Navajo on the war path over gay rights charter

[Logan13]

Navajo on the war path over gay rights charter
01/07/07
telegraph.uk

The days of smoke signals and beating drums may be long gone, but the ancient Navajo nation is incensed with a collection of bureaucrats 5,000 miles away in Britain.

Councils, police, health trusts and the probation service are all using the tribe's name to promote the "well-being" of gay men, lesbians and bisexuals.

More than 100 organisations have obtained the Navajo charter mark under a scheme set up to ensure that they are "gay-friendly".

The project's supporters say the name was chosen because the Navajo traditionally believed that homosexuals had "special spiritual powers", and afforded them a "unique" status in society, where they were "admired and honoured for their sexuality".

The native Americans, however, are furious. Their attorney-general has written a letter, passed to The Sunday Telegraph, expressing "great concern".

advertisementThe 300,000 Navajo live on a huge reservation in north-eastern Arizona, Utah and New Mexico, and enjoy considerable independence from Washington. They make many of their own laws, including one passed overwhelmingly in 2005, banning homosexual marriages.

The "Navajo" charter mark, was launched by North West Lancashire's health promotion unit in 1999. Organisations holding it include Blackpool City Council, Wyre Borough Council, Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust, and the regional probation service.

Wyre council voted for an action plan including homosexual marriages, staff "diversity training" and "gay-friendly" images in council publications, to attain the charter mark.

Just before Christmas, the same council, with Lancashire Police, paid Joe and Helen Roberts, both 75, from Fleetwood, £5,000 compensation each, plus £60,000 costs, for harassing them after they tried to place Christian leaflets next to council leaflets promoting homosexuality. Police interrogated the couple for 80 minutes about their alleged "hate-crime". The Roberts sued for breaches of their rights to freedom of expression and religion.

Louis Denetsosie, the Navajo attorney-general, says in a letter to the Roberts: "The Navajo nation is greatly concerned regarding the use of the word Navajo in any context, but even more so when it is used to express a view or policy that is contrary to Navajo law."

Last night, one of the lawyers who acted for the Roberts, Tom Ellis, of the Manchester firm Aughton Ainsworth, said: "At a time when gay activists are pressing for laws that will give them a right not to be offended, it appears that some groups, including many funded by the taxpayer, are prepared to offend a whole nation."

David Green, the director of the think-tank Civitas, accused the Navajo project of an obsession with victim status.

He said: "It's got Wyre council and the whole Navajo project into an embarrassing mess, distorting facts to promote their agenda."

A Wyre council spokesman said: "The Navajo project takes its name from a tribe of native North Americans who recognised sexual diversity in their community. Wyre has an equality strategy and Navajo links with that because it recognises diverse groups in the community."

Some native American anthropologists claim that primitive Navajos used to honour men known as the "nadleeh" – said to have "two spirits", one masculine, one feminine – who were allowed to dress like women, and to perform their duties.

They say the tradition died out more than 100 years ago under the influence of Christian missionaries. But most Navajo politicians and medicine men dispute the claim.

[Tock]

If I had a voice in what the British called their organization, I'd find another name, just out of courtesy to the Navaho. It's unfortunate that they are freaking out over this, but c'est la vie.

Another generic name that they could use instead is "Berdache." It's a term also used to refer to native americans who were not heterosexual. Here's a Wikipedia reference, fyi:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berdache

[Logan13]

If I had a voice in what the British called their organization, I'd find another name, just out of courtesy to the Navaho. It's unfortunate that they are freaking out over this, but c'est la vie.

Another generic name that they could use instead is "Berdache." It's a term also used to refer to native americans who were not heterosexual. Here's a Wikipedia reference, fyi:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berdache

I did not catch why they named themselves "Navajo", do you know why?

[Tock]

I did not catch why they named themselves "Navajo", do you know why?

That's a French word, isn't it? Those Brits want to pass themselves off as French, for some reason.


Y'know, Logan, for a straight guy, you sure do spend a lot of time reading and reporting these gay stories. As they say, "Where's there's smoke, there's fire."
Maybe you and Rev. Haggard have more in common than you suspect . . .

[Teabagger]

That's a French word, isn't it? Those Brits want to pass themselves off as French, for some reason.


Y'know, Logan, for a straight guy, you sure do spend a lot of time reading and reporting these gay stories. As they say, "Where's there's smoke, there's fire."
Maybe you and Rev. Haggard have more in common than you suspect . . .

Of course the same can be said of you Tock and the anti-Christian threads you post....perhaps you and Pat Robertson have more in common than you suspect.....

[givemethejuice]

Of course the same can be said of you Tock and the anti-Christian threads you post....perhaps you and Pat Robertson have more in common than you suspect.....

[RA]

Of course the same can be said of you Tock and the anti-Christian threads you post....perhaps you and Pat Robertson have more in common than you suspect.....

