No General Homosexual Prohibition in the Bible

Rev Earl Thames, in his letter to the Editor, states that Jesus Wasn't Mum on Homosexuality (http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20120121/cleisure/cleisure2.html) in response to Henry Morgan's letter, Jesus Mum on Gays, So Why Aren't We? (http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20120118/letters/letters8.html). I decided to write a response and submit it. It seems the papers don't like my writings so I haven't been published in awhile, if they decide to publish me this time, I'll be sure to tell you.

Below is my response.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the debate over homosexuality, many read into Scripture what is not there, interpreting it to suit their message.

Rev. Thames and others assert that Christ referred to homosexuality generally, but the only way to justify such reference is to take Biblical passages out of context.

The sin of homosexuality referred to in Leviticus is not homosexuality in general as many would love us to blindly believe. The literal translation of the prohibition in Leviticus states: ‘And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman. It is an abomination’, the statement seems to condemn all forms of male same sex intercourse. This is where reading Scripture in context comes in play. The verses in Leviticus where written at a time when the children of Israel were in danger of falling to idolatry from the cultures of Egypt and Canaan.

Within the context that the ‘homosexual’ prohibition in Leviticus was written, it was in the idolatrous culture of Egypt and/or Canaan for men to have sexual intercourse with male priests as an act of worship. Women did not play part in this type of cultic worship practice, which explains why they are not mentioned.

Fornication, be it homosexual or heterosexual forms part of sexual immorality. However not all homosexuals are fornicators; committed monogamous relationships, which do not require the sanction of a state/country law, but are acceptable in God’s sight exist between homosexuals.

The condemnation of homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27 again refer to the practice within the context of idolatry. Furthermore verse 25 tells us why God did what He did in verse 26, yet it is often excluded from the quotation of the Romans prohibition.

The prohibitions against homosexuality do not operate in a vacuum, nor are they general. In almost all instances it is within the context of idolatry. Homosexuals are not condemned because they are homosexuals; rather, they like heterosexuals are sinners until they come into the fold of God.

 It is time the Christian church stop misinterpreting and misrepresenting the Word of God and using it to keep persons out of the Kingdom of God, in Jeremiah 23: 1 and 2 we are told; “Woe to the shepherds who are destroying and scattering the sheep of my pasture!”“...Because you have scattered my flock and driven them away and have not bestowed care on them, I will bestow punishment on you for the evil you have done”.

Jamaica's Reaction to Statement By Portia Simpson Miller XI

Mullings slams Simpson Miller over buggery law review plan

'No nation that seeks to move away from God's words can succeed'

BY MARK CUMMINGS Editor-at-Large Western Bureau cummingsm@jamaicaobserver.com

MONTEGO BAY, St James — Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) candidate for West Central St James Clive Mullings has blasted Opposition Leader Portia Simpsom Miller for promising to review the country's buggery law, should her party return to power.

Armed with a Bible, a stone-faced Mullings urged scores of Labourites at a mass meeting in Montego Bay's historic Sam Sharpe Square on Thursday night to unite against the repealing of such a law.

Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) candidate for West Central St James Clive Mullings greets party supporters at Thursday’s mass meeting in Sam Sharpe Square, Montego Bay. (Photo: Mark Cummings)  1/1

"We must understand that for a nation to be blessed, for a nation to grow, we cannot depart from God's words. No nation, no nation that seeks to move away from God's words can succeed," he declared.

Quoting scriptures, Mullings pointed the large gathering to Genesis Chapter 19: verse 24, citing the reason why "the Lord poured down sulphur and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah."

Simpson Miller, in responding to a question raised during the final political debate convened by the Jamaica Debates Commission on Tuesday night, said that should the PNP return to power, she would initiate a review of the buggery law.

She also said that her party would not prevent anyone from becoming a member of her Cabinet based on their sexual orientation.

Recently, several countries, including the United Kingdom and the United States, have suggested that they might withhold aid to countries that are not doing enough to protect the rights of homosexuals.

But Mullings, an attorney, urged the horn-blowing supporters on Thursday to take a stance, arguing that the United Kingdom's position is contrary to what we have learnt and know under the word of God.

"We are no longer a colony of Britain, so if that's the way they want to go, let them go, but let us not depart from God's word," he argued.

He told the jubilant supporters that next Thursday's general election should not be viewed only as it relates to the creation of jobs.

"We must understand carefully that the choices we make must not be only as it relates to employment, it should also be regarding the moral direction of your country and the future for your children," the JLP candidate argued.

"So Labourites, Jamaicans, when we go out to vote think seriously about the direction of your country. I implore you to understand that while we are here at this point before general election, don't misunderstand what we are facing. It is not just the economy, it is in regard to the future of the country for our children and you must now decide whether you want a nation that will be overtaken by those who have punitive lifestyles or whether you are serious about building our country."

