Oak Park gays pressured a popular cafe to cancel a book talk by a born-again-straight reverend who wants to straighten them out. Wednesday Journal has a boatload of comments, here excerpted and annotated.
Reading them, I am reminded of the Second Vatican Council, where a document supporting religious liberty was opposed by people who said error has no rights. Which side of this issue reminds you of that (losing) argument?
Posted: Saturday, August 15, 2009
Article comment by: Bruce Broerman
If the event had been promoted as supposedly intended, i.e. to debunk Cornelius Williams and his book, . . . there would have been no protest . . . from the LGBTQ community. . . . Free speech and open debate should assume rational viewpoints based on facts, where there are legitimate grounds for differing views. [Huh? Debate opens with disagreement. It’s the nature of it.]
Religious conviction is inherently irrational [non-rational, but opposed to reason? Let’s debate that] and oblivious to scientific facts and inquiry. [So much for the religiously convinced.] So why would anyone grant such an indiviudal a forum for promoting a book that espouses irrationality and perpetuates the damage that such views continue to inflict? [So people who know better can argue with him, for starters?]
Posted: Friday, August 14, 2009
Article comment by: Greg Raub
I applaud [cafe proprietor] Laura for [cancelling] this event [which] was promoted as a panel discussion led by [book author Cornelius W.]. . . . my concern — beyond being offended by how Mr. Williams characterizes his life as a homosexual as one filled with “rape, anger, bitternes, mental breakdowns, alcohol, suicidal tendencies and a serious sex addiction,” were that this would be a one-sided presentation of inaccurate and hate-filled opinions. [To be argued against in open forum]
Posted: Friday, August 14, 2009 Article comment by: Cheryl Haugh
. . . . This article . . . characterized the meeting [at Buzz C] held Monday night as a protest and attack [on] The Buzz and Laura Maychuk. That was not the agenda of attendees nor what transpired. Laura told the group that she canceled because the last email she received, accused her of supporting William’s reparative ministry. She was distrought that anyone would think that and that’s why Williams was cancelled. [which the article made clear]
As to preventing free speech or stamping out the event, this was not the position of either the folks gathered or the subsequent tone of the meeting. In fact, we went there to honor Laura’s decision [not pressured at all? really?] and explain the reaction she experience. I, personally, was surprised (albeit happy) to get Laura’s email canceling the program.
My personal explanation for feeling impassioned [in opposition to] the invitation extended Williams, was that it was offensive to bring that kind of misinformed, self righteous, book promoting into a community priding itself on exceptance of the GLBT community. [Italics added] It was naive to think this would promote dialog. It would be one side against another. Deadlock. Confrontation. [There would have been an argument, a debate, yes. There should be no discussion without previous agreement?]
1st amendment rights are for the people, yes, but in public venues. [such as a cafe where discussions are held and advertised regularly — Buzz is not open to the public?] We don’t allow offensive, hateful or objectionable behavior displayed in our homes, small businesses or schools. [No, but who decides?] In each case people have a right to choose. [As by not attending] Nor is there a responsibilty to the 1st amendment in those cases. [This is hardly a first-amendment case legally speaking, but is it how we want to proceed in Oak Park?]
Where the intent of this program was innocent, invisioning a lively debate consistance with The Buzz’s commitment to open forum, it was clear the vision did not consider how the GLBT community would feel. [Buzz Cafe didn’t check with GLBT. It’s something you have to do when you have an open forum?] When Nazi’s wanted to march in Skokie, they were given a permit to do so on the streets. Jewish synagog’s were not criticized for nor expected to invite them in for a spirited discussion of their differences. [Buzz Cafe is owned and operated by and for GLBT’s? Nope.]
I think the dialog we all had with Laura that night was informative and an opportunity to better know each other. THAT was more constructive and meaningful than a so called panel discussion. By the way, there were as many self identified “straight” supports as gays in attendance. [In other words, everyone agreed you can’t change your ways from gay to straight, and all were comfortable with that.]
Too bad Mr. [Dennis] Murphy [Poor Phil’s restaurant owner who objected to the pressure on the Buzz Cafe] did not bring his passion to The Buzz that night to experience, first hand, what actually took place! [Well now he knows, thanks to this account.]
Posted: Friday, August 14, 2009
Article comment by: Steve Maxey
The quote from Mr. Williams . . . “I don’t buy the facts. What I agree with and relate to is the scripture,” makes it clear why this reading should never have been scheduled. Once someone takes the position that the facts don’t matter, there is no legitimate discussion or debate to be had. [I don’t buy this argument, but I defend your right to make it. I do have a question worth arguing, however: what makes one discussion legitimate and another illegitimate?]
