|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Can conservatives at least oppose violence against homosexuals?
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
One thing I noticed in Vancouver is that whenever there is a publicized gay-bashing, the gay community usually comes out in force, either to hold a rally or a memorial.
Given that conservatives say they oppose the behavior, and not gay people in general, why is it that I hardly hear anything from the religious right criticizing homophobic violence?
Or should I assume that some conservatives implicitly support violence against homosexuals?
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
This is a bat crazy conclusion to make.I voted for prop 8 and still went to a baby shower a friend gave who is gay and married to partner. I still associate with some gays and oppose violence to them. I guess I should go out though now and beat up gays because I am a staunch conservative? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pretty Butterfly
Shipmate
# 15024
|
Posted
I think it's because a substantial proportion (NOT all) of conservatives who oppose homosexual behvaiour are flaming hypocrits.
I do know some people who have studied the issue, thought about it and come to a different conclusion than me - that homosexual behaviour is inherantly immoral. These are not the kind of people I'm talking about, they oppose anti-gay violence.
I'm talking about the people who haven't thought the issue through or studied it, who hold strong positions in ignorance, who enjoy the superior feeling they get from being anti-gay. Unfortunately I know a few of the latter as well and it's these kind of people who go very quiet when anti-gay violence is perpetuated, or worse, start going on about how if gay people weren't gay, this would never have happened, or if they must be gay they should stay in the closet, (...and the violence is wrong...) but really if there were no gay people there would be no violence...
So to answer your question, some can, some can't and one group is often louder than the other.
[ 12. September 2009, 08:03: Message edited by: prettybutterfly ]
Posts: 121 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
....
Or should I assume that some conservatives implicitly support violence against homosexuals?
Yes, you should.
Look at Nigeria and Zimbabwe - for a start.
Isn't there something in the Bible about if we don't oppose something we support it? Seems to me that if we don't speak up against such violence then we should be ashamed.
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
....
Or should I assume that some conservatives implicitly support violence against homosexuals?
Yes, you should.
Look at Nigeria and Zimbabwe - for a start.
Isn't there something in the Bible about if we don't oppose something we support it? Seems to me that if we don't speak up against such violence then we should be ashamed.
To argue that conservative Christians who don't oppose homophobic violence are complict in that violence really only makes sense to the extent that anybody who doesn't oppose it is complicit in it.
That is, I don't think conservatives have a greater duty to oppose homophobic violence than anybody else has.
In principle we all have that duty, but there's only so much energy and resource that a person can muster for activism, surely?
For example, if somebody asked me if he could stage an anti-gay rally on my land, I would refuse. But if somebody asked me for, say, £5000 to support an anti-homophobia campaign, I would have to decline, however much I supported it. Somewhere there's surely a line between what level of opposition to evil can reasonably be expected of a certain of person, and what can not?
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
CrookedCucumber: To argue that conservative Christians who don't oppose homophobic violence are complict in that violence really only makes sense to the extent that anybody who doesn't oppose it is complicit in it.
But conservative Christians are the ones who obey the Bible, aren't they? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
But I agree - we all should oppose violence against gay people.
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Re the thread title: yes,absolutely, 100% - at least as far as this 'conservative' is concerned.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by prettybutterfly:
I do know some people who have studied the issue, thought about it and come to a different conclusion than me - that homosexual behaviour is inherantly immoral. These are not the kind of people I'm talking about, they oppose anti-gay violence.
What she said here. THIS. I have had some pretty unoomfortable moments like turning down going to a gay marriage ceremony. This and other uncomfortable moments have all caused me to sin by drinking too much, eating too much (then repenting) and also the dreaded sitting out in my car and crying. Beating up someone BECAUSE that person is gay is NOT a thought I have. I honestly only want to beat up gays who are rude people just the same as a rude straight person. Not that I go around beating up anybody...even a person years ago who slapped my desk loudly and hard then proceeded to scream at me at work. Wanted to beat that person up but they were not gay...
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
That is, I don't think conservatives have a greater duty to oppose homophobic violence than anybody else has.
In principle we all have that duty, but there's only so much energy and resource that a person can muster for activism, surely?
