The faith-based, gay-affirming organization Soulforce is gearing up for a May 1 vigil at Focus on the Family headquarters in Colorado Springs, Colo.
Soulforce contends that Focus on the Family resorts to numerous untruths against gay and lesbian people and their families. Soulforce has created deardrdobson.com to advocate nonviolent opposition to James Dobson’s antigay bigotry.
Soulforce invites concerned people of faith to travel to Colorado Springs and join in the vigil.
The report you linked to about the untruths was awesome. Who was it a few weeks back who suggested that someone start a Focus-Watch? It looks like a good part of that job is done. We just need to get the word out.
Sort of dumb comment. What is Soulforce thinking of, having this vigil on Beltane? FOTAnus is at about 7,000 feet altitude. It is on the south edge of the Palmer divide, home to that wonderful Colorado event: the forth of July snow fall. I have been caught in heavy snow there in July. And in May, it is almost a sure thing. Just wondering.
Dalea, your comment makes no sense.
It’s not about maybe encountering or avoiding snow. It’s about making our presence known in a nonviolent way.
I am giving very serious consideration to attending this event. It is quite likely, as Regan said, that these good folks have never seen GLBT people in person. They only know the caricatures.
What do you intend to do to give a positive witness of GLBT?
Confrontation is good. Non-violence is good. We need our Malcom X, but we also need our Martin Luther King, Jr.
Most likely, nothing will change just because of this one event. But then, Ghandi didn’t kick the British Raj out in a day and MLK Jr’s work still is not done. This is the work of entire lifetimes. It’s time we took up the banner.
Dalea | February 27, 2005 02:03 AM
What is Soulforce thinking of, having this vigil on Beltane?
Quite frankly, whatever is Soulforce thinking of? As far as I can tell, it’s a weirdo operation that Mel White is using either to make money or to atone for his prior anti-gay work, or both. Michael Bronski had it exactly right a few years ago in The Mel and Jerry Show: Deliver us from spotlight-loving ministers
https://www.bostonphoenix.com/archive/1in10/99/11/bronski.html
White should seriously be persuaded to go seek sanctuary under a rock.
Re: “White should seriously be persuaded to go seek sanctuary under a rock.”
For the life of me, I will never understand that illogical thinking behind this statement.
Mel White used to be Jerry Falwell’s right hand man. Boo. Hiss. We hated him for it.
Okay. Fine.
But now, he’s out of the closet and calling his fellow evangelicals on their homophobia. He’s one of us and fighting for our side. He heard us and he looked into his heart and decided that what he had been doing was wrong. He left behind everything he had built up in his life and started over, and decided to put his talents to work fighting for us.
So why the hostility. Is this what awaits everyone who used to work against us but then changes their mind? If so, why would ANYBODY stick their neck out for us if we’re just going to keep our funk on and continue to condemn them?
That’s a hell of a way to change minds.
The HRC has proven the utter uselessness of sticking to the cocktail circuit. The last election showed the abject failure of lobbying the nation’s political leaders while ignoring the opinion makers at the grass roots level.
You won’t see Lambda, HRC or GLAAD taking on the people directly who shape the opinions of the evangelical grass roots. GLAAD is too busy thanking their lucky stars we have Will and Grace on television. What the hell kind of progress is that?
No, Mel White is going directly to the “Lion’s Den”. Will it have an impact. No. Not today and not next year. But MLK started his work 50 years ago and yet there is still a lot of work to be done. We’ve barely woken from our Circuit-party stupor to even begin to engage the broad American culture.
Mel White and Soulforce is going where the HRC refuses to go. To the Red States, who, like it or not, will continue to decide who leads this nation.
Dale, you seem to be looking for excuses to hate all Christians, especially those who demonstrate your stereotype to be inaccurate.
Suppose I should respond. One statement that always sets me off is the ‘real Christians’ idea. My own understanding tends to be that I accept everyone as a Christian who claims to be one. From that I look at the spectrum of ideas and actions these people show. From looking at this wide range, I come up with an idea of the parameters of the religion. What I clearly see is that on average most Christians who have a voice in the public arena are anti-gay. Not all, there are clearly liberal voices. But from what I can tell they are a distinct minority.
My tendency is to accept that the most persistent and widespread voice is the average or dominant view. To be told that all the many people I hear, read and see are not the ‘real’ Christianity always grates on me. The ‘real’ is what is going on now, in my understanding. The idea that the liberal on gays people are the ‘real’ Christianity strikes me as flat out false. The idea that those who are gay positive represent ‘real Christianity’ also strikes me as false.
