Chris Butler and Homophobia
Posted by:
Father Maximiadis
()
Date: July 09, 2008 11:09AM
OPEN LETTER TO CHRIS BUTLER:
CHRIS BUTLER: "HOMOSEXUALS ... SEX
EVEN WITH PIGS AND DOGS ... WITHOUT
ANY HANG UPS" ( sic ).
Homosexuality: Identity Crisis ( s.l.et a. )
Dear Swami,
I respond to some assertions you made, that were published, in your Booklet: Homosexuality: Identity Crisis.
Prior to commencing, I should like to make it quite clear, that the opinions I'll be expressing in the following paragraphs are not to be regarded as being representative of any views, teachings, dogmas, or beliefs of any particular Christian church. And not to be interpreted as a campaign for homosexualism, lesbianism, or identity politics. These opinions are to be regarded as my personal views; nothing more nor nothing less.
Furthermore, they are not to be construed as any criticism of the core beliefs ( e.g., metempsychosis ) of the multifarious traditions and philosophies generally known as Hinduism, or to be precise Sanâtana Dharma ( q.v. ). They are mentioned here solely to facilitate my criticisms of your erroneous teachings that have the effect of vilifying Christians, homosexuals et al.
The principal assertions that you made, in your booklet, are, in part, as follows:
"Hormones, chromosomes and the entire physical make-up of people are determined ... at the time of death ... the type of body they will take on in their next live". And that, "In the case of homosexuals, such individuals in their previous lives were somehow or other attached to the male form. And at the time of death, they were thinking of the male form. Thus, they got male bodies in this life ... That is why sometimes it seems like these people are freaks of nature". And that they'll have "...sex even with pigs and dogs ... without any "hang-ups". You also assert that they "should appreciate the fact that they are not women trapped in men's bodies", and "such desires are apart from himself ... he can try to rid his mind of them ... or he can give in to them. The choice is his", And, to support your assertions, you quote from the antiquated "urning theory".
You also assert that "The soul transmigrates from a baby body to a boyhood body, and then migrates into a young man's body ... a middle-aged body", and then into "the body of an old man". You conclude by interpolating a few generalized borrowings from human biology to legitimize your vague assumptions: "All the cells have changed, the bones have changed, the whole body is different. This is a scientific fact".
In conclusion, you assert that: "Religious leaders are teaching religiosity rather than real religion", and they "are simply misleading people", and "They are not teaching the truth". ( sic ) op. cit.
Your assertions outlined above, are based solely upon your personal opinions, rather than verifiable facts, and laced with a soupçon of scientific terminology, viz., "hormones, chromosomes", and put forth under the veneer of "scientific fact (s) ". One could very well consider it Machiavellian, if it were not for the ingenuousness of style.
This response is put forward for your perusal and reply, for which I'm accustomed to expect no acknowledgment, as has been the situation, on several occasions; for the past seven years. But more particularly for both your followers and readership, to evaluate, whether or not, the above assertions are indeed "scientific fact (s) ". But first and foremost, for them to consider the spiritual and intellectual integrity of their leader, to whom they have entrusted their souls.
THE LIBIDO AND
TAXONOMIC CONCEPTS.
Your assertions, regarding human sexuality, are extremely oversimplified, and polarized. These are the facts as I perceive them from the anatomical and physiological perspectives. The anatomical structures of the male and female genitalia, at the nuts and bolts level, clearly indicates the specific physiological functions; i.e., both the penis and vagina are totally 'design perfect', and totally 'compliant and complimentary' of the heterosexual mode. Or alternatively, one could say: 'the anatomical structures dictate the physiological expressions of the mode of heterosexual sex'; these are, in part, the biological facts as I understand them. However, notwithstanding, these self evident biological facts, statistical data ( v.i., ) demonstrate, a noticeable divergence from propensity for the heterosexual mode. The taxonomic concept, at the pragmatic level, isn't always in accord with the anatomical designs, particularly during the periods of the upper levels of excitation and intensity. Unfortunately, rhythmic sympathetic impulses - that generate spasmodic peristaltic contractions - abandon the conscience, and may not always culminate ( ejaculari ) in conforming to the physiological functions of the anatomical structures; in uniformity with the heterosexual mode.
PSYCHOLOGICAL AND
OTHER PERSPECTIVES.
Your booklet failed to acknowledge psychological, considerations of homosexuals that may have offset their sexual modes. Perhaps effects induced by early formative influences, e.g., dysfunctional relationships between parental figures and/or siblings, or hormonal imbalances or genetic anomalies, of which I'll provide more details later ( v.i. ) with evidential supports from leading specialists in the field. My responses, to the above in toto, will be formulated from psychological, philosophical, theological, sociological perspectives, as well as textual comparison of the Bhagavad-Gîtâ with your assertions regarding the Hindu doctrine of transmigration. And, of course, your insipid ( or rather idée fixe ) anti-Christian and anti-clerical compulsions, of whom you relentlessly refer to as "so-called Christians".
TWO THEORETICAL MODES.
Your writings suggest that you are wholly incognizant on the subject of homosexuality; a multifarious and complex subject. For example, nowhere in your article is there the slightest indication of the most fundamental difference between the ego conscious modes of sexuality. Firstly, the ego-syntonic mode, which is indicative of the bilateral symmetry, of the libidinal [ Not to be confused with the 'libidinous' which is quite different ], impulse, and the conscious ego state, and the impulses and drives, from the source of primal ( or rudimentary ( q.v., )) energy, q.e. the 'id'. And secondly, the ego-dystonic mode, that suggests a rejection, by the individual, of the libidinal cerebral impulse correspondingly compelled, idem as the ego-syntonic by the impulses and drives from the 'id'.
THE MASCULINE AND
FEMININE MODES.
Additionally, you failed to recognize the Jungian unconscious masculine and feminine components. These classical universal psycho sexual components - or "archetypes" as Jung called them [ C. G. Jung, 'The Collected Works', vol.9, pt.1 'The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious', ch.vi 'Conscious, Unconscious, and Individuation' p.284. ] - are present in both sexes. Firstly, the 'anima', the feminine component in the male personality. Secondly, the 'animus', the masculine component in the female personality. Your assumptions appears to have been formulated solely from the perspective of the overt effeminate persona, with emphasis upon the 'anima' without acknowledgement of the 'animus'; a gross misconception indeed. This has the effect of effeminating all homosexuals; in the eyes of your readership.
Your assumptions also fail to acknowledge, and understand those, i.e., ego-syntonic homosexuals, whose inherited libidinal impulse are directed towards an exclusive sexual propensity for others of their own sex, and furthermore, you ignore the fact that their propensity for the opposite sex would be contrary to organization and criterion of their own individual psycho-sexual consciousness. In like manner, propensity of the ego-syntonic heterosexual towards the same sex, would customarily be contrary to their libidinal impulse; although not always clearly categorized as such at the pragmatic level, e.g., the theoretical "bisexual" mode, perhaps expressed in an isolated ( or exclusive ) male environment, thus: 'facultative homosexuality', transitory experimental teenage mutual masturbation; or generally faute de mieux.
In their article, 'Sex in Australia: Homosexual experience and recent homosexual encounters', Professor Andrew E. Grulich, Ph. D., et al, suggested:
"Overall, 8.6% of women and 5.9% of men reported some homosexual sexual experience in their lives (p<0.001); these figures fell to 5.7% and 5.0% respectively (p=0.106) when non-genital sexual experience was excluded. 1.9% of men and 1.5% of women reported homosexual experience in the past year. Men who reported homosexual experience reported more same-sex partners than did women (means 31.6 and 3.2, p<0.001), and men and women who identified as homosexual or "bisexual" reported more sexual partners in total than those who identified as heterosexual. Sex in Australia: Homosexual experience and recent homosexual encounters ( Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, April 2003 ).
The above data summarizes a marked divergence of sexual activity, taken from a sample, that theoretically represent sexual experiences ( or modes ) within the population; that may not necessarily be rationalized within a static 'homosexual context'; but perhaps in a transient oscillatory context. It's reasonable to assume that there is present an indubitable preference for one or the other.
BIOPHYSICS vs. SOPHISTRY.
Your assertion that the "entire physical make-up of people are determined" at the "time of death", as to the type of body they'll "take on in their next live" ( I assume that you mean 'lives' ), seems an extravagant assumption unrelated to any scientific facts, reasons for which I'll outline in the following two paragraphs:
Firstly, the "physical" ( corpus or corporis ), is biologically related to properties of energy, matter et cetera, and quite unrelated to "make-up" which, from a psychological perspective, may be defined as a total integration of traits to form the individual's character, etc. These traits, in your assumption, form an incomprehensible composition. There are three perspectives, in your single assertion, that form a mixture of the 'biological', 'psychological', and the 'sophistical', which would require a very clever synthesis, for your assertion, to form at least, an arguable system of scientific facts.
Secondly, the facts, as I understand them are: The corpse including its "hormones" and "chromosomes", are customarily disposed of by burial, cremation, or by some other course of action ( e.g., as a cadaver for studies in pathologic anatomy ). The corpse, including its tissue, integumentary system, chemical, and cellular compositions, have ceased to exist. This rules out the generational transmission theory, of hereditary traits, because an hypothetical interdependency factor, between the dead ( or destroyed ) hereditary-carrying genes, with the supposed body "... in their next live"; is not within the ambit of scientific facts. To fit this into your "scientific" suppositions would necessitate some very fanciful manipulations.
