NARTH chose Marina Del Rey as the convention site for their annual meeting. Marina Del Rey is an unincorporated part of the County of Los Angeles that consists of the marina itself and a small segment of land. It is surrounded on three sides by the City of Los Angeles, the fourth being the ocean.
The City Councilman for the surrounding area, Bill Rosendahl, an openly gay man and practicing Catholic, protested outside the NARTH convention along with a group of therapists and students.
Rosendahl called their research and their methods “unproven, unsafe and abusive,” pointing out that the American Psychiatric Association stopped classifying homosexuality as a condition to be cured more than three decades ago.
“It’s another form of rationalization for the continued persecution and prejudice against gay people, and it has to stop,” Rosendahl said. “That’s why we’re here.”
Although NARTH claims members in the thousands, only about 100 therapists showed up along with some of their ex-gay clients. NARTH claims to be secular in nature, yet their speaker was Alan Chambers with his message of “godly heterosexuality”. He had this to offer:
“That doesn’t mean I’m straight, it’s not my ‘diploma,’ ” he said. “But my sexual orientation did change.”
I’m not sure how that would translate to English. I guess change is possible… just not change into a straight person.
Hmm I’m curious that as a former client of Nicolosi and also considering that my parents donated money to NARTH if we’re included in those ranks.
Chamber’s not defining change in concrete and specific terms which shows he’s totally disingenuous. He’s just lying with a different version of the old “change is possible” bait and switch. He’s still trying to encourage the belief that same sex attractions are converted into opposite sex attractions but if forced he’ll claim he just means he changed his behavior and he’s innocent of the very deception that’s his bread and butter.
“That doesn’t mean I’m straight…”
Interesting. I noticed that DL Foster recently made the same claim on his blog. Non-straight ex-gaiety must be quite the tightrope walk…
Regarding “change” perhaps this 1993 review of Nicolosi’s book Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality: A New Clinical Approach might be informative:
“Therapy Terminable and Interminable: “Non-gay Homosexuals” Come Out of the Closet”
https://math.ucsd.edu/~weinrich/NCLSWNRC.HTML
Raj,
Thanks for the link!
In my opinion I think that if someone hates the fact that they are a homosexual so intensly, change can occur within their mind, but subconsencely they still look at the same sex the same way but are so convinced that they are not that wont except it.
Please join us Sunday evening at 6:15 for a candlelight vigil for Mary Stachowicz that should last about an hour. St. Hyacinth Basilica is located at 3636 W. Wolfram in Chicago (one block north of Diversey, three blocks west of Milwaukee). We are commemorating the 3-year anniversary of Mary’s murder at the hands of crazed homosexual co-worker, Nick Gutierrez, who beat and stabbed her to death and then stuffed her mangled body in a crawl space. (I just learned that he later prayed with Stachowicz’ friends and family as they prayed and worried frantically about her disappearance!) Gutierrez confessed to police that he killed Mary because she had urged him to change his immoral lifestyle. That reminded Gutierrez of his mother. Mary paid the ultimate price for her faith (and Gutierrez’ guilty conscience), and she deserves to be remembered.
The reality today is that a growing secularist intolerance threatens to redefine Judeo-Christian beliefs as “prejudice,” “intolerance,” or worse, hatred. The result is widespread intimidation of Christians and, in the most extreme cases, actual physical suffering and death for people like Mary who dare to live out their faith and not leave it behind in a church “closet” on Sunday. I can tell you from firsthand experience at IFI that the militancy of the homosexual activist fringe is rising as the PC societal embrace of “gay rights” grows.
The media silence on Stachowicz is staggering–especially after the mind-numbing (and inaccurate) hyped coverage of Matthew Shepard. They humanized Matthew as a symbol but they have little interest in humanizing a Christian victim (of a homosexual) like Mary. We need to tell the media to cover Mary S. like they covered Matthew S.
There is a big difference between the two cases. Mary had used some kind of action first against her killer (it is more similiar to the gay panic situation). Her body was hidden. Matthew Shepard was displayed openly to intimidate a larger group (Mary was obviously hidden to avoid detection). I do think that the Shepard case is inaccurately portrayed, but is it fair to play both cases off each other? It is almost as if many Christians take the discussion of a hate crime as offensive. Both people are dead. The people who did them were wrong and evil. We should not play games by pitting their relevance against each other.
What is it with religious socons and this so called “Judeo-Christian” tradition? Simply put, there is no such thing as a “Judeo-Christian” tradition. It is a concept that was developed after the Second World War and during the foundation of Israel. Most conservative Christians before that period were fervently anti-semetic and certainly did not want to associate their “values” with Jews. I’m quite certain that Martin Luther, if he were alive today, would be scolding religious conservatives for using that term.
Doug Parris – Every act of violence is tragic. But if you want to claim GLBTs persecute Christians as much as religious people persecute gays it just ain’t so.
What happened to Mary S. isn’t typical, what happened to Matthew S. is more typical. What else but hatred can you call the belief that people should be tortured for an eternity for choosing an intimate loving and supportive same sex relationship? Is that any less of a hatred than that which caused Mary S’s death? Both are wrong, we can admit it, why can’t you?
What you call PC (political correctness) used to be called being polite. Since when did that become a bad thing? Didn’t your mother teach you that if you don’t have something nice to say (about gays for example) you shouldn’t say anything at all? As a GLBT I don’t hate and try to prevent the major choices in your life, nor desire to control what you do other than your actions to control us such as preventing us from marrying the one person we love most.
I hate your belief that you have a right to judge and control LBGT intimate relationships and lives in a major way when all it gives you is the trivial psychological benefit of seeing less of us. The religious oppression of gays isn’t principled, its “I don’t care if you like that I find it gross and I won’t stop bitchin’ if I can’t force you to stop”. Its no different or more principled than my saying “I think fat people are gross and if the government won’t force them onto diets and they won’t stay out of my sight I’m going to ride fat people mercilessly about how they should be tortured for an eternity for offending me with their obesity – and if anyone objects to that its just PC hatred and oppression of my good intentions.” As anti-gay religious people interpret the bible it clearly and unconditionally says gays “must be put to death”. How can you keep a straight face and say that’s not prejudice, intolerance, and hatred?
Mr. Parris,
Thank you for the invitation to join in your vigil.
I sympathize with the family of Mary Stachowicz and agree that it is indeed a tragic event to them and her loved ones.
However, based on the information you have provided, it appears that the focus of your vigil has little to do with the death of the victim but rather with the identity of the perpetrator. As you have mentioned several times that the man who killed her was homosexual, it is clear that the focus of the vigil will be the murderer’s homosexuality and the victim’s Christianity.
I question the purpose of your vigil. Usually a vigil is to highlight a particular victim of a greater sequence of crimes. For example, out of a series of violence against a particular group, somehow one victim will come to represent the larger group. This is what happened with Matthew Sheppard. He came to represent the thousands of persons attacked, beaten, or killed for being gay.
I don’t believe that there have been a large number of cases of violence or death against Christians by homosexuals. In fact, I think you don’t have more than a few, or possible one, examples. Perhaps that is the real reason that the secular media seems not to take your vigil seriously. It appears to be trying to draw attention to a trend of incidents that, frankly, doesn’t exist.
Since there does not seem to be a trend that needs the attention brought by your vigil, I think my attendance would be counterproductive. Also as it seems clear that a major focus of this vigil will be to establish or entrench law that benefit you personally to my detriment, it would be foolish of me to further your cause.
But thank you for your invitation and whatever tiny mote of sincerity that may been included in it.
Heads up folks, Doug Parris’s post was copied and pasted from the Illinois Family Institute’s (IFI) website. IFI is headed up by none other than Peter LaBarbera, notorious ex-gay homophobe.
Also, insofar as this vigil happened last Sunday (11/13) the posting on XGW seems rather after the fact.
To check out the IFI website’s posting the address is https://www.illinoisfamily.org.
Phil,
LaBarbera’s ex-gay? I’ve not heard that.
I have heard that for research purposes he does keep a large amount of gay porn in his office (for fighting the evil hedonistic militant homosexual fringe, you know). But I’ve not heard about his ex-ness. Could your provide a link?
LaBarbera’s ex-gay? I’ve not heard that.
I have heard that for research purposes he does keep a large amount of gay porn in his office (for fighting the evil hedonistic militant homosexual fringe, you know). But I’ve not heard about his ex-ness. Could your provide a link?
Apparently he also has boasted of dressing up in leather to attend events, like the International Mr. Leather contest in Chicago (an event – including the hotel – open only to attendees and their guests), to document the “perversion” for himself.
I couldn’t guess as to his sexual orientation – but I’m guessing he has “issues” (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).
Timothy, I stand corrected. After nearly an hour of checking and re-checking (and also finding a lot of dead sites), I can not find one that states LaBarbera is ex-gay.
CPT_Doom at November 16, 2005 09:22 PM
I have heard that for research purposes he (LaBarbera) does keep a large amount of gay porn in his office…
I either heard him or read of him saying it several years ago (I don’t recall which). He claimed that it was for research purposes. My first reaction was “yeah, right.”
At some point the statements from these loons strains credulity.
FWIW, here’s my take on LaBarbera’s stint at IFI: he left CWA to assume new duties at IFI. IFI never had a lot of credibility outside evangelical circles in Illinois. In the past several months, according to IFI’s website, he’s lambasted Walgreen’s, City of Chicago, and Harris Bank for their support of the Gay Games, all of these companies/entities are huge employers and highly respected among the Illinois political establishment.
It’s definitely a blue state where the right-wing is disorganized and foundering.
He’s also blasted the Cook County Board of Commisioners for their support of the games, but only some of the republican commisioners rescinded their support of the games.
Lastly, he blasted state treasurer Judy Barr-Topinka for being too “pro-homosexual.” However, in the past few weeks, she’s emerged as the frontrunner in the republican race for governor, despite all LaBarbera’s bad press on her. She really is quite a supporter of the GLBT community in Illinois, as is Gov. Blagojevich.
I’m beginning to wonder if LaBarbera took on the IFI stint as (what he viewed) as a new opportunity, or if he was exiled to some version of the right wing’s version of Siberia!
If all of LaBarbera’s actions are backfiring, maybe he’s secretly working for us? LOL
Once and for all…
For Doug Parrish,
I really wish Jesse Dirkishing and Mary S. weren’t brought up again and again as examples of some kind of gay militancy and power.
As stated here-Matt Shepard is THE MOST typical attack. There are many more like him before and since. His death and the subsequent sensation was more like that of Emmett Till.
And Emmett Till’s death was typical for the Jim Crow era.
That’s because the paranoia and intense social caste system of Jim Crow was about the fear of black male sexuality. It’s very much like the paranoia of gay sexuality and the laws that would segregate gays and lesbians from heterosexuals.
1. Jesse Dirkishing’s death was accidental. Not deliberate. And he was a MINOR. The laws regarding discussion of a case like his are different. His family did not cooperate or speak out to the press or any other media. This could have been for several reasons.
A gag order by the court. The shame of his family over his sexuality and their own failures AS a family.
2. Mary S. intruded on and forced her religious opinion on someone she should have had the sensitivity to realize could have already been horribly ABUSED by such religious treatment.
She made an arrogant assumption, blundered into a situation beyond her skill and entitlement to, and it cost her her life.
HER killing was an aberration. A one on one assault.
When gays and lesbians are assaulted and killed, it’s a gang roving around to specifically rob and physically assault.
Gays and lesbians don’t roam in gangs for the purpose of hurting heterosexual people.
They don’t organize their political agendas around that either.
Government, clergy and educational institutions isolate and teach that gays and lesbians are a menace and blight to society-therefore licensing the violent to do their dirty work of ridding the world of gay people.
Gays and lesbians are not active and investing in the assault of ANYONE.
If it’s too much to Christians for gays and lesbians to want peaceful and dignified integration with heterosexuals, that’s worse than sad. It’s evil.
If gay and lesbian kids have no hope of equal justice, protection and access that others have legally, then why expect them to arrange their lives around unjustified heterosexual conceit and make YOUR lives easier?
And no gay people did a dance when Jesse D. or Mary S. were killed.
Indeed, they (gay media and advocates) were invested that people know they condemned the gay people responsible.
But, the motives behind the murders and their rarity has to be made distinctly clear.
At the root of ALL of it, was heterosexual conceit (religious or not) that isolates gay kids making them vulnerable to abuse from the religious or pedophiles.
DL Foster’s whining for attention from here on his blog, so maybe a few people could go over and post some OUTRAGE!!! to give him something to do.
Jim, see CPT_Doom’s comment above. Now I’m really beginning to wonder! 😉
Regan, Matt Shepard’s death was atypical of anti-gay violence in many ways: first by its sheer brutality it stands out. Secondly, it was unusual in the amount of media attention it got (but that’s not a bad thing). Thirdly, and, I think, most importantly, typically in an anti-gay attack, the perpetrator goes to the victim’s neighborhood to commit the crime, which is the opposite of ethnic or racially based attacks. That being said, I think any violence is deplorable and the perpetrators of violence must be dealt with severely by the justice system, regardless of their sexual orientation.
What I don’t see in the Mary Stachowicz case is that she was killed because she was heterosexual. She was killed because she tried, rather ineptly, to deal with someone who was very disturbed mentally. She should have gotten a professional to intervene.
IFI et. al are just gay-baiting.
Timothy said:
” I don’t believe there have been a large number of cases of violence or death against Christians by homosexuals.”
“It seems to be drawing attention to a trend of incidents that, frankly, doesn’t exist.”
Well said! Well said!
And that’s just the point.
One. A SINGULAR incident of ONE gay man killing a woman that HAPPENED to be Christian and it’s a gay war on Christians.
And I think you’re right, Timothy. The vigil will be about castigating gay people as dangerous. Especially to Christians, and there is no such thing in evidence.
I remember being at a townhall meeting months ago that featured elected officials and press and multi culti citizens discussing gay marriage.
This meeting was also on a radio broadcast for a local station.
A handful of young adult (late teens, early 20’s) Christians broke the rules of the meeting comment limits by screaming about the evils of homosexuality to the panel (which also included Jews and Buddhists).
They were so loud, strident and not intent on being civil, they were ordered to leave.
But they were milling around picketing so I walked up to them.
I told them that was the dumbest most uncivilized display of Christian values yet.
Here they were, a bunch of kids, confronting RELIGIOUS gay people, most older and with GRAY HAIR, with messages as if those people in the room hadn’t heard what they just screamed at them all their own lives.
As if they hadn’t been taught the same thing decades before these young folks had even been born.
Obviously, THEY were the ones who didn’t understand that no amount of incivility, screaming, brutality, political action and threat to gay families by Christians, will make anything better or our society stronger by treating gay people badly.
Christians have lost or are losing THEIR war against gay people to cooler more intelligent heads and it’s making them uglier and more determined to be nasty.
They are recruiting black Christians to their bigoted cause.
Does anyone doubt that perhaps recruiting avowed and violently gay hating Muslims could be far behind?
Mr. Doug Parris,
I’ve heard certain black ministers say that Coretta Scott King was a disgrace to the civil rights movement (Jesse Petersen) for her support of gay equality. Or that they’d side with the Klan as long as the Klan were against gays too(Eddie Long).
