Tom's Views

I’ve been perusing the Exodus International web site tonight and have made the following observations:

1. Some of their book titles make them appear to be anti-gay (E.g. “Leaving Homosexuality,” “Healing Homosexuality,” “You Don’t Have To Be Gay,” “Reparative Therapy for Male Homosexuality,” “Can Homosexuality Be Healed,” and “Breaking Free.”). Indeed, such content creates a perception problem for Exodus, and without delving further, it’s easy to see why their books might have offended enough people to get them booted from Apple’s app store.
2. The main proof that Exodus appears to offer for their positions is strictly anecdotal (E.g. Many of their books are written by people who say that they’ve healed themselves of homosexuality). But while personal testimonies can be quite compelling, they carry the drawback that they cannot be independently verified. Since there’s no blood test or other mechanism to tell if someone is really gay or straight, we have to take the guy’s word for it that he’s no longer a homosexual. This could be untrue, particularly in light of the Catholic church priest sex scandals, where priests sworn to celibacy were groping defenseless children. I’m sure many of these priests claimed to have beaten their sexual urges. But they didn’t. So personal stories only carry just so much credibility.
3. They claim on their ‘About Us’ page to have “… challenged those who respond to homosexuals with ignorance and fear, and those who uphold homosexuality as a valid orientation… “ offering a way to redemption via Christ. They appear to see homosexuality as a defect, with little more than doctrine to support this claim. This might also trigger impressions of being anti-gay.
4. Finally, the positions they’re taking about abhorrent nature of homosexuality seem rather arbitrary, and akin to what slave-owners might have said of blacks in pre Civil War times (E.g. Blacks are dumb compared to whites. God put them blacks here to serve us, not compete with us. Blacks wouldn’t know how to handle themselves if freed. Et al.).

It’s the whole arbitrariness of this that troubles me deeply, as well as how far Exodus has gone to create an entire belief system around the basic premise that homosexuality is just plain wrong. Though they offer many elaborate publications to further cement that notion in public opinion, they’ve still not adequately justified their basic premise. The only thing they can say to give this premise any legitimacy (and they say it often) is that “we believe.”

Many claim credibility these days, simply because they believe. But in this age of emerging technology and advancing rational thought, soon I hope, simply SAYING it is so, because we BELIEVE it is so, won’t be good enough anymore, to MAKE it so.

Oh well, at least Exodus International attempts to mitigate some of the extreme behaviors (bullying) that their teachings might engender in some. Yet they keep teaching this stuff nonetheless. So I remain unconvinced that their mission is as benevolent as they’d have us believe on their web site.  Is it truly compassion that motivates them to offer homosexuals a way out?  Or, is it revulsion?

Tom Hesley

Related Posts

• Acceptance And Equality Together
• Exodus International App Removed From Apple
• Is Homosexuality Genetic?
• Is Homosexuality Wrong?
• Thoughts on Bigotry
• Which Religion is Right?

Well, when these anti-gay groups spew hatred and misinformation, perhaps their apps  should be pulled, or at least, relegated to the fairy-tale aisle.

Apparently, this app offended lots of people, and it’s a fact that when something (or someone) irritates a large enough crowd, then it gets censored, even in a free society; kind of like those who carelessly fling the N word about. I wonder. Would said groups be so eager to reinstate this app if it taught that to cure an infection, you just inject the patient with mega doses of arsenic? What if it said that it’s wrong to have five fingers and so, everyone should chop off their pinkies?

I’m uncomfortable with any belief system that teaches that we humans aren’t good enough (or holy enough) as we are; particularly when such doctrine discourages pursuit of one’s naturally-occurring sexual desires. This is particularly irksome when its proponents have no scientific data to back up their bluster. Yet they zero in on the young (who cannot yet think critically) like vultures, to program them to think similarly. These tactics are wrong, IMHO.

There are mounds of scientific data supporting the notion that homosexuality is as natural and predetermined to some as heterosexuality is to others (When did you choose to be straight, or gay for that matter?).

