Visiting With The Enemy

I’ve been busy with an experiment these past couple of months  – exploring the mind of the religious fundamentalists who constitute our bitter opposition. We are advised to “know thy enemy” and yet we seldom actually do. The opposing sides in America’s “culture War” launch frequent fusilades at each other but rarely engage in personal dialog. We don’t see each other except on TV. We don’t live in the same neighborhoods or frequent the same haunts. We may well work side by side but modern rules of engagement prohibit arguing politics or religion in the workplace. There are no rabid fundies among my family or friends.

In view of this deficiency, I decided to spend some time on the USA Today Faith And Reason Forum (easily googleable) Signing on as “tobyg” and also as “ghost of tobyg” I had the experience of arguing daily with a choice selection of  narrow minded nut jobs and Christian fundamentalists. The forum attracts a small but diverse collection of posters ranging from the aforementioned fundies through liberal Christians, atheists and agnostics, deists, a couple of fellow Wiccans, a Hindu, one or two Buddhists, some Unitarians and a few hard-shell Mormons. Curiously, no Muslims that I noticed. The arguments are lively and often personal.

My experiment came to and end when I was suspended from the forum – probably for breaking the rules by calling the most frequent fundie poster an asshole when he claimed AIDS was the result of the depraved gay lifestyle. I don’t regret my plain-speaking. The guy is, indeed, a major asshole and could only benefit from having it pointed out to him. Also, after about three months of daily exchanges, it was time to call it a day and draw some conclusions.

There are two kinds of people – those who act on the basis of faith and those who act on the basis of evidence. This is not to imply that either kind has an absolute monopoly on truth. Columbus had faith – but little real evidence – that the world was round. Likewise, for hundreds of years it was thought that the clearly observable evidence showed maggots to be spontaneously generated by decaying meat. Those who presume that Creation consists only of what they can observe and classify with our limited human senses are as intellectually and spiritually impoverished as our fundie opponents. The evolved mind is that which is always open to the possibilities; that takes no dogma, whether of science or religion, as ultimate truth and understands that finally, there is no answer to “why” – only to “how.”

There were a number of evolved minds posting on the forum and they were invariably the wittiest. It was however, the minds of the fundies and Mormons that interested me. The two main Mormon posters were enormously erudite regarding their complex and inbred theology. They delighted in long posts detailing obscure aspects and debating minor points. This is not a new evolution in religion by any means. Their mind-set reminded me quite precisely of the medieval scholastics who could argue for a lifetime about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or the clerics of Byzantium with their Iconoclast controversy. To me as the outside observer, it seemed quite clear they were lost in a self sustaining swamp of circular logic and apriori reasoning. Mormonism is, after all, a completely made-up “religion,” created by a failed novelist named Joseph Smith, who was either a con-artist par excellance or who was suffering from the sort of “voices” and hallucinations that would today result in serious medication. This kind of  religious phenomenon is not uncommon. Every generation produces its share of gurus and prophets who proclaim a new revelation. History affords ample proof that no lunacy is too extreme to be embraced by at least a small group of wandering souls. Often it ends badly – as at Jonestown or in the case of the flying saucer cult in California. Sometimes it merely adds local color as in the case of the self-appointed, store front preacher who proclaimed himself Pope of Trenton a few years ago. However, when – as in the case of the Mormons – it survives over a span of generations, it becomes “the faith of our fathers,” regardless of how nonsensical. When it becomes enshrined in noble edifices, such as the Salt Lake city Temple, and possessed of mystical traditions such as Mormonism’s famous golden tablets (which no one is ever allowed to actually see) it achieves a level of reality that transcends the ludicrous nature of its theology and the con-artist basis of its origins. Whole libraries of phony, circularly reasoned  ”scholarship” are spun out of  the original “revelation,” lending an apparent substance to the faith. The mere existence of all this material – the libraries – the buildings – the structure of authority – serves to make real the faith for the ordinary follower. The pedestrian layman, time taken up by the mundane cares of work and family, has no time or credentials to evaluate all of this supportive substance. That it exists and that it has existed for generations before him, is enough to satisfy any doubts he might entertain. And what, ultimately, is the justification for it all? It always comes down to “it’s true because God said so.” For reasons evidently known only to himself, God never makes these pronouncements via the general media or in a thunderous voice heard all over the planet. He (and I use the male pronoun only because of tradition and the absence of a good, non-gender specific alternative in the English language) seems to prefer speaking to badly dressed social outcasts of questionably hygiene, business failures and persons inclined to froth at the mouth. Such was Joseph Smith.

Then we have the common-or-garden Christian fundie – a creature whose limited intellect consists of a set of filters. These highly effective filters prevent any facts or points of view at variance with his preconceptions from ever reaching the brain. The fundie is mentally handicapped and can no more entertain conflicting evidence than a man with no legs can win the decathlon. The essential equipment simply is not there.

The most interesting specimens of this type revealed themselves to be persons of third rate education (mid-west Bible colleges figured here) and no serious scholastic training. In the course of many long arguments and hundreds of postings, it became obvious that facts simply did not matter to their mindset. All evidence conflicting with their preconceptions was simply ignored as though it did not exist. To their medieval world-view, there could be no argument against the essential notions that the world is about 6,000 yeas old, evolution does not occur, God is pure love but none the less will consign all gays to eternal torture in a lake of fire (it will hurt Him more than it does us but  darn it all, he just HAS to do it.) Further, that their views should be the absolute law of the land, applicable to all people whether Christian or not, is not open to question. After all, “God” told them all these absolutes and that’s the end of it. In the immortal words of Barney Frank, you might as well argue with the dining room table.

From this experiment on the USA Today forum, I deduce that rational discourse with our hard core religious enemies is useless.  accommodating them by trying to tailor our own lives to appear more conventional and “straight” is worse than useless. Such accommodation is both ineffective and a betrayal of our right to be as different as we want to be. We will not win by appeasement but by the constant assertion of our right to be different, to be flamboyant, to be obviously sexual- to be unreservedly GAY at all times and places.

Cassandra Speaks

Among the lessons of history is that no hegemony lasts forever – or even for very long in many cases. If we examine the turbulent story of the fall of empires, we often find that it was not the extension of power that necessarily had the most important consequences, but the manner of withdrawal from that power. In the case of Rome, that withdrawal was a forced and bloody process lasting over a century that left western civilization in abject ruins – a devastation from which Europe would not recover for centuries.

