Thread: Do American "Evangelicals" want Ugandan homosexuals to be killed? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028526
Posted by Christian Agnostic (# 14912) on
:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/africa/04uganda.html?hp
Read this!
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
I doubt it. I'm not really sure what you want to discuss, but it seems to me that there is a debateworthy point as to whether, when expressing an opinion in a context where one will be taken as "expert" you have a duty to consider how a reasonable person will react to what you say, or to consider how any person - incluidng an unreasonable one - will react to what you say.
That is to say, we could discuss whether it's credible for the three gentlemen in question to say now that they didn't intend to sway opinion in the way in which the article tends to imply they did.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
I wouldn't say that it's a universal sentiment, nor even that conservative Evangelicals want homosexuals to be killed -- but I think wanting gay folks to go away, somehow, so that they don't have to be thought about or dealt with, is a rather pervasive if unspoken sentiment throughout much of conservative Evangelicalism. I'll add the disclaimer that this is my impression as an outsider with a dog in the fight, not as an Evangelical; I certainly feel as if my disappearance off the face of the earth would result in many sighs of relief.
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on
:
Given the prevalence of AIDS in Africa, might it be more appropriate to ask, "Do American "gays" want Ugandan homosexuals to be killed?"
There are two sides to issues like this and demonizing those who seek peace and justice seems jaded to me.
But let me answer the OP. No, nearly all American evangelicals do not want homosexuals killed. They are our brothers and sisters. We want what's best for them.
Some may be misguided about what is best for homosexuals, but that's a discussion for the glue factory.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
Huh? What does that first sentence mean?
Most AIDS cases in Africa are caused by heterosexual transmission and childbirth.
[ 04. January 2010, 13:24: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
Dumpling Jeff: Promiscuous heterosexual sex is the leading vector for HIV/AIDS. It isn't a "gay" disease. (And transmission through lesbian sexual activity is minimal, although still possible.) The gay community in the West, which had its own very tragic learning curve regarding casual/unprotected sex back in the 80's, would hope that people in the developing world would learn from its experience the importance of protection, education and personal responsibility.
I'd underscore education because in some instances we're talking about vulnerable populations with a prescientific understanding of disease combined with a colonialist-created distrust of Westerners/Europeans, who still believe that HIV/AIDS is caused by "witchcraft," that advocacy of condom use as a disease preventative, or even the HIV virus itself, is a white plot to stop dark-skinned people from reproducing, who think that sex with a virgin girl will prevent/cure HIV/AIDS, etc. So perhaps that ignorance and mistrust is what others in the Christian community might want to consider addressing in their own aid efforts to combat HIV/AIDS.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
LutheranChik - I'm sure you are right. In fact we touched on this in another thread about a month ago where I argued much the same thing. Whilst not wanting to repeat that discussion, let me just draw attention to one of the other points in that NYT article:- quote:
Uganda seems to have become a far-flung front line in the American culture wars, with American groups on both sides, the Christian right and gay activists, pouring in support and money as they get involved in the broader debate over homosexuality in Africa.
This latest incursion is hardly the only one - this has been going on, on both sides, for quite some while. If one wants to understand the whole situation, you will need to know the Ugandan background and the history of these other incursions from outside. Whilst it seems fairly clear to me that these evangelicals do not want Ugandan homosexuals killed - the opposite in fact - it is nevertheless a real risk that their involvement may lead to just that. And equally worryingly, so may the insensitive incursion of western gay advocacy groups, though for different reasons. To have both slugging it out in a different culture, which neither seem to have made the effort to understand, seems to have turned very dangerous.
[ 04. January 2010, 14:18: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on
:
LutheranChik, promiscuous sex is the leading cause of AIDS. I'm fairly certain that the people quoted were discouraging all promiscuous sex.
I'm a firm believer in the "If you can't be good, be safe." rule, but that's not the same thing as encouraging evil. Promiscuity is not the Christian ideal and we need to spread that message as (a small) part of our religion.