Posted: Friday, August 14, 2009 Article comment by: David Steven Rappoport
The Buzz Cafe was profoundly insensitive, and deserves the response they got. No one said Cornelius Williams didn’t have a right to free speech, no matter how repugnant his views are. [No one came right out and said it, he’s right about that.] But the community also has a right to be outraged that a local business chose to give this hateful nonsense credibility by sponsoring a public foruum for it. [Go ahead, but don’t give me this right to free speech stuff. You pressured Buzz and got the guy cancelled. People who would like to hear from him can go hang. You’ve stake out Buzz as your territory. Big sign out front now: Gays run it, like Blackstone Rangers in Woodlawn years ago.]
Further, I think a public has every right to draw a line between appropriate public discourse and public discussion which has as its intent the victimization of minority groups. [Victimization? Really?]
There is no scientific basis for anything Reverend Williams has to say, nor any credible public policy interest inherent in it. [Public policy? Look, a trustee was there, but it wasn’t a village board meeting, for crying out loud.]
The American Psychological Association stated clearly that ex-gay therapy is ineffective this past week after a multi-year study. People like Reverend Williams cite discredited or distorted research to support their contention that gay and lesbian can and should go through therapy to change their sexual orientation. [Which is what a discussion would have spelled out.]
Worse, their underlying assumption, that there is something intrinsically disordered about gays and lesbians, contributes to the continuing oppression of gays and lesbians, such as the murderous attack on gay teenagers in Israel within the last two weeks. [Rev. W. is potentially accessory to murder? Please.]
The heterosexuals proclaiming free speech rights in their comments here ought to consider how they’d feel if someone held public forums questioning their right to be who they are. I am quite sure they wouldn’t be quite so sanguine about it. [Their right? How get from voluntary therapy to infringement of rights?]
Posted: Friday, August 14, 2009 Article comment by: donna
I think this is wrong how the owners of Buzz Cafe are being treated. It was just a discussion and debate. I thought Oak Park was all about open-minded tolerance. [Me too.]
Posted: Thursday, August 13, 2009 Article comment by: howard cook
We should become increasingly concerned about a group that protests someone’s right to free speech or an opinion while demanding open-mindedness and tolerance, whether it be something they agree with or not. What happened to this community? [My question exactly.]
I couldn’t think of a better example of something more unamerican and hypocritical. And to take it to the level of threatening a local business with protest – a place that has brought more than food and chairs but a place to share and be neighbors. It’s a detriment to Oak Park’s meaning of community for being so close minded and unaccepting. . . . [A body blow, in my view.]
Posted: Thursday, August 13, 2009 Article comment by: Alan Amato
Healthy debate is the hallmark of our democracy. Yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is not. It is meant to cause harm. Mr. Williams with his hateful and harmful views (which have been widely condemned by professionals) does not offer a discussion but a condemnation of a segment of America. That is not a “conversation”…that is an attack. That is not democracy. [How does he know W. hates gays? How do we know his views are harmful without hearing him out? Some agree on this, and the rest are to follow suit? What’s this condemnation anyhow? Really, it’s an opinion with which Amato disagrees. For him the issue is unspeakable, and that’s the heart of his argument.]
Posted: Thursday, August 13, 2009
Article comment by: Freespirit
Mention to any gay person that their “choice” to be that way can be challenged, and they RUN! They don’t welcome change, unless it’s joining their “cause” and helping to change laws that DON’T benefit their lifestyle choices. Afraid they are!!
There was no real need to cancel Mr. Williams’ appearance at the Buzz, except for maybe Laura Maychruk was afraid that business would go down if she didn’t??
Who cares, Laura, if p[eo]pl[e] think the Buzz shares the author’s views?? What, are ALL your customers gay? Might they picket your store if you didn’t share their views? Possibly sue you for something?
Oh, maybe they would talk about you in the Wednesday Journal saying how you’re “espousing bigotry & hate” simply because of your opinion! Sad, Sad indeed Laura that in this situation you had no backbone.
Posted: Thursday, August 13, 2009
Article comment by: Larry Judson
Wow! Free speech only for those that have the same opinions and values as yourselves? What a joke. For a group that demands open mindedness from others, you sure are closing your minds off in this situation. And attacking a coffee shop owner for hosting an author? What are you afraid of?
Posted: Thursday, August 13, 2009
Article comment by: Jim Coughlin
The “american” thing for Dennis Murphy to do is to offer an invitation to Mr. Williams to speak at Poor Phil’s. [Take that, Murphy!]