'STATEMENTS OF SOPHISTRIES' OR
'STATEMENTS OF SCIENTIFIC FACTS'?
Your assumption that homosexuals "...got male bodies in this life", because "...at the time of ( their ) death" they were "thinking of the male form", is a 'statement of sophistries' rather than a statement of "... scientific fact (s) ". An assumption as to what an homosexual ( or anyone else ) supposedly thought prior to death is, in my opinion, unadulterated conjecture. An individual's sex, as I understand it, is determined by the sex chromosomes, i.e., the Y-chromosome gene, the Testes Determining Factor ( TDF ), of the male sex; designated as XY. The female sex chromosome configuration, designated as XX, which could develop into male, if the TDF passes across to one of the X chromosomes. And if the TDF gene were absent from the male XY chromosome pair, it could develop into a female.
Furthermore, the scientific community is producing very impressive research results, rousing widespread interest in the theory of genetics giving rise to variations to sexual behaviours in human, as well as other species, e.g., the fruit fly, or as it is known among scientists, the drosophila melanogaster ( 'dew-loving black belly' ), which is a popular multicellular two-winged insect ( or organism ) for research studies in genetics; and developmental biology. Essential to development of the fruit-flies' anatomical and physiological sexual functions, is the fruitless gene ( fru ), that catalyses the ribonucleic acid ( RNA ), from the deoxyribonucleic acid ( DNA ) frame for synthesis of protein development. Mutation of the original expression of the fru's allelomorphs may damage or reverse sexual orientations. Research results from studies on the fru gene suggests a theoretical correlation with the genetics of human gender organization.
Researcher, Professor Bruce S. Baker, Ph. D., Biology department, Stanford University; told reporter Mark Shwartz:
"The fruit fly is a model organism whose basic cellular functions are very similar to what they are in people ... It wouldn't surprise me to learn that human sexual behaviors also have underneath them a basic circuitry in the nervous system that mediates attraction and mating." ( Stanford Report, 4 August, 2004 ).
Professor Baker ( et al., ) research results substantiates the theory in support of genetics giving rise to variations to sexual behaviours. I believe your assumptions, that homosexuals' supposed thoughts, in an assumed pre-existence, the decisive factor of sex orientations; is contradictory to chromosomal and hormonal activities. They are as different as chalk from cheese. Thereby, your statement of " ... scientific fact (s)" fades into sophistic 'statements of belief'. Masquerading sophistries as "... scientific fact (s) " are gross deceptions, and it goes without saying, are totally at odds with any reputable scientific research, of a kind like:
Professor D. H. Hamer, Ph. D., a specialist in Molecular Therapeutics, and discoverer of the genetic links to sexual orientation ( 1993 ), suggests that 'homosexuals possess an Xq28 genetic marker on their X chromosome'; and that 'there is a link between this marker and homosexuals':
"...gay men had more homosexual male relatives through maternal than through paternal lineages, and linkage analysis of gay male siblings, which found significantly increased sharing of Xq28 DNA markers" ( ''Science', July 1993 ).
Your view that they ( homosexuals ): 'sometime seem like' "...freaks of nature", is a quirky description reminiscent of early 20-century circus sideshows. This description - absent from medical lexicons - is banal as well as meaningless. Perhaps there is some confusion, in your mind, between "... freaks of nature", and 'Congenital Developmental Anomalies' ( or 'defects' ) e.g., the mutated gene called: Phosphatase and Tensin Homologue ( PTEN ) perhaps instrumental as a regulator, and suppressor, in the process of one of the particular kinds of mitosis ( theoretically, a quadruple somatic cell division of the nucleus ). Professor Charis Eng, Ph. D., is a clinician and scientist specializing in Clinical Cancer Genetics, and Cancer Genomic Medicine. In an interview with Elise Ritter, she linked the Phosphatase and Tensin homologue gene ( PTEN ) with Neurofibromatosis ( Also known as 'Proteus syndrome' ( PS )). She was asked:
"Where did you get the idea that Proteus syndrome, one of the diseases Joseph Merrick afflicted with, could be caused by a mutated PTEN gene?" Professor Eng replied: "As a clinician as well as scientist, I noted that the unusual tissue growth of Proteus syndrome was slightly reminiscent of other disorders caused by germline ( in every cell of the body ) PTEN mutation that we were studying, such as Cowden syndrome and Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome ( BRRS )". Discovery Health Channel, ( 6 March, 2008 ).
[ Professor Eng was referring to Joseph Carey
Merrick ( 1862 - 1890 ), the so-called "Elephant
Man". Joseph Carey Merrick Tribute Website ]
There is a clear distinction between your: 'statement of belief', "freaks of nature" ( presumable 'Congenital Developmental Anomalies' ), "...scientific fact (s)" and homosexuality, the four of which are, in the context of your arguments, theoretically and effectually incompatible. Thereby your 'statement of belief' slips into the category of unadulterated conjecture.
INSULARISM AND CONTEMPORARY
SECULAR THINKING.
Your views on 'homosexuality' are at variance with all the principal United States Mental Health associations who declassified 'homosexuality' as no longer a psychiatric disorder. The The American Psychiatric Association withdrew 'homosexuality' from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ( DSM ); in 1973. Two years later, the The American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting this action; in 1975. The American Psychiatric Association, sent a letter ( 13 June, 2006 ) to the Pentagon ( Department of Defence ( DoD )), requesting removal of 'homosexuality', from the status of psychiatric disorder. Thereby, your opinions, by your own volition, are isolated from contemporary secular thinking.
"MIND", "DESIRES", AND
'MISTAKEN IDENTITIES'.
Your opinion that they ( homosexuals ) are "...mistakenly identifying themselves as the mind and desires" is an idiosyncratic collage groundless, of even reductionist assumptions, about psycho-neurophysiological facts. Precisely, who or what, are these 'entities', apart from the "mind" and "desires" that 'mistakenly identifies'. Can you demonstrate your cognizance of the subject by mounting - not a description - but a deducible or defensible argument, of these 'entities' in a contemporary psychological frame; rather than referring to Karl Heinrich's ( 1825 – 1895 ) antiquated Victorian "urning theory".
'GENDER-IDENTITY
DISORDER' ( GID ).
The inclusion of the irrelevant topic: 'transsexualism' q.e., 'Gender-Identity Disorder' ( GID ), into your subject-matter concerning 'homosexuality', is particularly baffling. Diagnosed GID is, in an abbreviated, and generalized framework, an anomalous relationship between the brain ( within the anterior pituitary gland q.l. ), gender identity ( within the hypothalamus stria terminalis ( BSTc ) q.l. )), and the anatomical-physiological principles of the genitalia i.e., the penis and vagina ( with the limbic system within the rhinencephalon ). Diagnosed GID, as I understand it, is unrelated to clinically diagnosed signs, and symptoms, of chromosomal aberrations; or established histories of psychiatric disorders. Quite clearly, it's not a fact "...that they are not women trapped in men's bodies", but rather, they are sufferers of a diagnosable condition ( GID ) characterized by inappropriateness, and persistent discomfort, of their anatomic genitalia. 'Gender-Identity Disorder' and 'homosexuality' are as different as chalk from cheese.
You assert that:
"...homosexuals who say they feel like women trapped in men's bodies are mistakenly identifying themselves", and that they "...should appreciate the fact that they are not women trapped in men's bodies".
Your unqualified 'diagnoses' q.l., are based upon your own unschooled opinions, rather than from knowledge gathered from the scientific community; your opinions are based on false reasoning. This is not 'mistaken identity', as you 'misdiagnose', but rather a clinically diagnosable biological disorder, quite unrelated to the 'theory of identity', which belong to the field of psychology. An approximate comprehensible explanation on this subject ( from the biological perspective ), as I understand it, suggest a rapid multiplication by Gonadotroph cells, that are released from the adenohypophysis for the follicle-stimulating hormone ( FSH ) for mature ova, and spermatozoa production in the testes. This, quite clearly, has no bearing upon 'mistaken identity'.
Professor Louis Gooren, Ph. D., ( Asian Journal of Andrology, ( s.a. ) ), who specialises in Gender Problems and Psychoneuro-endocrinology, and who is the Netherlands' leader in the field of endocrinology; suggests:
"The stria terminalis also appears to be indicated in gender identification. Studies have shown that male-to-female transsexuals tend to have female-normative cell proliferation in the central subdivision of the bed nuclei of the stria terminalis ( BSTc ), whereas a female-to-male transsexual was found to have male-normative BSTc cell proliferation. It is thought this is mediated by diminished and excessive androgen levels respectively in utero and neonatally" ( sic ). The Health Report, Gender Dysphoria ( ABC Radio National, 4 September, 2000 ).
AN HYPOTHETICAL
TREATMENT RÉGIME.
