Sociopaths: The Predators Among Us.

This is a repost from a thread I started on SoulForce, in response to a request to elaborate on a statement I made about sociopaths:

But, I can’t stress enough, it needs to be understood and accepted that some people do not have the brain capacity to feel normal emotions, and are human predators, just as sure as the brutality of any wild animal. And they don’t wear a bell, but often times wear an air of disarming charm.

Here’s an article (quoted from below) with some excerpts from another book I just read: Without Conscience: the Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us © 1993.

It pretty much confirmed what I had read in The Sociopath Next Door © 2005.

(Some simple Google searches will lead to a lot of articles on the subject.)

The subjects were asked to perform a simple task: hit a button as soon as they recognized a word flashed on a computer screen. While monitoring the subjects' brain waves, the researchers alternated nonsensical strings of letters with neutral words such as "table," and emotionally evocative words like "maggot" and "cancer." What they found was that normal subjects spent more time processing emotion-laden words than the psychopaths. "When you see a word like 'cancer,' you have all sorts of associations - fear, or you think of someone who's had cancer," says Hare. "But for psychopaths, the word 'cancer' and the word 'table' had the same emotional connotations - which is to say, not very many. It's as if they're emotionally color-blind."

Even more staggering were the findings of a study conducted by New York City psychiatrist Joanne Intrator, with Hare's collaboration, at the Bronx Veterans Administration hospital in 1993. The investigators employed the same language test, this time injecting the subjects with a radioactive tracer and scanning color images of their brains. As normal subjects processed the emotion-laden words, their brains lit up with activity, particularly in the areas around the ventromedial frontal cortex and amygdala. The former plays a crucial role in controlling impulses and long-term planning, while the amygdala is often described as "the seat of emotion." But in the psychopaths, those parts of the brain appeared to remain inactive while processing the emotion-laden words. That, says Hare, helps explain why a psychopath's conscience is only half-formed. "I showed the scans to several neurologists," recalls Hare. "They said that it did not even look like a human brain. One of them asked, 'Is this person from Mars?' "

Tests like these are scientific indicators, there are also checklists of behaviors that are taken into account in the attempt to diagnose a person as sociopathic/psychopathic.

(One caveat here, from what I’ve read, there’s little difference between sociopathy and psychopathy. In regard to the absence of conscience, they are essentially the same. The Wiki article on psychopathy has a section under the heading; Relationship to sociopathy, that helps to clarify.)

I think it's imperative that people become educated on this phenomenon of the human condition. Especially given its scientific nature. People may be much more inclined to accept that some people are inherently “bad” (at least by the standards of someone who does have a conscience), and that no amount of reasoning or love can “reach” them.

Which is not to say that we as a society should give up, but my point here is that if we can see the scientific/genetic factors involved in some of the worst human behaviors in this world, we can then also see that these people are not “bad” or “evil” per se.

Yet at the same time, we will also be able to accept the significance of the threat that people like this present, and by extension, examine and correct the societal influences that exploit the genetic potential that lies within these people.

In Without Conscience, Hare said that the only treatment at this point is first of all, catching it early, as in pre-adolescence. And even then the only practical “therapy” is to teach them that it’s in their own best interests to act in socially acceptable ways, and that EVEN THEN, that may only make the difference between a violent criminal and a white collar criminal.

Martha Stout said in The Sociopath Next Door that in the East, sociopathy is virtually nil, because their entire societies/religions are based on the connectedness of all life - so, though sociopaths/psychopaths there may still have little to no conscience, it is bred into them from an early age that it is in their best interests to behave in socially acceptable ways.

One practical example is that the promiscuity associated with sociopathy (as they are incapable of emotional connection) would be more noticed and less tolerated in such a society, thus passing on less of those genes.

Here in the west, especially the US, we have such an individualistic society, that any sociopathic genetic predisposition (35-50%, regarding any personality trait) will usually become fully expressed in that individual. And by the time they realize that the world is their personal oyster to be exploited, they’re basically lost for good. As I said before, it’s the only disease that does not cause dis-ease.

One point of note, she says that it’s about 4% of the population, whereas Hare and others say 1%.

So say that 1-4% of the population truly has no conscience. No remorse, no guilt, no embarrassment when found out about a lie, or any other horrific act they may have committed. These people have THE biggest human advantage. And the most intelligent among them are going to cause the most damage.

If you read the checklist in the Wiki article, you’ll see that manipulating others is one of the characteristics of psychopathy, as it naturally would be for someone who’s only goal is to get what they want. And manipulation, is really a form of domination.

Now here’s where I’m connecting all this with John Dean’s book, Conservatives Without Conscience. For more information I also have a thread on this here.

Dean talks about three groups, those who score high as Social Dominators (leaders), those who score high as Right Wing Authoritarians (followers), and those particularly “scary,” who score high as both:

...rare “Double Highs” want to be dominators. They probably endorse submission on the RWA scale because they like the idea of others submitting to them. High SDO-high RWAs would win the gold medal in a Prejudice Olympics, having even stronger prejudices than ordinary high SDOs and ordinary high RWAs. They are also more power hungry, more dominance-oriented, meaner, more Machiavellian, and more amoral than any other identifiable group in my samples. They have an almost magical ability to alloy the worst features of social dominators and rightwing authoritarians, and I have likened them to Hitler (Altemeyer, in press). They would seem to be the most likely persons to rise to the top of movements thickly sewn with high RWAs.

In other words, "double highs" are Social dominators who also score high on the follower scale because they’re thinking about how they would like to be followed.

What I’m thinking here is that your naturally manipulative sociopaths/psychopaths are typically going to fall under the Social Dominator category. And that the most intelligent and ambitious among them, are going to fall under the “Double High” category.

From the quote above: “They would seem to be the most likely persons to rise to the top of movements thickly sewn with high RWAs.” And remember, RWA’s are your Right Wing Authoritarian followers. For whatever reasons, they are prone to submitting to authority (think Bible, threat of hell, church think/group think), and as such, are RIPE for being dominated and manipulated by the most intelligent and ambitious sociopaths among us.

