended to report the outlier data as 'proof' that condoms don't work rather than present those reports in the context of the entire data set. The only data that was reported in the presentation are those which supported his bias on the topics he addressed. Intellectual honesty demands that he present all the data."

Yet even as the Texas Department of Health was criticizing McIlhaney's program, the state's governor, George W. Bush, was embracing it.

"When he was governor of Texas, he promoted and lobbied for and pushed abstinence-only education," says Fred Peterson, a professor of health education at the University of Texas at Austin, who trains instructors to teach comprehensive sexual education classes. McIlhaney was and is a "major player" in Bush's abstinence agenda, says Peterson. He's also a beneficiary -- his Medical Institute for Sexual Health has received $1.5 million in federal contracts related to abstinence education and STD research.

"He's very close politically and probably personally to George W. Bush," Peterson says. "I remember that Dr. McIlhaney did a statewide conference on abstinence-only education, and Governor Bush was the first speaker. Now, Bush has appointed McIlhaney to a major policymaking position."

Peterson, who's met McIlhaney on several occasions, describes him as a nice man and a gentleman, but one who never presents his findings in venues where they might be debated. "Dr. McIlhaney never presented papers at scientific conferences in front of his own peers where he would be challenged and questioned," he says. "His viewpoint was always presented at churches and public forums that did not include scientists, academicians and physicians."

McIlhaney couldn't be reached for comment, but Joe Webb, CEO of the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, defends the organization's scientific integrity. "We're not a religious organization, we're a medical educational organization," says Webb. "Every scientist brings presuppositions to his or her work. We try to be aware of our presumptions in terms of the research and science we're doing. We do have values commitments, just like any person would, but first and foremost, we have to be accurate."

Often, though, the doctors associated with the Medical Institute seem to put their "values commitments" ahead of hard evidence. One member of the institute's advisory board is W. David Hager, the author of a book called "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now." Hager has suggested prayer as a cure for premenstrual syndrome and, in private practice, refused to prescribe contraception to unmarried women. In 2002, Bush appointed Hager, whom Time Magazine called "scantily credentialed," to head an FDA panel on women's health policy, but after a public outcry, he was merely made a member of the panel.

As the Union of Concerned Scientists report points out, there's no evidence at all that the policies pushed by the institute reduced pregnancy rates in Texas. "Unfortunately, despite spending more than $10 million on abstinence-only programs in Texas alone, this strategy has not been shown to be effective at curbing teen pregnancies or halting the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases," it says. "During President Bush's tenure as governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000, for instance, with abstinence-only programs in place, the state ranked last in the nation in the decline of teen birth rates among 15- to 17-year-old females. Overall, the teen pregnancy rate in Texas was exceeded by only four other states."

The evidence on abstinence-only programs from elsewhere hasn't been much more promising. Last year, the Minnesota Department of Health evaluated the state's five-year, $5 million abstinence-only program and found that it hadn't reduced sexual activity among teenagers at all. Instead, over a year, the rates of sexual activity among students taking the abstinence course doubled, from 5.8 percent to 12.4 percent, which corresponded to the rate of sexual activity among teens statewide. The evaluators found a "lack of fit between the program and kids who face complex problems in their lives and are most at risk for sexual activity."

Rebecca Maynard, a professor of education and social policy at the University of Pennsylvania, is the project director and principal investigator for a study of abstinence-only programs commissioned by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The results won't be out until 2006, but when asked if there's any evidence that abstinence-only programs work, Maynard says, "There's not much evidence that they do or that they don't." Still, Maynard says that she hasn't come across any scientifically inaccurate information in the curricula she's evaluated (though she notes that she's not a medical scientist).

Yet the government virtually mandates that abstinence-only education exaggerate the risks of sex by requiring federally funded programs to teach that "sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects." (By this logic the sexual behavior of most Americans has caused them psychological and physical harm, since the overwhelming majority of Americans have sex before they get married.) As a review of popular abstinence-only curricula conducted by the Sexuality Information and Education Council shows, many programs do this by telling students that premarital sex is likely to ruin their relationships and perhaps their lives.

"Unmarried couples who become sexually active tend to stop communicating on all levels," teens are warned in the student workbook for the Reasonable Reasons to Wait program. A workbook for Choosing the Best Path includes this question: "Circle the item(s) that can be totally eliminated through the use of a condom? Infertility, isolation, jealousy, poverty, heartbreak, substance abuse, AIDS, pregnancy, cervical cancer, genital herpes, unstable long-term commitments, depression, embarrassment, meaningless wedding, sexual violence, personal disappointment, suicide, feelings of being used, loss of honesty, loneliness, loss of personal goals, distrust of others, pelvic inflammatory disease, loss of reputation, fear of pregnancy, disappointed parents, loss of self-esteem, leaving high school before graduation."

The answer, according to the teachers guide, is "None."

Then students are instructed to "cross out the item(s) that can be eliminated by being abstinent until marriage.

According to the teachers guide, the correct answer is "All."

This kind of education hasn't been shown to stop kids from having sex, though it has delayed them. That in itself is a good thing -- most experts believe it's healthier for teenagers to lose their virginity later rather than sooner. The problem is that when they do have sex, these teenagers may be less likely to use condoms. According to a 2001 study published in the American Journal of Sociology, students who'd signed public "virginity pledges," a key component of many abstinence-only programs, had sex an average of a year and a half later than their peers. Yet when they did have sex, they were a third less likely to use contraceptives.