Diagnosed Gender-Identity Disorder ( GID ) may require intensive assessment, by specialist health care professionals - psychologists, surgeons, anaesthetists, social workers, et alii, who may consider the patient a suitable candidate for uro-genital and reconstructive-plastic surgery; i.e., Gender Reassignment Surgery. Hypothesized procedures ( not to be considered as formal surgical procedures, but solely as hypothesized treatment régimes ), for male patients, may involve: v.g. mammary prosthetic silicone implants, orchidectomy, penectomy, labiaplasty, et cetera; and endocrine therapy viz., hormone as a testosteronal inhibitor, and an hormonal steroid ( estrogen ) to promote female secondary sex characteristics. Similarly, female patients may also: undergo procedures v.g. bilateral mastectomy, total or perhaps radical ( qq.v. ) hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, phalloplasia, testicular prostheses implants, etc., and androgenic steroid to promote masculine characteristics. These surgical procedures, although hypothetical, will suffice for the purpose for comprehension, and both defining and separating diagnosed Gender-Identity Disorder ( GID ) discussion from the entirely separate categories, of 'homosexuality', 'transvestism', 'crossdressing', and so-called "transgenderism". My suggestions were intended to demonstrate the incongruousness of your teachings with academic and clinical medicine, as well as being at variance with the World Health Organisation ( WHO ), or Organisation Mondial de la Sante ( OMS ), who acknowledged, and designated, GID as a diagnosable disorder; in 1992.
HINDU TRADITION OF
TRANSVESTISM ( SAKHIS ).
I suggest you examine 'transvestism' within the Hindu religious tradition of Sakhis, but tread very cautiously, particularly regarding any homophobic campaigns, or any other contemporary arguments, whether they be for proselytizing purposes ( for your brand of Hinduism ), vilifying Christians, or identity politics et cetera. An excellent study on the subject would be: 'Transsexualism, Gender, and Anxiety in Traditional India,' by Professor Robert P. Goldman, Ph. D., Research Scientist, in Integrative Biology at the University of Texas; at Austin.
THE METAPHYSICAL vs. THE MECHANISTIC.
You claim:
"This is a very great science. People have to try to understand it as a science. This is not a belief. People must understand the reality of how the mind affects the gross body and how activities of the present body affect the mind."
Your claim is, in my opinion, incoherent because of the inconsistency of your assertion by failing to define and differentiate between "reality", "mind", and "gross body" ( 'sthûla sarîra' ). Firstly, 'reality', as I understand it, is measurable by objective scientific standards of the physical world, whereas the "reality", in your claim, is simply and solely, interpretable constructs extrapolated from your personal subjective opinions regardless of reliable empirical facts and data of the physical world. Secondly, your assertion that: "... the mind affects the gross body" is a contradiction of terms. Your use of the word "affects" in your argument hasn't any biological meaning without a qualifier to correlate the abstract mind with the physical body. Thirdly, your metaphorical use of the term "mind" to explain neurophysiological activities of the "gross body", at the zenithal 'organismic level', is a juxtaposing of contrasting theoretical frames: viz., the metaphysical and mechanistic, e.g., interactionism, psychophysicalism, and materialism, subjective idealism; respectively.
All things considered, it would appear that your notions of a "very great science", "reality", "mind", "gross body", and your confusion between "science" and "belief", absent of a synthesis, are indeed; an odd assortment of sophistries.
BUTLERISM vs. THE BHAGAVAD-GÎTÂ.
You assert that:
"The soul transmigrates from a baby body to a boyhood body, and then migrates into a young man's body. A person who used to live in a young body now lives in a middle-aged body. And a person who used to live in a middle-aged body now lives in an old body ... all the cells have changed, the bones have changed, the whole body is different. This is a scientific fact".
Your assertion, or "scientific fact", claiming that four supposed occurrences of a person's "transmigration (s) " take place from between their "baby body" through to their "old body" is in conflict with the Hindu doctrine of 'Transmigration' ( 'samsãra' ). This doctrine, as I understand it, is defined in Hinduism as a 'principle' ( 'Âtman' ) that supposedly passes from one body after death; and enters into another body'. Your assertion contradicts the text of the Bhagavad-Gîtâ itself, and your former spiritual master; the late Swami Prabhupada ( v.i. ).
The Bhagavad-Gîtâ says:
Chapter 2, Text 13.
( Sanskrit ):
dehino ′smin yathâ dehe
kaumâram yauvanam jarâ
tathâ dehântara-prâptir
dhÎras tatra na muhyati.
( English transliteration ):
dehinah - of the embodied; asmin -
in this; yathâ - as; dehe - in the body;
kaumâram - boyhood; yauvanam -
youth; jarâ - old age; tathâ - similarly;
deha-antara - of transference of the
body; prâptih - achievement; dhîrah
- the sober; tatra - thereupon; na -
never; muhyati - is deluded.
The above transliteration doesn't indicate a transference ( deha-antara ) between boyhood ( kaumâram ), youth ( yauvanam ) and old age ( jarâ ), but a transfer at death ( tathâ dehântara-prâptir ); i.e., 'mrtyuh'.
Prabhupada said:
"... the same spirit soul is there and
does not undergo any change. This
individual soul finally changes the
body at death and transmigrates to
another body..." ( sic ) ibid.
Thereby, your claims, are in conflict with both your own text ( Bhagavad- Gîtâ ), and Prabhupada.
Furthermore, on your own admission, you have exhibited unsubstantial and negligent claims, in asserting that: Firstly, "the soul transmigrates" four times, within the individual living body during its life cycle; rather than at death. And secondly, that "cells" of the human organism "change" and are "different" during the individual life period.
The definitional contradistinctions between "change" ( permutãtio ), and "renewal" ( renovatio. ) may appear to be a moot point, or even pedantic, to the less discerning, but to the more circumspect, there is a refined arguable distinction that favours "renewal", rather than "change", due to quadruple somatic cell divisions ( mitosis ) of the nucleus, that result in two genetically similar offsprings which differs, quite considerably, from cell "change".
This quite clearly belong to the realm of the scientific, i.e., the 'body', which conforms to empirical observation. The 'spirit'; the root definition being: 'breath' or 'breeze' ) is that by extension the 'life principle' which the body depends, whereas the 'soul', is the immortal immaterial part of the individual as opposed to the intellectual and analytical. All things considered, both your interpretation of the Bhagavad-Gîtâ, and understanding of scientific facts are sadly wanting.
REINCARNATION AND THE ARYAN
HEREDITARY CASTE SYSTEM ( JATI ).
You teach the precarious doctrine of 'transmigration' ( reincarnation ) which is synonymous with 'pantheism', a theory which favours God ( Deitastatis ) and the material universe correlative, i.e., the universe is God, or God is the universe.
Seems prima facie to be a plausible theory, very appealing, particularly to the undiscerning, the adherents in the new age movement ( or neo-paganism ); and to some indiscriminate Christians. But exploring into the deeper implications, one will discover some very complex unresolvable issues, e.g., the dichotomy between the inexhaustible infinite Creater ( 'Yahweh ‘ asher yihweh' ), and the mortal psychophysical organism 'mankind' = homo; and the universe. They are as different as chalk from cheese. Vis à vis, they are incongruous. How could you hope to succeed in providing a rationale for this dichotomy when centuries of Hindu scholarship have failed? And furthermore, 'transmigration' is nowhere to be found in the Vedas ( ca. 1500 - 800 BC ); the oldest document in Hinduism ( 'Sanâtana Dharma' ( q.v. )). Transmigration was introduced later in the Chândogya Upanishad ( 900 - 800 BC q.v., ) and the Bhagavad-Gîtâ ( 400 - 300 BC q.v. ); without theological considerations.
Allied to transmigration is the theory of Karma ( or Karman ), which was introduced into northern India, during the Aryan invasion and conquest ( 1500 BC to 500 BC q.v. ). Caucasian Brahmins assert lineage to those aggressive, illiterate, nomadic invaders; from the south of Russia and Central Asia. Karma is, as I have said in earlier correspondence, an élitist ( 'varna' = 'colour' or 'jâti' = 'family lineage', 'rank' ) racist based caste system. This was one of the principal tools to maintain socio-economic control, by the conquerors ( Aryans ) over the conquered; the aboriginals ( mistakenly designated "Dravidians" ).
The doctrine of Karma served two purposes. Firstly in providing an explanation as to the 'why (s)' underlying the apparent mundane inconsistencies with human life. Secondly, by supporting the 'why (s)' with the means for their inclusion viz., the 'how (s)' into religious dogma, to serve as an exploitative tool imposing social stigma and economic constraints to subjugate the Shûdra ( the labouring caste ) for exploitative control by the upper class - i.e., the Brahmin priests ( q.v. ).
For centuries, this system was upheld to maintained the status quo of the hierarchical system of class division ( BBC Homepage, 5 March, 2008 ), or 'caste' ( jati ); viz., the Brãhmana, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shûdra, and Dalits ( Untouchables ). Although it was rejected by Siddhartha Gautama the Buddha ( circa 563 to 483 BC ), Jesus Christ ( 5 BC to 26 AD q.l. ) ( see: Luke 4.18, Col. 3.22-4.1, and Eph. 6.5-9 ), and outlawed by the Indian Government in 1947; one hundred and eighty million Dalits continue to be discriminated against today ( BBC World News, 14 October, 2006 ). The doctrine of karma supposedly rationalises life's inequalities; but has never been substantiated.
