Surgeon General Nominee = Anti-gay Bigot

[Steven E. Webster]

Jamie,

Thanks for your work on this! (Jamie McDaniel is mentioned in this story)

http://www.kentucky.com/454/story/85442.html

Holsinger is President of our United Methodist Judicial Council and is part of the right-wing faction that took over that body. Their ruling that allows pastors to bar LGBT persons from membership in local churches has been widely denounced for it's "judicial activism"--they just "legislated from the bench" creating new church "law" that was never legislated by our General Conference.

I would not trust him with the health of LGBT citizens.

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Here's a link to a well-researched story from a progressive United Methodist source:

http://www.umnexus.org/context.php?Article=335

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

I fixed the link in the first post in this thread. Please see that article--Jamie McDaniel speaks out for Soulforce!

Steven Webster

[RM260boy]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

Friends,

I fixed the link in the first post in this thread. Please see that article--Jamie McDaniel speaks out for Soulforce!

Steven Webster

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

[Jamie McDaniel]

This made the front page of today's Lexington Herald Leader. I was also the guest on a hour long radio talk show this morning.

Here is the Judicial Council decision where Dr. James Holsinger voted.

On the radio program I mentioned that if Dr. Holsinger had been part of the dissenting vote, then that would be different. (The show is apparently liked by a lot of conservatives, only one caller agreed with me. I had said this to show that it wasn't Dr. Holsinger's religion, it was his religion-based prejudice.*) However, upon re-reading that document now... Steve, was the dissenting vote not really a vote of support for Rev. Dammann?

*Maybe we should consider rearranging that phrase so religion is not the word out front. Perhaps "prejudice based in religion."

[nmwolfboy]

Yay Jamie!

Could it be....Bush cronyism again????

The assertion in the article (near the end) that a ministry he's instrumental in has an ex-gay program is really disturbing. If Dr. Holsinger places science above prejudice-based-in-religion, then how can he support reparative therapy? Why would he support it?

Given this administration's track record with incompetent crony nominees and appointees, the most effective opposition to Holsinger might originate in his financial connections to Bush's campaigns and his competence as a physician and public health policy maker.


Pax

scott

[Steven E. Webster]

Jamie and friends,

The much more relevant Methodist Judicial Council decision to research as an egregious example of anti-LGBT Judicial activism is decision 1032. What is particularly interesting is a dissent written by a secular judge who sits on our Judicial Council that really blasts the majority opinion.

I'll write more about this this evening and supply the appropriate links.

Decision 1032 outraged many in the United Methodist Church because it grants local clergy the right to deny membership to LGBT persons.

Steven Webster

[Jamie McDaniel]

Focus on the Family's Citizen Link:

Gay Activist Group Opposes Surgeon General Nominee

Eagerly awaiting Emproph's analysis.

[Steven E. Webster]

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_jud...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]

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]

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]

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]

-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]

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.

Truth Wins Out Strongly Opposes the Nomination of James Holsinger for U.S. Surgeon General

[Jamie McDaniel]

The Bible Belt Blogger, 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 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]

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...ory/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]

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

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

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."

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

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.

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

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

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]

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]

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...ory/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]

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.