Yesterday I posted 5 predictions of what the New Yorker's Peter Boyer would include in his article on C Street (the movement, not my book). All I'll say about the piece is that I'm 5 for 5. The rest is between Boyer and his God. Or maybe his fact checker.
But one point needs to be addressed: Boyer's extremely misleading and dangerous statement on Uganda. Dr. Warren Throckmorton, a conservative Christian psychologist at Grove City College who has emerged as perhaps the unlikeliest champion of LGBT rights in the world, handles it well in his post, "The New Yorker Almost Reports on Uganda." If you care about these issues, Throckmorton's blog is a must-read.
8 comments:
Once again, I'm seeing how common ground is but a mirage filled with quicksand.
I'm going for selective myopia here on the part of Democrats - this is based on the fact that I'm having too many "progressive evangelicals" (whatever the hell that means) do the three monkey dance when asked to deal with anything of a "controversial" nature. They don't want to know the truth because it will interfere with their political standing, book deals, speaking gigs, and whatever other perks come from being part of the inner circle. By the time they learned these lions of industry view them as lampchops, it will be time to pass the mint jelly.
The Coe depicted her seems to have taken lessos from Joel Osteen, a man who aww-shucks his way through scripture as he sidesteps Qs about his F rated charity.
I trust your reporting on Uganda because you actually went there and so far, your predictions have been spot on.
Boyer refers to your work, but his article then ignores your research almost entirely. And then sinks further by dubbing it the "secular" view, as if that were some kind of cult. One is reminded of the Bushies' references to the "reality-based community." Weren't we supposed to be past that? Is Boyer ignorant, uninformed, dumb (probably not) or ...? Coming soon after Jane Mayer's outstanding expose of the Koch brothers' funding of the Tea Party movement, Boyer's softball -- which you predicted so accurately -- is very hard to fathom.
You are doing great work both in exposing the Family and in attempting to shame the New Yorker into accuracy.
However, you should try to be accurate yourself. Your reference to the politically correct, but inaccurate term "LGBT" is wholly inappropriate. The Uganda law has nothing to do with transsexuals or so-called "transgenders". Throckmorton has not become a champion of "transgender" rights. So the use of the term LGBT in this context is simply wrong. More critically, it is a term that attempts to contrive a single group out of two distinct social groups, one of which is defined by sexual orientation and the other defined by the very different characteristic of gender. Don't let yourself get rolled by PC lingo the way Boyer got rolled by The Family's PR effort.
Second anonymous -- while it's true that the Uganda bill doesn't deal with transgender people, that's because it doesn't distinguish them from any other sort of queer person. As I report in the book and in Harper's, trans people have already been attacked; they're in great danger. Throckmorton is a champion for these folks, too, because he's a fundamental champion of human rights. He's opposed to all forms of violence against people because of their sexual identity.
When I read the New Yorker article, I was surprised by how it seemed to whitewash The Family, C Street, etc, especially on Uganda. I've been looking on the web for reactions to the story, and yours is the first I've found that echoes that. I was surprised New Yorker printed it. Article just seems to be "gee, it's a little private, but it's just a group of people helping each other out." I was surprised and dismayed by the implication that Clintons were so "tight" with them though.
thanks for blogging!
I believe your books on C-Street are two of the most important books written in a long time. You exposed a very dangerous covert mission - cloaked in the robes of Jesus - just in time, hopefully. Even though this group has already succeeded in propping up the powerful elite to an extraordinary level, I'm sure, it's more important than ever, (especially considering the transformation underway, suppressing and exploiting the average American while unraveling the fabric of our Constitution) that their facade is destroyed
After the wonderful article exposing the Koch Brothers, it shocks me that the New Yorker, published this gratuitous crock... Anyway, I would love to know how Coe & company managed to score the New Yorker to launch their PR campaign.
Hello Jeff,
I saw you on CSpan and you were a welcome breath of sanity, the loons from both the left and right filled the hours before you showed up.
I appreciated your attempt to show some respect for fundamentalism, and the fact that you were concerned with human rights, not just Jewish rights.
I try to feel a little warm affection for decent Christians who I like to believe actually exist, much as I like to believe that most Muslims are actually decent people.
Your speech made me momentarily suspect that I might be burnt at stake or stoned to death in the near future. I am old and arthritic so it is not a major concern. I hope you do not get too much flack for your work.
Best of Health
I would like to exchange links with your site jeffsharlet.blogspot.com
Is this possible?
Post a Comment