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on
:
Honest Ron, good post.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
From the article:
quote:
For three days, according to participants and audio recordings, thousands of Ugandans, including police officers, teachers and national politicians, listened raptly to the Americans, who were presented as experts on homosexuality. The visitors discussed how to make gay people straight, how gay men often sodomized teenage boys and how “the gay movement is an evil institution” whose goal is “to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity.”
and...
quote:
Human rights advocates in Uganda say the visit by the three Americans helped set in motion what could be a very dangerous cycle. Gay Ugandans already describe a world of beatings, blackmail, death threats like “Die Sodomite!” scrawled on their homes, constant harassment and even so-called correctional rape.
“Now we really have to go undercover,” said Stosh Mugisha, a gay rights activist who said she was pinned down in a guava orchard and raped by a farmhand who wanted to cure her of her attraction to girls. She said that she was impregnated and infected with H.I.V., but that her grandmother’s reaction was simply, “ ‘You are too stubborn.’ ”
Despite such attacks, many gay men and lesbians here said things had been getting better for them before the bill, at least enough to hold news conferences and publicly advocate for their rights. Now they worry that the bill could encourage lynchings. Already, mobs beat people to death for infractions as minor as stealing shoes.
No. They don't like gays specifically, not just promiscuous people.
Posted by five (# 14492) on
:
Having read the article, it seems that the evangelicals responsible don't want gays put to death. They are greatly convinced, however, that gays can choose to be straight just as much as they chose to be gay. The fact that isn't a choice to be gay doesn't enter into their thinking.
But then, what is the logical consequence of their actions? They don't want people to be gay, and have gone as far out of their way as Uganda to tell people that gays recruit and prey on children, neither of which are true. If you're not gay, you can't just suddenly decide to up and be gay like joining the army or something. Equally, people that prey on children are both gy and straight, and both sorts are equally vile. But if you go off to a country where the system provides for death as a common form of punishment and spread basic lies about what homosexuality is and isn't and whip up a fervor about it telling people God is on your side in this and therefore will be on theirs, what precisely did they expect?
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
No visible gay people = no discomfort in having to think about them/deal with them/engage with them. In the words of that great theologian The Church Lady (pond in-joke): "I'n't that con- veeeen -ient?"
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by five:
But if you go off to a country where the system provides for death as a common form of punishment and spread basic lies about what homosexuality is and isn't and whip up a fervor about it telling people God is on your side in this and therefore will be on theirs, what precisely did they expect?
This is what I am driving at. While I don't think the view that the evangelicals in question actively want homosexuals to be executed, how supportable is their position that they didn't expect their behaviour to have the results that it did?
Shurely not.
Posted by Matariki (# 14380) on
:
I recently took part in a thread on the Christianity Today website on the proposed Ugandan legislation.
Never for one moment would I imagine that most American evangelicals want to see gays killed. However there were some extremely shrill voices on the thread. One allegation was that gays rape women and children and thus spread AIDS. Sometimes the language was really offensive; "Gays are the bubonic fleas on the backs of their liberal cheerleader rats."
Any attempt to express a more balanced - or God forbid a liberal - viewpoint met with personal abuse from a few contributers.
As has been noted, for some this is a vicarious battle in the so-called culture war. The clock will not be turned back on the rights GLBTQ people have won in the States and elsewhere in the Western world. I am sure some of their opponants sense the 'thrill' of a vicarious victory in Africa.
Posted by five (# 14492) on
:
This is something I just don't understand. I have gay friends, I have straight friends, I have people I know less well who might be gay or straight, and frankly unless they decide/bother to tell me (as with my gay and straight friends), how would I know the gender of the people they prefer to see naked? And unless they're asking me to be that person (whether from a gay or straight perspective), why would I care?
