FollowUp 1: Opposition to Day of Silence

Friday 20 April 2012 is this year's Day of Silence, sponsored by GLSEN.  Why?

The National Day of Silence is a day of action in which students across the country vow to take a form of silence to call attention to the silencing effect of anti-LGBT bullying and harassment in schools.

That's the whole of it.  The rest of the details of implementation are not terribly complicated.  Students are directed to follow teachers instructions and speak in class if they are required to do so.

While you DO have a right to participate in the Day of Silence between classes and before and after school, you may NOT have the right to stay silent during instructional time if a teacher requests for you to speak. According to Lambda Legal, "Under the Constitution, public schools must respect students' right to free speech. The right to speak includes the right not to speak, as well as the right to wear buttons or T-shirts expressing support for a cause." However, this right to free speech doesn't extend to classroom time. "If a teacher tells a student to answer a question during class, the student generally doesn't have a constitutional right to refuse to answer." We remind participants that students who talk with their teachers ahead of time are more likely to be able to remain silent during class. Find more Lamda Legal advice here.

But that doesn't slow the lies and bigotry as 20 April approaches.  Here are four recent samples of opposition.

From a letter to the editor in Central Jersey

High school students across the nation (including a few Hunterdon Central High School students) will be celebrating the Day of Dialogue (April 19) that supports marriage between a man and woman (a creation ordinance in Genesis). 

The Day of Dialogue gives students another perspective to the Day of Silence (April 20), which is promoted by GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network) and receives a lot of support from high school administrators and faculty. The purpose of the Day of Silence is to promote the homosexual agenda — GLSEN encourages high school students to lobby for legislation supported by homosexual-advocacy groups. GLSEN also encourages the high school students to pressure school officials to promote gay friendly material and events.

It should be noted that the Book of Genesis does discuss creation and procreation but does not establish limits upon who can marry whom.

"Promote the homosexual agenda" in terms of the Day of Silence is opposing bullying.  There is no further agenda for the schools.  "homosexual-advocacy" is a silly phrase.  The LGBTQ Community does advocate for equal treatment under the law for all persons.  As sexuality is generally believed to be immutable, according to major medical and major psychological organizations, advocacy is for how we are treated.  Gay friendly is good.  Human friendly is even better.

Right Wing Watch has an excerpt from a radio dialogue with Truth In Action Ministries' Jerry Newcombe.

It’s something where they are basically taking a legitimate concern, which is that of bullying, and they are using that serious problem that does happen as an opportunity by which they will then promote and essentially indoctrinate children and expose children to the acceptability of the homosexual lifestyle. Now bullying is wrong but so also is indoctrination into a deadly lifestyle and frankly homosexuality is a deadly lifestyle and that fact is withheld from the children.

Again, one cannot be indoctrinated into homosexuality.  Sexuality is immutable.  To put this in terms of religion, all humans are created in God's image and are acceptable.  If you don't like the "homosexual lifestyle" then don't live that way, but neither is there a single type of lifestyle for homosexuals nor is it their business to interfere in the lifestyle of others outside of their church.

The myth that "homosexuality is a deadly lifestyle" originated with debunked studies by Paul Cameron.  I am a healthy gay man in my 50s, unlikely by their rhetoric.  Giving false information to children is a direct defiance of the Bible's admonition against bearing false witness.

Mr. Newcombe continued with an inference that there is a link between Nazis and homosexuality.

It’s sad to see groups like GLSEN be accepted by the teacher's establishment and then allow the platform to go into the public schools and try and indoctrinate children. For example, they have something called the Day of Silence. Now they chose April 20 of all days to be the Day of Silence, I looked that up, I was like, ‘isn’t that Adolf Hitler’s birthday,’ I looked it up and sure enough it is Adolf Hitler’s birthday. I don’t think there’s a link there but how ironic. But they are using this day as a means by which to promote their lifestyle as if it is a positive thing.

It should be noted that the Day of Silence is generally on a Friday in April.  In 2011 it was on 15 April.  The link to Hitler is particularly ugly given the treatment of homosexuals by the Nazis.

