[bold] Can you imagine a world where ministries like Exodus International were illegal? [/bold] There is a move not only to silence the voices of the redeemed but to eliminate the redemption. At the core of it all, this isn’t a battle about whether homosexuality is right or wrong, it is a battle between good and evil. One of the many evils this world has to offer is the sin of homosexuality. Satan, the enemy is using people to further his agenda to destroy the Kingdom of God and as many souls as he can.Our job is simple: [underline] wage war against the Kingdom of Darkness and save souls. [/underline]
-Alan Chambers, Exodus “Impact” newsletter October 2005, Volume 3 – Issue 10
I wish I could post the full text of Chambers’ article or a readable copy of the newsletter but even when you’re working for Satan you’re still bound to fair-use excerpts.
I completely disagree with this article in that:
– I do not believe in the entity of god or satan,
– The article is designed as an anti-gay propaganda tool.
– The article is based on a false premise that the entity of god rejects his subjects. Rejection is an act of man, and cannot possibly be an act of higher power if such a power existed. There is no proof whatsoever he/she/it does or expects such a thing.
This is blatant bias because Chambers fails to outline other “evils” that this “satan” character is allegedly using people for. To be fair and unbiased, the article would allude to all alleged sins because christians repeatedly spew the “we all sin” line of BS before launching mercilessly into another anti-gay hate speech.
I highly resent being referred to as a tool of a mythical character associated with evil: satan. I do believe however, that there is true evil in this world and it is the sickness of fundamentalist christianity and organized religion in general. I truly wish I did live in a world where the biased crap spread by hate groups such as Exodus were indeed illegal. In fact most of the crap the group pulls, would be correctly interpreted as a hate crime or legitimate human rights complaint in Canada. If Chambers chooses to believe this utter crap and preach it, it is of course his right to do so in the United States, but what I firmly object to is that this stuff is used to further demonize and marginalize gays and lesbians. Daniel, I hope you threw this newsletter in the garbage where it belongs after scanning it.
I’m not alone amongst LGBTs in that I have a wonderful mate I dearly love. He’s the warmest, most generous, caring and nurturing person I’ve ever met. We support each other and make each other happier and more productive. We pay property taxes which pay for the education of children we don’t have. Our happiness and productivity is society’s happiness and productivity. What’s evil is Alan Chamber’s blind opposition to us choosing to be in such relationships. What’s evil is his belief that he has a right to control not just his own life, but ours as well.
Encouraging the fraudulent marriage of exgays to sacrificial women for political purposes is evil. Fomenting hatred of gays to make money from the hatred of gays is evil. Encouraging people to believe gays can completely convert same sex attractions into opposite sex attractions is evil. Claiming they don’t intend that meaning, that what they really mean is complete behavioral change is evil. We are morally free to do whatever we want as long as we don’t hurt anyone else. Blindly opposing any one’s freedom to choose and be with the person they love most is a sin against fairness and hurts all of society. Support equal marriage for same sex couples.
This is a publication of Exodus. The overall graphic design, logos, photographs, and article text contained within are ALL copyrighted and owned by whomever created them, Exodus. Wether or not one declares copyright is irrelevant. Because of that I only posted an excerpt of text and a largely illegible photo of the cover. I’m not letting this comment thread get taken over by a discussion of fair use, a discussion Mike and I have already had. Anyone wishing to discuss the matter may contact me directly. All comments related to this dead issue will be deleted. End of story.
Randi, well said. You definitely put the human touch to this issue and at the end of the day, that is what this is really about. It’s about being human; honest and caring and leading a whole enriched life as we endeavour for ourselves. I am outraged that Chambers claims we are evil, I know, the retort is that it is about “lifestyle” or “behaviour” not people. I don’t believe that for one second because being gay or straight for that matter, is about identity of oneself, not behaviours or lifestyle. One cannot separate identity from the person.
“This isn’t a battle about whether homosexuality is right or wrong, because everyone knows that it’s sinful and wrong. That said, we can move along to battling it… no need to contemplate whether it’s right or not, nope, that’s settled… move along now.”
Skemono, I cannot speak for every gay person out there, but from my own experience, and most people I know, we are gay from early childhood, from the moment we can put together a rational thought, we are gay. Are we expected to deny our own physiological make up and somehow become attracted to the opposite sex? This is a battle waged by religion against people, not behaviours or lifestyles as they claim. I am strongly opposed to religious organizations interfering with the issue of gay rights. How in the world can they justify standing in the way of equality when our equality is (a) none of their business, and (b) will not affect them personally one iota. Ex-gays stand up on their phoney holy pedestals claiming to be “cured” and are new found heterosexuals. What a load of bunk, get over it and accept who you are! This whole issue infuriates me, especially since I am totally a non-religious person but, I will continue to oppose it and speak out against it because they are dead wrong.
Skemono – who appointed you judge in place of your god? Would it not be just as valid for me to blindly judge your opposite sex relationship, declare it sinful and wrong, and then battle it as it is for you to do that to me? Your constitution says first and foremost all are created equal. Why do you get to control my life and not vice versa? There have been thousands of religions over the millenia, at best only one of them might be inerrantly correct. The odds are thousands to one against that its yours. If you had been born in Japan or Saudi arabia do you honestly believe you’d have come to choose your particular “judeo-christian” religion as the one true religion anyway? An archaeologist has found a letter by an very early Christian leader mentioning a secret gospel of Mark. That gospel contains lines which show Jesus was gay. Google “secret gospel of Mark” and I’m sure you’ll find it.
Skemono some of us see your satire.
Randi says: Encouraging the fraudulent marriage of exgays to sacrificial women for political purposes is evil.
Thank you SO MUCH for saying this. I often think that they really do hate women and don’t think we have any sex drive at all, or that if we do, it doesn’t matter anyhow.
And Skemono, I think I got the joke, too.
I’m not in any mood for jokes. I was shaking with anger after I read the quote from Alan Chambers. No doubt that is what he wants. Shame that.
Like this is unexpected? We are in shock that Alan would write this?
Of course Alan wrote this. It is his style as one of the EEEEEEEEEElect of God to make this point over and over and over again. And so far the only response he appears to have from his fellow gay Christians is a slobbering and drooling understanding. I feel that in many ways the excesses of Exodus under Alan’s leadership come from the way gay Christians do not confront and challenge him. Instead we get treated to treatises on the need for ’empathy’.
According to Alan’s own testimony, he never was an adult gay man. Why we should accept him as no longer being gay is beyond me. And why his co-religionists enable him is also beyond me.
Alan increasingly sounds desperate. He also sound’s like SNL’s Church Lady. “Well, isn’t that special. Could it be…SATAN.”
Glad to see my wit has not gone entirely unappreciated, Dan, Jayelle.
And for the record, Randi, I have neither god, goddess, nor opposite-sex relationship. And the Constitution doesn’t say that all men are equal, that’s the Declaration of Independence.
As for the secret gospel of Mark… so what? The Gospel of Timothy says that Jesus was a punk murderer as a child. To hear my step-brother tell it, the Jew’s version of events is that Jesus was a thief and a con man. So you have a very-possibly fraudulent version that makes him gay. So what?
Obviously the Exodus agenda espoused by Chambers is a crusading type of mentality and has nothing to do with the true Gospel of Love that Christ taught anciently. This kind of thinking has been around for hundreds of years in Christianity and many other religious movements.
I highly resent some gay folks (however) stating that all organized religion is evil or bad. That kind of shortsightedness and shallowness (a sort of reactionary anti-organized religion reaction) is extreme in and of itself. It has been my view that balance is the key. Those who are on the far right are dangerous and so are those on the far left as well.
Religion can be a very dangerous thing if it is placed on the wrong hands and it is used in a destructive way. It can also be a very wonderful thing if it is used to bless society and civilizaation at large. It all depends upon the teachings and how those teachings are carried out. Obviously Exodus has an extreme right fear based ministry that has its basis in legalism and fear. They totally ignore the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of GLBT Christians who are devout in their faith in Christ. Exodus would rather deny that fact and pretend that if you are gay you are not Christian and not a happy person. They’re dead wrong and it is sad that they polarize our community and try to divide us. The truth is you can be a gay Christian and be filled with the love and light of Christ. Those of us who are Christian can prove to them that they are dead wrong in the way we live our lives and in the way we love one another as Christ taught. It is our job to silence Exodus not through enacting laws but in creating a safe and loving place for the rising generations (and closeted) of GLBT Christians who want to embrace who they are as well as keep their Christian values.