The rapid and relatively peaceful dissolution of the British Empire was quite a different affair. It resulted essentially from policy – the decision by the British that they simply could not afford the cost and did not want to expend the necessary effort any longer. The British Empire left a rich and useful legacy to many of its subject peoples but it also left behind the terrible consequences of arrogance, short-sightedness and selfishness. Most especially, the manner of its leaving India can now be seen to have been catastrophic. Tired of umpiring the endless bickering of the leaders of India’s contending political parties regarding the form a post-imperial state should take, the British announced they were leaving in 1949, regardless of what the native politicians decided or failed to decide. The result was the partition and the appalling blood bath that followed. Tens of thousands died in the virtual civil war that erupted between Hindus and Muslims, once the imperial authority was no longer there. Today, we are facing the possible collapse of Pakistan in the face of the insurgency of Muslim fanatics coupled with the terrifying question of what will become of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. (One is reminded of the collapse of Roman Britain during the fifty years or so that followed the withdrawal of the legions. Fortunately, there was no nuclear arsenal for the Picts, Danes and Saxons to capture.) Did the British Empire have alternatives? Of course they did. For one, they could have created two Indias instead of an India and a Pakistan – a republic consisting of the territories administered directly by the Raj and a federation of the princely states. These states had an ancient history and many had an integrated population of Muslims and Hindus. Had this course been taken, we would not today face the dangerous situation of an unstable Pakistan.

We could examine many additional examples of imperial withdrawal and repeatedly observe the consequences of haste, panic, failure to face reality and lack of planning. In these examples, we can find lessons perhaps applicable to the situation of the United States today. Chiefly, these failures result from an inability to face reality. No doubt, right up to the very moment the barbarian hoards breached the walls of Rome, its citizens were unable to consider such a development as possible. For 800 years, Rome had stood inviolable. It’s way of life seemed eternal and who could imagine it would vanish in a moment? On August 23, 410, the citizens of Rome lived secure in their homes and occupations, under a rule of law and custom developed over centuries as the pinnacle of western civilization. On August 24th, it was at the mercy of Alaric and the Goth Hoard and nothing would ever be the same again.

While this transition no doubt seemed abrupt to the ordinary citizens of that time, it was not, of course, a development that fell from the blue like a bolt of lightning. The foundations of the Roman world had been decaying for a good century or more. Historians have been occupied ever since with analysis of why this collapse, so pivotal in western history, took place and agreement on at least the outlines of the contributory problems may be considered general. Some of these problems were not ones we share today with Rome – such as the Roman failure to establish an orderly system for the transfer of supreme authority from one generation to the next. There are however, certain primary problems we do indeed share. Perhaps chief among these is the indisputable fact that the Roman Empire lived well beyond its means. In doing so, it created a military/political/social construct that became indispensable but which in fact could not be sustained by the surplus wealth of Rome’s GNP. At its height of power, Rome maintained a standing army of somewhere between 400,000 and half a million men. In addition, there was a separate administrative/professional class, a priest class and an ownership class – all non-productive mouths to be fed from the surplus wealth (wealth produced in excess of that which is required to keep the actual producers alive.) On top of this was a vast program of public works and a dole that sustained a significant part of the population. We would not see such a top-heavy system again until our own modern times. In evaluating the sustainability of the Roman system, we must recall that Rome was a labor intensive, agricultural society whose agricultural methods were not even as efficient as those to come in the medieval period and in fact produced large scale environmental deterioration (they didn’t rotate crops, for one thing.)

Governments can get away with this sort of economic 3 card monte a lot longer than private citizens can. Governments can issue specie, for one big reason. The temptation to just print or coin more money to solve immediate problems is as old as money itself. Money is, however, essentially only a symbol of the nation’s actual negotiable wealth – its surplus product. As with a person who has been living on credit cards, sooner or later the money chickens must come home to roost. Even a cursory examination of the United States’ balance sheets clearly shows that we are doing the same thing the Romans did and with, not surprisingly, the same result. The United States is hopelessly bankrupt and is now in a period of denial, much the same as in Rome’s late history – a denial in which we are abetted by our creditors who fear our collapse will be their own as well. Sooner or later, debts must and will be settled – either by repayment, negotiated settlement, seizure of assets or by the death of the indebted (it is an axiom that death clears all debts and if you doubt this applies to nations, just ask the various banks who still have, tucked away in dusty vaults, Imperial Russian Railway bonds.) Barney Frank, of the House Banking Committee, when asked if the vast sums in treasury notes held by China could ever be repaid, replied simply “no,” – an unusually clear and concise evaluation, rare indeed from a government official. U.S. currency is in fact without actual value and is a fiction sustained only by our terror of the inevitable consequences of collapse. It cannot be redeemed in precious metals nor does it represent surplus wealth, of which we have none.

How did this situation come to be? In part because of another problem we share with Rome – the sociopathic nature of the ruling class. In Dear And Glorious Physician, Taylor Caldwell quotes a Third Century Roman senator she names Carvilius Ulpian: “the senate is a closed corporation of scoundrels who think only of army contracts for their blanket factories…and what is the middle class but oxen to draw the chariots of the senators as we provide bread and circuses for the motley mobs of Rome?” Ulpian goes on to reflect on the vast subsidies paid to “allies” who would turn on Rome in an instant if the gold stopped flowing, the venality of the rich and the dubious loyalty of the generals.
Wherein is the difference between those ancient Roman aristocrats, thinking of nothing more than their own immediate advantage and the hugely over-paid CEOs of today’s multi-national corporations who have stripped the United States of its capacity to manufacture goods (surplus wealth) by shipping the manufacturing process to third world nations, thus temporarily improving their profit margin while creating an economically enslaved working class in countries lacking the worker rights and protections built up here at home? The exploitation and utter lack of social responsibility this industrial transition represents can only be characterized as sociopathic.

Such generality of unenlightened self-interest has not been true of all societies. It was not true of the British Empire at its height. It was not true of the Roman Republic. It was clearly true of the ruling class of Ancien Regime France and with results too well known to comment on. It is just as clearly true of a large part of the ruling/wealth management class of this country today. We all know the classic definition of insanity – repeating the same process but expecting different results. By this definition, the wealth rulers of our nation, if they know anything at all of history, can only be classified as dangerously insane. On August 24th, 410, the aristocrats of Rome suddenly discovered that all of their vast, personal wealth, their estates, their palaces, their legions of slaves, meant nothing when the barbarians burst through the city gates. The Wall Street executive, on his way home to Darien or flying to Aspen for the weekend or enjoying a lunch at 21 that costs more than a school teacher in Nigeria makes in a year (if the teacher is lucky enough to get paid at all), would smile at such an analogy and ask “where are the hoards that threaten our gates?” To this we can only reply “it is a global village you know – have you glanced at the starving masses of the third world lately? It is getting worse every day. How long will it be before they press upon our way of life and where are the resources needed to sustain our defense? You sold them for ‘a mess of potage,’ and we are naked before our enemies.”