The public image of the leaders of the religious right I met with so many times also contrasted with who they really were. In public, they maintained an image that was usually quite smooth, In private, they ranged from unreconstructed bigot reactionaries like Jerry Falwell, to Dr. Dobson, the most power-hungry and ambitious person I have ever met, to Billy Graham, a very weird man indeed who lived an oddly sheltered life in a celebrity/ministry cocoon, to Pat Robertson, who would have a hard time finding work in any job where hearing voices is not a requirement. (p315)

~Frank Schaeffer, Crazy for God

1) For clarification, any personal examples I may use below, does NOT mean that I am saying that that person is a sociopath/psychopath. I’m trying to illustrate a pattern of behavior, the recognition of which lies foremost in the understanding of sociopathy - the absence of conscience.

2) For clarification: This is an almost exclusively conservative phenomenon, as liberal / progressive ideals are inherently egalitarian.

Egalitarian: believing in equality: maintaining, relating to, or based on a belief that all people are, in principle, equal and should enjoy equal social, political, and economic rights and opportunities

I’m not saying progressives are perfect, but I am saying that the heart of our ideals are based on our recognition of the emotional connections we have with others, and the rest of humanity; empathy, love, etc. All of which is the antithesis of a person without conscience.

That said, I’m also not saying that Right Wing Authoritarians are devoid of conscience, but that they are more adept at silencing their conscience. Which, under the right circumstances, most of us are capable of doing. See this post on the Milgram Experiment.

3) It’s generally easier to accept sociopathic behavior coming from a politician than it is from a religious leader. Even when a politician speaks of “moral values,” an air of bluster is a generally accepted accompaniment, as well as the assumption that any such statements were fashioned for the sake of political ends.

Look at David Vitter and Larry Craig, both republicans. Vitter was exposed for having cheated on his wife with prostitutes, and we all know about Larry “not gay” Craig. And after being found out and publicly humiliated, what do they do? Not only go right back to work, but team up to reintroduce the Federal Marriage Amendment as though absolutely nothing had happened!

As the joke goes:

Q: How can you tell when a politician is lying?
A: When his lips are moving

In the realm of politics, sociopathic behavior like that is to be expected. So I'm not saying that those two are sociopaths, as I do not throw the term around lightly. I would, however, consider Rob Blagojevich---in response to his corruption scandal---to be a case study.

4) Now, and this is what I’ve been wrestling with since I got involved in this equal-rights fight in ‘04, religious leaders are a whole different animal when it comes to explaining their sociopathic behavior. Mel White insists that they are sincere in their anti-gay beliefs, and he should know, as he served as ghostwriter to Falwell, Robertson and others.

When Falwell died, I started a thread called The end result of closet atheism? To be clear, it wasn’t meant as a slam on atheism, or atheists.

What I realize now, is that I was attempting to describe sociopathy in regard to the religious leadership that we are so familiar with. But at the time, I was still hung up on the idea that having no conscience must equal not having a belief in God. And I think I’ve figured out how that may not necessarily be the case.

Now, we know that Dobson/ilk they know that they lie, and that they do all that they can to demonize and spread hatred for those of us who are LGBT, and they do so without any regard or regret for the violence done to us or our families and friends. Nor do they take any responsibility when found out. Instead they further attack and play the victim.

A couple more examples before moving on, keeping in mind here that my point is that this behavior is especially perplexing when coming from those who vocally and vehemently attest to what amounts to adherence to the Golden Rule. In this case, Christianity, which admonishes to love, pray for, and do good unto one’s enemies.

Remember the shrieks and howls of victimization in response to the Prop 8 protests? Charges of mob violence were used to describe almost exclusively peaceful protests, and for awhile there, it was a daily occurrence. Box Turtle Bulletin tracked it well, and many LaBarbera awards were handed out. As I posted recently at BTB:

Martha Stout ph.d., author of The Sociopath Next Door, offers that the best clue to the sociopath without conscience is the repeated pity play.

"[A]fter twenty-five years of listening to victims, I realize there is an excellent reason for the sociopathic fondness for pity. As obvious as the nose on one’s face, and just as difficult to see without the help of a mirror, the explanation is that good people will let pathetic individuals get by with murder, so to speak, and therefore any sociopath wishing to continue with his game, whatever it happens to be, should play repeatedly for none other than pity."

Also, in Montgomery County Maryland, there is a group that seems to LIVE for the spreading of hatred against LGBTs. A non-discrimination ordinance was unanimously passed to protect transgendered individuals from discrimination -- the same as race, religion, disability, etc. -- and this group began a campaign to gather signatures to rescind the measure by having it put on last November’s ballot (they were unsuccessful btw).

The sticking point here is that they sold the effort by claiming that it would put women and girls at risk, because now male predators would have unprecedented access to female bathrooms and locker rooms, a bald faced lie. Yet when confronted with this misrepresentation, Michelle Turner, spokeswoman for the group (CRG) said: "If there was a misunderstanding, it was on the part of the individual signing the petition,"

And I’m not pulling this out of nowhere, I was on that blog the whole time, saw their antics and watched the whole thing unfold.

I mention that example, because in both of the books I read, it mentioned how sociopaths view the gullible, naïve and uninformed as deserving of being taken advantage of.

Which elucidates another point. The religious right leaders must despise their constituents. They have to. You don’t lie to people you respect. You don’t encourage people whom you value and cherish to act on false information, that in the end you KNOW will ruin their reputation, or possibly harm themselves and/or their loved ones.

5) A few more numbers here and I’ll sum up. John Dean’s book Conservatives Without Conscience estimates that about 23% of the population is in one of the groups described. Social Dominators, Right Wing Authoritarians, or both. As indicated above, your sociopaths, whatever their percentage may be, would also be included in this grouping.

So, generally speaking, 1-4% of the population has no conscience, and another 20% or so is highly skilled at setting aside their conscience. So let’s round it off to a cool 25% who are either sociopathic, or who are prone to sociopathic tendencies.