Notwithstanding this prolonged caste system of cruel oppression on the Indian subcontinent, you, similar to Prabhupada, continue to justify the perpetuation of this pitiless dogma and practice. You assert:
"... your situation is due to your own making. It's your fault. You're the one who made your present existence by your past activities" ( sic ).
( 'Understanding Karma', Science of
Identity Foundation, 1995, p.6 ).
Likewise, Prabhupada said:
"There are different rules and regulations for different castes or divisions of society, and if a person is able to follow them, he will be automatically raised to the highest platform of spiritual realization."
( The Bhagavad-Gïtâ, 16.22 p.764 ).
"SO-CALLED MODERN SOCIETY IS PROVIDING ...
STIMULUS FOR PEOPLE TO BECOME HOMOSEXUALS".
"Religious leaders are teaching religiosity rather than real religion", they "are simply misleading people", "They are not teaching the truth", and "so-called modern society is increasingly providing the unwanted stimulus for people to become homosexuals".
What precisely, in your opinion, is the "real religion" that "religious leaders" are suppose to teach? I don't believe that "real religion", and "truth", are in your mind; the real issues in question. I believe the real issues are: Firstly, your personal Hinduized ( q.v., ) assumptions as to what you think Christian religious leaders ought to be teaching, viz., your fabrications, machinations, and interpolations of abbreviated forms of selective generalized Hindu doctrines, and beliefs - inherited from Prabhupada - into Christianity. Secondly, the presumptuousness of your grandiose monopoly of "truth" from behind the façade of your assumed epithet "Jagad Guru" ( "teacher of the whole world" ); accompanied with an over bloated ambition to proselytize rich westerners, particularly unwary Christians, rather than the poor in the underdeveloped countries, to your brand of Hinduism, or to be precise: 'Butlerism'.
What is this supposed "stimulus" that society provides "... for people to become homosexuals". Can you be more specific ( with evidential supports ). Who are the principal 'providers' of this "stimulus", the government or private enterprise? Where does the money come from? The government coffers, or from the private sector? And how many 'people ... became homosexuals' during the past twelve month period, as a consequence of these alleged 'stimuli'?
Would you consider "teaching the [ whole ] truth", to both your followers and readership, regarding the Hindu rituals of Šâkta, whose devotees consume meat, alcohol, and engaging in ritual coitus ( The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15 ed, vol. 8, p. 897, 1982 ).
The "so-called modern society", i.e., the United States, of which you so glibly refer, has allowed you the freedom, and opportunity, to expand and accumulate considerable wealth, in an insular comfort zone, from where to disseminate your wearisome and repetitious diatribes on "so-called" this, "so-called" that; and "so-called" anything else that is different from 'Butlerism'; all of which are quite irrelevant to international current events affecting human suffering. You convert your rhetoric into wealth, whilst "so-called" Christians engage in philanthropy.
"So-called modern society" has also allowed you the freedom for your pseudo-religious posturing and strutting 'homophobic notions regarding society', 'clergy not teaching real religion or truth', whilst you remain silent on real moral and ethical issues concerning human life, e.g., the effects of the current ravages of war and famine. Since May 2003, one hundred thousand ( q.l., ) lives were lost in Iraq ( The Lancet, 2004 ); to which your lectures, and booklets, have responded to with deathly silence. These concerns are apparently far too large for the "Jagad Guru" ( "teacher of the whole world" ). Clergy, "So-called modern society", and 'homosexuals' are a far safer and softer target. Far easier to kill a dragon fly ( Anisoptera ) than a dragon itself; wouldn't you agree? Any teachings - with the exception of 'Butlerism' of course! - that prioritizes nit-pickings ( of "so-called" this, that; et cetera ); over tragedies effecting human life is not "real religion" by any criterion.
The economic and social privileges you now enjoy would have been unachievable on the Indian subcontinent where the national prescribed poverty threshold is set at $0.40 per day [ World Bank's beneficiary recommendation is $1.0 for all undeveloped countries ]. An economic sound policy to preach to rich westerners than to the poor in the underdeveloped countries; wouldn't you agree?
Whilst you occupy your sphere of influence ( whatever that may be ), vilify homosexuals, et al., more than 300,000,000 ( q.v., ) of India's population are unemployed, probably existing below the poverty line ( National Citizens Movement for "Transforming INDIA" ). The aggregate of seventy three million people, in seventy eight countries, depend on the United Nations World Food Programme ( UNWFP ), ( Al Jazeera, 12 March, 2008 ). How fare your rice bowl, cushioned safe and secure in Hawaii ( or "so-called modern society" ); whacking away at homosexuals and other soft targets, with a blind eye on the real issues concerning human suffering.
LAKSHMANA TEMPLE:
EXPLICIT SEXUAL
SCULPTURES.
Your assertion that "So-called modern society is increasingly providing the unwanted stimulus for people to become homosexuals" is incongruous with: "Religious leaders are teaching religiosity rather than real religion, ( they ) are simply misleading people, they are not teaching the truth".
I suggest that you burrow deeper into the source of your own pseudo-religion ( Butlerism ) for the "truth" by deliberating on the southern walls of the Hindu Lakshmana Temple ( 930-950 AD ), dedicated to Lord Vishnu, in the Khajuraho village ( 385 miles ( 620 kilometres ) southeast of Delhi ) ), which has explicit sexual sculptures depicting males engaging in anal intercourse, fellatio, and zooerasty.
Would you consider those images as pornographic, and as "unwanted stimulus for people to become homosexuals", 'zoophiles', et cetera ? Juxtaposing your "so-called modern society ..." etc., argument, with those sculptures; and their supposed stimulus, would that, in your opinion, influence "people to become homosexuals"? If you consider your argument correct, why hasn't the entire population on the Indian subcontinent succumbed to 'homosexuality'? Wouldn't a 1058-year period been sufficient to substantiate your argument? And why are you, yourself "... not teaching the [ whole ] truth"; regarding these facts to your readership and followers?
HINDUISM'S DEVADASI SYSTEM
OF RELIGIOUS PROSTITUTION.
Whilst you pontificate on: Christian "Religious leaders ... misleading people ... ( and ) not teaching the truth" ( sic ), you remain silent regarding the Devadasi ( a 'slave of a deity' ( q.v. e.g., Shiva, Vishnu, et al. ) ). Devadasi is a religious Hindu practise of child prostitution. The Indian government is an active member of the United Nations ( U.N. ). It played a key role in drafting the Universal Declaration on Human Rights in 1948 ( Dr. Hansa Mehta ), and amongst other member nations, are committed to eradicate trafficking and sexual exploitation of children.
The central and state governments received a Public Interest Litigation, from the Supreme Court, New Delhi, in 1990; to establish advisory bodies to recommend procedures to obliterate this and other forms of child prostitution. Notwithstanding, government efforts, to eradicate the devadasi form of child exploitation, this tradition, is still prevalent in many parts of India today. The rituals of Jogin, and Basavi initiation rituals of eleven year old ( qq.v. ) children, particularly from the lower socio-economic sectors; continue to this day. This tradition is on the public record, Robert A. Morey, Ph. D., as continuing in Maharashtra ( no figures were provided ). Figures were provided by two of the southern states, i.e., Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, for devadasi in their cities: 16,624 and 22,941 ( q.v. ) respectively ( Source: Government of India Ministry of Human Resource Development Department of Education Child Prostitution ( 9.51 ) ). Many of the girls finish up by moving to the west coast city Mumbai ( formerly Bombay ), and Pune in western India; where they work as prostitutes. These are the facts of which you chose to remain silent.
CONCLUSION.
Homosexuals, and lesbians, are part of us. John Donne wasn't far from the mark in saying: "No man is an island, entire of it self; every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the main ..." Devotions upon Emergent Occasions ( 1624 ) 'Meditation XVII'. Many people experience sense of loneliness, and a strong emotional longing for a loyal and stable friendship; notwithstanding nationality, colour, culture, or sexual orientation. Everyone deserves unconditional acceptance, love and effective support, with an attitude of optimism, rather than condemnatory attitudes.
Rev. Father Maximiadis.
[www.fathershomepage.com]
Rev. Fr. A. Maximiadis
CHRIS BUTLER: "HOMOSEXUALS ... SEX
EVEN WITH PIGS AND DOGS ... WITHOUT
ANY HANG UPS" ( sic ).
Homosexuality: Identity Crisis ( s.l.et a. )
Dear Swami,
I respond to some assertions you made, that were published, in your Booklet: Homosexuality: Identity Crisis.
Prior to commencing, I should like to make it quite clear, that the opinions I'll be expressing in the following paragraphs are not to be regarded as being representative of any views, teachings, dogmas, or beliefs of any particular Christian church. And not to be interpreted as a campaign for homosexualism, lesbianism, or identity politics. These opinions are to be regarded as my personal views; nothing more nor nothing less.
Furthermore, they are not to be construed as any criticism of the core beliefs ( e.g., metempsychosis ) of the multifarious traditions and philosophies generally known as Hinduism, or to be precise Sanâtana Dharma ( q.v. ). They are mentioned here solely to facilitate my criticisms of your erroneous teachings that have the effect of vilifying Christians, homosexuals et al.