I thought about it last night and wondered why conservatives have "more" of a duty than their Liberal counterparts...Xtians...to high-light violence is wrong against gays? Perhaps Liberal Xtians do more public condemnation of it?
I do remember hearing about Mars Hill Church in Seattle refusing to take part in some event that they felt was unloving towards gays. This was not publicized and thus I am unable to find any links to it. I tried last night.
I know Xtians who are conservative could be doing more to condemn violence on gays....but then there is wife-beating, child-abuse etc that seem to dominate the public speaking agenda.
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
I thought about it last night and wondered why conservatives have "more" of a duty than their Liberal counterparts...Xtians...to high-light violence is wrong against gays?
Because the conservatives are so vocal about the immorality of homosexuality. They need to publicly and vocally distance themselves from the far end of the road they are standing partway down.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
When I made this thread, my mind immediately raced to a rally in Vancouver that I attended after a guy got beaten up while in the city's gay district. There was no one who was a leader who identified herself as a Christian conservative who attended. There was no letter to the editor either. I can understand saying "Look, I have a moral objection to the behavior, but under no circumstances violence cannot be justified against anyone." But there was nary a peep after these incidents.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
marsupial.
Shipmate
# 12458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
There was no letter to the editor either. I can understand saying "Look, I have a moral objection to the behavior, but under no circumstances violence cannot be justified against anyone." But there was nary a peep after these incidents.
But it's a bit of a bizarre way of thinking to assume that if somebody doesn't say something against violence, then of course they must be in favour of violence...
Posts: 653 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by marsupial.:
But it's a bit of a bizarre way of thinking to assume that if somebody doesn't say something against violence, then of course they must be in favour of violence...
Not if that someone has spoken out strongly against the victims of that violence.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
marsupial.
Shipmate
# 12458
|
Posted
Really I don't think so. E.g., even if I had strong views against Israel (which I don't, really), I don't think I'd have to explicitly dissociate myself from every terrorist attack on Israel. I think in most cases it should be taken as read that whatever their views on the political issues, decent people don't support violence against innocent people.
Unless, of course, somebody says something that suggests otherwise. There was a recent libel case in Canada where an anti-gay activist sued a radio station and its editorial commentator for having suggested that she "would condone violence" against gay people. The courts ultimately held that there was enough material in her public statements on the issue to establish a basis for the fair comment defence, and so she lost her lawsuit. But frankly I think it would be wholly outrageous to suggest, e.g., that there's any basis for concluding that the more conservative posters on this board would condone violence against gay people on the basis of their remarks about the issue on this board.
Posts: 653 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
There is a certain subset of conservative voices who DO speak in strong negative terms about gays and who DO condone violence against gays, roughly along the same line of reasoning as the subset of males who condone violence against women by saying "she asked for it" or "she behaved in such a way that she had to expect rape".
This doesn't mean that EVERY conservative is automatically a rapist of females and a basher of gays. Get off your high horse. You personally haven't been accused of anything. Just because you specifically have some friends who are gay doesn't mean that the whole world is totally gay-friendly.
But, like gays, some few of whom are outrageously, publicly camp, conservatives can be identified as being part of a group that does include gay-bashers.
Some of my friends are Bible-saturated Baptists, but that doesn't mean I've been dragged through the immersion tank.
As a Christian, I totally oppose violence agaisnt people for any reason other than defence against overt physical attack, and I say so publicly, even in relation to Muslims in the wake of 9/11.
I would prefer that the Christian conservatives would have read their Bibles enough to oppose violence or noisy shunning, but, judging by several letters to the editor in our local rag, that is not a view found among vocal fundagelical conservatives around here.
[ 13. September 2009, 00:56: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
marsupial.
Shipmate
# 12458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Get off your high horse. You personally haven't been accused of anything.
To whom is this directed??
Posts: 653 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by marsupial.:
Really I don't think so. E.g., even if I had strong views against Israel (which I don't, really), I don't think I'd have to explicitly dissociate myself from every terrorist attack on Israel.
The difference is that you're not a Palestinian Arab. If you were, then yes you would have to explicitly dissociate yourself from the terrorists.