Now do we possibly see a similar pattern with him appointing Dr Holsinger?It seems blatantly obvious how Bush selects people not based on their qualifications or sound medical expertise but to promote his agenda. It seems there is hard work being done to suppress medical science and evidence or even data that is contrary to what he believes in.So I would say democrats have a legitmate gripe or reason to be concerned with this nominee.
Next page: Suddenly, key health data disappears from a federal Web site

Emproph

06-11-2007, 09:44 AM

A Closer Look at Dr. John Holsinger’s “Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality”
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/06/11/431

This whole thing is GOLD.
Just a snippet:

But what is that context? It turns out that these statistics came from one lone study consisting of a convenience sample of 365 male patients, all of whom attended a single urban STD clinic in Copenhagen over a seven month period in 1983.3 (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/06/11/431#Note431.03)

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h117/tarabulltammie/Misc/pantsonfire.jpg

BrentRichards

06-11-2007, 02:04 PM

A Closer Look at Dr. John Holsinger’s “Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality”
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/06/11/431

This whole thing is GOLD.
Just a snippet:

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h117/tarabulltammie/Misc/pantsonfire.jpg

Fantastic article! Thanks!

ladyinred

06-13-2007, 01:03 AM

Frankly obnoxious:"After dealing briefly with sexually transmitted diseases, Holsinger introduced the squeamish subject of anorectal trauma, again implying that it is a common condition among gay men. He opened this line of argument by repeating this statement from Bush (1986):4

Consensual penile-anal intercourse can be performed safely. Few anorectal problems and no evidence of anal-sphincter dysfunction are found in heterosexual women who have anal-receptive intercourse.***** However, forceful anal penetration without lubrication against a resistant sphincter will result in abrasive trauma, causing fissures, contusions, thrombosed hemorrhoids, lacerations with bleeding, pain, and psychic trauma.**** Well,D-u-uh I guess forced anal sex would have the same effect on gay men. And the same consensual safe sex between gay men would have the same results as it would if it was performed on a woman . Safe sex is safe sex regardless. Of course how many cases of forced sex on women did he report or research?Where are those numbers?

Notice what’s going on here. If intercourse is consensual, then everything’s okay. After all, they see few problems among straight women. But if it’s not consensual then damage can occur. This statement seems to preclude the possibility that gay men can have consensual sex, doesn’t it?

Holsinger seems to agree. The entire premise of his “scientific” evidence is not based on the ordinary bonds of affection that arise between committed gay and lesbian couples. Nor is it even based on the ordinary physical expressions of that love that occur in a mutually supportive and consensual basis. Instead, all three sources that Holsinger quoted from in this section".

Above excerpted from BoxTurtle bulletin article.

Do I sense a double standard here? I thought gays were being condemned for having "unnatural" sexual practices Which was the whole issue with the religious right. But suddenly it is ok for heterosexuals to have the same practices and not be condemned? I guess anything goes for heterosexual sex of course.And insinuating gay men can't have careful,consensual and safe sex?? Who comes up with all this science?

Can I just say it? This kind of nonsense pisses me off because of the lack of integrity and truthfulness that seems to support this "pseudo" Science.Clearly there is bias and subjectivity as opposed to objective fact-finding in the research and it supports prejudice against gay men. I guess then they think they are "rapists"???????? I am so mad .And then they use their quack science to discriminate against gays,to further their injustices and mistreatment of them.

ladyinred

06-13-2007, 01:25 AM

But the "sin" argument against LGBT people is what I really find obnoxious, When they keep LGBT people from being ordained or being members of a church.And also to discriminate against them from being equal members in society who have the same protections and rights as everyone else. But then they overlook the "sins" of divorce and adultery and fornication , they don't use these "sins" to discriminate against heterosexuals, they don't try to deny them jobs, housing, adoption rights, from having children, membership in the church, legal standing and equal treatment under the law... So supposedly "sin" justifies this type of discrimination against and treatment of gay people?:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

ladyinred

06-13-2007, 01:34 AM

I hope you all don't mind if I let it all out here.:hissy::hissy::hissy::hissy:

antonyh

06-13-2007, 03:53 PM

Dr. James Holsinger's record seems to demonstrate that he is uninterested in the best scientific information available; instead, he allows his anti-gay bias to inform his medical judgments. In past writings he has compared reproductive organs to plumbing parts and he seems to believe homosexuality is a "lifestyle" choice that should be "cured."

This is the man Bush wants to make our next Surgeon General?

Voice your outrage today, by writing your Senators. Tell them to vote NO on Holsinger's nomination.

http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/stop_holsinger

tdogg

06-13-2007, 06:03 PM

Done it! Thanks for reminding folks Antony!!! :)

Steven E. Webster

06-14-2007, 06:55 AM

Friends,

UMNexus is a progressive United Methodist new source. Notice that they're giving credit to Soulforce for leading the way!

http://www.umnexus.org/context.php?Article=347

Led by SOULForce, gay groups across the country have denounced Holsinger's nomination, contending anti-gay bias is shown in his co-founding of a church, Hope Springs Community Church in Kentucky, whose ministries include a type of "reparative therapy" to "cure" homosexual behavior. The Louisville Courier-Journal quoted Hope Springs' pastor, the Rev. David Calhoun, saying its mission has been misrepresented, as has Holsinger's role. Calhoun said one of its recovery groups is for men with various sexual problems, including promiscuity. Gays are welcome to attend but not required to, and nobody is asked their sexual orientation, he said.

In typical journalism style they provide the arguments from "both sides." In some ways I think that we have overstated the "ex-gay ministry" allegation. Hope Springs Church doesn't seem to promote any program as an "ex gay ministry." They have 12-step style, self-help "recovery groups" However, their pator, Rev. Calhoun, seemed to think that gay people could "walk away from that lifestyle" if they would join such a group with "other" sex addicts. Now Calhoun seems to deny that. In the end, I think Holsinger and the Hope Springs Church seem to be suffering a terminal case of ignorance.

The strongest piece of evidence we have against Holsinger is that 1991 white paper. Holsinger's friends seem to want to excuse this paper as outdated and as a good paper for the state of knowledge at the time. I think there needs to be an analysis of the paper like that presented in the Box Turtle website. Here's the link: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/06/11/431 (Thanks, to Emproph for citing this one!)

Holsinger is a very partisan figure in the United Methodist Church given his close involvement with the "Confessing Movement" in the United Methodist Church. As we've said again and again here, he looks like another example of a very partisan appointment by Bush.

Steven Webster

Steven E. Webster

06-14-2007, 09:22 AM

Here's the link

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/13/AR2007061302012.html

Steven E. Webster

simpleman

06-15-2007, 01:31 AM

[SIZE="3"]

Secondly, simpleman I cannot believe you do not see the connection between public health and HIV education and prevention. What if it turned out to be your spouse who used a dirty needle or had unsafe sex? These things happen to conservative christians too.

