Why Rick Perry's Noble Experiment is Doomed

Rick Perry thinks the nation is in crisis, but Perry's idea of a crisis is quite different from the American mainstream. You can tell what Perry thinks the real "crisis" is by looking at the featured speaker roster for his 7-hour-long fasting and prayer service scheduled for today. To get to root of Perry's intentions I personally find myself looking at his event, with its catchy title, "The Response," in the context of how many American's responded to a news story of a week ago. No, I'm not talking about the debt crisis. I am talking about the headline, "Alex Trebek sleeps in the nude."

The connection between the scandalous idea of a naked Alex Trebek and the prayers of the pastors at Perry's "Response" event needs some history, so let me fill you in on the back-story.

A century ago, here in America, there was another religious-based furor going on. How that made-up "crisis" played out should be a lesson to Perry, his pastor friends, and their fundamentalist Christian sheep. That crisis has now become known as the "Noble Experiment," and history has judged it to be a colossal failure. Most people know it as the period of Prohibition, or the doomed Eighteenth Amendment.

American Prohibition traces its roots all the way back to 1657 when the first ban on the sale of liquor became law in Massachusetts. There were other fits and starts as states and cities toyed with some kind of a ban on the manufacture and sale of alcohol, but the move toward a Constitutional Amendment was finally kick-started by Carrie Nation. She earned her place in history by becoming a one-woman-posse as she went into saloons across Kansas to break their liquor bottles with her hatchet.

My point is, it failed! In truth, it never worked. Not even for a day. The abolitionists were in complete denial about it. But it was the fodder that the preachers needed to fill their pews. Nothing fills a church as quickly as having a powerful enemy, and liquor had become the common enemy of the 19th century. Finally, on December 18, 1917, the Senate officially declared that the enemy would be conquered as they proposed the Eighteenth Amendment. After 36 states gave it a nod of approval, Prohibition became the law in January 1920.

And nobody stopped drinking.

Like alcohol of a century ago, human sexuality became the "enemy-of-choice" for the latter part of the 20th century. Pastors have learned that nothing fills church pews better than a willingness to talk "dirty" to a congregation. And just as was true with the pastors of the Prohibition period, few people are bigger hypocrites than the pastors. Names such as Ted Haggard and Eddie Long come to the forefront of epic failures as it relates to homosexual dalliances, and on the heterosexual side we have the Jimmy "I-Have-Sinned" Swaggart and Jim Bakker.

And so, we arrive at last week when Canadian-born-and-raised Alex Trebek felt no compunction about mentioning that he needed to grab his underwear before chasing his intruder down a hotel hallway. For three days, millions of American prudes went all a-flutter and news commentators like Mika Brzezinski giggled and blushed as they told the story. Was this because they all secretly imagined themself with a naked Trebek, and then felt guilty at the thought? This would at least explain what drives them to church, full of guilt, every Sunday morning. And so the pastors reap the benefits of more money in the collection plate. Using Eddie Long as the most recent example, this money will then buy trinkets, toys, and trips for the boys on the down-low.

Returning to today, Rick Perry's "moral experiment" of 2011 is going to follow in the long-established tradition of other Southern Strategies. It will be full of code so that can stir up the fear that drives the sheep of the religious right to the polling booths in 2012. It has been their strategy-of-choice since 1976 when Jerry Falwell laid the foundation for what would become known as the Moral Majority. It needs to be mentioned that this movement would never have found this kind of traction anywhere else but in the South with a deeply entrenched anti-intellectual mentality.

Rick Perry and Texas come to the forefront in the battle to keep human sexuality as a taboo topic because of their heavy influence on designing elementary and secondary school textbooks and curriculum. And as one of the nations leading forces for abstinence-only sex education, Texas provided the rest of America with a model of failure in how pretending that something is not a problem actually exacerbates the problem. Take the following quote from a Washington Post story:

"In the seven years since their schools began teaching abstinence-only, young people here have been anything but abstinent. Teen pregnancy rates in the state remain above the national average, and Lubbock County consistently has one of the highest rates in the state. In addition, the number of Texas youths with sexually transmitted diseases has risen steadily."

