Just re-posting developments on the final project with some additional resources!

Someone once said that tolerance of homosexuality was a side effect of modernization and the following examples would lend this statement some credence: England repealed anti-homosexual laws in 1967, France did the same in 1982, the unified Germany did so in 1994; and in the United States, 46 out of 50 states repealed anti-homosexual conduct laws and 36 repealed sodomy laws before the rest were invalidated by the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas. This isn't even the whole of it though; many nations which have retained such negative laws for a lengthy period of time, or even retain them today may in practice be societies that are not oppressive of homosexuality. While this is all true, I think it's definitely possible to look at this with a religious perspective. I will plan on looking at this by seeing which countries have the death penalty for homosexuals or those taking part in homosexual acts, those who give life sentences, and those who just give "large penalties". After some preliminary research, the final breakdown seemed to go along these lines: Those which still had the death penalty for homosexuality/homosexual conduct were Sudan, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, and Afghanistan. Life sentences are still handed out in Uganda, Sierra Leone, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Uganda is actually still up in the air about a specific homosexuality law but it has been decried by even some religious leaders. Much of Africa 'just' has large penalties for homosexuality: Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Lesotho, and Namibia are but a few. Syria, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan are a couple others outside of Africa. With that I would like to tie in the religion aspect more closely: The religious breakdown of the countries with severe anti-homosexuality laws were as follows: 70% are Sunni Muslims in Sudan. Virtually all Mauritanians are Sunni Muslims. In Saudi Arabia, 100% of the population is supposed to be Muslim. There is a roughly 50-50 split in Yemen of Shi'a and Sunni Muslims. In Iran, 98% are Muslim with a vast majority of the Shi'a kind. Afghanistan on the other hand is 80% Sunni Muslim while 60% of the population in Sierra Leone is Muslim. Pakistan is also overwhelmingly Muslim with 95% of the population Muslim (75% of which are Sunni). Islam is also the religion of Bangladesh too. Bucking the trend is Uganda which is largely Christian with 42% identifying as Protestants and 41.9% as Catholic. With these statistics, since the majority of nations which react the most harsh to homosexuals have a majority, if not national, religion of Islam, I come to the conclusion that homosexuality is not tolerated at all in most Muslim countries while in "more Christian" countries, or nations with majorities of other faiths, homosexuality is often given some leeway. Thus, in this project I could see the study focusing on those countries, not so much on Christian nation-states, although comparisons could easily be made.
My additional resources include: For the initial list of anti-homosexuality laws, I will use the site http://lgbt.wikia.com/wiki/Homosexuality_laws_of_the_world. For all of the religion percentages found in these countries I will use statistics from the United States Central Intelligence Agency's database on each of the subject countries which begins at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/. Freedom ratings will be based on data provided by the yearly report from Freedom House "Freedom in the World" found at: http://freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2010. Information regarding Uganda's controversial anti-homosexual law will be based from both http://www.time.com/time/ and http://www.guardian.co.uk/.

The Survival of Our Nation's Families and the Threat of Militant Homosexuality. What?!?!

Doing some outside reading of Anita Bryant's experiences from her own perspective in her book The Anita Bryant Story was... Educational shall we say? I now know what it sounds like when someone takes an issue to an extreme, fiery, and religious extent. And it's pretty disturbing! The fact that she made herself and her group, Save Our Children, into the victims of the debate was just pathetic really as she painted pictures of the U.S. falling under the rule of a homosexual fourth Reich. Her fears of gay/lesbian teachers affecting the growth and development of children everywhere are baseless and obviously come from an un-educated, personal disdain which really gives Religion a bad name. The way she groups homosexuals with pornography, abortion, drugs and alcohol is also rude and unjust as homosexuality just isn't up there on the list of arguable sins. The fact that she turns any molehill such as criticism against her or the group into mountains is also wrong as conservatives directed and continue to direct more fire upon pro-homosexual rights groups than vice versa. All in all, her book was just a big publicity stunt which was directed solely at pumping up her own image. For example, how she is made out to be a real crusader who has sacrificed everything she had for this awesome goal. First of all, she was a celebrity. A talented performer, and a homemaker. Those aren't really titles which make me think of someone who is at risk of losing everything. Going back to the group itself, the group's name itself is pretty awful. The fact is, homosexuals aren't a danger to children, so saying in an indirect way that homosexuals are a danger to children is an unfair attack upon the characters of gays and lesbians.