Now, are you perhaps as committed to climbing into bed and f**king a Christian hating Muslim to make your homo hating point?
Just asking.
And thank you Phil.
The young man who killed her was obviously disturbed and did need a professional.
And any old missionary believing they have THE ANSWER or THE TRUTH locked right up is dangerous folly.
Mary S. found that out the hard way.
Perhaps the Doug Parris’s of the world or the Throckmortons would better serve society by being truthful about the limits of THEIR Christian disciplines and coralling their arrogance when confronted by the real world and not pushing their fantasy of domination through constant and aggressive bombardment.
Or attacking an easy, yet rightfully enduring target.
You’re right Phil, about the sensation Matt Shepard’s killing caused.
I don’t think it’s brutality was A-typical.
But the fact that it WAS so brutal was expressed in the media.
In previous cases of anti gay violence, it wouldn’t be reported at all, let alone sympathetically.
Very recently, 20/20 did a hatchet job on Shepard as if to say he was cruising for drugs, so what happened to him wasn’t unexpected or perhaps undeserved if he was going to be acting like that with fellow druggies.
And this was a prurient lie.
But the question really is, why would 20/20 do that, or interview Shepards killers making them break their bargain with his family?
But Shepard had family and friends willing to show the world just HOW horrifically a gay person will be treated if someone thinks no one will look or care.
A gay family member used to be a source of shame and went undefended by their family and friends and even their killing was more of a relief than an outrage.
The utter harmlessness and defenselessness of Shepard also fueled the public outrage.
He broke the myth of the big, bad, predatory homosexual, and defenseless heterosexual.
Emmett broke the myth of the big, bad predatory black male and defenseless white female.
The depth of white hatred and brutality didn’t limit itself to an undersized, good natured black child.
Mamie Till, did something also unprecedented to illustrate the brutality of Jim Crow sexuality sensibilities on her son-
An open glass topped coffin and her statement that ‘she wanted the world to see what hate could do to a child’.
She was criticized for such a display.
It was considered a vulgar sympathy ploy (by whites of course), it was considered unnecessary and drastic (by people uncomfortable with confronting the depth of hate and it’s victims) and it was considered an act of defiance of civilized comportment (well, only by those who unwilling to acknowlege that any other, more polite means were conveniently ignored or dismissed).
But it got the message across didn’t it?
Another smashing success for LaBarbera! From the picture, it appears that the vigil attracted a whole EIGHT people!
See link: https://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=30009
(Understand I’m not gloating over the tragedy that happened, but over the failure of hatemongers to attract a lot of attention to themselves and their causes.)
phil,
You forgot the 9th person taking the picture (with part of their thumb over the lens).
You underestimated their number by 13% – you must be a militant homosexual activist.
LaBarbera’s write up was amusing, thanks for the link.
So nine people attended their vigil. Their audience was a couple of dozen people who speak Polish and probably had no idea what they were there for. And other than self-reporting, there was absolutely no coverage.
I could get more than nine people together for almost anything AND get someone to cover it. You would think that between the family and friends of the victims and the employees of IFI, CWA, etc. they should have had a decent size crowd.
This “vigil” really has to go down as one of the least effective efforts I’ve ever seen.
I had way more than nine people at my house last Saturday for a party. But then, about a third of them were queers.
Regan DuCasse at November 17, 2005 12:25 PM
Jesse Dirkishing
It’s “Jesse Dirkhising.” And according to the perpetrators, he had been having sexual relations with the younger of the perps for several months before his death. That doesn’t excuse them for what they did, but it does put a slightly different gloss on the claim by anti-gays that they were monsters.
Regarding Mary S., perhaps that shows that people–including Christians–should just learn to STFU.
I am not a Homosexual, however I believe if a person wants to be involved and be a part of that lifestyle, then by all means they should. Homosexuals do not harm me nor do they bother me. I am disgusted with the Homophobia I see on this and many Christian Reconstructionist websites.
I just wonder… If you all win… Will you go after Interacial Marrages next? Then will you go after Forcing people to attend church next?
Who knows where you all will stop? It is very frightening.
Magnum Serpentine
Thanks, raj.
All the way around. It’s all sad, isn’t it?
Sadder because all of it wouldn’t be happening at ALL…
If gay people were accepted. The most rational reason being that heterosexuals and homosexuals have no distinct, or moral differences between them.
And most of all, because there is nothing new or different about gay people that’s changed since the dawn of all humanity first recorded gay people’s lives.
The time for irrational politics, assault, psychological games or violence is and was long over.
It hasn’t changed what gay people are, just the tenacity at which gay people pursue their freedom, equality and happiness and safety.
None of which is at the expense of heterosexuals doing the same.
Heterosexuals can’t now continue to argue that they have the right to legal and mean sprited domain over that which excludes gay people from institutions said gays and lesbians have proven to have equal competence.
And if we’re to be convinced that our society puts great stock in merit, than tradition must be trumped for that merit.
Is anyone else as baffled by Mr. Serpentine’s comment as I am?
A bit baffling, but I think he or she didn’t read through the site thoroughly and picked up on the wrong posts, leading him/her to believe we are a fundamentalist Christian website.
Skemono says “Is anyone else as baffled by Mr. Serpentine’s comment as I am?”
I can see how, if you stumbled across this post about the NARTH conference, you might not understand that the writer is unsympathetic to NARTH.
Especially the last sentence. “Change is possible” is kind of an inside joke for us regulars, but if you’re not in on the joke, the last sentence might sound like an anti-gay pot shot.
Funny though, when I read the Magnus Serpentine comment the first time, it didn’t seem confused to me at all. I thought the “homophobia” he referred to was the citations from anti-gay material, and the part about “Who knows where you all will stop?” was sort of a use of the second person for dramatic effect.
My grandma used to do that all the time. I don’t know if it’s a regionalism or what. “What are you gonna do? You’re gonna build a laundromat on Mars?”
Welll Not a Fundy site eh???
Then why did I get to this blog from a Radical Right Wing Talibam Christian Fundamentalist/Evangal/Reconstructionist site eh???
The World Wonders
I think a few folks missed MAgnum Serpentine’s tags.
You know, I don’t think most of us Christians give a rip what people do in their own homes, as in homosexuality. What is maddening is that gays are constantly throwing their sexuality in our faces. Gays can live how they want, it’s no big deal to me. But it is my business when I had to educate my children about sex before they were really old enough understand. That’s what torques me about gays. The homosexual community scoffs at the idea that they have an “agenda,” yet this is clearly the case, with all the pushes for equal rights and the freedom to teach about their lifestyle in schools.
Just shut up already, and live the way you want to live, just keep it to yourselves. I don’t go around talking about my wife’s and my intimate relationship, and I don’t want to hear about yours!
And before you label me a homophobe or a gay-hater, please know, that I now have and have had for over twenty five years had close friendships with people who are gay. I have immediate family, whom I love dearly that are gay.
And before you go off about gays being persecuted, gays have very much public support today. Anyone who’s educated at all about the Matthew Sheppard case knows that the main guy, of the two, that killed him has had DOCUMENTED homosexual relationships. In addition to that, use your heads— isn’t EVERY murder some kind of hate crime? Gays don’t have a corner on the marked for hate crimes. Get a clue.
And what kind of moron doesn’t know how to leave their estate to anyone they want? And making medical decisions? How about having your attorney set up power of attorney. C’mon, these insipid arguments are just a lot of flash.
And, as long as you want to keep your sexuality in front of my face, quit trying to deny that AIDS started in the homosexual community. IT’S DOCUMENTED morons. Science or medicine long ago traced back to the original case of AIDS in the US, and it was, indeed, in the gay community, and for the first number of years of its existence, AIDS was almost EXCLUSIVELY limited to homosexuals.
You can’t spin the truth.
Roger, please keep your filthy perversions to yourself. Do you think I want to know the details of your disgusting heterosexual lifestyle? Don’t flaunt it by talking about your “wife”, thereby making me have to think of your unnatural heterosexual intercourse, here on a website that children can access. If you have to do that sort of thing in private, then keep it in private.
And please don’t call me a heterophobe. I have parents, whom I dearly love, who are heterosexual. They know that the fact that I consider them unholy abominations in no way diminishes my esteem for them. They know that the fact that I know straight people is enough to innoculate me from any possibility of heterophobia, no matter how much hatred of them I spew. And don’t go off on heterosexuals being persecuted just because gays have so much more public support today, and because gays unlike straights have the right to legally marry and pass on inheritances to our spouses without paying taxes and have a much lower murder rate than straights.
Just shut up and live the way you want to live Roger, just keep it to yourself. Don’t hold hands or make any sign of affection to your spouse in public, never mention your “marriage” or your children to anyone. Just accept that you are unnatural Roger, a product of some kind of abuse or otherwise very bad parenting. Accept your place as a freak who must keep to himself. You can never be allowed to legally marry, Roger, or else my marriage will be in serious trouble, because obviously as soon as I hear the news that a freak like you has the right to marry, my own marriage will dissolve ovrnight, so disgusted by the mere thought of people like you having any rights will I be.
I am only telling you the truth in love, Roger.
Roger, with all do respect, what is so “in your face” about the desire to be treated with dignity, respect and equality? I flaunt my sexuality to no one. No one. Gay people desire no more or less than equality in the eyes of the law, that includes the right to legally marry our partners, make decisions regarding hospital care, leave our estates untouched and to the person it should rightfully go to. Unfortunately, the legal documents you mentioned are not worth the paper they’re written on when a “long lost” blood relative arrives at the scene with their paws open.
I will not brand you a homophobe about your comments about the people in your life that you claim to love, but I will state that they deserve a lot more respect from you if you are a true friend. How about doing a little research into things that are done against our community, in a very hateful and vindictive way, I might add. Start by researching constitutional amendments banning legal relationship status, and then you can move on to the lack of anti-discrimination protections or hate crimes laws. Yes, you are correct that AIDS was first discovered in our community but it is a human disease, not a gay disease. You’re right every murder is in essence a hate crime but it is usually done for reasons other than the victim’s characteristics. Our arguments will feel far less insipid to you when you are on the receiving end of religous bigotry and government sanctioned discrimination. As an experiment, try putting yourself on the receiving end to truly experience what it is like to be considered an inferior human being, then the arguements will be less insipid for you and you can start being a true friend and relative to the gay people in your life. I also ask for an apology for being called a moron, you are way out of line my friend. PS. Well said Boo!
What a loser that Roger is, its not like some gay person pressed his fingers to the mouse and made him click on the link to Exgay Watch. No one here pushed their sexuality in his face, he specifically sought us out to give us some “non-homophobic” abuse. And the hypocrisy of the “I don’t push my sexuality in your face” line. Simple acts of public affection he performs and takes for granted he can do without fear of reprisal are somehow supposed to be excessive when GLBTs do it. There’d be no need for the once a year gay pride parade if the other 364 days of the year heterosexuals would let GLBTs have the same freedom they do to openly express affection.
Just because some heterosexuals fear and repress their own sexuality doesn’t mean any gay is obligated by that to do so as well. If Roger jumped off a bridge he’d be offended others didn’t follow his example.
Roger,
You say your claims are documented, but in fact you offered no documentation at all.
Roger at November 24, 2005 07:06 PM
You know, I don’t think most of us Christians give a rip what people do in their own homes, as in homosexuality.
I haven’t done a survey of “most of (you) christians” and I doubt that you have either. But most of the people who objected to the US SupCt decision in Lawrence vs. Texas were conservative christians.
Don’t take us for being fools, Roger. We know full well that conservative christians lambast gay people as being the new Negroes. It is “impolite” for them to even verbally bash black people, so you guys are taking it out on gay people.
It really is as simple as that.
BTW, what is it to you that I want to marry my same sex partner? Don’t pussy-foot it around. Answer the question.
Also, your And before you label me a homophobe or a gay-hater, please know, that I now have and have had for over twenty five years had close friendships with people who are gay. is really rather silly. It is like the anti-semite who claims that he is not anti-semitic because he has Jewish friends. Some of us actually know what’s up, Roger. And some of us aren’t stupid.
Anybody know what link brought Magnum and Roger here? If this is what some of you meant by the kind of Christians (and I say that tentatively) you usually meet, I apologize.
David
These are the kind of Christians (I do not say this tentatively) I usually meet. There do not seem to be any other kind of evangelicals who actually go out of dorrs. There are some other types, usually liberals or Catholics, who also don’t seem very religious.
You guys need to get of Bennet’s prick. You should do something productive rather than bitch and moan like a bunch of ass-bitten Queens who need Prozac. Sure he’s an ass, but you bitching about it accomplishes nada.
AKML
(Ass Kicking Militant Lesbian)
“These are the kind of Christians (I do not say this tentatively) I usually meet. There do not seem to be any other kind of evangelicals who actually go out of dorrs. There are some other types, usually liberals or Catholics, who also don’t seem very religious.”
I am typing this from the laptop of some extremely religious friends of mine who asked me to be their baby’s godmother. They go out of doors quite a bit and take their faith very seriously, they just also happen to think there’s nothing wrong with being LGBT. People like them exist everywhere, they just don’t get as much press.
Maybe if they spoke up more, they would get more press. AFAIC, they never write letters to Christianity Today. Never hold press conferences. Never take a public stand. (Excepting Jim Wallis and the Campollos.)
AKML, I don’t hear you offering any suggestions for productive actions. You bitchin and moaning about us bitchin and moaning accomplishes nada. I find these XGW comments very useful in that they supply me with well thought out arguments to expose the lies of Stephen Bennet and others.
Regarding the homophobe Roger’s post I always find it amusing that people like him claim to have gay friends. I seriously doubt he could give the contact of one gay person who’d read what he said and would call Roger a friend. I seriously doubt that the gay family he claims to love would characterize his attitude towards them as love. If he had the slightest bit of love or concern for any GLBT he’d whole heartedly support GLBTs having the same right as he to marry the one person we love most.
Dalea, I can accept that for whatever reasons you have had mostly bad experiences with Christians. However, it doesn’t seem that you are able to accept that there are many of us who have had very good experiences with them. You’ve made it clear that you have a rather sizable chip on your shoulder concerning this subject. Again, I’m willing to accept that your experiences have put it there. But you seem (to me at least) to have gone beyond voicing an opinion on that experience to imposing your point of view by repeating negative stereotypes and insults.
Let’s try to remember that there are as many different kinds of Christians as there are people. We aren’t talking about a single entity; these are individuals who happen to be Christian. I’m sorry that they don’t write enough letters to Christianity Today or hold demonstrations, but perhaps if you give them a chance you may find that some of them are doing just as much around you every day, in the way they treat their families, neighbors and each other – gay or straight. In the end I believe that will change more minds than any editorial ever could.
David
Dalea at November 25, 2005 12:22 PM
I pretty much agree with this post: if more christians who disagreed with the christo-fascists would speak out, those of us who don’t want to be ruled by christo-fascists might not speak out so violently against christianity.
I would, however, take Jim Wallis with something with a mountain of salt. He was recently interviewed on one of Boston’s public radio stations, and was explicitly asked about whether he favored same-sex marriage. He danced around the issue, and obviously did not intend to answer the question.