The problems we share with the late Roman Empire go well beyond the economy. As imperial deterioration progressed, Rome responded by becoming ever less tolerant of diversity. Inflexibility in matters of religion, morality and philosophy produce a brittle society that can only respond to stress by increased inflexibility until the breaking point is inevitably reached. We can observe a classic and extreme example of this unfolding today in North Korea and another in Iran and can only wonder when and in what form the breakage will take place. We hear frequent hysterical charges leveled today by our own country’s ultra-conservative religious wing that such things as the prevalence of homosexuality and the practice of witchcraft brought down the Roman Empire. Such nonsense reveals an utter ignorance of history. In fact, when Rome was at its most tolerant and libertine, that is when its power was strongest. As the empire aged and weakened, rulers such as Constantine and Theodosius attempted to force unified religion (Christianity) and strict moral codes upon the populace in the ostensible hope of stopping the decay. The decay had nothing to do with either paganism or sexual behavior but those were simple, visible issues that could be set up as straw men to create the impression of a rulership that was in charge and dealing with the problems when in fact, the problems were systemic, at the very core of Rome’s social, political and economic organization and could not be dealt with without a fundamental restructuring which was well beyond the capability of either the rulers or the society at large.

As in the last centuries of the empire, we too are confronting the rise of racial and religious extremists whose loyalty to their own dogma far surpasses their loyalty to the state. Christian Reconstructionists, White Power advocates, secessionists and a plethora of gun nuts and fanatics of various stripes become increasingly active, dangerous and even, lately – murderous. Likewise, the rise of Christianity and the attendant, often bitter and violent schismatic conflicts as well as conflicts with the old pagan establishment tore apart the empire’s fabric of allegiance. Racism too played a role in Rome, as the ingrained prejudice against anyone of germanic extraction prevented some very able men, Stilicho for example, from ascending to the ultimate power they might have used so well.

“Far flung, our navies melt away, on dune and headland sinks the fire…” (Recessional, Rudyard Kipling.) We are now observing the limits of power. By involving ourselves in a horrendously expensive adventure in Iraq we have made a mistake similar to that of the various fourth and Fifth Century Roman generals whose personal desire for aggrandizement caused repeated attempts to usurp the throne. In the century and a half preceding Constantine the Great, approximately 80 generals were, at various times and places, proclaimed emperor by their troops. Between 247 and 270 there were 30 such attempted usurpations. The relationship between these disturbances and our adventure in Iraq rests in the huge expenditure of men and treasure consequently necessary to protect or advance the state’s security – an expenditure having nothing to do with the real security of the state against external dangers and necessitated only by the inflamed egos and power-madness of the men involved. Just as the later emperors, having expended so much of their resources on battling internecine conflict and having exhausted the capability of the working classes to pay taxes, ultimately found themselves unable to sustain the frontiers, so do we find we have little with which to confront the growing dangers in Pakistan and North Korea and nothing at all for the terrible humanitarian crises in Africa. Were China or Russia to become belligerent, what precisely could we now do about it? Our land forces are clearly exhausted. The forced extensions of tours of duty, justified by tissue thin legalities, are reminiscent of similar though more brutal practices employed when the armies of Rome began to run short of recruits. The result – young people viewed the army as a form of slavery to be avoided at all costs. The extent of this is shown by imperial proclamations of severe punishment for youths who amputated their thumbs so that they became ineligible for service because they could no longer hold a weapon.

Today, outside of the officer class, our army is largely composed of people from the lowest socio-economic strata who have joined largely for pecuniary reasons. We have exhausted this mercenary force in conflicts that have no bearing on genuine national security and have run up a phenomenal debt in doing so. Will the day come when we cannot meet the payroll even with the play money that now serves our system? It did for Rome. The historian Eugippius recorded the last days of the last surviving unit of the Roman frontier armies, a detachment at Castra Batava on the Danube, which in 482, sent some men to Italy to obtain the final payroll they would ever hope to receive. Nothing awaited them in Ravenna or Rome but ghosts. Romulus Augustulus, the last emperor, had been deposed ten years before. The Empire of The West had gone down into the depths of history and was silent.

In the lower hall of the Princeton University Art Museum is a long row of portrait busts of ancient Romans. They were clearly men of consequence in their day, though now we no longer know who most of them were. In the stillness of the museum, with only a little imagination, the visitor can hear those men speaking across the millennia. “Be careful,” they whisper, “Rome was, and is no longer. You are, but for how much longer? Learn from our mistakes if you can. If you cannot, there is more room on this shelf, but have your artists carve your names on your busts. Otherwise, when they are dug from the ruins, no one will know who you were.”

Queers For Islamofascim

James Kirchick, writing on Advocate.com on Jan. 28, calls into question the sanity of a San Francisco group calling itself “Queers For Palestine.” Kirchick is quite correct in doing so. As he further points out, there is a long history on the left-most fringe of queer activism, of assuming a preposterous solidarity with every other radical cause and revolutionary front – a solidarity often neither welcomed nor reciprocated. This particular example is among the more ludicrous and logic-defying I have yet seen.