Benjamin, I do realize that religion has brought good to the world and that many GLBT are christians and I can respect that. I have a lot of respect for the Soulforce organization and the outstanding work that they have done in helping gay christians and their families. People can be gay and christian, nothing wrong with that. That being said, I truly believe that religion, particularly fundamentalism, is responsible for many of the issues our community faces. Stigmatization, shame, rejection are almost always based on outdated religious beliefs. How many gay people have been thrown out of their homes because of the alleged shame brought to their families based on their churches’ teachings? The catholic church is now on a purging campaign to oust gay clergy. Disgusting. There are areas in the world where we are executed based on religious beliefs. I disagree that my statements about religion are reactionary, shallow or short-sighted. My views are based on many years of experience and the fact that I do not believe in god or jesus christ. It is in no way retaliatory or vindictive. There is a lot of evidence of the damage that religion has done and continues to do to our community. I have always felt this way and my non-belief has nothing to do with my being gay. I would be a non-believer, gay or straight.
Benjamin Clark,
I have to agree when you say, “Obviously the Exodus agenda espoused by Chambers is a crusading type of mentality and has nothing to do with the true Gospel of Love that Christ taught anciently.”
Fundies seem to be enamored of that Satan fellow, which lead me to write a letter to the editor for the benefit of the Dayton, TN audience with my own take on what the Devil is up to:
I go on to give examples of how Christ came to end this divisiveness and end:
Here’s the full text of my In the Garden of Eden letter.
That being said, I truly believe that religion, particularly fundamentalism, is responsible for many of the issues our community faces.
It is ALL about fundamentalism. Only fundamentalist religious sects, whatever their stripe, forcefully promote the idea that their ideology is alone correct, true, and moral, and that all deviation is a sign of sin and evil. Mainstream, mature religions do not make these claims – and in some ways their lack of narrow-mindedness is responsible for their decline in attendance. When a religion preaches that the truth is difficult to discern and their religious ideology may or may not be correct, people have less reason to follow the faith. But fundamentalist religions, with their black&white take on reality, are often easier to follow – it is much more difficult to live in the real world with its shades of gray.
But that is also the reason that fundamentalism is so frightening – and you can see it in Chambers’ statements. If homosexuality is always wrong, as the fundamentalist view states, then it must be battled. But to do that, one must assume that ALL gay people, by virtue of their being gay(or choosing to be, in the fundamentalist vernacular), are a threat. It takes away the fundamental morality of judging each person as an individual, which is very much evident in the teachings of the rabbi Jesus of Nazareth, and replaces it with the notion that you can pre-judge people based on very limited knowledge of their lives.
Just as the Jews distrusted and disliked the Samaritans for being of the wrong religion, now we have the same irrational distrust and hatred for gay people.
Yeah. I’m shocked.Having been on the Exodus mailing list for many years (see note below), this is not UNUSUAL. Behind that greasy “smile” of Chambers lies a variety of sociopath.Just to be sure Belzebub hadn’t taken control of my senses, I showed it to a few people who would be in a position to know.A word of advice — don’t show it to your mother. She, really nice old-fashioned English Baptist lady that she is, stopped after a few sentences and said she didn’t wish to read any more. It upset her for the rest of the evening, and I should not have done that to her.My sister, not of the same ilk, did read it and described Chambers with a word that I never hear women using (women, or a gynecologist for that matter; at least in a professional capacity).While one is tempted to think Chambers is simply marketing to their REAL audience, a shameless exercise, the violence behind the language and the images is disturbing. And this is an official Exodus publication… one wonders what get’s said and edited out.(and for any Exodus lurkers, don’t bother. I get the Exodus mail via a friendly bishop — he has his own reasons — and it is sent to an organisations address. So there. I will, no doubt, receive my paper copy of the October emission in due course.)
Grant, I almost feel sorry for you! 🙂
Some of you may be interested in my blog post about “defensive prejudice” against fundamentalists yesterday.
Reading this blog don’t help it. 😉
I have a theory for an explanation. Or two theories.
First: Chambers is only reflecting the toughening language of religious right. After successful campaigns against gay marriages in several states they can now drop even the pretense of “protecting marriage” and “loving the sinner”. After all James Dobson pays his bills…
Second: What if he is not talking about gays in general at all? What if he is actually talking to himself. That he personally has to win the “satan within” i.e. he is finally realizing that no change has never happened and most likely will never happen. That this is about him finally facing the fact that he is gay. And that must make him very anxious, after all his whole identity (not to talk about his livelihood) is based on a lie. How to come out as a gay man after all he’s done.
Skemono, I’m sorry your American humour was too subtle for me and I made the most reasonable assumptions given what I knew – thank God we’re much more secular in Canada. And here I thought I was being so smart by pointing out that your Constitution starts with “all men are created equal”. Nevertheless that phrase was given highest priority in your nations venerated founding documents. (and don’t you forget it 🙂
As to the secret gospel of Mark being very possibly fraudulent, so what? The bible itself is very possibly fraudulent, that’s the historical nature of virtually all religions – they can’t all be right. Religious documents carry virtually no scientific weight.
Tim, like me, you have stated that religion in general is evil. Although I often believe that to be true we must avoid vocalizing such blind assumptions or we’re no better than Alan Chambers. Keep in mind what Wayne said – he sounds increasingly desperate. I believe Jim Burroway said increasingly harsh rhetoric is to be expected as its a last resort when people feel they are losing the culture war. Chambers is trying to provoke us. He wants to cause a war because that will validate his fundamentalist religious beliefs in armageddon and his desire to believe all gays are unhappy. Let’s fight fire with a contolled burn. In my above post I did not state chambers himself or religion in general is evil. I stated specific unfair actions and beliefs are evil and I think that’s a fair, measured and apropriate response to a rhetorical declaration of war that does not contain a committment to non-violence.
Dalea says Chambers excesses are caused by gay Christians not challenging him and I agree. If fundamentalists like Chambers want to claim to be fighting evil let them make a committment to fairness, equality and judging each person and their actions specifically – as Christians like Timothy clearly do. It would be a big help if Christians like Timothy and the United Church would jump on Chambers statements and tell him to put fairness first.
Bill – the book Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors by Carl Sagan makes a powerful scientific case that its in our genes to divide ourselves into battling groups based on our differences, such as those between men and women. It is the greatest book I’ve ever read and I although it gets off to a slow technical start it snowballs into the most profound reading I’ve ever savoured. I refer to it as the bible.
CPT_Doom, you really nailed it. Its all about fundamentalism and its committment to rigidity of beliefs over fairness – that’s what I call evil and certainly that’s what’s at the heart of the intractable conflicts we see so often between groups defining themselves in religious terms. As you said the blind push by fundamentalists to paint all gays in the most negative light possible
takes away the fundamental morality of judging each person as an individual as is evidenced in the teachings of Jesus.
Tim, we don’t have to believe the story of Jesus is true to accept it as a good example. Would that fundamentalists like Chambers would as well.
He’s not the only one gang.
I’ve mentioned before, taking the newsletters of Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council and Concerned Women to the Museum of Tolerance for examination.
They are OFFICIALLY a hate group according to the MOT and the SPLC.
The contents of these ANTI GAY group’s information and agenda, is consistent with much of what Nazis had to say about Jews, gypsies and homosexuals.
And since violence and exclusion from even basic education in school is acute for gay people-their speech is not consistent with how RELIGIOUS teaching can be used peacefully in a mixed and mostly secular society such as ours or in Europe.
This teaching earmarks a specific group of people whose ‘sin’ isn’t consistent even with how ALL supposed Scriptural sinners are treated in PUBLIC LAW.
Jews, for example, are a religious culture. They are well within able to integrate and commit to public good and betray no other neighbors.
Yet, Nazis simply pointed a finger and organized a political genocide against them for nothing except being Jewish.