I know that there is a connection between public health and HIV education. What I said was that it is not the government's responsibility to provide condoms to people. If I am going to have sex with someone, I can drop three quarters into a box in any gas station in the country, and avoid HIV. That is my responsibility. If she's my spouse, it's my responsibility to know her sexual history. If it includes intercourse, it's her responsibility to get tested. If it includes IV drug use, also her responsibility to get tested. If she doesn't get tested, I have to make the personal decision of whether or not to ask her to be tested. If she lied to me, and I later discover I have AIDS, I'm not going to blabber about how the government should have subsidized her needles and condoms. I am going to kick myself in the bum for being such an idiot.

This incompetent guy will fit right in with the Bush administration. The best we can hope for is that he's one more fubar ('Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job') in order for Americans to wake up and see why competence and public health matters. But it is sad to think of who/how many will suffer while this guy's in the position.

His religious beliefs on homosexuality do not equal incompetence. You can drag 4-5 bodies out of the morgue, claim they are his fault, but if they really were the guy would be sued already. How many times are doctors sued for their life's worth for things that they didn't even do? If this guy was personally liable for these people's deaths due to his negligence, he'd be sued by now, no worries. Who/how many will suffer? Probably the same people who choose not to protect themselves before Holsinger was nominated. Probably the same people who choose not to worry about their needles when they need their heroin fix. The people who will suffer are the ones who make the bad decisions to begin with.

ladyinred

06-15-2007, 04:03 AM

Simpleman for such an open-minded guy, you seem to defend Bush and his appointees to a zeal and even side with the likes of Dobson.Explain your religious beliefs.Apparently you do believe that homosexuality is a sin, so aids must be something that gay people deserve.

Even if you are married straight in a supposedly monogamous relationship, you don't have the guarantee your partner is always faithful to you. I read awhile back where a married woman contracted aids through her husband. (Who she thought was faithful)Teenagers are the most vulnerable to get aids because they are led to believe it is a homosexual disease. 50,000 known aids cases in 2003 were said to be among teens.Heroin use is also a problem among teens as well, Also a potential death sentence when ignorance and misinformation prevails.
It is relevant that we pick a surgeon general who is not mislead by his religious ideology and is reality -based as to the consequences of infusing his or her personal beliefs with medical science. Incorrect information such as the belief that aids is primarily a gay disease, for example can mislead people into making wrong choices about their sexual practices and can be deadly as a result. I'd hate to be a mother who had a teenager who discovered he contracted aids without knowing better or having correct information about the disease only to have him say,"Why didn't you tell me????????" Of course then , it is too late isn't it?

ladyinred

06-15-2007, 05:28 AM

http://books.google.com/books?id=wm0aicOJtXQC&pg=PA79&ots=Ed3Dpr6eqr&dq=number+of+teenagers+with+aids+2006&sig=86SxNFMH_ZQ2npwlf37FZqcE6Vs
How crackpot science (Supported by the right)distorts findings that condoms effectively prevent the spread of HIV and Stds ,actually condom use is said to offer 10,000 times more protection than not using them. Also the abstinence only programs so hailed by Bush and his cronies and his appointees is shown to be ineffective,Texas has one of the highest pregnancy rates in the nation despite abstinence only programs. In one school in Mckinney, Texas, during a blood drive, 1/3 of the students were found to have had stds.

Southern states (bible belt has the highest rate of aids/HIV and stds,highest rate of teen births.)Perhaps those "crazy" liberals aren't crazy after all.Also Sweden and the Netherlands reduced teenage pregnancy and abortion significantly by passing out those condoms and sex education.Netherlands significantly reduced teenage pregnancy and abortion by 72% I guess the govt there takes that pretty seriously.

ladyinred

06-15-2007, 05:46 AM

Yes I would be concerned with another Bush's appointee , they all seem to have a common denominator, a bent for distorting true science and allowing misleading information to prevail. Lack of integrity and lying shouldn't be Christian virtues,especially when people can lose their lives because of lack of education around issues like stds and aids. And Simpleman, for those who say they value human life, they don't seem to mind endangering our youth with misleading information. And I'm sure the Good Lord would approve since the ends tend to justify the means. Those who promote sound medical science and the use of condoms to help prevent stds and HIV aren't the ones trying to do harm , they are trying to prevent the spread of diseases that could possibly kill people. There is only one known 100% fool-proof way to avoid aids and stds, celibacy. Even if you are abstinent and you marry and have one partner: A) There is no guarantee that they haven't slept around B) That they will be faithful and not have other partners. So even married people can be exposed to stds and aids, if one partner has not been faithful.

Emproph

06-15-2007, 01:50 PM

His religious beliefs on homosexuality do not equal incompetence.Lack of integrity and lying shouldn't be Christian virtues
Good point lady, nor should that need to be said. What's it say about someone who literally defines intentionally bearing false witness (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/06/11/431) AS "religious beliefs?"

It happens to be my “religious belief” that to approve of evil – such as lying – is the embodiment of evil itself.

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u162/treesmoker759/Demon-02-june.gif

By all means Simpleman, do go on.

Emproph

06-15-2007, 02:20 PM

Wow, plumbing and electrical fittings are called male and female ... well, that convinces me that homosexuality is obviously wrong. This guy has a doctorate? Can we make him the Plumber General instead? They prefer to be called "commode analysts." And given the subject matter of this particular commode analyst, I believe the especially correct pronunciation would be "commode ANALyst." Okay, I'll compromise and call him a Lavatory Optimization Specialist. If he's on the way, that would make him a Lavatory Optimization Specialist En Route ...

Jim posted this over at BoxTurtleBulletin (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/06/14/439):
“It proves what I’ve always said. Don’t go to a doctor when you could go to a plumber (http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=88495&ml_collection=&ml_gateway=&ml_gateway_id=&ml_comedian=&ml_runtime=&ml_context=show&ml_origin_url=%2Fmotherload%2Findex.jhtml%3Fml_vid eo%3D88495&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true).”

Steven E. Webster

06-16-2007, 09:37 AM

Emproph,

Thanks for both the Box Turtle and Stephen Colbert links!