Earlier this week during a mass meeting in Annotto Bay, St Mary, JLP candidate for West Portland Daryl Vaz also criticised the opposition leader for suggesting that a future PNP government will review the buggery law.

Several other speakers, including JLP deputy leader Desmond McKenzie, also blasted Simpson Miller for her stance on the buggery law during Thursday night's meeting.

Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/No-nation-that-seeks-to-move-away-from-God-s-words-can-succeed_10451336#ixzz1hUFfIJQd


Mullings Rips Into Gleaner For Supporting Portia

Bobby Montague (left), JLP deputy chairman, has the attention of Darly Vaz (centre) and Prime Minister Andrew Holness at a JLP meeting in St Mary on Wednesday night.

1 2 3 >

Janet Silvera, Senior Gleaner Writer

WESTERN BUREAU:The Jamaica Labour Party's (JLP) candidate for West Central St James, Clive Mullings, has blasted The Gleaner for its editorial which congratulated People's National Party (PNP) president Portia Simpson Miller for her announcement that a government led by her would lead a review of the buggery laws.

Addressing a JLP mass meeting in Sam Sharpe Square in Montego Bay on Thursday night, Mullings, with his Bible in hand, tore into The Gleaner.

"I want the editor of The Gleaner to listen to the word of God. For a nation to grow and prosper, it cannot depart from God's word," said Mullings, as he quoted several scriptures and argued that no nation which moves away from God's plan can succeed.

"God brought down fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah," added Mullings.

Criticising the United Kingdom, which he said has taken a position to do something contrary to the word of God, Mullings noted that Jamaica was no longer a colony of Britain.

"So if they (the British) want to go in that direction, let them go."

Grabbing the Bible tightly in his hand, Mullings stressed that it was critical for all Labourites and other Jamaicans to understand carefully the choices they are making regarding the moral direction of the country, and the future of their children.

The issue of the Buggery Act came up on Tuesday evening during the leadership debate, when Simpson Miller responded to a question on the subject.

She said then that it was time that the act be "reviewed" and all members of the House of Representatives provided with an opportunity to vote on the matter based on their conscience.

Janet.silvera@gleanerjm.com

Jamaica's Reaction to Statement By Portia Simpson Miller X

The following are letters to the editor, published in the Jamaican Gleaner

Shame On JLP For Mockery

THE EDITOR, Sir:

Why have I finally decided to vote for Portia Simpson Miller? Spiritually good people don't belittle others. Bad people do.

If the Jamaica Labour Party displayed a good spirit to others, they wouldn't be belittling anyone, especially a lady of our soil, culture, race and creed. I am really ashamed of the JLP's approach.

Portia Simpson Miller is being herself and being a good person. God doesn't love the criticism and He encourages us to walk in His footsteps.

This is why I cannot vote for a party that belittles anyone that resembles me.

H. MILLER

thetruthspeak@ovi.com

Issue:Keeping Out The Gays?

Homosexuals are people too

THE EDITOR, Sir:

Many Jamaicans are oblivious of the laws that prohibit homosexuals the rights that characterise them as human beings.

Most of you do not think about your rights, and they are frequently taken for granted. Also, numerous people have preconceived notions of how homosexuals behave. Attitudes toward homosexuality are overwhelmingly negative.

All I ask of you is to look around. Homosexuality is part of society. People, such as your neighbour, hairdresser, relatives, friends, and people you have known all your life, could be gay! Does that make them different?

Many people say that homosexuality is not natural. But I ask you, what is natural? They are a component of society, and we must grant them equal rights. Homosexuals face religious criticism and social injustice every day of their lives. So for the prime minister to be saying that his sentiment must be guided by the sentiment of Jamaica, that, essentially, is homophobic.

Some aspects of human identity are so fundamental that they should be left to each individual, free of all non-essential regulation, even when manifested in conduct. An individual should not be penalised personally or prohibited socially from enjoying basic rights and freedoms because of sexual orientation or the country he/she is from unless that person's behaviour inflicts harm on other people.

Government should provide basic rights, freedom, and justice to every person without regard to an individual's sexual orientation. Governments should offer to all citizens the civic rituals and arrangements that are offered to any citizen.

ALEX M. LODGE

alexlodge1992@yahoo.com

Vaz Says Constituents Stand Firm Against Homosexuality Comments [Pictures]

Jamaica's Reaction to Statement By Portia Simpson Miller Part IV

The following is an article submitted to the Letters to the Editor in the Jamaica Gleaner. It was written by Yvonne McCalla Sobers (Families Against State Terrorism).


Impressed With Portia
THE EDITOR, Sir:

In the December 20 leadership debate, Portia Simpson Miller impressed me with her courage and her willingness to acknowledge human rights as inclusive of all, regardless of sexual orientation. I also took seriously her commitment to inclusive governance with a team approach and with citizen participation.

