God loves all his people

August 28, 2001

Dear Sir,

As a Christian leader in Bermuda I felt challenged by Mr. Santucci's comments as reported in Benedict Greening's article 'Gays should come together to get equality on agenda' which appeared in Friday's Royal Gazette. And so I have 'come out from behind closed doors' to speak to this difficult issue.

I agree with Mr. Santucci that no group of people in Bermuda should have "special rights" over another group. And I am pleased to see that Bermudians, born with different sexual orientations, as Mr. Santucci says, "are already protected under the law as it stands". I am concerned though that after recognising the value of protecting our gay neighbours, Mr. Santucci undermined the conviction saying that the gay lifestyle is immoral, and 'goes against the human rights as God has commanded it and what he created mankind for.' If I were a gay man, I would seriously doubt the capacity of the existing laws to protect me amid such hostility.

But what surprised me more was Mr. Santucci's reference to people born gay, and I suppose lesbian, not as Bermudians, or even as blacks or whites but as members of "the homosexual race". Combining the reference to the homosexual race with his view that homosexuality is immoral left me wondering if I were supposed to believe that God condones outright racism!

That was something I must have missed at Seminary.

What I do remember learning at seminary was how Jesus reached out and touched people whom the Scriptures declared to be untouchable, such as: tax collectors, and Samaritans. And I remember how Jesus accepted the outcast and embraced the people everyone hated.

I also remember studying the Book of Acts. It amazed me that based on nothing more than a dream he had while lying in the noonday sun, Peter went against God's Law and entered the house of a Roman. Those who know scripture will recall that during his visit, as Peter later testified, God poured out the Holy Spirit even on those Gentiles without demanding that they become Jews. I remember reading how the elders in Jerusalem accepted the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the Gentiles as sufficient reason to lay aside God's Laws which divided Gentiles from Jews.

Mr. Santucci challenged religious leaders to speak out. And he's right. We have hidden away for too long. So today I declare that after careful study of Scripture and after witnessing the Holy Spirit come upon gays and lesbians, our denomination, which includes the Wesleyan Methodist Church of Bermuda, welcomes anyone as equal and fully Christian in all ways regardless of sexual orientation. For our church sexual orientation is no barrier to true faith in Christ. As a denomination we continue to support full equal rights for any person of any race regardless of sexual orientation.

Thank you, Mr. Santucci, for reminding me to speak the Good News boldly.

Sincerely in Christ,

THE REV. GRAEME CARRUTH

Minister, Emmanuel Methodist Church

Fighting our senses

August 22, 2001

Dear Sir,

Let me begin by stating that I am a Creationist. I believe in the Almighty God of the Holy Bible. the Genesis account indicates that all creatures were created male and female. The union of the male and female of each species was to "replenish" (fill) the earth.

There is a letter in today's edition entitled "Equality under the law" by "Advocate No. 1". I will quote a few passages from that text before making my point -" ...I can only profess to understand Christianity at a more accepting and loving level than those that would condemn homosexuality... The New Testament is based on love and acceptance, and loving thy neighbour as thyself... Christianity is not static, it has evolved greatly and moves forward now with the people that are its progenitors..."

The gift of sexual relations between two persons of opposing gender within the band of matrimony is one of God's gifts to mankind (Gen. 1: 26:28; Ex. 20: 14; De. 5: 18). The same God that expects heterosexuals to be celibate before marriage and monogamous after marriage expects that the homosexual would remain celibate since by (God's) law he or she would not be permitted to marry.

Lately there seems to be widespread confusion over the activity that caused the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Beyond this, there is an attempt to justify homophile behaviour because of congenital predisposition. I will not debate that because scripture tells us that we have all been messed up from birth - in one way or another.

For some of us, it is our temper, greed, or a weakness for drugs. Others feel a natural urge to gamble and squander. Besides these, there are apparently hereditary disorders such as kleptomania, paedophilia, nymphomania, satyriasis, etc. God does not hold such weaknesses against us.

Nevertheless, it does not become us to use any of these drives as licence for our actions. Nor in the name of human rights, to flaunt such actions as deserving to be recognised, protected or accepted by society. Civilised human existence involves a never-ending effort to counteract our innate predisposition to certain behaviours that could put our own well being and that of others, in peril.