    To begin with, one may ask why a group of gays in San Francisco thinks it is necessary to involve themselves in a conflict on the other side of the world. Are there no deserving causes left in California? Are all the homeless queer kids finally off the street? Has every HIV positive person in the state been given full health care and decent housing? Did Prop 8 get reversed while I was taking a nap? Fine – let’s move ahead then on the assumption that in California, The Millennium has dawned and the world has been perfected.  (By report, it actually was that way in California for about a week in…oh…about 1952, I think – but that’s all long ago now.) That being the case, this band of soulful flagellants,  seeking a new cause with which to beat we less enlightened and empathetic passers-by, seizes upon the Israel-Palestine conflict as being the big news of the day and the issue most likely to garner attention, quite regardless of the fact that it has nothing to do with the queer community whatever. Having decided upon this cause and hoisting it aloft like the banner “Excelsior,” this brain trust lands themselves on the Palestinian side! Now let’s give this just a moment’s thought. No one wants to see Palestinian civilians being killed by Israeli bombs, just as no one wants to see Israelis being blown up by Palestinian bombs and we have seen plenty of both. Getting beyond who has thrown the most or biggest bombs, and leaving aside the question of why anyone thinks we have a dog in this race anyway and, in utter defiance of logic, accepting the notion that we need to be activists in this conflict, the obvious question remains, why would anyone think we should be a friend to Palestine, a place where queers are actively persecuted and murdered? Why in the name of all reason should we oppose Israel, the only state in the Middle East where gays have full rights, including open service in the military? Do these fools know what happens to queers in Palestine? Under the Islamofascists controlling Gaza, queers are tossed off high buildings whenever opportunity presents. Palestinian officials routinely extort, imprison and torture gays. A senior Hamas leader called us “mentally and morally sick.” And these idiots in San-Fran want us to support Palestine? Are they off their meds or what? Israel has actually granted asylum to some queer Palestinian refugees – and the  fools are saying we should oppose Israel? I shall retire to Bedlam!

   Don’t suppose this group is merely a fringe of ineffective idiots. They successfully lobbied the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission to boycott the 2006 World Pride Conference in Jerusalem in spite of the fact that no even moderately same and logical queer person could possibly support ANY Islamic regime. The existence of Queers for Palestine merely proves that our community is not immune to mush-brained, self-defeating fools.

It is still a nightmare out there

The following story was provided by IRQR, the Iranian queer refugee aid organization. It tells an all too common story. Many readers will recall the campaign to save Mahdi Kazemi. Only because of an international effort and a firestorm of media attention was the British Home Office induced to change their ruling and allow Mahdi a five year grant of asylum. That only worked for Mahdi however. It in no way changed British policy, which can best be characterized as murder by neglect. The United Kingdom is offcially a gay-friendly country. Discrimination and the expression of homophobia is against the law. If you go there as an American gay tourist, you will find only welcoming attitudes, gay pride festivals and rainbow flags. If, however, you come as an impoverished refugee, fleeing persecution in Muslim or African natons, your reception wil be entirely different. You will be viewed as a probable liar and likely criminal. The supremely bland mandarins of the Home Office will simply ignore your appeals or utter meaningless aphorisms. You will be left to starve unless you are fortunate enough to secure the kindness of some organization such as Metropolitan Community Church. Finally, your request for asylum will be denied with some infuriatingly inane statement such as “The Iranian government assures us that gay persons are not persecuted.” One wonders how long it will be before some member of Parliament stands up during Question Time, looks Home Secretary Jacqui Smith in the face and asks “have you no decency madam? At long last, have you no decency ?” That day must come, as it came long ago for Senator Joe McCarthy when that famous phrase was uttered by Attorney Joseph Welch during the Army-McCarthy hearings and began the evil McCarthy’s rapid fall from power. What we are indeed talking about here is basic, human decency – a quality the Home Office seems to be utterly without. The following acount is far from exceptional.

From IRQR:

At 2 am on Saturday 15^th November, Saeed attempted suicide by swallowing many pills. He was taken to the emergency room at the hospital. He was in critical condition and in a coma. Due to his comatose state the doctor did not wash out his stomach. They could not give him a vomit-inducing agent because of the potential danger. The deep coma could prevent him from vomiting. Since he had overdosed and the amount of pills he had taken was so large they did not want to take any risks.

They transferred Saeed to ICU so he could be placed in intensive care. They attached an oxygen mask to him until Sunday morning close to noontime when he gained consciousness. The risk of side effects to the kidney and lungs was high so they kept him under treatment and monitoring. He was given antibiotics to prevent infection.

Later in the day they transferred him to a different section where his medical treatment continued and he was placed under supervision of the mental health team to make sure he would not try to escape.

Around 5 in the evening the mental health team came to see him and after speaking to him decided to transfer him temporarily to the Mental Health Hospital so he could be watched over incase he made another attempt at taking his life. On Friday he was transferred to the Mental Health Hospital where he resides at the moment and is under surveillance.

At this point I should mention that in the past few months Saeed has been under intense emotional stress. He was dealing with the uncertainty of his refugee application and being ignored by Home Office. On the other hand he didn’t have a work permit and received little money from *social office*. He applied multiple times for a driver’s license and was refused because he did not have a passport or visa. He had a difficult time in the house he had been given, as his housemates would ridicule and belittle him because of his sexuality. This caused him to complain repeatedly to the office that supported him but they did nothing. (Paolo is aware of this situation)

Let me remind you of the background details of Saeed’s situation in case you don’t remember:

In 1999 when Saeed was 36 years old, due to his homosexuality and the problems it created for him in Iran, he fled Iran and went to the UK where he applied for refugee status. But his claim was ignored until in 2003 they rejected his appeal in court without granting him a lawyer, cut all his support, and gave him a deportation order. Numerous lawyers refused to take on his case until it gained some attention and was picked up again and pursued until, as you know, in 2006 Home Office arrested him and took him to a detention centre in Oxford. He was there for 10 days. With much support including those of IRQR and other friends they released him but without providing any support or work permit. They also demanded that once a week he goes to London to sign documents attesting to his presence.

A few weeks later, after he had requested that they space out the times he was required to provide a signature, Home Office sent Saeed a letter informing him that during the appointment they have given him officers will be going to his home and tagging his feet. (This is a police foot tag with radar and security alarm, which goes off if the person wearing it walks beyond the geographic limits legally assigned to him. If home office wants to arrest that person they locate him through the radar and publically embarrass him by turning his alarm on.)

Saeed was suffering from extreme skin allergies, which his doctor assigns to a reaction to metal, or any other potential allergenic triggered by the emotional and psychological pressures he is dealing with. Saeed’s doctor sent a letter to Saeed’s lawyer and to Home Office, preventing them from attaching the tag on Saeed’s foot.

After a long time of being homeless and sleeping on the street Saeed received some financial support and was given a place to stay. His housemates made his stay there unbearable. Moreover, ever since Saeed’s release from detention centre right up till this very day, every letter his lawyer has sent to Home Office has gone unanswered. Home Office does not respond at all and their dismissal of Saeed is very hard on him.

All these pressures and the toll of not seeing his family for 9 years caused him to try and end his life.

I visit him every day but he is not emotionally stable and says he does not want to live anymore. He doesn’t regret his attempted suicide and is likely to try again at any moment if he finds an opportunity.