If the gay friendly Christians simply said something like ‘my position is currently a minority one but I am working to make this more widespread’, I have no problem with that. On the other hand, I have been listening to this line for over 30 years. During which time, it seems to me that the gay friendly Christians have been more and more marginalized, particularly within evangelical circles and Catholocism. The liberal churches are more liberal than they used to be. The conservative churches are more conservative. And the middle of the road looks to me to be leaning more conservative than it used to.
So, my understanding is that real is as real does. The idea that Christianity is something deduced from first principals, as set forth here, has no appeal to me. When I look at Christianity as proposed here, I see that this is a narrow view, applicable only to a small portion of Christians. Which makes it seem, to me at least, to be not a statement about the world.
Hope this helps clarify.
Also there are Christians I greatly respect and admire. Quakers, Unitarians and the various Science traditions I greatly am impressed by. Marian Williamson and Louise Hay always speak to me.
See, my views are not so negative,
Dale
The other point, I lived for many years in Colorado. It is a beautiful place if you like cool, dry weather. And lots of snow. That is my point about the SoulForce vigil. The time selected is one prone to major snow falls at that location.
Dalea. I am glad to read what I hope is a partial explanation about your attitudes towards Christianity. However, there is one issue that you touched on under the thread of “Exgays in Houston: Which side is being intolerant?” which I responded to. I am still interested in your answer, and I repost the relevant portion of my comment here.
– – –
Re: “Since I tend to find that ‘gay Christians’ are at an awareness level equal to ‘Jewish Nazis’ ”
Dalea, I have to strongly disagree. And as very much out, proud, gay activist who is also a gay Christian, I take the most profound and personal offense at your outrageous comment.
That’s a fine way to try to bring someone over to your way of thinking. No wonder our side is losing the debate in the popular opinion.
Your understanding of the Christian faith may come from may years’ experience from some who call themselves Christian, but it does not come from those of us who are live the dictum, “Let not the left hand know what the right hand is doing.”
– – –
I think you can appreciate the difficulties that come from applying broad stereotypes against a diverse population.
Jim says:
‘Dalea, your comment makes no sense.
It’s not about maybe encountering or avoiding snow. It’s about making our presence known in a nonviolent way.
I am giving very serious consideration to attending this event. It is quite likely, as Regan said, that these good folks have never seen GLBT people in person. They only know the caricatures.’
Having spent most of the last decade in Colorado, I can safely say that these ‘good people’ have seen GLBT people up close and personal. The GLBT community in Denver is quite large and very out. So too in Colorado Springs, which is only 60 miles from Denver. The suburbs of the two cities are beginning to merge into one another.
During the 1992 referendum, many gay people interacted with the Dobson types. Will Perkins who lead the Dobson political action then, had gay people who were personal friends and employees of long standing.
The problems we have with FOTF are not IMHO from a lack of knowing gay people. They know lots of gays. But that does not prevent them from promoting the views they promote.
BTW, Dobson is among the more liberal of conservative Christians in Colorado. He does not call for the death penalty for gays as do Revs Enyart and Peters. Nor does he participate in or endorse things like: May is Homos Make Me Puke Month. Which has been widely endorsed on Colorado Christian teevee. And the regular attempts to shut down gay theater are not endorsed by FOTF either.
My full comment was:
‘Nave Cee tells me: ‘With all due respect, you are wrong, and exhibit a profound misunderstanding of the Christian faith, and what it’s all about. Even gay Christians would disagree strongly with you.’
Since I tend to find that ‘gay Christians’ are at an awareness level equal to ‘Jewish Nazis’, this does not suprise me. My understanding of the Christian faith comes from many years of experience with its adherents. Somehow, I have lived to tell of this.’
My meaning here, is that I do not see Gay Christians as having a very accurate perception of Christians vis a vis gay people. What I feel I am seeing is a lot of wishful thinking. As if only they knew what we are like they would not be so whatever.
They know what we are like. In fact I suspect they know us and despite this carry on their campaigns. We seem to be the vehicle through which conservatives are able to pick up moderate support in their battles with liberals. I feel that Christian gays are unrealistic in their expectations. And more than a bit niave.
Dalia,
Re: “My tendency is to accept that the most persistent and widespread voice is the average or dominant view. To be told that all the many people I hear, read and see are not the ‘real’ Christianity always grates on me.”
To carry that method to its logical conclusion, then you would accept the voice of the most vocal to define the parameters of that group. Wahabi’s make up a very small minority of Islam, yet because they are found mostly in Saudi Arabia, and because they make up the bulk of the 9/11 hijackers, they have come to define “real” Islam in the American mind.
Unless of course Americans have in mind the Shiites, another vocal and active minority who also claim to represent “real” Islam.