Writing on a position of faith.

In listening and watching this documentary about the placement of an openly homosexual man into the priesthood of the U.C.C., I was first moved by the request from William Johnson's mother and the continued pro-placement argument throughout the clips: that homosexuality should not bar a well qualified person from joining the priest-hood. The argument one speaker makes that Johnson should be removed from his position of priest-hood "because of his disorientation", a phrase which amused me greatly, lost its humor when I found that the man was dead serious. How can someone be so narrow minded? The worries some express about if he were to serve as a councilor at a youth camp also proved to be baseless as statistics I pulled up illustrated to me: sexual misconduct is far more prevalent among HETEROsexuals than HOMOsexuals (including those who identify as heterosexual though commit homosexual acts). The personal testaments that some members gave about how they'd like or not like Johnson as a priest were also very stirring as they went back and forth. The personal discomfort one jerk of a woman told the camera was off-set by the clear head provided by another woman and the cheer that went up when Johnson was voted in as a priest illustrated the clear mind those members voting had: of 96 voters, a strong majority agreed that Johnson should be made a priest, no matter his sexual orientation. And that is following along the lines of the teachings of acceptance of the Lord.

Developments on the project proposition.

Someone once said that tolerance of homosexuality was a side effect of modernization and the following examples would lend this statement some credence: England repealed anti-homosexual laws in 1967, France did the same in 1982, the unified Germany did so in 1994; and in the United States, 46 out of 50 states repealed anti-homosexual conduct laws and 36 repealed sodomy laws before the rest were invalidated by the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas. This isn't even the whole of it though; many nations which have retained such negative laws for a lengthy period of time, or even retain them today may in practice be societies that are not oppressive of homosexuality. While this is all true, I think it's definitely possible to look at this with a religious perspective. I will plan on looking at this by seeing which countries have the death penalty for homosexuals or those taking part in homosexual acts, those who give life sentences, and those who just give "large penalties". After some preliminary research, the final breakdown seemed to go along these lines: Those which still had the death penalty for homosexuality/homosexual conduct were Sudan, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, and Afghanistan. Life sentences are still handed out in Uganda, Sierra Leone, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Uganda is actually still up in the air about a specific homosexuality law but it has been decried by even some religious leaders. Much of Africa 'just' has large penalties for homosexuality: Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Lesotho, and Namibia are but a few. Syria, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan are a couple others outside of Africa. With that I would like to tie in the religion aspect more closely: The religious breakdown of the countries with severe anti-homosexuality laws were as follows: 70% are Sunni Muslims in Sudan. Virtually all Mauritanians are Sunni Muslims. In Saudi Arabia, 100% of the population is supposed to be Muslim. There is a roughly 50-50 split in Yemen of Shi'a and Sunni Muslims. In Iran, 98% are Muslim with a vast majority of the Shi'a kind. Afghanistan on the other hand is 80% Sunni Muslim while 60% of the population in Sierra Leone is Muslim. Pakistan is also overwhelmingly Muslim with 95% of the population Muslim (75% of which are Sunni). Islam is also the religion of Bangladesh too. Bucking the trend is Uganda which is largely Christian with 42% identifying as Protestants and 41.9% as Catholic. With these statistics, since the majority of nations which react the most harsh to homosexuals have a majority, if not national, religion of Islam, I come to the conclusion that homosexuality is not tolerated at all in most Muslim countries while in "more Christian" countries, or nations with majorities of other faiths, homosexuality is often given some leeway. Thus, in this project I could see the study focusing on those countries, not so much on Christian nation-states, although comparisons could easily be made.