I am a big fan of tracing a problem back to its roots, so let's not get caught up talking about sex education. Let us instead back up one layer and talk about human sexuality. Let's talk about what it is that makes an American blush when a foreigner (one of the proverbial "others") can be so casual about human sexuality that they find nothing wrong with telling a reporter that they had to grab their undies before chasing an intruder.

Actually, hold on a second. How about instead we talk about the state of denial that has to be in place to even be having this conversation in the first place in the year 2011.

Since you are already on a computer reading this, enter the search parameters, "nude male" or "nude female," into your search engine of choice. Now tell me whether an eight-year-old would have any trouble finding porn today. Even with parental control software we are kidding ourselves to think that we will be able to "protect" our children from images of the naked human body, so why don't we instead embrace it as an inevitability, like teenagers having sex? Why don't we instead educate our children about the difference between healthy nudity and unhealthy pornography? After all, nobody is born wearing underwear, so why pretend otherwise?

Maybe it is because of my Canadian birth and Scandinavian ancestry, but I too like sleeping in the nude. Heck, I like being nude every chance I get. I keep the house warm enough during the day so that I never have to get dressed. I do try to leave a pair of shorts by the door so that I don't embarrass the mail lady and other delivery people because I certainly never want to force my nudity on anybody who does not want the memory of seeing "all" of me. But trust me, I am really quite harmless - dressed or naked!

So, like Scott Brown, if I ever run for politics there will likely be a pictures of me in the buff that surface from the dark recesses of the Internet. I dated enough gay men before I met my hubby to know that they have probably kept some of their favorite photos of me on their computers. I have also been naked on enough beaches to know that somebody, somewhere, will likely recognize me and come forward to say that they saw me on said nude beach.

My question is, why is that such a big deal?

It is a "big deal" because Rick Perry and his pastors want to make it their business, and they will continue to fool themselves into thinking that their children will never have a sexual thought. They will continue to fill their church pews and the ballot boxes by having people think that nakedness is the gateway to a life of sinfulness.

And like the last "Noble Experiment," this effort too will fail. But this time it will not fail because of the proliferation of "Speak Easy" establishments. Instead it will fail because of Google.

Rick and Michele, knock yourselves out as you consider your runs for president and imagine an America under a Christian version of Sharia Law. It won't change the fact that all men really do have a penis, and women have a vagina; and that's a good thing! Too bad you won't teach that to your children.

Seeing the GOP Platform as a "Belief System"

"The sad fact is, fidelity to a Lost Cause valorizes you, it imitates honor." [end of quote]

I vote that the GOP be renamed to the PCF...the "Party of Christian Fundamentalists". The following news story by Leslie Savan illustrates how the current Republican thought process is the equivalent of having a literal belief in the fables of the Abrahamic texts, and further to that, thinking that those fables could possibly become the foundation for revisions to the American constitution.

Science can play no part in the Republican line of thinking because that would completely and utterly derail the future that they still hope for. The truth is, the party base simply cannot break from a failed belief system.

This is an excerpt from a news story by Leslie Savan, from TheNation.com (May 5th, 2009):

"The sad fact is, fidelity to a Lost Cause valorizes you, it imitates honor. So the Republican Party isn't about greed or power or any base selfishness; rather, it's about nobly committing to something larger than itself--ending abortion, spreading democracy by force, saving Terri Schiavo, or, as of late, saving the GOP itself from knowledge of itself. Never mind that none of those commitments is remotely achievable, even the last.

"For the kingdom of Lost Cause Republicans is not of this world. This world is corrupt and fallen. But there is another world where all of our desires, be they sleeping with 72 virgins or living tax-free, will be fulfilled, and heavenly justice will prevail.

