Dear Editor,
I refer to the letter by Swami Aksharananda captioned ‘Homosexuality has nothing to do with Western culture and values’ (SN, July 8). We have addressed the full gamut of fourteen deadly deficiencies attending to Swami Aksharananda’s recent misadventure in intellectual mischief in the online article Swami Aksharananda’s delusion on homosexuality: Western values and their usurpation by gay rights/human rights.” This short version will suffice for an initial response via the local media.
The Swami should understand that the words below reflect the evidence, and the worldview, supported by a majority of the population in the Caribbean. Abu Bakr (‘Western gender guerrillas are using what anthropology they could find to justify sodomy, etc’ SN, July 16) has already addressed a multitude of the logical fallacies in Swami Aksharananda’s tirade, and our task now is simply to add detail and established authority.
Firstly, the Swami ignores the proof (in his suggestively-captioned letter) that it is Western-style “gay rights” and “gay-militant” agendas that have inundated entire national policies in Canada, England, Europe, and the USA. That both the “agenda” and the “militancy” are premised on a hoax of enormous proportions (the deliberate decision by the APA to ignore all the clinical evidence and psychiatric research over the past 100 years, and also the work of Freud, Jung and Adler) is validated in various online articles by Dr Joseph Nicolosi, who argues that gay militants and others with views like Swami Aksharananda’s have caused “apathy and confusion” in society; by Dr Charles W. Socarides’ who illustrates that such views are false and socially dangerous; and by Kathleen Melonakos, MA, RN who asks an astonishing question as yet unanswered by the Swami in the article ‘Why isn’t homosexuality considered a disorder on the basis of its medical consequences?’
Secondly, that the Swami cites not a single source, authority or reference in his letter is further proof of the intellectual mischief that it amounts to. He ignores our reference to the organization and structure being adopted by gay militancy in ‘Selling homosexuality and prostitution to Guyana’; and ignores Ras Ashkar’s admonition that those in support of homosexuality are more interested in their hedonistic agenda than in individual freedom. He also ignores the fact that the authors and owners of the Sasod website in Guyana have also included a webpage euphemistically called ‘The experimenting teenager.’ A psychosexual/mental disorder, when left to police itself, will always seek to impose its view on society.
Thirdly, Swami Aksharananda sets up the rather interesting theory in paragraph 20 of his letter that Guyanese will know whether or not their “…religious scripture is right …” if the test of “rationality” is applied. This makes for interesting possibilities, since he implies that if one can illustrate that the thing(s) that one’s scripture abhors is fully borne out by historical and current “rational” (scientific, medical, legal, social) analysis and its findings, then one has a solid basis upon which to “rationalize” faith. The converse should also be true: that the “scripture” of any religion that cannot withstand such scrutiny is false. He seeks to indict Christianity in that regard (para 17). He must now be required to present the case for Hinduism, or for his noticeable (personal?) exception to the IRO position.
Fourthly, therefore, in response to his statements about Christianity, we can only posit that what the Bible addresses in single sentences sometimes, and in whole pages and chapters at others, is inevitably borne out by historical and current “rational” (scientific, medical, legal, social) analysis. We shall present the initial proof in the paragraphs following, and in the online article referred to in the first paragraph above.
Fifthly, we should point out the obvious to readers. The Swami states definitively (para 19) that “Hinduism does not approve of homosexuality…” These words should be enough to settle the issue for the IRO. It is also eminently consistent with the Biblical position on homosexuality. His protestations about “rationality” notwithstanding, Swami Aksharananda did not respond to the rebuttal on the Anil Azeez issue.
Sixth, again for paragraph 19, the IRO should now politely require the Swami to outline with certainty what he means by the contradictory phrase in the same sentence: “…it [Hinduism] admits of a wide range of sexual orientation possibilities and therefore the vehemence and stridency with which the IRO has expressed its anti-homosexual sentiments cannot be shared by Hindus…” For those who see the immediate implications of this piece of twisted reasoning, we had referred to this proclivity by gay militancy and its supporters in the past, and noted that the decision by gay militancy to “manufacture” a “science” to fit the “sexual-orientation” agenda had logically led to the fabricated concept of “transgenderism.”
Seventh, we had addressed the fallacy of Aksharananda’s “sexual-orientation possibilities” in The case against cross-dressing or transgenderism in Guyana. In that treatment, we had also noted the evidence in the literature of the contemporaneous diagnosis of homosexuality and transgenderism, and had also noted that the “success” for the one group invariably became the “opportunity” for the other… hence the references everywhere to the “GBLT” (Gay, Bisexual, Lesbian and Transgender) community. Perhaps this is what Swami Aksharananda refers to when he invokes the idea that Hinduism “admits of a wide range of sexual orientation possibilities”?
Seven other fatal deficiencies in Swami Aksharananda’s position are found in the full response in the online article referred to already (see para 1). The science he needs to plug the remaining holes in his arguments is best explained in the words of Matt Staver’s Transsexualism and the Binary Divide: Determining Sex Using Objective Criteria. The detailed study assesses every decided case to pronounce on the legal morass generated the by deception and highly questionable “science” that the GLBT community and the Swami invoke.
Few would have summarized the core issues or the above conclusion as competently as Dr Paul McHugh, Distinguished Service Professor at the Johns Hopkins University. He came to the following conclusion in 2005 about the illogic of the Swami’s “nuanced and sophisticated” approach to homosexuality and transgenderism: “We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it…” How, therefore, does Hindu science, medicine and/or public policy rationalize a different conclusion to the research and clinical studies that Dr Paul McHugh referred to? Swami Aksharananda should now enlighten us.
Yours faithfully,
Roger Williams