As far as the “pro homosexual” movement goes, I’ve not heard anyone suggesting that it’s better to be gay than straight.   No one is out there, campaigning to get straight people to become gay.  All they say is that if a person IS gay, then he should be accepted AS gay, and not ridiculed or ostracized for it, or be compelled by society to ”fix” it.

But the anti LGBT crowd does in fact say that it’s better to be straight than gay; their whole doctrine is based on the notion that homosexuality is a sin, and as such, should be excised from the soul.   They’re constantly telling gays how they need to learn to be straight (or celibate at least).  The reach of   this   approach extends way farther than that of the “pro” gay crowd’s.

So these two movements are not equivalent in the scope of their teachings. The one teaches tolerance based on the science and independently verifiable evidence (and yes, lack of evidence), while the other teaches   prejudice   and discrimination based strictly on word-of-mouth dogma.  Thus, the gay acceptance position would seem to be far safer to teach to the thirsty, all-accepting minds of children who are big users of these Apple apps, while the other would (and is) dangerous because of the hatred it generates.

If homosexually   is   bad for a person’s mental and physical health, then this is most likely due to the adverse reactions (bullying, exclusion, discrimination, et al) to it that the person experiences from others, and nothing inherent in the orientation itself.

In and of itself, homosexually has no adverse effects in the body. In fact, those gays who are fortunate enough to be able to surround themselves with supportive friends, lovers, and family are quite happy and healthy though their homosexual orientation remains.

It’s only when people treat the gay oriented as sub human by keeping them out, teasing them, committing violent acts against them, shunning them, and so on, that being homosexual has a sad toll. The problem though, does not lie in the state of homosexuality, but rather in the bullies who reject it. Bullies blame their victims for being dumb. Yet that’s no excuse for bullying. Thus, the bully is still a bully, no matter the disposition of his victim. So it is too, with the anti gay crowd.

Related Posts

• I Oppose Exodus International
• Is Homosexuality Genetic?
• Is Homosexuality Wrong?
• Religion Based Gay Discrimination
• Support Apple Removing Exodus App

10:30 PM: Talked with   [Emmy] on the phone.  She described a news story she heard today that said that guys are wearing more makeup nowadays.  She’s quickly becoming a zealous makeup advocate, saying that if she could, she’d wear it to hide her “imperfections.”   Well, this author at least, is patently against makeup.

My position on this for perhaps a decade now, is that humans need to get used to each other’s   natural beauty;   blemishes, scars,  and all.  Yet makeup perpetuates and emotionally overcharges the ideas that blemishes are bad, and  that everyone should look perfect; which I disagree with fervently.  People should appear as themselves, and I’m against makeup because people use too much of it to change their appearance too drastically.  Makeup obscures natural beauty; the most lasting beauty of all.

Indeed, makeup’s overuse  makes folks appear so different that one really can’t be sure what the made up person actually looks like.  This can create shock and disillusion in budding relationships especially, when the guy first sees his lady without her makeup, and it’s not fair to him.

Makeup used thus, is a tool of deception in bait-and-switch schemes that one party sets up to ensnare another, exuding a very different look from their natural appearance in order to attract lovers.  Then, when the makeup comes off, the attracted one realizes that the schemer is not what he wanted after all.  This can irritate the fooled one as well as sadden the schemer. I’m against makeup because of how much disappointment and dissillusion in relationships can be traced back to it.

In writing, authors often hide their meanings behind big words and long sentences. This can mislead readers whether intended or not, and making it harder to figure out the true meaning.  Well, in dating, the overuse of makeup does the same thing; it makes it hard to immediately determine whether the made up person is really someone we’d be attracted to.  Makeup is used to tell a lie.   Thus, generally speaking, I’m against makeup use to look “better.”   You cannot fake natural ability (talent).  Likewise, you can’t fake natural beauty either.

