http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/state/15264913.htm
Contra Costa Times
Sunday, August 13,2006
Religious refugees lock horns with Sacramento gays
Christian Slavs, who are not used to seeing open homosexuality, protest at parade, school boards
By Dorothy Korber
SACRAMENTO BEE
SACRAMENTO - Thousands of religious refugees mass in the streets of Sacramento to shout "Shame!" Their targets, with their own history of persecution still fresh and raw, retort: "Go back to Russia!"
How did it come to this?
In the past few months, the growing conflict between Sacramento's Slavic Christians and its politically savvy gay community has erupted on campuses, at school board hearings and on the grounds of the Capitol.
Russian-speaking hecklers lined the march of this year's gay pride parade downtown. At least 15 Slavic students were suspended in April for wearing shirts proclaiming, "Homosexuality is sin." This spring, Slavic Christians packed board meetings in three local school districts to make their position clear: Being gay is not OK.
Gays are starting to respond in kind. A dozen staged a counterprotest in July, demonstrating outside the region's largest evangelical Slavic church during Sunday morning services.
Gays say the Slavic protesters have hit them with signs, spit on them and displayed a menacing lack of civility. Gay leaders have met with local police and press to say they are worried about violence, and now they are forming a "Q Crew" -- a new political activism group -- to tell the public their fears.
"They're more and more brazen with their signs and their numbers," said Tina Reynolds, a lesbian activist and owner of a gallery in downtown Sacramento. "It's much more in our face, and I'm beginning to feel like something's going to happen."
Beyond the surface animosity, this is a collision of two powerful forces: a deeply held religious conviction and the determined march of homosexuals toward equal rights.
The region's large Russian-speaking Christian community, usually shy of publicity, is stepping into the public eye, saying they have to save California from a dangerous moral decline. Gay leaders worry that these protests will erode their community's political progress and spoil the security they have come to feel in Sacramento.
The evangelical Slavs, refugees who fled religious persecution in the former Soviet Union, are finally hitting their stride in the land of the free. They came for the freedom to worship. Now they say they are exercising the freedom of speech to spread a fundamental belief: Homosexuality is a sin and a choice.
"We have tasted the power of democracy -- now we go and protest," said George Neverov, a Baptist who emigrated from Uzbekistan in 1991 and lives in Carmichael. The father of three young daughters, he is a vocal opponent of any endorsement of homosexuality in the public schools.
"Am I against tolerance?" said Neverov, 33. "God forbid, no. But my whole belief system is based on the Bible. I say homosexuality is a sin. Why are you offended by that?"
Gay activists contend that this sentiment, when aggressively expressed in public protests, is nothing less than hate speech. The demonstrations seem suffused with a frightening rage, they say.
"At their protests, it's all about God, burning in hell and sodomy," said Darrick Lawson, president of Sacramento's Stonewall Democratic Club, a gay political organization. "They want to use their rights and freedoms to suppress another community. It goes against the reasons they moved here. The Bible never taught this kind of hatred."
Lawson, the son of an evangelical pastor, spent nearly three years in therapy trying to overcome his homosexuality before accepting it.
"We have no problem with them saying this in their churches," Lawson said. "Do I want to ban them from Gay Pride? No. I don't. In no way do I want to infringe upon the right they came here for. But they need to consider our safety and play by the rules."
These refugees say they understand rules. They fled from an officially atheistic society where the rules discriminated against the religious. People of faith sometimes were imprisoned, their children wrenched from them, their careers stalled.
Some harbor memories of a grandfather executed, a grandmother who died in jail.
Community leaders estimate 100,000 Russian-speaking residents live in the Sacramento region, about a third of them evangelical Christians. Mostly Ukrainian Baptists or Pentecostals, many came here in recent decades believing the United States was a Christian nation -- a place where their literal interpretation of the Bible would be the rule.
Instead, they landed in freewheeling California and encountered a culture of widespread divorce, premarital sex and -- almost unheard of in their home countries open homosexuality.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Contemporary wisdom...
TO ALL THE KIDS
WHO SURVIVED the
1930's 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's !!
First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they were pregnant.
They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a can, and didn't get tested for diabetes.
Then after that trauma, we were put to sleep on our tummies in baby cribs covered with bright colored lead-based paints.
We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets and when we
rode our bikes, we had no helmets, not to mention, the risks we took hitchhiking.
As infants &children, we would ride in cars with no car seats, booster seats, seat belts or air bags.