Andrew Holness, on the other hand, seemed prepared to deny human rights to some persons, based on their sexual orientation. He seemed keen to distance himself from his team, claiming to be on the periphery when Dudus-Manatt decisions were made, or projecting himself as the one who will deliver change.

In the debate, Andrew seemed the more sophisticated, and Portia seemed the more sincere. Recent experience with politicians has caused me to favour sincerity over eloquence.

At the constituency level, André Hylton, the PNP candidate, has proven accessible and responsive to my concerns and my suggestions for constituency governance. The new JLP candidate has not.

But my vote comes with a price. I expect the party/candidate I vote for to provide in return:

Courage to take hard decisions;

Respect for the human rights of all;

Responsiveness to citizens in and out of election time, even/especially when views are critical; and

Adoption of a team approach.

YVONNE MCCALLA SOBERS

sobersy@yahoo.com

Jamaica's Reaction to Statement By Portia Simpson Miller Part III

The following article, comes from the Jamaica Gleaner, and was written by Erica Virtue

Vaz Says Constituents Stand Firm Against Homosexuality

A JLP supporter with a giant bell in St Mary on Wednesday night. - Photos by Gladstone Taylor/Photographer

Erica Virtue, Senior Gleaner Writer

With the issue of gay rights being moved to the centre of the election campaign, Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) candidate for West Portland, Daryl Vaz, on Wednesday night told a party mass rally in St Mary that his constituents have already told him to say no to the repealing of the buggery law.

Addressing thousands of Labourites in the seaside town of Annotto Bay, Vaz poured scorn on comments by People's National Party (PNP) President Portia Simpson Miller during the national leadership debate with JLP Leader Andrew Holness on Tuesday.

Simpson Miller, in her rebuttal to a question of whether homosexuals would be excluded from the Cabinet, said the issue was one of human rights, and her party would not reject anyone based on their sexual orientation. She said should the PNP be returned to power, Parliament would initiate discussion on the buggery law in Jamaica with a conscience vote on whether it should be repealed.

But Vaz claimed the people of his West Portland constituency had already spoken on the matter.

"We don't buy number two inna Cash Pot," said Vaz, in a reference to the popular game of chance in which the number two is used by some persons to refer to homosexuals.

According to Vaz, while he was willing to participate in any debate on gay rights, his response is a foregone conclusion.

"God made Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve," Vaz said as Labourites cheered and shouted anti-gay slurs.

The issue of homosexuality has been on the JLP election platform even before it was raised as a question in the debate Tuesday night.

In Gordon Town, St Andrew, last Sunday, JLP deputy leader and the party's candidate for Western Kingston, Desmond McKenzie, declared "fire bun", following strains from the popular dancehall song which has a line "dem a par inna chi chi man car".

Also, at a recent meeting in St Elizabeth, persons on the JLP platform made reference to their love for "boonoonoonus" women, a claim that sparked a backlash from women's groups.

Former JLP leader and then Prime Minister Bruce Golding had declared an in interview on the BBC that no gay men would be allowed to serve in his Cabinet.

On Tuesday, Holness, did not articulate a clear position when questioned on the issue but implied that he would not fly in the face of popular opinion opposed to gay rights.

In recent months, several countries, which are aid donors to Jamaica, have suggested that they might change their position if more was not done to protect the rights of homosexuals.

Developments in LGBT Human Rights

I'm sure we all know what's happening in the 'Western' world as it relates to the most recent development in LGBT human rights.

The Obama administration announced on Tuesday that the United States would use all the tools of American diplomacy, including the potent enticement of foreign aid, to promote gay rights around the world. In a memorandum issued by President Obama in Washington and in a speech by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton here, the administration vowed to actively combat efforts by other nations that criminalize homosexual conduct, abuse gay men, lesbians, bisexuals or transgendered people, or ignore abuse against them.

“Some have suggested that gay rights and human rights are separate and distinct,” Mrs. Clinton said at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, “but in fact they are one and the same.”

Neither Mr. Obama nor Mrs. Clinton specified how to give the initiative teeth. Caitlin Hayden, the National Security Council’s deputy spokeswoman, said the administration was “not cutting or tying” foreign aid to changes in other nation’s practices.

Of course with this development we knew the religious right would not remain quiet, after all, Secretary Hillary Clinton’s speech on defending LGBT rights abroad and the new Obama administration policy to protect people around the world who are jailed, beaten and executed for being LGBT have been met with intense uproar from the Religious Right.