Empirically, last I heard (on Chris Matthews a few weeks ago), Bush’s approval rating was at 29%. I also heard that 70% of Americans were now against the war in Iraq (implying that 30% were still for it). So the numbers are similar. And for the sake of contrast, when the war began, it was about 70% in favor.

So here’s my theory, and hopefully my solution.

You’ve got the leaders of the “family” groups who are often sociopaths, and who may or may not believe in God.

Above and beyond the game of politics, what better place to get people to give you money? And tax free at that!

A crafty letter and a stamp is all it takes.

All of the elements are in play. Target those who “love God” and/or are afraid of eternal hell. Especially gullible and sedentary older folk, and housewives who are “too busy” to Google. They get to “protect marriage” and family for future generations, help to prevent the end of civilization, avoid hell, and please God, all by simply writing a check. Not to mention the boost it gives to their feeling of self worth - they may not be able to protest at school board meetings against the “promotion of homosexuality,” but through their donation, someone else can, which makes them a participant in the good fight and makes their lives effortlessly more meaningful.

And the worse the threat that the “homosexual agenda” is presented as, the more significant their donation becomes.

Now, if the leaders of these groups don’t believe in God, then they’re just frauds, and are as Christopher Hitchens described Falwell after his death: “He woke up every morning, as I say, pinching his chubby little flanks and thinking, I have got away with it again.”

Which, if sociopathy is a reality, then the above sentiment, in some circumstances, is a GUARANTEED reality.

Which brings us back to Mel White’s notion that these people are sincere (just sincerely wrong), which I now believe I may understand.

In one sense, sociopaths are just like the rest of us, in that they think that everyone else is just like them. We all tend to project like that. Just as the good hearted see the goodness in others, the person who comprehends only the human rat race of looking out for number one, is incapable of seeing that others are not like them, and do have feelings, and do love. Which may explain their justification in taking advantage of fools, the idea being that if they weren’t fools, they’d be trying to screw them over.

Which is why I feel that it’s imperative that we challenge our own beliefs and perceptions. We deserve to know the truth. And though the truth may be ugly, there is beauty in the desire to face it.

I think what I’m saying is that it’s entirely possible for someone without a conscience to believe in a god. They would just project their universe of meaninglessness and predation onto that god.

In that universe, one would need a written reminder not to kill, rape, rob or steal, and backed up by an ever watchful deity just waiting to pull the plug on your salvation to damn you to an eternity of suffering in a lake of fire.

I often wonder if those who scream so loudly of “God’s laws,” are really just trying to convince themselves. How much hell IS NOT unleashed unto this world, because of the threat of eternal damnation? How many sociopaths are constrained by that fear alone?

But from what I’ve read, even the fear of pain and/or death is a shallow emotion for the sociopath. They also tend to associate love with sexual desire.

So that’s another thing that is essentially a universal part of the human condition that we share with sociopaths, sexual desire. And since sociopaths/psychopaths are inherently devoid of anything but the shallowest of emotions, sexual desire would be the one feeling that would stand out (save perhaps for the fear of death).

And if this sexual feeling is equated with their definition of love, and love is God, then it would make perfect sense to match up their own revulsion for the idea of having sex with a member of their own gender (homosexuality), with “God’s” condemnation of it in the Bible.

Remember, in their world, everyone’s out to get everyone. Enter the gays, and now you have a movement that is trying to reverse the meaning of love itself. Which makes us capable of any and all evil. And just in case there’s any doubt, we can rest assured that even God says so.

Thus, all gay rights are seen as the intentional grossification of society, and are not only suspect, but are seen as Trojan-horses of infectious evil.

In other words, sexual desire is the only real deep feeling that they have. So it would follow that they would perceive God in the same manner. And that would explain why they feel no hypocrisy in focusing on the “sin” of homosexuality to the complete and utter exclusion of all others.

They can’t comprehend a god who really cares about those other sins, at least not like they can comprehend a god who hates homosexuality. Because as a heterosexual, that’s something they can relate to, they HATE the idea of having sex with someone of the same gender.

Now, on paper, the whole theory works out. Same sex attraction really is all about choosing to love what by nature can only be hated. Therefore we “love Satan” and “hate God,” and death and destruction God’s judgment blah blah blah, ensue… Until you get to know some of us, then, not so much.

Like it or not, we are ready made templates of sociopathy itself.

In essence, we have sociopaths, looking at the quintessential template of sociopathy (homosexuality as described above), and seeing themselves expressed in us.

They see our same gender attraction as choosing to reverse the order of conscience - to them, the best and most practical grasp they have on the meaning of conscience, is the “absolute truth” that they are attracted to the opposite sex. Their idea of love, and the deepest “feeling” that they can relate to.

Unlike we moral relativists who “choose” to be attracted to what revolts us the most, and thus choose to “love” the opposite of love itself.

So, again, in essence, we have sociopaths, recognizing and responding to the danger of sociopathy, but doing so by mistakenly equating it with homosexuality.

It’s as f___ed up as it gets.

Which is why I believe that the key to turning this world around for the better, is not in believing in the good in people -- as we already know that -- but in believing in the reality of the worst in people.

It’s not enough to accomplish a utopia in a predator world. In order for it to last it must also be built to withstand any foreseeable attacks.

I believe this is what our founding fathers attempted to do. Three branches of power (government), to minimize the chance that any one could overwhelm the others. And the constitutional, AKA fundamental right to exPRESSion, as in the press, the media, the so-called fourth estate of government to keep an eye on all three branches, in order keep we voting masses from becoming ignorami we’ve now become.

The Barack/Warren thing illustrates this mess so perfectly.

If this were just a disagreement on marriage, such as “marriage vs. civil unions,” then I really wouldn’t have a problem with the pick. At least not enough of one to be throwing the tantrum fit that I’ve been throwing of late.

What scares me -- above and beyond the whole promotion of hatred = promotion of violence = sends a message to other pastors to promote hatred/violence -- is that this scenario is the very breeding ground for another Bush Administration.

When Melissa Etheridge, her partner, Andrew Sullivan, Bob Ostertag, John Corvino, and plenty of others, here and abroad, see this culture war as a mere difference of opinion, I see that they are not seeing the full picture.