Whatever the Nazis accused the Jews of was myth, misinformation and the exploitation of the economic fears and insecurities of everyday Germans.
Gays and lesbians are similar, at least in being different from heterosexuals as Jews are different from Christians.
But our country is suffering serious economic and social insecurity. We were attacked and thousands died in a single morning here in America on 9/11.
Gays and lesbians are easier to isolate than actual terrorists, so gays and lesbians are propagated and scapegoated as the most urgent danger to this country.
And as it was for Jews in Nazi Germany, this is a patent lie and mischaracterization.
But the only way to isolate gays and lesbians is to do that, then mistreat them.
Because, as my grandfather used to say ‘the hit dog always hollers.’
And gays and lesbians are quite competent at integration and commiting to social good and organizing around accepted norms of PUBLIC behavior that’s also expected of heterosexuals.
That is to say, gays and lesbians don’t have to be treated differently (let alone less well) than heterosexual people.
And aren’t demanding to be treated better.
So yes, any speech that commits gays and lesbians as being less civilized, and not capable of BEING civilized, proposes that society BE less civil to them.
Lies like that are powerful and have been used against other people before.
The fact that Exodus and the other groups mentioned forget this VERY RECENT history is disturbing.
They forget history and the equivilent behavior of radical Muslims. They share the same ideologies and attack the same people and perceive the same enemies.
Chambers is truly insane. Whatever mental sickness he suffered from (drug induced rot?) before he joined Exodus has addled his thinking further.
Pat Robertson follows closely.
Louis Farrahkan too for that matter.
Whoever follows them just doesn’t want to see the cliff….
The Atlanta-Journal Courier reported today that a 37 year old woman married her 15 year old boy lover of two years.
His parents report that the woman is pregnant.
Once again, heterosexual perversity results in a child, and therefore a SERIOUS impact on BOTH the young people at issue here.
Those states that STILL have underage marriage on their books, were swift in banning GAY marriage between adults.
A double murder in Pennsylvania in the last day was prompted by an 18 year old man dating a 14 year old girl. Her parents object and they end up dead.
Now, as for ‘sin’, I find the lack of motivation to censure adulterers or people who divorce many times over or splinter their parental obligations, a far worse blight on children, families and society.
The ‘Defense of Marriage’ amendment was SIGNED by an adulterer.
And the words ‘defense’ and ‘protection’ of marriage rings horrible hollow as marriages fail, domestic abuse and murder and the casual abandonment or abuse of children (and their murders by their own parents) rages.
Where gay people fit into all this.
Heterosexuals have perverted so many aspects of what sin means, what morality means, what human compassion and empathy means…I don’t know how they can continue to claim they are the best custiodians of any of it.
A few points:
“An archaeologist has found a letter by an very early Christian leader mentioning a secret gospel of Mark. That gospel contains lines which show Jesus was gay. Google “secret gospel of Mark” and I’m sure you’ll find it.”
I am reading Lost Scriptures by Bart Ehrman, a compilation of such gospels, and just read the references to the Secret Gospel of Mark. There were many many “gospels” referenced and believed by early church leaders. Very few of them are believed to have been actually written by the “author” but simply claimed to be written by one disciple or another to give the writing authority. Usually they were used to provide support for some theological position or other. There is no reason to believe that the Mark who was a disciple of Jesus ever actually wrote a gospel. Further, the references to it were not clear enough to determine that the author was trying to suggest that Jesus was gay.
But it certainly would be interesting if an actual copy of the Secret Gospel of Mark was actually found and if it could be shown to have been written in the first century. In any case, it is clear that many Christians in the early centuries believed that Jesus and John the Beloved were a couple (see Boswell).
“At the core of it all, this isn’t a battle about whether homosexuality is right or wrong, it is a battle between good and evil.”
One of the themes I often discuss here is the militaristic us-vs.-them mentality of some fundamentalist Christians. Once you view the “other” as being an enemy, you can self-justify all sorts of horrific actions (think inquisition, holocaust, or more recently Abu Ghraib). Alan Chambers is really pushing this “fighting the enemy” rhetoric. Perhaps it lets him sleep thinking that he is trying to take away marriage, education, job protection, bullying protection, and all other forms of equality from “the enemy” rather than from actual gay people.
However, I also caution us from adopting the same mind set. If we start thinking “all Christians” this or “all fundamentalist” that, we will soon be willing to do to them what they seek to do to us. If we think that way, we can justify charging Exodus with hate crimes, simply because they disagree with us. We will self-justify by saying it’s because they do harm or because they preach hate or whatever, but really it’s because they are “the enemy”.
I hope that those who consider going to battle against Exodus will stop and consider whether they want to become Alan Chambers. They and he are not our enemies. Their lies and self-delusions are enemies not only of us but also of thought, civil discourse, and humanity. Lets fight their lies and hatred. As was mentioned above, that is what is truly evil.
Sweet, Timothy, sweet…
What really sticks out to me in Chamber’s statement is his paying lipservice to the “love the sinner” line by saying the devil is controlling gays. What he’s really saying is attack gays with zero consideration or love – as though gays are the devil. So much for “love the” “sinner”.
I think that the LGBQT community will always have to face these issues of relentless attacks upon us, but I think that close minded people will be the end of the world. No matter how much we try show others that we are the same as them, they will not change what they think. I know that not all christians and others religious people think that this is true. Although many might most people would rather just let us do our own thing as long as they dont see it.
Behind that greasy “smile” of Chambers lies a variety of sociopath.
Unlikely. He’s an actor playing a gig. It’s unlikely that he would be able to make an honest living with an honest job, so he chose this one.
Those of you who feel the UCC should take a public stand against Chambers’ latest affirmation of “devil-olatry” might consider actually asking them to do so — politely, of course.
XGW links to some gay-tolerant UCC bloggers and web sites — Chuck Currie for example.
Timothy writes: I hope that those who consider going to battle against Exodus will stop and consider whether they want to become Alan Chambers. They and he are not our enemies. Their lies and self-delusions are enemies not only of us but also of thought, civil discourse, and humanity. Lets fight their lies and hatred. As was mentioned above, that is what is truly evil.
Thank you! I agree with you. And I also think that many (if not most) of the current ex-gays and ex-gay leadership truly do feel they are doing the right thing. And again, I’ll say that many (most?) of them do not make any money off of it. I feel they’re very sincere, but sincerely wrong. While I abhor Alan Chamber’s rhetoric, and am saddened by seeing a side of him that he didn’t seem to either possess or display years ago, he’s still a person, and not my enemy. I often need this reminder. One of the best things I ever learned from a teacher in my Christian background was the idea of “responding in the opposite spirit.” I think sometimes it’s the most powerful response of all.
Timothy: They and he are not our enemies. Their lies and self-delusions are enemies…
That is the very heart of the matter. Chambers, et al. are only a few votes. They could recant everything they say tomorrow or dissapear altogether, but their lies have already reach many ears, and that has lead an awful lot of people astray. That is what we need to confront.
I second (third?) your thoughts, and Christine’s as well. Because the people who have heard these lies — they are the ones who we really need to reach. And the only way to reach ordinary voters is to show them kindness, respect and integrity, even while we hold firm in countering the lies — and in the process, show them who we are.
That is the only way we can foster empathy towards us among folks who until now only know what they’ve been told or what they’ve seen on television.
As I see it, there are the little lies, and then there’s The Big Lie, which is religious fundamentalism itself. I think progressive people spend too much time working on the little lies, like “Change is possible.” or “Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of homosexuals,” and we feel like the bigger issue is too dangerous, like we’re going to piss of too many people if we just say “Religious fundamentalism is nonsense. It’s magical thinking. It’s a dangerous ideology.”
Read the transcript of the Scopes trial, the part where Clarence Darrow put William Jennings Bryan on the witness stand. He put fundamentalism itself on trial. Why aren’t we doing that?
I swear, compared to Clarence Darrow, we modern day progressives behave like a bunch of candyasses.
“He put fundamentalism itself on trial. Why aren’t we doing that?”