Raj, perhaps we just have a different philosophy on social change. Even so, I think it is the responsibility of everyone on both sides of this issue to tone down prejudice and generalization, not expand it. If we expect this of others, we have to do it ourselves. And I don’t think I take as fact that all of Christianity is not voicing a positive opinion here – it is just taking some time. You can’t force-feed this kind of change. Still, we have entire denominations wrestling with old ideas; some changing – others will follow. But part of the byproduct of this process is what we are hearing from those that don’t want to change.
My point was not about a particular post, but a pattern of comments that I think we can agree are not fair to those of us who are Christians, or who even know and care about someone who is. Is it fair to constantly disparage some for the actions (or inactions) of others?
David
Dale,
If you were trying to hold together a broad coalition of Christians who are opposed to the heresy, immorality, arrogance, and abusive power of the religious right, would you offend as many coalition members as possible by taking a stand on gay marriage, or would you focus on areas of common agreement?
Mike,
I have thought about this. I would take the position I regard as right. If some are offended by that, weeeeelll, they were probably never allies to begin with. There are allies out there for us. Most of them are not traditional Christians. My own experience over the last 30+ years is that Christians apart from Quakers and Unitarians, are never very dependable allies, so who cares. They will run away, back stab us in any event. Brown nosing is pointles IMHE&O
On another site you and I are both familiar with, there were two propositions put forth about the evangelical church.
1. Many, many evangelical Christians are favorably desposed to gay people; it is unfair and unkind to criticize them. And by implication to criticize their religion.
2. It is a very dangerous and fearful thing for these eC’s to be open in their support of gay people. The costs imposed can be very high.
Which strike me as mutually exclusive positions. From my review of eC literature and news, I can not find much evidence for the first. If there are such people, they have no public voice, no open forum, no visible manifestation. The second one, strikes me as very true. For any eC to speak out on behalf of gay people can cause great pain and suffering. Like the nice Lutheran lady you reported on a few months ago.
Now, as a somewhat libertarian type person, I do accept the general law of supply and demand. What I notice here is that we, gay people and our friends, do not exact much of a price from those who choose not to speak out. I feel that we should raise the cost of not speaking to a level at least as great as the cost of speaking out. The sympathetic but quiet clergy being would loose his post if he spoke out for gay people? Then we should make sure he looses it if he doesn’t speak out. It is possible to do so through demonstrations and shunnings. And being a general nuisance.
But as long as we let those who prefer to be silent in the eC continue to be our friends, we are setting ourselves up to loose. Does that answer your question?
Mike refers to: the heresy, immorality, arrogance, and abusive power of the religious right
I am not convinced that this is the case. ISTM, that the religious right fits exactly into the main train of Christian history, at least back to the reign of Diocletian. Check out the Inquistition, the Witch Burnings, the opulence of the clergy, the fanatical library burnings, the sad martyrdom of Hypatia, the endless endorsements of tyrants that are the leitmotif of Christian history. There has alway been a tiny minority of Christians concerned with the poor, the suffering and justice. But sadly a tiny minority. It seems to me that Rev Ike represents the typical Christian far more than the Friars Minor.
RAJ says: I pretty much agree with this post: if more christians who disagreed with the christo-fascists would speak out, those of us who don’t want to be ruled by christo-fascists might not speak out so violently against christianity.
Thanks RAJ, my thoughts exactly.
One thing I notice here is that the older gays, those who have been out longer, tend to be the most anti-christian. Those who have the least experience of being gay, and out, tend to be the most forgiving, or expectant of christians. We live and learn.
Dale, you are certainly entitled to your point of view – the best I can say is that I disagree wholeheartedly with it. I most certainly don’t feel that it is my place to exact a price from someone who doesn’t speak out for me. Even if I did, what would their voice be worth having been extorted from them in such a manor? Likewise this view of historical Christianity appears quite narrow. Absolutely, the Church has grown through atrocities just as all of history has; it is, after all, fundamentally connected with that history. But to say there has only been been “a tiny minority of Christians concerned with the poor, the suffering and justice” is to ignore some of the greatest people of both past and present. For instance, we can object to the Southern Baptist view of gay rights (and I do) but their operations to feed and cloth the poor, or those who have experienced disaster or tragedy, are second to none. I’ve watched as they provided for physical needs without any sermons or other commitment required. And they are but one part of the Church. It would be dishonest of me not to acknowledge the good they have done, even if many of them are (in my opinion) misguided on other issues.
You posit that older gays are more anti-gay because they have “lived and learned”. I would counter that younger gays are more expectant because they are less jaded, having lived in a world more tolerant than the one of the past. A more rebellious stance may indeed have been necessary to give the gay rights movement initial momentum, but as it matures it will take more understanding from both sides, give and take, until society catches up. From where I stand this is happening more quickly than I ever imagined.
Dale, whatever your outlook on Christianity in general, my only request is that you have respect for those posting here who are Christians and do not deserve to be painted with this brush you bring out from time to time. I hope that you can appreciate that.
David
ReasonAble at November 25, 2005 06:25 PM
Even so, I think it is the responsibility of everyone on both sides of this issue to tone down prejudice and generalization, not expand it….
Let’s get something straight, David. There is no “both sides” of “this issue.” The christo-facscists want to deny SSA (same sex attracted) people equal rights. SSA people contend that that is unconstitutional in view of the “equal protection” clause of the 14th amendment. Your comment would be just as applicable to, for example state-sponsored racial discrimination, but (surprise! surprise!) the US SupCt struck that down.
Either SSA people are entitled to the protections that are supposedly provided by the 14th amendment, or the US Constitution isn’t worth the parchment that it was written on. It really is as simple as that.
Not all people who self-identify as christians are christo-fascists. But, unless those who self-identify as christians speak out against the christo-fascists, what are those of us who have nothing to do with christianity to believe–other than that they agree with them? Jim Wallis, of the supposedly liberal Evangelicals United, even hemmed and hawed about the issue of same-sex marriage on a recent program on WBUR (a Boston public radio station). I’ll leave it for you to decide, but he’s shown to me that liberal evangelical leaders are–crap. He pulled a Ross Perot–we’ll appoint a commission to render a report. Give me a frigging break.
Going down a bit
For instance, we can object to the Southern Baptist view of gay rights (and I do) but their operations to feed and cloth the poor, or those who have experienced disaster or tragedy, are second to none.
Sorry, babe, but Catholic Charities and Jewish Charities are second to none in feeding and clothing the poor. Southern Baptist charities pale in comparison. BTW, Catholic Charities is a wholly owned (but supposedly secular) subsidiary of the RCCI. What CC mostly is, is a government contractor. And, I suspect that your Southern Baptist operation is also nothing more than a government contractor. I haven’t read that the Jewish charities had asked for government support.
The christo-facscists want to deny SSA (same sex attracted) people equal rights.
Raj, your drifting into civil matters again. You can fight tooth and nail (and should) against any legislation that compromises equal rights. I’m talking about social change, the hearts and minds of people who believe that homosexual sex is a sin. Many of these people have been taught that all their lives and it takes time for a society to get over that.
Sorry, babe, but Catholic Charities and Jewish Charities are second to none in feeding and clothing the poor. Southern Baptist charities pale in comparison.
Thanks for the compliment, but I’m no babe anymore 🙁
Let me clarify – I worded that badly. I’m sure the shear size of the Catholic Church dictates that they have more resources (membership almost 4 x SB in the US), however that wasn’t really my point. I didn’t want this to become the battle of the charities, but suffice to say that they do an enormous amount of good. This was in response to Dale’s comment, “There has alway been a tiny minority of Christians concerned with the poor, the suffering and justice. But sadly a tiny minority.” I could not disagree more and your comments just enhance my own.
You missed what I believe is the most important issue, at least for this venue:
Dale, whatever your outlook on Christianity in general, my only request is that you have respect for those posting here who are Christians and do not deserve to be painted with this brush you bring out from time to time. I hope that you can appreciate that.
Again, no matter what one’s view is of Christianity in general, respect should be given to those who post here who happen to be Christians. You can’t respect someone and at the same time declare that their beliefs are dead. Can we agree on this point?
Note: it’s not really germane but just to be accurate, the SB domestic charity is the North American Mission Board. There is no such “secular contractor” arrangement there. But I only picked SB for this example because I was able to see them operate first hand during hurricane relief and I am aware of their efficiency with funds.
David
Raj says:Not all people who self-identify as christians are christo-fascists. But, unless those who self-identify as christians speak out against the christo-fascists, what are those of us who have nothing to do with christianity to believe–other than that they agree with them?
Exactly.
BTW, this argument about social change and hearts and minds was used when I was young as a reason to opposse civil rights for black people. It ran on the same lines above: there is no real reason to have laws allowing black people to vote etc until we change hearts and minds. Not a very compelling argument then, and not one now.
To me there is no moral equivalence between “Christo-fascists who want to deny SSA (same sex attracted) people equal rights” and Christians who don’t don’t want to deny SSA equal rights but don’t openly support those rights nor criticize the Christo-Fascists who oppose equality. I certainly wouldn’t support trying to make a moderate Christian preacher who privately supports GLBT rights lose his job for simply failing to openly do so. If instead he believed and expressed his desire to deny SSA people equal rights I might agree he should lose his job.
To non-religious people like me it falsely seems like religion automatically is anti-gay because we only hear from the oponents while moderate supporters are silent because they share a great deal else in common with Christo-fascists like Dobson, Exodus, Throckmorton, Chambers and the like. There’s a world of difference between that openly anti-gay group and the aforementioned sympathic and quiet clergy. It would be a mistake to assume there are no Christian GLBT supporters simply because we never seem to encounter them. Chambers, Dobson, Exodus, “FOTF” et al (to the best of my knowledge)haven’t particularly been
been subjected to demonstrations and shunnings. That is where strong opposition is most beneficial as it emphasizes the difference between the moderate and right wing Christians and demonstrates the anti-gays as the extremists they are. Painting liberal Christians with the same broad negative brush as the anti-GLBTs is going to backfire because those are the American voting block that’s going to decide if there is GLBT equality. Treating them like the same sort of enemy Exodus and FOTF are is going to unite them with the Christo-fascists against GLBTs as supporters of sympathetic quiet clergy recoil from overt attacks such as job action.
To me its a mandatory feature of fairness that even if the majority of a group is against you that you do not treat any individual member of the group as though they are against you until they openly demonstrate they are. I don’t always live up to that, but I try my best.
David, I am troubled by your statement “Raj said ‘The christo-facscists want to deny SSA (same sex attracted) people equal rights.’
David said ‘Raj, your drifting into civil matters again. You can fight tooth and nail (and should) against any legislation that compromises equal rights. I’m talking about social change, the hearts and minds of people who believe that homosexual sex is a sin. Many of these people have been taught that all their lives and it takes time for a society to get over that.'”
David, it seems you’re telling us not to oppose Christian anti-gay attitudes until they become specific anti-gay legal actions. I think the battle is mostly lost by then. I agree with you that we shouldn’t make broad statements like “Christian beliefs are dead” because no doubt some Christian beliefs are good and shared with the secular society – “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” However, I think specific religious beliefs like “GLBTs should be tortured for an eternity for having a monogamous relationship with the one they love most” are best disparaged to the max. We must accept the person in general, but more strongly oppose the specific unfair belief and the individuals who openly want to deny our equality.
We can’t expect liberal Christians to do this for us as they are not directly affected by the denial of GLBT equality. We have to do it ourselves and the Human Rights Campaign, National Gay and Lesbian Task force, etc. are the ones best placed to do it. We and they are the ones who have the opportunity to more strongly oppose specific anti-gay (religious) beliefs and lies and specific anti-gay (religious) people like “FOTF” and Exodus. Let’s step up the demonstration and shunning of specific anti-gay groups and people, not spread it to moderate christians and risk alienating them as the decisive voting block. Let’s urge the gay equality groups with the money to provide funding for ex-ex-gay staff to be available for interviews countering ex-gay lies. Lets urge them to put some of those millions into national advertsing campaigns debunking common lies like “change is possible” and “all gays die young”.
It will take a very small change in the minds of the large moderate block of voters to see a big change in their open support of GLBT equality. As the antigays need to be more vigorously opposed moderate Christians are susceptible to the malicious lies of Dobson, Chambers, Throckmorton, et al. Even if moderate christians don’t, we can emphasize to our benefit the huge difference between the beliefs of moderate and anti-gay christians. Moderates like the United Church have clearly stated they do not believe monogamous gays deserve eternal torture. They aren’t going to backtrack on that. Night and day difference between them and Exodus or “Focus on the Family”. Best to emphasize that difference by letting moderate Christians watch from the sidelines while shunning and demonstrating the out of the mainstream antigay attitudes of Exodus, Throckmorton, and “Focus on the Family” and the like. Those particular Christo-fascists aren’t driven by compassion, they’re driven by the belief that white men have been on top in society and religious fundamentalism is an excuse to keep it that way by keeping minorities, women, and pseudo-women (gays) demonstrably beneath them.
Dalea Said: BTW, this argument about social change and hearts and minds was used when I was young as a reason to opposse civil rights for black people. It ran on the same lines above: there is no real reason to have laws allowing black people to vote etc until we change hearts and minds. Not a very compelling argument then, and not one now.
No, not at all. And let me say from the start that the struggle for civil rights for blacks is not a perfect analogy for that of gay rights, but it does work to some extent. We (gays) don’t really have a situation that compares to the lack of voting rights but if we did, then obviously that would come first. We have to be represented to have a voice at all. The vote was of primary importance to the civil rights movement, as was equality in housing, employment, and all the rest. But it was understood that you can’t legislate the hearts and minds of those who didn’t consider a black person equal to a white. You still can’t, but we’ve come a long way in 40+ years.
Randi,
I agree with most of your last 2 posts. Let me highlight a couple of items to clarify my position.
Chambers, Dobson, Exodus, “FOTF” et al (to the best of my knowledge)haven’t particularly been
been subjected to demonstrations and shunnings.
I agree. These represent something much more than the Church. These are formidable religious-political machines that are trying to mandate changes in civil society that most definitely would be detrimental to gay rights. This is their primary purpose. We have to counter false information and highlight insincere motivations from these groups.
Let’s step up the demonstration and shunning of specific anti-gay groups and people, not spread it to moderate christians and risk alienating them as the decisive voting block.
I agree 100% – XGW is a great resource for understanding how to do just that.
However, I think specific religious beliefs like “GLBTs should be tortured for an eternity for having a monogamous relationship with the one they love most” are best disparaged to the max.
This comment might shed some light on our two perspectives. While I have encountered the random Neanderthal that believes we “should” be tortured (and more often that not this type isn’t even a believer), etc, this is not the general view of even the most fundamentalist Christian I have met. They believe that gay sex is a sin, therefore it “will” lead to eternal damnation, etc. They believe this because they understand Scripture to say it is so. Again, I’m talking about the average Christian sitting in church, not James Dobson trying to raise money and affect government.
Most of those atrocities Dale is fond of mentioning from Christian history occurred when the Church and the Government became intertwined. This country (US) was born in large part out of an intolerance for such an arrangement. We have only to look at the Mideast to see contemporary examples of just how bad things get when religious doctrine governs the people. It is in the best interests of the sacred and the secular that we don’t allow it here. Everyone must be free to believe as they wish. That freedom can’t exist if beliefs govern.