And I’m not just talking Rick Warren / Obama here.

I support efforts to reach out, if I didn’t, I wouldn’t be here at Soulforce, and I certainly wouldn’t put my money where my mouth is. Love is good, but sometimes love is also blind. And when love is blind, love can be evil, without even knowing it.

So, the biggest picture I can foresee here, is that to see the Warren pick, by Obama, as being an issue of even gay rights, is to guarantee another Bush Administration. Something that truly could result in the end of civilization. If it’s not already too late. I have the distinct impression that we have yet to even fathom the institutionalized and long term damage that has been wrought on this country over the past 8 years.

For our new president to send a message that “reaching out” to those who are proven to have every intention of molesting the constitutional freedoms that this country was founded on, is to mock his own victory, and all those who supported him.

Barack’s message, and those who support it, may be well intentioned, but I feel that it’s irresponsible in the worst way possible. And to not recognize that, is to not recognize the ever encroaching imminent threat to the free world as we know it.

This is no longer about sociopaths and "conservatives without conscience" - to varying degrees, they can’t help it. At this point it’s about we liberals and progressives who supposedly know better than them. And if we can’t even recognize and respond to the aspect of human nature that is capable of ensuring the downfall of civilization, then we truly are no better than them. At least in the sense that the effect will be the same.

But at least we’ll have the satisfaction of knowing “we did nothing” to cause it.

As the anti-gay bigots love to harp their "truth in love" song and dance, Well, I say that our understanding of love needs to start including the truth of evil.

Otherwise, we’re doomed.
_________
Back to Genocide For Jesus

Read more...

Movie: Explicit Ills -- Bonus Features

(This is a reference post containing the full text of the bonus features on the DVD Explicit Ills.)



EXPLICIT ILLS
1. Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign
www.economichumanrights.org

Mission Statement - The Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign is committed to unite the poor across color lines as the leadership base for a broad movement to abolish poverty. We work to accomplish this through advancing economic human rights as named in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, such as the rights to food, housing, health, education, communication and a living wage job.

2.Vision Statement - The Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign is building a movement that unites the poor across color lines. Poverty afflicts Americans of all colors. Daily more and more of us are downsized and impoverished. We share a common interest in uniting against the prevailing conditions and around our vision of a society where we all have the right health care, housing living wage job, and access to quality primary, secondary, and higher education.

The Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign includes people of many backgrounds. We are mothers, fathers, children, and grandparents; we are the unemployed, the working poor, the downsized, the homeless, the victims of welfare reform and NAFTA, the cast-asides of the new economy; we are social workers, religious leaders, labor leaders, artists, lawyers, and other people of conscience; we are young and old; we live in rural areas and in urban centers.

We are committed to uniting the poor as the leadership base for a broad movement to abolish poverty everywhere and forever. We work to accomplish theis aim through the promotion of economic human rights, named in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as Articles 23, 25, and 26. These articles state our right to such provisions as housing, health care, a living way job, and education/ The founding creed of the United States of America, which assures our rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, inspired the formulation of these human rights. Our government sighed the UDHR in 1948; its full implementation would mean that our country would be living out the true meaning of its creed. This American Dream is possible because our county is the riches and most powerful in the world.

We do not seek pity. We do seek power to end conditions that threaten all of us with economic human rights violations denying us our birthrights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

We accept anyone or any organization in this campaign that unites with these principles.

3. A man, a Mom, and a Movement - by Mary Bricker-Jenkins, PhD

The old church in North Philadelphia, the size of a small cathedral really, was already bitterly cold in the fall of 1995. It was full of small tents and “family rooms” formed by pews, blankets, and sleeping bags. Taped around the entrance were notices: Sign up here for child care. Smoke outside & pick up your butts. Study Circle, 6pm, under the tarp. Twelve Step Meetings, 8am & 8pm.

The area under the tarp was the nerve center of this community of homeless people who had moved their tent city from an abandoned lot to an abandoned church for the winter. Cheri Honkala, , the leader of the group, was meeting there with her circle of advisors, community members who had agreed to take on responsibilities and duties for the group Beside her was a youth leader, a very articulate 15 year old boy named Mark. That’s how I first met him. I didn’t know for some time that he was Cheri’s son; I knew him only as one of the “go to” people in the community.

As a professional social worker with a doctorate in child welfare, I suppose I focused instinctively and immediately on the children and youth. Quickly satisfied that they were safe from every threat but poverty and homelessness, I was able to broaden my focus to this community and its leaders. I started “coming around” to attend the community meetings and educational sessions. Both Mark and his mom led many of them. Soon I realized that I was learning more from this welfare mom and her pubescent son about the systemic causes of poverty and homelessness than I had learned in decades of formal study. And I was watching a social movement forming in that old, cold church in the midst of Pennsylvania’s poorest community.

The organization running the tent-city-in-a-church, the Kensington Welfare Rights Union, was a little over 5 years old by that time. It had been formed by five “welfare moms,” including Cheri, who had spent some time living in cars and abandoned buildings with Mark. In 1998 KWRU sparked the formation of the Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign, a national organization dedicated and determined to building a movement to end poverty. Cheri became its National organizer and Spokesperson.

By that time it was clear that Mark, ever self-defining and independent, now well into adolescence, would successfully pursue his passion for acting. Frankly, some of us assumed he’d be too busy for the marches, demonstrations, and interminable meetings demanded by the campaign. That he’d want to distance himself from the hardships of homelessness, police abuse, public ridicule. That at best he’d drop in to be a celebrity activist from time to time. Or, the worst possible outcome, that he’d be scooped up by the media as a protagonist in the kind of “rags to riches” story that obscures the real causes of poverty and cloaks the people that benefit from it. None of those has happened. Mark still marches at his mom’s side, organizes and educates his friends as well, holds fast to the vision and the strategy of the movement and its organizations, resides well within the circle of its leaders, and now uses his films to tell the truth about poverty and homeless[ness] in the USA.

Read more...

Look at 'em go!