Probably because:
a. we aren’t theologians and would very quickly look unprepared and ill-informed
b. this isn’t (though at times it appears to be) a religious venue through which to argue various takes on religion
c. the quickest way to make an enemy is to dismiss what they believe as nonsense without even trying to understand what they believe and why
d. many of us aren’t anti-fundamentalist (or really anti-anything at all). They can believe whatever they like as long as they leave us alone. We deal with where our worlds interact.
If you want to fight religious fundamentalism, go right ahead. But I don’t think this is the place for it. And I, for one, won’t be joining your religious crusade to stop “dangerous ideology”.
Oh, and incidentally, not all of us are “progressive”, either… but I suspect most of you guessed that by now.
Is there such a thing as a pro-globalization, anti-abortion, libertarian progressive?
If there is, then I guess I’m a progressive.
Well said Kurt. I stated my thoughts on religion, being a staunch atheist, in an earlier post that religion in general is responsible for much of the stigmatization and backlash against our community. No getting around that fact. Fundamentalism in particular, whether it be Christian, Islamic, whatever, creates unrealistic standards that practically nobody, even those who preach it, can live up to. Thus, they end up picking a group of people that are viewed as “easy to pick on” such as the gay community. Besides boards like this, I see little to no public backlash against this debacle. Then again, the media prefers to show the anti-gay side rather than the gay side. When was the last time you saw an interview with one of us on gay marriage? I have no qualms in calling a spade a spade on this. I don’t feel I’m in danger of becoming another Alan Chambers but I will confront b.s. with fire if need be. I disagree Timothy, these people are without a doubt, our enemies. How can we not consider them our enemies when they spend most of their waking hours cooking up ways to slander and stigmatize us and otherwise stick their noses in business that is none of theirs and where it is most definitely unwelcome. I’m sick and tired of what these people are getting away with in their smear and lie campaigns and its time for our community to get tough with these people.
I agree with Kurt and Tim that we need to get tough and we have been candy-asses, but what Timothy said was tough: “Their lies and self-delusions are enemies not only of us but also of thought, civil discourse, and humanity. Lets fight their lies and hatred. As was mentioned above, that is what is truly evil.”
I don’t think we need to go much beyond that and cross the line into saying they are enemies even if we believe it. Voters in the U.S. are a fairly religious group and that kind of statement could backfire. However, I certainly wouldn’t call Alan Chambers, Exodus, “FOTF”, etc. sincere. For years they’ve used the line “complete change is possible” to imply same sex attractions don’t exist after “conversion therapy” while claiming to only mean complete change in sexual conduct is possible. While one can’t automatically assume a religious fundamentalist is dangerous these particular people’s chronic lying is evidence of malicious intent and so is Alan Chamber’s talking about us the way the Nazis spoke of Jews before the holocaust. I think we best say that but we have to have a philosophy of fairness and equality and that means at some level we have to accept even malicious people (or “enemies”, if you must) as part of a humanity we are committed to improving.
MikeA asks: Is there such a thing as a pro-globalization, anti-abortion, libertarian progressive?
No, there is no such thing. Or person. The positions are incompatible.
This is obviously a fund-raising brochure. That poses the question: does Chambers have an honest job unrelated to Exodus?
MikeA,
Re: Is there such a thing as a pro-globalization, anti-abortion, libertarian progressive?
This is an interesting question. As I’ve seen the terms defined, I believe that an anti-abortion stance (unless it is Kerry’s or Clinton’s “anti-abortion” stance) is contradictory to the notion of “libertarian.” Or so it would seem to me.
Randi,
Re: “I think we best say that but we have to have a philosophy of fairness and equality and that means at some level we have to accept even malicious people (or “enemies”, if you must) as part of a humanity we are committed to improving.”
That was very well put. I think the confusion among some is that just because we aren’t willing to go into broad-brush personal attacks — or even theological ones — some of us are accused of being “candy-assed” or that somehow we’re in collusion. It’s tough work battling the lies they put out there. But the only effective way to do it is to deal with the lies themselves and not venture off onto tangents which can not only insult those we want to reach, they can also pit gays against gays. That will get us nowhere.
thankyou Jim, I really bent my brain on that one.
Tim, Kurt T, Dalea – I am a bit of an atheist myself and Timothy is from a fundamentalist background but we are very close together on this issue. If you can’t convince him to give substantive support to what you are saying I don’t think you can convince a large chunk of moderate religious voters to support fairness for gays. Please re-read his posts and give thought to the “us” vs “them” issue. Gwynn Dyer noted the wisdom of a comic strip character: “sometimes us is them”. I have often emphasized the same point in my discussions on Fairness First(c) – my own personal religion – world, please make it yours.
Logically all humanities’ goal must be to maximize the benefit and minimize the negative for all individuals in an equal way. Its the only philosophy that can potentially eliminate all human conflict. Carl Sagan says that conflict is in our genes, and I agree. We all need a strong committment to conflict resolution from birth onwards to have for all the best world possible – that means anti-bullying programs in schools targeted to minority identities the majority has created by targeting individual differences (such as effemininity or same sex desires) for special treatment(abuse).
Raj, thanks for pointing out this isn’t just about exodus, “fotf”, etc being malicious, its about money too. While there may be sincere mislead people making little money operating exgay shops the same was likely true of some good white people facilitating slavery. Saying these are principled people gives undue credit when the principle involved is religion says one person should judge and dictate another person’s life.
I believe the moderate voting public buys into the anti-gays’ lie of “compassion” because we haven’t shown the general public our outrage at the chronic lies and deceptions put out by Exodus, “Focus on the Family”, throckmorton, Chambers, etc.
I just want to make a couple of points, and then I’m going to leave this thread.
I don’t think that challenging fundamentalism requires that we become theologians or resort to personal attacks.
To me, challenging fundamentalism means when somebody says to me
“I can take away your civil rights because this book tells me I can, and this book is The Infallible Word of God.”
I say
“No. That book is The Fallible Word of People. It was written a long time ago by people who had a lot of superstitions and prejudices.”
But that’s me. I see the rise of fundamentalism in this country as a very dangerous trend. I see it as a core problem that spawns lots of other problems, and I think it’s important to address that core problem.
If you don’t agree with me, that’s fine, but I don’t want people to think I’m suggesting that we engage in ad hominem attacks or whatever else.
Mike, I join you in this column:
Is there such a thing as a pro-globalization, anti-abortion, libertarian progressive?
If there is, then I guess I’m a progressive.
Timothy says: I hope that those who consider going to battle against Exodus will stop and consider whether they want to become Alan Chambers. They and he are not our enemies. Their lies and self-delusions are enemies not only of us but also of thought, civil discourse, and humanity. Lets fight their lies and hatred. As was mentioned above, that is what is truly evil.
That is actually what my piece about defensive prejudice was about–seeing my own capacity for prejudice in myself, and not liking it, and wanting to do something about it.
Randi, “Fairness First(c) – my own personal religion”
Hmmm, I may not become a complete convert, but I certainly may borrow some “theology” from your new religion. 🙂
Fascinating analysis from all sides:
I think we also should distinguish between “ex-gays” like Chambers or Stephen Bennet, who clearly struggle with a personality characteristic they have been taught to hate/fear and fight, and the “religious” or political leaders who promote the “ex-gay” agenda, but are not themselves “ex-gay.” I really believe the Dobsons and Fallwells and Robertsons of the world are completely cognizant of the inherent contradictions of their positions, and of the myths and slanders that they are promoting about gay people (not to mention women working outside the home, Democrats, non-“Christians”, etc.). However, they also know such attacks on these groups generate huge sums from their followers (who themselves I think really believe the hype) and that is the main reason such leaders are loathe to change tactics.
These “religious” and political leaders, of course, then create the environment that pushes people like Chambers and Bennet to undergo “ex-gay” indoctrination. I think they end up as such huge promoters of the “ex-gay” movement, even if they themselves have not experience complete change, because of the old psychological mechanism of cognitive dissonance – if you fight for a position long enough, you tend to continue supporting that position in the face of contradictory evidence, because you have such a personal stake in the position being right (like American Stalinists in the 30s who could never quite admit the horror that man unleashed on his own country).