Riding in the back of a pick up on a warm day was always a special treat.
We drank water from the garden hose and NOT from a bottle.
We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and
NO ONE actually died from this.
We ate cupcakes, white bread and real butter and drank koolade made with sugar, but we weren't overweight because
WE WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE PLAYING !
We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on.
No one was able to reach us all day.
And we were O.K.
We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride down
the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.
We did not have Playstations, Nintendo's, X-boxes, no video games at all, no 150 channels on cable, no video movies or DVD's, no surround-sound or CD's, no cell phones, no personal computer! s, no Internet or chat rooms.......
WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them!
We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no
lawsuits from these accidents.
We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us forever.
We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays,
made up games with sticks and tennis balls and, although we were told it would happen, we did not put out very many eyes.
We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or rang
the bell, or just walked in and talked to them!
Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment. Imagine that!!
The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of.
They actually sided with the law!
These generations have produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever!
The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas.
We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned
HOW TO
DEAL WITH IT ALL!
If YOU are one of them . . CONGRATULATIONS!
You might want to share this with others who have had the luck to grow up as
kids, before the lawyers and the government regulated so much of our lives
for our own good .
And while you are at it, forward it to your kids so they will know how brave (and lucky) their parents were.
Kind of makes you want to run through the house with scissors, doesn't it?!
WHO SURVIVED the
1930's 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's !!
First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they were pregnant.
They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a can, and didn't get tested for diabetes.
Then after that trauma, we were put to sleep on our tummies in baby cribs covered with bright colored lead-based paints.
We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets and when we
rode our bikes, we had no helmets, not to mention, the risks we took hitchhiking.
As infants &children, we would ride in cars with no car seats, booster seats, seat belts or air bags.
Riding in the back of a pick up on a warm day was always a special treat.
We drank water from the garden hose and NOT from a bottle.
We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and
NO ONE actually died from this.
We ate cupcakes, white bread and real butter and drank koolade made with sugar, but we weren't overweight because
WE WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE PLAYING !
We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on.
No one was able to reach us all day.
And we were O.K.
We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride down
the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.
We did not have Playstations, Nintendo's, X-boxes, no video games at all, no 150 channels on cable, no video movies or DVD's, no surround-sound or CD's, no cell phones, no personal computer! s, no Internet or chat rooms.......
WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them!
We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no
lawsuits from these accidents.
We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us forever.
We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays,
made up games with sticks and tennis balls and, although we were told it would happen, we did not put out very many eyes.
We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or rang
the bell, or just walked in and talked to them!
Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment. Imagine that!!
The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of.
They actually sided with the law!
These generations have produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever!
The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas.
We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned
HOW TO
DEAL WITH IT ALL!
If YOU are one of them . . CONGRATULATIONS!
You might want to share this with others who have had the luck to grow up as
kids, before the lawyers and the government regulated so much of our lives
for our own good .
And while you are at it, forward it to your kids so they will know how brave (and lucky) their parents were.
Kind of makes you want to run through the house with scissors, doesn't it?!
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Are the minutemen and the KKK the same thing?
Using a provocative tactic, made famous by the Orangemen in N. Ireland and utilized by the KKK and neo-nazis on many occasions, the Minutemen marched directly down a thoroughfare packed with the very people they target.
The Minutemen numbered about 120 while counter-protesters numbered around 200. I'm sure the reports on numbers will vary widely but the march was handcounted and 120 is the number I have.
A professional crowd counting service hired by a radio station on March 25 estimated the crowd at La Gran Marcha 2006 at 1.7 million. If this is true today's march was almost 15,000 times smaller. Miniscule by comparison. Just a blip.
LAPD numbered around 100. Police presence was heavy and the Minutemen, like the KKK before them, marched with a police escort. The Minutemen acting brave and jovial behind the heavy riot police guard but I'm sure they weren't happy with the way things occurred.
Homeless advocate turned anti-immigrant token black activist Ted Hayes marched arm-in-arm with known migrant hunter Jim Gilchrist. The unusual looking Barbara Coe also marched arm-in-arm with Hayes.
Save Our State leader Joe Turner was not spotted and appeared to be absent from the proceedings.
Another strange turn saw the Minutemen marching with a banner reading "Civil Rights in Mexico".
The counter-protesters were loud and they followed the Minutemen all the way up to City Hall. At City Hall the police line was extended and counter-protesters were not allowed to get near the racist rally was taking place on the steps.