"The beauty part about a Lost Cause is that you don't have to struggle to find practical political solutions--that would require compromise and make you impure. Instead, you only have to make gestures and think magically."

I encourage you to read the entire story at this link.

A Preventable Mess! How Families Become Divided.

Well, as I knew it would, an email that I sent out last night to my immediate family members has hit some raw nerves. That email was a personalized version of my post from earlier today that is entitled, "Religion - the root of MY Evil".

This is an email that I got back from one of my most favorite nieces. She is married and in her early 30's and has a brand new baby.

Quoting: "I have never before responded to any of Lester's letters. I likely never will again. I love him and respect his opinions and the decisions he has chosen for his life. However, in return I expect that same respect. My beliefs are mine, and they tend to follow the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not the culture and not what other people in my church believe, but I follow the doctrine and that includes the First Presidency and anything they sign in accordance with their callings as Prophets of God! I will never walk out of a church meeting because of something they ask to be read over the pulpit, and I am offended that anyone would ask of me to do so! I have never asked you [Lester] to go against your beliefs, I expect the same respect!! My religion has stated its beliefs. How individuals choose to portray those beliefs is something that they will have to discuss with God, whom I believe is a loving, just and merciful Being! I have never been cruel, mean or judgemental to any homosexual, however, I also do not condone that lifestyle. This is my belief. This is a personal opinion! YOU have yours and I have NEVER judged you for it! Do not judge me for mine! You can still love and care for someone and disagree with their beliefs and their lifestyle!! I enjoy receiving emails and news from you, I do not enjoy being lectured or being told I am wrong in my opinions or beliefs. And I definitely do not appreciate being grouped into a category of Mormons who are cruel! My judgement is reserved for a session between me and my Lord and Savior. Do not presume to tell me how He is going to judge me!!" (End)

This is my reply:

"Thanks for taking the time to respond. FYI, you and [your older sister] were the only ones to do so, but at least [she] sees the church leaders for who they really are. In your email you wrote: "I have never asked you to go against your beliefs, I expect the same respect!!" Well, one of us has to be wrong, because if your prophet gets his way, I lose my right to equality, not only as an American, but a human being. I am an atheist now (well, maybe a hopeful agnostic at best), so by demanding that I afford you the privilege of blindly following your prophet, you are asking me to forfeit my belief that I was born gay and am entitled to a full, happy, authentic life as a gay man. A life, which I might add, will have no impact on how happy your marriage to [your husband] is and how you will raise your child. Please try to break away from the mentality that, "When the Prophet speaks, the thinking has been done." You are more intelligent than that. Take a step back and take a serious look at what the prophet is really asking you to do. He is telling you that your fellow human beings, (your gay "brothers" that you claim your God created,) really are not "equal" and that their homosexuality is a weakness in the flesh (a mental illness?) that must be endured alone and in sorrow. The problem here is your Bible...there is really nothing in the Bible that states that women or slaves were ever equal. It took the founding of a New World and some creative writing by the American Founding Fathers (several of whom were atheists) before modern liberals determined that they could ignore the writings of the Bible and free the slaves and let women own property and vote. These photos to the right are taken from above the doorways in the Capitol. Don't give any church the credit for doing that. Christian fundamentalists fought those changes every step of the way because they claimed then (and your prophet still wants to claim now) that the Bible had to be interpreted literally. Only in the New World, with an effective separation of church state, could this degree of equality have been accomplished. Your prophet is now asking California to once again merge church and state and take us backward toward the a selective interpretation of the Bible, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Holy Wars.

Just so you know, if the government were to implement a policy tomorrow restricting the Mormons from "sealing" their own dead ancestors, I would protest in the streets on your behalf so that you have your freedom of religion.

What the Mormons are doing in California (and what they did in 2006 with me), is telling me that now that I am an out gay man I am worth less in this country than I was 4 years ago while a hypocrite and lying about my authentic self. By obeying your prophet you are trying to tell me that I am expected to take a demotion in my status as a human being after accepting my birth as a gay man.

