The Castaway Hotel: Book 9

Since I had my suspicions that the board member who had been arrested at the dance and just lost his bid for re-election would show up at the next board meeting to carry on his battle, I intended to be prepared. I spent a good share of the day doing research and jotting down notes containing facts, figures and other information I thought I would need to refute his claims and expose his self-righteous agenda. By the time I left work, I felt I was sufficiently prepared to tear apart any argument or justification he might present.

By the time I got home, Jake and the boys could tell I was in one of my heightened states and worked up for a good battle. They had seen me this way before, and since they knew about the board meeting and what I suspected was going to happen, they all wanted to go with me so they could watch the fireworks. Even though I appreciated their support, I told them I’d rather not have them in the line of fire and wanted to take care of this matter on my own. I reminded them the board meetings were always recorded and shown on the local access cable network at various times, so they could view it the following evening. Since they realized I was unlikely to budge from my stance, they didn’t argue, although they made comments such as they’d prefer ‘to see the bloodshed live and as it happens.’ I wasn’t sure if they were talking about his blood or mine, but I didn’t ask.

I got to the conference room, where the board meetings were held, rather early, since I didn’t want this confrontation to take place in the parking lot. I wanted it to happen where it would be recorded, so I could finish exposing him to the entire community. I laid out my papers on the table where I normally sat and then greeted the others as they arrived. I saw the old board member strut in, followed by a small entourage of a half dozen supporters, which included his wife and the parents of the boy that had been the ringleader of the group that had harassed Sammy. They all glared at me when they came in and took their seats in the peanut gallery, since he no longer had a claim to a seat with the rest of the board.

The meeting started out with the swearing in of the new board and a quick vote to reaffirm the board’s officers. I was mildly surprised the old board member didn’t stand up and raise a ruckus then, but I guess since he’d been defeated so soundly, he didn’t feel he should do anything and kept his seat. You could sense how upset he was and note the hostility in body language and posture as he sat in his chair, but he didn’t say a word. In fact, the meeting was going quite smoothly, but I realized this was merely the calm before the storm. However, the uneasy truce ended when we got to new business. Once the board had covered the topics on the agenda, the board president asked if there was any other new business and the old board member stood up and spoke.

“I have some new business, I’d like to bring up,” the former board member stated. “I wish to address the inappropriateness of the activities scheduled by the gay alliance club.” I noticed a couple of the other board members roll their eyes when he made his announcement.

“If I may,” I interrupted, “that’s the gay-STRAIGHT alliance,” I corrected, with great emphasis on the use of the word straight.

“So you claim,” he countered. “I bet you thought working to get me voted off the board would keep me from raising hell about this club, but you can see your efforts didn’t pay off.”

“First of all, I had nothing to do with you losing the election,” I told him. “You managed to do that on your own.”

“Yeah, right,” he sneered.

“Unfortunately for you, others in the community noted your actions and chose to support other candidates, which cost you your seat up here,” I countered.

“I doubt your hands were clean on this, but anyway,” he said, while facing the other board members, “I see in September they’ve listed a panel discussion about, and I quote, ‘the intolerance and misinformation the club was subjected to at the end of the previous school year.’ I think that, in itself, is misleading and bias. For those reasons alone, it should be disallowed as a school sponsored activity.”

“And why do you think that?” the board president followed.

“The officers of the club are planning to use that meeting to advance the gay cause and indoctrinate others to embrace their lifestyle. They don’t really want to hear any opposing views and will try to squash them. It will be a one-sided discussion, since those of us that disagree with them won’t be allowed to participate and share what we think.”

“If I may, Mr. President,” I responded, “I’d like to respond to his comment.” The school board president nodded, so I continued.

“First of all, this is a student gathering and all students, regardless of their viewpoint or sexual orientation, will be able to attend and state their opinions. The topic has been selected because of its timeliness and relevance to the district and the discussion is meant to enlighten the student body about what occurred last year.”

“They will present the faggot arguments, excuse me, I mean gay arguments to try to recruit others to their side” he said, correcting his obvious bigoted remark. “I doubt any of the students will feel brave enough to speak their mind, since the ones running this club are your sons and have your support. Therefore, I think a parents’ group should be allowed to participate and present another viewpoint.”