Even if I took the hard core evangelical Romans line (which, for the record I do not), as sins go this is something that is entirely between two consenting adults and other people are not harmed by it. There isn't the "is it murder" question of abortion. Property isn't damaged, unless they're particularly vigourous, but that can happen with straight sex too. In terms of a sin,, it is a much more personal one between a person and their God. I don't see these people travelling to Uganda to exhort them to honour the Sabbath Day and keep it holy, and they appear to have totally missed the admonishment not to lie. And they can't tell who's gay and who's straight just by looking at them, so they're already engaging with them and they don't even know it.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by five:
Having read the article, it seems that the evangelicals responsible don't want gays put to death. They are greatly convinced, however, that gays can choose to be straight just as much as they chose to be gay. The fact that isn't a choice to be gay doesn't enter into their thinking.
My take on it was that the evangelicals in question don't want to be blamed for gays being put to death and their response was primarily one of public relations.
quote:
Mr. Lively and Mr. Brundidge have similar remarks in interviews or statements issued by their organizations. But the Ugandan organizers of the conference admit helping draft the bill, and Mr. Lively has acknowledged meeting with Ugandan lawmakers to discuss it. He even wrote on his blog in March that someone had likened their campaign to “a nuclear bomb against the gay agenda in Uganda.” Later, when confronted with criticism, Mr. Lively said he was very disappointed that the legislation was so harsh.
<snip>
[Rev. Kapya] Kaoma was at the conference and said that the three Americans “underestimated the homophobia in Uganda” and “what it means to Africans when you speak about a certain group trying to destroy their children and their families.”
“When you speak like that,” he said, “Africans will fight to the death.”
They seem genuinely perplexed that they were taken seriously. I'm amazed that anyone could argue that homosexuality is a society-destroying evil, that it is correctable, that gays are literally Nazis who are coming after your children, and not expect a response along these lines.
There is some interesting parallelism going on here with the Mediæval blood libel, the idea that Jews stole Christian children for ritual sacrifice. The details have changed a bit (rape and recruitment instead of murder and cannibalism) but the central message ('they' are coming for your children) is the same.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by five:
This is something I just don't understand. I have gay friends, I have straight friends, I have people I know less well who might be gay or straight, and frankly unless they decide/bother to tell me (as with my gay and straight friends), how would I know the gender of the people they prefer to see naked? And unless they're asking me to be that person (whether from a gay or straight perspective), why would I care?
Even if I took the hard core evangelical Romans line (which, for the record I do not), as sins go this is something that is entirely between two consenting adults and other people are not harmed by it. There isn't the "is it murder" question of abortion. Property isn't damaged, unless they're particularly vigourous, but that can happen with straight sex too. In terms of a sin,, it is a much more personal one between a person and their God. I don't see these people travelling to Uganda to exhort them to honour the Sabbath Day and keep it holy, and they appear to have totally missed the admonishment not to lie. And they can't tell who's gay and who's straight just by looking at them, so they're already engaging with them and they don't even know it.
Agreed completely (does that mean the Apocalypse is nigh? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
). This is a particularly odious and fascistic law and these particular US evangelicals have got their fingers rather badly burned; hopefully they will learn from their mistake but the damage to Ugandan gays has, regrettably, already been done - the genie is out of the bottle and I fear that there is going to be no returning it.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Croesos wrote quote:
There is some interesting parallelism going on here with the Mediæval blood libel, the idea that Jews stole Christian children for ritual sacrifice. The details have changed a bit (rape and recruitment instead of murder and cannibalism) but the central message ('they' are coming for your children) is the same.
Indeed. In fact it may be worth spreading that line of enquiry a bit further. There are also parallels with the Satanic Ritual Abuse (link) panics of much more recent origin. The weirdest thing about those was that though they appear to have origins in certain American religious circles, they subsequently got imported into the UK by secular concerns. In fact, they all represent moral panics of a particularly dangerous kind.
Which is highly relevant because the culture wars themselves are a huge, reciprocal moral panic. Yet another reason why the export of that is so dangerous.
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on
:
I happen to agree with them that there is a "gay agenda". I feel it is encouraging promiscuity. I think the message they promote encourages teens (children at least legally) to have sex.
