Month: March 2011

BYU, Utah professors rebut LDS gay change group

Last Friday, the Salt Lake City Tribune published an opinion article by members of a Latter Day Saint group called Foundation for Attraction Research. This group, co-founded by National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality leader, Dean Byrd, claims that science validates their religious view of homosexuality. Among other problems, the article last Friday misrepresented the views of National Institute of Health Director Francis Collins.

A week later, today’s SLC Tribune has an effective rebuttal from Wiliam S. Bradshaw, professor emeritus of molecular biology at Brigham Young University; David G. Weight, professor emeritus of clinical and neuropsychology at BYU; and Ted Packard, professor emeritus of educational psychology at the University of Utah. The authors sent the article to me directly:

First, the authors’ manipulations of quotations from Dr. Francis Collins distort and misrepresent his views. They first cite Collins about possible genetic influence on homosexuality. After several intervening paragraphs they introduce separate comments about “individual free will” and “playing the hand dealt to us,” which they represent as his “additional insight on homosexuality.”

This juxtaposition is a deception. The “free will” comments actually refer to genes and intelligence or criminal and antisocial behavior, not homosexuality. Collins has responded to this corruption of his statements by A. Dean Byrd as incoming president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, or NARTH.

Collins sets the record straight as follows: 1) “The words quoted by NARTH … have been juxtaposed in a way that suggests a somewhat different conclusion than I intended”; 2) The fact that there are other factors that influence how information in DNA is expressed “certainly doesn’t imply that those other factors are inherently alterable”; 3) Even though the actual genes contributing to SSA have yet to be identified, “it is likely that such genes will be found in the next few years.”

Here is the full text of Collins’ unequivocal denunciation of others who, like Byrd and the three authors, have recently misappropriated his scientific views: “It is disturbing for me to see special interest groups distort my scientific observation to make a point against homosexuality. The American College of Pediatricians pulled language out of context from a book I wrote in 2006 to support an ideology that can cause unnecessary anguish and encourage prejudice. The information they present is misleading and incorrect, and it is particularly troubling that they are distributing it in a way that will confuse school children and their parents.”

Regular readers here may recognize the source of this information about Collins – Exgaywatch and then here and here. Read the rest at the link above, I think the authors have made a quality rebutal.

Why is Huckabee using the madrassa attack on Bryan Fischer’s show?

Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas governor, Fox talk show host, and probable GOP presidential contender got himself into some trouble when he said Obama learned anti-American ways growing up in Kenya. Later he said he misspoke and meant Indonesia. Kenya. Indonesia. Practically next door neighbors. Whatever.

Anyway, he had just about come through the storm of his birther-speak when he appeared on Bryan Fischer’s Focal Point show to complain about Obama’s childhood some more. On Fischer’s show, Huckabee said:

And I have said many times, publicly, that I do think he has a different worldview and I think it is, in part, molded out of a very different experience. Most of us grew up going to Boy Scout meetings and, you know, our communities were filled with Rotary Clubs, not madrassas. (emphasis supplied by Salon’s Steve Kornacki)

A madrassa of course is a Muslim school, with recent associations to radical elements of Islam. While nasty, Huckabee is not terribly original in his attack. Properly or not, Hillary Clinton was credited for unearthing this fact early in 2007.

Terry, this is appearing on a Web site today, Insight magazine, which is a subsidiary of The Washington Times. Here’s the question. I’ll put it up on the screen: Barack’s madrassa past. He says that “during the five years that we would live with my stepfather in Indonesia, I was sent first to a neighborhood Catholic school and then to a predominately Muslim school.” That’s from his book, “The Audacity of Hope.”

Now in the meantime, this is what Democrats are saying, according to Insight magazine. They’re looking into his background. They’re saying: He was a Muslim. He concealed it. His opponents within the Democrats hope this will become a major issue in the campaign.

Now, we have heard about dirty politics before. Republicans aren’t involved in this one. What do you think about what’s going on over there?

TERRY HOLT, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: John, the last time I checked, there was still a freedom of religion in this country. And this is either a despicable act by an absolutely ruthless Clinton political machine. We know that they are capable of doing this. But it wasn’t directly linked to Hillary Clinton. If it wasn’t her, then certainly she should disavow it because I think we have spent an awful lot of time in this country trying to tamp down anti-religious sentiments.

Note what Republican Holt said about the effort to paint Obama as a radical Muslim – “a despicable act.” As Holt pointed out later in the interview, when Obama went to school, a madrassa was similar to any other parochial school associated with a religious view.