By this method, we would allow Orthodox Jews to define “real” Judaism, and we would allow Oliver North, G. Gordon Liddy, and Carlton Heston to define “real” Americans.
We already have Howard Dean being the “real” Democrat and Carl Rove being the “real” Republican and you can see where that has gotten us.
But maybe that’s how it works when the idea of diversity makes things too complicated. Just let the loudest tell us what’s real.
Dalia,
Re: “They know what we are like. In fact I suspect they know us and despite this carry on their campaigns.”
I am sure this is true with large numbers of conservative Christians. But growing up in a small town as I did, heck even I didn’t know any gay people. And just because they may know some GLBT folks in their community, I wonder if how much they know of the day-to-day experiences of gay people. I wonder how much information they have in order to overcome stereotypes.
If we have trouble getting a handle on our stereotypes of what “Christian” means, how can we expect them to do any better on a subject they know so little about?
But of course, replacing their stereotypes with actual knowledge of our experiences doesn’t guarantee that they will change their minds.
But naivete is looking at rose-colored glasses and having unrealistic expectations of what to expect. Courage is knowing that the odds are completely stacked against us for the task at hand, but going ahead anyway. Some people ask “What would Jesus Do?” Well, he was just such an idealist, doing the things that others would probably consider naive, “tilting at windmills.”
As I said, it is the work of lifetimes. And I don’t think anyone else is under any delusion that it is not.
Meanwhile, likening people like me to “Jewish Nazi’s” is a level of name-calling that is not only deeply offensive, destructive and divisive, but it is just plain wrong besides.
Two points:
(i) I don’t know Mel White. He may be very nice, as Regan says, and he may be well-intentioned. He might be fun to have a glass of chardonnay with (I don’t like beer, so chardonnay will have to do). I don’t know. But as far as I’m concerned, though, good intentions aren’t enough. As the aphorism goes “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” From a political standpoint, all that I can see him doing is riling up people who aren’t going to be with us anyway. To what end? He might actually be more useful using his expertise in the political Religious Right operations in trying to come up with strategies to try to appeal to those who may be more amenable to persuasion.
And I interpret what he’s trying to do is to atone for his earlier work with the Falwells of the world. Look, that’s water under the bridge. I don’t hold that against him. Contrary to what someone upthread suggested, I don’t hate him because he worked for Falwell. What’s done is done. On the other hand, since he did work for Falwell, maybe he could be useful in helping work out strategies, not to go against the Falwells directly, but to circumvent them. His apparent and rather lame grandstanding, as described in the Bronski article that I cited, suggests that he isn’t up to that task.
And, BTW, I don’t give anyone brownie points for going into the “lions’ den.” The idea is to avoid going into the lions’ den, and achieving the maximum affect that you can achieve. The idea that someone should get brownie points for going into the “lions’ den” is about as dumb as the idea that one should “die for one’s country.” As someone pointed out (George C. Scott?) the idea isn’t to die for one’s country, but to make the opponent die for his.
(ii) For DaleA, I’ve been called on the carpet elsewhere for tarring all Christians with the same brush. You might want to direct your venom to “conservative Christians.
BTW, whenever any conservative Christian says to me that gay people cannot be Christians, I ask him something to the effect of “who died and left YOU in charge of the “Christian” trademark.” (Sometimes I’ll be nice and ask “who died and left YOU in charge of determining who is a Christian.”)
ON THE OTHER HAND, I have been appalled at the lack of outcry by purported liberal Christians against the anti-gay rhetoric of their conservative Christian brethren. The editor of Sojourner (I forget his name) is no exception. He was on public radio here in Boston recently and, when gay issues came up, his response was appalling. He hemmed and hawed and it was clear that he did not want to address the questions at all.
Thank you for the good advice Raj, appreciate it. And intend to follow it.
You say:
‘I have been appalled at the lack of outcry by purported liberal Christians against the anti-gay rhetoric of their conservative Christian brethren. The editor of Sojourner (I forget his name) is no exception. He was on public radio here in Boston recently and, when gay issues came up, his response was appalling. He hemmed and hawed and it was clear that he did not want to address the questions at all.’
I also am not impressed by Soulforce tactics and targets. My own feeling is they would get much further directing their actions at people like this editor. The silence of liberal Christians is appalling. And IMHO they need to be called to account for this.
The editor of Sojourner is Jim Wallis.
Quite frankly, I’m tired of listening to their namby-pamby crap. They need to shit or get off the pot.