This is why they have taken him to the Mental Health Hospital so they can control him and protect him so he will not have personal freedom and access to things he could use for suicide.

A friend of Saeed

IRQR can be contacted at  info@irgr.net and www.irqr.net They need donations and other support

Getting Real with Our Enemies

The aftermath of the failure of Prop 8 in California is beginning to look like New Orleans after Katrina – wreckage and criticism all over the landscape and a whole lot of very angry people. One good thing to come out of it is the fact that at least we now know who our enemies are. We have a list and it is a long one. “Californians Against Hate” publicized the donor list of everyone who gave money to “Yes On 8,” – our enemies. Already the fallout is costing these people jobs and money. Scott Eckern, director of the California Musical Theater in Sacramento , a post he had held for 25 years and in which he worked with countless gay colleagues including the composer of Hairspray, was revealed to have given $1000 to “Yes On 8.” The subsequent uproar by gay theater people forced his resignation. Fred Karger, founder of “Californians Against Hate,” commented “that’s not good news…” Karger’s comment illustrates the sort of “gloves on – nicey-nice – love our enemies” approach queer organizations took regarding the entire campaign - which is perhaps the main reason for our defeat. It was an approach that certainly did not cut any ice with the opposition. Ron Prentice, Chairman of “Yes On 8,” issued a statement criticizing same-sex marriage supporters who “cherish tolerance and civil rights (but) are unabashedly trampling on the rights of others,” referring to the protests that led to Eckern’s resignation and to the demonstrations that continue to be held at Mormon temples around the nation. Prentice’s comments illustrate perfectly the fallacy in the logic of our enemies, as does the statement of the spokesperson for the Mormon Church calling for mutual respect – a sort of “agree to disagree” philosophy.

    Agree to disagree is fine when one is arguing about academic issues. If we differ regarding, say. the causes of the War of 1812 or the meaning of agricultural statistics from the 18th Century, we can and should be polite, respectful of alternate views and willing to consider other interpretations. However, people like Eckern and the Mormons and a long list of others do not seem to comprehend that for us, this is NOT an academic matter. This materially affects our daily lives and our rights as citizens. We will not simply “agree to disagree” and politely go home. We will make this issue affect the daily lives of our enemies. Up to now, it has not so affected them. Their rights, their relationships, their marriages have never been in question. For them, this whole issue has been merely an abstract concept. Now that they must face us down and suffer embarrassment on their way into their “Temples” – now that personal challanges are being made in the workplace, as was the case with Eckern, now that businesses such as the Utah tourist industry may feel the consequences, all of a sudden these people who would deny us our rights as citizens are getting all sanctimonious about freedom of expression. Well, guess what? They are now finding out that we have freedom of expression too, and we can do our expressing on the sidewalk in front of their places of worship. we can express ourselves to the people and companies we do business with – we can bring the cost of what they have done to us right into their own lives in practical and very upsetting ways. We can do so legally and we have the moral right to do so. We all have to take responsibility for the results of our actions in this world and the “Yes On 8″ crowd is now finding out that sending a check is an act that can indeed have very real consequences in their own lives as well as in ours.

   Respect? Ha! Why should we have any respect for those who wish to deny us our civil rights? Why should we be polite and restrained? Criticism is already mounting of those who led the “No On 8″ campaign for being entirely too respectful and restrained  -too mealy-mouthed, frankly. Some 40 million dollars was spent by our side – money we could hardly afford in the present economic climate – and what did we get for it? We got a campaign strategy that wouldn’t even show same-sex couples in the TV ads for fear of offending people! No wonder we lost with leadership like that! We have been entirely too respectful and restrained already. It is high time we publicized a few “home truths” as my grandmother would have called them – such as the fact that opposition to non-traditional marriages comes VERY strangely indeed from an outfit such as the Mormons, given their history on the marriage issue. And let’s be very clear about this- the Mormons led the list of “Yes On 8″ supporters. The Knights of Columbus were right up there, followed by various businesses and a whole lot of fundie, store-front churches of the holy roller variety, but the Mormons wrote the really big checks.

    It is difficult to have any respect for the Mormons anyway. A religion based on a failed Victorian novel, revelations by an angel named Moroni and written on gold tablets NO ONE ever gets to see and that teaches such concepts as good Mormons will each get their very own planet to be god over in the next life is so patently ridiculous that one is tempted to say “only in America, where any nut group can prosper…” Exactly the same can be said of Scientology (also on the donor list, by the way.) A person who would buy the teachings of the Mormons or the Scientologists will pretty much believe anything. You could probably convince them the moon is made of green cheese if you told them it had been revealed to you by an angel or, in the case of the Scientologists, a little green man from Alpha Centauri. One is tempted to speculate on the utter failure of public education to produce a population of informed, critical and logical thinkers but that would be another topic.

   So, we have these people who firmly believe these nonsensical abortions of theology and who, because of this nation’s iron clad guarantees of religious freedom , have greatly prospered and who would now turn around and deny a basic civil right to others who are not of their persuasion. And they want respect? Are they entirely crazy? It is time we took the gloves off. It is time we made them pay. The attack on the Mormon Church’s tax exemption is an excellent begining. Picketing their temples so they must actually SEE the people they are helping to suppress is another excellent move. Spending future campaign money on advertising that tells it like it really is – that shows the people who are personally affected by this issue and opens a window on their real lives is yet another. It also might do some good to point out just how absurd our enemy’s own beliefs actually are. The point is – if there is room in this country for people who believe the Mormon nonsense, there should certainly be room for us to live in full enjoyment of the same rights they have.

Speaking Ill Of The Dead

Hollywood’s self-appointed fashion critic and out-spoken member of the Queer community Mr. Blackwell died on October 19. A shining example of the worst traits of gays, Blackwell became notorious for his insulting evaluations of celebrity fashion choices. Blackwell clearly never learned basic manners and common respect for other people’s individuality. The lack of manners may be explained by his impoverished youth as a thief but the lack of respect for people who didn’t think as he did is hard to explain in someone who experienced Hollywood’s behind the scenes homophobia as he certainly must have.

 

Among his more tasteless comments were:

Madonna: “The Bare-Bottomed Bore of Babylon.”

Barbra Streisand: “She looks like a masculine Bride of Frankenstein.”

Christina Aguilera: “A dazzling singer who puts good taste through the wardrobe wringer.”

