On homosexuality: Not a fight with Chris Hedges but a direct challenge for him on his father and mine

I'm not trying to pick a fight with Chris Hedges by writing this. Perhaps as you read along you'll get some understanding of why I'm even bothering.

Chris Hedges is, by current American journalistic standards, considered an accomplished writer. He reported far and wide on important issues, such as the various wars, which technically, the US always seems to have started, still does largely, and while blaming the target(s) and regardless of reality. There're some signs that maybe that's improving, but I'm not holding my breath.

Chris reported, and still does (albeit not as a reporter in the sense he used to be), from an anti-war perspective -- something I agreed with and still do. In fact, I agree with Chris on a whole host of issues.

chris_hedgesNow, not to be self-serving but to promote the Christian Commons concept and to at least introduce it to the often atheist and literal anti-Christ, so-called left and right and, even though I don't agree with the spectrum, self-styled Libertarians and what they term statists, I sought out a number of the more noted (favored by the powers that be even on the marginalized left) and accessible of all four types, friending them on Facebook, following them on Twitter, and generally doing all the typical things one does with the Internet.

Along the way, I've friended and followed and have been friended and followed by a fair number of people, considering my atypical, even singularly unique, views (when taken together): Anti-capitalism, anti-militarism, anti-homosexuality.

Chris Hedges kept coming up in what is called the Alternative News. I saw him in videos on YouTube and on Democracy Now! and such. He appeared to be one of the more cerebral writers and speakers. I remembered him from his early days too. So, I requested a Facebook friendship and he accepted.

When someone does that, what I have rarely done is immediately start interacting. It was never my intention to pounce on others to inundate them with my views. Just expressing my worldview though is an offense to many. the same may be said of Jesus though. His worldview offended many, and still does, even though he was, and still is, right. Anyway, part of Facebook and other such mediums is that others may see one's posts and comments in general and not as necessarily directed at them.

I knew that Chris Hedges spoke and wrote often (it might not be a stretch to say it's his real main focus) in favor of homosexuality and same-sex marriage, etc. Being in favor of homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and the like certainly is the norm for those on the left (not liberal in the sense Isaiah used the term though, which is the real meaning). Chris is left-leaning by what passes as the American standard and under that same rubric, may claim to be a civil libertarian.

My issue with Chris and others of his ideological ilk has been with consistency. Chris Hedges, however, is of particular interest to me because he's always appeared to hold himself out as a Christian. He received a Master of Divinity from Harvard, and his father was a Presbyterian minister (more on that below).

According to Chris (and who has any reason to doubt him on it), his father had a huge influence on the formation of his ideological and religious views, not that those can ever be distinctly different. Chris has spoken and written in a way that one is left to conclude that Chris wants us all to take it that Chris did not disagree with his father on such matters. Well, if Chris's father was always right on such matters, there would be certainly nothing wrong with agreeing with him.

I, however, have written extensively from the anti-homosexuality and yet Christian perspective (can there be anything else?). Aside from the issue of coercion though, I doubt that most others see me as anything other than a radical leftist. Of course, I seek to preserve, even fully establish for the first time, authentic Christianity on Earth (as it is in Heaven). That last sentence establishes me as a conservative but not in the sense usually meant in the American, corporate, mainstream media. That American, corporate, mainstream media is loathe to apply any connotations to terms that don't serve the corporate, mammon-banking masters.

Here's why I'm writing this in particular though. Chris Hedges was in a video where he said a number of things with which I agree and where the host spoke in a way that was not conducive to open dialogue and where Chris took him to task for it. Chris said he would not be returning to appear on that particular program (perhaps network). So, I thought to go to Chris's personal Facebook Wall to leave a supportive post or comment depending upon what I might find there already. The problem arose that I couldn't find Chris Hedge's personal Facebook profile. I know he was a friend (such as Facebook loosely uses the term, although at my urging they've taken to using "acquaintance" now, though not enough). I even posted on my Wall that I can't find Chris's profile so that perhaps others who were mutual friends might say whether his profile is still even there since a user can both unfriend another user and block that one from even being able to see the other user's profile or comments or anything really by the user.

Facebook isn't bug free though. Also, Chris might have done away with a personal profile altogether in favor of a Facebook Page (a different format designed for non-personal purposes such as for general business purposes).

I didn't receive any responses, which has become extremely typical since I haven't backed off writing openly in opposition to homosexuality (not in promoting coercive anti-homosexuality but against the behavior itself and the distortions being spread in favor of that behavior/way of being).