All I'm asking is that you (as a family member) leave religion out of this. It is a question of civil rights. I didn't ask to be born a gay man just like Mickey did not ask to be born a negro and you did not ask to be born a woman. You enjoy freedoms that were earned on the backs of women before you. Your children will see your prophet and other Christian fundamentalists as people who saw others as undeserving of equality under the law; exactly the same way as you yourself now see those who kept slaves and treated women as chattel only a few generations ago. As the Republican chief judge in California wrote when he struck down the ban against gay marriage; "I did not want to be seen as on the wrong side of history with this issue." Take a closer look at the stand your prophet is taking and re-evaluate your thinking.
I hope you can now see where this letter from the prophet has led us in our own family. Because I cannot stand down and ignore this (because it affects everything that I am and my right to the same happiness that you take for granted), and because you cannot opt to disagree with your prophet (because you will be labelled "apostate"), we will now have a very deep divide in our family; a divide that will likely be insurmountable for the rest of our lives, but what choice did I have? To remain silent? I tried that for over 35 years, it didn't work, so I will not allow you all to fool yourselves into thinking that this isn't important to me. It is important enough to me that I will risk alienating myself from my family because to do anything less than defend myself on this issue would be to go back into the closet and deny my authenticity!

Don't blame me for having an opinion. Blame your prophet for putting you into a "no win" situation. Because of what your prophet did, there are only losers on all sides of this whole, preventable, mess.

Sincerely,
Uncle Lester (End)

I'm going to end this post with the quote I posted earlier today from Stuart Matis. It was written to a friend a few short days before he commited suicide after the letter from the Prophet was ordered read early in the year 2000 during the California Proposition 22 debate: "The Knight Initiative [Prop 22] will certainly save no family. It is codified hatred. It is anti-family, anti-love and it is wrong."

Religion - the root of MY evil!

I was motivated to start my blog while reading Richard Dawkins' controversial book, "The God Delusion". In the preface, he tells of working with Channel Four (British television) on their two-part documentary "Root of All Evil". While promoting the documentary in the local papers, they bought a full-page ad and published a photo of the New York skyline that showed the twin towers of the World Trade Center. The caption read, "Imagine a World Without Religion".

The book is a brilliant thesis in defense of atheism, and as you read this post, I would invite you to think in broad terms beyond Christianity. The most difficult challenges in my life were generated by my membership in the Mormon Church (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), but in every reference to my own experience, you could substitute "Catholic", "Islam", or simply "fundamentalism" or "extremism" for the word "Mormon".

Any religion can claim to be the only path to God, rather than just another path to God, but when that religion strives to influence government to legislate their interpretation of scripture into the laws of a country, then they have crossed the line into bigotry. Let me remind you of the definition of bigotry: "the stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own."

The catalyst to begin my blog today was inspired by an email from an on-line group that on June 20th the Mormon Church formalized their support of a very political campaign to entrench bigotry into the California constitution. They have ordered that a letter from the prophet be read from the pulpit in every California congregation on June 29th, and this letter is instructing members to take a single polarizing position in a political campaign. With words like "Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved...", "...do all you can...", and "...donating of your means and time....", the church has made it very clear that there will be no middle ground for the faithful members of the church during the November election this year.

But what about my son and my daughter who have yet to abandon their faith in the Mormon Church? I'm the youngest child in a family of six, and all five of my siblings are still TBM's (True Blue Mormons). I have 37 nieces and nephews, the majority of whom are still attending weekly church meetings. Where does this type of action by church leadership leave them?

It is well documented in history what action like this by the church does to families. At best, it polarizes congregations and divides families. At its worst, it has caused suicides and initiated disruptive church-court action against open-minded individuals and vulnerable church members like myself.