Here's an article that gets into Holsinger's performance over the years with the Veteran's Administration:

http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070615/NEWS01/706150354

It's important to address Holsinger's actual professional performance and not just his religious beliefs--but here is an article by a professor of Christian Ethics that raises questions about separating personal religious belief from professional performance:

http://www.sundaypaper.com/CurrentArticles/tabid/98/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/234/Default.aspx

Steven Webster

ladyinred

06-16-2007, 01:19 PM

ladyinred

06-16-2007, 01:57 PM

What I found problematic with his research is that he said heterosexual women can have safe anal sex as long as it is consensual and not forced and then turning around in the same breath to say gay sex is "unnatural". It doesn't seem to me that "gay" sex and heterosexual sex really differ that much, other than not being able to bring about children through heterosexual intercourse. Why then it is unatural for one group but perfectly acceptable for the other?

Also any concerned physician needs to be objective enough to realize that stds ,aids and forced sex and unhealthy sexual practices can and does affect everyone regardless of thier sexual orientation and gender. Scapegoating gays for all the sexually transmitted diseases and other problems occurring in sexual relationships,as I said before also does a huge dis-service to the heterosexual community who can also get the same diseases . It is also unethical and immoral to base scientific evidence on highly prejudicial motives.

It is quite strange that those who profess to be Christians would be "enemies" of the truth. But Christians who believe in truth, honesty and integrity do not put their own self-serving and selfish motives above the common good or welfare and safety of other people. They do not seek out the destruction of others, but their good. Jesus said it himself by their "fruits, ye shall know them." And that a man from the goodness of his heart seeks to bring about good and a man with evil intentions seeks to bring about evil."The bible also says,"love does no harm to a neighbor." Also not to defraud your neighbor or uses deceptive means to harm them.

Steven E. Webster

06-17-2007, 06:11 PM

Friends,

Below are two more links. The second link, to Democracy Now includes and interview with Jim Burrows of the Box Turtle blog (already referenced here.) Media Transparency borrows heavily from earlier reports.

http://www.mediatransparency.org/storyprinterfriendly.php?storyID=198

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/15/1428217

I appreciate the suggestion in these articles that Holsinger does not represent "mainstream" United Methodism, but is part of a partisan right-wing faction within the denomination.

Opponents of Holsinger need to maintain a focus on Holsinger's scientific and medical qualifications, or lack of them, and not get drawn into a battle about religion. There is some suggestion that Karl Rove would dearly love to make this a religious crusade for the sake of Republican political gains.

Steven Webster

Emproph

06-17-2007, 07:46 PM

There is some suggestion that Karl Rove would dearly love to make this a religious crusade for the sake of Republican political gains.
That's what I've been suspecting.

From the Democracy Now! interview:
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Bush is essentially irrelevant at this point. And what they're trying to do is hold the Republican coalition together by throwing these various sops to the base. It's not about policy, it's about politics. And that's what Holsinger represents. Whether he gets confirmed or not I think the Bush administration has accomplished its aim of holding the Republican coalition in place for Bush's successor.
Not surprising of this administration but the Holsinger nomination in particular seems to have been a calculated move to generate controversy for the reasons given above.

ladyinred

06-17-2007, 08:20 PM

Simpleman's bumbling logic doesn't really bother me.We all are smart enough to put our heads together and figure him out.But it get's interesting when you pick his arguments and logic apart.

Emproph

06-17-2007, 09:07 PM

Emproph",it happens to be my “religious belief” that to approve of evil – such as lying – is the embodiment of evil itself."

I agree Emproph especially when people knowingly lie and have malicious intents and less than honorable or sincere motives, and actually condone such evil in Christ's name. We often hear about white lies which are usually not sinister in intent. But lying to deliberately distort information or research or to suppress information that could save people's lives and keep them from making faulty decisions based on faulty information is evil.

GSA for example knows there is a problem with stds and aids in the gay community (And straight community) But they don't use that information to scapegoat gays, but to provide an outreach program for gay youth who are vulnerable and give them information to provide the tools to make enlightened decisions or better decisions to safeguard their health.

The gay community has done much to try to overcome aids in it's own community. That shows that they were willing to take responsibility on their part and say ,"Look we have a problem here and we need to do something about it." But their motives and intentions are to help save lives not destroy more. I don't see that kind of integrity with the religious right unfortunately.And sadly too many people may become casualities of their misinformation campaign.
That's exactly what I get. If their beliefs were sincere their actions would match their rhetoric of compassion. Obviously some are sincerely compassionate (if misguided), but they usually aren't out using their beliefs to raise money for political gain.

I can even understand the ends justifies the means lies-mentality when it comes to gays -- it's not a sin to lie about us, we have it coming. What I don't understand is how they justify all the innocent lives that are destroyed as a result. Whether it be the family that must cope with a suicide, or straight kids in school beaten up or killed because they are perceived to be gay, etc.

So many people turn from God or will never find God, so to speak, as a result of situations like that and if they truly believe in eternal hell, I don't see how they could justify so much "collateral damage."

No sense of karma/consequences is all I can come up with. It's like they think that because they're saved, not even God can touch them.
~~
What I found problematic with his research is that he said heterosexual women can have safe anal sex as long as it is consensual and not forced and then turning around in the same breath to say gay sex is "unnatural". It doesn't seem to me that "gay" sex and heterosexual sex really differ that much, other than not being able to bring about children through heterosexual intercourse. Why then it is unatural for one group but perfectly acceptable for the other?

Also any concerned physician needs to be objective enough to realize that stds ,aids and forced sex and unhealthy sexual practices can and does affect everyone regardless of thier sexual orientation and gender. Scapegoating gays for all the sexually transmitted diseases and other problems occurring in sexual relationships,as I said before also does a huge dis-service to the heterosexual community who can also get the same diseases . It is also unethical and immoral to base scientific evidence on highly prejudicial motives.

It is quite strange that those who profess to be Christians would be "enemies" of the truth. But Christians who believe in truth, honesty and integrity do not put their own self-serving and selfish motives above the common good or welfare and safety of other people. They do not seek out the destruction of others, but their good. Jesus said it himself by their "fruits, ye shall know them." And that a man from the goodness of his heart seeks to bring about good and a man with evil intentions seeks to bring about evil."The bible also says,"love does no harm to a neighbor." Also not to defraud your neighbor or uses deceptive means to harm them.