“Since this is a student function, not even the faculty will be participating,” I responded. “Therefore, the involvement of a parent group would be highly inappropriate.”

“Why, because we may stop others from turning queer?” he challenged.

“No, because student activities, such as this, are limited to only student participation,” I explained.

“Look here,” he challenged, “I represent a group of Christian, God-fearing parents that are opposed to allowing your sons to use the school to recruit more deviates.”

“First of all, I’ll reserve judgment on your description of your followers and you,” I stated, tongue-in-cheek, “but it couldn’t be too large of a following. I have the figures from the recent election of board members here, and out of the four candidates and the 3.648 ballots cast, where each person casting a ballot could vote for any two candidates, you merely received 196 votes. Mary was re-elected with 3,127 votes, the new member with 2.672 votes and the other losing candidate received 1.301 votes. Seeing those glaring figures, I don’t see your backers as being an overwhelming segment of the population. Not only that, but I object to your comments about my family. My sons are not the only members of this club and only one of them holds an office. The alliance has quite a large membership and the majority of the members describe themselves as straight. There is no recruiting going on, if that even was possible, just an honest dialogue to clear up misunderstandings.”

“So you claim, but the bible says being a homo is wrong,” he spat back.

“You know, it seems that every time there is a sensitive issue being debated, those opposing it try to use the Bible to support their position,” I countered. “Prior to the Civil War, those in favor of slavery attempted to use the Bible to support their claim that slavery was a God given right. They would quote a verse from Ephesians that says, ‘Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ,’ to support this ridiculous claim.

“When women were trying to gain the right to be allowed to vote, opponents used verses in the Bible that stated ‘men are head over their wives’ and ‘women should submit to their husbands’ to deny them this right. They attempted to interpret these verses from Ephesians and Romans to mean that men were superior and should be in charge of all decision-making processes, so women shouldn’t be granted such rights. Are you saying you agree with these claims?” I paused.

“What I believe is that the Bible is the word of God and should be followed, without debate,” he countered, “You can take that how you like and I’m sure you will try to twist what I’ve said and make it look like I support slavery and would deprive women of any rights.”

“Well, would you?” I pressed.

“That’s not what I said,” he responded, somewhat annoyed.

“Actually, you haven’t said anything about whether you agree with those positions, so I’m trying to clarify your stance,” I replied.

“That has nothing to do with what we’re talking about here,” he sneered. Rather than push the issue, I moved on.

“So you believe the Bible should be taken literally and followed, without question?” I asked next.

“Yes, I, well I mean we, do!” he stated, adamantly, while motioning toward the others with him.

“Let me clarify your position then, I continued, after luring him into my trap. “Since you feel the Bible must be obeyed without exception, then you must also be following the dietary restrictions about not eating pork or consuming anything that lives in the water and doesn’t have fins or scales, which means things like shrimp, crab and lobster. Do you adhere to these restrictions?” He stood very still and didn’t respond to this, so I continued on.

“You must also donate ten percent of your income to the church, because Leviticus also states that tithing is part of the law. Since the Greek and Hebrew words for tithe literally mean a tenth, I assume you must give a tenth of your income to your church. Do you?” Surprisingly, he chose to answer this question.

“We donate generously to the church,” he answered.

“That is not what I asked,” I challenged. “Do you tithe ten percent of your income, as required by the Bible?” He didn’t appear as if he wanted to answer this, but I think he felt he had to now.

“We don’t make a lot of money, so we can’t afford to give that much,” he said dryly.

“But tithing, or giving a tenth of what you earn, is part of Biblical law. If you believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, don’t you HAVE to give the church ten percent?” I could see he was getting frustrated and had nearly reached the breaking point.

“What does any of this have to do with anything?” he snapped. “What we’re talking about is our concern that the homosexuals are using the school to recruit new members. None of what you have been mentioning has anything to do with what they’re doing.”

“Ah, but what we were discussing is that you think homosexuality is wrong because it says so in the Bible and you believe the Bible should be read literally and adhered to,” I stated. “However, it seems you are willing to pick and choose what parts of the Bible you want to follow verbatim and what parts you’d rather ignore,” I stated, much to his dismay and disagreement.

“That’s not what we’re doing and it’s not the same,” he claimed.