The principal assertions that you made, in your booklet, are, in part, as follows:
"Hormones, chromosomes and the entire physical make-up of people are determined ... at the time of death ... the type of body they will take on in their next live". And that, "In the case of homosexuals, such individuals in their previous lives were somehow or other attached to the male form. And at the time of death, they were thinking of the male form. Thus, they got male bodies in this life ... That is why sometimes it seems like these people are freaks of nature". And that they'll have "...sex even with pigs and dogs ... without any "hang-ups". You also assert that they "should appreciate the fact that they are not women trapped in men's bodies", and "such desires are apart from himself ... he can try to rid his mind of them ... or he can give in to them. The choice is his", And, to support your assertions, you quote from the antiquated "urning theory".
You also assert that "The soul transmigrates from a baby body to a boyhood body, and then migrates into a young man's body ... a middle-aged body", and then into "the body of an old man". You conclude by interpolating a few generalized borrowings from human biology to legitimize your vague assumptions: "All the cells have changed, the bones have changed, the whole body is different. This is a scientific fact".
In conclusion, you assert that: "Religious leaders are teaching religiosity rather than real religion", and they "are simply misleading people", and "They are not teaching the truth". ( sic ) op. cit.
Your assertions outlined above, are based solely upon your personal opinions, rather than verifiable facts, and laced with a soupçon of scientific terminology, viz., "hormones, chromosomes", and put forth under the veneer of "scientific fact (s) ". One could very well consider it Machiavellian, if it were not for the ingenuousness of style.
This response is put forward for your perusal and reply, for which I'm accustomed to expect no acknowledgment, as has been the situation, on several occasions; for the past seven years. But more particularly for both your followers and readership, to evaluate, whether or not, the above assertions are indeed "scientific fact (s) ". But first and foremost, for them to consider the spiritual and intellectual integrity of their leader, to whom they have entrusted their souls.
THE LIBIDO AND
TAXONOMIC CONCEPTS.
Your assertions, regarding human sexuality, are extremely oversimplified, and polarized. These are the facts as I perceive them from the anatomical and physiological perspectives. The anatomical structures of the male and female genitalia, at the nuts and bolts level, clearly indicates the specific physiological functions; i.e., both the penis and vagina are totally 'design perfect', and totally 'compliant and complimentary' of the heterosexual mode. Or alternatively, one could say: 'the anatomical structures dictate the physiological expressions of the mode of heterosexual sex'; these are, in part, the biological facts as I understand them. However, notwithstanding, these self evident biological facts, statistical data ( v.i., ) demonstrate, a noticeable divergence from propensity for the heterosexual mode. The taxonomic concept, at the pragmatic level, isn't always in accord with the anatomical designs, particularly during the periods of the upper levels of excitation and intensity. Unfortunately, rhythmic sympathetic impulses - that generate spasmodic peristaltic contractions - abandon the conscience, and may not always culminate ( ejaculari ) in conforming to the physiological functions of the anatomical structures; in uniformity with the heterosexual mode.
PSYCHOLOGICAL AND
OTHER PERSPECTIVES.
Your booklet failed to acknowledge psychological, considerations of homosexuals that may have offset their sexual modes. Perhaps effects induced by early formative influences, e.g., dysfunctional relationships between parental figures and/or siblings, or hormonal imbalances or genetic anomalies, of which I'll provide more details later ( v.i. ) with evidential supports from leading specialists in the field. My responses, to the above in toto, will be formulated from psychological, philosophical, theological, sociological perspectives, as well as textual comparison of the Bhagavad-Gîtâ with your assertions regarding the Hindu doctrine of transmigration. And, of course, your insipid ( or rather idée fixe ) anti-Christian and anti-clerical compulsions, of whom you relentlessly refer to as "so-called Christians".
TWO THEORETICAL MODES.
Your writings suggest that you are wholly incognizant on the subject of homosexuality; a multifarious and complex subject. For example, nowhere in your article is there the slightest indication of the most fundamental difference between the ego conscious modes of sexuality. Firstly, the ego-syntonic mode, which is indicative of the bilateral symmetry, of the libidinal [ Not to be confused with the 'libidinous' which is quite different ], impulse, and the conscious ego state, and the impulses and drives, from the source of primal ( or rudimentary ( q.v., )) energy, q.e. the 'id'. And secondly, the ego-dystonic mode, that suggests a rejection, by the individual, of the libidinal cerebral impulse correspondingly compelled, idem as the ego-syntonic by the impulses and drives from the 'id'.
THE MASCULINE AND
FEMININE MODES.
Additionally, you failed to recognize the Jungian unconscious masculine and feminine components. These classical universal psycho sexual components - or "archetypes" as Jung called them [ C. G. Jung, 'The Collected Works', vol.9, pt.1 'The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious', ch.vi 'Conscious, Unconscious, and Individuation' p.284. ] - are present in both sexes. Firstly, the 'anima', the feminine component in the male personality. Secondly, the 'animus', the masculine component in the female personality. Your assumptions appears to have been formulated solely from the perspective of the overt effeminate persona, with emphasis upon the 'anima' without acknowledgement of the 'animus'; a gross misconception indeed. This has the effect of effeminating all homosexuals; in the eyes of your readership.
Your assumptions also fail to acknowledge, and understand those, i.e., ego-syntonic homosexuals, whose inherited libidinal impulse are directed towards an exclusive sexual propensity for others of their own sex, and furthermore, you ignore the fact that their propensity for the opposite sex would be contrary to organization and criterion of their own individual psycho-sexual consciousness. In like manner, propensity of the ego-syntonic heterosexual towards the same sex, would customarily be contrary to their libidinal impulse; although not always clearly categorized as such at the pragmatic level, e.g., the theoretical "bisexual" mode, perhaps expressed in an isolated ( or exclusive ) male environment, thus: 'facultative homosexuality', transitory experimental teenage mutual masturbation; or generally faute de mieux.
In their article, 'Sex in Australia: Homosexual experience and recent homosexual encounters', Professor Andrew E. Grulich, Ph. D., et al, suggested:
"Overall, 8.6% of women and 5.9% of men reported some homosexual sexual experience in their lives (p<0.001); these figures fell to 5.7% and 5.0% respectively (p=0.106) when non-genital sexual experience was excluded. 1.9% of men and 1.5% of women reported homosexual experience in the past year. Men who reported homosexual experience reported more same-sex partners than did women (means 31.6 and 3.2, p<0.001), and men and women who identified as homosexual or "bisexual" reported more sexual partners in total than those who identified as heterosexual. Sex in Australia: Homosexual experience and recent homosexual encounters ( Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, April 2003 ).
The above data summarizes a marked divergence of sexual activity, taken from a sample, that theoretically represent sexual experiences ( or modes ) within the population; that may not necessarily be rationalized within a static 'homosexual context'; but perhaps in a transient oscillatory context. It's reasonable to assume that there is present an indubitable preference for one or the other.
BIOPHYSICS vs. SOPHISTRY.
Your assertion that the "entire physical make-up of people are determined" at the "time of death", as to the type of body they'll "take on in their next live" ( I assume that you mean 'lives' ), seems an extravagant assumption unrelated to any scientific facts, reasons for which I'll outline in the following two paragraphs:
Firstly, the "physical" ( corpus or corporis ), is biologically related to properties of energy, matter et cetera, and quite unrelated to "make-up" which, from a psychological perspective, may be defined as a total integration of traits to form the individual's character, etc. These traits, in your assumption, form an incomprehensible composition. There are three perspectives, in your single assertion, that form a mixture of the 'biological', 'psychological', and the 'sophistical', which would require a very clever synthesis, for your assertion, to form at least, an arguable system of scientific facts.
Secondly, the facts, as I understand them are: The corpse including its "hormones" and "chromosomes", are customarily disposed of by burial, cremation, or by some other course of action ( e.g., as a cadaver for studies in pathologic anatomy ). The corpse, including its tissue, integumentary system, chemical, and cellular compositions, have ceased to exist. This rules out the generational transmission theory, of hereditary traits, because an hypothetical interdependency factor, between the dead ( or destroyed ) hereditary-carrying genes, with the supposed body "... in their next live"; is not within the ambit of scientific facts. To fit this into your "scientific" suppositions would necessitate some very fanciful manipulations.
'STATEMENTS OF SOPHISTRIES' OR
'STATEMENTS OF SCIENTIFIC FACTS'?
Your assumption that homosexuals "...got male bodies in this life", because "...at the time of ( their ) death" they were "thinking of the male form", is a 'statement of sophistries' rather than a statement of "... scientific fact (s) ". An assumption as to what an homosexual ( or anyone else ) supposedly thought prior to death is, in my opinion, unadulterated conjecture. An individual's sex, as I understand it, is determined by the sex chromosomes, i.e., the Y-chromosome gene, the Testes Determining Factor ( TDF ), of the male sex; designated as XY. The female sex chromosome configuration, designated as XX, which could develop into male, if the TDF passes across to one of the X chromosomes. And if the TDF gene were absent from the male XY chromosome pair, it could develop into a female.