M. ROSS NEARON

St. George's

Thank you, Mr. Greaves

August 24, 2001

Dear Sir,

I would like to respond to the letter entitled "Magistrate is not helping" printed in your August 21 edition of The Royal Gazette.

I take personal exception to the statement that the judicial system precludes that a father's interest and love for his children should equal "child support payments alone" and that his love is less genuine then that of a mother's, and is totally based on monetary greed.

The simple fact of the matter is that the judicial system cannot do it all. They can enforce child support payments, but they cannot make a man take his child for a weekend, play football, give comfort or advice, hold him all night when he's had a nightmare, or kiss away the pain of a "boo boo".

These are things that a man has to want to do. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him accept the responsibility of being a father. And yes, when my son's father and I parted ways I did have custody of my son. I can't recall his father asking for custody ... or maybe I just couldn't hear him as he walked away from it all.

I have added up what it cost to raise my child - $1,100 rent, $625 for school fees, $145 for electricity (he loves the air conditioner) $132 for telephone, cable $81, groceries $600 per month, clothes (a fortune - he wants the best of everything) love, understanding, guidance, nurturing, discipline - priceless! This is money that I have to "squeeze" out every month as you so eloquently put it - not to mention the trips to DisneyWorld etc. You say you wish to remove the "profit motive" - I ask you what profit motive? All that I am by law given is $50 a week - $200 per month - $2,400 per year which is really nothing when you consider how much I have to spend out every month to rear his child.

The bill that he has racked up at Magistrates' Court is in excess of $16,000 - how he could let it build up like this from a mere $50 a week is beyond me. Does he strike you as the type of person who would want or even be capable of having sole custody of a child? As a result of his not meeting his financial obligations he is now spending time at Westgate. Unfortunately, this has made no difference in my child's life whatsoever because he never sees his father anyway. This was not the doing of Magistrate Greaves - he cannot be blamed for "locking my son's father out of his life" - this was a choice that this man and many other men have made a long time ago, it is the consequence of their actions.

Magistrate Greaves is simply doing what he can to assist with rearing our children when we have gone so long without financial or emotional support from these dead beat fathers. Magistrate Greaves is really a last resort after we have tried everything else. To be perfectly honest if these men were really interested in helping to raise their children would we really have to resort to depending on the services of Magistrates' Court anyway?

I would have gladly shared the responsibility of rearing my child. I truly believe that a child needs a father and mother present in their life, but I couldn't make him a worthwhile father anymore than I could make the sun rise. Therefore I take what I can get, which now that he is in Westgate is the money, and I'll put it where it will most benefit my child because I am the one who thinks about his education, next meal, clothes on his back etc.

I would like to close by saying "thank you, Mr. Greaves" because without you we would be getting nothing at all - as usual.

JUST ANOTHER MOM

Southampton

Cablevision is the pits

August 24, 2001

Dear Sir,

Bermuda Cablevision is, without a doubt, the ultimate, the absolute pits. Tracing right back to its sale by Gavin Wilson some years ago, they have been apparently unable to do anything at all which could be regarded as in the public interest, or even for the elevation of Bermuda's reputation in the world market of tourism and travel.

Everything they even touch, has failed, miserably, to produce anything which might be considered as desirable in these islands and the standard of entertainment or information to which we have been subjected in these past few years, with few exceptions, would not be acceptable if furnished for the consumption of eight to ten-year-olds.

For at least two years they have been unable to correct the distortion on BBC World (Channel 8) which breaks up the picture and sound track into small coloured squares usually at a crucial point in the newscast. After complaining incessantly about the standard of transmission on one of the premium channels and having nothing to show for it, I sent them a tape of a recording made overnight from the offending channel to illustrate the claim. I have at this point, some months later, received neither an acknowledgement of its receipt or even the return of the cassette!

In a normal competitive society, such businesses would not survive for even a few months or years, so why do they receive the protection of government departments which, surely, are established largely to prevent their survival.

Their most recent endeavour, the reorganisation of the channels and the equipment necessary for their receipt, was a disaster from start to finish, as usual, because those employed in the design of such manoeuvres, would appear to be incapable of doing their job.

VIEWER

Pembroke