“Why, because it would be an inconvenience for you to follow those other precepts?” I asked.

“Times have changed and much of what you mentioned no longer applies,” he stated.

“Oh, so now you are saying the Bible is a living and flexible document that can grow and be interpreted to fit the changing times? Or can that only happen when it’s convenient for you, and others like you, but must be strictly followed by those you oppose or when you say so?” The former board member was now struggling to find words to express his position, so his wife jumped to his defense.

“You’re twisting everything he is saying and trying to make my husband look bad,” she screamed. “He’s a good decent man who just wants the rest of the world to be morally responsible and not allow sin and debauchery.” Those sitting around her were busy nodding their heads in agreement.

“So you’re telling me you also agree with his attitudes and stance on these issues?” I asked.

“Yes, because we follow the principals laid out in the Bible,” she announced defiantly.

“And are you also a literalist, when it comes to the scripture?” I followed.

“That is correct. I also believe in a strict interpretation of the word of God,” she agreed.

“So that means you agree with what I said earlier to your husband, about the arguments that were used against giving women the right to vote?” I continued. “You actually believe ‘a man should be head over his wife’ and ‘women should submit to their husbands’ and obey their every ultimatum?” I paused, to give her a chance to respond.

“Maybe not everything,” she hedged. “I mean, I’m his wife, not his servant.”

“But isn’t that more or less what a literal interpretation of the Biblical passages would make you?” I went on. She looked a bit confused.

“How about when you menstruate, or have your monthly period? Do you follow the guidelines in Leviticus that forbids you to touch or be touched by your husband, share a bed with him or allow him to even come into contact with your clothing for seven days? Do you leave your home and stay somewhere else for a week when this happens, thus becoming ‘set apart,’ as it states in the scriptures?” Again, she looked baffled and didn’t say anything.

“You have children, so did you follow those same rules for a seven-day period following the birth of a son or for a two-week period after giving birth of a daughter?” I continued. “Those are the restrictions that Leviticus states you must follow.” This time, she merely glared at me.

“That type of thinking is old fashion and a woman’s monthly cycle is not considered a curse or that she is untouchable any longer,” she replied. “And women don’t stay in the hospital for a week or more after a baby is born, as they did during my mother’s and grandmother’s time.”

“So then you don’t strictly follow biblical teachings, because they might be old-fashion and outdated?” I clarified.

“In some cases, yes, like with the pork and seafood,” she continued. “I believe those restrictions were there because many diseases could be picked up by not preparing those items correctly. However, we now know what to do to prevent that, so it’s no longer a concern.”

“Ah, so we don’t always have to follow every edict in the Bible,” I rephrased, “because times have changed and we know better about such things now.” I think she realized where I was heading with this, so she didn’t answer. However, her husband did.

“Well, no matter what you think about us or how you distort what we do or say, it will be you, your sons and all the rest of the queers that are going to end up in hell, not us,” he shouted, figuring he had me this time.

“So there is a commandment against being gay?” I challenged.

“Not a commandment, but it does say that in the Bible,” he answered.

“Ah, so even if you forgive preachers, Congressmen, Senators and even your neighbors for breaking the commandment of not committing adultery and making a mockery of their wedding vows,” I pressed, “then they’ll go to hell too?”

“Not if they repent and not do it again,” he replied.

“So you can break commandments and repent and still go to heaven, but a gay person can’t? Now that’s interesting,” I scoffed. “And you believe that anyone who doesn’t believe in the Bible and follow it literally, both the Old and New Testaments, without question, will go to hell?” I challenged.

“Yes, Fags, Jews, Muslims and a whole bunch of others will all end up in hell,” he spat back.

“Interesting,” I mused. “So you’re telling me no Jews will be in heaven?” I pressed.

“None of them,” he responded.

“That’s odd. You mean Moses, Elijah, King David, King Solomon, Samuel, Daniel and the others that wrote the books of the Old Testament won’t be allowed into heaven?” I reasoned.

“Ah, well… they might be. I think they’re different,” he mumbled.

“Why? They were all Jews,” I pointed out.

“But they lived before Jesus was born,” he stated, trying to formulate an acceptable reason for allowing this incongruity.

“Ah, so there will be some Jews in Heaven then?” I clarified.