From Jim Burroway's article (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/06/11/431):
In other words, to describe gay sexual acts, more often than not he turned to papers which describe injuries sustained through heterosexual activity. And then he used this evidence from heterosexual activity to say that “when the complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and diseases may occur as noted above.”
And:
and he misleads his readers by padding his bibliography with more references to papers explicitly describing injuries experienced by heterosexual men and women to imply that they describe gay men instead.
So not only was much if not most of the evidence in his paper based on heterosexuals, but 2 footnotes NOT referenced in his paper (also dealing with heterosexuals), were listed solely for the shock value of their titles!

Emproph

06-17-2007, 09:11 PM

Simpleman's bumbling logic doesn't really bother me.We all are smart enough to put our heads together and figure him out.But it get's interesting when you pick his arguments and logic apart.:lol: I know, it's like the opposite of a puzzle.

ladyinred

06-17-2007, 09:33 PM

Here is something on Bush's past appointees.Wait til you read this one.http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2006/03/31/lusk-hiv-advisory-board/ excerpted from article:........"There are only 5 people from across all of America on that advisory council. So, why did George W. Bush pick Herbert Lusk to be on the council? Herbert Lusk has no medical expertise on dealing with HIV. In fact, Reverend Lusk has no background in HIV/AIDS policy at all.

Sadly, President Bush appears to have placed Herbert Lusk on the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS in order to derail the work of that committee. Lusk has an agenda against equal rights for Americans that includes political stands against contraception and against same-sex marriage.

Isn’t that wild? Bush put Lusk, a man who is against promoting safe sex and against promoting monogamous marriages for gays and lesbians, on a council to advise the White House on how to slow the spread of HIV, a sexually-transmitted disease"

ladyinred

06-17-2007, 11:00 PM

Bush tends to select appointees on their Christian faith, bur here is the constitution on this:Article VI,
Article 6 - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Steven E. Webster

06-18-2007, 10:03 PM

Columnist Deb Price explores conflicting views of Holsinger

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070618/OPINION03/706180326/1149

Phil Wogaman is a progressive United Methodist leader.

Steven Webster

Steven E. Webster

06-20-2007, 06:57 PM

The neoconservative Washington D.C. think tank, The Institute on Religion and Demoracy (IRD) weighs in predictably on the Holsinger nomination. It is clear that we have to make our case on Holsinger's unscientific medical views and not on the fact he is religious. IRD and their allies will try to make it look like Holsinger is being "persecuted" for his religion. His religion really has nothing to do with anything--it's his medical views that are the real problem.

Here's the link:

http://www.ird-renew.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=fvKVLfMVIsG&b=390529&ct=3969263

Steven Webster

Steven E. Webster

06-25-2007, 09:03 AM

Friends,
The progressive Methodist Federation for Social Action has sent an open letter to the Senate re: nomination of James W. Holsinger as Surgeon General:

Open letter to Senators Acting on the Nomination of
Dr. James Holsinger for Surgeon General

TO: The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Senators Edward Kennedy, Christopher Dodd, Tom Harkin, Barbara A. Mikulski, Jeff
Bingaman, Patty Murray, Jack Reed, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, Bernard
Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Michael B. Enzi, Judd Gregg, Lamar Alexander, Richard
Burr, Johnny Isakson, Lisa Murkowski, Orrin G. Hatch, Pat Roberts, Wayne Allard,
Tom Coburn, M.D.

FROM: The Rev. Kathryn Johnson, Executive Director, Methodist Federation for Social Action
Bishop Clifton Ives, Co-President, Methodist Federation for Social Action
Ms. Marilyn Outslay, Co-President, Methodist Federation for Social Action

DATE: June 22, 2007

RE: The Nomination of Dr. James Holsinger for Surgeon General

On behalf of the Methodist Federation for Social Action, a nation-wide network of United Methodists, we are writing to express deep concern about the nomination of Dr. James Holsinger to the position of Surgeon General of the United States and to urge the senators who will be acting on this nomination to take these concerns into account.

As church leaders, we are not in a position to critique Dr. Holsinger’s medical credentials. We do feel qualified, however, to comment on his demeanor and effectiveness in positions of leadership within the United Methodist Church.

Dr. Holsinger serves as the President of the United Methodist Judicial Council, the “supreme court” of the United Methodist Church if you will. In the past few years an unprecedented number of decisions supported by Dr. Holsinger and the conservative majority of which he is part, have been challenged by the Council of Bishops and in two cases have been reversed. In a case decided last year related to the court’s understanding of who has authority to determine church membership, the court’s decision has caused an uproar throughout the church.

Both in his work with the United Methodist Committee to Study Homosexuality and in his position as President of the United Methodist Judicial Council, Dr. Holsinger’s actions often appear to be ideologically driven. This certainly seems to be the case with the paper he authored entitled, “Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality.” In this paper Dr. Holsinger lifts up health concerns related to the sexual behavior of some homosexuals. He writes about this not as a means to say that the medical field must therefore aid homosexual men in maintaining their health, but rather to propose that male homosexual behavior is “pathological.”
In one of the most helpful articles we have found written about the work of Dr. Holsinger, author Jim Burroway has carefully studied Holsinger’s “Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality” and concludes that it has “very little of scientific value.” He writes, “Worse, it shows a startling eagerness to pull evidence out of context to provide damning evidence against gay men, while willfully ignoring counter evidence in the same literature which essentially destroys the core of his arguments.” We strongly commend this paper to anyone in a position to make decisions related to Dr. Holsinger’s fitness to serve as Surgeon General. It can be found at http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/06/11/431.

There have been reports in the press about Dr. Holsinger’s respectful behavior with individual gay and lesbian persons. We have no reason to doubt accounts of acts of individual kindness. Dr. Holsinger has not been nominated, however, to serve as a chaplain to individuals. He has been nominated to a position as the nation’s chief health educator.

There have also been press reports challenging opponents to Dr. Holsinger for attacking him on the basis of his religious beliefs. We wish to be very clear that we are not doing this. We have no problem with persons of faith serving in public office. Nor would we discourage individuals from allowing their faith commitments to inform their ethics in making decisions. Indeed, as an organization, we encourage this. Our concern comes when we observe a person, such as Dr. Holsinger, appearing to sacrifice medical and scientific accuracy in support of his ideological commitments.