Michael Brown, who I have repudiated before, wrote an article a week ago with his complaint.

But don't some schools already have generic, anti-bullying programs in place along with special, daylong events to highlight the destructive effects of bullying, a subject that should concern all of us? Of course they do, but that's not enough. GLSEN insists that a special focus must be put on LGBT kids, as if bullying a gay kid was worse than bullying a fat kid.

To the best of my knowledge there has not be a rash of fat kids committing suicide because of bullying.  It isn't that bullying anyone is worse than bullying someone else, but the problem of bullying LGBTQ students is real and exacerbated by the rants of Mr. Brown.  The attempt to diminish the importance of bullying that is sanctioned implicitly by religious organizations like Mr. Brown's is exactly why the Day of Silence is needed.

But there's more that takes place on the Day of Silence: A pro-homosexuality message is often sent to the students, with teachers and administrators frequently promoting homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism over the course of the day. That's why thousands of schools (and not just students) officially participate in the event, with the explicit backing of GLSEN. What about other messages being introduced during the day to balance the discussion? Perish the thought.

Promoting?  Again, sexuality is immutable.  It is tolerance and acceptance that is encouraged by GLSEN and the Day of Silence.  Balance the discussion?  The balance to a message of not bullying would be what?  A message to bully?  Students who perish as a consequence of bullying is the symptom.  Mr .Brown is part of the problem.

The so-called Liberty Counsel, an organization explicitly connected with the late Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, has a brief complaint about the Day of Silence.

The Day of Silence is not about tolerance or bullying. It is about pushing a sexual agenda. Students and staff who disagree with a radical sexualized agenda are demonized and made to feel like outsiders. Children should be afforded a rigorous education opportunity and not be forced to accept a radical sexualized agenda subsidized with tax dollars. Parents and lawmakers should take the time to learn about the extreme views of GLSEN and the intolerance promoted by the Day of Silence.

There is nothing "sexualized" about the Day of Silence.  This is a fabrication by Matt Staver, the head of Liberty Counsel, who elaborated in an article at One News Now.

The "annual student-led event" is described on the website as one that "brings attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment" in schools. But as schools face enormous pressure from GLSEN to support and promote this event, Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel says administrators, teachers, parents and students should not be intimidated.

"This is not about tolerating any issue or person," he asserts. "It is about a radical and forced agenda of homosexuality that these [days] of silence are promoting, sponsored by the GLSEN organization -- and sometimes under pressure by the schools."

Fear quotes around annual student-led event, implying that others are in the lead, is typical of Mr. Staver's writings.  GLSEN provides materials to students and teachers who request them, it is not pushed from outside.  The idea that homosexuality is somehow forced is completely absurd.  Mr. Staver apparently cannot accept the truth so is making up lies.

The Day of Silence will occur.  As the anti-LGBTQ bigots see that they are slowly losing, that equality for all citizens is becoming a mainstream concept, they can be expected to step up their rhetoric.  The real homosexual agenda, to be allowed to live peaceful lives with equal legal status effectively to be ignored by hate groups like those cited above, is a long way off.  The harassment of students continues and the Day of Silence is necessary.  Perhaps one day it will not be.

19 March 2012, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.

20 April 2012, FollowUp 2.

Pattern: Claims of Threat to Religious Liberty

The various denominations of Christianity have a tradition of not getting along well.  From outside appearances, a truce is in place.  At least they have agreed to use common language and approach in their claims that President Obama is attacking their religious liberty. That there is no real attack on the practice of religion is immaterial.  Here are a few examples beginning in November 2011, culminating with reactions to the announcement about two weeks ago that contraception must be covered by all health plans:



Evangelical Protestant: Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association complains that women's shelters in Colorado lost federal funding because they have mandatory bible study as part of the care for homeless and battered women. The claim of religious liberty is conflating a social service and a church service. He then complains that nurses were being forced to participate in abortions in New Jersey when they were required to care for women before and after abortions, not during the surgery. The claim of religious liberty is conflating a health care practice with a church service.