Pat Robertson on The 700 Club today said that the policy was “appalling” shows that America is willing to “violate God’s principles and to make a mockery of His laws.” Robertson even warned that God will not tolerate it and “when the blow comes, it’s going to be horrible”:

Fellow blogger H of GLBTQ Jamaica Watch posted:

"NTV is owned by the same company that publishes Daily Monitor, Uganda’s largest independent newspaper. This news report was posted to their YouTube channel just moments ago:

The report itself is very calm and measured. But it does reflect prevailing opinion not only in Uganda but through much of Africa when the reporter asks at the end, “Will Uganda blink and bow to the pressure?” The image of bowing, as you can imagine given Africa’s history, has a very specific humiliative resonance that goes much deeper than much of the rest of the world. The three lawmakers in the report — Anti-Homosexuality Bill author M.P. David Bahati, M.P. Steven Ochola of the opposition Forum for Democratic Change (FDP), and Ethics and Integrity Minister Simon Lokodo (Lokodo is identified as “Rev. Fr.,” despite having been defrocked by the Vatican) — all spoke against Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s remarks in Geneva. Human rights lawyer Ladislaus Rwakafuzi suggests that a sort of “don’t ask, don’t tell” compromise might be the best way to go for Uganda’s LGBT community."

The responses on the Ugandan TV channel show some of the views of the people:

Great - if demeaning the humanity of its gay citizens is more imporant to the people of Uganda than receiving foreign aid than so be it. Cut them off.

TheTruthHurts9999 5 hours ago

A Jamaica Observer's news article titled: Gay pressure - US to limit aid drew some of the following comments:

Wayne Henry
12/8/2011

Obama just lost my vote. I voted, donated and campaigned for Obama in the last election and now I regret that. As a devoted democrat this will be the first time that I will vote Republican. You can't black mail Jamaica and other soverign countries. You can't give aid with strings attached. Jamaica must stand strong and don't bow to Sodom and Gomorrah. Homosexuality is unnatural and is a sin against God. I love Michele Bachman views on gays. I will never ever give in to gay lifestyle.

Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Gay-pressure_10338535#ixzz1fy695woL

Jacqueline Crawford
12/8/2011

Let them keep their aid. Why should they dictate what another country does, especially when colour prejudice is alive and well in the USA. If they countries didn't have the so called aid every other country would be better off eg Cuba b/c they would all learn how to become self reliant. Obama is the most ungodly US president.

Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Gay-pressure_10338535#ixzz1fy6dpIUZ

steve ellis
12/8/2011

Matthew Thomas is an idiot. Sorry to say. Impose in your bedroom? What we are talking about is something immoral and wrong, whether you do it in your bedroom or in public. No government should be forced to do as another country says because of aid. They should not dictate to us what we do. Our law is our law. I hope the government do not "bow" to this type of pressure..ever!!!

Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Gay-pressure_10338535#ixzz1fy6nt8EA

N. Byrd
12/8/2011

This is a clear attempt to have everyone everywhere bow to the will of the minority. No country has the right tell the Jamaican people what should be morally acceptable to them. I've notice that when Obama took office Jamaicans talked of him being a king for them, well how fundamentally foolish you all must feel. Jamaica got independence in 1962 yet people having vegetable matter for brains would give it up to a man who doesn't believe in the will of the Jamaican People. Lord Have Mercy.

Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Gay-pressure_10338535#ixzz1fy79CeiG

Let us see what will happen. Already the Lawyers Christian Fellowship Jamaica is having a symposium: 

“Human Rights, Sovereignty and the Politics of Truth”

Saturday December 10, 2011 at Lecture Room 2, Faculty of Law, Mona, UWI

I can only imagine what the discussions will be like, after all Mrs. Shirley Richards, Attorney-at-Laws, The Honourable Mr. Delroy Chuck, MP, Rev. Dr. Clinton Chisholm, Dr. Wayne West will be there. 

I'm looking forward to hearing about this event. I will not be present but I'm asking any one who attends to send me an email and let me know about the proceedings.

The bell has been sounded and now the battle has begun. H said it's time to wake up and I agree. It's time to wake up, no more sleeping. 

Slippery Slope

The following was written by Angeline Jackson, regarding what is the conservative Christians are doing to Jamaica, or at least what they are trying to do. Have fun.

***************************************************************************

As the Christian Right freely goes out and legislates morality, and what women, can and cannot do with their bodies, let us not forget, that we the enablers, are but pawns in their game, easily disposable; for as we agree with, inter alia the prohibition of abortion, the illegality of buggery, and the banning of marijuana, let us be aware of the slippery slope we trod.

If the Christian Right gets its way and performs the irreligious marriage of Church and State, they will impose upon a secular, multi-religious nation, laws and sanctions that suit their ideology. Let us not delve into which brand of Right Wing Christianity we will have to adopt for that is anyone’s guess. Let us instead look at what we take for granted and how our lives will be affected by such a marriage.