Those particular Christo-fascists aren’t driven by compassion, they’re driven by the belief that white men have been on top in society and religious fundamentalism is an excuse to keep it that way by keeping minorities, women, and pseudo-women (gays) demonstrably beneath them.
I suspect the truth is far simpler 😉
I’m getting typer’s cramp. It would be interesting if there was a way to have actual audio conference discussions for certain issues. It would make a great podcast.
David
David, there is no significant difference between the belief that “gays should be tortured for an eternity for having a loving monogamous intimate relationship” and the common fundamentalist belief “that gay sex is a sin, therefore it “will” lead to eternal damnation, etc.”. Part of ALL Christian belief is that God is moral and right. The fundamentalists will certainly tell you they believe that God is moral and right and gay sex is a sin. It then goes without saying that that person must also believe monogamous supportive gays should be unconditionally eternally tortured BECAUSE that is moral and right, or God wouldn’t have made it a sin. You can’t claim to believe gay sex is always sinful and not also believe monogamous supportive gays should be eternally tortured. God wouldn’t do what isn’t right, God does what should be done. If you don’t believe monogamous gays should be eternally tortured you cannot believe a moral God says all gay sex is sinful.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
The blind belief that gay sex is a sin means monogamous loving supportive gay relationshps are sinful. That is unfair, wrong and evil in and of itself. The belief that gay sex is always sinful is just as immoral as the belief that straight sex is always sinful. Sex is one of he ties that binds and blind opposition to the formation of love through sexual attraction is wrong.
Randi,
I think that their position would not be that one “should” be punished for eternity. I think a great many Christians believe gays will be punished and follow that with “and I just don’t want that to happen, so please just stop being gay”. Contorted as that thinking may be, it is still a form of compassion.
In fact, it is just this issue (how to reconcile a just God with the eternal torment of monogamous committed loving gay couples) that is causing the biggest upheaval of the Christian Church in America since the civil war.
Decent loving Christians don’t hold a lot of press conferences because “I don’t oppose gay people” doesn’t sell copy. They seem invisible simply because they aren’t controversial. They aren’t “sexy”.
But some of them are actually trying hard to get their message out.
METHODIST
In the past month, the United Methodist church’s judicial counsel took two anti-gay positions. This got lots of press.
Immediately following, the bishops of the church issued a unanimous joint letter contradicting the position of the judicial counsel.
https://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F5091EF63C5A0C768CDDA80994DD404482
And then last week, the largest Methodist church in Minnesota held a service to apologize for positions taken by the church.
https://www.startribune.com/stories/465/5740553.html
Several Methodist churches ran ads in newspapers saying that everyone regardless of sexual orientations.
https://www.registerguard.com/news/2005/11/23/d1.cr.firstmethodist.1123.p1.php?section=cityregion
Including the tiny, rural, conservative little county in the corner of CA, OR and NV where my grandmother was raised:
https://www.record-bee.com/Stories/0,1413,255~33813~3142370,00.html
EPISCOPAL
This church is going to split, world wide, over the issue of homosexuality and Christianity. And the American, Canadian, and English branches of the Church of England will lose OVER HALF of their worldwide membership rather than push gay people out of the church.
There are too many news stories to post.
LUTHERAN
Minnesota is up for an anti-gay marriage amendment. In May one of the state’s biggest denominations spoke out against the amendment. The South-Central Wisconsin Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America voted to oppose the amendment.
https://www.365gay.com/Newscon05/11/112505wiscAmend.htm
Meanwhile, the denomination itself is in full fledged civil war over the issue. Their current position is the untenable one of don’t ask, don’t tell, leaving no one happy and nothing resolved. If you don’t think that these Lutherans fighting for our inclusion in their church family aren’t taking efforts on our part, you don’t understand denominational politics.
https://www.christianpost.com/article/church/2397/section/lutheran.council.acts.on.sexuality.recommendations/1.htm
Many are paying a price for what is to them a position of faith. I teared up over an article I read a while back about a parish in the Midwest (as I recall) that had staked out a position of being open to gay people. They didn’t have any gay congregants, and didn’t really know anyone it could impact, but they had decided that God had called on them to be accepting and they wanted the world to know.
UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST
Voted this year to encourage its member churches to perform gay marriage and called upon its members to be activists for gay rights (they are not hierarchical and don’t have “official” positions of the church)
https://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051124/NEWS/511240348/1006
FRIENDS (QUAKERS)
Long active allies of the gay community. No post required.
BAPTIST
American Baptists, much smaller and less conservative than the Southern Baptist, is in danger of splitting on the issue. Leadership of the Southern California region wants to drop the affiliation because the American Baptist church leaders refused to enforce anti-gay provisions against gay accepting Baptist churches. The vote is in December. West Virginia, their largest region, voted on a similar position earlier this year.
https://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/religion/13012024.htm
This week the denomination has taken a harder stance, declaring that homosexuality is incompatible with scripture. But as the vote was 59 to 45 (with 5 abstentions) this is far from the final resolution. And it cannot be said that in the midst of this battle that there were not allies paying tremendous cost for what nuance support they could give.
The Southern Baptists are the greatest holdouts against gay people, refusing to acknowledge that actual gay people exist. They cut ties this week with two Southern Baptist universities that were not anti-gay enough for them, Mercer and Belmont. This stance has cost each of the universities millions of dollars. Some Christian administrators have paid a very high price for reducing bigotry if not outright support.
Further, while the Southern Baptist church is officially vile and bilious on the subject, that may not be a reflection of the opinions of all members. To some extent, being Southern Baptist in the American South is like being Catholic in Mexico. There is a cultural “belonging” to the church that does not extend to the endorsement of all positions.
However, this is by far the hardest ground to hoe and I have respect for those who either stay and battle or, like President Jimmy Carter, publicly leave over the intolerance of the faith.
SUPPORTIVE CHRISTIANS
I think I’ve provided enough to show that Christianity as a whole is not intolerant or anti-gay. None of us here claim that the majority of Christians are supportive or champions of gay causes.
But to suggest that there are none or that they aren’t willing to pay a price for us is just clearly mistaken. If one continues to think otherwise, I suspect it has less to do with the existence of supportive Christians and more to do with one’s own intolerance and bias.
Sorry, Presbyterians, I forgot you:
PRESBYTERIAN
This week a pastor in Virginia decided that if he couldn’t perform gay marriage, he wouldn’t perform any marriage.
“So far the response to Clarendon’s decision has been overwhelmingly positive, Ensign said. After the news broke, his colleagues elected him to be one of eight commissioners to attend the 2006 Presbyterian General Assembly. With the exception of a few prank phone calls, most have congratulated the church for its stand. One grateful Presbyterian sent in a check for $500, Ensign said, sounding stunned.”
https://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1128768365641
https://www.washblade.com/2005/11-25/news/localnews/wed-nix.cfm
Also this week, although the church’s official position is that to be a gay pastor you have to be celibate, a church in Dobbs Ferry, NY ordained an openly non-celibate gay man.
https://www.houstonvoice.com/2005/11-25/news/religion/ribs.cfm
We can continue to expect that the Presbyterian chuch will be debating this issue for years to come. With each debate we hear more voices for inclusion.
Timothy, great job, but I still disagree with this: “I think that their position would not be that one “should” be punished for eternity. I think a great many Christians believe gays will be punished and follow that with “and I just don’t want that to happen, so please just stop being gay”. Contorted as that thinking may be, it is still a form of compassion.”
The beliefs that even loving, monogamous but unrepentant gays “should”, versus simply “will” be tortured eternally are for all practical purposes interchangeable to me. If one believes a moral and just God “will” do that then one can’t honestly claim they don’t believe it “should” happen. “and I just don’t want you to go to hell” isn’t sincere to me, just a convenient excuse to suppress other’s freedom because that makes a religious person marginally happier. Compassion requires being open to the idea that its immoral to believe you are better placed to judge what is best for a responsible adult than that adult themselves. Christians like DL Foster claim to be open to all possibilities but clearly demonstrate they mean only the possibilities that falsely justify them restricting GLBT equality.
I see no way a compassionate Christian can reconcile a just God with the eternal torment of loving committed monogamous gay couples.
That’s a clear line in the sand to me.
ReasonAble at November 26, 2005 09:42 AM
Raj, your drifting into civil matters again. You can fight tooth and nail (and should) against any legislation that compromises equal rights. I’m talking about social change…
Oh. David. I lived through the Vietnam War era. What you are talking about is winning the “hearts and minds.” It didn’t work then, and it proved disastrous for the US.
BTW, I’ll cut to the chase. I really don’t care how much “good” you claim that Catholic Charities claims to do. It is fairly evident that they are little more than government contractors. Do a google search, but I will direct you to one page I found quite rapidly The Seven Deadly Sins of Government Funding for Private Charities https://www.policyreview.org/mar97/loconte.html I have seen others.
I think I’ve provided enough to show that Christianity as a whole is not intolerant or anti-gay.
That is pretty much irrelevant. To the extent that other purported “christians” fail to raise their voices against the party line run by the christo-fascists, they are essentially “going” along” with the christo-fascists. How is anyone to tell them apart?
Raj, I think its wrong not to give any weight to the examples such as Timothy gave of Christians not being intolerant or anti-gay. The Nazis and the pope at the time weren’t the moral equivalent of each other. You tell them apart by which one openly expresses and/or actions oposition to you. You tell them apart by the belief that a just and loving god is irreconcilable with the eternal torture of loving monogamous but unrepentant gays.
Timothy said:
I think that their position would not be that one “should” be punished for eternity. I think a great many Christians believe gays will be punished and follow that with “and I just don’t want that to happen, so please just stop being gay”. Contorted as that thinking may be, it is still a form of compassion.
Yes, I would agree 100%. This has certainly been my experience.
Randi said:
The beliefs that even loving, monogamous but unrepentant gays “should”, versus simply “will” be tortured eternally are for all practical purposes interchangeable to me. If one believes a moral and just God “will” do that then one can’t honestly claim they don’t believe it “should” happen.
You are assuming that Christians get to judge their God. Or perhaps it is deeper, because this bit of logic only works if one creates one’s own God instead of the other way around. If I were to believe that Christian faith is based on myth, I might be able to understand and agree with this point. But if we assume that God exists, as Christians obviously do, and that scripture represents God’s truth, then there is no “should” involved – it just is. They are dealing with life on that basis.
Raj said:
Oh. David. I lived through the Vietnam War era. What you are talking about is winning the “hearts and minds.” It didn’t work then, and it proved disastrous for the US.
Your analogy of the civil rights struggle was flawed but this one is really unfair. The only similarity between my point and this statement is my use of the phrase “hearts and minds”. The rest is entirely off track.
BTW, I’ll cut to the chase. I really don’t care how much “good” you claim that Catholic Charities claims to do. It is fairly evident that they are little more than government contractors. Do a google search, but I will direct you to one page I found quite rapidly The Seven Deadly Sins of Government Funding for Private Charities https://www.policyreview.org/mar97/loconte.html I have seen others.
Actually, you were the one that made the claim about the Catholic Charities (Raj quote: “Sorry, babe, but Catholic Charities and Jewish Charities are second to none in feeding and clothing the poor.”) – I brought up Southern Baptists. SB refused Federal funds precisely because of the issues brought out in the article you referenced (the summary of which is that private charities do better without government intervention). Again, we have drifted from the original point; to deny that churches do an enormous amount of charitable good in this world is simply to deny the facts. This was to counter a statement by Dale which I have repeated in my previous posts. I feel like I am dancing with you Raj instead of debating – can I lead now 🙂
That is pretty much irrelevant. To the extent that other purported “christians” fail to raise their voices against the party line run by the christo-fascists, they are essentially “going” along” with the christo-fascists. How is anyone to tell them apart?
Ask them? Seriously, you propose making broad assumptions based on a lack of information, then blaming the subject of those assumptions for not providing you with what you want to know ahead of time. Am I to base my opinion of all people on what they do or do not rail against? Raj, I’ve not heard you voice an opinion in the media against bare-backing, does this mean that you believe this to be a good practice? How about slavery in the Sudan? Or female genital mutilation? Do you see how absurd this requirement is?
We are all individuals and the world seems to work best when we treat each other that way.
David
Roger stated:
quit trying to deny that AIDS started in the homosexual community. IT’S DOCUMENTED morons. Science or medicine long ago traced back to the original case of AIDS in the US, and it was, indeed, in the gay community, and for the first number of years of its existence, AIDS was almost EXCLUSIVELY limited to homosexuals.
It appears that he is not the only one under this mis-conception which was rebutted recently i.e.:
• Globally, HIV is a condition affecting the heterosexual community. In excess of 75% of HIV transmission is through heterosexual intercourse.
• The earliest known case of HIV was found in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 1959. HIV did not start in the gay community in the 1980s.
• The reasons why it is believed Africa has been more severely affected by HIV than other areas are socio-economic and cultural.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/letters/story.jsp?story=670755
David, Christians that don’t judge the morality of their religious ideas have my utter contempt. “That’s just the way it is” ranks right up there with “but we’ve always done it that way”. Those are immoral beliefs because they pre-judge reality without the facts and prohibit adressing with positive change problems stemming from religious beliefs – beliefs like “kill the infidels” is “just the way it is” because the Koran says so. Christians teach that God gave people free will, that means they get to judge their God. The bible says with God all things are possible – that means its possible there is nothing sinful about loving monogamous but unrepentant gay relationships. Consideration is inextricable from compassion and there is no way one can consider the belief that gays simply “will” be tortured for eternity compassionate when one hasn’t considered the morality of the idea. Raj may paint Christianity with an incorrect broad negative brush, but you are painting it with an incorrect broad positive brush. Clearly religion has been involved in both good and evil, overgeneralizing either way is a sin against the objective truth and fairness.
You can’t ask Raj to believe that when you don’t yourself. It is not possible to believe in a just God and say his actions are morally indifferent, that its simply “just the way it is”.
Christians are lying to themselves and to others if they claim to believe in a just god AND what God “will” do is not the same as what “should” be done. That kind of cop-out is magical thinking which is extraordinary to what is normally seen in nature. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, don’t ask any non-religious person to buy such beliefs without such proof.
Randi,
“That’s just the way it is” ranks right up there with “but we’ve always done it that way”
That’s not quite what I said but still there is a difference in these two statements. The former speaks of something that exists outside our control, such as God, while the latter speaks of something originating from us, such as tradition. If I tell you that stepping off a cliff will cause you to fall and die, that isn’t because I haven’t sufficiently evaluated the morality of the laws of gravity – it just is. If I tell you that it is our custom to kill those who approach the cliff, that is something we can evaluate and change.
Christians teach that God gave people free will, that means they get to judge their God.
Actually, strict Calvinists do not believe in free will, but a larger percentage of the Christian Church does. The belief is that God gave us free will to either accept or reject Him, it has nothing to do with judging Him or anything else beyond that scope. The reason being that you can’t truly love God if you had no choice in the first place.
The bible says with God all things are possible – that means its possible there is nothing sinful about loving monogamous but unrepentant gay relationships.
That assumption ignores the nature of God as revealed in the rest of scripture. One might as well say that God can just do away with the whole sin and hell thing altogether since all things are possible. If (the if is important) scripture does say that same-sex sex is a sin, then by His own nature, God can’t accept it. These are the kinds of misinterpretations that are understandable if one either is unfamiliar with Christian belief or simply doesn’t share it. The Bible puts it rather well actually when it says that this stuff is “foolishness to those who don’t believe”. If one believes this is myth, then it would be pretty foolish to live by it.