As for fighting fundamentalism, I agree that cannot be the point of our struggle, although I understand Kurt’s concerns about the impact of such “religions” on the public sphere. What we are really fighting for is the First Amendment- the right to our own personal moral and spiritual beliefs. As I have explained to my own Southern Baptist relatives, I completely reject their “religion” and the theology on which it is based. I understand that they have the right, in this country, to make the mistaken “lifestyle choice” of their “religion,” but they must return that respect, and understand that I have a right to live my life according to the moral/religious belief that homosexuality is a completely normal (albeit rare) part of humanity – neither inherently good or bad.
The problem with American fundamentalism is not that people believe in it – the problem is that they then demand that the government support only their position on social issues, under the guise of either “protecting society” or because they do not want any contradictory information being presented to their children. Neither position is teneble for the federal government, and that is a fight we can whole-heartedly agree to.
kurt_t at November 14, 2005 07:07 PM
Read the transcript of the Scopes trial, the part where Clarence Darrow put William Jennings Bryan on the witness stand. He put fundamentalism itself on trial. Why aren’t we doing that?
Just to remind you, the jury convicted the teacher–Darrow’s client– after he put Bryan on the witness stand. The conviction was overturned a couple of years later on a technicality, which had nothing to do with Fundamentalism.
Darrow put Fundamentalism on trial, and lost. He made Bryan into a fool from a national standpoint, but that didn’t help with the jury. I’ve seen Inherit The Wind.
Kurt_t;
Re: “To me, challenging fundamentalism means when somebody says to me “I can take away your civil rights because this book tells me I can, and this book is The Infallible Word of God.” I say “No. That book is The Fallible Word of People. It was written a long time ago by people who had a lot of superstitions and prejudices.”
I hope you will allow me to try to offer an alternate tactic. By calling it “The fallible word of the people” you may not intend it to be a personal attack, but most fundamentalists will probably perceive it as such. And rightly or wrongly, they will probably just turn away, muttering “Jerk!” under their breath, with all of their suspicions and stereotypes confirmed.
The example you cite is probably the most difficult one, because your opponent has staked out a religious basis for his/her position. That means that you probably won’t make any immediate headway against that person unless you were somehow able to dissuade that person from holding to those religious beliefs, which is very unlikely in the very short amount of time this conversation takes place.
So we know that this conversation you are holding won’t change their minds, no matter what you say. And since that goal is unachievable, perhaps it is time to change goals.
With that, I’d probably try to shift the conversation to a personal level: Talk about what inequality means to you, using real examples. In my state, for example, there is no second parent adoption, which has life-threatening consequences if a child is in the emergency room and only the non-adoptive parent is available. In many states, partners aren’t guaranteed the chance to visit loved ones in the hospital. Things like that.
This conversation would not accomplish very much at all by itself right away. But strategically, it does several things:
1. By moving the conversation away from religion, you lessen the risk of offending them personally (even if unintentionally), which means you increase the possibility they may continue to listen to what you have to say.
2. You might be able to offer a perspective they had never thought of.
3. You busted a stereotype. They’ve met a gay person who doesn’t insult them or look down on them, and who is willing to talk to them as an ordinary person. This is important, because most fundamentalists have this perception that they are looked down on by mainstream society. By engaging them without insult or looking down on them, you deny them the very thing that causes them to walk away muttering “jerk!”, or even “Godless jerk!” 😉
4. Speaking of stereotype-busting, they have been spoon-fed stereotypes of angry fags, godless shrieking liberals, you name it. And here you are talking rationally about real-world stuff, and you haven’t insulted them in the process. The cognitive dissonance of this experience can be very powerful.
5. You leave the door open to have more conversations in the future, which means that they might have a better chance to get to know you personally.
Change is a very long process, and involves a lot of one-on-one relationships. Just as no single conversation creates a relationship, no single conversation is likely to change very many minds. But the key point is to try to keep the door open so the conversation can continue and the relationship can build.
It’s very hard work. Tough work. It takes a lot of patience, and for me it means I have to keep my own temper in check, which I am not always successful at doing.
But they will never understand us until they can see something of themselves in us. That is what empathy is all about, and it is why we need to take every opportunity that comes along to engender empathy on their part towards us.
And let me clarify something. I’m not talking about how you take on a Dobson or a Chambers. I think they need to be challenged directly for the lies that they are spreading and the very real harm that they cause.
I’m talking about how you deal with a neighbor, coworker, or someone you meet personally. There is a world of difference between the two.
Jim, I agree completely with your last statement.
The problem with American fundamentalism is not that people believe in it – the problem is that they then demand that the government support only their position on social issues, under the guise of either “protecting society” or because they do not want any contradictory information being presented to their children. Neither position is teneble for the federal government, and that is a fight we can whole-heartedly agree to.
Exactly – I agree 100%. This country was founded in large part by people seeking religious freedom and I have no desire whatsoever to turn even this kind of ranting into a hate crime. The country must allow for all beliefs, even if that be no belief at all. God (to my understanding) gave man this choice so who are we to take it away? The fight is against imposing particular beliefs on others through the power of law and government policy.
It saddens me to see these discussions descend into slander against this or that belief. I don’t impose mine on anyone and in return I don’t expect ridicule of what I feel to be sacred. It offends the majority for the actions of a minority (Alan Chambers, et al). Sometimes it seems that these attacks and the apparent anger that accompanies them are fueled not by the issue at hand, but by personal struggles over whether God exists or not – a separate issue entirely.
Alan Chambers is not my enemy. I believe his ideas are wrong and divisive and his motives questionable (I agree with Raj on that). Sometimes it takes a lot of energy but I think it’s important to fight the urge to hate.
Put me in the “pro-globalization, anti-abortion, libertarian progressive” column as well 🙂
David
David Says: It saddens me to see these discussions descend into slander against this or that belief. I don’t impose mine on anyone and in return I don’t expect ridicule of what I feel to be sacred. It offends the majority for the actions of a minority (Alan Chambers, et al). Sometimes it seems that these attacks and the apparent anger that accompanies them are fueled not by the issue at hand, but by personal struggles over whether God exists or not – a separate issue entirely.
David: I don’t think I slandered any religious belief other than to emphatically state that I do not hold religious beliefs and my opinions come from the perspective of a non-believer. That perspective may seem anti-christian, but it is not. The point I am making is that I do not appreciate having relgious organizations dictate civil rights for gay people. In my view, they have no position on my status in society and I have no position on theirs. Forgive me for being angered by this, but I am very offended that these people impose their beliefs on me. I also do not believe that much of what is purportedly their “beliefs” are such. To these ears, it goes beyond the realm of belief and into the area of hatred and prejudice. I have a real issue with accepting that many of the anti-gay rants are to be considered “religious freedom”. The marriage debate for example, regardless of the country, is not about marriage it is about whether gays are equal or not, accepted or not, right or wrong.
It seems to me that many posters on this board do not accept the non-religious point of view as it is often seen as embracing the tactics of our enemies. I do not see it that way. As a non-believer, I do not express points of view from a christian perspective, and do not accept christian teachings as truth. I am not struggling with this issue at all.
Re: “It seems to me that many posters on this board do not accept the non-religious point of view as it is often seen as embracing the tactics of our enemies. I do not see it that way.”
I hope my comments don’t leave you with this impression. My example above (at November 15, 2005 04:22 PM) sought to move the topic away from a religious discussion, which is pretty much guaranteed to go nowhere.
I agree that, as you put it, “they have no position on my status in society and I have no position on theirs”, insofar as their religious beliefs are concerned. For the sake of consistency with that position, it would be a mistake then to even continue discussing religion or theology. In doing so, we allow them to frame the subject in religious terms, which is inconsistent with the idea that religious dictums trump politics.
Keeping the conversation on religious beliefs would keep the argument on their territory. It’s as if our army agreed to meet an opposing army on a battle field of their choosing. I don’t think Montgomery or Patton would have gone for something like that at all.
Ack! …
That should read, “…which is inconsistent with opposing the idea that religious dictums trump politics.