I remember being in collage and watching the gay groups target high school kids with provocative cultural events like films. They were trying to find new converts and have sex with them.
I accept this as part of any culture. Teenagers seek new experiences and have sex. It's part of growing up.
I do think those who go into other cultures and start stirring trouble are misguided. Here in the states, with our long history of freedom of speech, such mud-raking is done to try to rise above the background noise. But in other cultures it will be taken in other ways. I can see this might be a problem.
But I also think some of you are confusing the message with the medium. The basic message that promiscuity is wrong can only help Africa. Children are dying. They are dying after large amounts of scarce resources are spent schooling them.
This encourages less to be spent on schooling and more to be spent on training child armies. The whole culture suffers. It affects the whole continent and the whole world.
Instead of decrying these people, join them. Talk about how they may be misguided about the causes of homosexuality but the idea of forming close knit families is a good one. Help be part of the solution.
Africa has plenty of people willing to suppress free speach. Love and compassion is what Africa and the rest of the world is short on.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
The weirdest thing about those was that though they appear to have origins in certain American religious circles, they subsequently got imported into the UK by secular concerns.
It was secular concerns who spread the panic in North America as well. It likely wouldn't have gotten as far as it did had the belief been confined to fundamentalists.
Basically, from what I can tell, you basically had a perfect storm of groups coming together to create the SRA panic...
1. Christian fundamentalists who believed that Satanists were running amuck all over the place, raping children and eating babies...
2. Pseudo-feminist and "pro-child" advocates who believed that every allegation of sexual abuse had to be accepted as valid, lest we abet the perpetrators, and...
3. Tabloid media(Geraldo, Oprah etc) who put far more stock than was warranted in what the "pro-child" people had to say.
I'm not a knee-jerk Oprah hater, but I do think she's gotten off a little too easy for her role in perpetrating that hysteria, which, after all, damaged dozens if not hundreds of peoples' lives. I remember a show she did on the topic of SRA, and it was obvious to anyone with a lick of sense that the people making the allegations were full of crap. Yet Oprah dutifully led the audience in booing anyone on the panel who expressed skepticism.
It also probably didn't help matters that the skeptical panelists included a self-announced Satanist(who dressed in black and had stereotypically "evil" eyebrows, but actually made the most sense of anyone on the show) and a fairly obnoxious science-fiction writer.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
quote:
I happen to agree with them that there is a "gay agenda". I feel it is encouraging promiscuity. I think the message they promote encourages teens (children at least legally) to have sex.
I guess I missed this memo somewhere in my psychosexual formation. Others?
When you talk about "them," Jeff, you're talking about me and about a good many other Shipmates. Just a reminder before you start painting us with your broad brush again.
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
But I also think some of you are confusing the message with the medium. The basic message that promiscuity is wrong can only help Africa.
Except that if you read the article again - or even ToujoursDan's helpful extract in his post above - you will see that the message is nothing to do with promiscuity, it is all about hating and demonising gays. A message that you seem to be doing your own bit to stoke up with your
quote:
They were trying to find new converts and have sex with them.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
I want to convert to tallness and green eyes...can anyone help me? ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
[ 04. January 2010, 17:03: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
I wrote a bit on an earlier thread about how the situation in Uganda is a variety of witch-hunting and linked to this very good historical blog post which had a bit to say about why gay men especially might be picked as victims.
Some people want scapegoats, perhaps for disease or conflict or social breakdown, or change in a society. Christian witch-hunting developed first out of heresy hunting, and then later in the wake of the Black Death became the Satanic panic we're all familiar with, which stepped up a gear during the religious wars and divisions that came in the wake of the Reformation. It was a historical sister to anti-semitism and the first sodomy scares.
It's interesting that the modern version is centred round not so much 'enemies of God' but 'enemies of the family'/'enemies of children' as if the family has become the be-all and end-all, something which I think is interesting when you consider how radically non-family centric the life of Jesus is, yet this gets turned into 'What it's all about'.