American conservatives, many of whom claim they are Christians and far be it from me to say they aren't, are physically attacking gays. American conservative Christians who speak out against the morality of homosexuality have a responsibility to speak out against the violence.
[ 13. September 2009, 03:48: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Actually this goes for any country with this dynamic, not just the US -- sorry for my provincialism.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by marsupial.:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Get off your high horse. You personally haven't been accused of anything.
To whom is this directed??
I think he means me. Sorry for being stuck up about having some gay friends. It's hard not to have them and use them as my tokens, growing in the SF Bay Area.
[edited.]
[ 13. September 2009, 04:41: Message edited by: duchess ]
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by mousethief:
Because the conservatives are so vocal about the immorality of homosexuality. They need to publicly and vocally distance themselves from the far end of the road they are standing partway down.
What would this look like? Sound like? What are some ideas you might have for getting this message out? Honestly reflecting.
[code! argh!]
[ 13. September 2009, 04:44: Message edited by: duchess ]
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I think it would mean not ending your sermon about homosexuality with how it's not in God's will or whatever the exact wording is, but going on to say that nevertheless these are people that Christ died for, and while we hope they stop doing naughty things, nevertheless we must love them with Christ's love, and yelling names at them, or God forbid physically harming them, is not at all in keeping with the Gospel. Something along those lines.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The difference is that you're not a Palestinian Arab. If you were, then yes you would have to explicitly dissociate yourself from the terrorists.
Why? Palestiniana Arabs are, on the whole, by far the greatest losers from the violence in the region over the last 80-odd years. More than any other group of Arabs, and more than Israelis. More of them have been killed, more of them have been impoverished, and almost all of them have been dispossessed. Why should the people who are most likely to be victims be the ones to apologise?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Who said anything about apology? Have you read what I wrote at all?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
A statistic (y'know, lies, damned lies and...): in the years 1991 to 2007, there were about 120 murders in canada, where the homosexuality of the victim was of significance.
I've not heard of any right-wing Christian being killed, or even physically attacked, because of his religious view. There seems to be an problem in this, since r-w Xtians make all sorts of fuss about how put-upon they are and how threatened their religion is, because gays actually exist and dare to say so in public.
Not that I want even the most assholish r-w Xtian to be physically attacked. But why should gays be physically attacked? And why should the loud voices be silent on this issue?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
I thought about it last night and wondered why conservatives have "more" of a duty than their Liberal counterparts...Xtians...to high-light violence is wrong against gays?
Because the conservatives are so vocal about the immorality of homosexuality. They need to publicly and vocally distance themselves from the far end of the road they are standing partway down.
I can understand this point of view, but I wonder how many conservatives really feel themselves to be standing on the road, at any point, that leads to homophobic attacks?
I think I would argue that once you're standing anywhere on that particular road, you've got absolutely no moral authority to criticise anybody anywhere else on it.
The conservative Christians I know seem to have no issues with homosexual people at all, whatever they may think about homosexual acts. How they handle the cognitive dissonance this must create, I really don't know. But, in any event, they probably don't feel they are doing anything to encourage attacks against people, and therefore don't have any greater obligation than you or I to discourage them.
I am a vegetarian and an activist for animal welfare. But I don't feel that I need constantly to distance myself from the `animal rights' people who go around vandalizing battery farms and whatnot. Of course I disapprove of that kind of action, but I don't feel I do anything at all to cause it. It's a problem, sure, but it's not exclusively a vegetarian's problem.
I think the conservative homophobia thing works the same way.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Who said anything about apology? Have you read what I wrote at all?
In America black men are about five times as likely to commit murder than white men are. Do you expect every African American you meet to "dissasociate" themselves from murder before they talk about politics or crime?