ReasonAble (David) – As Tim mentioned earlier its been largely religion that has been and is still responsible for the oppression of GLBTs. Much as I hate to I believe I can resist slandering religion in general in order to give strangers the benefit of the doubt, but there is no way any specific belief gets a free ride just because someone considers it to be religious. The belief that people should be tortured for eternity because they choose a loving supportive same sex relationship is a belief that deserves to be slandered. The fundamentalist religious belief that rather than fairnes its a virtue to rigidly adhere to ideas one accepted at face value as a child too young to think logically deserves no respect whatsoever.
Who was it that said (paraphrased):
Substitute other religions (and I’d include Marxism or Environmentalism) as you see fit.Jim, I understand what you’re saying although I don’t use a “battle” analogy. That in itself is playing into “their” hands because it inflames a topic “they” want to present as a war between good and evil (me good, you evil). I’ve often discussed religion with people, but find debating it to be particularly threadbare.Political and social behaviours caused by religious affiliation… well, that a whole different matter.
The link goes to Mencken’s essay on evangelical Christianity, in the context of the Scope’s trial. I regard this as the best and most accurate exposition I have ever encountered. It is a vived and lifelike today as 80 years ago.
https://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Mencken/the-hills-of-zion/
The page linked here is to a general Mencken list. His complete coverage of the Scopes trial is linked from here.
“>https://www.io.com/gibbonsb/mencken/
In Inheirit The Wind, the reporter is Mencken. He was a leading figure in literature and commentary in the first half of the 20th century. Mencken wrote a great deal about evangelical Christianity, none of it positive. He wrote before there was a distinction between evangelical and fundamentalist. At that time, the terms were interchangable.
I have this strange sense of actually wanting to watch paint dry…What is the difference between an evangelical and a fundamentalist?
Randi, you are a glutton for punishment! 🙂
Try these…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Fundamentalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism
I’m going to kick myself for taking on another religious post… but:
Within a business structure, those who are least experienced or mature have jobs that are strict and rigid. You start at a specific time, take a break when a whistle blows, make the part exactly to the standards in the book, etc. You do not question why things are done a certain way, you just follow rules. And while this job may not pay well, it is also low in stress.
As you grow in experience and maturity, you take on responsibilities that are not so easily pre-determined. You have to use wisdom and judgment. You may find that you don’t leave when the whistle blows, you may come in early, or late, or do things that are “not your job” like sweep the floor. As you begin to recognize the purpose behind the rules, you are assigned more responsibility.
When you are CEO, you have no manual to tell you what to do. You have to balance the interests of the shareholders with those of your fellow employees and all without anyone else to blame if things go wrong. You don’t follow rules; in fact, you are responsible for the rules others follow. This requires a great deal of effort and talent and is thus the highest paid job in the business. It also comes with the highest level of stress.
So too it is with religion. Some folks cannot survive without a rigid set of rules guiding their every move. Without a manual to tell them what to do and without a boss rewarding and punishing their compliance, they would just sit there. They do not have the maturity to know the why of the rules, only that they are to be followed.
Some folks never mature enough to understand the purposes behind a religious decree. And some don’t want to, it’s just too much effort. Such people will find a fundamentalist religion. If there were no Christianity, they would find it in another religion or a cult or even become fundamentalist atheists.
Randi, a shorter version is
(a) Not all evangelicals are conservative or fundamentalists. Some are fairly liberal. They are more of the “christianity is good news” types.
(b) Fundamentalists are generally of the sledgehammer conservative types, and originally were defined by the five “fundamentals” listed in the article linked to by Jim. Apparently they have branched out since then so that belief in the five “fundamentals” aren’t absolute requirements any more.
Regarding one of the five “fundamentals,” the belief in the inerrancy of the bible, I wonder what version of the bible they are referring to. And I wonder how they reconcile the numerous inconsistencies that have been identified in the bible. I suspect that they haven’t even attempted a reconciliation.
Randi,
Another example is this: When I think of a fundamentalist, I think of Jerry Falwell. When I think of an evangelical, I think of Tammy Faye Bakker. This may not be strictly accurate, but I think it captures the flavor. And it is instructive that evangelicals were furious at the idea of a fundamentalist (Falwell) taking over the Bakker’s evangelical PTL playground near Charlotte some fifteen years ago.
I’m not sure where Pat Robertson fits in. He may be a little of both. There is some overlap between the two.
As Raj points out, not all evangelicals are conservative or fundamentalists. In my experience, most evangelicals are conservative — even quite conservative. Many are fundamentalist, but I’m not so sure that most of them necessarily are.
But I know that most fundamentalists bristle at the thought of being confused with evangelicals because they accuse evangelicals of not being doctrinally pure.
For most of my life I identified as an evangelical and certainly did NOT see myself as a fundamentalist. Years later, I now see the two as being closer than I did before. In fact, I would now go so far as to say that evangelicalism is just fundamentalism with a softer edge. When you scratch beneath the surface, you get down to the same core beliefs and attitudes. Towing the party line re: homosexuality is a virtual requirement for acceptance in both groups.
Randi said
The belief that people should be tortured for eternity because they choose a loving supportive same sex relationship is a belief that deserves to be slandered.
I would first say that this hardly sums up Christianity. But more to your point, I have to disagree; if one doesn’t subscribe to a certain belief, what difference does it make if someone else does? And as long as none of these beliefs are allowed to assume power of law or government policy, how is it any of our concern that they exist? I still think that to berate someone else’s belief just because we may find it disturbing is to make us just as bad as those trying to impose their belief on others. And most important of all, it simply doesn’t accomplish anything. That’s not to say that I don’t understand the urge to lash out about this – it can cause anger to know that someone else believes you are bad just for whom you are. I just think the better action is to positively impact the world around us as much as possible and allow people to believe what they will. The alternative would seem to have two sides yelling, possibly hating each other with no resolution at all.
Timothy said:
So too it is with religion. Some folks cannot survive without a rigid set of rules guiding their every move. Without a manual to tell them what to do and without a boss rewarding and punishing their compliance, they would just sit there. They do not have the maturity to know the why of the rules, only that they are to be followed.
Timothy, respectfully I see this as a rather one dimensional point of view. I would consider myself a relatively conservative Christian and it certainly doesn’t describe me. Some of the greatest people in history have shared my beliefs and none of them could be described this way. I don’t really know you so perhaps your only exposure to Christians has been to those who twist the scriptures into instruments to bolster their own hatred and narrow mindedness. Perhaps issues of belief are just too polarizing by their nature to be discussed without some degree of “one dimensionality” coming into play on both sides. That’s why I think the most we can ask for is respect (or at the very least tolerance!) for the other person and their beliefs even if we don’t agree. Then put those energies into fighting the spill over of religion into civil life where we (and potentially anyone) truly might be marginalized.
I’m not sure I see religion as the source of this hatred. Rather, it seems that some people use it to justify and even amplify their own pre-existing prejudices and fears. In the end, those people degrade the good in both the secular and the sacred.
Please understand, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t voice an objection to this or that interpretation of scripture. But if one has no belief in God or the authority of those scriptures, the result is usually just to summarily dismiss the other’s belief entirely as myth. This is certainly wrong and will alienate many good people. Scripture was twisted by some to justify discrimination and slavery for many years. Yet we don’t see the great leaders who fought for civil rights alienating believers, but instead they embraced God and their belief and used those same scriptures to call for equality and the strength to stand up for it. These were not simple people in need of a manual.
David
David says: Please understand, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t voice an objection to this or that interpretation of scripture. But if one has no belief in God or the authority of those scriptures, the result is usually just to summarily dismiss the other’s belief entirely as myth. This is certainly wrong and will alienate many good people. Scripture was twisted by some to justify discrimination and slavery for many years. Yet we don’t see the great leaders who fought for civil rights alienating believers, but instead they embraced God and their belief and used those same scriptures to call for equality and the strength to stand up for it. These were not simple people in need of a manual.
Uhhh, David unless you did not notice slavery existed for over 1,000 years of Christian practice before anyone called it wrong. To ignore and trivialize the intense Christian involvement in slavey strikes me as wrong. You are attempting to whitewash, to hide, the actual history of the Christian faith. From its beggingings Christianity has been a major support of slavery.