Posted: Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Article comment by: Alan
One step backward for free speech.
Blithe Spirit 
Here’s a hydro-headed issue that can be argued from many different angles. Free speech in America is usually the open sesame to anything and everything (like the ACLU’s passionate defense of the Nazi March in Skokie several years ago). But freedom without responsibility can also mean chaos. So we can spend a lifetime analyzing the constitutional pros and cons on this Oak Park cafe.
I would tend to consider the issue more in terms of the theme rather than the constitution. I would think by now that the evidence is fairly well in that homosexuality is not usually a choice but a genetic predisposiition. As a Catholic, I reject my church’s view on this. Who would choose a life so reviled by so many? So it’s my inclination to see homosexuality as being gradually accepted by the masses of even the uninformed and hysterical — much like we’ve learned that witches, black cats, incantations, Inquisitions, and chaining the mentally ill were wrong. We’re a slow species to learn, and I think Calvin was more right than wrong about our inherent depravity. But just like the bigots have learned that a Catholic and a Black in the White has not brought down the republic, so will they eventually learn that a Gay in the White House would be just fine.
Oh by the way, this body of bright boisterous comments above helps reinforce my own belief that Chekhov was right when he sadly said: “Life is a tragedy full of joys…”
LikeLike
I’d call the gay censors “fascists,” but that would be unkind to fascists. (I’m talking Mussolini here, not Hitler.)
You know something’s not quite right, when the only church representative the reporter quotes in a “news” story about homosexuality is an openly homosexual “minister.”
Separate matter (or perhaps not): Around midday, when I first read this blog, I was unable to gain access to the story via the link. I had to go directly to Wednesday Journal, and dig up the story here. A couple of hours ago, when I passed over the link here, I got the image (amazing, this bit, seeing things without having to hit links) of a page, “ACCESS DENIED.” Two hours later (10:30 p.m.), the message is still there.
The explanation says that so many hits have come from this site that you are suspected of being malware. I hope that means that you have gotten a lot of hits concerning this story, and is not a ruse by WJ, to prevent people with the “wrong” sort of opinions from commenting on this story.
LikeLike
Just after posting my comment here, I tried the WJ link, but instead of simply passing over it, I hit it–and it opened a new window, taking me directly to the article, where I posted a slightly longer comment than the one I posted here (it hasn’t appeared yet).
Try it yourselves. Pass over the link, read the image, and then hit the link. This just gets curiouser and curiouser.
LikeLike
I’m sorry that you don”t “buy” my argument, and I welcome your defense of my right to make it. However, I’m not sure what you don’t “buy” about it, and the answer to your question is self-evident. You ask me: “I do have a question worth arguing, however: what makes one discussion legitimate and another illegitimate?”
When one side has declared that the fact don’t matter, as Mr. Williams did, there is no legitimate discussion or conversation to be had. We are, as they say, all entitled to our own opinions; we are not entitled to our own facts.
Should Buzz host a forum on whether or not Peter Pan ought to be prohibited treatment in American hospitals under future health care reforms on the basis of his British birth or his Neverlandish citizenship, and just ignore the fact of his fictional nature? What would be the point?
LikeLike
Steve,
Your equating Williams’s “I don’t buy the facts” with “the facts don’t matter” is a leap, which is why I said I don’t buy your argument, hoping you’d pick up on that. Well it’s not my first disappointment of the week.
As for your Peter Pan on the dock, it further demonstrates your contempt for Williams’s position, which I knew about. Ditto for your refusal to argue the point or let anyone else argue it.
That’s my point: you can’t imagine anyone holding his position and you don’t want to hear about it and you don’t want others even to consider it. Can’t go along with that, sorry.
LikeLike
Jim and Steve,
You both make some hefty arguments. Only what I don’t here in the various comments I’ve been reading is the basic human question: Why do straights presume to talk for and/or against public discussions of gays as if gays were a “subject” like cliuate change or swine fly? You know, some “object” rather than simply admitting that gays are no less a part of the human species and the human condition than anyone else? This bone-deep question is one I don’t hear anyone grappling with. Or am I missing something?
LikeLike
Hell, Jack, if Jim Bowman were the subject of an upcoming documentary, would that say I’m less human than the guy who isn’t? If I want to subject myself to that sort of thing, no one could object.
You’re still stuck with thwarting open discussion of an issue the cafe owner and her gay events manager (see Steve Maxey’s web site, feastoffools.net) thought was a good idea until pressured by the local gay lobby. Thus was achieved end of discussion — for the moment at least.