The rights of women

• The rape of a woman is but a minor transgression (Genesis 19:8 and Judges 19:16-30). We can already see this in how our current law defines rape, by refusing to any forced sexual activity against a woman. Indeed Part II of the Sexual Offences Act 2009, does not recognise penetration of the vagina or anus by a body part other than the penis, an object manipulated by the offender, or the placing of the penis into the mouth of the victim as rape, rather it is defined as grievous sexual assault (thank the Lawyers Christian Fellowship in helping to make this definition)
• Women are the property of their father and at marriage her ownership is transferred to her new husband (Exodus 20 & 21)
• Women ought not to be ministers of religion(Ephesians 1:22,23, 1 Timothy 3:1-2, 1 Timothy 2:11-14). Should we interpret this into professions generally? After all women were considered to only be homemakers and housekeepers.

Common law marriage


The laws recognising common law relationships will have to be discarded, as common-law marriage falls short of honouring Christ. As such the rights of surviving partners of the relationship will not be recognised. You better get married people!

Gambling


The laws allowing gambling will have to be abolished. Casinos, gaming houses, horse racing, bingos and raffles must become outlawed and prohibited (1 Timothy 6:10, Hebrews 13:5, Matthew 6:24, Proverbs 28:22,).

Meals


Depending on which brand of Christianity we become ruled by, our meals will also be regulated. There will be no:

• Pork and Christmas ham (Leviticus 11:7-8 , Deuteronomy 14:8)
• Shellfish (Leviticus 11:10, Deuteronomy 14:9-10, Leviticus 11:9-12)
• Cheese Patties (the mixing of meat and dairy)

Work on Saturday and Sunday


Depending on whose brand of Christianity we become ruled by, we will have to prohibit working on Friday night, Saturday, and Sunday.

Alcohol


The drinking of alcoholic beverages will have to be prohibited. Indeed we may have to impose something very similar to the ‘Prohibition in the United States’ which was a national ban on the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol, in place from 1920 to 1933. Why would the Christians want to ban the sale of alcohol?

• It distorts the perception of reality (Is 28:7; Prov 23:33)
• It impairs the capacity to make responsible decisions (Lev 10:9-11)
• It weakens moral sensitivities and inhibitions (Gen 9:21; 19:32; Hab 2:15; Is 5:11-12)
• It causes physical sickness (Prov 23:20-21; Hos 7:5; Is 19:14; Ps 60:3)

Look out Red Stripe, J. Wray and Nephew, Tia Maria, Desnoes and Geddes, Lascelles Wines and Spirits, Edwin Charlie, Sangster’s, wholesalers, retailers, bars, hotels, and restaurants. The sale of alcohol will soon be prohibited.

Cigarettes


We will also have to ban cigarette smoking (1 Corinthians 6:19-20, 1 Corinthians 6:12). Cigarette Company Of Jamaica Limited, Carreras, sellers, and distributers of cigarettes and tobacco products be aware, you will be suffering the same fate.

Religious freedom


Of course with a Church state we can’t possibly have freedom of religion. So Rastafarianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Roman Catholicism, Particular denominations of Christianity, Mormons, Bahá'í Faith practitioners, Spirutualists, Judaism, Revivalism (and others) will have to go underground.

Social life (parties)


Our social events will be regulated, no more ATI, RTI, clubbing, places like Palais Royale Nightclub, Shades Nightclub, Ceasar’s Nightclub, Mass Camp and Carnival, Reggae Sumfest, Margaritaville, Mobay Proper, Coral Cliff will have to close down. Then we will have to move on to places like Hedonism, and Couples and many of our other resorts catering to adult entertainment, you will also have to look out, you are all on the chopping block.

Education


Classroom education will also be regulated. Sex education (what little there is) will possibly become non-existent or at the very most, taught solely along Christian ideology. And how will we treat religious education? Shall we teach only Christianity or will we offer Christian views of other religious teaching from Christian authors? And what of science? How will science be taught? Will Darwin be thrown out? Your guess is as good as mine.

Sex life


With regard to adultery both the man and the woman caught, must be put to death (Deuteronomy 22:22, Leviticus 20:10).

Regarding divorce (with 2,371 divorces this should be interesting), the laws permitting divorce will have to be removed, (Malachi 2:14-16, Matthew 19:4-6). Remember too that the Bible says that anyone who divorces and remarries commits adultery (Mark 10:12, Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11, Luke 16:18), I guess that means that all divorced and remarried persons having committed adultery should also be put to death?

Fornication is met with death as in Deuteronomy 22:13-21, which says that a woman who is not a virgin upon her marriage must be stoned to death.

Finally we would have to force rape victims to marry their rapist as per Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

No I’m not mad


By espousing these views I’m not going mad, this is happening right now in our world; in fact this is the same fight going on in the United States right now! While writing this piece I came across an article on The Christian Left blog, talking about Reconstructionism and Dominionism.

Christian Reconstructionism is a religious and theological movement within Evangelical Christianity that calls for Christians to put their faith into action in all areas of life, within the private sphere of life and the public and political sphere as well. The social structure advocated by Christian Reconstructionism would have the clergy, laity and government, individually and corporately, to be in ultimate submission to the moral principles of the Bible, including the Old Testament, while retaining their separate jurisdictional spheres of authority and roles in society as inferred from principles of Biblical law, both Old and New Testaments.