Mormon and Roman Catholic: Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich take the same positions. Both claim that Catholic Charities have been forced to curtail their adoption services because they won't serve gay couples. No, they just don't get federal funds if they are going to be bigots. The claim of religious liberty is conflating a social service and a church service.



Evangelical Protestant: Matt Staver of Liberty Counsel complains that the United States and Israel, all of Western Civilization, are threatened by marriage equality, gender equality, and family equality. Somehow if my partner and I can legally wed then Mr. Staver loses his religious liberty; while I gain my religious liberty. This is confusing equality and liberty with a zero sum game.



Roman Catholic: Bishop William Lori complains that the Church are being driven out of health care and adoption services. He is concerned that freedom of worship will replace freedom of religion. The claim of religious liberty is conflating a health service and a church service, then conflating a social service and a church service. One is free to celebrate one's religion, not to impose it on the rest of society.



Mormon: Hannah Smith complains that contraception is being imposed on religious groups via employer health plans. The claim of religious liberty is conflating a health service and a church service.



Roman Catholic: Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell and Newt Gingrich complain that contraception is being imposed on religious groups via employer health plans. The claim of religious liberty is conflating a health service and a church service.

The pattern is clear.  The cry that religious liberty is being attacked by President Obama is not likely to abate.  That some might see that requiring that contraception be covered by health plans does not mean that individuals are required to use contraception is not going to slow or stop this allegation of President Obama being anti-religion.

What can or should President Obama do?  My gut reaction is that he should use the bully pulpit and explain both the misunderstanding at hand and why partisan interests are turning this into something that is larger than it ought to be.  Sadly, I don't think it would work.

I think the President is going to have to change this policy into something that is worse for the United States.  Employees who want birth control will have to pay for it out of pocket, if they can afford it.  That the cost of preventive measures is far less than the consequences of not taking those measures is not the issue.  That no one would be forced to use birth control in violation of their religious compass is not the issue.  This is entirely about how the President is perceived.

With that in mind, it is fair to consider additional perceptions.  President Obama, despite periodic allegations, is clearly a Christian.  That should have been obvious from his tumultuous exit from Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ.  At some point someone other than the President is going to need to point out that members of the Church of Latter Day Saints do not adhere to the Nicene Creed; they are not considered by most Christians to be Christian.

I don't like playing that kind of politics.  Unless a presidential contender adheres to a religion that is a threat to the United States, the Church of American Dissolution or something dangerous outside of spiritual questions, I don't like using that issue.  Still, those who want to make Mr. Obama a one-term president are already playing religious politics.  To not recognize the politics for what it is could result, if one takes Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Romney at their words, in a shift toward theocracy.

My hope is that President Obama and his advisers both see what is happening and have ideas for getting out of this religious trap that they have sprung on themselves and avoid the low road that I mentioned.

28 February 2012: FollowUp 1.

11 March 2012:  FollowUp 2.

Repudiation: Shawano Schools Failure to Edit

Todd Starnes of Fox News Radio wrote a commentary about an op-ed that a Wisconsin teenager wrote and the school published before retracting.  In it, he describes Liberty Counsel, an offshoot of the Liberty University Law School that specializes in religious activism, taking the case because of egregious behavior by the Superintendent of Shawano School District.

Mathew Staver, the founder of the Liberty Counsel, sent a letter to Superintendent Todd Carlson demanding an apology for “Its unconstitutional and irrational censorship and humiliation” of Brandon Wegner [, the teen author of the op-ed].

After the op-ed was published, a gay couple whose child attend s the high school, complained.

The school immediately issued an apology – stating Wegner’s opinion was a “form of bullying and disrespect.”

“Offensive articles cultivating a negative environment of disrespect are not appropriate or condoned by the Shawano School District,” the statement read. “We sincerely apologize to anyone we may have offended and are taking steps to prevent items of this nature from happening in the future.”