Dalea,I think it would be fairer, given which came first, to say that nations that permitted slavery then became christian. Unsurprisingly, the Christian doctrines, intepretations, scripture consequently supported the practice.But that was 400CE…More shocking is the response of mainstream Christianity — and mainstream Christians — to slavery AFTER the enlightenment. Not only was slavery acceptable, but rapidly became entangled in racism and went onto be seen as white priviledge. The Church of Rome said it was OK — but only for non-white non-christians. The Southern Baptists… well, they came about because they supported black slavery. About the only ones with a consistent and honorable history are the Quakers.We are, of course, still dealing with the residue of that history — racism tied to slavery tied to subservience — to this very day.And for David — frankly, I’d like some day to be as interested and involved in a debate about Christian political involvement in my life as much as I am about Hindu involvement. In other words, I shouldn’t even need to notice unless I choose to. So it, hopefully, will not even raise questions of tolerence of respect — it is simply something OTHER people do. I am, of course, perfectly OK with being informed and knowing about any religion.(And a big fat ditto for Islam).
Also David — boy, did you get Timothy wrong. Bad guess, hahaha.I’m sure he’ll let you know how things stand 🙂
Uhhh, David unless you did not notice slavery existed for over 1,000 years of Christian practice before anyone called it wrong. To ignore and trivialize the intense Christian involvement in slavey strikes me as wrong. You are attempting to whitewash, to hide, the actual history of the Christian faith. From its beggingings Christianity has been a major support of slavery.
Oh my I can’t see where I did that at all. The Church can stand on its own, warts and atrocities and all. I am talking mostly about that with which I am most familiar, the time when slavery ended in this country, with the emergence of civil rights and ideas of equality that came after that. Your emphasis on the many years the Church condoned slavery amplifies my point. In this country at least, many who had been persecuted through, among other things, a misuse of scripture, embraced the Christian faith quite fully in their own struggle. They seemed to understand that just because scripture acknowledged slavery as a practice 2000 years ago, it didn’t necessarily endorse it or certainly not the idea that some people are not worth as much as others (though people used what it did say to justify just that). Scriptures written in a time of slavery and lessor rights for women (or when loving homosexual relationships are not a known as such) are going to carry those artifacts. But focusing on those things without taking it as a whole, without understanding what Jesus taught, and how it comes together, that will bring all kinds of misunderstanding – like using Leviticus as a proof text against homosexuality.
It is puzzling to me why scripture did not rail against slavery and a few other things. I’m not sure if slavery would have ended anyway, not until there was alternate means of getting work done (ie powered machines). It is a sad fact of our history. The truth is, if any of us were alive in those days, we would probably either be slaves or own them. That we have come as far as we have in such a short time with civil rights and equality is nothing short of amazing. The fact that it is not fully complete is certainly cause for more work, but how far we have come is cause for hope. The Church has gone through its own growing pains with the rest of humanity. Lets hope it continues to grow.
Sorry if I got Timothy wrong 🙂 It’s very difficult to have these discussions in this format – there are so many nuances that don’t communicate well via the text. The main point I wanted to make in all of this was to respect the fact that many of us do have deeply held beliefs which are precious to us. Negating those with a single sentence, well it can hurt because it is it’s own form of discrimination. I like what grantdale said in that last paragraph – and I know people who do that very well. It makes for much more productive debate.
I do want to say that I appreciate all the input. This site is a rare collection of people who generally discuss issues with great wisdom and respect for others. I like to see people disagree on issues without the need for personal attacks. This issue is just something that has hit me a few times and I thought I would speak my mind. Thanks.
David
David (reasonable)- I never said the belief that gays should be tortured for an eternity sums up Christianity. I am vehemently opposed to the idea that preventing gay love is in anyway central or critically important to Christianity. However Christians themselves say that is the case when as they frequently do they use the attack on that nefarious idea as evidence that Christianity in general is under attack. They are the ones claiming this as a belief central to their religious freedom. They are the ones saying a gay killed a Christian because of her Christianity epitomized by anti-gay proseletyzing when in realty the motivation was revenge for personal criticism which co-incidentally happened to be a Christian belief. Some prominent Christians are maliciously lying when they say GLBT opposition to specific anti-gay religious beliefs means opposition to religious beliefs in general. Frankly other than specific anti-gay beliefs I couldn’t care less about religion in general.
I most certainly would happily ignore that belief if they did not use it to advocate their judging and controlling GLBT lives – I couldn’t care less what Christians do as long as it doesn’t affect me. Unfortunately the evil belief of christians that they have the obligation to save us from ourselves results in them blindly attempting to dominate us when it benefits them not at all. I believe the idea that we should tolerate not just Christianity in general, but show any respect whatsoever to PARTICULAR evil beliefs is what was referred to correctly as “candy-assed”. A failure to strongly oppose ideas based on one person blindly judging and controlling another is something that infuriates me and is why some GLBTs say we need to get tough. Treating such beliefs with kid gloves gives undeserved credibility to them and allows the large convincible portion of moderate voters to see specific anti-gay rhetoric as “compassion” which it most certainly is not. That religious belief is a convenient cover for the underlying motivation which is “I think same gender sex is gross, and to make me 1/2 of one percent happier society should maximally oppose it even if it takes away 1/2 or 3/4 of the happiness of GLBT individuals.
I’m a bit of a fairness fundamentalist myself. Fairness must come first and I am figuratively at war with the idea that any particular anti-gay religious belief comes first unless there’s a damn good reason for it. I sure haven’t heard it yet. The general public in the U.S. has bought into this lie of “compassion” partly because we’ve shown deference to it instead of clearly expressing our shock and outrage in the way that was done at the Boston “Love Won Out Protests”. Its time for a wakeup call to people who believe this lie that its moral to unconditionally oppose even loving, monogamous, and supportive same sex intimate relationships. Sex is one of the ties that bind and it brings people together and encourages valuing and caring for others. That is a good thing in and of itself
The above post was by Randi Schimnosky. I’m away from home and haven’t set it up on this computer to list my name.
David,
“Negating those with a single sentence, well it can hurt…”
Very true. But, then again, keep reading. Maybe the one sentence is seen out of context and more will enlighten.
Just for the record (as will come as no surprise to most here) I am a Christian. I come from a very conservative fundamentalist background and know from experience that a great many that share those beliefs are not motivated by hatred or stupidity. Nor are they casual or thoughtless in their quest for knowledge of God.
However, those who are not capable of nuance or who are seeking rigid structure in their spiritual life do gravitate towards more fundamentalist minded branches of religions. They are looking for answers and they want someone to tell them with certainty exactly what is true.
I was recently communicating with a gay person on another site. He was absolutely certain that God condemned homosexuality, period. I suggested that perhaps he was right, but that it is also possible that the Biblical scholars who had come to other conclusions might be right, instead. I proposed that before he made his final determination he at least consider what they said.
This infuriated him. His universe did not have room for doubt – only certainty. He gave me a little lecture about orthodoxy and how anyone who disagreed was simply wrong, no possibility for flexibility. You simply could not be Christian and disagree with what he had been taught.
I do know that this is not indicative of all folks who are fundamentalist (and most definitely not all Christians). I know that there are fundamentalists who say “I’ve considered what you say but have concluded otherwise”. There, too, are those who say “This is what I believe, but I will think about what you present”. But fundamentalism (of all religious positions) does give home to those who say “I’m right, you’re wrong and if you continue to challenge me, you’re evil”.
Consequently, the greatest opponants of freedom and quality for gay people on the planet today are probably adherents of fundamentalist religions (primarily Islam, Christianity, and to a lesser extent Judaism).
Randi said:
I believe the idea that we should tolerate not just Christianity in general, but show any respect whatsoever to PARTICULAR evil beliefs is what was referred to correctly as “candy-assed”. A failure to strongly oppose ideas based on one person blindly judging and controlling another is something that infuriates me and is why some GLBTs say we need to get tough.
I would never allow someone controlling another to go without challenge but I think we may just have to agree to disagree on the rest. I don’t think you will change any minds with that kind of adversarial approach. In the public square, in objection to LIA operating without proper licensing, or in what should and should not be taught in schools, etc. – yes I would debate these strongly.