I didn't even know that some of this stuff was humanly possible.

Fast Swing Dancing - ULHS 2006



Read more...
Read more...

Sanctimonious, holier than thou, exploitative, undignified, pedantic, childish...

'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for Friday, June 12

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

OLBERMANN: Good evening from New York.

Sanctimonious, holier than thou, exploitative, undignified, pedantic, childish, self-inflicting, insipid, backwards, embarrassing, over-reactive, overreaching, or as Peggy Noonan summed it up, with the succinctness I have obviously long since abandoned—yammering.

Our fifth story on the COUNTDOWN: Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska returning to national television to exploit her daughters pursuing a bizarre and unwinnable vendetta against the TV figure who has already apologized and whom she evidently does not realized is several times more popular than she is.
_____
Nothing further.
Read more...

Pat Robertson Overheard During Commercial

188,124 views
October 14, 2006
jimmiles

Pat Robertson Overheard During Commercial

YouTube info and video:

[[DISCLAIMER: I DID NOT MAKE THIS CLIP; this is from a 1995 documentary called SPIN by Brian Springer. see imdb.com/title/tt0114512/]]

The hypocrisy of this evangelical leader becomes evident when he tries to spin his hatespeech into what he is supposed to be saying as a gospel minister: God loves everyone, even sinners. But this video shows him to be every bit the politician and homophobe he really is, behind the scenes. Great insight into the inner workings of a professional spin machine!

UPDATE (November 17, 2007): I can't believe how many comments this video has attracted! Kinda cool, that little ole me had somepin to do with this long "conversation." I thank all of the commentors, even the rude and foul-mouthed ones, because (at least until this day) we Americans still cherish our right to free speech! Gotta love the USA! Let's remember to fight for that right when they may try to shut us up.


Read more...

How hate speech leads to violence, from someone who knows.

June 1: Frank Schaeffer, author, Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of it Back” explains to MSNBC’S Rachel Maddow how hateful speech leads to violent acts.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

MSNBC transcript ot that segment below:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL O‘REILLY, FOX NEWS HOST: Tiller the baby killer out in Kansas, acquitted—acquitted today of murdering babies. I wanted George Tiller, Tiller the baby killer, going—hey, I can‘t make more money killing babies now. Tiller the baby killer. As “The Factor” has been reporting, this man will terminate fetuses at anytime for $5,000.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What do you think about Dr. George Tiller?

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SECRETARY: I don‘t think anything about Dr. George Tiller.

O‘REILLY: She doesn‘t seem to be real upset about this guy operating a death mill.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: Death mill. That was FOX News host, Bill O‘Reilly then.

During the life of George Tiller, for four years, he repeatedly accused Dr. Tiller of murder, of infanticide. He publicly compared him to everything, from Nazis, to pedophiles, to al Qaeda. He described him as having blood on his hands.

Now that Dr. Tiller has been murdered inside his own church, here is Mr. O‘Reilly tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

O‘REILLY: Anarchy and vigilantism will ensure the collapse of any society. Once the rule of law breaks down, a country is finished. Thus, clear-thinking Americans should condemn the murder of late-term abortionist, Tiller. Even though the man terminated thousands of pregnancies, what he did is within Kansas law.

The 67-year-old Tiller had performed abortions for more than 35 years. “The Washington Times” estimates he destroyed about 60,000 fetuses. Very few American doctors will perform the operation. None of that seemed to matter to Tiller, nicknamed “the baby killer” by pro-life groups, who stated he was helping women—Tiller stated that.

I report honesty. Every single thing we said about Tiller was true. My analysis was based on those facts. It is clear that the far left is exploiting—exploiting, the death of the doctor. Those vicious individuals want to stifle any criticism of people like Tiller. That and hating FOX News is the real agenda here.

Finally if these people were so compassionate, so very compassionate, so concerned for the rights and welfare of others, maybe they might have written something, one thing, about the 60,000 fetuses who will never become American citizens.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: Do you think he‘s sorry that Dr. Tiller is dead?

Mr. O‘Reilly went on to claim he never tried to incite anything, he was just reporting.

Joining us now is Frank Schaeffer, who grew up in the religious far right, who made a documentary anti-abortion film series in the 1970s, and whose latest book is titled, “Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elects, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All or Almost All of It Back.”

Mr. Schaeffer, thank you very much for your time tonight.

FRANK SCHAEFFER, AUTHOR, “CRAZY FOR GOD”: Thank you for having me on, Rachel.

MADDOW: Today, writing at “Huffington Post,” you apologized, as a former member of the religious right, for what happened to Dr. Tiller. Why did you feel the need to apologize?

SCHAEFFER: Well, words have consequences.

And what we did in the ‘70s and ‘80s, my father, Dr. Francis Schaeffer, Dr. C. Everett Koop, who became Reagan surgeon general, members of the Republican Party who worked with us to make abortion part of the Republican agenda, the Roman Catholic allies that we had in the church, various people—we talked and our talk got more and more extreme, and less and less democratic. Until, finally, my dad actually went so far as to write a book called “A Christian Manifesto,” where he said the use of force to change Roe v. Wade and roll back the law legalizing abortion would be legitimate and he compared Roe and the American government to Hitler‘s Germany in the 1930s.

And when you look at what happened to Dr. Tiller, there‘s a direct line connecting the rhetoric that I was part of as a young man and this murder. And so, people, like me, are responsible for what we said and what we did and the way we raised the temperature on this debate out of all bounds. And so, when O‘Reilly talks about the fact that these people of the far left are against FOX or against him or trying to muzzle the debate, he‘s telling a lie.

I am not a member of the far right—until I voted for Barack Obama in the last election, I am lifelong Republican. I am still pro-life. I also believe abortion should be legal, but I agree with Barack Obama when he says we ought to find ways to help women, help children, give contraceptives, sex education, to lessen the number of abortions. I think abortion is a tragedy.

But I also think that pretending that you can call abortion murder and Tiller the baby killer, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera—and that these worlds don‘ words don‘t have an impact, is crazy.