But Staver said what the school system did next was absolutely outrageous. He said the 15-year-old was ordered to the superintendent’s office where he was subjected to hours of meetings and was accused of violating the school’s bullying policy.

Local news has the following:

At this point, I am not sure whether to believe Mr. Staver's allegations. But, if the school district made a mistake, that mistake was made much earlier than any discussion between the Superintendent and the student.

While the op-ed was offensive, included inaccurate information (see my review of the All Children Matter Report), and may have been against the school's policies, why was it printed in the first place?  Schools usually assign a teacher or principal as the managing editor of any student papers for which the school is the publisher.  Once published, the school was right to apologize.  But they were wrong in ever allowing the op-ed.

Repudiation: Liberty Counsel Attacks Macy's

The American Family Association (AFA) detailed the fraudulent attack on Macy's.

Another Macy's store is reportedly permitting men to use women's dressing rooms -- and in the process, says Mat Staver, the retailer is alienating a lot of its customer base.

The problem first surfaced when a Macy's employee in San Antonio, Texas, was fired after telling a cross-dresser he could not use the women's dressing room to try on apparel. The employee had pointed out to management the consequences of a policy that affirms the lesbian, "gay," bisexual, transgender (LGBT) lifestyle.

The "man" in question is a transgender teenager, not an adult.  She was there to try on clothing in the section of the store where woman can go into a fitting room and try on the clothes.

Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, now tells OneNewsNow that an employee of another store has told him she has persistent problems keeping men out of the women's fitting room.

"She says that mothers of young daughters come up to her periodically and ask her to keep the men from going into the women's fitting rooms," the attorney reports. "So this apparently is a pervasive problem within the Macy's store system."

These fitting rooms or dressing rooms are designed for one person.  This is not like a locker room where there is room for a crowd or even space for a small group.  It does not make sense that this would be "a pervasive problem."

Before continuing to quote the article, let's hear from the employee who would not allow the transgender teen to try on clothes.

Ms. Johnson is fairly amazing.  Telling the young trans-woman that she was a man was at least rude.  Ms. Johnson is clear that it was her choice to refuse to comply with Macy's policy of allowing people to change in a fitting room of the gender which which they associate themselves.  Claiming "there are no transgenders in the world" is amazingly ignorant.  I understand that Ms. Johnson does not like that there are people who are born with the wrong gender, but she does not have the right to wish them away.  Back to the AFA article.

Macy's has an LGBT-friendly policy that allows men to use women's rooms, as Staver has told OneNewsNow before -- and he suggests that poses a danger for any woman or girl using them.

"This policy has put at risk every woman shopper who enters one of these rooms," he states in a press release. "While attempting to cater to a radical LGBT agenda, Macy's has alienated almost the entirety of its customer base.

Mr. Staver is lying on several fronts.  First, a transgender woman using an individual woman's dressing room does not endanger any other woman.  They are not in the same room.  Second, the LGBTQ Community has an agenda of seeking equality.  When did equality become radical?  Third, most people don't care who is trying on clothing in a fitting room.  When they go in to try on clothing, they are the only person in their small room; it is not a display case.

According to Liberty Counsel, the public is reacting.

"Consistently the people of America are saying that they will not shop at Macy's," explains Staver. "They're tearing up their Macy's credit cards, they're sending back their Macy's gift cards, they say that they will not shop at Macy's -- and this is a consistent response that we're seeing from the public around the country."

Really?  Macy's is in business to make money.  They have established policies that welcome ALL people into their stores because catering to everyone gets the most people through the doors to spend money.  One Million Moms may think they have grounds to complain to and boycott Macy's, with dittos from those who believe these hate groups.  I doubt it will have any affect.

Finally, who is Natalie Johnson?  Why would she feel the way she does?  Is this because she was in religious training and that is her ultimate vocation?  Is there more to the story?  A classmate of Ms. Johnson at San Antonio College, Jessica Strom, has some opinions.  I have not verified the veracity of this video, but it might answer a few questions.

Thanks to the Joe My God community for links to these videos.