Dominionism is a term used to describe politically active conservative Christians that are believed to conspire and seek influence or control over secular civil government through political action, especially in the United States, with the goal of either a nation governed by Christians, or a nation governed by a conservative Christian understanding of Biblical law. Dominion Theology is a grouping of theological systems with the common belief that the law of God, as codified in the Bible, should exclusively govern society, to the exclusion of secular law, a view also known as theonomy. The most prominent modern formulation of Dominion Theology is Christian Reconstructionism, founded by R. J. Rushdoony in the 1970s. Reconstructionists themselves use the word dominionism to refer to their belief that Christians alone should control civil government, conducting it according to Biblical law.

Am I saying Christianity has no place what so ever in Jamaican society? Am I saying people must be able to do whatever they want regardless of the effect it may have on others? No, and no. I am saying however, that the tyranny of the mighty should not be imposed on others. I am saying everyone should be free to exercise their rights so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. I am saying we must be respectful. There is no respect in the Church wanting to force legislation to suit their ideology.

We must reject our roles as pawns and refuse to be intimidated by the Churches power; we must build a Jamaica for all persons, respecting rights, allowing persons to make their own choices.

There is a poem I want to leave you with, the words are chilling, but they are not farfetched. It was written by Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller, who was a German anti-Nazi theologian, Protestant pastor and social activist; it says:


In Germany, they came first for the Communists,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . .
And by that time there was no one left to speak up.




Angeline Jackson
A Christian Tired of Being Misrepresented

****************************************************************************

I'm really not sure what else I should add. As far-fetched as her arguments may seem, they really aren't that far off at all. Look at what the church and groups like the Lawyers Christian Fellowship have been able to do. Look at how they have exerted their power and created a constitution deliberately leaving out many. Look at how they attempt to control others by creating fear, fellow blogger H over at his blog (Gay Jamaica Watch) tells us about a radio interview of a Dr. Wayne West:

who declared that Christian lawyers and people of God will not stand by and allow homosexuality to be legalized. He said among others things significant lawyers from Europe are a part of the moves to impose sodomy on Jamaica and that we (the church I would imagine) must resist it. He mentioned the high rates of HIV in the Men who have sex with men community and quoted figures from France and other areas suggesting HIV/AIDS is a gay disease as other religious spokespersons have done instilling a fear that repealing the laws will unleash more infections. In referring to the legal challenge against the buggery laws in Belize that is ongoing he also said "....yes Jamaica is the next place ..... there can be only one, if certain rights dominate in the public sphere the church will be into the closet." (read the rest here)

Are we going to wait until they have gotten rid of those in society we don't like and then turn on us for us to fight against them? Actually I'd be dead by then for I'm one of those ills they want gone. 

As Ms. Jackson said, let's stop being pawns, let's stand up to this tyranny before it is too late.

By the way I wonder if the papers will publish her?

Atheist Vs Christian Morality: My Response

 I really can't decided if this is a rant or not so, I've also placed this post on Jamaican GLBTQ Christian.


*****************************************************************************************


I am not surprised to see an atheist (Dr. Elthon Lowe) questioning the society’s firm footing in “Christian morality”. This blog post however is not so much about the letter written, but the comments that followed.

The intolerance of the Christians who responded to his article is not hidden. No I do not agree with atheist thought, what I do believe is that each of us is given free will. An atheist should be free to express his or her thought of how they view Christianity, isn’t that what freedom of speech is about?

Many Christians fear that their right to freedom of speech will be curtailed if ‘certain people’ are allowed to access and exercise their rights, yet they sometimes seem so disrespectful of other opinions and the rights of others to express such, for example mrs. parker commented on Dr. Lowe’s article saying, “I am so sorry that the gleaner took up space that could have been used for other more pressing and important  things, and used it for this insignificant, stupid ideas of these people that don't know them selfI am so sorry that the gleaner took up space that could have been used for other more pressing and important  things, and used it for this insignificant, stupid ideas of these people that don't know them self”.

What is it with many Christians? If you are speaking something that they don’t agree with they tell you to keep it to yourself because ‘the rest of us don’t want to hear it’, for example a commenter Machowan  says, “I would hope the good doctor is not insinuating that we as christians are forcing our belief or values on him. We are fortunate enough to live in a country where we are free to believe or not to believe in any God at all. I will bet my bottom dollar you did not feel this way before you enter certain educational institution. Some of us tend to be cocky when we think we are a notch or two above the rest. You don't believe in the Father of creation, then keep that to your self, because you have no gospel to preach. Unless you are trying to convince yourself.” How does that stimulate conversation, how does that allow evangelism, how does that speak of the spirit of Christ in the Christian? It doesn’t.

