Surgeon General Nominee = Anti-gay Bigot

[revtj]

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.

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]

Democrats by Rank

Senator Ted Kennedy (MA)
Senator Christopher Dodd (CT)
Tom Harkin (IA)
Barbara A. Mikulski (MD)
Jeff Bingaman (NM)
Patty Murray (WA)
Jack Reed (RI)
Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY)
Barack Obama (IL)
Bernard Sanders (I) (VT)
Sherrod Brown (OH)

Republicans by Rank

Michael B. Enzi (WY)
Judd Gregg (NH)
Lamar Alexander (TN)
Richard Burr (NC)
Johnny Isakson (GA)
Lisa Murkowski (AK)
Orrin G. Hatch (UT)
Pat Roberts (KS)
Wayne Allard (CO)
Tom Coburn, M.D. (OK)

[tdogg]

Are there any Democrats that are publicly supporting Holsinger?

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by Jamie McDaniel

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/generalconfer...alCouncil.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]

Originally Posted by revtj

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]

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_jud...SN=901&EN=1000

http://archives.umc.org/interior_jud...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_jud...N=1001&EN=1072

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

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...060701911.html

Steven Webster

[suzer1013]

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

[Emproph]

From the ABC article:

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

"the study of the biological and physical manifestations of disease as they correlate with the underlying abnormalities and physiological disturbances"

[Steven E. Webster]

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]

Originally Posted by suzer1013

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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/fullpag...61948260;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]

On Bush's abstinence only program:http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feat...nce/index.html A little dated , but it will infuriate you.So will this:http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feat...ndex.html?pn=2 and this:http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feat...ndex.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."