Consideration is inextricable from compassion and there is no way one can consider the belief that gays simply “will” be tortured for eternity compassionate when one hasn’t considered the morality of the idea.
If this were simply a philosophy, I would agree. But again, Christians don’t get to judge their God. Think of what you are asking for a moment; the creation is supposed to tell the Creator that He got it wrong? To the Christian, the entire universe – the concept of morality and all – came from God. Asking Him to change the rules is not an option.
What the Christian can do is study to see whether or not scripture really does clearly state that what we are talking about is a sin. It is quite clear that the monogamous part is accurate – God abhors sleeping around. But I think the passages related to homosexuality are sufficiently vague as to warrant careful study. The only one that is clear in the root language is from Leviticus and one would have to be nuts to base such a doctrine on Levitical Laws. It is this study and debate that Timothy described above – the Church is dealing with it and at a pace that is nothing short of brisk for these kinds of issues.
Raj may paint Christianity with an incorrect broad negative brush, but you are painting it with an incorrect broad positive brush. Clearly religion has been involved in both good and evil, overgeneralizing either way is a sin against the objective truth and fairness.
If I didn’t say it strongly enough I will now – the Church has certainly been involved in both good and evil throughout history. I really think I’ve made that clear and then some, so I can’t quite accept that I am “overgeneralizing”. I looked back over my remarks so far to make sure. There have been a number of issues tossed around so I’m finding it difficult to keep track.
It is not possible to believe in a just God and say his actions are morally indifferent…
I’m not saying that God’s actions are morally indifferent. I’m saying that for the Christian, morality comes from God and that is an absolute. If God does indeed consider something a sin, then by definition it can’t be moral, and punishment for that sin can’t be immoral.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, don’t ask any non-religious person to buy such beliefs without such proof.
I’m not asking you to buy anything. I’m only asking you to understand what a Christian “buys” (believes).
It was not my intent to dig so much into theology – it just seemed to develop in that direction. You are free to accept Christian beliefs or not. My only concern is that we respect each other here and be as accurate as possible when we do talk about beliefs and the people who hold them.
David
Randi, David,
I do have to agree with Randi that it in incumbent upon all people to measure the morality of their religion. To be a true believer, you have to question.
However, Randi, I caution you on one thing. Do not insist that all persons have already questioned their beliefs on absolutely everything. If someone isn’t there yet, it doesn’t mean they are immoral or puppets or thoughtless or don’t value fairness; it may just mean they aren’t there yet.
And also don’t assume that the person who “doesn’t want you to go to hell” really has some other ulterior motive. That isn’t fair.
Raj,
“That is pretty much irrelevant. To the extent that other purported “christians” fail to raise their voices against the party line run by the christo-fascists, they are essentially “going” along” with the christo-fascists.”
Did you read the post before you responded to it? Because, frankly, your response is baffling. I listed illustration of MILLIONS of Christians that ARE raising their voice against anti-gay bigotry.
Christianity is splitting apart because Christians are not in agreement over the issue of homosexuality, and it isn’t relevant? There are people taking a stand to be inclusive of you at great cost to themselves, and it isn’t relevant?
How selfish can you be?
You are living in the midst of the single more significant Christian conflict in 150 years and you are determined not to see it.
C’mon, man. This is exciting stuff. Open your eyes. Read your papers. Watch the news. It’s almost daily.
Google “gay” and “church” and you will find someone raising their voice in their community. Some show up at pride parades. Some declare themselves “affirming” or “reconciling” (specifically welcoming GLBTs). Some are more subtle, like hosting a Gay Mens Chorus concert or running ads saying “all are welcome here”. Some send delegates to their national conventions trying to change the rules. Some are choosing openly gay pastors and defying their denomination to do anything about it. Some are willing to lose multi-million dollar donations, like the Texas Christian school that refused to remove gay supportive books from their shelves. If you don’t hear it, it’s because you plugging your ears.
Let go of “all Christians are evil” for half a minute and see what is actually going on.
For example, in case you missed reading the half dozen articles I listed (because they were irrelevant): when the largest Methodist church in Minnesota held an apology service, the minister was surprised by two things. First, his congregation packed the place. People who only come a few times per year were there. The Methodists in his congregation wanted to be heard, and heard loudly, that they didn’t buy into the bigotry.
Second, the gay community showed up to hear the apology. It wasn’t even his intent to get new converts. He wasn’t even trying to “reach out” as much as he was trying to tell the world “We disagree!!”
And somehow this just isn’t relevant. What on earth could this church (or anyone) possibly have done that would have been “relevant”?
To me, it looks like you might be just looking for an excuse to justify your biases. I hope I’m wrong. Because that wouldn’t be any different than what FOTF does.
David – Pick and choose absolutism. The bible and all religious texts are self contradicting at some point and as such demand believers make choices about what a moral god wants. Fundamentalists Christians have judged their god in the past and decided they don’t have to follow the frequent, intricate, and permanent biblical requirement for sincere animal sacrifices. In the past many, although admittedly not all, have alternately decided the bible counsels both for and against slavery. A large majority of even fundamentalist Christians have judged their god was wrong about his Leviticus command that gays be put to death. Its highly debatable to me from both a fairness and bilical point of view. I don’t see where gay=sin is a sacred cow.
I think most Christians have demonstrated they don’t believe all moral absolutes from god when they don’t want too. I’m sure there are some sweet little old grannies who sincerely believe its compasionate to prevent loving monogamous gay relationships, but in general that religious claim of compassion is an insincere lie in the hands of Exodus, or “Focus on the Family”. I think you’re giviing them an underserved free ride on the compassion coat-tails of some naive granny. What deeply troubles me is that that kind of “compassion” demands not just understanding but GLBTs’ right to self determination.
Timothy said:
I do have to agree with Randi that it is incumbent upon all people to measure the morality of their religion. To be a true believer, you have to question.
This may just be semantics but I would say they might question the existence of God; whether the God of the Bible is the one true God, etc. But if one truly believes that, then to question His morality would be pointless. They may question their interpretation of scripture, but not God himself. That would go against the entire notion of a sovereign God. However I admit that, in my experience, those who have been through a “crisis of faith” often come out more mature and balanced for the search. And even the Bible says to take nothing for granted, but to instead study scripture yourself for the truth.
Posted by: Timothy at November 27, 2005 07:23 PM
Once again, nodding to your extensive evidence that the Church is dealing with this seriously and it is a positive thing.
Randi said:
Fundamentalists Christians have judged their god in the past and decided they don’t have to follow the frequent, intricate, and permanent biblical requirement for sincere animal sacrifices.
This is simply inaccurate. There are clear boundaries in scripture as to when and why animal sacrifices were abandoned. In fact, the reason they became unnecessary is at the core of the Christian faith. I’m unaware of any time when this was in question.
In the past many, although admittedly not all, have alternately decided the bible counsels both for and against slavery. A large majority of even fundamentalist Christians have judged their god was wrong about his Leviticus command that gays be put to death. Its highly debatable to me from both a fairness and bilical point of view. I don’t see where gay=sin is a sacred cow.
Your first is an example of conflicting interpretation of scripture. Your second is your own misunderstanding of what Levitical Law was all about and the select group to whom it applied. And Timothy has given excellent examples to show that “gay=sin” is not a sacred cow.
I think most Christians have demonstrated they don’t believe all moral absolutes from god when they don’t want too.
There are definitely Christians who selectively ignore certain aspects of scripture. Divorce and remarriage comes to mind.
I’m sure there are some sweet little old grannies who sincerely believe its compasionate to prevent loving monogamous gay relationships, but in general that religious claim of compassion is an insincere lie in the hands of Exodus, or “Focus on the Family”. I think you’re giviing them an underserved free ride on the compassion coat-tails of some naive granny. What deeply troubles me is that that kind of “compassion” demands not just understanding but GLBTs’ right to self determination.
I think the two extremes you have given are unfair and don’t at all represent the majority. I am not giving anyone a free ride, I’m just stating what has overwhelmingly been my experience with individual Christians. I’ve never been to an ex-gay ministry, but we have heard from those who have commented on this very board about how incredibly sincere the people there were. Even if they are sincerely wrong, it’s important to understand their motivation. I’m not so sure I would extend that view to an organization like FOTF. They are involved with political and legal fights that bring issues of faith into civil life. This goes from offering something to forcing it. That is the only way anyone can truly “demand your right to self determination.”
Timothy at November 27, 2005 07:23 PM
This is a joke, right? I haven’t said that “all christians are evil.” What I said was–and I guess it missed your attention–that unless the self-professed christians who disagreed with the screed of the anti-gay christians spoke up, one could certainly presume that they agreed with them.
I heard Jim Wallis–you know who he is, the head of a pseudo-liberal evangelical christian movement–on a local public radio station (WBUR, Boston). He was asked point blank about state recognition of same sex marriages. He pulled a “Ross Perot.” He opined “let’s get an expert commissiont.” Let’s see what might happened. He hemmed and hawed and basically made a fool of himself.
Another incident. I went to an Easter service at a local christian church (in the center of town in Wellesley, MA). It is a rather upscale town (the homes of Wellesley College and Babson). I thumbed through the pew bibles they had there. And yes, those bibles had the same homophobic passages that dated from my childhood in the 1960s.
I concluded that, if christians wish to reform themselves, they will have to do it from within. I also concluded that most of them don’t want to. We have bought Euros. And we have learned foreign languages.
David, you said “There are clear boundaries in scripture as to when and why animal sacrifices were abandoned. In fact, the reason they became unnecessary is at the core of the Christian faith. I’m unaware of any time when this was in question.”
Admittedly I’ve only read the old Testament, but it no where in there gives a clear statement that animal sacrifices are unnecessary. It does however state that animal sacrifices are part of god’s covenant with his people for ALL TIME. Please point out where you find a clear statement in the bible that would merely contradict that. Totally news to me if there is any such clear statement. And don’t give me this line that the sacrifice of Jesus made animal sacrifices unnecessary unless it explicitely says so. Scriptural innuendo doesn’t cut it.
With God all things are possible and an all powerful god could most certainly decide to discard all concept of sin and punishment. An all knowing god knows in advance which of his “creations” are going to sin and go to hell – he created them that way. He’s torturing them for doing what he knew they would do when he created them. He set them up to fail.
To use the word “compassion” in refering to Christian beliefs about gays is a bad, bad idea. It gives underserved credibiltity and agreement to the idea that one person (Christians) have the right to declare dominion over lives other than their own (gays). Self determination is inherent to morality, not any religion I know of. A belief that one is safe to walk over a cliff isn’t coddled by nature because its sincere. We shouldn’t coddle the few Christians who are sincere due to profound ignorance either. Better to step on a few Christian toes than let lying Christians like Exodus, Throckmorton, and “Focus on the Family” perpetuate to the general public the lie of “compassion” through exgayness. I would hope that in the interests of truth and equality all GLBTs would automatically correct any assertion that gay=sin is compassionate or sincere by clearly and unequivocally stating that is a misguided, ignorant, or malicious belief. Its a bad, bad idea for any GLBT to make any unqualifed refererence to a belief of gay=sin as compassionate or sincere. If you don’t want to confront fundamentalist christian beliefs about gays, how are you going to confront fundamentalists Islamic beliefs that holy martyrs did the right thing through terrorist attacks?
One comment. My impression is that the gay people tend to be anti-christian. It is not just a few of us misguided folk who simply need to meet the right Christians. Or who need to up their understanding of the situation. Rather, gay people have a widespread, highly developed critique of the Christian faith. And alternatives to it, some of which are within the broad contours of Christianity itself.
If you look at gay literature, of which there is quite a lot, sympathetic Christian characters almost never appear. AFAIK there have been 2 in the last 35 years. (Patrica Nell Warren’s Fancy Dancer and 6 Feet Under.) Even gay detective and mystery novels are filled with this. Zubro’s ‘The Only Good Priest’ heaps scorn on gay Christians. And it is not unusual.
Gay public intellectuals are almost never Christians. I am aware of only three: Patricia Nell Warren, Andrew Sullivan and John Boswell. (I leave out the ministers and theologians whose livlihood depends on a church generated paycheck.) Otherwise, gay authors tend to be either openly hostile, busy presenting an alternative spirituality or totally indifferent. This can be found as far back as Carpenter who began writting in the 1850’s. Wilde and I believe Forrester show this also.
So, I feel the argument here is between the ‘received wisdom’ of gay culture and those gays who are themselves Christians. And I would suggest that the gay Christians need to better inform themselves of this tradition in gay thought. It is not just islolated individuals with unique kvetches; it is a widespread, long lasting, sustained attitude.
Randi said:
Admittedly I’ve only read the old Testament, but it no where in there gives a clear statement that animal sacrifices are unnecessary. It does however state that animal sacrifices are part of god’s covenant with his people for ALL TIME. Please point out where you find a clear statement in the bible that would merely contradict that. Totally news to me if there is any such clear statement. And don’t give me this line that the sacrifice of Jesus made animal sacrifices unnecessary unless it explicitely says so. Scriptural innuendo doesn’t cut it.
What you are asking for is a “proof text” which is the same kind of nonsense that enables some to use the so called “clobber passages” against gays. What you call “scriptural innuendo” is a necessary understanding of how scripture fits together – context. However, if you want to see specific references for this they are there. The book of Hebrews would be a good starting point, but you could narrow that down to chapters 7 & 8 as I remember. If you want a single “proof text” reference, try Hebrews 7:22-27 (speaking of Jesus).
7:26 For it is indeed fitting for us to have such a high priest: holy, innocent, undefiled, separate from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. 7:27 He has no need to do every day what those priests do, to offer sacrifices first for their own sins and then for the sins of the people, since he did this in offering himself once for all. (NET BIBLE ®-First Edition)
I’m not a Biblical scholar, but with a short google or two I’m sure you can find much more about this. To put it in proper context, I’m afraid you may have to read at least some of the New Testament. As I said, it is literally the core of Christian belief, that Christ was the ultimate sacrifice. Christ died as the ultimate sacrifice for our sins, no other sacrifices are now necessary. I think you will find that this is not vague at all.
With God all things are possible and an all powerful god could most certainly decide to discard all concept of sin and punishment.
Well, lets take it down to our level. If an all powerful President were to eliminate all laws and punishment, would that be just? What about those who had already been punished? Doing so would certainly work against one of God’s attributes – that He is just. It would also work against the absolute He claims for Himself – that he is the same yesterday, today and forever. And there are certainly things that God cannot do, i.e. He can’t sin. Reading that passage about “all things are possible” in this way is to misunderstand the context (proof texting).
An all knowing god knows in advance which of his “creations” are going to sin and go to hell – he created them that way. He’s torturing them for doing what he knew they would do when he created them. He set them up to fail.
This is a consequence of that free will issue. There is always a choice, and there is aways a way out. But without the possibility of more than one choice, what value is there in anything? We would be a world of robots.
If you don’t want to confront fundamentalist christian beliefs about gays, how are you going to confront fundamentalists Islamic beliefs that holy martyrs did the right thing through terrorist attacks?