One more protective device was in place, you might say, as defense against infection. Reminds me of Brecht’s play about National Socialism, in which certain thinking was likened by the fuhrer to cancer. “Resistable Rise of Arturo Ui” it was, I think.
LikeLike
A fair riposte, Jim, only I’m still “stuck” on the issue of your humanity….a documentary on Jim Bowman of Oak Park residence & fame is fine…but a documentary (or cafe soiree) about Jim’s straightness vs gayness, or Jim’s genetic codes vs those of Michael Jackson, strikes me as offensively personal and judgmental….I’m not sure Oak Parkers have the right to invite your neighbors to a public profiling of your very who-ness ….that’s none of the public’s damn business…and if the public (as some will) say a public consideration of the Jim Bowman life style is protected under the First, I’d counter by suggesting there are moral responsibilities that attach to every constitutional right….in other words, lay off my friend Jim (and those like him) by sticking to what they DO rather than what they ARE…you see, I abhor those who want to take Gays out of the general population to publicly “study”…to me it still suggests we think of them as some sub-set of humanity…. hard to take when we survey the accumulated greatness generated by Gays throughout history who, in other cultures, were hardly seen as a sub-set
So I’ll happily pay to see the J.B documentary so long as they keep their cameras out of your bedroom!
LikeLike
(My comment was posted today at WJ. I’m posting it here, sans what I posted above.)
To read the story, you’d never know that homosexuality is a mortal sin in Christianity. (I’m not even a Christian, but I know that! But then, neither is “Minister” David Loofbourrow, and he claims to be a Christian.)
The writer, Marty Stempniak, notes that the APA “took homosexuality off its list of mental disorders” in 1973, and recently condemned “reparative therapy,” but fails to inform readers that such positions are due solely to political pressure by gay activists.
Meanwhile, the reporter quotes six locals supporting the censorship, but only one opposing it. This isn’t a news story at all, but what I call a reportorial, an opinion piece which the writer has sought to disguise as a news report.
Stempniak needs to go straight, and write an opinion column.
LikeLike
1. I have no connection whatsoever with the site feastoffools.net
2. In what way does “I don’t buy the facts” differ from “The facts don’t matter”? If they are indeed the facts, they remain so, even if you don’t buy them. The fact that some die-hard Flat Eearthers “don;t buy the facts” of a spherical earth doesn’t make the Earth any less rounded.
I have no problem acknowledging that some people believe being gay is a bad thing to be–for religious or other reasons. And I have no trouble acknowledging that such people would ry to encourage gay people to curb their sexual appetites for reasons that these people believed were good and helpful. I would think such people are wrong, but these are matters of opinion about which fair-minded people can disagree.
But the facts are in on so-called reparative therapy: It doesn’t work, and it could cause psychological harm. Not “buying” these facts doesn’t make them any less true.
An exhaustive review of the literature by the APA found “insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation.” In other words, they don’t work to change sexual orientation, though they may sometimes change self-identification. And there is some evidence that therapy attempting to change sexual orientation may be harmful: “Distress and depression were exacerbated. Belief in the hope of sexual orientation change followed by the failure of the treatment was identified as a significant cause of distress and negative self-image.”
Mr. Stix’s assertion above is absurd on its face. What sort of “pressure” could gay activists have put on the APA in 1973, when homosexuality was still illegal in many states? What sort of pressure could have led to a multi-year review of all the available literature and the resolution here: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/resolution-resp.html ? What possible leverage could these shadowy and unidentified “gay activists” Stix alludes to have over psychiatrists sufficient to make an entire medical association falsify the scientific research in such a public way?
LikeLike
I stand corrected on the Feast of Fun site at feastoffools.net and am glad to hear I’m wrong.
The idiom is “I don’t buy it” means I don’t agree. Williams does not buy the facts (data) in re: being able to switch to straight. It’s a bad reading to say he rejects factual arguments.
Moreover, if his position is ridiculous on its face, Maxey et al. can shoot him down, trusting that reasonable listeners will agree with them. It’s how we do it in our better moments. In this case perhaps they might show up at his talk and argue with him, which is better than using one’s muscle to forbid him the podium.
But OP gays et al. were afraid to do that, apparently. They seem to have panicked.
LikeLike
Have you ever tried to argue with a flat earther, a LaRouchie, a birther, a Holocaust denier, someone who truly believes that Elvis is still alive? When people refuse to “buy” established facts at the beginning of their argument, when they passionately hold to a belief in the face of clear evidence, no rational discussion can proceed. Evidence disproving their passionately held theory just gets transformed into part of a narrative of how some “other side” is using pressure and secret cabals to cover up the truth.
LikeLike