Little by little various Minutemen and their supporters made their way down the hill, across the lawn toward the side where the counter-protestors had amassed. In an apparent error in planning, porta-potties were set up on the other side of the police line right next to the counter-protestors.
Originally dubbed an American Civil Rights March organized initially by Ted Hayes, the numbers of African-American participants on the Minuteman side were very, very small.
Let's be honest, the total of all Minutemen participants was very, very small.
The Minutemen numbered about 120 while counter-protesters numbered around 200. I'm sure the reports on numbers will vary widely but the march was handcounted and 120 is the number I have.
A professional crowd counting service hired by a radio station on March 25 estimated the crowd at La Gran Marcha 2006 at 1.7 million. If this is true today's march was almost 15,000 times smaller. Miniscule by comparison. Just a blip.
LAPD numbered around 100. Police presence was heavy and the Minutemen, like the KKK before them, marched with a police escort. The Minutemen acting brave and jovial behind the heavy riot police guard but I'm sure they weren't happy with the way things occurred.
Homeless advocate turned anti-immigrant token black activist Ted Hayes marched arm-in-arm with known migrant hunter Jim Gilchrist. The unusual looking Barbara Coe also marched arm-in-arm with Hayes.
Save Our State leader Joe Turner was not spotted and appeared to be absent from the proceedings.
Another strange turn saw the Minutemen marching with a banner reading "Civil Rights in Mexico".
The counter-protesters were loud and they followed the Minutemen all the way up to City Hall. At City Hall the police line was extended and counter-protesters were not allowed to get near the racist rally was taking place on the steps.
Little by little various Minutemen and their supporters made their way down the hill, across the lawn toward the side where the counter-protestors had amassed. In an apparent error in planning, porta-potties were set up on the other side of the police line right next to the counter-protestors.
Originally dubbed an American Civil Rights March organized initially by Ted Hayes, the numbers of African-American participants on the Minuteman side were very, very small.
Let's be honest, the total of all Minutemen participants was very, very small.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
ACT NOW and sign the petition.
ACT NOW and sign the petition.
Click here to sign the petition
The founders of our nation believed that all Americans should have the right to worship according to their own beliefs, or not to worship at all. So strong was their commitment to religious freedom that they enshrined it in the first sentence of the Bill of Rights.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
This constitutional guarantee is often known as the "first freedom."
Religion is a deeply personal matter. Americans must be free to practice their religion without coercion. Government exists to provide for the general well-being of all people, and its workings must be independent of specific religious doctrines. Simply put, there must be a separation of church and state.
If we do not stand together as a nation, we stand to lose this fundamental freedom.
We, the undersigned, call upon elected and appointed officials to join us in reaffirming America's religious freedom by demonstrating a commitment to the following:
* Every American should have the right to make personal decisions -- about family life, reproductive health, end of life care and other matters of personal conscience.
* American tax dollars should not go to charities that discriminate in hiring based on religious belief or that promote a particular religious faith as a requirement for receiving services.
* Political candidates should not be endorsed or opposed by houses of worship.
* Public schools should teach with academic integrity and without the promotion of religious preference or belief.
* Decisions about scientific and health policies should be based on the best available scientific data, not on religious doctrine.
We join together, as the most diverse nation in the world, to commit ourselves to defending and preserving this freedom.
Click here to sign the petition
The founders of our nation believed that all Americans should have the right to worship according to their own beliefs, or not to worship at all. So strong was their commitment to religious freedom that they enshrined it in the first sentence of the Bill of Rights.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
This constitutional guarantee is often known as the "first freedom."
Religion is a deeply personal matter. Americans must be free to practice their religion without coercion. Government exists to provide for the general well-being of all people, and its workings must be independent of specific religious doctrines. Simply put, there must be a separation of church and state.
If we do not stand together as a nation, we stand to lose this fundamental freedom.
We, the undersigned, call upon elected and appointed officials to join us in reaffirming America's religious freedom by demonstrating a commitment to the following:
* Every American should have the right to make personal decisions -- about family life, reproductive health, end of life care and other matters of personal conscience.
* American tax dollars should not go to charities that discriminate in hiring based on religious belief or that promote a particular religious faith as a requirement for receiving services.
* Political candidates should not be endorsed or opposed by houses of worship.
* Public schools should teach with academic integrity and without the promotion of religious preference or belief.