Okay, so Chris disappeared "personally" on Facebook, but that doesn't mean he didn't delete his personal profile.

I still want to address this homosexuality issue though because Chris's attitude is so typical on what's called the left and even within groups claiming Christianity.

Chris has written that his paternal uncle was a homosexual and that Chris's dad supported that uncle in his homosexuality.

Finally, he [Chris's father] was a public supporter of the gay rights movement calling for the marriage and ordination of gays. His youngest brother, my uncle, was gay and my father had a particular sensitivity to the pain of being a gay man in America in the 1950s and 1960s. When I attended Colgate University there was no gay and lesbian organization. My father, who by that time had a church in Syracuse, brought gay speakers to the campus. This led, after several meetings, to students confiding in my Dad that they were uncomfortable coming out of the closet to form a gay and lesbian alliance. This was a problem my Dad solved by driving down one day, taking me to lunch and telling me, although I was not gay, that I had to found it. So I founded the gay and lesbian alliance at the university, although I never attended.

You may read that for yourself here: "Americans Who Tell the Truth: Chris Hedges." The title there is ambiguous.

Like Chris, and before I even read any of his stuff, I wrote against Zionism, Dominionism, and a number of other things as forcefully as Chris and in many cases more forcefully. Unlike Chris Hedges though, what I've done when writing in opposition to Zionism and Dominionism is more often focus on where those too things are mistaken even using their own supposed roots: Religion and in particular concerning the Dominionists, Christianity. Incidentally, Dominionists more often than not are also Zionists. Chris appears to have favored going after them from an Enlightenment Era/humanist approach. The reason for the difference strikes me as very important and telling.

To be consistently Christian, one must apply Jesus's words and deeds consistently. If one is opposed to Zionism and Dominionism from a non-religious and humanist position, one need not bother with Jesus's words and deeds when it comes time to apprise homosexuals as to the rightness or wrongness of their way.

Chris equates Dominionism with fascism. So do I. What Chris has failed to do is see, or to state openly that he sees, the hallmarks of fascism in aspects of the Homosexual Movement. The exact same behavior toward others, the exact same plan for mayhem, is present in the plans of both the Dominionists and the Homosexual Movement (pre anti-fascists splitting from the fascists in their midsts). The Dominionists are marked by a clear schism. It is so pronounced that I don't for a moment say those Dominionists are Christians. They are not Christian. They are Christian in name only. Jesus Christ's teachings and deeds stand in direct opposition to the Dominionists. This is something Chris Hedges knows and may well have said and written but does not apply the same standard to those of the Homosexual Movement who seek to treat those who are anti-homosexuality with all the vengeance those Dominionist plan to mete out on homosexuals for one.

First they came for...the anti-homosexuals. Do you think it can't happen if people turn their backs and don't stand up to it? You should be on the receiving end of the vitriol. I've been told directly by homosexuals how happy it will make them when I'm tortured to death for being openly anti-homosexuality. What I didn't see was homosexuals going after the ones talking and writing openly like that, and the place was crawling with pro-homosexuals. Oh, there are homosexuals who do stand up against other such homosexuals; but in the vast majority of such cases, it's after someone challenges them to do so. I though speak against the fascists calling for open violent war on all homosexuals. Where are the homosexuals telling those others to shut up without having to be challenged to do so first? I've seen some glimmers, but those are the exceptions that make the rule right now that the Homosexual Movement is decidedly fascistic in its current iteration. Where's Chris Hedges on it. He helped open the door to it all. He has a moral obligation to take a stand against homosexual fascism.

So, what I am doing is calling out Chris Hedges not to fight but to explain via Jesus's words and deeds (all of them, not just selected ones, and especially not selected ones that are even divorced from meanings and intentions of Jesus right in the very verses cited by pro-homosexuals to supposedly convince others that Jesus was not anti-homosexuality) why Chris and his father as professing Christians are/were in favor of homosexuality.

Chris Hedges, if you are able to show me via Jesus's words and deeds, as recorded in the Gospels which your father preached, that Jesus was not anti-homosexuality, then please do it. I am saying here and now that you cannot. I am challenging you to do it, and if you are unable, to then begin writing and speaking the whole truth regardless of what you have thought you owe your father (the fleshly one, not God). I am at the same time claiming that I am able clearly and plainly to show that Jesus was anti-homosexuality. In fact, I've done it (links are provided, and this blog is loaded with the proof-text as it were).