And yes, that expectation of Palestinians is demanding an apology. An apology on behalf of a whole community from every member.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
If you think there is a connection between "I am black" and "I should commit murder" that is as strong as the connection between "Homosexuality is wrong" and "I should oppose it" then you're dumber than I thought.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Conservatives blame homosexuals for undermining society, subverting morality, attacking straight marriages, pedophilia, and even the 9/11 attacks. Given all this you can certainly see a "he/she had it coming" mentality developing amongst conservatives regarding gay bashing. Heck, if they sincerely believe all of the above they'd plead self defense (and in some cases they have.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Further it was speaking out against Israel that was linked with violence against Israel, not merely being a Palestinian Arab (honest, go back and re-read (or read for the first time) what I wrote). Facile comparisons to black criminals are racist but none to the point.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Conservatives blame homosexuals for undermining society, subverting morality, attacking straight marriages, pedophilia, and even [URL=http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2001/09/You-Helped-
Certainly some do. But in the UK, which is the only place I know anything about, it's pretty rare. I find the conservative Christian line on homosexuality bewildering, but I've never heard a Christian that I know personally blame homosexuals for any of these things.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Conservatives blame homosexuals for undermining society, subverting morality, attacking straight marriages, pedophilia, and even the 9/11 attacks.
Certainly some do. But in the UK, which is the only place I know anything about, it's pretty rare. I find the conservative Christian line on homosexuality bewildering, but I've never heard a Christian that I know personally blame homosexuals for any of these things.
I'm not sure what your point is here. Is it that although some conservatives "certainly" regard homosexuals as vile enemies of all that is good and decent who work tirelessly to destroy society from within, you don't happen to know any of them personally? (Or don't know that you know them.) That's not a lot of use without knowing a lot more about your social life than is appropriate for this forum.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
We used to get more of that on the Ship, though thank God not so much now, but if you want to see that sort of blaming gay people for the continuing decline of UK morals, you can find it in online comments sections of newspapers (I saw a text book example on a gay minister thread on a Scottish quality newspaper yesterday).
I've described it before as a form of 'magical thinking' because it targets hedonism/promiscuity/divorce/selfishness carried out overwhelmingly by straight people, by attacking (mostly) dutiful gay people and denying them rights. It's as if its advocates think that tactic is going to magically make the misbehaving straight majority change their ways.
The argument goes 'Everything is falling to bits because of this 'Me! Me! Me!' human-rights based society where people identify their selfish sexual desires as human rights and want to have them gratified. Gay people wanting to marry/ be ordained/adopt is an example of this selfishness masquerading as human rights, and will cause further rot of traditional moral values, and so it must be opposed.'
But usually the dead horse in question is a gay person wanting to do something which is anything but selfish: marry, give a home to a neglected child, serve people and God as a minister, (and if any of that is selfish, you'd have to say the same thing about all the heterosexual people who do it too, but somehow that is never the case).
It's as if the gay people are being attacked by proxy for the sins of straight people (especially in the divorce courts)
It gets more confusing still when the sort of conservative that likes to make these arguments, encounters another societal group who very much agree with them on their prescription for a good society: anti-gay, family-centred, pro-women in the home, pro male-headship, believing and praying, anti sex-out-of-marriage, and in most cases frowning on divorce, and quite likely to be creationists. You'd think they'd be delighted, but no er... apparently those paragons of virtue the conservative Muslims are also destroying our society, just like the gays, despite doing all the 'right' things. Odd that.
But of course Muslims generate a different sort of anxiety - the sort of things the poor Catholics used to cop it for in Bismarck's Kulturkampf or in the views of Sectarians, being seen as too loyal to some external authority, and 'foreign' not 'people like us' committed to 'our' nation state but a sort of fifth column.
What both groups have in common though is that they've become scapegoats, for people anxious about social change.
That scapegoating mechanism is what leads to violence. If you study the wake of the Black Death and the huge social changes that came with it, you see an upswing in the persecution of jews and muslims, the demonology that leads to the great witch-hunts is created, and you get the sudden appearance in statute books across Europe of laws punishing sodomy by death. All these things were justified from the Bible and Christian thinking.
We've stopped believing in executing witches, despite the fact that the verse it was all built on is still there. The holocaust and the creation of Israel has cured a fair bit (not all) of our historic anti-semitic tendencies, despite the traditional interpretation of Matthew 27:24–25 but using gay people and Muslims as 'The Other', as scapegoats for anxieties about social change is still with us. It's playing with fire, and when that gets out of hand innocent people suffer - that's where the violence comes in.