If I gave you the impression that one shouldn’t confront beliefs, I didn’t mean to. I’m asking that you understand where probably the majority of Christians are coming from before you do. Timothy described that best above. Your resistance to this seems to imply that you would prefer to think of Christians as “the enemy” which leads to the kind of unfairness that prompted this entire thread.
David
David, the fundamentalist (christian and otherwise) beliefs and treatment of gays are my enemies. I don’t believe there is a real clear dividing line between people and their motives, although we best try to make and adhere to a solid artificial one. You did better on the clear contradictory quote than I thought you would, but I still find the specifics there debatable. There were animal sacrifices simply because they are a sweet savour unto the lord, I don’t see that being exempted just the specific sacrifices as sin, and even then only a qualified exemption, not an unconditional one.
Your god could most certainly restrict our behaviour from sin without eliminating our free will. There are many, many practical and inviolable limits on your free will now. You cannot reach around the moon to wave at me, you cannot hover above the ground despite your best effort of free will. The lack of your free will to do those things doesn’t make you a robot. You COULD have free will choices which simply do not include the free will to sin. There is no reason why an all powerful and all knowing god couldn’t have done this. What kind of perverse pleasure does he get from seeing humans end up choosing eternal torture exactly as he knows they will?
I’m going to drink beer now…if you choose to respond again.
Oh yeah, and you can’t compare an all powerful god to an all powerful president any more than Raj can compare the vietnam literal war to the figurative culture war of words.
Re: “It is not just islolated individuals with unique kvetches; it is a widespread, long lasting, sustained attitude.”
Unfortunately, you are very correct.
I have no idea why you think we’re somehow uninformed with the wider “tradition of gay thought”, which is, as you put it, is largely anti-Christian. And I would agree that given much of the homophobia that exists in many (even most) Christian churches, it is to be expected.
But that leaves me to ask, so what? Do we counter by behaving the exactly the same as bad Christians? To me, it looks like the answer coming from this “received wisdom” is a resounding “Yes!”
I argue that this “received wisdom” is dead wrong in this instance. It is unwise to decry our enemy’s tactics by emulating them.
Randi said:
There were animal sacrifices simply because they are a sweet savour unto the lord, I don’t see that being exempted just the specific sacrifices as sin, and even then only a qualified exemption, not an unconditional one.
Perhaps if you were to supply the passage you are reading this from I could understand better. However, from this I can tell that you are operating on a misconception; animal sacrifices in the Old Testament were for the atonement of sin, not because God liked the smell of good BBQ 😉 The innocent animal was offered for the sins of that year, establishing the shedding of blood as the only method for the atonement of sins. Those passages that mention the offering as being a “sweet smelling aroma” to God are describing His pleasure with the obedience of those repenting. Apart from atonement, there is no reason for the sacrifices. Christ’s sacrifice renders all others unnecessary.
The last paragraph you wrote is really just asking why God didn’t create the universe differently, and that is not something I am qualified to answer (nor is anyone else likely to be).
As to my all powerful president analogy, I was going to include a caveat but forgot. You have to cut me some slack there – it’s hard to find an earthly equivalent to use for comparison. In Raj’s case both examples were from the mortal plane and so my expectations were higher on a match since the choices are many.
Posted by: Jim Burroway at November 28, 2005 03:27 PM
Interesting take on the subject.
David
No, David, that last paragraph wasn’t me asking why god didn’t create the universe differently, it was me saying “I wasn’t created in that god’s image – that’s not like me at all.”
Well, it seems to me that gay people come up with their own unique, very gay ways of dealing with the sitution. In this case, our weapons are irony and satire. One of the most effective tools gay people have come up with to counter the religious right is Landover Baptist. This is a clear, slightly satirical, photorealistic view of evangelical Christianity. From the posted comments there, it seems almost no one can distinguish between Landover and the evangelical church. Which is an accurate finding on the part of the public. I have noticed that some eC’s find themselves embarrassed by this, as they should be. Not yet at the point of doing something, but that will come.
What I seem to be getting at is this. Christianity is not a central feature of gay life or thought. It seems to be on the periphery of the gay world. And a very maligned periphery it is. IMHE, gay Christians do not seem to realize this. They feel they can barge in anywhere, wave a bunch of bible stuff around and get immediate acceptance and recognition. What I would like to see is these gay Christians realize they are in a world where the idea that Christianity utterly sucks is widespread. And a world where very many actively religious people are not Christians. And that gay Christians need to take this into account. Not just assume that we are all into singing Kumbaya. Still looking for this.
ReasonAble at November 28, 2005 04:07 PM
Perhaps if you were to supply the passage you are reading this from I could understand better. However, from this I can tell that you are operating on a misconception; animal sacrifices in the Old Testament were for the atonement of sin, not because God liked the smell of good BBQ 😉 The innocent animal was offered for the sins of that year…
It’s been a while since I read Leviticus, but animal sacrificial offerings were called for there for a number of reasons, not just for the atonement of “sin.”.
What you are referring to in the last cited sentence is the so-called “scapegoat” and that is very different than the animal sacrifices referred to in Leviticus. I don’t recall the scapegoat practice having been described in Leviticus (although it may have been described elsewhere in the OT). In the scapegoat practices two goats were selected in the community. The community symbolically heaped the collective sins onto one of the goats, who was released into the wilderness presumably to die. The other goat, which was presumptively without sin, was sacrificed in the temple. The other goat died (was sacrificed) for the community’s sins, even though he, himself was without sin.
Two points. One, the Jesus crucifiction myth seems to be very similar to the practice regarding “the other goat.” Recall that he was supposedly without sin, but he was “sacrificed” anyway. As I was taught in Sunday school (before I became bored to death) Jesus died for our sins. I largely tuned out when it became totally preposterous.
Two, a few years ago, I read over the internet that at least one point in the scapegoat practice, the first goat, on whom the sins of the community had symbolically been heaped, wandered back into the community. The community freaked out and later made sure that the first goat met a grisley end before it would return.
BTW, the death and resurrection of the god was a common myth among many religions that predated the Jesus myth. It wasn’t unique to christianity.
Oh, and I know how to spell crucifixion. I choose to misspell it intentionally, with an obvious connotation.
Dale said:
What I seem to be getting at is this. Christianity is not a central feature of gay life or thought. It seems to be on the periphery of the gay world. And a very maligned periphery it is. IMHE, gay Christians do not seem to realize this. They feel they can barge in anywhere, wave a bunch of bible stuff around and get immediate acceptance and recognition. What I would like to see is these gay Christians realize they are in a world where the idea that Christianity utterly sucks is widespread. And a world where very many actively religious people are not Christians. And that gay Christians need to take this into account. Not just assume that we are all into singing Kumbaya. Still looking for this.
Dale, this honestly seems to be coming from some deep personal experiences which I in no way want to diminish. You seem to be saying, “I’ve been hurt (angered, disgusted) by people in your world, so stay out of mine”. If that is the case, there isn’t much I can do or say to respond. If not, then I apologize for putting words in your mouth.
I would like to make one comment however. I don’t see myself as living in a “gay world” or living a “gay life”. I find this almost as repugnant as comments about “the gay lifestyle”. I am a man who is gay, and I live in the same world we all do. I hope that as time goes on this will be the outlook of more of us.
Raj said:
What you are referring to in the last cited sentence is the so-called “scapegoat” and that is very different than the animal sacrifices referred to in Leviticus. I don’t recall the scapegoat practice having been described in Leviticus (although it may have been described elsewhere in the OT).
You’re on the right track, but it is described in Leviticus in great detail.
Oh, and I know how to spell crucifixion. I choose to misspell it intentionally, with an obvious connotation.
So we have finally come full circle on this monster thread. I’ve not asked that you share these beliefs, only that you respect others here who do. Comments like this one do not have any bearing on what I believe, but they do show me that you are intent on mocking what is a very important part of me. Would you mock my being gay? If you take away this mutual respect you have nothing more than DL Foster’s board or others like it. That was my point in the beginning and it still is.
David
DaleA
I’ll repeat what I said: I would agree that given much of the homophobia that exists in many (even most) Christian churches, it [Anti-Christian attitudes among gays] is to be expected.”
But I wish you would re-read your own words here —
Christianity is not a central feature of gay life or thought. It seems to be on the periphery of the gay world. And a very maligned periphery it is. IMHE, gay Christians do not seem to realize this. They feel they can barge in anywhere, wave a bunch of bible stuff around and get immediate acceptance and recognition. What I would like to see is these gay Christians realize they are in a world where the idea that Christianity utterly sucks is widespread.
You do understand the problem, don’t you? Your line of reasoning is exactly the same as those that our opponents use against us. Let me illustrate:
Homosexuality is not a central feature of American life or thought. It seems to be on the periphery of America. And a very maligned periphery it is. IMHE, gays do not seem to realize this. They feel they can barge in anywhere, wave a bunch of gay stuff around and get immediate acceptance and recognition. What I would like to see is these gays realize they are in a world where the idea that homosexuality utterly sucks is widespread.
All it took was seven easy edits, using precisely the same argument as yours. But when our opponents say this, they would have us shut up and go away, or to change and no longer exist. That’s not what you’re proposing, is it?
Again, I go back to my original point: it is unwise to decry our enemy’s tactics by emulating them.
I’m doing my best to draw a line between respecting the person and respecting the beliefs. I don’t believe I have any moral obligation to respect specific beliefs just as anti-gay Christians feel the same. If disparaging the specific anti-gay, anti-questioning beliefs is disparaging the person, then I’m lost. Its GLBT beliefs against anti-gay religious beliefs and as a war of words has been declared by the anti-gay religious leaders GLBTs have no choice but to join the battle or allow others to take dominion over our lives.
If non-gay Christians want us to understand their beliefs in great detail then they have to expect us to be honest about our beliefs that religion is preposterous on the face of it and endlessly debateable down to minute detail (as we’ve proven here) – far from morally absolute. The talk of absolutes is ridiculous to me and is contradicted again and again by the pick and choose absolutism of religious fundamentalists. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for pick and choose absolutism, its essential to an honest evaluation and selection of morally appropriate actions, but we have to vehemently oppose selective absolutism that seeks to maximize major abusive control over GLBTs when their ultimate motivation is to trivially “improve” heterosexuals day to day lives by minimizing how much they might be indirectly troubled by thoughts of disgusting gays. The basis for pick and choose absolutism must be equally maximizing the benefit and minimizing the pain for all of humanity, not to maximize how much some have at the expense of others. Exodus, “Focus on the Family”, Throckmorton have given us no choice but to forcefully pit our morality against anti-gay religious morality. GLBT morality wins hands down as far as I can see. I am angered by the suggestion that Christians are merely explaining their viewpoint, not asking us to believe. The anti-gay Christian viewpoint is that they represent society and this gives them dominion over gay lives and choices to be with and marry the one person we love most. Please understand I consider that Christian attitude black and white immorality, not open for discussion, a moral absolute.
I don’t accept that animal sacrifices were solely atonement for sins. They were referred to as “offerings” not “atonement” througout the old testament. There were all kinds of “offerings” such as “wave” offerings where presumably one waved the meat at Christ/God. I find the common anti-gay Christian suggestion that animal sacrifices don’t apply because Leviticus doesn’t apply a hypocritical lie. The reference to animal sacrifice being part of God’s covenant with his people for all time isn’t in Leviticus, its elsewhere (I forget exactly where, but have heard fundamentalist scholars refer to it dismissively as the something-something poem).
When it comes to animal sacrifice anti-gay Christians want to say Leviticus doesn’t apply, when it comes to gays, they want to quote Leviticus and scream about the loss of religious freedom of speech such as a case in Saskatchewan where a man was fined for equating a Leviticus with saying gays are not allowed. I have to scream from the rooftops “That is disgraceful, evil, disengenous hypocrisy” and I think its best every moral GLBT stand clearly on that side of morality with me.
Indeed Jim, your analogy has validity. Gay people at first did do as you say. And it resulted in the beginnings of our drive for public acceptance. But at other points it was the quiet out reach, the public visibility of out people, the everyday lives of gay folk that pushed us forward. Gay movements seem to come in waves of in your face followed by quietly reaching out. This has resulted in what strike me as an enormous increase in acceptance in my lifetime.
But my point was that IMHE&O gay Christians do not do a comparable reaching out to other gay people who have differing religious views. It strikes me that what I am seeing here is gay Christians taking what looks like an essentially sectarian viewpoint that they wish all gay people to adhere to. I do not see an attempt to put the requests in a language or format that other gays would find comprehensible. Instead it looks like a sunday school presentation to unbelievers; followed by shock that the message did not get across.
If we are talking tactics, that is one thing. If we are talking ethical conduct, that is quite another.
DaleA,
I hope I haven’t given an impression that anyone should adhere to my sectarian views. I only press for a recognition of respect for all, regardless of their sectarian views. If there is something I said that implies that someone ought to believe in my God or my faith, then I was horribly wrong. What I believe I’ve been talking about is respect, which seems to me not to be a sectarian value.
If you can point to some examples, that would be helpful.
In these discussions, sometimes I feel like gay Christians are being hidden behind a strawman. Raj put one argument very succinctly this way:
if more christians who disagreed with the christo-fascists would speak out, those of us who don’t want to be ruled by christo-fascists might not speak out so violently against christianity.
As far as that statement is concerned, let me add “Amen!” (Hope that’s not too sectarian!) But I would hasten to add, who are the christo-fascists are we talking about?
Dobson? Perkins? Throckmorton? Nicolosi? Bennett? I have no problem with going after them, and other leaders, without mercy. No qualms whatsoever.
The followers? Well, that’s trickier, because they’re also the electorate. And if we want anything to change politically, they’re the ones we have to somehow win over. An uphill task? You bet. But it’s not impossible. Some 20% of them voted for Kerry in 2004.
I think we need to be extremely clear who our opponents are (and they’re not gay Christians!) and separate those leaders from their followers. I personally won’t be able to do this theologically, but that’s because I can’t speak their theological language. I’m not a fundamentalist, so I won’t have any credibility with them anyway. And maybe I don’t have to necessarily, because 20% of evangelicals found a way to reconcile their faith with the democratic platform and voted for Kerry in 2004 without my help.
I can’t do it theologically, but I can do it in other ways — much as the authors of this very forum are doing: Expose their lies, their ridiculous “science”, their discredited “statistics”, etc. Nobody likes to be lied to. And if people can be made to understand that this crop of leaders are lying to them, that’s the opening we need to convince them that their lies are in the service of bad political policy.
If 20% of their followers voted for Kerry last time, maybe next time we can get a few more. But you can pretty much guarantee it won’t happen if they feel we are attacking their faith, the very thing they least likely to give up. Better to leave the door open to their reconciling their faith with our goals, without us putting needless stumbling blocks in the way.
Before someone says that can never happens, I’d like to refer them to two things: the 20% figure from the exit polls, and Timothy’s list of examples where exactly this sort of thing is happening in a number of conservative Christian denominations
That is, I’d like to refer to Timothy’s list if I could find it.
Let me expand just a little for clarity’s sake. when I said:
“But you can pretty much guarantee it won’t happen if they feel we are attacking their faith, the very thing they least likely to give up.”