* Decisions about scientific and health policies should be based on the best available scientific data, not on religious doctrine.
We join together, as the most diverse nation in the world, to commit ourselves to defending and preserving this freedom.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Thank you, APA!
American Psychological Association criticizes “ex-gay” proponents
The American Psychological Association (APA) released a statement Thursday criticizing groups such as Focus on the Family for creating an “environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish” by erroneously labeling homosexuality an illness and advocating for so-called “conversion therapy.” The statement was issued during the APA’s annual convention, which drew an anti-gay protest led by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). Truth Wins Out held its own event to counter NARTH; the APA issued this statement:
“For over three decades the consensus of the mental health community has been that homosexuality is not an illness and therefore not in need of a cure. The APA’s concern about the positions espoused by NARTH and so-called conversion therapy is that they are not supported by the science. There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Our further concern is that the positions espoused by NARTH and Focus on the Family create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.”
For a comprehensive analysis of the “ex-gay” movement, see the recent Task Force Policy Institute study Youth in the Crosshairs: The Third Wave of the Ex-Gay Movement.
The American Psychological Association (APA) released a statement Thursday criticizing groups such as Focus on the Family for creating an “environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish” by erroneously labeling homosexuality an illness and advocating for so-called “conversion therapy.” The statement was issued during the APA’s annual convention, which drew an anti-gay protest led by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). Truth Wins Out held its own event to counter NARTH; the APA issued this statement:
“For over three decades the consensus of the mental health community has been that homosexuality is not an illness and therefore not in need of a cure. The APA’s concern about the positions espoused by NARTH and so-called conversion therapy is that they are not supported by the science. There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Our further concern is that the positions espoused by NARTH and Focus on the Family create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.”
For a comprehensive analysis of the “ex-gay” movement, see the recent Task Force Policy Institute study Youth in the Crosshairs: The Third Wave of the Ex-Gay Movement.
Abstinence-only message misguided
Abstinence-only message misguided
Aug. 14, 2006
The Toronto Star
SCOTT H. EVERTZ AND SANDRA L. THURMAN
We come from opposite sides of the aisle, having served in the same role as director of national AIDS policy under President George Bush and President Bill Clinton, respectively. Still, we agree on one thing:
America isn't getting the job done on AIDS.
This week, nearly 25,000 scientists, policy-makers, activists, and HIV-positive people will meet in Toronto for the 16th International AIDS Conference to discuss progress and challenges in fighting the global AIDS pandemic.
One nation under the HIV prevention microscope is the United States. After all, it was to resounding applause that Bush announced in his 2003 State of the Union address his monumental commitment to fight the AIDS pandemic. But advocates and scientists alike fear that U.S. prevention policy has shifted from a truly comprehensive "ABC" approach — abstinence, be faithful
(monogamy) and condom use — to an ideologically-driven abstinence-until-marriage focus that places many at risk of needlessly contracting HIV.
That fear is particularly warranted when it comes to young people. The U.S. prevention policy for the world's youth is limited to abstinence and, for those who are already sexually active, a commitment to refrain from further sexual activity, or "secondary virginity." This policy doesn't make sense given that teens and young adults now account for more than half of all new HIV infections and more than one-third of people living with AIDS.
As representatives of U.S. AIDS policy under two administrations, we have met countless young people around the world for whom a comprehensive approach to HIV prevention can quite literally be a lifesaver: the young AIDS orphan on the streets of Kampala trading sex for food to care for her siblings; the teen girl in Lagos reliant on a "sugar-daddy" to finance her education; the young Indian woman sent to work in a brothel to provide income for her family; the young gay teen in Washington, D.C. told to abstain until married when marriage is not possible.
These young people must be provided with the education and tools to minimize their risk while society labours to eliminate the root causes that landed them in these untenable positions in the first place.
Our first-hand experience has been backed up by hard research. According to Advocates for Youth, a Washington, D.C.-based public health agency, there are more than 11 million unmarried, sexually active youth in countries targeted by the president's AIDS initiative, making a primary reliance on abstinence messaging dangerously misguided. The notion of "secondary virginity" is fine in theory, but has little relevance as a public health strategy in the real world.
A report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office showed that the abstinence-until-marriage funding requirement in the president's AIDS plan is undermining HIV prevention efforts on the ground and creating confusion and fear among grantees regarding the appropriate role of condoms. What's more, the U.S.-based Society for Adolescent Medicine found that the "U.S. emphasis on abstinence may also have reduced condom availability and access to accurate information on HIV/AIDS in some countries." These are serious missteps if the U.S. is committed to stemming the spread of HIV.