So, this is what helps unhinge a society, talking like this. And I

was part of that, and that‘s why I apologize—and I would apologize again

I am sorry for what I did.

And I think that people who say extreme things should stand up and take the consequences and admit when they were wrong. And in this case, we were wrong. We were wrong more really. We were wrong politically.

And as a believing Christian, I was wrong in terms of someone who says he follows Jesus Christ.

MADDOW: There are a lot of people in this country, obviously, who are part of the pro-life movement, the legal pro-life movement, and who hold pro-life views and who seek to change the laws of this country about abortion. There‘s obviously what I consider to be a terrorist movement who believes not that the laws should be changed but that the laws should—but that people who are legally engaged in providing abortion services are legitimately targets of violence that they should be intimidated, harassed and in some cases killed.

Those two movements are not the same thing. And it‘s important to me as an American that people who are pro-life feel that they can safely articulate those views and that they are not being attacked for what extremists have done.

SCHAEFFER: Right.

MADDOW: But I also don‘t want to excuse anybody who incites violence, or who, I guess, makes excuses for the violent wing of this movement, that has two very different wings. How do you see the connection there?

SCHAEFFER: Well, you know, the book you mentioned earlier, “Crazy for God,” has a number of chapters talking about the way we took the movement from its early stages when it was more a moral concern, not so much about politics and not so much about changing the law, and radicalized that movement. I follow the step by step process. Secret meetings with Pat Robertson down at the 700 Club, Jerry Falwell sending his jet up to me to bring me down to his church to speak a couple of times.

And what we did is we talked one game to the large public and we talked another game amongst ourselves. And amongst ourselves, we were very radical. And I don‘t think it takes much imagination to guess that, tonight, there are people who are publicly saying, “This is terrible, we never advocated killing, abortion is murder, but we didn‘t mean people to take us this seriously.” But in private, you know, if these folks popped champion bottles, they would be drinking a toast to this murder tonight.

I know that this is the case because of the fact that I was part of the movement, but also understood very well what we were doing back then was to attack the political issue when we talked to people like Ronald Reagan and the Bush family and Jack Kemp—the late Jack Kemp that we were very close to in all this. But on a private side, we also were egging people on to first pick at abortion clinics, then chain themselves to fences, then go to jail.

We knew full well that in a country that had seen the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther king, two Kennedy brothers and others, that what we were also doing was opening a gate here. And I think there‘s no way to duck this. We live in a country in which guns are all over the place. We have plenty of people with a screw loose, plenty of people on the edge. It only takes one.

And what scare me is that I see the rhetoric of the Republican Party right now—including the former vice president—about our newly elected African-American president has the same sort of coded stuff in it. He‘s not a real American. He‘s making America less safe. He‘s a secret Muslim. Some Christians in the same groups that are pro-life groups are running around saying he‘s the anti-Christ.

They also know full well that we have people out there who will take it to the next step and say, “Well, gee, if he‘s the anti-Christ, if he‘s anti-American, if he‘s a communist, maybe the best thing we can do is pull another trigger some other day.”

We live in a country where people get killed for their views sometimes. We‘re a very divided nation coming out of this culture war.

It is irresponsible for people to make these wild statements—like Bill O‘Reilly does—and then step back after it happens and say, “Oh, I never meant that.” Yes, they did mean it. They meant exactly what they said.

And when you start calling people those sorts of names—the way I did back in the ‘70s and the early ‘80s—for which I am apologizing today, not just because of this but other incidents like this, if people don‘t stand up and actually take back these words, take back these angry word, they are still culpable for the next event that happens. And we need to be able to just call it what it is.

MADDOW: Frank Schaeffer is author of the book, “Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elects, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All or Almost All of It Back”—Mr. Schaeffer, it‘s just bracing testimony from you tonight. Thanks for—thanks for being here on the show.

SCHAEFFER: Thanks for having me on.

Read more...

Exodus Youth: Truth and Tolerance transcript

This is a partial transcript of the Exodus Youth DVD called "Truth and Tolerance."

Below is Alan Chambers' introduction, and the Scott Davis portion on Biblical perspectives:

Alan Chambers: The issue of homosexuality is being talked about in our culture. If students don’t learn about it at home, and they don’t learn about it at church, they’re going to learn about it on MTV, or from a guidance counselor, or from a peer, who may not have the Biblical understanding of this issue like you do.

I want to thank you for being bold, and I want to challenge you to continue to do so. What you offer students is critical. They have to know the truth about homosexuality from God’s perspective.

Truth and Tolerance is a series that was created under the leadership of Scott Davis and Exodus Student Ministries. It’s excellent, and something that I encourage you to use as you talk about the issue of homosexuality from God’s perspective, with those under your care. Be bold.

Thank you so much for taking the opportunity to do this.

Biblical perspectives on homosexuality.
Scott Davis, Student Ministries Director, Exodus International: When it comes to homosexuality, there are so many perspectives out there, it’s really hard to know what to think. Even when we just look at what Scripture says on the issue of homosexuality, some people are saying one thing, while others are saying the exact opposite. Some folks with tell you that Scripture says that homosexuality is wrong, it’s not God’s design for sexuality, while other people will tell you that, well Scripture really say that, it says something a little bit different, it isn’t really talking about homosexuality.

It’s difficult to know what to think. And often we’ll just jump into specific verses that mention homosexuality, and we’ll argue over nuances and little phrases and Greek words, and it’s very difficult to get our hands around. The surprising thing is that often we’ll get into these arguments on specific verses without even being sure whether we all understand what we mean by Scripture in the first place.

For instance, often we’ll argue about what a particular Biblical author meant in a specific verse, without even necessarily believing that Scripture is even God’s word, or even something that we need to follow. So it’s important that the first step in talking about Biblical perspectives on homosexuality, to first talk about our foundations. What are our foundational beliefs that guide how we’re going to think and talk about this particular topic. Because that’s going to determine to a large extent, what we’re going to end up believing about homosexuality. So, to be completely up front and honest with you, I want to tell you what my foundational beliefs are, and we’ll build from there.