No I’m not saying do not respond to his assertions, I am not saying do not contradict him, neither am I saying do not speak about your beliefs. I am saying encourage dialogue, have a conversation. I have met atheists, and agnostics some have rejected Christianity because it doesn’t make logical sense, some have rejected it because they have been beaten over the head with a stick to accept Christianity and some have seen the injustice and ruthlessness that Christianity can create. What happened to Love? No, not turning a blind eye and allowing that person to destroy themselves; rather, lovingly minister to such persons, reach out to them with compassion, sometimes if you listened to why they believe what they do, you overly righteous Christians would possibly learn something new, and learn a different way of evangelizing.

No I am not on the side of Dr. Lowe, I do not believe that we should, “Return morality to the human world into the hands of humans who can create and sustain it”; my gosh if morality were solely dependent on humanity’s thought’s there would still be injustice and in my opinion even chaos, for who’s version of morality would we follow? Morality can be influenced by religious (not only Christian) thought; it should be guided by our desire to protect those who may be harmed because of their inability to choose. My morality based on my religious belief should not be pushed down your throat, neither should someone else’s.

An interesting and almost borderline intolerant conversation rages on the website of the article and can be read here: http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20110904/letters/letters2.html


You can also read this post on: Jamaican GLBTQ Christian

I'm Happy for Rev Michelle Smith, however...

I have noticed with almost all stories of persons who have left the “homosexual lifestyle”, that their backgrounds are almost the same. However the many stories that are untold are those of persons from functional homes, little to no molestation, God-fearing Christians, educated, and contributing positively to society.

I am a lesbian God-fearing Christian; I was born in wedlock, and my parents still married, I grew up in a stable and functional home, I have always been surrounded by love. I did not grow up in a situation where I was deprived of something I needed, because of poverty.

As far as I can remember I was never molested as a child growing up. I have been attending church from before I was born and still do. I am an educated young lady working towards my Bachelors degree at the moment. I am a business owner, I contribute positively to this society, I am not and have never been involved in drug smuggling or selling, or any other form of illegal activity.

As a normal person growing up, I had my own struggles and had to go through the process of finding myself, everyone goes through that. The outcomes and the particular struggles are unique to the individual.

I didn’t have anyone around me to ‘influence’ my being a lesbian, or anyone who ‘promoted’ the ‘lesbian lifestyle’ to me. Oh contrary to that, if influence was what made someone straight or gay then I would have been straight, I only saw heterosexuality around me, and this ‘lifestyle’ was ‘promoted’ to me.

I have always felt that difference within me that almost all gay, lesbian, and bisexual persons will tell you they felt, for me it was from a very early age. No I didn’t feel like I was a man trapped in a woman’s body (that is, in my opinion more of a transgender issue). I did recognise that I was attracted to females not just on a friendship level but also physically and sexually. I was never introduced to lesbianism. I am not a scientist so I cannot say there is a gay gene, I can only say that from as early as I can remember I had these feelings and close to the end of high school I learnt the name that described my feelings.

My sexual assault didn’t make me a lesbian either. I knew I was a lesbian long before that happened but it is part of my history. I was sexually assaulted because I am a lesbian, yes it happens and there are real people who suffer from violence toward them because of their orientation.

The gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community is part of society, and the same things that affect the larger society in general also affects us.

There are also heterosexual persons who live a life contrary to that which is natural to them, those persons are lost and those are persons who need help.

I am loved by God as the lesbian I am. No I am not perfect and God’s still working on me.

It is a shame that stories like these are not publicized and that persons like myself cannot appear on television to put a voice and face to the good happening right here, the upright people how are as regular as any heterosexual person and who many of you talk to everyday.

No one should be subjected to accepting another person’s beliefs and no one should be forced to change. I believe persons who have unwanted sexual attractions should be able to get help, but I also believe that persons who do not believe that they need change, should be free to express that and have public places that cater to families and adults who want to know and see that there are positive, spiritual, responsible, and God-fearing Christians in the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community.

I am happy that Rev. Michelle Smith was able to leave a ‘lifestyle’ that was ‘demonic’ and "unacceptable” to her. No one should remain in such a situation if it is against their nature.

Why Did J-FLAG Use These Brown People?

The below is a letter I sent to the editor, in it's unedited format. This is over the Gleaner's word limit, so if it is published it will be a little less.

__________________________________________________________________

J-FLAG’s PSA that basically said “please love and respect your GLBT family members and friends, please allow them to live, do not go out and kill them” has caused quite a stir. Clergy has been offended, the television stations are too afraid, and persons in the general population are incensed.

Among the many reasons for rejection is that the spokes persons are brown skin. Some persons rejected it saying that “cultural imperialism [is] behind [the] gay message”. Why did J-FLAG use this ‘high coloured’ woman and her brother to bring this message across? Why didn’t they use the ‘dutty battyman’ or the ‘black skinned, patois speaking’ parent of a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender child?

