Saturday, July 22, 2006

The Thought Police

See Iain Dale's post yesterday and the BBC catch up today for the background. Essentially the Gay Police Association (GPA) has put out an advert accusing the Bible of being linked to attacks on gay people ( a pool of blood next to a bible - want to try that with the Quran eh ? ).

I posted a response to Iain's post here which ended saying the secular world doesn't understand the religious world. ( incidentally a lot of mostly good and thoughtful comments from bloggers there, and Iain adds to his reputation is his handling of this issue. )

The poster the GPA have created is deeply offensive, but not surprising given the slow build up of anti-Christian pressure via government and NGO organisations. Imagine the impact if another religion was chosen as the victim of such a hate campaign ? ( Personally I think the advert is likely to provoke hatred. ) They perhaps realise they have gone to far as there is at time of posting no reference to the advert on the GPA web site that I can find.

I know of a good family who volunteered as foster parents but were persecuted due to their Christian beliefs. ( Which disagreed with the state's approved beliefs. )

Its seems only those with No Faith are acceptable to the modernising NuLabour establishment. ( I say that as the government provides funds to the GPA, but not the CPA as an example. )

See also today's Daily Mail for an article where a entirely voluntary Christian criminal rehabilitation scheme has been vetoed by the establishment - despite its support from another religion.

Our modernised state religion now appears to be to say no to any religion, whose block vote isn't needed by NuLabour in elections, that disagrees with those who run the state.

Tags InnerChange GPA Christian Hate NuLabour

4 comments:

Cups of Tea and Cucumber Sandwiches said...

I saw your blog address on the BBC Editor's blog.

It is absolutely true that people quote the bible and skew their idea of God to discriminate against gay people. My mother is always quoting the bible at me.

Do visit my blog and read a study about a recent University study which has strong evidence that homophobes may be repressed homosexuals or indeed fear homosexuality in themselves. I have 120 posts on my blog but it's like yours. You can search my site under 'university study'

My blog is quite fun aside from that. Differing opinions make the world go round, eh?

MeanderingTrevor/Tea and Cucumber Sandwiches
Brit in USA

Cups of Tea and Cucumber Sandwiches said...

Further to my recent post I took the liberty of posting the study here for your perusal:


University Study Suggests Homophobic Men May Be Sexually Repressed Homosexuals
New Study Links Homophobia with Homosexual Arousal
August Press Release
WASHINGTON -- Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia -- the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or denies. A study appearing in the August 1996 issue of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA), provides new empirical evidence that is consistent with that theory.

Researchers at the University of Georgia conducted an experiment involving 35 homophobic men and 29 nonhomophobic men as measured by the Index of Homophobia scale. All the participants selected for the study described themselves as exclusively heterosexual both in terms of sexual arousal and experience.

Each participant was exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual and lesbian videotapes (but not necessarily in that order). Their degree of sexual arousal was measured by penile plethysmography, which precisely measures and records male tumescence.

Men in both groups were aroused by about the same degree by the video depicting heterosexual sexual behavior and by the video showing two women engaged in sexual behavior. The only significant difference in degree of arousal between the two groups occurred when they viewed the video depicting male homosexual sex: 'The homophobic men showed a significant increase in penile circumference to the male homosexual video, but the control [nonhomophobic] men did not.'

Broken down further, the measurements showed that while 66% of the nonhomophobic group showed no significant tumescence while watching the male homosexual video, only 20% of the homophobic men showed little or no evidence of arousal. Similarly, while 24% of the nonhomophobic men showed definite tumescence while watching the homosexual video, 54% of the homophobic men did.

When asked to give their own subjective assessment of the degree to which they were aroused by watching each of the three videos, men in both groups gave answers that tracked fairly closely with the results of the objective physiological measurement, with one exception: the homophobic men significantly underestimated their degree of arousal by the male homosexual video.

Do these findings mean, then, that homophobia in men is a reaction to repressed homosexual urges, as psychoanalysis theorizes? While their findings are consistent with that theory, the authors note that there is another, competing theoretical explanation: anxiety. According to this theory, viewing the male homosexual videotape may have caused negative emotions (such as anxiety) in the homophobic men, but not in the nonhomophobic men. As the authors note, 'anxiety has been shown to enhance arousal and erection,' and so it is also possible that 'a response to homosexual stimuli [in these men] is a function of the threat condition rather than sexual arousal per se. These competing notions can and should be evaluated by future research.'

Article: 'Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?' by Henry E. Adams, Ph.D., Lester W. Wright, Jr., Ph.D. and Bethany A. Lohr, University of Georgia, in Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 105, No. 3, pp 440-445.

Man in a shed said...

Hi Cucumber sandwiches,

My post was really about tolerance of religious view points and religious freedom. ( In the UK the tolerance is getting very patchy ).

The world is full of studies and surveys on just about everything - which often contradict each other. (Today for example I'm doing some research on visual perception - there appear to be two main schools of thought which often contradict each other, but both of whom have evidence for each of their cases.)

The article you quote seems to identify potential short comings in its own data. (Which is of course good practice.)

Our views on things change so much and are not often as scientific as we would like to believe. I took interest in a recent UK programme on memories being stored in hearts ( and hence transferred in heart transplants ) - if only as my Father had the same procedure. Yet not long ago everyone would have said that was rubbish and conciousness was in the brain.

You don't even want to think about if cholesterol is good for you or now these days ! I wouldn't be too swayed by the type of experiment you quote.

Cups of Tea and Cucumber Sandwiches said...

Um . . .

I am gay so the more studies the better! I agree religion is getting a bad rap most especially in the modern world as it is seen as intolerant, reactionary and damaging.

Many people are opting for the word 'spiritual' if they choose to believe in a Higher Power as religion is losing (has lost) its stranglehold on the world. Indeed we seem to be on the brink of world war because of it.

When World Leaders start espousing they have been 'chosen by God' (Bush) one wonders if he should really have decision making ability that will affect others - and indeed if he should be allowed to have his finger on the button.

Many religious people skew their beliefs and prejudices to coincide with their own as if they have a hotline to God and know what God thinks, which, of course, is the height of arrogance.

Oh don't get me wrong ... some of my best friends are religious heterosexuals (heard that one before, the other way round??) but I just don't think they should be allowed to thrust their heterosexual agenda in our faces. What they do behind closed doors is fine, though. Hahaha!

:)