Dear Editor,
I refer to the letter by Nadia Sagar captioned ‘Isn’t it proper for SASOD and its constituents to play a key role in policies and laws that ultimately will have the greatest impact on their lives?‘ (SN, April 2). It is clear that she does [not] address fact, detail, truth, and the evidence.
Ms Sagar does not disappoint in that her words vindicate our original perspective in ‘A blind pursuit of a liberal agenda’(SN, March 31), that a curious mixture of innuendo, semantic jiggery-pokery and outright deception have been the casual trademark of SASOD and its defenders. She does not address any of the factual detail in the many submissions contained in the online article ‘Universal Periodic Review: Open Letter to Guyana’s Parliamentarians September 2010.’
Her outlook, to be fair, may have been clouded by the fact that SN chose in its wisdom to edit the following words from the original letter: “We should therefore immediately correct SASOD on the obvious fallacy in its perspective; it is fact, detail, truth and the evidence that should take centre stage and inform the process in the consultations ahead.” It is unclear why SN chose to delete same, and SN should by separate note tell her why. [Ed note: The sentence was deleted in error because it was thought a related point had already been made.]
The Guyana Bar Association should consider the following reasonable proposition: Do ‘gay rights’ signal the end of reason, the end of evidence, the end of the rational law?
Why do we ask this?
Firstly, note that Ms Sagar’s main objection to Dr Jeffrey Satinover’s book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, it seems, is that he addresses fact, detail, truth and the evidence. Ms Sagar, on the other hand, provides nothing to support her position. She would be hard-pressed to find a medical doctor who would disagree with Dr Satinover’s careful outline. She offers an innuendo of such evidence, but supplies none!
Secondly, Ms Sagar, like the Guyana Bar Association, should properly be alarmed by Justice Antonin Scalia’s read and written dissent in the case Lawrence v Texas as outlined at pages 27-37 in the online article ‘The Case Against Pancap and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality’ In a treatment that gay-activist jurisprudence seeks to avoid like the plague rather than rebut, Scalia is forced to come to the following astonishing conclusion about the fate of the law in America (and I daresay Guyana): “This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. If, as the Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws can survive rational-basis review.”
And if we needed any evidence on the anti-Bible, anti-religious fervour that really drives SASOD and its supporters, Ms Sagar provides it. Her sound-bytes on the Bible are as temptingly distractive as they are easily rebutted, but we should focus and redirect her and readers to points 27, 28 and 29 in the online article ‘Universal periodic Review…’ cited above, as a useful introduction. The discussion can begin from there.
In anticipation of that discussion, we will ask her to be fair and immediately elucidate/contrast for us what Islam and Hinduism advocate the death penalty for in their sacred texts. Her inability or unwillingness to do so will illustrate the hypocrisy driving gay militancy in Guyana.
Finally, as to Guyana the “secular state” relative to “gay rights,” I have yet to find a more concise statement on the relationship between state, government, man and God as that offered by Daniel Garcia and Robert Regier in the online article ‘Homo-sexuality is Not a Civil Right.’
Ad nauseam, we seek recourse yet again to those words: “When protecting one’s inalienable and civil rights, the government must discern between liberty and license.
This requires that rights attach to persons because of their humanity, not because of their behaviors, and certainly not those behaviors that Western legal and moral tradition has regarded as inimical to the ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ as stated in the Declaration. Yet, today some advocate [would grant] ‘rights’ to behaviors hostile to the most fundamental forms of self-government—family, church, and community.
This is especially the case with homosexual activists, who ironically seek to hijack the moral capital of the civil rights movement.”
But it is feasible that Ms Sagar can relate to these words? There are none as blind as those who would not see. Satinover at page 27 calls it a “denial so intense that self-examination is entirely precluded.” SASOD callously depends on the denial of its supporters for its very existence and funding. It should focus instead on detail, fact, truth, healing, recovery and the evidence.
Yours faithfully,
Roger Williams