Let us be clear: abstinence must be part of any effective HIV prevention campaign. Likewise, condoms are the single most effective prevention tool we have for those who are sexually active. Attempts to censor information about condoms or abstinence are incompatible with sound public health policy and basic common sense.
This country committed — with 188 other United Nations member states — to reduce by 25 per cent the rate of infection in young people by 2005. Now, we must face the grim reality that U.S. HIV prevention policy has helped make that much-needed accomplishment impossible. Every day, more than 6,000 young people, ages 14 through 24, become infected with HIV. In sum, we have failed our youth.
The world's youth need the endorsement of a truly comprehensive approach to prevention — including both lessons in abstinence and condom use. That is the only way the U.S. and its allies in the fight against AIDS will live up to their stated commitments to turning the tide on this terrible pandemic.
www.thestar.com
Aug. 14, 2006
The Toronto Star
SCOTT H. EVERTZ AND SANDRA L. THURMAN
We come from opposite sides of the aisle, having served in the same role as director of national AIDS policy under President George Bush and President Bill Clinton, respectively. Still, we agree on one thing:
America isn't getting the job done on AIDS.
This week, nearly 25,000 scientists, policy-makers, activists, and HIV-positive people will meet in Toronto for the 16th International AIDS Conference to discuss progress and challenges in fighting the global AIDS pandemic.
One nation under the HIV prevention microscope is the United States. After all, it was to resounding applause that Bush announced in his 2003 State of the Union address his monumental commitment to fight the AIDS pandemic. But advocates and scientists alike fear that U.S. prevention policy has shifted from a truly comprehensive "ABC" approach — abstinence, be faithful
(monogamy) and condom use — to an ideologically-driven abstinence-until-marriage focus that places many at risk of needlessly contracting HIV.
That fear is particularly warranted when it comes to young people. The U.S. prevention policy for the world's youth is limited to abstinence and, for those who are already sexually active, a commitment to refrain from further sexual activity, or "secondary virginity." This policy doesn't make sense given that teens and young adults now account for more than half of all new HIV infections and more than one-third of people living with AIDS.
As representatives of U.S. AIDS policy under two administrations, we have met countless young people around the world for whom a comprehensive approach to HIV prevention can quite literally be a lifesaver: the young AIDS orphan on the streets of Kampala trading sex for food to care for her siblings; the teen girl in Lagos reliant on a "sugar-daddy" to finance her education; the young Indian woman sent to work in a brothel to provide income for her family; the young gay teen in Washington, D.C. told to abstain until married when marriage is not possible.
These young people must be provided with the education and tools to minimize their risk while society labours to eliminate the root causes that landed them in these untenable positions in the first place.
Our first-hand experience has been backed up by hard research. According to Advocates for Youth, a Washington, D.C.-based public health agency, there are more than 11 million unmarried, sexually active youth in countries targeted by the president's AIDS initiative, making a primary reliance on abstinence messaging dangerously misguided. The notion of "secondary virginity" is fine in theory, but has little relevance as a public health strategy in the real world.
A report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office showed that the abstinence-until-marriage funding requirement in the president's AIDS plan is undermining HIV prevention efforts on the ground and creating confusion and fear among grantees regarding the appropriate role of condoms. What's more, the U.S.-based Society for Adolescent Medicine found that the "U.S. emphasis on abstinence may also have reduced condom availability and access to accurate information on HIV/AIDS in some countries." These are serious missteps if the U.S. is committed to stemming the spread of HIV.
Let us be clear: abstinence must be part of any effective HIV prevention campaign. Likewise, condoms are the single most effective prevention tool we have for those who are sexually active. Attempts to censor information about condoms or abstinence are incompatible with sound public health policy and basic common sense.
This country committed — with 188 other United Nations member states — to reduce by 25 per cent the rate of infection in young people by 2005. Now, we must face the grim reality that U.S. HIV prevention policy has helped make that much-needed accomplishment impossible. Every day, more than 6,000 young people, ages 14 through 24, become infected with HIV. In sum, we have failed our youth.
The world's youth need the endorsement of a truly comprehensive approach to prevention — including both lessons in abstinence and condom use. That is the only way the U.S. and its allies in the fight against AIDS will live up to their stated commitments to turning the tide on this terrible pandemic.
www.thestar.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