I should clarify. We can attack what their leaders are saying without necessarily attacking anybody’s faith. We can expose their lies, false statistics, etc. Very little of what they say is religious — it’s politics in a religious wrapper.
They use the religious wrapping because it’s more palatable to their followers. It makes their lies easier to swallow. Much the same as when I give my dogs their pills I first wrap them in cheese.
I suggest we ignore the wrapping and go straight to the bitter pill: The lies. Everything else is just cheese.
Randi said:
I don’t accept that animal sacrifices were solely atonement for sins. They were referred to as “offerings” not “atonement” througout the old testament. There were all kinds of “offerings” such as “wave” offerings where presumably one waved the meat at Christ/God.
Let me first say that it wasn’t my idea to delve into OT sacrificial practices and the associated scriptures. You asked the questions and I answered them as best I could. I wasn’t trying to turn this into a Bible study. That said, “wave offerings” I believe were made with grain. It was a kind of tithe, the way the priests of the temple were able to eat. You asked about animal sacrifices and these other things are not animal sacrifices. And if you find the passage you are talking about further down, I’ll be glad to take a look.
I was curious as to what your intense interest was with this bit of Biblical trivia, but now I understand. You have had the Leviticus clobber passage thrown at you and this is your retaliatory argument – that Fundamentalists can’t use that against homosexuality and at the same time not offer sacrifices. Well I would agree that it isn’t appropriate to use those passages against homosexuality, but for the same reasons your argument doesn’t hold up either. You can’t base major issues like that (or much of anything really) on slices of scripture.
Dale said:
It strikes me that what I am seeing here is gay Christians taking what looks like an essentially sectarian viewpoint that they wish all gay people to adhere to. I do not see an attempt to put the requests in a language or format that other gays would find comprehensible. Instead it looks like a sunday school presentation to unbelievers; followed by shock that the message did not get across.
If you are talking about the exchange above over animal sacrifice, I was only answering questions as I just explained (otherwise could you explain what you did mean?). Otherwise, I’ve not asked anyone here to believe anything. The one thing I did ask was that respect be given for the beliefs of other posters because they deserve that as much as you or anyone else here does. Treat people as individuals and tone down the hostility, especially toward those who do understand that homosexuality is not a sin. I’m here to tell you that there are a lot of gay Christians out there and unless you are going to post a bouncer at the door, they are going to be joining the debate (maybe even some straight ones!). They want to help, too. Are you going to ask them to stay in their own little gay christian closet to avoid disrespect?
Posted by: Jim Burroway at November 29, 2005 04:25 PM
Excellent! A big AMEN to Jim (hehe). Seriously, you make some excellent points and quite eloquently at that. I agree 100%.
David
David, I bring up animal sacrifices not specifically as retaliation to the use of anti-gay Levitical quotes but to make the point that religious people happily ignore some parts of the bible and could choose to similarly do the same with the biblical references to homosexuality. I thank you for giving your detailed take on animal sacrifice, but my argument is not similarly inapropriate as is the use of Levitical passages. You continue to imply that animal sacrifice is not required because Leviticus isn’t to be followed. Not true, animal sacrifice is referenced in frequent detail throughout the bible. The use of Levitical quotes condemning gays is irrelevant because Leviticus isn’t supposedly in effect. The same is not true for the non-levitical passages refering to sacrifices such as “burnt offerings”. Whether the sacrifice is animal or grain it still is an example of non-absolute religious selective decision-making as to what to follow in the bible and what not to.
You continue to imply that animal sacrifice is not required because Leviticus isn’t to be followed.
Actually I never said that. It was followed until the temple was destroyed when Israel was taken captive in Babylon I believe (another story entirely) and the synagogue system was established. God provided the ultimate sacrifice, as I referenced in the Hebrew passages above, which superseded any others. The current equivalent of animal sacrifice is the act of having faith in that ultimate sacrifice. If I’m not mistaken, the grain offerings and such are fulfilled through the tithe (we tend to use money these days for commerce). These honestly are not vague concepts when you study all of scripture, but it is hard to do much more than I have to explain them in this venue.
However, I can tell you that the point you are trying to make is much better illustrated by other examples than the one you have chosen. As I mentioned before, the divorce and remarriage issue is a prime example of what you are talking about.
David
David, I certainly wouldn’t pick the divorce and remarriage issue as a prime example of what I was saying about the churches history of deciding biblical meanings have changed. That one reinforces the idea of a negative change to anti-gay religious people. The better example is the similarity between changing anti-gay biblical beliefs and the positve change in beliefs of biblical meanings of support versus prohibition of slavery.
Part of the hostility/dismissal that happens when fundamentalist Christians try to explain the bible is due to the contradictions between what an objective reading of biblical passages appears to say and what the given church teachs people it says. The method of apologetics creates consistent selection of slanted meanings over middle of the road interpretations. Its the same thing that happens when someone lies about goings on and is very noticable to someone open to critically studying scripture, but perhaps not to the fundamentalist conditioned from birth to be unquestioning and blindly obedient to authority. The same thing that annoys me about your explanation of ignoring the “Forever” requirement of animal sacrifice is Throckmorton’s sifting through the mountains of evidence contradicting him to find the anomalies supporting him.
The method of fundamentalist interpretation of biblical belief (apologetics) and Throckmorton come across as insincere or malicious because of the persistent slanting of meanings to rigid extremes to make whatever is found fit with prejudged outcomes. They may be sincere about the process, but the process itself is totally insincere.
David, I certainly wouldn’t pick the divorce and remarriage issue as a prime example of what I was saying about the churches history of deciding biblical meanings have changed.
Perhaps I am off track with what you were getting at then. However, let me illustrate what I meant. I thought you were pointing out how Christians can ignore certain things in the Bible when they want, so why are they so hung up on pressing the gay issue. The Bible has very clear guidelines on when someone can divorce and when it is acceptable to remarry. Most denominations routinely ignore these because (I can only assume) if they didn’t it would cause a lot of grief and I doubt people would accept it. The Bible is also clear that sin is sin (regardless of what the Rev. Mark H. Creech says) so presumably those people cheating on the divorce and remarriage commands are in just as much trouble as gay folk.
Its the same thing that happens when someone lies about goings on and is very noticable to someone open to critically studying scripture, but perhaps not to the fundamentalist conditioned from birth to be unquestioning and blindly obedient to authority. The same thing that annoys me about your explanation of ignoring the “Forever” requirement of animal sacrifice is Throckmorton’s sifting through the mountains of evidence contradicting him to find the anomalies supporting him.
I’m going to assume for civilities sake that you aren’t placing me in the same boat as Throckmorton! That said, I completely understand your sentiments about someone who never re-evaluates their beliefs, never questions the interpretation they may have been given. The Bible itself contains admonishments against this; one is encouraged to continually study to make sure what one has heard is actually true. Whatever your picture of me might be from here so far, I have never been accused by those who know me of being dogmatic. But I have run into just what you mean and it can be disconcerting to say the least. In that vein, I would like to point out that I have still not seen your “forever” passage 🙂
I disagree with your wholesale assessment of apologetics, which by the way is not peculiar to fundamentalists. It’s true that the Bible is not like chemistry or physics with their precise, measurable, largely predictable results. But I would encourage you not to fall into the fallacy that the Bible is only what one reads into it. When taken in context it is almost self correcting, preventing an assumption in one area that would contradict several others. Proof texting circumvents this and allows one to patch together bits to support just about anything. This is unfortunately a favorite practice of those who seem to have the loudest voices.
While I am happy to respond as best I can to questions about what I believe, the bottom line is do you really need to agree with all this stuff just to respect my belief in it?
I think for me to respect your belief in it the way you’d want me to I’d have to believe it myself. I accept that you are your beliefs the way I am my attraction to men. I don’t consider you as Throckmorton, but find after listening to TimM and hearing you explain Church teaching on animal sacrifice, you and many Christians are more similar to him than I’d like.
Randi said:
I think for me to respect your belief in it the way you’d want me to I’d have to believe it myself.
That’s actually a little sad I think. I can honestly say that I have great respect for people I have met who are everything from Buddhist to Wiccan. And some of those in between hold beliefs that are not keen on same-sex sex. My friend who is a Buddhist has taught me a great deal about not being judgemental. There are a lot of very interesting people out there and the majority have beliefs they hold dear. You will miss a lot if you can’t respect them just because you don’t share their beliefs.
I don’t consider you as Throckmorton, but find after listening to TimM and hearing you explain Church teaching on animal sacrifice, you and many Christians are more similar to him than I’d like.
After your preoccupation with Leviticus in this thread I might same the same of you 🙂 Seriously, I’m resisting the urge to find that insulting, and will instead just suggest that you are being a tad unfair and perhaps making way to many generalizations about me (and others). But you are entitled to your opinion if that’s it.
David
To what degree I can I seperate the belief from the person and its the belief I don’t respect. From what little I’ve heard of it I respect Wiccan and Buddhist beliefs. I’m scared of people who don’t question their beliefs.
If you are saying you have great respect for some people who hold beliefs that are not keen on same sex sex then I wish you would clarify if you have great respect for them if they also believe that means they have dominion over any gay choice to have same sex sex.
David, you are part of the humanity which I hope will equally benefit from a universal social attempt to maximize the pleasure and minimize the pain.
ReasonAble at November 29, 2005 08:52 AM
Regarding scapegoating,
You’re on the right track, but it is described in Leviticus in great detail.
Your citation? And your citation to suggest that the “scapegoat” myth was limited to the middle-east Jews? The latter is more important, for reasons that should be obvious.
I’ve not asked that you share these beliefs, only that you respect others here who do.
And why should I respect people who share particular beliefs, merely because they share particular beliefs? That is ridiculous. Unless they can support their “particular beliefs” with evidence, their beliefs are nothing more than fiction. You aren’t seriously going to suggest that beliefs for which there is no evidence are to be given credence, are you? Particularly when those people don’t even bother to find evidence for their beliefs. In the last, I am referring to the IDers.
Raj, you said “And why should I respect people who share particular beliefs, merely because they share particular beliefs? That is ridiculous.”
Raj, you should respect such people because it is human nature to form into identity groups based on differences such as choice of religious belief – those people may perceive you as an outsider unworthy of the same consideration they deserve and declare war on you. And hypocritically such anti-gay religious groups which have an identity based on a chosen religious behavior insist gays can’t have an identity because “homosexuality” is a chosen behavior. Unadulterated Hypocrisy. Religious beliefs aren’t innate nor immutable and yet have the “special right” of being identitifed as a minority group and yet somehow the supposedly same characteristics of gay identity is reason to deny gays the “special right” of minority status.
Are you with me on that, David?
Interesting twist, Randi
So, has this discussion come down whether to this? Whether to:
1) Respect people’s beliefs which do not agree with our own.
or
2) Respect persons who hold beliefs which do not agree with our own.
I would argue for the latter. I don’t think we actually have to respect their beliefs, per se. But we should respect the person, which inevitably includes the fact that they hold beliefs which don’t match our own.
Which then goes to the question: how do you show respect to someone whose beliefs don’t agree with yours? Well, for me, one way to do this is simply to stear clear of theological debates. I think we’ve all heard the admonition that religion is a poor topic for polite conversation. That admonition is there for a reason: In my expreience it is often impossible to keep such a conversation polite.
Instead, in my view, it is their actions which should be called into account. And that doesn’t depend on whether you agree religiously with them or not.
Raj said:
Your citation? And your citation to suggest that the “scapegoat” myth was limited to the middle-east Jews? The latter is more important, for reasons that should be obvious.
Well, so far I am the only one who is citing passages. I think I mentioned that you can find very detailed information with a brief google. However, here is a bit of what you can find in Leviticus. The part about the slaughtered sacrifice comes just before this:
16:20 “When he has finished atoning the holy place, the Meeting Tent, and the altar, he is to present the live goat. 16:21 Aaron is to lay his two hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the iniquities of the Israelites and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins, and thus he is to put them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man standing ready. 16:22 The goat is to bear on itself all their iniquities into an inaccessible land, so he is to send the goat away in the wilderness.
There is also a nice Wikipedia entry here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat
These sacrifices had to take place at the Temple in Jerusalem, and I believe all the Jews (Israelites) would have been “Middle Eastern Jews”. I’m going to let you look for yourself on the rest of this because it is just too easy to do.
And why should I respect people who share particular beliefs, merely because they share particular beliefs?
I didn’t hear me say that, certainly not that you should respect them because of their beliefs. In your case I might go so far as to say “in spite of” their beliefs. But no, I don’t think one should disrespect another just because one doesn’t share or even agree with their beliefs. And I think there is a certain decency in respecting the fact that another’s beliefs are important to them.
Unless they can support their “particular beliefs” with evidence, their beliefs are nothing more than fiction. You aren’t seriously going to suggest that beliefs for which there is no evidence are to be given credence, are you?
Come now Raj, are there no intangibles in your life? What evidence could anyone honestly give that would leave you satisfied about the “validity” of their faith? I can’t imagine putting my faith in anything that could be put in such an evidentiary box. Some of the best parts of humanity can’t be proven this way. And I’m curious, at what point did I inherit the task of convincing you that my beliefs are valid anyway? That’s not even the point – these are my beliefs and you don’t have to share them. But they are an important part of who I am and if you can’t respect that then I don’t really see that we can take this any further.
Why don’t we put this one to rest and just agree to disagree?
Posted by: Randi Schimnosky at November 30, 2005 11:19 AM
Yes Randi, I’m flying with you on that.
Posted by: Jim Burroway at November 30, 2005 11:49 AM
I agree almost entirely with this Jim, with a small exception. Your point #2 “Respect persons who hold beliefs which do not agree with our own.” really says it but I would like to add that respecting those persons must also mean that you don’t mock or dismiss their beliefs, particularly not in a hostile manner. I see this as common decency.
Is this concept really that obtuse?
David
Jim said:
Instead, in my view, it is their actions which should be called into account. And that doesn’t depend on whether you agree religiously with them or not.
Excellent point. It tracks with the idea that everyone is an individual and should not be treated differently because of the baggage we may associate with a single part of them. Rather judge them on how they live their own life.
David
David,
I would like to add that respecting those persons must also mean that you don’t mock or dismiss their beliefs, particularly not in a hostile manner. I see this as common decency.
Excellent clarification, because given #2, then the next question, as I mentioned, is how do you respect them. Part of that is as you describe.
Randi Schimnosky at November 30, 2005 11:19 AM
Raj, you should respect such people because it is human nature to form into identity groups based on differences such as choice of religious belief
Um, I do realize that people often isolate themselves into identity groups, but that doesn’t mean that I should respect them because they do.
I also realized that people of one identity group may shun other people not of that identity group (here I am referring to the tendency of some conservative christians shunning gay people).
Jim Burroway at November 30, 2005 11:49 AM
I don’t agree with either formulation. I recognize the fact that people may hold beliefs that are different than mine, but I don’t feel the need to respect either the people or their beliefs. There is a difference. As an example that doesn’t involve gay issues, I recognize the fact that some people believe that “intelligent design” is a valid scientific theory and that advocate its being taught in science classes in public schools alongside evolution. That is, of course lunacy, since there is no evidence for ID, and so I have no respect for either the persons who advocate that their belief be taught in science class, or the belief itself.