[Logan13]

That's a French word, isn't it? Those Brits want to pass themselves off as French, for some reason.


Y'know, Logan, for a straight guy, you sure do spend a lot of time reading and reporting these gay stories. As they say, "Where's there's smoke, there's fire."
Maybe you and Rev. Haggard have more in common than you suspect . . .

Retaliatory posting............

[Tock]

Of course the same can be said of you Tock and the anti-Christian threads you post....perhaps you and Pat Robertson have more in common than you suspect.....

When have I ever posted an anti-Christian thread?

I've posted the hypocrisy of prominant and obnoxious Christians who say one thing and do another. I've pointed out the contridictions, impossibilities, and cruelties found in the Christian Bible. I've challenged some of what is said by Christians on this board (like when some Christians self-righteously denounce other Christians as not being "True Christians"). I've challenged the ethics of Christians who want to use civil law to force their religious view of homosexuality on non-Christians.

I have used Reason, Common Sense, and evidence to show the faults in the philosophy that Christians claim is superior any other religion, superior to even Reason. Time and time again, I have challenged Christian's assertions, time and time again, Christian assertions were found to be without merit.

If that is what you call "Anti-Christian," so be it.

If you call any examination of Christian dogma "anti-Christian," if you call the use of Common Sense, Reason, Human Rationality, and evidence in the critical evaluation of the assertions of Christian partisans to be an act of hostility, so be it.

Ever hear of the "God Warrior?" Check this out . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-D68W9x8n0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0In_I...elated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrV7d...elated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Me1jF...elated&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXFno...elated&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8UPX...elated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2laC...elated&search=

[Teabagger]

See Tock there ya go again...your post simply proves my point. Just because you don't rail and curse doesn't mean your message isn't anti-Christian.

[Tock]

See Tock there ya go again...your post simply proves my point. Just because you don't rail and curse doesn't mean your message isn't anti-Christian.

Not so much "anti-Christian" as "Reasonable."

The Bible calls for the death of gays, sabbath breakers, witches, blasphemers, & allows for slavery and polygamy, and Christians consider such words to be a direct message from God Himself, and words to live by. This is what I would call Un-reasonable, and "anti-human."

I am what Reasonable people might call "anti-Unreasonable." I oppose what Christians call "The Infallible Word of the Living God," and its bizarre rules. I oppose Bible-based Blue Laws. I oppose slavery (except for anyone who thinks it's a good idea--let them try it). I oppose killing gays and witches. I support the right for people to speak their minds about religous things.

I essence, I support Human Rights, and oppose the Bible's BS.

Maybe you are uncomfortable with Human Rights, uncomfortable with honest criticism of the Bible, perhaps you would prefer everyone do what the Bible calls for, and then run out and kill every homosexual/witch/blasphemer they see. If that's what you truly beleive, by all means, go ahead and feel free to say so. Have the courage of your convictions. I doubt, though, that you'll be perceived as a reasonable person.

A Christian, perhaps, but not reasonable.

[Bigen12]

Not so much "anti-Christian" as "Reasonable."

The Bible calls for the death of gays, sabbath breakers, witches, blasphemers, & allows for slavery and polygamy, and Christians consider such words to be a direct message from God Himself, and words to live by. This is what I would call Un-reasonable, and "anti-human."

I am what Reasonable people might call "anti-Unreasonable." I oppose what Christians call "The Infallible Word of the Living God," and its bizarre rules. I oppose Bible-based Blue Laws. I oppose slavery (except for anyone who thinks it's a good idea--let them try it). I oppose killing gays and witches. I support the right for people to speak their minds about religous things.

I essence, I support Human Rights, and oppose the Bible's BS.

Maybe you are uncomfortable with Human Rights, uncomfortable with honest criticism of the Bible, perhaps you would prefer everyone do what the Bible calls for, and then run out and kill every homosexual/witch/blasphemer they see. If that's what you truly beleive, by all means, go ahead and feel free to say so. Have the courage of your convictions. I doubt, though, that you'll be perceived as a reasonable person.

A Christian, perhaps, but not reasonable.

Damn Tock,

You spun that like the knob on a shit house door!

[RA]

Your not fooling anyone Tock. You can hide under your "human rights" claim but week after week you post threads tearing at Christianity. We have a guy who wants to give positive faith-based messages and hes not allowed to.

Not so much "anti-Christian" as "Reasonable."

The Bible calls for the death of gays, sabbath breakers, witches, blasphemers, & allows for slavery and polygamy, and Christians consider such words to be a direct message from God Himself, and words to live by. This is what I would call Un-reasonable, and "anti-human."