I think similar things to the historical dynamics of scapegoating are at work. Some people don't like social change, they want someone to blame for it, and it's far easier to go after gay people than to wrestle with divorce and remarriage and the emancipation of women and the pressures of the economy on families.
In Westernised societies (which were to a large extent alerted to the dangers of demonisation and marginalisation of groups, and which have robust human rights laws and defenders), the most such people can do is slow down acceptance and make a last stand in the churches, where adherence to 'scripture must be right at all costs or my salvation is unsure' makes people reluctant to admit the obvious fact staring them in the face that their gay neighbours are harmless and that the people destroying heterosexual marriage are, in fact, us heterosexuals.
But when you apply the toolbox of scapegoating to a country which has far worse problems, far fewer checks and balances, and which has historical and cultural resonances with an anti-gay message, then you're really playing with matches.
I think far too much is being made of the 'Well they had tactless foreigners too!' card. When I checked it out I saw that major persecution of gay people (including rape and murder) pre-dated any intervention by the US Bishop who was being blamed on the last thread, for denouncing the state of affairs there.
L.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
quote:
I remember being in collage and watching the gay groups target high school kids with provocative cultural events like films. They were trying to find new converts and have sex with them.
Who exactly is this "they" who are trying to have sex with high school kids? And how exactly can kids be "converted"?
Posted by Matariki (# 14380) on
:
Well said LutheranChik,
I must have missed the Gay Agenda pep talk too. Personally I always thought it was about making the world a bit more fabulous. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
They were trying to find new converts and have sex with them.
I spent a bit of time in univeristy doing political activism in close proximity to the campus gay group, and I never got the impression that the main aim was specifically to recruit teenagers for sex. I dunno, maybe stuff was going on at their closed-door meetings that I wasn't privy to, like some kid walks in and all the old trolls start eyeing him and then trying to convince him that of course he must be gay and why don't you come to our apartment after to find out. But I doubt it. In fact, some of the gay guys I knew were just as keen on recruiting women for the group, so where would that get them, sexually speaking?
I do agree that some of them had a rather grating tendency to overestimate the chances that a given individual might be gay. But I don't think this was because they wanted to sleep with each and every one of them. Like I said, gay men would also say this about women they assumed were repressed lesbians.
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on
:
Pre-cambrian, I call it as I see it. Many of the twenty five year old wanted to have sex with twenty year olds and many of the twenty year olds wanted to have sex with seventeen year olds.
That's how the world works. It happens in the gay subculture and in the straight subculture. It happens in the Humanist subculture and in the Evo-Christian subculture. The heart wants what the heart wants.
Oh and re-quoting from above: quote:
“the gay movement is an evil institution” whose goal is “to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity.” [my bold]
Sexual promiscuity is very much an issue.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Actually Louise, I agree with most of that. If your comment was about my contribution to that thread, then the point I was making there was relating to the potentiation of an already existing situation into something far more dangerous, which duly happened. (If it wasn't, just ignore this - I've been away for several weeks).
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Instead of decrying these people, join them. Talk about how they may be misguided about the causes of homosexuality but the idea of forming close knit families is a good one. Help be part of the solution.
I'm not sure which "these people" DJ is suggesting we find common cause with. The ones proposing the death penalty for gay "repeat offenders"? Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively and those like him who believe gays are a cancer on society? Those who believe "close knit families" and "gay families" are mutually exclusive groups? There doesn't seem to be a lot of common ground these groups would be willing to occupy with any homosexual.
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
I remember being in collage and watching the gay groups target high school kids with provocative cultural events like films. They were trying to find new converts and have sex with them.
Funny. I remember being part of those gay groups putting on the film festivals and I sure as shootin' don't remember that being on the business meeting agenda. Mostly it was about film rights and event space rental fees and okay, whose turn was it to bring the coffee and donuts? Seriously, people, there's a signup sheet for a REASON!