I think if people can see that kind of scape-goating going on in their church (going after gay people or Muslims as an answer to societal ills, instead of putting the responsibility where it belongs) they have a responsibility to come out of that and to oppose it, before they end up being complicit in rhetoric or campaigning which helps legitimate abuse or violence. Suppose you think that gay sex is a sin - is it as bad as being complicit in the persecution of people as societal scapegoats, knowing what we do about how that works?
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure what your point is here.
I thought his point was clear. Try this:
"Atheists believe in giving the State totalitarian power. They instinctively distrust Western democracy, and say they'd use military power to spread Communism to every country in the world."
Surely it's understandable for someone to mention it if that doesn't accurately describe the atheists he knows? Especially if it seems like a crude caricature created for rhetorical cheap shots.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
... r-w Xtians make all sorts of fuss about how put-upon they are and how threatened their religion is, ...
I started responding to that rhetoric by asking just how many conservatives had been kicked to death by angry liberals. Strangely enough, no one ever seems to have any examples ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HenryT:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
... r-w Xtians make all sorts of fuss about how put-upon they are and how threatened their religion is, ...
I started responding to that rhetoric by asking just how many conservatives had been kicked to death by angry liberals. Strangely enough, no one ever seems to have any examples
I don't know what constitutes a right-wing conservative anymore outside of the Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson block. You can just label anyone who is even ever so slightly to the right on the richter scale from yourself and others you know who are more on the left side...but I ask if you do understand that many of us too are fed up with the witch hunts and the neo-signs? Such pointing away our own sins like reaching out to the poor, shunning non-Christians, living in doctrinal rich fortresses, even into status.
This does not mean we change our doctrinal views on all things you might find right-wing to have, if we see the bible saying that in inerrancy, does it? It seems that there is always that last little bit to add of "change your views to be more inclusive of gays by changing your doctrine. That is really the only way, but I tack that on at the end of what I say so it seems I just slipped it in there."
But it does mean exploring finding more loving ways to convey things. And quite frankly, there has been so much damage in this area, it can be overwhelming to know where to begin to pick up the pieces to repair?
All I can speak of freely is my own life.I don't give sermons in a church, only have done mini-sermons in juvy hall to those kidlets and reached out to those who have been hurt by "my kind". I also have been made available to those who used to e-mail me privately to ask me "why" I felt those things I felt on the ship.
So should someone like Mark Driscol, John Piper, John Macarthur or Alistar Begg, CJ Mahaney and/or Joshua Harris end their sermon with a footnote "btw, I know I have preached some lessons today stating the bible outsides homosexual acts as unbiblical, please duly note that we are not to commit violene towards them".? Or do you just mean the 700 Club or Focus on the Family?
One guy profiled here (you might consider him a right-winger, I don't know) actually has walked away from the Christian Coalition for the focus being too strongly on those issues...please read below...
"His [Joel Hunter's] national profile emerged after he resigned from the Christian Coalition in2006, saying the organization was unwilling to expand its mission beyond fighting abortion and same-sex marriage. During the2008 presidental election cycle, Hunter prayed at the Demorcratic National Convention last summer and with the President on Election Day."
Sept.09 issue Christianity Today - the Art of Cyber Church, page 50
[edited since I have a migraine but felt compelled to write this all for some reason now instead of doing my laundry. going now...sorry for any grammar mistakes.]
[ 15. September 2009, 03:22: Message edited by: duchess ]
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
I meant to spell violence right.
I also meant to convey I try to do my own part in my own life of discouraging violence towards gays, helping the poor and generally being available for level-headed discussions meant to pass wisdom, love and understanding towards each other. NOT Perez Hilton or anybody else of that manner*.
Okay done here.
*no discussion possible when there is flame-throwing, IMHO. But it is fun to post in hell on SoF sometimes. Just not outside that in real life. *sigh*
[ 15. September 2009, 03:28: Message edited by: duchess ]
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Conservatives blame homosexuals for undermining society, subverting morality, attacking straight marriages, pedophilia, and even the 9/11 attacks.
Certainly some do. But in the UK, which is the only place I know anything about, it's pretty rare. I find the conservative Christian line on homosexuality bewildering, but I've never heard a Christian that I know personally blame homosexuals for any of these things.