Unlike the host of the TV program I mentioned, I am not calling Chris Hedges a "left-wing nutbar." I believe he did that because Chris dared to mention Marx's correct identification of something capitalistic as bad. I am not interested in a heated, "name-calling" exchange. I'm interested in the truth. I'm more than prepared to consider anything scriptural, including necessarily the interpretation thereof, that Chris can bring to this extremely important issue that is impacting upon the entire planet. I'm more than prepared to respond in ways that shouldn't pose any problem for anyone who puts seeking truth first.

Even though it is stark, Chris's position to date has been that it is not an error for a male to put his penis up the rectum of another male and to motion back and forth until he ejaculates there. I am saying that, that behavior is wrong and that Jesus was, and remains, of the same view I hold and disagrees with Chris's position. For those reasons, I am saying that homosexuality is flatly anti-Christ, anti-Christian, and that Chris's father was flat wrong.

I've seen that Chris has spoken of Christianity in ways that lead me to believe that Chris does not believe that the miracles attributed to Jesus in the Gospels were actual. Perhaps he believes the Gospels are completely figurative. I've seen others hold with that while claiming to be Christians. That position still would not relieve Chris of having to reconcile Jesus's words and deeds even if only for the sake of being consistent with a fictitious character, Jesus. Pro-homosexuality would not be in keeping with the character of Christ in the Gospels, whether literal or figurative. The character of Jesus calls for the utmost in consistency, the greatest degree of anti-hypocrisy I've ever encountered. How does Chris Hedges square that with Chris's claimed Christianity and pro-homosexuality, or is he now no longer professing Christ so that Chris may go with the homosexuals rather than with Jesus?

I recently also spent part of a couple of days commenting on Homosexual-Fascist Hogwash: "Michigans Anti-Bullying Bill: Protecting Religious Tormenters?" | Swampland | TIME.com

We'll see if I manage to get back over there to see more of the scathing nonsense and what might be done to counteract it. It would be good were Chris Hedges to allow his better angels to come to the fore where he could help in the cause of truth regardless of our fleshly fathers and uncles and so forth.

By the way, my father was an Episcopal minister who was every bit as much on the vanguard of the "left" as was Chris's father with the exception that my father said that one of the reasons he went into the ministry was because there were "too many sissies in it." My father never said that homosexuality was alright. In fact, I believe he was stealthily targeted for his anti-homosexuality. It's easier to see now looking back and remembering those who went after him with the greatest vengeance: homosexuals and lesbians targeting him under other charges and that all turned out to remain unsubstantiated. Can you say kangaroo court? Yes, I was there. He asked for an open court but was denied. Again, I'm not saying he was perfect; but if you are going to charge a person, do it for what he actually did, for the real reason you're going after him, and do so openly where he can be openly faced by his accusers and where all of the charges are openly known (they were not). Otherwise, shut up.

My dad was right out front all during the Civil Rights, Anti-War, Nuclear-Freeze, and other left-leaning Movements and whether from his downtown Detroit or downtown Phoenix (Goldwater Country) pulpits. For one, he was a very noted leader of the Nuclear-Freeze Movement -- a time clearly between when the pendulum was to the "left."

I remember the crowd roaring in approval in the packed, huge auditorium at Arizona State University as my father completely demolished America's leading nuclear hawk at the time, Herman Kahn. Poor Herman, he was touted as a super genius but was left saying to my father that it's not fair "to appeal to emotion." Ah, yes, I remember laughing at how ridiculous it is to divorce emotion from incinerating the planet. We wouldn't want to be emotional about it. Let's just bank on MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction).

Let's see the Zionists take that position today via-a-vis Iran, even though I say the Zionists, as is the norm with them, are lying through their teeth about the Iranian nuclear program.

Nuclear Freeze Article quoting The Very Reverend Elmer Bradbury Usher, Jr., June 30, 1982, Phoenix, Arizona

Nuclear Freeze Article quoting The Very Reverend Elmer Bradbury Usher, Jr., June 30, 1982

Speaking of MAD, Herman Kahn actually wrote that a total, global, thermonuclear exchange between the US and the USSR was winnable. That was even before any reduction in the number and power of warheads. Survivors may have to "live" underground for years, but still.... That's winning? No, Herman. That's Hell on Earth and losing. You know who won the debate hands down. You also know that the Nuclear Freeze became law -- sanity prevailed, at least for awhile.