Centering on Professor White's "The Historical Roots of LGBT Religious Organizing."

First off, I found reading this paper both enjoyable and informative. I really enjoyed the quote from St. Paul, a figure who is often cited in anti-homosexuality arguments, cited as seeming to be in favor of homosexuality: "No longer is there slave and freeman, Jew and Greek, male and female... but we are all one in Christ Jesus our Lord..." The power of this quote can't be over-analyzed and the fact that it is used in a pro-homosexuality argument is just fantastic. Moving on, while we've discussed the MCC in class, which is possibly the most gripping story of this kind of church, I feel like we've cheated churches/groups like Dignity, The Church of the Beloved Disciple, and so on; we haven't discussed them on the list for so called 'Lavender Churches'. I would suggest that we do so in class. It also felt good knowing what was going on when I heard mention of John Hose, Richard Ploen, and Jerry Joachim, from reading 'Our God Too'. However, the figure of Father Patrick X. Nidorf is another clergy member who I would like to talk more about since he did set Dignity on its feet essentially. Another interesting aspect mentioned was that of the American Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Eastern Church. Apparently Mikhail Itkin was ordained into this church of which I know very little about. Something I'd like to change. Similarly, I wasn't aware to the extent that homosexuals found themselves welcome in groups associated with the UUC and the Society of Friends (begun in 1970 and 1971 respectively) however it does make sense. Even Jews who identified themselves as gay had a group to support them which struck me as interesting because I'm not very knowledgeable when it comes to Judaism.

My breastplate of righteousness?

Well how about that reference to Ephesians? Anyway, who knew that the founding of the Christian Right could have such colorful characters as Billy James Hargis! While denouncing the public sexual culture and building around the politics of sexual regulation and shame, Hargis himself was involved in relationships that seem to have been homosexual in nature. Was he gay? The Christian Right's pro-family movement was offset by the fact that outwardly sexual conservatives often participated in the sexual "improprieties" they were famous for condemning. Apparently, in response to these indiscretions, men (and women?) formed something known as the concept of "the breastplate of righteousness" which caused them to hate the things that they often indulged in. This ideal would fuel moral and political crusades against sexuality in the future. My first question is: is sexual morality a bad thing really; followed by where can I find Humphreys' "Tearoom Trade", a book which is apparently an influential study of the public's sexual activity. Laud Humphreys himself seems to be an interesting individual along with the fact of having authored the book. His distinction between homosexuals and those who participated in homosexual acts was quite telling as well, furthering my interest as the subject question is one that has interested me. After all, why would a man who is not homosexual engage in such acts "desiring kicks without commitment"? Can he not receive such from a woman? And then why would someone who had those urges identify as heterosexual and actually marry? The findings of Humphreys' Tearoom experiment were surprising to me: 54% of those who had been involved in the homosexual activities were married men living with their wives! This really does, as the reading says: "(strike) a blow against the notion that the sexual universe could be neatly divided into straight and gay, perverted and normal." It sure does so for me. It will take a while to work through the idea but the fact that these same people were also politically and religiously conservative was also quite surprising. The results of Humphreys' questions based on four specific social issues were also interesting, offering more support for his conclusions. The public saint/private sinner dilemma could not be better expressed! In this way, Janice M. Irvine's reflective paper on Humphreys' "Breastplate of Righteousness" is an enthralling piece which describes and analyzes things which hold much bearing on society of today. The conclusions that she comes to are a bit odd for me to hear but I will nonetheless take them to heart. I mean this when she says "it is moral entrepreneurs who have defined it as such" (referring to sex in general but public sex in particular as problematic.) The Sociological explanation that it's all down to "social control and sexual stigma" seems to not explain the situation the best for me on a personal level but I can see where this conclusion comes from. To be sure, this occurrence is very interesting to me.