Of course, I went to college, not collage, which could be part of the problem...
[ 04. January 2010, 17:17: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
They were trying to find new converts and have sex with them.
I spent a bit of time in univeristy doing political activism in close proximity to the campus gay group, and I never got the impression that the main aim was specifically to recruit teenagers for sex.
Same here. As the student union projectionist, I even screened the Gay Awareness Week films. The person who accidentally booked the most explicit film (because it was German and she didn't realise how er... full on it was) was the entirely heterosexual film and theatre convener. I regret to inform that it didn't lead to anyone attempting hot gay sex with either myself or Emma. Nor can I report a single known convert. In fact I think it might have put some of the more sensitive souls off for life and driven them back to ovaltine, and fluffy slippers.
L.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
I knew I was gay when I was in high school. I was fully aware of the fact. But when I was in high school in the early 80s, being called a "fag" and imitating effeminate behaviour was the highest form of ridicule. You couldn't be openly gay then at that age.
Beyond that there was no information to help me make sense of who I was. My parents didn't speak about it. There was nothing in our school library about it. I didn't know any openly gay people as role models living in a white-bread conservative suburb.
It was confusing. I am not an effeminate man, so how could I be gay? I was attracted to other male schoolmates though. And the stigma was so strong I wasn't comfortable asking questions. What if someone figured it out and the cat was out of the bag?
I would have given my eye teeth to have a "gay group" come to my school and present something... anything... that gave me some hope and direction. The goal of gay films, etc., isn't to make converts out of anyone. It's to help closeted high school kids like me make sense out of our feelings and to help my heterosexual classmates become more tolerant of kids who are different. High school can be a very cruel place for a kid that doesn't fit in.
In fact, more information leads to less promiscuity. When you can see examples of stable healthy relationships you realize that anonymous sex or fleeting trysts aren't all there is to sex.
The proposed law in Uganda does NOTHING to stop promiscuity. It doesn't target polygamy or prostitution. It merely targets gay people and those who know them. Knowing a gay person in Uganda and not informing on them will become a crime.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
... let me just draw attention to one of the other points in that NYT article:- quote:
Uganda seems to have become a far-flung front line in the American culture wars, with American groups on both sides, the Christian right and gay activists, pouring in support and money as they get involved in the broader debate over homosexuality in Africa.
Its understandable that the New York Times sees everything through a red-white-and-blue tinted lens, because its trying to sell news to Americans. But this really isn't something nasty Americans are tricking the gullible Africans into doing believing. If you all went away Africans would still have these problems and these debates. I doubt if it helps anyone in Uganda or Malawi to treat their problems as if they were merely a reaction to American "culture wars".
Much of the online discourse about this from liberal American Christians has been deeply, if (I hope) inadvertantly, racist, not seeing Africans as actors or agents in their own stories but as passive re-actors to things done to them by Americans. (Its also worth saying that from outside the USA - even from somewhere as culturally linked to the US as Britain, never mind from East Africa - the sides in the US "culture wars" seem a lot more like each other than they might to Americans)
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
There are also parallels with the Satanic Ritual Abuse (link) panics of much more recent origin. The weirdest thing about those was that though they appear to have origins in certain American religious circles, they subsequently got imported into the UK by secular concerns.
Not really weird. Over here that was an anti-Christian panic. "Look at these loony believers, they are all weird, you can't trust them with your children". To modern agnostic secularism ALL firmly held religious ideas are dangerous superstition. Which is one reason that the liberal establishment regards all evangelism and proselytisation as aggression - as all religious ideas are equally false it is an abuse to try to pollute anyone's mind with any of them. They can admire cultural religion, which is seen as a sort of atavistic folk tradition, especially amongst "primitive" peoples (not that they would use those words) in a sort of touristy pop-anthropological "when do the natives dance?" sort of way; and for similar reasons they can at least tolerate catholic ritualistic Christianity (especially when indulged in by poor peasants) but they cannot bear any serious engagement with low-church Protestant styles of Christianity.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
I think far too much is being made of the 'Well they had tactless foreigners too!' card. When I checked it out I saw that major persecution of gay people (including rape and murder) pre-dated any intervention by the US Bishop who was being blamed on the last thread, for denouncing the state of affairs there.