Repudiation: Matt Barber on Hate Crimes

One News Now of the American Family Association reports that Matt Barber of Liberty Council is upset because the media focuses more on hate crimes against gays and lesbians than hate crimes against people for religious reasons.

After analyzing the numbers in the FBI's Hate Crime Statistics report for 2010, Matt Barber, vice president of Liberty Counsel Action, concludes that there is a clear bias against religion.

"There were fewer hate crimes committed against people based on an animus toward their sexual behavior than there were committed toward people based on religion," he reports. "So that is to say there were more hate crimes committed against people because of anti-religious bias than there [were] for anti-homosexual bias."

Since Mr. Barber includes links, I decided to dig into this just a little and see what is going on with the detailed numbers.

At the top level, religion and sexual orientation are nearly tied in numbers as reasons for bias in hate crimes.  Race accounts for more than the sum of these.  If one groups ethnicity/national origin with race, then there is a clear majority that is neither religion nor sexual orientation.

The FBI provides some more detailed figures.

Racial bias

Among the single-bias hate crime incidents in 2010, there were 3,949 victims of racially motivated hate crime.  A closer examination of these victim data showed that:

• 70.0 percent were victims of an offender’s anti-black bias.
• 17.7 percent were victims of an anti-white bias.
• 5.1 percent were victims of an anti-Asian/Pacific Islander bias.
• 1.2 percent were victims of an anti-American Indian/Alaskan Native bias.
• 6.0 percent were victims of a bias against a group of individuals in which more than one race was represented (anti-multiple races, group).

Religious bias

Of the 1,552 victims of an anti-religion hate crime:

• 67.0 percent were victims of an offender’s anti-Jewish bias.
• 12.7 percent were victims of an anti-Islamic bias.
• 4.2 percent were victims of an anti-Catholic bias.
• 3.0 percent were victims of an anti-Protestant bias.
• 0.5 percent were victims of an anti-Atheist/Agnostic bias. 
• 9.1 percent were victims of a bias against other religions (anti-other religion).
• 3.5 percent were victims of a bias against groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple religions, group).

Sexual-orientation bias

Of the 1,528 victims targeted due to an offender’s sexual-orientation bias:

• 57.3 percent were victims of an offender’s anti-male homosexual bias.
• 27.5 percent were victims of an anti-homosexual bias.
• 11.8 percent were victims of an anti-female homosexual bias.
• 1.4 percent were victims of an anti-heterosexual bias. 
• 1.9 percent were victims of an anti-bisexual bias.

Ethnicity/national origin bias

Hate crimes motivated by the offender’s bias toward a particular ethnicity/national origin were directed at 1,122 victims.  Of these victims:

• 66.6 percent were targeted because of an anti-Hispanic bias.
• 33.4 percent were victimized because of a bias against other ethnicities/national origins. 

Disability bias

Of the 48 victims of a hate crime due to the offender’s bias against a disability:

• 24 were victims of an anti-mental disability bias.
• 24 were victims of an anti-physical disability bias. 

Liberty Counsel is known for its Christian and anti-gay focus, a hard-line anti-gay group according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.  So, it is interesting that Mr. Barber is focused on religious bias when those hate crimes against Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) add up to only 7.2% of the 20% of hate crimes that are religious in nature.  Most hate crimes are of an anti-black bias.  Most religious hate crimes are of an anti-Jewish bias, with second place being anti-Muslim.  The numbers provide the real story.

Barber adds that the leading basis for hate crimes was race, followed by religion. Even so, "It seems the only thing we hear the media talking about are alleged hate crimes against people because they are considered gay or lesbian."

Perhaps the problem is that Mr. Barber is so focused on homosexuality that he misses the media coverage of other hate crimes.  Perhaps there is a bigger story of why we still have more than eight thousand documented victims of hate crimes in 2010.  Perhaps a part of that story is the responsibility of hate groups like Mr. Barber's Liberty Counsel who continue to deride minority groups and depict them as second class citizens, not worthy of the same respect as white Christians.