Belief in a Good Creator
My first belief is that there is a good creator. What I believe is that God made the Earth and made human beings in a great and beautiful and wonderful way. God is a good creator, and so we can expect that His creation is good. And we out to be able to learn about God, from how He made the world. We out to be able to learn about how He wants us to live our lives from how He created our bodies. How He designed sexuality for instance.

Basic Christian Beliefs
Then, on top of that belief in a good creator, I also hold to basic Christian beliefs. I’m not talking about a specific stance on Scripture or Bible verses at this point, but simply the basic Christian beliefs of the Gospel message of Jesus Christ. The message that says that although God created the world good, we’ve rebelled against him, we’re in need of a savior. And Jesus Christ is that savior.

Bible is a Truthful Authority
My third foundation is that the Bible is a truthful authority. The Bible is truthful, and by that I mean that it is not inaccurate, it’s not in error, the Bible isn’t lying to us. And also that the Bible is our authority. And it’s an authority in our lives because it’s not just what some men thought about God, or about how we ought to live our lives, but the Bible is actually God’s word. He has revealed to us how He’s made us and how He wants us to live. He’s revealed to us what kind of God he is, and told us about his love for us.

~~~
Belief in a Good Creator
And so these are my foundational beliefs. So let’s start, just with my first belief here, that there is a good creator. Maybe you and I don’t necessarily agree on basic Christian beliefs, but we can agree that there is a good creator who has made us. If we look at that, what can we learn on the topic of homosexuality? Well, if there is a good creator, then that means we ought to be able to look at our world, how God has made us, and learn something about how we ought to live.

Purpose of Sexuality
So we can look at sexuality specifically and we can see that there’s a primary purpose in sexuality, that sexuality is a means of procreation, of making children. Now this is something very obvious. Sexuality isn’t just about pleasures and just about a husband and wife enjoying each other, or two people who love each other, having some pleasure together. Sexuality is primarily a means of procreation.

And so homosexual sex can never fulfill the primary purpose of sexuality. And we see that that ought to teach us something about how we have to think about homosexuality - that it goes contrary to the very nature of sexual acts.

Biology of Sexuality
Second we can look at biology. Male and female sexual organs were designed to go together. Homosexual sex ignores the obvious use of the sexual organs.

So if we believe together that there’s a good god who’s made us, who’s made our bodies, as male and female, both of them good. And we look at the sexual organs and see how they’re designed for each other, we can understand that sexuality is designed for male and female. Not for two males or for two females.

So simply on the basis of the belief in a good creator, without even a belief in Christianity, we should be able to agree, based on the purpose of sexuality, and based on our sexual organs, that heterosexuality seems to be the intended design of sexuality.

The Christian Story
But now let’s look at the second foundational belief, what I would call basic Christian beliefs. Without arguing over any specific verses at all, what can we learn about homosexuality? Well first of all, let’s look at the basic Christian story, the Gospel message. This the message of Christ that all Christians believe, that holds that although the world was created good, we’ve fallen in rebellion against God, and our desires that originally were good, are now turned and twisted away from God, they lead into temptation and sin, and all kinds of wickedness if we follow after them. But in Christ our redeemer we can be transformed and forgiven of all of all of our sins, and given new desires that follow after God’s, so we can be remade in the image of God.

Now, let’s look at the pro-gay message. The pro-gay message says that these desires that you might experience, of homosexuality or other desires, that you need to fulfill those desires, to pursue them actively in order to find a good life. But this runs directly contrary to the Christian Gospel, which says that many of the desires in our hearts are deceitful and wicked, and we need to deny those desires, and be transformed by God to desire instead, what He wants for our lives. Which is revealed clearly in Scripture. And so, based on this, we can see that pro-gay theology is directly contrary to the basic Christian message.

Church History
Next let’s look at church history. We can look at the history of the church and of the Jewish synagogue, before the church existed, and see that throughout 4000 years of history of God’s people, it’s only this tiniest little last moment of history that anyone in the church has suggested that homosexuality is good, and right, and normal. For 4000 years, the followers of God have understood that homosexuality is not God’s design for sexuality. And yet now we want to redefine what God says, as if we are somehow much more wise and knowledgeable than every single believer who’s come before us for 4000 years. I think that an incredibly arrogant step to make if we make that quickly.

The Bible
Next we can look at the Bible. Not any one or two or three specific verses, but the entirety of scripture, and see, well what does God say about sexuality, just in general. And we can look and see that from start to finish, in every book of the Bible, that God describes and reveals His design of sexuality as to be between a man and a woman in a marriage relationship.

So we can start in the first chapter of the Bible in the book of Genesis, where it says, God created men in His own image. In the image of God he created them---male and female He created them. And He told them to multiply and fill the whole Earth. And obviously it was going to take a lot of sex for them to multiply, and fill the whole Earth. And so sex and gender were God’s good and beautiful design, it was His intention.

In the second chapter of Genesis, the second chapter in the whole Bible, God brings man and woman together, and then Scripture says, it’s for this reason that man will leave his father and mother and be joined with his wife, and they’ll become one flesh, and it’s talking about sex. God designed sex, and He brought man and woman together. This was His design and His purpose. And from that starting point and through the end of the last book of the Bible, every book talks about sexuality. And since it’s always talked about, it ought to be between a husband and a wife in marriage, this is God’s design. There’s no other place within Scripture that promotes any other use of sexuality, whether it’s premarital sex, or homosexual sex, or any kind of sexual expression outside of a husband and a wife. This is very clearly God’s design for sex.

The Bible 2
Now what about homosexuality specifically, again, without looking at any specific verses, we can look and we can see that there’s not a single positive verse in the entirety of Scripture that talks positively about homosexuality. Homosexuality was definitely known in the ancient world, It was practiced by the nations around the nation of Israel, it was practiced by the Romans surrounding the early Christian Church, this was something they knew and understood, and yet Scripture never speaks positively of homosexuality. If this was something that was good and natural, that God desired for his people, you would surely expect to find a hint, at least somewhere, that homosexuality was good, and yet we don’t find that.

And so based simply on this basic belief that there’s a good creator, and the basic belief, and the basic Gospel, the Christian message, we find some very strong evidence that homosexuality is not what God designed people for.