I am what Reasonable people might call "anti-Unreasonable." I oppose what Christians call "The Infallible Word of the Living God," and its bizarre rules. I oppose Bible-based Blue Laws. I oppose slavery (except for anyone who thinks it's a good idea--let them try it). I oppose killing gays and witches. I support the right for people to speak their minds about religous things.

I essence, I support Human Rights, and oppose the Bible's BS.

Maybe you are uncomfortable with Human Rights, uncomfortable with honest criticism of the Bible, perhaps you would prefer everyone do what the Bible calls for, and then run out and kill every homosexual/witch/blasphemer they see. If that's what you truly beleive, by all means, go ahead and feel free to say so. Have the courage of your convictions. I doubt, though, that you'll be perceived as a reasonable person.

A Christian, perhaps, but not reasonable.

[Tock]

Your not fooling anyone Tock. You can hide under your "human rights" claim but week after week you post threads tearing at Christianity.

Week after week I post threads tearing at a popular philosophy that calls for executing hundreds of millions of Witches, blasphemers, Sabbath Breakers, gays, adulterers, etc etc etc. I expose the hypocrites in the organized (money-making) part of Christianity, I expose the idiots and lunatics, I expose the dangerous followers who, like many Beleivers before them, actually do harrass and beat and kill the sorts of people the Bible says should be killed.

Any book that calls for the wholesale slaughter of unbeleivers deserved to be shown for what it is. Anyone who exposes such a book for what it is, you can consider to be a friend.
So while you and I may never quite get to the point where we consider each other "bosom buddies," we can still be friends. Yes?

Certainly, there are some passages in the Bible that are noble, that are worth knowing about. But there are many other books that offer hope, help, wisdom, and inspiration without the nonsense and polluted ethics found in the Bible.

If you had an orange in your refrigerator with a rotten green mold spot on it, would you cut out the green spot and eat the rest? Probably not. You'd throw the entire thing away, and find a healthy one instead. That, mon ami, is what I recommend be done with the Bible.

We have a guy who wants to give positive faith-based messages and hes not allowed to.

You do?

I'm sure lots of partisans of various religions would like to tell us all about Eckankar, or Christian Science and Mary Baker Eddy's book, or give us faith-based information on how we can improve our lives with Scientology and the writings of L. Ron Hubbard.
But this is not a religious forum, so such proselytizing would not be appropriate.

This is, however, a NEWS forum. Post what you find interesting in the news, and I'm sure it will find a welcome home. Offer your opinion (not some half-baked pinhead political theologian's), and I'm sure that will be welcome as well.

Perhaps the day will come when the skies open up and trumpets blare and cherubs presage the coming of a half-naked caucasian god, taking up 144,000 people and spreading plagues, pestilences, wars, etc etc etc. That would be news. CNN, I'm sure, would cover such an event. You could post such things, and opine at length, I'm sure, without needlessly buffeting the rest of us with your faith-based interpretation of The Book of Mormon.

I'm sure your acquaintance can find ready audiences elsewhere for the faith-based enlightenment that he's itching to present. Surely this collection of dedicated anabolic steroid users (including, perhaps, this fellow you speak of) is not the last "harvest field?"

[Tock]

Damn Tock,

You spun that like the knob on a shit house door!

Nevertheless, it makes sense, yes?

Reasonable people would not embrace a document that called for killing hundreds of millions of people because they transgressed Biblical laws, wouldn't you agree?

Un-reasonable people, however, might be inclined to such a thing, yes? Popes might rail against Infidel Muslims occupying "The Holy Land" and rally people to start a war to "Cleanse it of the blasphemers?" Un-reasonable people like
www.godhatesamerica.com/ghfmir/main/index.html
might picket war heros because of what such a book calls for.

Ya, I'm what you could call a Reasonable fellow.

[Bigen12]

Nevertheless, it makes sense, yes?

Reasonable people would not embrace a document that called for killing hundreds of millions of people because they transgressed Biblical laws, wouldn't you agree?

Un-reasonable people, however, might be inclined to such a thing, yes? Popes might rail against Infidel Muslims occupying "The Holy Land" and rally people to start a war to "Cleanse it of the blasphemers?" Un-reasonable people like
www.godhatesamerica.com/ghfmir/main/index.html
might picket war heros because of what such a book calls for.

Ya, I'm what you could call a Reasonable fellow.

Bro,

I'm sorry but he got you on this one.

Your arguments being reasonable or not, isn't at issue.

Your posting of articles that shed a light on the negative aspects of religion doesn't tell the tale. It's that lack of articles that shed a positive light on religion that show your bias. I guess that can be said about many of the members here, even I.

Don’t feel bad though,

I think you might be right on with "Where's there's smoke, there's fire.".

Logan, Tock might be able to get you a membership card……..

If you ask nicely????

As far as the group "god hates america" and their protest at the funerals of fallen Soldiers, I would probably support legislation allowing the Soldiers family to shoot them on site.