There is a tendency among some leftists(and I say some) to want to absolve members of oppressed groups for their own self-inflicted SNAFUS. It's fairly predictable, actually. You can almost see them at their keyboards, and they come across an article along the theme of "Third-world Country Does Something Bad", and their immeidate impulse is to type the name of the Third World country, the name of the bad thing, and the words "American evangelical Christians" into the search engine in the hopes that some linkage can be found. Then, their off to their favorite blog of message board to spread the good news that of course those people in the third-world country would never have dreamed of doing such a dastardly thing had it not been for evil American influence.
That said, in this particular matter, I don't think Rick Warren et al can be let off the hook for their involvement in the Ugandan anti-gay fiasco. Though obviously the Ugandan leaders were quite willing to listen to the message being offered.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
According to the article itself, things were getting better for Uganda's gay and lesbian population BEFORE right-wing American ex-gay ministers and preachers started intervening in Uganda's law.
What about the right of Uganda's LGBT population to live in peace?
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Pre-cambrian, I call it as I see it. Many of the twenty five year old wanted to have sex with twenty year olds and many of the twenty year olds wanted to have sex with seventeen year olds.
That's how the world works. It happens in the gay subculture and in the straight subculture. It happens in the Humanist subculture and in the Evo-Christian subculture. The heart wants what the heart wants.
Okay, but you're admitting then, aren't you, that this isn't confined to gay campus groups. 25 year old campus Conservatives probably want to have sex with 20 year olds in their club, and the 20 year old campus Conservatives might want to have sex with the 17 year olds. That doesn't mean the whole point of the club is to facilitate sexual encounters.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
There is a tendency among some leftists(and I say some) to want to absolve members of oppressed groups for their own self-inflicted SNAFUS. It's fairly predictable, actually. You can almost see them at their keyboards, and they come across an article along the theme of "Third-world Country Does Something Bad", and their immeidate impulse is to type the name of the Third World country, the name of the bad thing, and the words "American evangelical Christians" into the search engine in the hopes that some linkage can be found. Then, their off to their favorite blog of message board to spread the good news that of course those people in the third-world country would never have dreamed of doing such a dastardly thing had it not been for evil American influence.
That said, in this particular matter, I don't think Rick Warren et al can be let off the hook for their involvement in the Ugandan anti-gay fiasco. Though obviously the Ugandan leaders were quite willing to listen to the message being offered.
I'm not sure why your first paragraph was included except as a way to let Rick Warren et al "off the hook". I'm don't see how Google searches by"some [unnamed] leftists" is relevant to Lively, Brundidge, and Schmierer trading on their supposed expertise in how to combat the evil gays to influence the Ugandan legislature other than to create some sort of absolving equivalence.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
According to the article itself, things were getting better for Uganda's gay and lesbian population BEFORE right-wing American ex-gay ministers and preachers started intervening in Uganda's law.
Fair enough. But I have to wonder HOW much better things really were getting if all it took was one conference by three speakers to set in motion the cycle of beatings, rape, and homicidal legislation that we see happening now.
If the three Americans had gone to Sweden to give their speech, I doubt we'd be seeing the same results.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
I'm not sure why your first paragraph was included except as a way to let Rick Warren et al "off the hook". I'm don't see how Google searches by"some [unnamed] leftists" is relevant to Lively, Brundidge, and Schmierer trading on their supposed expertise in how to combat the evil gays to influence the Ugandan legislature other than to create some sort of absolving equivalence.
The first paragraph was just sort of riffing on a general trend I've noticed, and was not meant to be precisely applicable to the Ugandan situation. If you look at my second paragaph, you'll see that I preface my remarks with "in this particular matter", as a way of distinguishing Uganda from the trend I was referring to.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
Does that make their assessment of their plight any less valid?