Bible is a Truthful Authority
But now let’s further. Maybe you’ve followed me this far, and maybe you can take the next step with me to my final foundational belief here, that the Bible is a truthful authority. Not only is Christianity true, but the Bible itself is true, and it holds authority over our lives, and so, it’s worthwhile to look at some specific verses that mention homosexuality, and see what God has to say there.

Leviticus 20:13
First we can look in Leviticus chapter 20 verse 13. It says: “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, what they have done is detestable.” Now it is talking about--very straight forward way, is sex between a man and woman. A man lying with a man as one lies with a woman. And it says that the act is detestable, not that the people are detestable to God, but the act is detestable. And it’s detestable to God because it goes against his very design of how He created male and female to live.

The rest of the chapter of Leviticus 20 talks about all kinds of other illegitimate expressions of our sexuality. For instance, having sex with your mom, having sex with your sister, sex with animals, all kinds of other expression of sexuality. Each of these are prohibited as not being God’s design for sex.

Romans 1:26-27
But then let’s look at the New Testament. What does the New Testament have to say about sexuality? Well we should look first in Romans chapter 1, and this is a verse, or rather a chapter, where Paul is at an argument where, really all of mankind has turned against God. This isn’t about pointing fingers at one particular person, or at a group of people, or pointing a finger at gays, certainly that’s not what this is about, this is about what all of mankind has done. Paul builds this argument, showing how we have turned against God, we’ve rebelled against his design for us in every conceivable way. We were made to worship God, we’ve exchanged that for worshiping other things. We were made for heterosexual relationships, we exchanged that for homosexual relationships.

Romans 1 verse 26 through 27 says this: “Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex, and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.” And what Paul talks about here is this fallen world that we live in---how mankind has just completely rebelled against God, we’ve turned away from him in order to live in our own ways.

Each of us things that the way that we want to live is the best way for us to live. And we’ll find life if we reject God’s design, or what He tells us about how we ought to live, and live in our own way instead. The Scripture says there that we, although we claim we’re wise, we’ve become fools. We’ve become darkened in our minds, we become foolish, we loose all understanding. This is the result that all of mankind is under, and as we look around at our world, this shouldn’t be surprising when we see this explained in Scripture. because we look around at our world, and we see that whatever God says we ought to do, the world says don’t do. Whatever God says don’t do, the world says this is what you should do. And what the world says, leads to death.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Now, there’s another passage in Scripture that talks about homosexuality that’s really important. And this is First Corinthians 6, verse 9 through 11. It says: “…Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders…will in inherit the kingdom of God.” And I’ll pause there for a moment. I want you to know here that, it isn’t just homosexuality that’s singled out, he’s singling out all kinds of ways of living outside of God’s design for how He wants us to live. And these are things that separate us from God, that divide us from Him and lead to death if we don’t reject those things and turn back towards Him. All of us certainly struggle with sin at times in our lives, but this about living a life of rebellion, turned away from God and living after those things that we desire more than Him.

Now the verse goes on from here, and it says this: “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

And so right here, there’s 2000 year old evidence that in the first generation of the Christian Church, there were men and women who had left homosexuality. In order to follow Jesus, they’d been washed, they’d been cleansed, and they found a new life in Christ. And this is the same promise that is there for all of us. We can be washed and cleansed if we turn from our sins to follow after God.

So if we turn back to our foundations here, we can look first of all at the foundation of the good creator who’s made us and see that there’s a purpose to sexuality, that can’t be fulfilled in homosexuality. That there is a design of male and female sexual organs for another (sic) that obviously isn’t expressed in homosexual sex. Then we can look at basic Christian understanding and see that pro-gay theology is opposed to the basic Gospel message. We can see that throughout 4000 years of Church history has never approved of homosexuality, except for some in our own day who are trying to overturn that. We can see that throughout scripture from start to finish, only marriage between a man and a woman is the only place where sexuality is meant to be expressed, and we see that Scripture never promotes homosexuality.

And finally we look at this taught foundation, a Bible as a truthful authority, and we see what Scripture has to say specifically on the issue of homosexuality. And here we see that male and female were made in God’s image, and meant to multiply. We see that homosexuality is expressly prohibited in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. We see that in Paul’s argument in Romans 1, homosexuality kind of exemplifies His argument that all of mankind is rebelled against God, turned against what we were designed for to live in other kinds of ways, and kind of fool ourselves into believing this is how we should live.

The simple truth is that God designed male and female in his own image. He created sexuality to be between a husband and a wife, and every other sexuality and identity and expression and behavior, is outside of his purpose there. And God’s call to holiness and His promise of redemption is for all people, including that person who struggles with homosexuality.

Conclusion
The topic of homosexuality is so controversial, that often it seems easier to just not have any opinion on the topic. But as Christians we need to learn to stand firm on God’s truth, and not be ashamed of what Scripture has to say. For many of you, what I’ve shared has confirmed what you already believe about God’s Biblical standards of sexuality. I hope you’ve seen that you don’t need to be ashamed of believing that. That even when we look outside of Scripture, to nature and our own bodies, we see that what God says about homosexuality is confirmed in the world.

But for many of you, what I’ve shared may have been very hard to hear to hear. Because if it’s true that homosexual behavior is wrong, that means, that means that the lifestyle that you’re good friend or your mom or your brother is living, isn’t pleasing to God. It and may mean in your own life, that the gay relationships you’re following, are not pleasing to him either. You may think that in order to live a happy and fulfilled life, you need to pursue homosexuality. But God doesn’t give a standard for sexuality just to ruin our fun, or to keep us from living a fulfilled life. God is our creator, and He has designed us, and He knows what’s best for us. He has made our souls, our bodies, even our sexuality. God really is worth trusting. Will you listen to Him, are you willing to listen and hear what God has to say? God loves you, and He really is worth trusting, even when what He has to say is hard for us to hear.

Thank you for listening.

Read more...