Furthermore, the scientific community is producing very impressive research results, rousing widespread interest in the theory of genetics giving rise to variations to sexual behaviours in human, as well as other species, e.g., the fruit fly, or as it is known among scientists, the drosophila melanogaster ( 'dew-loving black belly' ), which is a popular multicellular two-winged insect ( or organism ) for research studies in genetics; and developmental biology. Essential to development of the fruit-flies' anatomical and physiological sexual functions, is the fruitless gene ( fru ), that catalyses the ribonucleic acid ( RNA ), from the deoxyribonucleic acid ( DNA ) frame for synthesis of protein development. Mutation of the original expression of the fru's allelomorphs may damage or reverse sexual orientations. Research results from studies on the fru gene suggests a theoretical correlation with the genetics of human gender organization.
Researcher, Professor Bruce S. Baker, Ph. D., Biology department, Stanford University; told reporter Mark Shwartz:
"The fruit fly is a model organism whose basic cellular functions are very similar to what they are in people ... It wouldn't surprise me to learn that human sexual behaviors also have underneath them a basic circuitry in the nervous system that mediates attraction and mating." ( Stanford Report, 4 August, 2004 ).
Professor Baker ( et al., ) research results substantiates the theory in support of genetics giving rise to variations to sexual behaviours. I believe your assumptions, that homosexuals' supposed thoughts, in an assumed pre-existence, the decisive factor of sex orientations; is contradictory to chromosomal and hormonal activities. They are as different as chalk from cheese. Thereby, your statement of " ... scientific fact (s)" fades into sophistic 'statements of belief'. Masquerading sophistries as "... scientific fact (s) " are gross deceptions, and it goes without saying, are totally at odds with any reputable scientific research, of a kind like:
Professor D. H. Hamer, Ph. D., a specialist in Molecular Therapeutics, and discoverer of the genetic links to sexual orientation ( 1993 ), suggests that 'homosexuals possess an Xq28 genetic marker on their X chromosome'; and that 'there is a link between this marker and homosexuals':
"...gay men had more homosexual male relatives through maternal than through paternal lineages, and linkage analysis of gay male siblings, which found significantly increased sharing of Xq28 DNA markers" ( ''Science', July 1993 ).
Your view that they ( homosexuals ): 'sometime seem like' "...freaks of nature", is a quirky description reminiscent of early 20-century circus sideshows. This description - absent from medical lexicons - is banal as well as meaningless. Perhaps there is some confusion, in your mind, between "... freaks of nature", and 'Congenital Developmental Anomalies' ( or 'defects' ) e.g., the mutated gene called: Phosphatase and Tensin Homologue ( PTEN ) perhaps instrumental as a regulator, and suppressor, in the process of one of the particular kinds of mitosis ( theoretically, a quadruple somatic cell division of the nucleus ). Professor Charis Eng, Ph. D., is a clinician and scientist specializing in Clinical Cancer Genetics, and Cancer Genomic Medicine. In an interview with Elise Ritter, she linked the Phosphatase and Tensin homologue gene ( PTEN ) with Neurofibromatosis ( Also known as 'Proteus syndrome' ( PS )). She was asked:
"Where did you get the idea that Proteus syndrome, one of the diseases Joseph Merrick afflicted with, could be caused by a mutated PTEN gene?" Professor Eng replied: "As a clinician as well as scientist, I noted that the unusual tissue growth of Proteus syndrome was slightly reminiscent of other disorders caused by germline ( in every cell of the body ) PTEN mutation that we were studying, such as Cowden syndrome and Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome ( BRRS )". Discovery Health Channel, ( 6 March, 2008 ).
[ Professor Eng was referring to Joseph Carey
Merrick ( 1862 - 1890 ), the so-called "Elephant
Man". Joseph Carey Merrick Tribute Website ]
There is a clear distinction between your: 'statement of belief', "freaks of nature" ( presumable 'Congenital Developmental Anomalies' ), "...scientific fact (s)" and homosexuality, the four of which are, in the context of your arguments, theoretically and effectually incompatible. Thereby your 'statement of belief' slips into the category of unadulterated conjecture.
INSULARISM AND CONTEMPORARY
SECULAR THINKING.
Your views on 'homosexuality' are at variance with all the principal United States Mental Health associations who declassified 'homosexuality' as no longer a psychiatric disorder. The The American Psychiatric Association withdrew 'homosexuality' from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ( DSM ); in 1973. Two years later, the The American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting this action; in 1975. The American Psychiatric Association, sent a letter ( 13 June, 2006 ) to the Pentagon ( Department of Defence ( DoD )), requesting removal of 'homosexuality', from the status of psychiatric disorder. Thereby, your opinions, by your own volition, are isolated from contemporary secular thinking.
"MIND", "DESIRES", AND
'MISTAKEN IDENTITIES'.
Your opinion that they ( homosexuals ) are "...mistakenly identifying themselves as the mind and desires" is an idiosyncratic collage groundless, of even reductionist assumptions, about psycho-neurophysiological facts. Precisely, who or what, are these 'entities', apart from the "mind" and "desires" that 'mistakenly identifies'. Can you demonstrate your cognizance of the subject by mounting - not a description - but a deducible or defensible argument, of these 'entities' in a contemporary psychological frame; rather than referring to Karl Heinrich's ( 1825 – 1895 ) antiquated Victorian "urning theory".
'GENDER-IDENTITY
DISORDER' ( GID ).
The inclusion of the irrelevant topic: 'transsexualism' q.e., 'Gender-Identity Disorder' ( GID ), into your subject-matter concerning 'homosexuality', is particularly baffling. Diagnosed GID is, in an abbreviated, and generalized framework, an anomalous relationship between the brain ( within the anterior pituitary gland q.l. ), gender identity ( within the hypothalamus stria terminalis ( BSTc ) q.l. )), and the anatomical-physiological principles of the genitalia i.e., the penis and vagina ( with the limbic system within the rhinencephalon ). Diagnosed GID, as I understand it, is unrelated to clinically diagnosed signs, and symptoms, of chromosomal aberrations; or established histories of psychiatric disorders. Quite clearly, it's not a fact "...that they are not women trapped in men's bodies", but rather, they are sufferers of a diagnosable condition ( GID ) characterized by inappropriateness, and persistent discomfort, of their anatomic genitalia. 'Gender-Identity Disorder' and 'homosexuality' are as different as chalk from cheese.
You assert that:
"...homosexuals who say they feel like women trapped in men's bodies are mistakenly identifying themselves", and that they "...should appreciate the fact that they are not women trapped in men's bodies".
Your unqualified 'diagnoses' q.l., are based upon your own unschooled opinions, rather than from knowledge gathered from the scientific community; your opinions are based on false reasoning. This is not 'mistaken identity', as you 'misdiagnose', but rather a clinically diagnosable biological disorder, quite unrelated to the 'theory of identity', which belong to the field of psychology. An approximate comprehensible explanation on this subject ( from the biological perspective ), as I understand it, suggest a rapid multiplication by Gonadotroph cells, that are released from the adenohypophysis for the follicle-stimulating hormone ( FSH ) for mature ova, and spermatozoa production in the testes. This, quite clearly, has no bearing upon 'mistaken identity'.
Professor Louis Gooren, Ph. D., ( Asian Journal of Andrology, ( s.a. ) ), who specialises in Gender Problems and Psychoneuro-endocrinology, and who is the Netherlands' leader in the field of endocrinology; suggests:
"The stria terminalis also appears to be indicated in gender identification. Studies have shown that male-to-female transsexuals tend to have female-normative cell proliferation in the central subdivision of the bed nuclei of the stria terminalis ( BSTc ), whereas a female-to-male transsexual was found to have male-normative BSTc cell proliferation. It is thought this is mediated by diminished and excessive androgen levels respectively in utero and neonatally" ( sic ). The Health Report, Gender Dysphoria ( ABC Radio National, 4 September, 2000 ).
AN HYPOTHETICAL
TREATMENT RÉGIME.
Diagnosed Gender-Identity Disorder ( GID ) may require intensive assessment, by specialist health care professionals - psychologists, surgeons, anaesthetists, social workers, et alii, who may consider the patient a suitable candidate for uro-genital and reconstructive-plastic surgery; i.e., Gender Reassignment Surgery. Hypothesized procedures ( not to be considered as formal surgical procedures, but solely as hypothesized treatment régimes ), for male patients, may involve: v.g. mammary prosthetic silicone implants, orchidectomy, penectomy, labiaplasty, et cetera; and endocrine therapy viz., hormone as a testosteronal inhibitor, and an hormonal steroid ( estrogen ) to promote female secondary sex characteristics. Similarly, female patients may also: undergo procedures v.g. bilateral mastectomy, total or perhaps radical ( qq.v. ) hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, phalloplasia, testicular prostheses implants, etc., and androgenic steroid to promote masculine characteristics. These surgical procedures, although hypothetical, will suffice for the purpose for comprehension, and both defining and separating diagnosed Gender-Identity Disorder ( GID ) discussion from the entirely separate categories, of 'homosexuality', 'transvestism', 'crossdressing', and so-called "transgenderism". My suggestions were intended to demonstrate the incongruousness of your teachings with academic and clinical medicine, as well as being at variance with the World Health Organisation ( WHO ), or Organisation Mondial de la Sante ( OMS ), who acknowledged, and designated, GID as a diagnosable disorder; in 1992.