Now beyond Huckabee’s confusion of Kenya with Indonesia and his below-the-belt attack on Obama’s childhood is the fact that he is again propping up Bryan Fischer and the American Family Association. As regular readers here know, Fischer believes homosexuals are responsible for “six million dead Jews” during WWII, wants to ban construction of new mosques, and believes that Native Americans got what was coming to them in the near eradication of their tribes during the American settlement and expansion. The American Family Association has been silent on their official position on any of these matters and offers a considerable platform for Fischer’s supremacist views.

Is Huckabee so desperate for an audience that he needs to make news in that fringe-right environment? As Salon’s Kornacki points out, Huckabee is now making this ugly, and I add that he found one of the ugliest places to do it.

Committee chair says Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill may not be considered

Stephen Tashobya, the Chair of the Parliamentary and Legal Affairs Committee in Uganda’s Parliament told me yesterday that the Anti-Homosexuality Bill may not be considered during this sesssion of Parliament.

By phone, Tashobya told me that the committee still has many important bills to get through and when asked about the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, said, “I am not sure if we will get to that one now.”

He did not know when Parliament would be called back to session but felt it would be next week at the earliest. He said he would know more at that time but was now uncertain that there would be time to move the Anti-Homosexuality Bill given the number of other bills to be considered.

This disclosure stands in contrast to Hon. Tashobya’s earlier prediction that the Anti-Homosexuality Bill would be considered very soon after the elections.

For additional posts on Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill, click the link.

Note: For the record, Tashobya, nor I, said the bill has been shelved, if by shelved one means it is no longer possible to bring it up before the end of Parliament’s current session in May. While his statements indeed represent a positive development, it is premature to make a final conclusion based on a couple of sentences from the committee chair. I will have a follow up with Tashobya in a couple of weeks. Then, I think we will know more certainly where things are.

Supreme Court: Westboro Baptist allowed to protest funerals

Today, in Snyder vs. Phelps, the Supreme Court ruled that Westboro Baptist Church could protest funerals of members of the armed services. In a case which unites free speech advocates from the Liberty Council to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the hateful church can continue spewing venom at grieving friends and family who have lost dads, sons, and brothers.

The Court wrote:

Held: The First Amendment shields Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case. Pp. 5–15.

(a) The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment can serve as a defense in state tort suits, including suits for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

So no matter how disgusting the speech, if it relates to a matter of public interest, there is special protection. More from the Court:

Whether the First Amendment prohibits holding Westboro li-able for its speech in this case turns largely on whether that speech is of public or private concern, as determined by all the circumstancesof the case. “[S]peech on public issues occupies the ‘ “highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values” ’ and is entitled to special protection.” Connick v. Myers, 461 U. S. 138, 145. Although theboundaries of what constitutes speech on matters of public concern are not well defined, this Court has said that speech is of public con-cern when it can “be fairly considered as relating to any matter of po-litical, social, or other concern to the community,” id., at 146, or when it “is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to thepublic,” San Diego v. Roe, 543 U. S. 77, 83–84. A statement’s argua-bly “inappropriate or controversial character . . . is irrelevant to the question whether it deals with a matter of public concern.” Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U. S. 378, 387. Pp. 5–7.

While a victory for free speech, the decision could hurt the fund raising efforts of far right groups who may have trouble convincing donors that religious speech will soon be penalized because of the gay agenda. If the Supreme Court can uphold Westboro’s claims to free speech, then there is no threat to the nation’s preachers, and advocacy groups.

Pakistani Minister for Minority Affairs killed

Pakistani continues to fall closer to anarchy it seems as now extremists have killed another moderate leader. 

Gunmen killed Pakistan’s minister for minorities, Shahbaz Bhatti, Wednesday, in the second attack this year on a high-profile figure who has opposed the country’s blasphemy law.

Witnesses say the attackers fled the scene in their car without hurting Bhatti’s driver, who then rushed him to the nearby hospital where he was pronounced dead.  City Police Chief Wajid Durrani spoke to reporters outside the hospital.

The police officer said the attackers intercepted Bhatti’s official car shortly after he left his residence for work and shot him several times at close range.

The slain minister belonged to the ruling party of President Asif Ali Zardari and was the only Christian member of the federal cabinet.

Bhatti had been threatened by Muslim extremists for speaking out against Pakistan’s controversial blasphemy law.

Police are reported to have seized Taliban-linked leaflets from the scene of the attack warning opponents of the Islamic law of blasphemy will meet Bhatti’s fate.  In a VOA interview last month, the Pakistani minister had spoken about threats to his life, but vowed not to bow down before the extremist forces.

“This extremism is dangerous for the stability of the country,” Bhatti said. “It is the time that the people of different faiths and the Pakistani nation stand united against the forces of intolerance, against the forces of violence. The blasphemy law is being misused to victimize the innocent people of Pakistan.”

Read the rest of the story at the link above.