Firstly, since when did being brown skin or ‘high colour’ disqualify anyone from being a Jamaican? Does our motto not say “Out of Many One People”?? Why does their skin colour, make Christine Straw and her brother Matthew any less Jamaican? We already say black/African Americans shouldn’t tell us what to do, are we now saying brown skin Jamaicans should not be allowed speak about issues that affect them?

Secondly, are you crazy? Jamaica is an intolerant society, we’re intolerant of anything or anyone who dare go the other way (not just sexually). Which parent or sibling of a black GLBT Jamaican could do a video PSA, showing their faces and giving the same message? How many can do that, how many are willing to do that? What will happen after that PSA? Will they be able to return to their community, or their job? The security of that person will be greatly undermined.

Yes it would be great if we could have a PSA of a black parent or sibling with their GLBT family member, but until those persons can be safe from Jamaica’s intolerance of differing views, we won’t get a PSA like that.

J-FLAG TV Advert Angers Clerics

This blog is written in a response to a story on the Jamaica Observer's website titled "Gay TV advert angers clerics". I've sent this to the Observer and the Gleaner let's see if this gets published. 

J-FLAG’s new PSA featuring former Miss Jamaica World and Miss Jamaica Universe Christine Straw and her gay brother Matthew Straw has drawn the ire of clergy and church goers. The cross fire is now between, Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin and gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender persons who view the church as propagators of discrimination.

Christians oppose the removal of the buggery law, the televising of PSAs like the new one done by J-FLAG (mentioned above), and the inclusion of the human rights of GLBT folks in the Charter of Rights. Many Christians oppose these on the basis of their Christian beliefs. I have noticed that much of the opposition is also in fear of Christian beliefs being challenged. I dare say that this same fear that Christians have is the same thing they are currently doing to the GLBT community.

The authority Christians believe they have to dictate how persons should live (lifestyle) or to determine the possibility of an innate orientation, should be held to the confines of that Church, and that Church’s institutions. I do not believe that Christians should be forced to believe and agree that homosexuality is right; I do not believe that Christians should be forced to recognise homosexual relationships and/or unions as morally right. Why is it that the church cannot extend the same to persons of opposing views?

This myth, of the GLBT community wanting to “convert” your children and to force churches to keep quite is just that, a myth. It is the fear that people have that the church is manipulating. Shame on you! I am a lesbian Christian, who was sexually assaulted so that I would “convert” to heterosexuality. I am not saying that some GLBT folk don’t try to “change” heterosexual people, but you also need to know that there are heterosexual people out there trying to “change” GLBT folk, it doesn’t make any of them right, yet I haven’t heard the church speak out about human rights violations of GLBT persons.

The church is vocal in its opposition to human rights for GLBTs but as a democratic, non-church state GLBT persons also have the right to have their views heard and seen. What the GLBT community is advocating for right here in Jamaica is their right to an existence, the right to life, and the right to be.

JFLAG Launches new Tolerance Campaign

The new one minute Tolerance Campaign called: Unconditional Love, features former Miss Jamaica World and Miss Jamaica Universe Christine Straw, and her brother Matthew Straw who is gay.

Christine declares her unending love for Matthew while calling on Jamaicans to love their family members and friends who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered.

See the ad below:

Jamaica Constabulary Force Response to Concerns about Gays & Organised Crime

The following is a statement from the Commissioner of Police

Recent statements by Senior Superintendent of Police Fitz Bailey, head of the Organised Crime Investigation Division (OCID) of the Jamaica Constabulary Force in which he identifies persons of the Gay Community as being prominently involved in the ‘Lottery Scam’ an organised and highly lucrative criminal enterprise have evoked concerns from several quarters.

The Gay Community represented by JFLAG, along with Jamaicans For Justice and prominent attorneys are among those expressing concern.

SSP Bailey’s attempt at clarifying his statement and placing it within the context of offender profiling has not fully resolved the concerns of the Gay Community and their sympathisers.

I have discussed the matter with SSP Bailey. He shared information with me supporting his assertion and cited discussions he has had with representatives of JFLAG about the problem. He fully understands the basis of concern for the safety and well-being of members of the Gay Community who may be targeted by misguided individuals simply because of the statements under reference.

The JCF therefore withdraws the statement and expresses regret to all Jamaicans and our international partners for any concern, anxiety and any appearance of unfair labelling which may have been construed from the message.

We wish to assure all that the JCF has no policy of singling out any particular social grouping for special Police attention. Our focus is on enforcing the laws without fear, favour, prejudice or ill will.

The JCF stands willing to receive and deal dispassionately with feedback from our publics. Our mission remains to serve, protect and re-assure all.

A willingness to listen and to review a position, which generates concern and anxiety in the way the comments of the SSP did, is testimony to our belief in and commitment to this mission.                                                                                                 ​