Meryl Streep: “She looks like a gypsy abandoned by a caravan.”

Sharon Stone: “An over-the-hill Cruella DeVille.”

Lindsay Lohan: “From adorable to deplorable.”

Patti Davis: “Packs all the glamour of an old, worn-out sneaker.”

Ann Margret: “A Hells Angel escapee who invaded the Ziegfeld Follies on a rainy night.”

Camilla Parker-Bowles: “The Duchess of Dowdy.”

Bjork: “She dances in the dark — and dresses there, too.”

Spears: “Her bra-topped collection of Madonna rejects are pure fashion overkill.”

 

Mr. Blackwell developed gay bitchiness to an art form – not an accomplishment to be proud of.

 

 

Chance To Make Many Dollars

Very Dear U.S. Taxpayer Person:

My name is Mrs. Snicker Codwallop and I am writing to you from my deathbed in hospital in Placeyouneverheardof, Nigeria. Before I die lingering, painful but fast coming death due to frightful disease, I want you to know about big chance to get rich fast. My late husband, Mr. Snicker Codwallop, was Head President, Chief Teller and loan officer of First International Universal Trust-In-The-Lord Bank and Storm Door Company of Lagos, Nigeria. He die and leave me bank – also two goats – but goats not part of deal. I keep goats. I not negotiate about goats.

So, now we get to big money part of deal. Big hearted U.S. government is going to buy billions of dollars worth of stupid, really dumb investments from all banks who were run by ignorant, greedy people who thought money grows on trees. Well, guess what? They were right. It does. Last night an angel appeared unto me (I’m on my death death bed remember – these things happen) Angel said to me “Mrs. Codwallop…” I said, “Call me Beverly, please.” (That not my real name but you know, this angel a stranger and I no fool. Next thing, maybe asking me for my credit card numbers or something.) So, Angel say “OK Beverly. I know that not your name, me being angel and able to know stuff and all (which proofs he real angel) but I go along. I come give you secret info, make ever-body real rich, because you good Christian woman and on death bed and have goats to provide for. You tell American peoples this big chance. Ever-body who buy something really stupid, like Hummer, or mortgage that has no fixed rate but changes randomly, or stock shares in company like Lehman that doesn’t really do anything but own stock in other companies that own stock in other companies that maybe, somewhere way down the line, actually do some work, or whole series DVD package of “Survivor” or “The Apprentice,” or a McDonald’s Happy Meal or anything else that is really dumb way to throw money in toilet, can REJOICE! U.S. Government, who loves you like mother, is going to give back all money you piss away like fool! Now Cynthia, which is you real name, not Beverly (you see? I tell you this real angel!) You got raggedy-ass little bank but what you don’t got is dumb U.S. investments. So – you tell all U.S. peoples who got mortgages they can’t pay and Hummers they wish they never met to give all that to you because you a stupid, greedy banker, which is all qualification you need to get zillions of bucks from wonderful congress. Then you send U.S. peoples 10% of what you get, to be fair. Right now they got bubkas, so 10% is a lot. OK? Get busy with emails.”

So OK, wonderful U.S. broke peoples, send me your mortgages, deeds, bank account numbers and credit card info, hurry up fast. Remember I dying and not much time to do all this paper work. After I collect from Congress, send you check for sure. Promise. After all, you bought that really stupid mortgage that had no fixed interest rate so why you not believe me when I got real angel tell us what to do?

With All My Love, Mrs. Snicker Codwallop (Cynthia to you)

Lunacy Abroad In The Land

Just when we thought things could not get worse – what with the catastrophic Bush years, the economic melt-down, the building confrontation with Russia and the price of gas, along comes the pit bull with lipstick. What a choice analogy that is! The pit bull- a stubborn, quarrelsome, violence-prone breed known for it’s stupidity and unpredictability – quite as likely to attack the postman or a child in the back yard as a real threat. That’s our Sarah all right. That a person as devoid of credentials could possibly be catapulted into a situation where she is, in the famous phrase, “a heartbeat away for the presidency” (in the case of the very senior McCain, not an unlikely development) is simply astonishing unless one has a deep understanding of the abysmal ignorance and anti-intellectualism that pervades the vast throng of the citizens of this country. It is remarkable that, in a country where almost everyone wants their kids to go to college and which in fact has the best system of higher education in the world, the prevailing sentiment is one of rejection of learning, of genuine scholarship in favor of simplistic dogma. Of course, there are colleges and there are colleges. On the one hand, we have Princeton, Harvard, MIT, the great state universities, the superb small colleges such as our own College of New Jersey – and then we have the hundreds of jumped up technical schools, self-appointed “universities” that are in fact mere trade schools and the plethora of troglodyte religious colleges such as the absurd Bob Jones “University” or Falwell’s Liberty University. It’s a mixed bag indeed. A great many graduates are provided with the job skills needed to make a living but only a relative handful actually get an education. This being the case, we should not be surprised at Sarah Palin’s overnight rocket ride to celebrity status. That she is an ardent suporter of Creationism and hence must be assumed to believe in “Bishop Usher’s Generations” – that the world is a bit more than 6,000 years old and God created the fossils just to screw around with our heads resonates well with a public that finds the Sunday comics an intellectual challenge and can not absorb information that requires more than one sound byte on Fox News. The contradictions between the Palin Presentation being foisted by the Republican party, and the facts of Palin’s career evidently require too much thought and analysis to prevent the possibility of a soccer mom presidency. Now, of course we all love soccer moms – backbone of the nation and all that – but I hope to be forgiven for failing to see how shopping at Walmart and driving the kids to practice qualifies one for the most challenging position in the Western world. Wouldn’t a little education be nice? Of course, Mrs. Palin went to college – five of them in six years. That indicates either a real quest for knowledge OR an utter failure to meet minimum standards – you decide.

Then there is her Fahrenheit 451 predilection. Among her first steps as mayor of what Karl Rove referred to as “the second biggest city in Alaska” (population 9,000 – wow! what a metropolis) was to try to ban books in the library. We’d love to know what books. Specious lists have been circulating on the internet but as yet no authoritative list has been made public. Of course, we can assume Harry Potter figured prominently – just a guess of course, but one I’m confident about. Given the chance, I’m sure Sarah could really go to town on The Library of Congress.

Sarah opposes sex education – the lack of which is clearly evident in her own family. Her press release announcing her young daughter’s unwed pregnancy was immediately followed by her campaign’s harsh criticism of the press for paying attention to it.