“I suppose, but I’m not a bible scholar or anything like that, so I don’t claim to understand everything the Bible says,” he stated.

“I see, and that’s probably one of the few statements you’ve made that I agree with,” I taunted. “However, even though you aren’t a theologian and don’t have all the answers about Biblical meaning, you still feel competent to interpret some parts of the Bible and use it to advance your personal agenda.”

“There you go again, twisting my words around,” he whined.

“I don’t think I’ve twisted anything, but merely used your own comments to refute your claims,” I countered. “First you say that you believe everything in the Bible should be obeyed, then you suddenly change your position. Then you tell me no Jews will be allowed into heaven, and then you make exceptions. You claim the Bible should be interpreted literally and strictly obeyed, yet you and your wife don’t and you’ve admitted exceptions to the rule, such as if a person repents for breaking a commandment – one of God’s ten most sacred laws. You seem to be willing to make an exception for everything, except for being gay!”

“You just did it again,” he charged, but I think he said this so he could avoid having to respond to my last point.

“I don’t agree and think we’ve clarified your position and cleared the air about a lot of things,” I stated. “However, your concerns have been noted, but my decision that only students will be allowed at the panel discussion stands.”

“I figured you’d say that, but I have another objection, about something else. This one is about the activities the gay club has planned for October,” he continued, even though I felt he might drop all of his concerns by this point, seeing he was already looking foolish. However, I guess he’s a glutton for punishment.

“It states this club is proclaiming one week in October as ‘coming out week,’ so other students can announce they are queer too. They are also planning to hold a Matthew Shepard memorial service. What the hell for? He didn’t have anything to do with this school and didn’t even live in this state.”

“Those activities have already been approved and the gay-straight alliance didn’t declare that week in October for coming out on their own, that’s a nationally recognized event. As far as the Matthew Shepard memorial service is concerned, he was a young man who was brutally killed for who he was and the students wish to honor his sacrifice and memory. I think it’s similar in many ways to the Christian tradition of honoring those who gave their lives because of their beliefs and who they were.” 

”I can’t believe you are saying that gay guy is anything like the Christian saints,” he yelled back.

“I didn’t,” I replied. “I was merely drawing an analogy between the memorial service the students have planned and how Christians honor, or have honored, those who have died for what they were – believers in Christ.” I don’t think he understood this comment any better than any of the rest of this discussion, and you could tell that was so after listening to his next statement.

“So what are you going to do about these things?” he asked.

“As I stated earlier,” I reiterated, “these events have already been approved, so nothing is going to be done to change them.”

“Just as we thought,” he spat back, “you aren’t willing to listen to anyone who has a different view on these things.”

“We’ve listened,” I explained, “and have spent many minutes while you ranted on about these things, but listening doesn’t mean we have to agree or act upon what you’ve said.”

“You’d be well advised to change your ways and fear the wrath of God, or you will surely taste his judgment,” he shouted.

“It’s not God I fear, because I believe my God is loving and compassionate,” I answered. “What I fear are those who think they speak for God!” This really angered him, so he urged the others to stand up and storm out of the room in protest with him, but he did have one parting shot.

“You may have your way here,” he screamed back, “but I hope you enjoy spending eternity in hell, because we won’t be seeing any of you in heaven.” The rest of us in the room merely, snickered or raised our eyebrows at his final statement, because no one felt he had any chance of making it into heaven, no matter have pious and devout he thought he was.

Once that group had exited the building, we finished up the rest of the board business and adjourned. On the way out, the board president stopped me, to share his thoughts.

“Josh, I thought you handled that amazingly well and kept your cool,” he stated. “Each time that guy shows up, he goes home looking like a bigger fool than he did before. I thought he’d give up after losing his bid to be re-elected, but you certainly exposed him as a hypocrite this evening.”

“Hey, what can I say?” I replied. “It’s not hard having a battle of wits with an unarmed man.” This comment caused the board president to chuckle.

“I would have to agree with you on that and couldn’t have put it better myself,” he stated, with a grin.

When I returned home, everyone wanted to know what had happened, but I merely advised them to watch it tomorrow evening for themselves. I didn’t want to rehash everything that had happened, because it was annoying and I was exhausted. It had been a long day so I went to bed, with Jake following closely behind.