In early 2000 there was a fierce battle on in California over the passage of Proposition 22. The battle was so fierce that when one family took a vocal position against the church and refused to place a supportive lawn sign on their property, the head of the family was disfellowshipped (released from his position in the ward and had the use of priesthood authority suspended). Their main opposition was against the church's involvement in politics. Most tragically, the tension became so severe that on February 25th Stuart Matis shot himself in the head on the sidewalk of a regional California meeting house in Los Altos. A short time before his suicide he wrote this to a friend: "On the night of March 7th, many California couples will retire to their beds thrilled that they helped pass the Knight Initiative (Proposition 22). What they don't realize is that in the next room, their son or daughter is lying in bed crying and could very well one day be the victim of society's homophobia. The Knight Initiative will certainly save no family. It is codified hatred. It is anti-family, anti-love and it is wrong."

Asked to comment on the suicide, a spokesman for the "Yes on 22" campaign declined comment other than to say, "It's a personal family matter." No kidding! So why did the church and other campaigners get involved in "personal family matters" in the first place?

I think it was Stuart's mother who recounted that in a Sunday School class that she attended, and with full knowledge that she had a gay son (who was living a celibate life and still worthy of his temple recommend), a man stood up and said, "They should take every homosexual and round them up, put them on a boat, and sink it in the Mindanao Trench!"

How can you fail to see that statement as anything but bigotry?

During the campaign for Proposition 22, letters from the prophet were ordered to be read from the pulpit. The significance of this is that there is a saying in the Mormon Church that is not at all an exaggeration. The saying is, "When the Prophet speaks, the thinking has been done!"

Fast forward to May 29th, 2006 when the church once again saw fit to have a letter like this read from the pulpit, virtually commanding every Mormon to write a letter to their political leaders in support of the Federal Marriage Amendment. At 7PM that night I was personally served a letter from my bishop and my Elders Quorum president. I had been summoned to a disciplinary council at 7AM the morning of June 4th. These types of meetings are traditionally referred to as a "Court of Love", because they like to convince themselves that they are acting in my best interest out of their love for me by working out my salvation with God for me. They feel qualified to do this by virtue of their "calling" to preside over me. I asked to have my friend (and a member of my bishopric) attend with me, and was denied. I asked the stake president (the Mormon equivalent of a Cardinal) to distribute a two page letter to each man on the council that clarified my position as a gay man who was going to remain married and faithful to my wife of 25 years, and was denied.

The "court of love" was over in 35 minutes. Only two questions were asked of me (one was, "Have you been actively trying to get other members of the church to adopt your views?", to which I replied, "I have only written my personal views in my memoirs.") They debated my fate for 5 minutes and then invited me back in to pronounce my excommunication.

That same Sunday, (June 4th), a letter to the editor by Jeffrey Nielsen was published in the Salt Lake Tribune. Mr. Nielsen was a philosophy professor at BYU and was happily married to a woman and had a family. All he stated was that by reading a letter from the pulpit, essentially ordering all members of the church to adopt the church's stand on the FMA issue, that church leaders had crossed a line. He was fired the next day.

So here we are again. In the two years since my excommunication the church has made amazing strides toward reconciliation with the gay Mormons. Carol Lynn Pearson's book, "No More Goodbyes" has paved the way for this to happen. Her play, "Facing East" provides a riveting backdrop to the consequences of adopting a "no middle ground" position when it comes to homosexuals and the Bible. Pressure from SoulForce has forced BYU to stop expelling gay students, and pressure from ex-gay groups (including a demonstration by my former wife and I on the steps of Evergreen Int'l in July 2007) has forced the church to admit that they do not know what causes homosexuality and that they will never counsel a gay man to marry a woman as a "cure". They seem to have repealed all of their former printed matter on homosexuality and its causes in favor of a single brochure entitled "God Loveth His Children". All of the recent writings advocate their love for their gay brothers and sisters. It seemed that we had emerged from the dark ages and entered an age of enlightenment.

And now this. The wording of the current letter is essentially identical to those that were read in 2000 and in 2006.

Unfortunately, the consequences will therefore be almost identical as well.