Tom Hesley

Related Posts

• Does Makeup Really Work?
• Thoughts on “The Fat Ideal”

According to   Abraham H. Maslow in his descriptio of the   hierarchy of needs   of humans:

1. The lowest, most immediate of human needs in Maslow’s   hierarchy of needs, are the air, water, and food requirements for human survival.  In subdividing this group, we find that our breath is our most immediate need (without air, we’ll die in minutes). Then water comes next (we can survive without water a few days tops), then food (we can survive without nourishment a few weeks to months at most),
2. Next come the safety and security needs (we might survive without this if we’re lucky and agile, but we’d spend much of our time looking over our shoulders for enemies as opposed to getting real work done).
3. Then in the  Maslow hierarchy of needs, come the love needs (we can survive without the affections of another but not well as we could with them, and probably not as long either).
4. Next come the esteem needs in the Maslow hierarchy of needs (we can indeed survive without others liking us, but life is not fun like that).
5. Finally, perhaps the least immediately required but the potentially most fulfilling of all the levels in the Maslow hierarchy of needs, are the self actualization needs (we can survive without realizing our dearest dreams, but we wouldn’t be as happy as we could possibly be without fulfillment at this highest needs level of human existence).

Abraham H. Maslow is a personal hero of mine, as I think that he hit it spot on with this hierarchy of needs proposal, that he describes at length in his book: Motivation and Personality.

Tom Hesley

Related Posts

• Free Will, Yes, But Determinism Too!
• Frankl, Self Actualized?
• Tom’s Diary –> Book: Frankenstein by Mary Shelly
• We Don’t Live Happily Without Love

So, the question is: Should National Public Radio (NPR) continue receiving government funding?

Indeed, I believe that the government should provide funding to NPR, just as it does to other public educational sources, particularly in today’s heavily biased-for-profit media arena. It’s hard to find a balanced news source nowadays, and NPR endeavors to be as unbiased as can be attained. In this country at least, NPR is one of the last news organizations that values truth above hype and zealous opinion. This is why it’s so important that they not cave to this republican pressure, because that would slant their coverage, biasing it toward the republicans. Not a good idea. Government can fund radio and television as long as it does not dictate what is broadcast beyond basic guidelines of decency. Funding NPR is testimonial to the preservation of free speech, and our government’s allegiance to that ideal. I’m glad the government funds some of NPR; not much though, just a few percent of total costs I think.

CBS tends to be middle-of-the-road though sometimes seems to favor democratic policies. The same is true to a lesser degree of CNN, and particularly true of MSNBC, thus the labels “liberal media” or “lame street media” that Sarah Palin often speaks of. NPR endeavors to remain strictly non partisan in their reporting because they’re not trying to cater to a particular group. MSNBC on the other hand earns much of its revenue from democrats while Fox News gets much of its money from republicans. So both are biased by the dollar. NPR however, is far less so, to any particular party. Profit itself does not make for bias. But it’s who the profit is coming from that can, and does in the cases of Fox News, MSMBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, and just about any other for-profit news gathering organization.

The information   here   should establish that there is indeed a liberal bias in the mainstream media.

Further, I would add that if people weren’t indirectly funding this sort of news by watching it in big numbers, then this bias would not be profitable, and if this bias weren’t profitable, then we’d see far less of it.

Each sect of the media has a clientele, and in order to remain viable, they report news with the sorts of bents that their viewers / readers expect in the groups to which they’re appealing. I’m more liberal than conservative. So I would not generally watch Fox News. But if Fox wanted to get me to watch, then they would report from a less-right perspective. Many people choose the news they watch (or not)  like this, including the avid Fox News viewers.

The correct bias can get you the most money in reporting, except in the case of NPR, which has no profit motive. So while this does not totally eliminate bias in NPR news, it does remove one big reason for such bias to exist.  Thus, I believe the government should continue providing money for such a noteably non partisan service like NPR.

Further, I only have so much time to sort the wheat from the chafe when listening to news, and am therefore grateful that a government-funded service like NPR exists, to filter out much of the extremist views, exaggerations, and blatant falsehoods found frequently in certain outlets in the mainstream media. The government money funds a higher standard in news reporting than what you’d generally find at large.  So as a tax payer, I’m glad there’s a service available to cut through the gunk as it were.