The Church Sarah belongs to – a fundamentalist, evangelical sect several times declared heretical by the natonal organization of The Assembly of God (and trust me, when you are too loony for The Assembly of God, you are waaaay out there) believes the Virgin Mary to be “Diana the Queen of Heaven and in fact to be the chief demon corrupting the world, has conducted expeditions to to plant prayer flags on Mt. Everest in order to create some sort of protective shield against the evil machinations of demon Mary, teaches that Christianity (their brand) must take over the world by force and actively supports “ex-gay therapy.” And that is but a sample of their documented insanity. Can we pause here a moment to note a certain inconsistency in the major media? Obama’s former pastor makes a few remarks which, taken out of context, seem questionable and there is a media firestorm about it. Palin’s outfit condemns the entire Catholic Church as devil worshipers and argues for a world-wide suppression by force of all other belief systems and what do we hear about it? Barely a word. none of this is classified. Not only has the alternative media been reporting it in detail, (see www.alternet.org/story/97939/ ) any reporter can ask the church leaders themselves. They don’t make a secret of it. As I write this, they are promoting one of their ex-gay outreach programs.

So, we are talking about a vice presidential candidate who rejects science and scholarship, wants to ban books, thinks we should eliminate all religions but hers from the planet, believes demons are running the world and wants to convert gays by having them come to Jesus. BUT, she’s a soccer mom and that trumps everything else in the minds of a large number of our fellow citizens. I shall retire to Bedlam!

Then we have the ultimate lunacy of the endorsement of McCain – Palin by the Log Cabin Republicans – largely, according to James Kirchick’s op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal of Sept. 9, because Gays were not overtly bashed at this year’s Republican convention, as we certainly were at the previous one. Of course, the logic of being a gay Republican is hard to fathom – just as being a black member of the KKK or a Jewish member of the NAZIs would be, to give an extreme example. Are they simply brainless fools who can’t tell the buttered side of their bread without a guide book? Are they mostly rich people who put their financial well being ahead of the liberation of their community? There really aren’t any other choices – they’re either crazy or venal. They might be both. But then, there are a lot of ignorant and/or crazy people in this country as the rise of Sarah Palin so graphically demonstrates

Going Postal

On a recent August afternoon , I went to the downtown branch of the Trenton Post Office to mail a package. It was the mild, pleasant afternoon of a quiet day. I confidently expected an uneventful mission. I’ve been to this post office more times than I can count and never has there been a moment of discord or an inkling of difficulty – other, of course, than the glacial pace at wich the line moves. It was therefore, a few moments before I realized the elderly man in front of me was talking to a lady in front of him about…me! Well, not me precisely but about “those ho-mo-sexyulls” in general. He didn’t look like a redneck. He was a fit, man of about 65 or 70, nicely dressed in what appeared to be tennis clothes. As I stood in increasing anger, he proceeded to explain that God was going to destroy the United States becuase of the rapidly increasing tolerance of evil – “ho-mo-sexyulls! Now they let ‘em adopt kids! That’s just wrong, lettin’ kids grow up with perverts. I’ve studied the word of God and it says that’s wrong! Don’t really matter who wins the election ’cause God’s going to destroy this country just like he’s destroyed every civilization that tolterated ho-mo-sexyulls!”

The lady he was burdening with all this unrequested analysis had adopted a far-away look and periodically nodded, repeating “oh, I know,” as a mantra. Clearly what she knew was that she was dealing with a nut-case fundie and argument was futile. In this regard her self control is more advanced than mine. After about five minutes of this discourse, I broke in with “excuse me sir, but you are wrong. No civilization in all of history ever fell because of gay liberation. It simply never happened.”  The old man wheeled on me and loudly informed me God told him differently. “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!” Yes he really did trot out that old chestnut. I relied that was a myth. He replied it was in the Bible and back and forth we went, getting louder and louder. He informed me we would ruin any kids we adopted. I asked him how many kids he had adopted. He said he’d had his the normal way. I asked “where are they now?” He replied “doin’ real good. The kid’s down to Yardville (Youth Correctional Center) getting his GED.” I said, “so, let me get this straight now – your kid is in jail, getting a GED and my adopted son is in an Ivy League grad school, getting an M.A., another is conquering the fashon world, another is talking to Harper Collins about a book deal and another is on the Dean’s List …but it’s YOU that are providing the good home and ME that’s going to destroy kids. I see.” (turning to the rest of the long line behind us) Does that make sense to you people? I mean, are you with us here? Are you following this chain of impeccable logic this gentleman is blessing us with?” (The crowd mutters – this could turn ugly!)

“I love ya,” the old man countered with. “I hate what you do but I love you.” “Oh Puh-lease,” I reply. “Spare me the condescension.”  Two people behind us were now getting involved. One man was muttering “it aint right. It just aint right.” The woman next to him lit into him with “what do you know about raising kids anyway. You only see yours at Christmas!”  He countered with “maybe, but they know I’m there if they need me.” The woman snorted. “Yeah, they need you and you’re there, waaay over there in left field somewhere useless.”

At this point the clerk behind the counter, a man of substantial presence, slammed a book hard on the counter and firmly said “all of you folks that want to debate,  please step OUTside and let the people that want to get stamps do business, NOW!” That reduced us all to muttering and evil looks. Don’t ask me why I got involved in the useless effort of arguing with the old man. I knew before I began it was an absolute waste of effort, except for one thing – it would have been worse to not challenge him – to cede the ground, any ground, without a fight. At least he learned that you never know who is listening and when stupidity and bigotry will be confronted with unexpected anger. Maybe he’ll watch his mouth next time.

Robert George – moral fascist

In an article in the May 27, 2003 issue of The National Review, Princeton Professor and notorious Bush-favorite, neo-con theorist Robert George wrote: “In Lawrence v. Texas, proponents of judicial activism in the cause of liberal ideological goals are asking the Supreme Court of the United States to do something the justices have never done before: Throw the mantle of constitutional protection around a type of non-marital sex act. The Supreme Court has never recognized a right to fornication, adultery, or any other form of sexual misconduct. …Nothing … forbids states from banning outright adultery, fornication, or other immoral sex acts.”