I'm not sure what your point is here. Is it that although some conservatives "certainly" regard homosexuals as vile enemies of all that is good and decent who work tirelessly to destroy society from within, you don't happen to know any of them personally? (Or don't know that you know them.) That's not a lot of use without knowing a lot more about your social life than is appropriate for this forum.
Well, yes. The unspoken part of my argument is that my experience of the beliefs of conservative Christians is more accurate than is portrayed in the media, for example.
But even if I'm wrong about that, I think my argument still stands.
A Christian (or anybody else) who actually proposes that homosexuals as people are wicked in some way, has no moral authority to condemn homophobic violence. That would be like a Nazi saying ``Yes, Jews are subhuman, but we shouldn't actually gas them''. Pointless.
And a Christian (or anybody else) who does not believe that homosexuals as people are wicked is not in any sense arguing for homophobic violence, and is thus not obliged to oppose it (any more than the rest of us are).
If all the conservative Christians on Earth had a sudden epiphany and realized (or joyous day) than God had no gripe at all with homosexuality, I don't think the amount of homophobic oppression in society would decrease at all. The gay-bashers don't do it because it's unbiblical -- they do it because they're evil.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
Louise: what a fantastic post. Especially the point about divorce. I think it would be very healthy for the church on both sides of the divide to see that the arguments about homosexuality are nothing more than a proxy war, with a disproportionate number of civilian casualties.
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
The unspoken part of my argument is that my experience of the beliefs of conservative Christians is more accurate than is portrayed in the media, for example.
I think there may also be a pond difference. The beliefs of conservative Christians in the UK are different from the beliefs of white conservative Christians in the US (although the white conservative Christians in the US are trying their best to export theirs), and they're different again from the beliefs of black conservative Christians in the US.
quote:
A Christian (or anybody else) who actually proposes that homosexuals as people are wicked in some way, has no moral authority to condemn homophobic violence. That would be like a Nazi saying ``Yes, Jews are subhuman, but we shouldn't actually gas them''. Pointless.
I am not convinced about this. A Nazi who says that the Jews are subhuman but we shouldn't actually gas them' is certainly obnoxious, but they aren't gassing Jews themselves and they are making attempts to stop other people from gassing Jews. And really the important thing here is whether the Jews get gassed. The obnoxiousness of the opinion is by comparison neither here nor there. If someone stops me from being gassed, I'm not going to care very much whether he or she had the moral authority to do so.
That said, there is a sense in which condemning beating up homosexuals gives the beating up of homosexuals legitimacy. Most churches do not regularly preach against murdering your wife in order to marry your mistress. That's because most churches don't think that anyone in the congregation considers that acceptable. The corollary is that if the preacher starts preaching on it, the idea might grow that it wouldn't be odd to consider it acceptable. (Before the law came, I did not know sin, and all that.)
Personally, if I heard that a preacher finished regular rants about homosexuality by saying 'but beating them up is wrong', I'd rather suspect them of encouraging violence by insinuation than trying to suppress it.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044
|
Posted
The best article that I've ever read on the subject of homosexuality and Christian belief can be found at theologian.org.uk
The author takes a conservative viewpoint, based on an impressively scholarly analysis, and includes in the final summary a few points about the attitudes that Christians should hold.
A couple of quotes: 'Homophobia - a fear of homosexuals which leads to rejection - should not be on any church's agenda' and: '...Christians should be in the forefront of those who protest when homosexuals are treated unjustly.'
If you don't want to wade through the pages of theology, skip to the summary at the end. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Further it was speaking out against Israel that was linked with violence against Israel, not merely being a Palestinian Arab (honest, go back and re-read (or read for the first time) what I wrote). Facile comparisons to black criminals are racist but none to the point.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Not very advanced, scholarship-wise. Conservatives have moved on from the anti-gay verses to the pro-family verses. This author writes almost exactly as he did 20 years ago in a Grove Booklet.
Do happen to know of an example of more advanced scholarship? And do you know why it is that conservatives have 'moved on from the anti-gay verses to the pro-family verses'? If the Word of God hasn't changed over 2000 - 3500 years, then I wouldn't be surprised that the application of it hasn't changed over 20 years.
Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Yes - read the C of E House of Bishops' Commentary on Issues in Human Sexuality. It is conservative in its conclusion but quotes many 'pro' and 'anti' scholars but the stuff on the so-called 6 bullet points i.e. Sodom, Leviticus, Romans etc. and found to be fairly evenly balanced whereas people have moved on to quote creation and family verses.
That is to say - NOT what God said was wrong. More: What is God's plan for humans?
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Further it was speaking out against Israel that was linked with violence against Israel, not merely being a Palestinian Arab (honest, go back and re-read (or read for the first time) what I wrote). Facile comparisons to black criminals are racist but none to the point.
I'm not sure that follows: if I call some of the Israeli actions in Gaza a few months ago 'war crimes', I don't think I'm at all to blame if some Hamas nutjob decides to blow himself up on a bus.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
DagonSlaveII
Shipmate
# 15162
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I think it would mean not ending your sermon about homosexuality with how it's not in God's will or whatever the exact wording is, but going on to say that nevertheless these are people that Christ died for, and while we hope they stop doing naughty things, nevertheless we must love them with Christ's love, and yelling names at them, or God forbid physically harming them, is not at all in keeping with the Gospel. Something along those lines.
I agree that this is absolutely not done enough. "Hate the sin, not the sinner," is the slogan I most hear on that.
But there is a huge habit in every movement, to show how they are different from another group, especially the more extreme churches (either polarization). Staunch Conservative groups are too busy trying to show how the Gays are going to hell to fight against ridiculous forms of intolerance. (Grew up in such a church... about the only thing they'd "hate on" more than gays was the Catholic church.)
If our job is to bring souls to Christ, then we're not going to do it by letting people die on the streets. Besides, there's a perfectly good example of what to do with something a good bit worse than same-sex couplings. How about being a church member that sleeps with, at the least, his father's wife, and at the most, his biological mom? I Cor. 5
I Cor. 5:9-13 quote:
9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.
If practicing Gay behavior is a sin, all we can do is kick them out of our church. If they aren't in the church, we have absolutely no authority over them, from the Bible. What we do with secular law is what we do with secular law.
To be coldblooded: Besides, it's plain good outreach to defend the more defenseless person.
Can of worms:
All that being said, the quote "If you don't want to be in a bar-fight, don't go to bars," comes to mind. *sigh* Most of the Gay/Straight fights I've personally known about (where I usually knew both people involved), it was where the gay guy inappropriately touched the straight homophobe male and got the snot knocked out of him for it--rarely if ever have I known this type of fight to end with someone in the hospital. Not commenting on whether it's right or wrong to fight, but pointing out that there are a few occasions where people ask for the problems they get. I have yet to see where it was the straight one who did something similar, and was hit by the Gay one, but I'm sure it happens. Again, this type of fight is rarely very brutal. These also tend to never make the paper, either.
--------------------
Thanks for all the prayers for my not-yet-family. Please continue to pray for my future Brother-in-law's mum, she is still in the hospital, although doing better.
Posts: 138 | From: Houma | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
As I pointed out earlier, there are, on average, 8 murders a year in Canada which are related to the gayness (or perceived gayness) of the victim.
I've never yet heard of a Christian right-winger being physically attacked, let alone murdered, because of his Christian orientation (although some of them are irritating enough to deserve a good smack)
Are you sure that the "touching" that led to the snot-kicking wasn't just an incidental to moving around a room, which the hypersensitive oh-so-straight righteous person took as an excuse to vent his anxiety? There is a certain subset of straights who look for any sign of difference in oreder to make a fuss, or worse, about it, in situations that any fairly stable person simply wouldn't see an issue.
Being gay isn't a commuinicable disease. it is just how people are.
Yes, there are the "campy" ones, and some of those are straights with attitude issues.
Perhaps your church could work on dealing with some preconceived issues among the flock, instead of giving permission to destroy Christ's message by using physical violence.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
Ah yes, the Gay panic defense
Dead Horses runs on Purgatory rules, so I'll describe this as "casuistic, cynical, dishonest, repugnant, and invariably untruthful." As opposed to the shorter and more pungent term it deserves.
[ 24. September 2009, 11:05: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
Apologies for posting in the wrong dialect and failing to preview.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