Other Posts You May Enjoy

• Drug Testing For Food Stamps
• Hospital Bed Side Rails Are Safe Enough
• More Gun Control, Please
• My New Maytag Bravos Washing Machine
• Why I Will Vote In 2010

A patron at the barbershop today declared that while people believe in many religions, only ONE of them is “right.”

I held my tongue except to ask, “How do you   know   which religion is right?”

He said nothing as he attempted to hide his (even to me) obvious glare.  Phew, I’m glad my trim finished when it did.

The problem is that the people with   “the answers”   about which religion is right have been out-shouting those with the legitimate questions for so long, that our society has begun accepting as fact things that are not really provable. That’s dangerous, not only for ourselves, but for future generations because those self-righteous folks, who claim to   know, are the ones who do much of the oppressing, and that’s certainly enough grounds for challenging them, at least a little.

Now no one’s speech should be repressed.  But if someone’s going to speak in “absolutely right” tones as this guy was today, then they should be prepared to be challenged.  Challenging them does not violate their first amendment rights; comes nowhere near that I think. But hopefully, asking folks like him valid questions will make him wonder if he really can be sure of which religion is right.

I think the position that one religion is more right than another would be strictly indefensible; unless of course we could call God himself as a witness. But since we can’t, then it’s beyond a human being’s purview to   know   this answer; though many still claim to. People continue to overestimate their abilities here, and the result has been much brutal conflict and persecution. But if people would have realized this limitation ten thousand years ago, then our history would have undoubtedly been far less bloody.

We can make ANYTHING true if we use myth and fact synonymously. But they’re not. Further, we’re subject to the author’s interpretation of biblical events. Perhaps they got it wrong. Myth and fact are  not the same, and in fact, arguably, opposites. The one is often used to escape the other as in proving that the earth was round to escape the myth that it was flat, and idealizing the past and retreating into myth in order to avoid facing the reality (the fact) of terminal cancer. Humans need to stop doing this IMHO because it triggers oppressive and violent behaviors.

Related Posts

• Mosque At Ground Zero
• Muslim Americans’ Rights
• Sinners Are Much More Fun
• Why Doubt Religious Faith?

See this discussion in my   Why Men Cheat And Lie    piece.  Thanks.

Tom Hesley

Well, you win some and you lose some: A win in Illinois for death penalty opponents (like me). But the republicans dealt a huge blow to the   collective bargaining rights   of public workers in Wisconsin; virtually eliminating them yesterday. Now the people are upset. Hmmm, did they ever really consider what it means to vote republican before they did it? Voters choose with such short sight these days. Grrrrr.

Don’t know about the numbers. But   collective bargaining rights   are not entitlements; they’re rights, and arguably necessary policies for ensuring contentment among the workers at a company and fair treatment of those workers by the employer. They safeguard against corporate management exerting undue or unfair leverage or retribution against those speaking out about problems at the plant.

Related Posts

• Against The Death Penalty
• Support Collective Bargaining Rights

References

• Collective Bargaining    definition on Wikipedia

It’s good to have finally seen the story   Bonnie And Clyde,   upon which that Georgie Fame song of the same name was based. 

Initial thoughts: I liked the story.  It was simple (chance meeting of a pretty lady and a handsome guy who both want a better life and are willing to break the law to get it, ignites of firestorm of bank robberies, violence, and death.  Faye Dunaway, who played Bonnie Parker was beautiful and her southern accent made her even sexier.  The women in this movie smoked frequently, yet their faces did not show the signs of premature aging that’s typically observed in those of veteran smokers.  They glorified the glamor of smoking bake then in 1967, but showed none of its down sides.  I don’t even think I heard any of them cough even once.  I doubt that Dunaway was a real-life smoker thus.   

Lots of shooting; reminiscent of a wild west film. In fact, the shootout at the end bordered on gruesome.  I found this final ambush a bit barbaric; that the police would start shooting without attempting to arrest them first. 

I’ll add more as thoughts occur.

Tom Hesley