Now, Obama and others want to lift the freeze. I wonder how many homosexuals of the fascistic bent sided with, and side now, with Herman Kahn's view -- plenty I suspect what with the glee over the lifting of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," as if being allowed to be in the American military killing machine for Empire and also an open, practicing homosexual is some sort of moral victory. What do you think on it, Chris. You do agree with me there, don't you? You will openly address such issues, right?

I didn't agree with my father across-the-board and still don't, although he was a powerful force for good in many respects. He made mistakes in his life (so have I -- plenty), but the last sermon I heard him preach was how we should not say "I'm only human" as an excuse. Obviously, I carry that message of his forward with me regardless of whether or not he or I fell down in our lives. The object is to get back up and to finally stay there. I trust my father's soul agrees.

Yes, Chris, honor your father and your mother, but never sacrifice the truth doing so. You are a blessing to them when you overcome falsehood -- even the mistakes they taught you. You are a credit to them when you exceed even where they may not have managed to climb. Your father's soul should want that for you, just as mine should want it for me and I believe he does.

Viki Knox Case: Beware creeping homosexual fascism in sheep's clothing

If you can't bring yourself to respond openly and in detail, you will find private ways of replying available on this blog.

To anyone who is a friend of Chris Hedges, I suggest you bring this blog post to his attention in case he doesn't do vanity searches on Google or have an alert set on his name.

If I see nothing come back on this from anyone, it certainly won't be because no one saw it or had opinions on it. It will be because they aren't interested in finding and spreading the whole truth. God sees. That's what everyone should be concerned with.

If my father were alive today here on this Earth and fully capable of giving his prime views on the matter, I'm positive that were I to ask him, he would say that he remains opposed to homosexuality and against the direction in which the Episcopal Church as gone: ordaining openly homosexual bishops and blessing same-sex marriages and such. I'm sure he would refuse to serve under a homosexual bishop or bless a homosexual so-called union or marriage.

I dare say that were he here and in full possession of his mental faculties, as when in his mental prime, he would readily confess to God every error he ever made and repent of the same. Who can ask for more? Real repentance is to follow Jesus with one's whole heart. Nothing bad comes of doing that, only good.

God bless your soul, Dad. God is your dad and my dad.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • Tom Baxter

      Judge not, lest ye be judged.

      • Over on http://www.facebook.com/groups/sfpiradio/10150387088811984/?ref=notif&notif_t=group_activity you wrote:

        "Tom Baxter
        "Sodomy sounds a lot more reasonable and less insane to me than Christians thinking they have Christ's blessing when they murder in the name of freedom and democracy. In fact my one excuse for helping murder millions is that I was insane."

        You are the same Tom Baxter, right?

        I replied there with the following, which holds here too of course:

        "Tom Usher
        "I know of no "Christians thinking they have Christ's blessing when they murder in the name of freedom and democracy."

        "In fact, I know of no Christians who murder in the name of freedom and democracy or in the name of anything else.

        "Will you give me the name of a Christian who murders or kills fellow human beings? No, you won't do that because theres no such thing.

        "What you are doing is calling people Christians who are not Christians. Christians don't kill people.

        "Back to the subject though, you said "less insane." So, you think homosex as I described it is insane and should not have been re-designated as sane by various associations of psychiatrists and psychologists, etc. Fine.

        "Do you find that you are subjected to any degree of homosexual fascism on account of that openly stated position of yours?"

        Now, as for your quote of Jesus, it would be helpful to you if you find out what the whole context is before quoting snippets you've perhaps been misled by homosexuals into thinking will silence Christians. Real Christians won't be silenced by insane homosexuals.

        "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matthew 7:1-2)

        There, that's better. I have judged homosex as wrong, per Jesus Christ. I have also repented. I have also forgiven all those Jesus has forgiven. Now, I'm ready to be judged by that standard. Are you?

      • Here's what Tom Baxter was responding to when he said homosex is insane but less insane than false-Christians Tom Baxter called Christians "thinking they have Christ's blessing when they murder in the name of freedom and democracy":

        "So, Rick, you're a psychiatrist. Where do you come down on the decisions of a group of psychiatrists to claim that homosexuality is not a mental problem? It's my understanding that when they did that, that some 65% of then practicing psychiatrist were opposed to the change. If that's true (is it close?), how did the ones claiming homosex is okay (men sticking their penises up other men's rectums and moving back and forth until they ejaculate inside there) get away with it? Any real light you can shed on this will be a benefit. Peace!"