HINDU TRADITION OF
TRANSVESTISM ( SAKHIS ).
I suggest you examine 'transvestism' within the Hindu religious tradition of Sakhis, but tread very cautiously, particularly regarding any homophobic campaigns, or any other contemporary arguments, whether they be for proselytizing purposes ( for your brand of Hinduism ), vilifying Christians, or identity politics et cetera. An excellent study on the subject would be: 'Transsexualism, Gender, and Anxiety in Traditional India,' by Professor Robert P. Goldman, Ph. D., Research Scientist, in Integrative Biology at the University of Texas; at Austin.
THE METAPHYSICAL vs. THE MECHANISTIC.
You claim:
"This is a very great science. People have to try to understand it as a science. This is not a belief. People must understand the reality of how the mind affects the gross body and how activities of the present body affect the mind."
Your claim is, in my opinion, incoherent because of the inconsistency of your assertion by failing to define and differentiate between "reality", "mind", and "gross body" ( 'sthûla sarîra' ). Firstly, 'reality', as I understand it, is measurable by objective scientific standards of the physical world, whereas the "reality", in your claim, is simply and solely, interpretable constructs extrapolated from your personal subjective opinions regardless of reliable empirical facts and data of the physical world. Secondly, your assertion that: "... the mind affects the gross body" is a contradiction of terms. Your use of the word "affects" in your argument hasn't any biological meaning without a qualifier to correlate the abstract mind with the physical body. Thirdly, your metaphorical use of the term "mind" to explain neurophysiological activities of the "gross body", at the zenithal 'organismic level', is a juxtaposing of contrasting theoretical frames: viz., the metaphysical and mechanistic, e.g., interactionism, psychophysicalism, and materialism, subjective idealism; respectively.
All things considered, it would appear that your notions of a "very great science", "reality", "mind", "gross body", and your confusion between "science" and "belief", absent of a synthesis, are indeed; an odd assortment of sophistries.
BUTLERISM vs. THE BHAGAVAD-GÎTÂ.
You assert that:
"The soul transmigrates from a baby body to a boyhood body, and then migrates into a young man's body. A person who used to live in a young body now lives in a middle-aged body. And a person who used to live in a middle-aged body now lives in an old body ... all the cells have changed, the bones have changed, the whole body is different. This is a scientific fact".
Your assertion, or "scientific fact", claiming that four supposed occurrences of a person's "transmigration (s) " take place from between their "baby body" through to their "old body" is in conflict with the Hindu doctrine of 'Transmigration' ( 'samsãra' ). This doctrine, as I understand it, is defined in Hinduism as a 'principle' ( 'Âtman' ) that supposedly passes from one body after death; and enters into another body'. Your assertion contradicts the text of the Bhagavad-Gîtâ itself, and your former spiritual master; the late Swami Prabhupada ( v.i. ).
The Bhagavad-Gîtâ says:
Chapter 2, Text 13.
( Sanskrit ):
dehino ′smin yathâ dehe
kaumâram yauvanam jarâ
tathâ dehântara-prâptir
dhÎras tatra na muhyati.
( English transliteration ):
dehinah - of the embodied; asmin -
in this; yathâ - as; dehe - in the body;
kaumâram - boyhood; yauvanam -
youth; jarâ - old age; tathâ - similarly;
deha-antara - of transference of the
body; prâptih - achievement; dhîrah
- the sober; tatra - thereupon; na -
never; muhyati - is deluded.
The above transliteration doesn't indicate a transference ( deha-antara ) between boyhood ( kaumâram ), youth ( yauvanam ) and old age ( jarâ ), but a transfer at death ( tathâ dehântara-prâptir ); i.e., 'mrtyuh'.
Prabhupada said:
"... the same spirit soul is there and
does not undergo any change. This
individual soul finally changes the
body at death and transmigrates to
another body..." ( sic ) ibid.
Thereby, your claims, are in conflict with both your own text ( Bhagavad- Gîtâ ), and Prabhupada.
Furthermore, on your own admission, you have exhibited unsubstantial and negligent claims, in asserting that: Firstly, "the soul transmigrates" four times, within the individual living body during its life cycle; rather than at death. And secondly, that "cells" of the human organism "change" and are "different" during the individual life period.
The definitional contradistinctions between "change" ( permutãtio ), and "renewal" ( renovatio. ) may appear to be a moot point, or even pedantic, to the less discerning, but to the more circumspect, there is a refined arguable distinction that favours "renewal", rather than "change", due to quadruple somatic cell divisions ( mitosis ) of the nucleus, that result in two genetically similar offsprings which differs, quite considerably, from cell "change".
This quite clearly belong to the realm of the scientific, i.e., the 'body', which conforms to empirical observation. The 'spirit'; the root definition being: 'breath' or 'breeze' ) is that by extension the 'life principle' which the body depends, whereas the 'soul', is the immortal immaterial part of the individual as opposed to the intellectual and analytical. All things considered, both your interpretation of the Bhagavad-Gîtâ, and understanding of scientific facts are sadly wanting.
REINCARNATION AND THE ARYAN
HEREDITARY CASTE SYSTEM ( JATI ).
You teach the precarious doctrine of 'transmigration' ( reincarnation ) which is synonymous with 'pantheism', a theory which favours God ( Deitastatis ) and the material universe correlative, i.e., the universe is God, or God is the universe.
Seems prima facie to be a plausible theory, very appealing, particularly to the undiscerning, the adherents in the new age movement ( or neo-paganism ); and to some indiscriminate Christians. But exploring into the deeper implications, one will discover some very complex unresolvable issues, e.g., the dichotomy between the inexhaustible infinite Creater ( 'Yahweh ‘ asher yihweh' ), and the mortal psychophysical organism 'mankind' = homo; and the universe. They are as different as chalk from cheese. Vis à vis, they are incongruous. How could you hope to succeed in providing a rationale for this dichotomy when centuries of Hindu scholarship have failed? And furthermore, 'transmigration' is nowhere to be found in the Vedas ( ca. 1500 - 800 BC ); the oldest document in Hinduism ( 'Sanâtana Dharma' ( q.v. )). Transmigration was introduced later in the Chândogya Upanishad ( 900 - 800 BC q.v., ) and the Bhagavad-Gîtâ ( 400 - 300 BC q.v. ); without theological considerations.
Allied to transmigration is the theory of Karma ( or Karman ), which was introduced into northern India, during the Aryan invasion and conquest ( 1500 BC to 500 BC q.v. ). Caucasian Brahmins assert lineage to those aggressive, illiterate, nomadic invaders; from the south of Russia and Central Asia. Karma is, as I have said in earlier correspondence, an élitist ( 'varna' = 'colour' or 'jâti' = 'family lineage', 'rank' ) racist based caste system. This was one of the principal tools to maintain socio-economic control, by the conquerors ( Aryans ) over the conquered; the aboriginals ( mistakenly designated "Dravidians" ).
The doctrine of Karma served two purposes. Firstly in providing an explanation as to the 'why (s)' underlying the apparent mundane inconsistencies with human life. Secondly, by supporting the 'why (s)' with the means for their inclusion viz., the 'how (s)' into religious dogma, to serve as an exploitative tool imposing social stigma and economic constraints to subjugate the Shûdra ( the labouring caste ) for exploitative control by the upper class - i.e., the Brahmin priests ( q.v. ).
For centuries, this system was upheld to maintained the status quo of the hierarchical system of class division ( BBC Homepage, 5 March, 2008 ), or 'caste' ( jati ); viz., the Brãhmana, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shûdra, and Dalits ( Untouchables ). Although it was rejected by Siddhartha Gautama the Buddha ( circa 563 to 483 BC ), Jesus Christ ( 5 BC to 26 AD q.l. ) ( see: Luke 4.18, Col. 3.22-4.1, and Eph. 6.5-9 ), and outlawed by the Indian Government in 1947; one hundred and eighty million Dalits continue to be discriminated against today ( BBC World News, 14 October, 2006 ). The doctrine of karma supposedly rationalises life's inequalities; but has never been substantiated.
Notwithstanding this prolonged caste system of cruel oppression on the Indian subcontinent, you, similar to Prabhupada, continue to justify the perpetuation of this pitiless dogma and practice. You assert:
"... your situation is due to your own making. It's your fault. You're the one who made your present existence by your past activities" ( sic ).
( 'Understanding Karma', Science of
Identity Foundation, 1995, p.6 ).
Likewise, Prabhupada said:
"There are different rules and regulations for different castes or divisions of society, and if a person is able to follow them, he will be automatically raised to the highest platform of spiritual realization."
( The Bhagavad-Gïtâ, 16.22 p.764 ).
"SO-CALLED MODERN SOCIETY IS PROVIDING ...
STIMULUS FOR PEOPLE TO BECOME HOMOSEXUALS".
"Religious leaders are teaching religiosity rather than real religion", they "are simply misleading people", "They are not teaching the truth", and "so-called modern society is increasingly providing the unwanted stimulus for people to become homosexuals".