At a time when our nation is deeply polarized on so many issues, it is important to have someone in the position of surgeon general who is widely trusted across the board, a person Americans believe will act with medical integrity. Americans must be confident that the surgeon general will promote the common good, making decisions and promoting policies in the best interest of all citizens.

Perhaps most important, national leaders, including the surgeon general, should be persons who can bridge the inevitable divisions that arise between citizens in a pluralistic society such as ours. We question whether Dr. Holsinger is such a person.

Steven E. Webster

06-28-2007, 06:58 AM

Friends,

Here's an argument from the other side:

http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=25979

Mohler's argument wants to assume that Holsinger's views of the "Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality" are medically correct as well as a religious belief. But what if a man's religious beliefs (I would call them religious prejudices) cause him to hold incorrect medical opinions? Is this a Surgeon General who will give us the best medical advice or will he shape his medical advice to suit his religious prejudices?

Mohler tries to paint Holsinger as a victim of our anti-religious prejudice? Is that fair?

Our argument against this nomination would be stronger if there is other information about Holsinger's qualifications. Is he really among the best in his field or is he another "Brownie." (As in "You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie.")?

Steven Webster

BrentRichards

06-28-2007, 04:15 PM

Gee, Mohler is supporting Holsinger? What a surprise ...

For those not keeping score, Mohler is the President of a Southern Baptist Seminary, who made comments recently suggesting eugenics-like methods for "preventing" homosexuality prenatally once it's "cause" is found. His remarks drew an impromptu sit-in from the Equality Riders East bus ... not surprisingly, he refused to see them, and school officials had Riders arrested for trespass.

Steven E. Webster

06-30-2007, 08:17 AM

Friends,

Here's the link to the story. The Senate hearing is in mid July.

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070630/NEWS0104/706300420/1008/NEWS01

Steven E. Webster

Steven E. Webster

07-07-2007, 11:56 AM

Friends,

Two new articles. The first link to an article supporting Holsinger's nomination. The second link to an editorial opposing Holsinger, because his controversial nomination only increases partisanship, and doesn't move us forward towards solving the nation's health-care crisis. (I'm adding my own commentary below.)

Pro-Holsinger:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1861736/posts

Anti-Holsinger:
http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070706/OPINION02/707060339/1085/opinion

My comment on the pro-Holsinger article: It relies in part on one of Holsinger's strong allies on the United Methodist Judicial Council, Keith Boyette. It points out that Boyette and Holsinger have been close friends for 25 years, but fails to point out that they have only been on the Judicial Council together since 2000, when they were elected together with a third right-winger in a highly partisan move by the right-wing "Good News" and "Confessing" factions of the Church.

Boyette, who agrees with Holsinger, argues that all they were doing was following Church Law. However, one needs also to read the dissenting opinions--one of which, by a Judicial Council member who happens to be a secular Judge, as well, accuses them (accurately in my opinion) as "legislating from the bench." (here is a link to "Decision 1032." Scroll down to read Judge Gray's dissent and Boyette's concurring opinion: http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1098&JDMOD=VWDIn) In particular, the idea that a local Pastor has unchecked authority to deny membership to anyone he chooses without interferance even from his/her Bishop is highly questionable.

Holsinger's behavior on the Judicial Council has been highly partisan and controversial. Folks that criticize his nomination as Surgeon General have every right to view this as another highly-partisan sop to Bush's "base." Not the best choice for U.S. Surgeon General.

We finally get more information about Holsinger's congregation's "ex-gay program." As I suspected from my review of their website, this consists of a 12-step, self-help program, and not "reparative therapy." But the article confirms that, in fact, there are three gay men in the group who identify themselves as "sex addicts." This begs a question: is it the position of this congregation that homosexuality is a "sex addiction" and a "problem" that can be solved with a 12-step program? Would this congregation coerce gay persons into this 12-step program by withholding membership or threatening church discipline?

Boyette, Holsinger's buddy on the Judicial Council, wrote a concurring opinion in which he suggested that LGBT people should be denied church membership, because church law would require them to be disciplined and removed from membership by a church Trial Court if they did not repent of their "sin" of homosexuality. United Methodist teaching (on the positive side) rejects the idea that lesbians and gays should be coerced into "repentence of their homosexuality." It also rejects the idea that lesbians and gays should be rejected by their families or congregations. This part of church teaching Holsinger and Boyette feel free to ignore.

The United Methodist Church is deeply divided over this issue, and Holsinger is one of the partisans in this divide. Expect him to bring similar partisanship to his job as "chief Physician" of the United States. If he uses authority to coerce LGBT people into his version of "holiness," expect that he'll use his authority as Surgeon General to coerce LGBT people into his version of "health."

Steven Webster

Emproph

07-07-2007, 12:08 PM

We finally get more information about Holsinger's congregation's "ex-gay program." As I suspected from my review of their website, this consists of a 12-step, self-help program, and not "reparative therapy." But the article confirms that, in fact, there are three gay men in the group who identify themselves as "sex addicts." This begs a question: is it the position of this congregation that homosexuality is a "sex addiction" and a "problem" that can be solved with a 12-step program? Would this congregation coerce gay persons into this 12-step program by withholding membership or threatening church discipline? Are they in treatment for sex, or are they in treatment for gay?

Steven E. Webster

07-07-2007, 02:13 PM

Are they in treatment for sex, or are they in treatment for gay?

I see your point--there appears at first glance to be some ambiguity.

Remember, Holsinger's 1991 paper argues, in essence, that homosexuality is pathological, thus the title "Pathophysiology of male homosexuality."

Here is a direct quote from the Pastor in charge of Holsinger's congregation:
“We see that [i.e. homosexuality] as an issue not of orientation but a lifestyle,” Calhoun said. “We have people who seek to walk out of that lifestyle."

There is an ambiguity about "sexual addiction." Is it only out-of-control and harmful promiscous behavior, or do they simply equate "that lifestyle" (i.e. homosexuality) with "sex addiction"? I think one can fairly conclude that “We have people who seek to walk out of that lifestyle" refers to the gay men that Calhoun later describes as "sex addicts." The context of the story tends to remove the ambiguity. As Pastor Calhoun makes clear, they do not recognize "gay" as a sexual orientation, but a "lifestyle."