 

For purposes of this discussion, we may say there are two kinds of people in this world; those who want to control their own lives and those who want to control other people’s. It really does come down to that once all the mountainous encrustation of dogma and philosophy has been stripped away. Persons in the latter category can be categorized generally as fascists. That isn’t a pretty word and it is often flung about too loosely as a sort of generic insult. By its use here, we mean persons who believe the individual can not be permitted to make ultimate decisions about his or her own life and must have a moral code prescribed by an elite – a code enforced by the state. Do not confuse this with communism, which includes theories of economic and historical interpretation not addressed by fascism. Fascism in its most basic form is the subordination of the individual to the will of the elite. That definition might also apply to absolute monarchy, aristocracy and “Venetian Oligarchy” as well, but fascism differs in that it carries no historical validation. It does not represent the sum of ancient traditions expressing the character and values of the nation, nor is it modified by concepts such as noblesse oblige. It is a system imposed by political opportunists for the benefit of themselves and their supporters. It is typically fleshed out by a philosophy that structures the individual’s life in as meticulous a manner as possible, justified by the supposedly superior wisdom of the leaders. Normally, it means dictatorship and is the very antithesis of the American political/social ideal. 

 

Of course, no political philosophy is applied in intellectually pure form to practical situations. As an example, surely the most libertarian among us, on coming upon a citizen who was engaged in seriously injuring himself with a knife, would endorse police restraint thereof, pending psychological evaluation. It might turn out that this person was a devotee of some esoteric religion, to which his devotion is measured by the degree of self inflicted pain he endures. His right to practice such a faith might then be a subject of court determination. Or, he might just be insane and need to be hospitalized. A responsible and caring society will take the time and effort required to examine the case and make the best determination our professionals can offer. We cannot characterize such interference in a private life as fascism. What can we so characterize then? AH! That’s where the arguments begin.

 

Let’s go to the other extreme. Were the government to dictate what occupation we must follow, where we must reside and what our religious beliefs must be, surely we can all agree it would be fascistic. Were it to decide our personal code of morality for us, we would be outraged – yet here again it is not so simple. Our personal code is, in fact in large part dictated to us by the authorities acting on the basis of what is perceived to be the popular consensus. We are not permitted to steal, to lie under oath, to abuse the helpless, and so on. These are matters of morality. They are also matters of legitimate concern to the orderly functioning of society. Where then is the line that Authority may not cross? There is no fixed and permanent line. The Line has been in continuous debate and reinterpretation since the dawn of time and will continue thus until the end of the world. To a large extent, it is determined at any given time by what upsets people the most. If a birdbath is stolen from my front lawn tonight, I would probably expend much more anger and emotion about it than I do about the fact that EXXON is robbing this entire country blind at the rate of ten to twelve billion dollars per fiscal quarter. The police will investigate my missing birdbath, but Big Oil gets a free pass. Morality tends to be personal in its applications.

 

Homosexuality was, in living memory, a matter of automatic moral condemnation. We have engaged in a vast, generation-long program of re-education, protest and political activism resulting in a measurable and dramatic change. That condemnation is now neither automatic nor popular. The consensus for some time now has been that sexual expression between adults is a matter of private interest and not of societal or governmental regulation. The majority is no longer upset by it and the line has shifted. That this is a fact is borne out by every sort of statistic and survey one can imagine. It is quite simply, indisputable. This places Robert George in the position of being a fascist.

 

In the opening quote, Professor George presumes the immorality of homosexuality, prima fascia. In this article as well as other writings and public addresses, George advocates for a society which imposes the sexual morality HE thinks best – a conservative, Catholic/Christian view – one which surveys have repeatedly shown is no longer accepted even by the majority of Catholics. Rising to the professor’s defense, one might say “but fascism is a way of governing the entire, complex social order – not only in personal affairs but also regarding ‘making the trains run on time.’ George is only talking about marriage and sexual issues. Aren’t you painting him with too broad a brush?” I think not.

 

Moral authoritarianism must suppose a mechanism of enforcement. We know for the historical experience of the Queer Community that such enforcement reaches into and affects every aspect of community life including housing, employment and politics. George’s moral fascism would return us to the era when the government routinely debased itself by determinedly destroying the lives of citizens who did not follow the narrow code of sexual expression approved by those who had set themselves up as the arbiters of morality for all mankind – a handful of religious potentates and their political handmaidens.

 

Not content with philosophizing from his ivory tower and prescribing for the world based on his own limited experience of life, the unmarried Professor George has decided to take an active role in fighting the advent of same-sex marriage. Having myself seen the physically, shall we say ‘unprepossessing’ professor and heard him express his views in terms of breathtaking intellectual arrogance, I could assure him that he is in absolutely no danger of being seduced into a same-sex marriage himself, unless by a gay man who is blind, deaf and celibate. Still, I suppose we are all sometimes prone to irrational fears.

 

Acting together with a hack writer named Gallagher and a handful of other troglodytes,

George has formed something called The National Organization For Marriage. At first I presumed it must be a nation-wide search to find him a mate, since that is the sort of broad effort that would no doubt be required. But no. It is yet another nasty but well-funded little group of moral fascists, determined to impose their own views on the rest of the world. These people do become so tiresome and yet we cannot ignore the fact they have buckets of money to spend as well as influence on the level of White House entrée.

The Knights of Columbus, regardless of the fact that Catholic schools are collapsing all over New Jersey, decided George’s little band of mental brown shirts was a worthy recipient of a quarter million dollars of the Catholic Faithful’s money. Previously, some fabulously rich old loon in Connecticut gave them what was reported to be a half million. These people are not to be causally dismissed. The money is to finance an active PR campaign against the prospect of same-sex marriage here in New Jersey as well as other states.

 

All of this places Princeton University in the uncomfortable position of supporting an outspoken fascist who is engaged in actively attempting to impose his agenda on an unwilling citizenry. Were he a Holocaust denier or an advocate of theories of racial inequality, or eugenics or the inferiority of woman or any number of other bankrupt philosophies that have been consigned to the dustbin of history, the university would have George bounced out on his bony rear end in less time than it takes to say “academic freedom does not include the right to twist the truth or to impose your views on others.” George has taken his views out of the protected environment of academia and put them in the public market place in a clear effort to so impose. The university has a right and a duty to consider how this reflects on the institution and on the general principals it espouses. The Queer Community has a right to ask “why is this man permitted to assault our lives, when he would most certainly NOT be permitted to assault the lives of other groups as above noted.”

 

I don’t like Robert George and I would enjoy any opportunity to do him a disservice. However, I will absolutely defend his right to speak his mind to his heart’s content. That does not mean that he is entitled to the platform of one of the world’s greatest universities. His ideas would be more appropriate to a soapbox in the park.