Alissa Trotz: Using … and Abusing … Desmond Tutu in the cause of Homosexuality and Transgenderism!

Dear Editor,

I refer to the lengthy feature “Toward a Different Understanding” (SN 15/3/10) by Alissa Trotz and would appreciate the
opportunity to rebut. Her article attempts to defend gay rights and activism, and to promote Desmond Tutu in that cause.

Readers should note that Abu Bakr has already dealt with over 58% of Alissa’s presentation in his eloquent letter of rebuttal
“Homosexuality and its condemnation has nothing at all to do with British hegemonic imperialism ” (
http://www.stabroeknews.com/2010/letters/03/18/homosexuality-and-its-condemnation-has-nothing-at-all-to-do-with-
british-hegemonic-imperialism/ ). His engaging and solid rationale, and the inevitable slew of comments that attended thereto
in SN’s online forum, makes for interesting reading! Bakr’s first line advises SN, correctly so, that “ … A columnist in your
Monday edition persists with the illogical claim that anti-homosexuality legislation ought to be repealed here simply because it
was introduced by the British …” Trotz, we should note, has promised “yet another article” …

Elsewhere, we had rebutted Trotz’s first submission in the same forum with the detailed article “ The Case Against Cross-
dressing and Transgenderism in Guyana” (http://www.scribd.com/doc/27698238/The-Case-Against-Cross-Dressing-or-
Transgender-ism-in-Guyana ). That rebuttal is also found in shortened version online as “ Kaieteur News/Stabroek News:
A Rebuttal of Alissa Trotz and Antoine Craigwell on Transgenderism and Homosexuality in Guyana”.

Desmond Tutu’s comments in the Washington Post of March 12 constituted, verbatim, 42% of Alissa’s 3-pager. It is easy to
see that the defence of “human rights” and “gay rights” have placed intractable scales over Tutu’s eyes.

We should explain!

Tutu rightly offers that “… Men have been falsely charged and imprisoned in Senegal, and health services for these men and
their community have suffered …” but forgets to mention or condemn the slaughter of Christian innocents in Orissa, Nigeria
and the Sudan. Won’t the Washington Post allow Tutu commentaries on these issues as well?

Tutu rightly offers that “…Just this month, mobs in Mtwapa Township, Kenya, attacked men they suspected of being gay …”
but forgets to mention or condemn that in 2008 gay-militants terrorized Christians in the USA in their churches, while
campaigning for Proposition 8, and because of their political affiliation. Left to itself, a disorder will inevitably attempt
to impose its madness on accommodating societies!

Tutu offers that “…That this pandering to intolerance is being done by politicians looking for scapegoats for their failures is not
surprising...” but forgets to mention that Ugandan Minister for Ethics and Integrity Nsaba Buturo has identified other areas of
immorality (http://www.mediacentre.go.ug/details.php?catId=4&item=667 ) that his government is prepared to deal
with in a stringent campaign against emergent trends of crime.

Tutu offers that he would “… never worship a homophobic God …” but forgets to mention the Biblical condemnation of
homosexuality. If the Archbishop is in effect denying God’s Word, the Bible, then what does “God” mean to him these days?
Tutu has apparently forgotten Romans 1:16-32 and other scriptures. He also makes no distinction between the person and his
actions, equating “homosexuals” with “homosexuality”, and is obviously into the slippery ideological verbiage that passes for
doctrine in the gay-militant community, by insinuating that God can be considered “homophobic”. The Bible makes it clear
that God abhors homosexuality (per Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, homosexuality is but one of the many forms of ‘soul sickness’ that
that are innate to our fallen natures) as much as he abhors any other sin … but Tutu is apparently reading from a different
playbook these days! Has he in this single statement told us where his allegiances now lie?

Tutu offers that “… Sexual orientation, like skin color, is another feature of our diversity as a human family…”. This is
unfeigned intellectual laziness masquerading as scholarship, or else a fatal delusion per the scales mentioned before. We have
illustrated “sexual orientation” catastrophes at page 6 of “The Case Against Crossdressing and Transgenderism in
Guyana”, while addressing the legal importance of “immutability” at pages 2-3. Like classic gay-rights activists, Tutu
mentions NOWHERE the need for treatment in attraction- and gender-identity disorders. He has forgotten God’s instruction to
study to show himself approved, and now is depending on his “friends” assurances on “sexual-orientation” on this issue). We
should refer him to the law review “Homosexuality: Innate and Immutable? by Dean Byrd & Stony Olsen
(http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Byrd.doc ). It will correct many misconceptions in his mind.

Tutu offers “… does any of us know the mind of God so well that we can decide for him who is included, and who is excluded,
from the circle of his love?...” This is go-nowhere theology! Rather than make up the rules for himself, Tutu should agree that
we know the mind of God from His Word … the Bible ... where else? A rule of thumb he can adopt can well be: if the Bible
condemns it, believe it should be so condemned!

Tutu rightly offers that “… The wave of hate must stop …” but forgets to mention that his own disregard for the evidence and
lack of scholarship should feature in such a programme of enlightenment. We should refer him to the law review “Child
Molestation and the Homosexual Movement”
(http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/baldwin_pedophilia_homosexuality.pdf ); by Steve Baldwin 14 REGENT U. L.
REV. 267 (2002) as a solid introduction to what Africa can expect if it does not treat homosexuality and transgenderism as
what they really are … mental and psychosexual disorders that damage the national ethos. Dr. Paul McHugh, Distinguished
Service Professor in Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, is forced in 2005 to make the following conclusion about the
medical 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 …”
(“Transgenderism is a Gender-Identity Disorder; Transgenderism is a Mental Disorder”;
http://www.pfox.org/Transgenderism_is_gender_identity_disorder.html ).
Tutu offers that “… my fellow clerics, of all faiths, must stand up for the principles of universal dignity and fellowship...” but
forgets that the man Desmond Tutu in the office of Christian Archbishop is not called by God to defend the “… principles of
universal dignity and fellowship… ” so much as the principles of the Bible.

He then offers that “… Exclusion is never the way forward on our shared paths to freedom and justice ...” which is an
astonishing admission of naïveté’, since gay-militancy is excluding Christians in every activist state where they have gained
inroads, and we can quote Melanie Phillips in this regard at “How Britain is turning Christianity into a Crime”
(http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=447 ): “…The ‘diversity’ agenda, in other words, is a fig-leaf for an
attack on Christianity…. This is no accident. The sacred doctrine of human rights — which explicitly sets itself up as the
religion for a godless age — is the means by which secularism is steadily attacking the Christian roots of our civilisation, on
the basis that religion is inherently unenlightened, prejudiced and divisive….”

We reach an inescapable conclusion: Desmond Tutu is being used by Alissa Trotz and others as a tool in the destruction of his
own faith … and he's helping them ... and it’s all in the name of “human rights” … scales on his eyes notwithstanding!

Yours faithfully,

Roger Williams