Calhoun wants to deny that his church operates an "ex-gay therapy program," while at the same time admitting that they have a 12 step program (arguably not therapy) that helps "gay men" walk away from "that lifestyle" by overcoming their "sexual addiction."

Steven Webster

u-dog

07-10-2007, 02:11 PM

revtj

07-10-2007, 02:53 PM

Our argument against this nomination would be stronger if there is other information about Holsinger's qualifications. Is he really among the best in his field or is he another "Brownie." (As in "You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie.")?

I think I see it more the way Eric Cartman of South Park sees it:

SOMEBODY'S BAKING BROWNIES! (for non-fans of Cartman this is a quip noting impending human feces and the gas associated with it;))

And that is exactly what I think of Holsinger's nomination. Sorry to be so non-scientific but I believe Holsinger's ideas leave room for a second opinion -- I chose to get mine from Eric Cartman.

Steven E. Webster

07-10-2007, 06:17 PM

This article is on Yahoo News right now. The former Bush Surgeon General talking about how he was gagged by political appointees in the Bush Administration.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070710/hl_nm/bush_surgeongeneral_dc

U-dog,
Thank you for this. I think this provides plenty of evidence for the Senate Committee that will be interviewing James W. Holsinger on Thursday of this week. This testimony clearly shows that there is a real problem with the Bush administration using partisan politics, theology and ideology to trump science and sound policy making. This goes for all their policies from health, economics, public welfare to their foreign policy and war policy. Incompetence is fine with them, as long as the god of the GOP base is on their side.

Here's another really good article on the same hearing from National Public Radio--it contains some additional very interesting details.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11854247

Remember, also, that David Kuo, a man who was part of the Bush Faith Based initiatives project became disillusioned that the politics of GOP domination mattered more than any attempt to pursue sound policies to accomplish anything like "compassionate conservatism"--"compassionate conservatism" was only a phrase that polled well in focus groups.

I don't mean to be either anti-conservative or anti-GOP---I believe there are good, competent people who are conservative and GOP--it's just that this administration had no use for competent people--period.

Steven Webster

revtj

07-10-2007, 08:03 PM

Steven, you're always so serious, it makes me feel...well, immature and dumb, like,-- well, like this administration has been for 7 years on practically every issue...consider this...

global warming -- doesn't exist, Marxists scientists opposed to the free market, that's all...

war on terror -- splendid excuse for me & my buddies to steal billions while exposing 1/3 of the planet to annihilation and scaring the daylights out of ordinary citizens

international diplomacy -- we like Putin, he's obviously a part of some organized crime we'd like to get our hands on--oh, and we like Blair, he's been like our poodle, but we had to put him down, kinda sad but we have to move on...

free market economy -- jesus on steroids: if you dispute it you're going to hell, you're a commie and we may have to tap your phone and re-arrange your apt. when you're not home...

china -- sure, buy 51% or more of our currency (tee hee!) we hate you 'cause you are commies -- what can a commie do to the dollar? maybe you'll join Putin and we can start a worldwide crime syndicate? seriously, call W, he'll make you an offer you can't refuse...gone to WalMart, see ya later instigator...

n'awlins -- heh heh, the Audubon area is fine, and Tulane is open again...besides we have enough mixed race in Amurrica

gays -- ain't right, ain't natural, why cain't they get a gerl thru that madame in DC, what's her name? She's got more power in that black book than the entire Congress has had since 2001. Now that there's some family values.

Steven E. Webster

07-10-2007, 10:01 PM

Steven, you're always so serious. . . .

Rev TJ,

Too true, I'm afraid! What sense of humor I do have is way too dry, and overly ironic, even sarcastic. Must have been my childhood.

Bush-Cheney just ain't very funny. It's either laugh or cry.

I do hope that an informed public (I suppose that's another joke) will speak through it's elected representatives (another joke?) and turn this country around before we all die laughing.

Anyway, I hope folks check out the NPR story I cited today in post #112 in this thread.

Steven Webster

Steven E. Webster

07-10-2007, 10:36 PM

Friends,

Here's some more serious, unfunny stuff from the New York Times today on James Holsinger:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/opinion/10tue1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Remember, the Senate hearing with James Holsinger is to be this Thursday, July 12. If you're the type that communicates with your Senator, you might do so now.

Steven Webster

revtj

07-11-2007, 10:16 AM

I did communicate with my Senator (Saxby Chambliss, R GA) even though it is a waste of my time. He has rubber-stamped Bush 100% all the way. I get automated responses blandly supporting Bush. Perhaps he is moving to Dubai in '09?

On a more hopeful note, my Congressman is John Lewis (D GA). I don't even have to contact him, he always does the right thing!

I still say that brothel madame's little black book is the most powerful weapon we've got (correction : she's got!) for restoring democracy in America...

Jamie McDaniel

07-12-2007, 01:34 PM

During the hearing, Kennedy directly questioned Holsinger on the paper, "Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality," which Holsinger prepared for a United Methodist Church committee studying homosexuality.

"The paper does not represent where I am today," Holsinger said in response.
Source (http://www.kentucky.com/254/story/121839.html)

I've been contacted by a reporter for a comment on Holsinger's confirmation hearings today. Here is what I'm giving them:

“Holsinger’s paper from 1991 will be a historical artifact -- evidence of the deep prejudice against homosexuals that existed in the United States. Today, Holsinger states before Congress that it no longer represents his views. Yet as recently as 2004 he was using his position as a leader in the United Methodist Church to further injustice, voting that a lesbian pastor should be forced out of the ministry and that a parishioner could be denied church membership due to his sexual orientation. Civil rights organizations, progressive Christians, and many fair-minded Americans are of the strong opinion that Dr. Holsinger should not be confirmed as our nation’s chief physician.”

Steven E. Webster

07-14-2007, 07:56 AM

Friends,

Here's the link:

http://www.biblebeltblogger.com/biblebelt/2007/07/is-holsinger-th.html#more

Holsinger has backed away from his 1991 paper (in a not very convincing way, I might add). So now the right-wing doesn't like him either.

Here's another Bible Belt Blogger link with a bigger quote from Dobson acolyte Tony Perkins:

http://www.biblebeltblogger.com/biblebelt/2007/07/family-research.html#more

and another:

http://www.biblebeltblogger.com/biblebelt/2007/07/key-christian-r.html

I want to give credit to Soulforce for putting the heat on to get this back-tracking from Holsinger.