Raj,
Re: “And, BTW, I don’t give anyone brownie points for going into the “lions’ den.” The idea is to avoid going into the lions’ den, and achieving the maximum affect that you can achieve… As someone pointed out (George C. Scott?) the idea isn’t to die for one’s country, but to make the opponent die for his.”
Ah, in shifting your metaphores, you missed the point of the Lion’s den. When Daniel was thrown into the lion’s den, he came out unscathed because, “They have not hurt me, because I was found innocent in His (God’s) sight.”
I agree, liberal Christians like Jim Wallis need to be called to account as well. Unfortunately, they are not the opinion makers of those who voted for the Republican onslaught.
Dalea,
I see you continue to ignore my comments about your comparing gay Christians to “Jewish Nazi’s”. That’s okay. Some people think that if you ignore problems long enough, they may go away.
Some people may be wrong, however.
… But in my case, Dalea, I’ll let it go.
Jim Burroway | March 1, 2005 03:03 PM
Ah, in shifting your metaphores, you missed the point of the Lion’s den. When Daniel was thrown into the lion’s den, he came out unscathed because, “They have not hurt me, because I was found innocent in His (God’s) sight.”
Of course I knew what the reference was to. But I grew out of Bible stories a long, long time ago. I didn’t shift my metaphore, I shifted your’s.
BTW, DaleA may want to consider shifting his analogy “gay Christians:Jewish Nazis” to “gay Christians:Jewish Kapos.” I don’t believe either analogy works very well, but the latter appears to fit a bit better. NB: I forget what the acronym “Kapo” stands for, but the Kapos were the inmates at the Konzentrationszentren (concentration camps–which, by the way, began with the British during the Boer war) and Vernichtungslager (the extermination camps) to keep the other inmates in line. It is probable that the Kapos believed they might live a little longer if they played along with the Nazis. Unfortunately, there were a few Jewish Kapos. There may have been a few homo Kapos, too, but the records in regards homos is rather niggardly.
Raj,
I actually started to enjoy your commentaries. But concerning “Gay Chrisitans: Jewish Kapos” you’re not only being ridiculous, but now you’re going out of your way to offend your own allies.
Fer cryin’ out loud. Nobody wants to “play along”. Tell me where either I or Mel White suggested such a thing.
I said this before: we’d be well served by an M.L.K. AND a Malcom X; good cop/bad cop; carrot/stick; whatever multi-sided analogy you might want to draw.
But it doesn’t become us to invest our creativity into inventing new names to call each other by. I’d like to think Larry Kramer is right: we’re better than they are.
Jim Burroway | March 1, 2005 06:31 PM
raj throws his hands in the air and wonders whether Jim read anything that he (that is I) wrote.
Dalea is wonder the same thing Raj.
Jim, I was comparing ‘awareness levels’, that is what I said. That gay Christians seem to have the same ‘awareness level’ as Jewish Nazis. Not that they are alike, just that they not as alert as they could be.
And I did respond to you and your concerns. Please read my statement. Or better yet let me quote it here:
‘My meaning here, is that I do not see Gay Christians as having a very accurate perception of Christians vis a vis gay people. What I feel I am seeing is a lot of wishful thinking. As if only they knew what we are like they would not be so whatever.
They know what we are like. In fact I suspect they know us and despite this carry on their campaigns. We seem to be the vehicle through which conservatives are able to pick up moderate support in their battles with liberals. I feel that Christian gays are unrealistic in their expectations. And more than a bit niave.’
Please note: my comment was that gay Christians seem as unaware of the dangers posed by their co-religionists as gay Nazis did of their fellow ideologues. It is not that they don’t understand us, that they need education and fellowship. That we need to reach out to us.
They know us and have some understanding, sufficient to the purpose. And that purpose is very dangerous to gay people.
Dalea,
I appologize.
When I first read your response, I did not see a reference to “Jewish Nazi’s”, the quote that I found so offensive, and read the response as a discussion of liberal Christians in general, not gay Christians in particular. While I don’t agree fully with your assessment, you raise valid points with regard to *some* gay/liberal Christians.
I appologize for missing your point. And I am glad that you have agreed with Raj’s point about clarifying future remarks by using the term “Conservative Christians”.
Raj,
Yes I read and understood fully what you had to say. My comment stands.
Pete? You mean Patrick The Starfish? 😛
Hi Regan. Do you have a link directly to Throckmorton’s piece? I can’t seem to locate it.
Thanks.
Hi Regan,
I found it on GCC, it just took a bit of digging. Very interesting article. If there was ever an argument based on straw men (even if it was a parody), this was it.
He actually does exactly what he is accusing the media of doing- putting words in the mouths of others.
Here’s Prof. Throckmorton’s interview with Mrs. SpongeBob.