Regarding Instead, in my view, it is their actions which should be called into account. I’ll just mention that I would not know that the people believe that ID is a valid scientific theory and advocte its being taught in public schools unless they stated that they believed such and did the advocating. Both statement and advocating are actions.
ReasonAble at November 30, 2005 12:57 PM
Well, so far I am the only one who is citing passages.
I guess you missed my citation from Proverbs on the https://exgaywatch.com/blog/archives/2005/11/agapepress_stat.html thread.
Going up a bit ReasonAble at November 27, 2005 04:45 AM
I brought up Southern Baptists. SB refused Federal funds…
I’m not sure how accurate this is. Conservative christian organizations clamored for federal funding under GWBush’s “faith-based” initiatives. I’m not sure whether SB operations partook of such funding but certainly other conservative christian operations have.
I guess you missed my citation from Proverbs.
Actually, I meant in this exchange. I’ve been asked to provide passages which I have, but no one has responded to my requests of the same.
I’m not sure how accurate this is. Conservative christian organizations clamored for federal funding under GWBush’s “faith-based” initiatives. I’m not sure whether SB operations partook of such funding but certainly other conservative christian operations have.
No doubt some have but unless I am gravely mistaken, SB did not like the considerable strings attached to the money. It makes little difference to me either way; I was just correcting a misstatement.
I’m filing the rest under “agree to disagree”.
David
Raj
Re: I would not know that the people believe that ID is a valid scientific theory and advocate its being taught in public schools unless they stated that they believed such and did the advocating. Both statement and advocating are actions.
I’m unclear the distinction between what you said and what I said. It looks close enough to me.
When you said, “I recognize the fact that some people believe that “intelligent design” is a valid scientific theory and that advocate its being taught in science classes in public schools alongside evolution.” [emphasis mine]
I would separate the two parts of what you’re saying at the and, because that is important.
I’ll illustrate what I tried to say.
Let’s say I have someone whose company I enjoy over for barbecue and beer. As it happens, he believes in ID. That alone doesn’t mean I can’t respect him or hold him in regard as a person and have a great time with him. Depending on the nature of our relationship (and given enough beer), I may try to change his mind, but I probably won’t succeed. I’m more likely to avoid the subject altogether and talk about something else instead, and just chalk it up as something we don’t agree on. It doesn’t necessarily affect my regard for that person. After all, there are other qualities.
Because I think that ID is not science, I don’t respect the belief itself. Nor do I have to. But I don’t have the right to mock him, disrespect him, etc merely for holding that belief.
Now let’s move to the other side of that “And”. If ths person were to act on his belief and try to force our schools to teach it in science class, then it is another matter altogether. I’ll oppose his efforts because I think it is a terrible thing for education in general and a terrible thing for future scientists in particular.
But once the fight is over, (and depending on how the fight was fought!) if he’s amenable and we still manage to be on friendly terms, I’d still have him over for barbecue and beer. Because I respect the person.
But of course, if during the fight he engages in disrespecful acts toward me or others, for example, saying I and my beliefs are responsible for the downfall of civilization or seeking to limit my rights to address the issue, then he is engaging in actions for which he needs to be held accountable. I certainly don’t have to respect him for that.
Jim, I’m afraid I have to state I’m open to mocking some beliefs in some situations. When a deeply held religious belief consistently causes extreme unfairness I’m going to oppose it in every non-violent way I can. I’ll do my best to limit the offense I cause other people by attacking an unjust belief, but I’m going to attack it one way or another. I’m sad to say the religious belief in inerrancy and a single belief as unquestionable “Truth” are one of those beliefs I hate and think reality mocks with the numerous examples of intransigence it causes. I feel I’m morally obligated to set an example of disrespecting such a deeply held belief. When I look at the middle east and anti-gay religious motivations it seems to me the theological debate is unavoidable. Its all well and good to say one targets actions, not beliefs and people, but when somone commits a crime its the person that gets put in jail, not the actions or beliefs.
I don’t feel its possible to fully and effectively oppose anti-gay religious actions without attacking the beliefs motivating them and probably offending some of the belief holders.
Raj, I’m surprised that I’ve not once heard you as a gay person make a statement suggesting you have a general respect or see a value inherent in all human individuals, including your enemies. Do you have any philosophy of human unity, or for you is it just a matter who can force their will on others?
Randi,
I know that you believe in fairness, so it is to this attribute in you I will appeal.
As you well know, none of us here are using any theological positions to harm you in any way. You don’t like that we have a Christian faith and it annoys you that we continue to defend our beliefs when they are attacted.
But you must admit that Jim, TimM, myself, David, etc., none of us have attacked your beliefs. In fact, several times it has been mentioned that we can respect persons who have your beliefs.
As a matter of fairness, do you think it right to expend so much time belittling what others believe and when they spend no time belittling what you believe?
Secondly, you have not read the scriptures relevant to the Christian sacrifice and how it was a fulfillment of the animal sacrifice. But yet you are willing this particular article of faith from a position of ignorance. That seems amazingly like my attacking Wicca based on what I’ve seen in Harry Potter.
Does that seem fair?
You seem to insist that others not only accept your beliefs but adopt them. Is that fair?
If one were to maximize pleasure and minimize pain in this discourse, it would benefit to stop rejecting others simply because they have a different understanding of that which cannot be understood.
You aren’t going to change anyone so there’s no pleasure to maximize. And you will frustrate yourself and others, so pain is not minimized.
Rather, it is better to respect each other, recognizing that there are religious differences and not seek to belittle each other or each other’s faith. That, I think, is consistent with your religious views as you have expressed them.
Timothy, you could be right, I’ll think on it for a while. I hadn’t realized I was insisting other’s take on my beliefs, but its no doubt true now that you mention it. I am a bit of a fairness Nazi sometimes, I’ll try to reserve that for the Throckmortons of this world. I’ve taken the liberty of perhaps too bluntly and extensively explaining my view on religious beliefs I’d like everyone to abandon and I thank you all for tolerating that. I don’t believe anyone’s belief about religion is unchangeable, but that’s just me. I am often certain I am right and that others cannot resist my ultimate logic, thanks for the reality check.
Yes, Timothy, you’re right, I’m sorry. I lost sight of what was important:
Decent loving Christians don’t hold a lot of press conferences because “I don’t oppose gay people” doesn’t sell copy. They seem invisible simply because they aren’t controversial. They aren’t “sexy”.
But some of them are actually trying hard to get their message out.
METHODIST
In the past month, the United Methodist church’s judicial counsel took two anti-gay positions. This got lots of press.
Immediately following, the bishops of the church issued a unanimous joint letter contradicting the position of the judicial counsel.
https://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F5091EF63C5A0C768CDDA80994DD404482
And then last week, the largest Methodist church in Minnesota held a service to apologize for positions taken by the church.
https://www.startribune.com/stories/465/5740553.html
Several Methodist churches ran ads in newspapers saying that everyone regardless of sexual orientations.
https://www.registerguard.com/news/2005/11/23/d1.cr.firstmethodist.1123.p1.php?section=cityregion
Including the tiny, rural, conservative little county in the corner of CA, OR and NV where my grandmother was raised:
https://www.record-bee.com/Stories/0,1413,255~33813~3142370,00.html
EPISCOPAL
This church is going to split, world wide, over the issue of homosexuality and Christianity. And the American, Canadian, and English branches of the Church of England will lose OVER HALF of their worldwide membership rather than push gay people out of the church.
There are too many news stories to post.
LUTHERAN
Minnesota is up for an anti-gay marriage amendment. In May one of the state’s biggest denominations spoke out against the amendment. The South-Central Wisconsin Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America voted to oppose the amendment.
https://www.365gay.com/Newscon05/11/112505wiscAmend.htm
Meanwhile, the denomination itself is in full fledged civil war over the issue. Their current position is the untenable one of don’t ask, don’t tell, leaving no one happy and nothing resolved. If you don’t think that these Lutherans fighting for our inclusion in their church family aren’t taking efforts on our part, you don’t understand denominational politics.
https://www.christianpost.com/article/church/2397/section/lutheran.council.acts.on.sexuality.recommendations/1.htm
Many are paying a price for what is to them a position of faith. I teared up over an article I read a while back about a parish in the Midwest (as I recall) that had staked out a position of being open to gay people. They didn’t have any gay congregants, and didn’t really know anyone it could impact, but they had decided that God had called on them to be accepting and they wanted the world to know.
UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST
Voted this year to encourage its member churches to perform gay marriage and called upon its members to be activists for gay rights (they are not hierarchical and don’t have “official” positions of the church)
https://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051124/NEWS/511240348/1006
FRIENDS (QUAKERS)
Long active allies of the gay community. No post required.
BAPTIST
American Baptists, much smaller and less conservative than the Southern Baptist, is in danger of splitting on the issue. Leadership of the Southern California region wants to drop the affiliation because the American Baptist church leaders refused to enforce anti-gay provisions against gay accepting Baptist churches. The vote is in December. West Virginia, their largest region, voted on a similar position earlier this year.
https://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/religion/13012024.htm
This week the denomination has taken a harder stance, declaring that homosexuality is incompatible with scripture. But as the vote was 59 to 45 (with 5 abstentions) this is far from the final resolution. And it cannot be said that in the midst of this battle that there were not allies paying tremendous cost for what nuance support they could give.
The Southern Baptists are the greatest holdouts against gay people, refusing to acknowledge that actual gay people exist. They cut ties this week with two Southern Baptist universities that were not anti-gay enough for them, Mercer and Belmont. This stance has cost each of the universities millions of dollars. Some Christian administrators have paid a very high price for reducing bigotry if not outright support.
Further, while the Southern Baptist church is officially vile and bilious on the subject, that may not be a reflection of the opinions of all members. To some extent, being Southern Baptist in the American South is like being Catholic in Mexico. There is a cultural “belonging” to the church that does not extend to the endorsement of all positions.
However, this is by far the hardest ground to hoe and I have respect for those who either stay and battle or, like President Jimmy Carter, publicly leave over the intolerance of the faith.
SUPPORTIVE CHRISTIANS
I think I’ve provided enough to show that Christianity as a whole is not intolerant or anti-gay. None of us here claim that the majority of Christians are supportive or champions of gay causes.
But to suggest that there are none or that they aren’t willing to pay a price for us is just clearly mistaken. If one continues to think otherwise, I suspect it has less to do with the existence of supportive Christians and more to do with one’s own intolerance and bias.
Posted by: Timothy at November 26, 2005 09:56 PM
Sorry, Presbyterians, I forgot you:
PRESBYTERIAN
This week a pastor in Virginia decided that if he couldn’t perform gay marriage, he wouldn’t perform any marriage.
“So far the response to Clarendon’s decision has been overwhelmingly positive, Ensign said. After the news broke, his colleagues elected him to be one of eight commissioners to attend the 2006 Presbyterian General Assembly. With the exception of a few prank phone calls, most have congratulated the church for its stand. One grateful Presbyterian sent in a check for $500, Ensign said, sounding stunned.”
https://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1128768365641
https://www.washblade.com/2005/11-25/news/localnews/wed-nix.cfm
Also this week, although the church’s official position is that to be a gay pastor you have to be celibate, a church in Dobbs Ferry, NY ordained an openly non-celibate gay man.
https://www.houstonvoice.com/2005/11-25/news/religion/ribs.cfm
We can continue to expect that the Presbyterian chuch will be debating this issue for years to come. With each debate we hear more voices for inclusion.
Posted by: Timothy at November 26, 2005 10:23 PM
Randi Schimnosky at November 30, 2005 08:19 PM
Raj, I’m surprised that I’ve not once heard you as a gay person make a statement suggesting you have a general respect or see a value inherent in all human individuals, including your enemies.
Maybe because I don’t have any idea what that means. What does “a general respect” mean? What does “a value inherent in all individuals” mean? What do you mean? I have argued these issues over the last dozen years on various message boards and have come to the conclusion that they are vacuous phrases meaning absolutely nothing.
NB: just to let you know, I do not post an argument relating to my being a “gay person” (which I am). I post an argument, and usually supporting citations, because I am a “person.” I don’t pay much attention to rants on message boards of posters who purport to be gay merely because they purport to be gay.
BTW, you might be interested in seeing my posts on other web sites. I’m a lawyer, and I love to argue. Unfortunately, here, the arguments are only one way.
Posted by: Jim Burroway at November 30, 2005 07:36 PM
This post is an excellent summary, almost a microcosm, of the entire debate here. I would hope that any of us could have a beer and a steak together and enjoy the time.
Randi said:
I hadn’t realized I was insisting other’s take on my beliefs, but its no doubt true now that you mention it… I am often certain I am right and that others cannot resist my ultimate logic, thanks for the reality check.
Been there, done that – it’s only human. I often find in my own life that there is a fine line between confidence and arrogance – and that line requires adjustment depending on the situation. I have good friends who keep me in check however, sometimes with great delight I might add 😉
Raj said:
…What does “a general respect” mean? What does “a value inherent in all individuals” mean? What do you mean? I have argued these issues over the last dozen years on various message boards and have come to the conclusion that they are vacuous phrases meaning absolutely nothing.
Those nasty intangibles again 🙂 Seriously Raj, perhaps you are treating life too much like the law? One might even say you are a fundamentalist of sorts, requiring exacting language and black and white terms. What was it Timothy said, “stop rejecting others simply because they have a different understanding of that which cannot be understood.” Even using our full faculties, the universe is hardly completely “knowable”. It’s only our natural arrogance that allows us to claim even a small understanding of it. If we narrow our perceptions down to only that which conforms to the rules of evidence, well that would be pretty tough handicap to overcome.
I enjoy an argument (debate) as long as it isn’t just for argument’s sake.
David
Re: I enjoy an argument (debate) as long as it isn’t just for argument’s sake.
No you don’t! 😉
Yes, I think I could enjoy a beer and a steak with anyone at XGW, an anti-gay Christian, almost certainly not. I can barely tolerate such people, which brings me to Raj’s point:
…What does “a general respect” mean? What does “a value inherent in all individuals” mean? What do you mean? I have argued these issues over the last dozen years on various message boards and have come to the conclusion that they are vacuous phrases meaning absolutely nothing.
What I mean Raj is that although I can barely tolerate the Throckmortons of the world and I often see them as an enemy I despise with a passion, at some point I have to step back and say I still owe even them a minimum level of courtesty and respect simply because they are human beings. That means I don’t blindly and unconditionally oppose them as people even though they might do that to me. My sweety says eveyone gets a certain base level of respect by mere virtue of them being human, the rest is earned and people move up or down from there depending on what they earn.
What a certain level of general respect means is don’t give in to total war under any circumstances, always show some minimum restraint and consideration for all others, even your enemy. Try your best to make every counter-attack a measured one that takes at least a slightly higher road than your opponent. What I’m asking you Raj, is do you subscribe in the slightest to “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”?
I asked you to respond “as a gay person” becaue it is my impression that due to their oppression gays are generally speaking the most kind, considerate people on the planet. I’d certainly be interested in reading your posts on any other general public boards dealing with gay equality. By all means, point me towards them. I am actually largely in agreement with you Raj, more so than I am with the Gay Christians at XGW. I’m just surprised that you haven’t volunteered at least some trivial support for the golden rule. On that I stand with the Christians and it doesn’t seem like much to ask of you either.