Why should the Senate approve a nominee who only has the support of a President with a 20 percent approval rating, and who has no support from the President's Fundamentalist base?

Steven Webster

BrentRichards

07-16-2007, 07:20 PM

Steven E. Webster

07-20-2007, 07:08 AM

Friends,

They were not impressed with Holsinger's hearing

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/18/AR2007071802317.html

It seems that Holsinger has pleased no one with his non-answers about his 1991 paper on "Pathophysiology of Homosexual Males." The right wing is displeased that he didn't stand by his paper, and he really didn't tell us that he now disagrees with it either.

Steven Webster

revtj

07-20-2007, 01:26 PM

He needs a press person like Tony Snow or Stephen Colbert or somebody.

Possible Answers:

"I cannot comment on an ongoing rectal examination"

or Clintonesque:

"I did not have a paper with that-- that sex, Pathophysiology..."

or the Bushies favorite:

"I don't recall." which, when coupled with, "On the advice of counsel, I choose to exercise my 5th Amendment rights" secures your job for 2 years at least.

or Colbertesque: demonize the questioner and flatter the people, like,

"Senator, I am not going to sit here and waste the taxpayers money being forced to talk about the lurid details of gay sex acts. You, sir, should be ashamed!"

or George H W-esque:

"Read my lips. No more c*cks*ckers."

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

(gimmee a break, it's Friday!)

Steven E. Webster

07-21-2007, 10:34 PM

Friends,

Christian Century is generally regarded as a "progressive" Christian journal. However, it sometimes tries to be very "middle of the road" regarding the LGBT issue. It editorialized against Soulforce's direct action at the 2000 United Methodist General Conference in Cleveland, for instance.

Now Christian Century has published an article which makes the claim that Holsinger is being subjected to an unfair "religious litmus test." ". . .go against your church on the gay issue, or say goodbye to any political future."

Christian Century publishes critical letters to the Editor. Anyone so motivated?

Here's the article which Christian Century published in their July 24th edition. The link here is to the version of the article that appeared on Christian Century's blog, Theolog.org.

http://www.theolog.org/blog/2007/07/the-internet-ga.html#more

There are a few valid points made by the author. Some of the claims made against Holsinger in the blogosphere and the press were exagerated or mistaken. But there was some truth to some of the claims.

The article claims that Holsinger's position on the United Methodist Judicial Council was that of a "strict constructionist." However, one of his fellow Judicial Council members issued a stinging dissent accusing Holsinger of legislating from the bench--the exact opposite of what a "strict constructionist" should be.

I'm not sure I can take on another project right now. Anyone up to doing a "letter to the editor?"

Steven Webster

Emproph

07-22-2007, 10:16 PM

There's a little bit too much NOT going on with that article to fully address it all, but what's my word limit?

I didn't think I was up for it and I can't promise anything, but I posted this on the site and apparently it's those goat getters that really get me going...

Jason Byassee writes: "There may be good reason to oppose Holsinger, including a 1991 report to the church that went on at length on the dangers of anal sex. That was a common conservative argument then, and is still widely held now, even if its supporters keep their heads down in public."
____
-To even frame that paper as being about the dangers of anal sex tells me you haven't read the paper itself, let alone this thorough rebuttal of it:
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/06/11/431

-An excerpt:
"Conclusion: The whole point of Holsinger's paper is to draw a sharp contrast between gay relationships and heterosexual relationships. But to do so, he culls his evidence largely from papers which describe injuries from nonconsensual intercourse to denigrate consensual relationships, he describes odd sexual practices that are enjoyed by heterosexual couples to denigrate the minority of gay couples who indulge in those same practices, and he misleads his readers by padding his bibliography with more references to papers explicitly describing injuries experienced by heterosexual men and women to imply that they describe gay men instead."

-The examples of dishonesty in the article are many and varied, but here's just one specific example:
"But to justify his singling out of gay men, Holsinger cited another study to say that STD's are "strongly correlated to sexual lifestyle" ... It turns out that these statistics came from one lone study consisting of a convenience sample of 365 male patients, all of whom attended a single urban STD clinic in Copenhagen over a seven month period in 1983."

-Would YOU go to ONE hospital to measure the health of an entire population, and then present that as science?

This is what I mean by dishonesty. So when I hear complaints about the unfair employment of a religious litmus test, what I see is the defense of intentional dishonesty in the name of Christianity.

I realize you used Holsinger's paper as a possible reason why he should NOT be confirmed, but you might want to take a closer look before defending it as even being about the dangers of anal sex -- "That was a common conservative argument then, and is still widely held now."

Don't worry, I'd be kind.

Steven E. Webster

08-02-2007, 10:44 AM

Friends,

The Bible Belt Blogger has just posted a quote from John Kerry

Press release via State News Service:

Senator John Kerry released the following statement today on the nomination of Dr. James Holsinger Jr. for U.S. Surgeon General.
"For the past six years we have seen this White House put politics ahead of health and science in a dangerous and reckless way," Senator Kerry said. "From vetoing the potential of life saving stem cell research to manipulating climate change reports to quieting the dangers of second hand smoke, they've gone to any lengths to put their interests ahead of our public health and scientific research.
"That's why more than ever the American people need a surgeon general who won't bend to heavy-handed political pressure. Dr. Holsinger is not the right person for the job. His troubling, unscientific and intolerant writings on homosexuality and his unwillingness to promote women's health initiatives while Chief Medical Director at the Department of Veterans Affairs prove he will serve based on his own political views, and not the truth of science. Dr. Holsinger's track record proves he cannot be an unbiased, science-first national spokesman on medical and public health issues. I will oppose his nomination to be Surgeon General and urge my colleagues to do the same."

Here's the link to Bible Belt Blogger--a good news source, and he's been dogging the Holsinger nomination.

http://www2.arkansasonline.com/blogs/bible-blog/2007/aug/01/surgeon-ge3/

I can't see this nomination going through the Senate. Let's see if Bush pullls another "recess appointment" just to show how he can still govern as "King George" without oversight or bothersome "checks and balances."

Steven Webster