Timothy, I would agree with your more detailed version – thanks for clarifying. And I think breaking out of that mindset where nothing that your particular circle says can be challenged because it is holy writ is the first step in becoming a mature Christian. I feel for the person you mentioned – it is such a hard place to be.
David
David, an adversarial approach isn’t my first choice but I believe that is the only effective choice anti-gay religionists have given us by their decision to oppose us with lies and the pursuit of laws codifying unconditional heterosexual dominance over GLBTs. A non-adversarial approach lets convincible voters easily believe we aren’t particularly troubled by anti-gay actions and that that means maybe such actions are well and good. How can we expect moderate voters to oppose anti-gay actions and beliefs when we don’t clearly do so ourselves?
Most everyone believes its wrong to physically attack someone without having been physically violently attacked first. Most everyone also believes its justifiable and wise to respond to unprovoked physical attacks with at least some measured force of your own, that’s self defense.
To politely respond to verbal attacks made under the disengenous veil of “love” is to fail to show such hate for what it is and to invite more of the same.
I would like to take us back for a moment to the original assertion from Chambers that started this thread: that at the core of this is that we are evil pawns of satan and the discussion is not about whether our biological and physiological make-up is right or wrong, but evil vs good. We got off on a few tangents with discussion of various points of view and scriptural references. I even got rather annoyed with some comments that having a non-christian point of view meant that I was in effect ridiculing beliefs, which is not the case. I am countering those beliefs because I do not share them, I am not ridiculing them. When I stated in the first post that I find these assertions not only false, but highly offensive as a non-christian, the discussion veered into the territory of how we react to such assertions and does our reaction guage if we are taking on Chambers characteristics of how we choose to oppose this stuff. I also see it as inciteful hate speech and an intrusion of my civil rights. I do not see it as free speech or religious freedom. Sorry, I just don’t buy that argument that we must respect what Chambers says because it is a relgious belief and not see him as the enemy that he truly is. I disagree, this is beyond religious belief and it is an intentional use of words to incite contempt and hatred towards gays. As we all know, words are very powerful and have a long-lasting effect, like the first time a bully yells faggot at you.
“…like the first time a bully yells faggot at you”
This reminds me of a tactic I’ve adopted. When some punk (usually from the oppositve side of the street) yells “faggot”, I yell right back. But instead of “f— you” or “bigot”, I yell “yep, that’s right” in a cheerful voice like I’m congratulating them for guessing right. This leaves them so confused they tend to stammer and walk quickly away.
I did say the “first time” Timothy, the second time they usually don’t make it through without cowering and running the other way.:) I like your approach. Sometimes we’re just too damn serious aren’t we. Have a great weekend.
Tim
I know we have been all around on this but there really was a basic point I was trying to make and it wasn’t actually about Chambers’ comments. However, let me give you an example of how I would respond to Chambers if I were an atheist. “I don’t adhere to the idea that there exists a god or other higher power in the universe, so what you say doesn’t concern me. Those who do hold such beliefs will have to determine for themselves whether this is truly the teaching of their scriptures and if they agree. I for one do not see how it could possibly be so.” Now, this guy can spew that stuff all day long as far as I’m concerned, as long as it does not become codified into law or other government policy. The latter is where I would put my energies. Society is evolving and every year these kinds of comments become less tolerated by the masses – not because we lambaste people like Chambers but because I think people have an innate sense of fairness and the more positive examples of gay people they see, the less likely they are to agree with something so incredibly unfair and wrong. Simply put, the guy has the absolute right to make an ass of himself and I have the right to disagree with what he says. But I don’t have the right to tell him not to say or believe it.
My original point was more about how we deal with each other in a discussion of this sort. For example, in your original post the comment “To be fair and unbiased, the article would allude to all alleged sins because christians repeatedly spew the “we all sin” line of BS before launching mercilessly into another anti-gay hate speech.” As a Christian who is gay and also believes what Chambers said is a load of garbage, I am hurt by that statement. You just lumped me and a whole lot of other people together who should not be – all Christians don’t do that. Not even a majority of Christians do that. The ones that do should be ashamed of themselves but that is another issue. All I’m asking is that we not polarize the issues any more than they already are. You may find a lot of good people of faith out there who agree with you.
As for “hate speech”, I’m not sure I like the direction that is going in (I’m still debating myself on that one). I tend to think that labeling something hate speech is one step away from censorship. It seems that a lot can qualify for that label these days. I would be strongly against any kind of legal implications for it beyond what already exists.
Randi Said:
How can we expect moderate voters to oppose anti-gay actions and beliefs when we don’t clearly do so ourselves?
By all means we should oppose anti-gay ordinances or other legislation if they are proposed. I’ve maintained that when these things enter civil life they need to be opposed. If someone tried to pass legislation making adultery illegal, I would oppose that too (and in that case I even agree that it’s wrong to cheat on your spouse). I’m sure there are still some old statutes on the books that did just that but they are an example of how inadvisable it is to do so.
The fact that there are people out there who think you or I are evil is sad, but I can’t control them. I might be able to persuade them over time in the right setting, but some will probably always think that way.
If you made it this far, congratulations! I apologize for the loooong post. I’m taking a break 🙂
David
Thanks for the post David, what you said makes sense and I apologize for lumping all christians together, but I am frustrated with the intrusion of fundamentalism in civil rights, that’s where this is coming from. Have a great day.
Bible, Shmible….
It’s all a big ‘ol boys club that got together and wrote it.
No women involved in it’s creation or writing.
In strict religious cultures, illiteracy and isolation of women is the first order of business, isn’t it?
The genius of women squandered for so many years, simply has justified misogyny in the worst way.
The natural world, has no one that’s strictly a woman or man.
I don’t mind the Bible being studied and read as a piece of ancient literature and chronicle of societies of that time.
But try and make me…or anyone else live and work or be excluded ‘according to what the Bible says’…and violate once and again and again
the 11 most precious laws (10 commandments and golden rule) among humankind written there…
and I’ll slap you up with your unmitigated and hypocritical breaking of those universal laws every time.
Our new millenium society obviously can’t afford to be fighting over the interpretation of something that doesn’t resemble our lives now…or anything that could have possibly been reality THEN either.
I would respect the Bible more, love it and care about it…if so many MEN hadn’t been spending so much of the last 2,000 years abusing people with it.
That book and the Q’ran have been turned into such poison, why should I or anyone else with a brain want to trustfully take it from just ANYONE?
Why should I love anything used to be hateful to me and other precious and misrepresented human beings?
You feel me on that?
You people are amusing
I have a question, religion aside, do you think that Darwin would consider homosexuality an adaptable behavior for a society? I’m not trying to make fun, I’d actually like to hear a serious response. That being said, would you say that homosexuality is a)a functional attribute of society (meaning, it serves a valuable purpose), b)a dysfunctional attribute, or c)that it does not significantly impact society enough to make a difference one way or the other. If you respond to this please support your answers with objective facts.
TD Van,I doubt Darwin would have much of an opinion on the subject.He is dead. Has been for 123 years.If you care for a response based on evolutionary theory, please first indicate at what level you are capable of understanding the subject.
TD Van at December 6, 2005 12:06 AM
I have a question, religion aside, do you think that Darwin would consider homosexuality an adaptable behavior for a society?
I don’t particularly care what Darwin would have considered, but you might consider posting the question on a blog that specializes in evolution such as https://www.pandasthumb.org
I suspect that Darwin–like most scientists–was considering what is, not what some people believe ought to be. There is a rather substantial difference. And Darwin’s theory has pretty much stood the test of time, observation and experiment.
I have a question, religion aside, do you think that Darwin would consider homosexuality an adaptable behavior for a society?
Assuming by Darwin you mean current evolutionary theory, I honestly have no idea. There is evidence to suggest why homosexuals continue to thrive despite the inability to procreate. However if one adheres to that theory (evolution), recorded human history is but a blink of an eye in the scheme of things so even if being gay was an “aberration” it could be around for millennia to come. That would mean that society has to deal with it pretty much the same as if it were some sort of adaptation (which some speculate could be as a governor for population growth, but I’m not sure if there is any evidence of that).
I guess the point I’m trying to make is that it really doesn’t matter either way.