What precisely, in your opinion, is the "real religion" that "religious leaders" are suppose to teach? I don't believe that "real religion", and "truth", are in your mind; the real issues in question. I believe the real issues are: Firstly, your personal Hinduized ( q.v., ) assumptions as to what you think Christian religious leaders ought to be teaching, viz., your fabrications, machinations, and interpolations of abbreviated forms of selective generalized Hindu doctrines, and beliefs - inherited from Prabhupada - into Christianity. Secondly, the presumptuousness of your grandiose monopoly of "truth" from behind the façade of your assumed epithet "Jagad Guru" ( "teacher of the whole world" ); accompanied with an over bloated ambition to proselytize rich westerners, particularly unwary Christians, rather than the poor in the underdeveloped countries, to your brand of Hinduism, or to be precise: 'Butlerism'.
What is this supposed "stimulus" that society provides "... for people to become homosexuals". Can you be more specific ( with evidential supports ). Who are the principal 'providers' of this "stimulus", the government or private enterprise? Where does the money come from? The government coffers, or from the private sector? And how many 'people ... became homosexuals' during the past twelve month period, as a consequence of these alleged 'stimuli'?
Would you consider "teaching the [ whole ] truth", to both your followers and readership, regarding the Hindu rituals of Šâkta, whose devotees consume meat, alcohol, and engaging in ritual coitus ( The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15 ed, vol. 8, p. 897, 1982 ).
The "so-called modern society", i.e., the United States, of which you so glibly refer, has allowed you the freedom, and opportunity, to expand and accumulate considerable wealth, in an insular comfort zone, from where to disseminate your wearisome and repetitious diatribes on "so-called" this, "so-called" that; and "so-called" anything else that is different from 'Butlerism'; all of which are quite irrelevant to international current events affecting human suffering. You convert your rhetoric into wealth, whilst "so-called" Christians engage in philanthropy.
"So-called modern society" has also allowed you the freedom for your pseudo-religious posturing and strutting 'homophobic notions regarding society', 'clergy not teaching real religion or truth', whilst you remain silent on real moral and ethical issues concerning human life, e.g., the effects of the current ravages of war and famine. Since May 2003, one hundred thousand ( q.l., ) lives were lost in Iraq ( The Lancet, 2004 ); to which your lectures, and booklets, have responded to with deathly silence. These concerns are apparently far too large for the "Jagad Guru" ( "teacher of the whole world" ). Clergy, "So-called modern society", and 'homosexuals' are a far safer and softer target. Far easier to kill a dragon fly ( Anisoptera ) than a dragon itself; wouldn't you agree? Any teachings - with the exception of 'Butlerism' of course! - that prioritizes nit-pickings ( of "so-called" this, that; et cetera ); over tragedies effecting human life is not "real religion" by any criterion.
The economic and social privileges you now enjoy would have been unachievable on the Indian subcontinent where the national prescribed poverty threshold is set at $0.40 per day [ World Bank's beneficiary recommendation is $1.0 for all undeveloped countries ]. An economic sound policy to preach to rich westerners than to the poor in the underdeveloped countries; wouldn't you agree?
Whilst you occupy your sphere of influence ( whatever that may be ), vilify homosexuals, et al., more than 300,000,000 ( q.v., ) of India's population are unemployed, probably existing below the poverty line ( National Citizens Movement for "Transforming INDIA" ). The aggregate of seventy three million people, in seventy eight countries, depend on the United Nations World Food Programme ( UNWFP ), ( Al Jazeera, 12 March, 2008 ). How fare your rice bowl, cushioned safe and secure in Hawaii ( or "so-called modern society" ); whacking away at homosexuals and other soft targets, with a blind eye on the real issues concerning human suffering.
LAKSHMANA TEMPLE:
EXPLICIT SEXUAL
SCULPTURES.
Your assertion that "So-called modern society is increasingly providing the unwanted stimulus for people to become homosexuals" is incongruous with: "Religious leaders are teaching religiosity rather than real religion, ( they ) are simply misleading people, they are not teaching the truth".
I suggest that you burrow deeper into the source of your own pseudo-religion ( Butlerism ) for the "truth" by deliberating on the southern walls of the Hindu Lakshmana Temple ( 930-950 AD ), dedicated to Lord Vishnu, in the Khajuraho village ( 385 miles ( 620 kilometres ) southeast of Delhi ) ), which has explicit sexual sculptures depicting males engaging in anal intercourse, fellatio, and zooerasty.
Would you consider those images as pornographic, and as "unwanted stimulus for people to become homosexuals", 'zoophiles', et cetera ? Juxtaposing your "so-called modern society ..." etc., argument, with those sculptures; and their supposed stimulus, would that, in your opinion, influence "people to become homosexuals"? If you consider your argument correct, why hasn't the entire population on the Indian subcontinent succumbed to 'homosexuality'? Wouldn't a 1058-year period been sufficient to substantiate your argument? And why are you, yourself "... not teaching the [ whole ] truth"; regarding these facts to your readership and followers?
HINDUISM'S DEVADASI SYSTEM
OF RELIGIOUS PROSTITUTION.
Whilst you pontificate on: Christian "Religious leaders ... misleading people ... ( and ) not teaching the truth" ( sic ), you remain silent regarding the Devadasi ( a 'slave of a deity' ( q.v. e.g., Shiva, Vishnu, et al. ) ). Devadasi is a religious Hindu practise of child prostitution. The Indian government is an active member of the United Nations ( U.N. ). It played a key role in drafting the Universal Declaration on Human Rights in 1948 ( Dr. Hansa Mehta ), and amongst other member nations, are committed to eradicate trafficking and sexual exploitation of children.
The central and state governments received a Public Interest Litigation, from the Supreme Court, New Delhi, in 1990; to establish advisory bodies to recommend procedures to obliterate this and other forms of child prostitution. Notwithstanding, government efforts, to eradicate the devadasi form of child exploitation, this tradition, is still prevalent in many parts of India today. The rituals of Jogin, and Basavi initiation rituals of eleven year old ( qq.v. ) children, particularly from the lower socio-economic sectors; continue to this day. This tradition is on the public record, Robert A. Morey, Ph. D., as continuing in Maharashtra ( no figures were provided ). Figures were provided by two of the southern states, i.e., Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, for devadasi in their cities: 16,624 and 22,941 ( q.v. ) respectively ( Source: Government of India Ministry of Human Resource Development Department of Education Child Prostitution ( 9.51 ) ). Many of the girls finish up by moving to the west coast city Mumbai ( formerly Bombay ), and Pune in western India; where they work as prostitutes. These are the facts of which you chose to remain silent.
CONCLUSION.
Homosexuals, and lesbians, are part of us. John Donne wasn't far from the mark in saying: "No man is an island, entire of it self; every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the main ..." Devotions upon Emergent Occasions ( 1624 ) 'Meditation XVII'. Many people experience sense of loneliness, and a strong emotional longing for a loyal and stable friendship; notwithstanding nationality, colour, culture, or sexual orientation. Everyone deserves unconditional acceptance, love and effective support, with an attitude of optimism, rather than condemnatory attitudes.
Rev. Father Maximiadis.
[www.fathershomepage.com]
Rev. Fr. A. Maximiadis
Re: Chris Butler and Homophobia
Posted by:
just-googling
()
Date: July 10, 2008 10:02PM
Quote
Father Max
"So-called modern society" has also allowed you the freedom for your pseudo-religious posturing and strutting 'homophobic notions regarding society', 'clergy not teaching real religion or truth', whilst you remain silent on real moral and ethical issues concerning human life, e.g., the effects of the current ravages of war and famine. Since May 2003, one hundred thousand ( q.l., ) lives were lost in Iraq ( The Lancet, 2004 ); to which your lectures, and booklets, have responded to with deathly silence. These concerns are apparently far too large for the "Jagad Guru" ( "teacher of the whole world" ). Clergy, "So-called modern society", and 'homosexuals' are a far safer and softer target. Far easier to kill a dragon fly ( Anisoptera ) than a dragon itself; wouldn't you agree? Any teachings - with the exception of 'Butlerism' of course! - that prioritizes nit-pickings ( of "so-called" this, that; et cetera ); over tragedies effecting human life is not "real religion" by any criterion.
You have raised some interesting points here, Father... and I do note the above paragraph to be particularly intresting. Indeed, it seems as though Chris Butler instructed some of his followers to become involved in politics, primarily, it seems, for the purpose of combating the "evil" of homosexuality, while at the same time even apparently supporting the war in Iraq! (I have also seen the current figure (2008) for the death toll in Iraq to be over one million -- and a high percentage of civilians and children being killed).
Somehow, my conscience is telling me that killing another human being (whether in a 'sanctified' war or holy war) is a much bigger sin than being born with homosexual tendencies.
?
Re: Chris Butler and Homophobia
Posted by:
Vera City
()
Date: July 10, 2008 11:41PM
I realize this was posted here for emphasis. But could a copy of it at least be posted in the main thread on 'Jagad Guru Chris Butler and Science of Identity' so it doesn't get lost? Makes it harder for people to get info on the cult if there are several concurrent threads.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.