I find it interesting that few have discussed LGBTs in Uganda, given that they are the ones being targeted and the ones who have appealed to those "racist" liberals in the west for assistance.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Fair enough. But I have to wonder HOW much better things really were getting if all it took was one conference by three speakers to set in motion the cycle of beatings, rape, and homicidal legislation that we see happening now.
If the three Americans had gone to Sweden to give their speech, I doubt we'd be seeing the same results.
An interesting analysis of the growing links between evangelical American churches and African congregations by Rev. Kaoma was linked in the original NYT article. You should give it a read.
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on
:
Yes Stetson, I admit it's a broad cultural problem (phenomenon?). The difference isn't that Christians' behaviors are different; it's that our message is different.
We are hypocrites. We call each other to a higher standard even as we fail to live up to it.
But that beats a message of "It's good to have sex with whomever." The reason for this is because promiscuous sex hurts people. More even than spreading disease it spreads hurt feelings. Envy, jealousy, anger, and hatred are the fruits of this tree.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
I went to a university with a lively gay and lesbian community, in a city with a lively gay subculture, and I never felt "recruited" into that scene in the least...to the contrary, I remember my first trembling undergraduate venture into the local lesbian book coop (after several trips around the block) -- I wasn't out of the closet even to myself at that point, but on some level I felt an affinity for the women there and their p.o.v. -- only to find a rather ordinary group of moms reading to their toddlers. The local heterosexuals (including my very own stalkers) were much more sexually and culturally aggressive. And that's been my experience thereafter.
At the risk of dignifying comments by Mr. Jeff that don't warrant respect...perhaps he mistakes the common human desire to find connection and affirmation with other people like oneself for "recruitment." Think of anxious Evangelicals, Jeff, on a university campus, trying to find like minds and winding up at an ICF meeting; try and imagine, if you can, that the gay community is more like that and less like the Roman orgy you seem to have in mind.
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
This is a fascinating conversation, but I don't see how it can be carried on without some discussion of the rights and wrongs of homosexuality, which means it belongs in Dead Horses, not here. Please feel free to continue the conversation in that corral.
Trudy, Scrumptious Purgatory Host
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
I'm also wondering where on this thread the notion "It's good to have sex with whomever" has been affirmed; not by anyone's posts that I can find. So with whom are you arguing, Jeff?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Yes Stetson, I admit it's a broad cultural problem (phenomenon?). The difference isn't that Christians' behaviors are different; it's that our message is different.
We are hypocrites. We call each other to a higher standard even as we fail to live up to it.
But that beats a message of "It's good to have sex with whomever." The reason for this is because promiscuous sex hurts people. More even than spreading disease it spreads hurt feelings. Envy, jealousy, anger, and hatred are the fruits of this tree.
I would argue that "It's good to have sex with whomever" is better than the message "You cannot have sex ever, and if you do the state will hunt you down, imprison you, and possibly even execute you". Admittedly that's not a mainline Christian position, but it's the position being argued about in this thread so I can only assume it's the one DJ is advocating as a superior alternative.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
I would like to know how making it illegal to even know a gay person yet not report that person to the cops will do anything to make Ugandan society less promiscuous?
Posted by Túathalán (# 14148) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
I remember being in collage and watching the gay groups target high school kids with provocative cultural events like films. They were trying to find new converts and have sex with them.
I have two main reactions to this paragraph - the first is to ask if you seriously believe that human individuals' sexuality can be 'converted'? For the record, I think this is just not possible, and that people who engage in homosexual sex are not converted in some way, but were homosexual or bisexual (to whatever degree) independently of any 'conversion' attempt.
The second point is that I am intrigued by the notion that a film could be a provocative cultural event; what was provocative - the films' content (such as rape or exaggerated promiscuity), or the films' type (such as a gay plotline or similar)? Or was the provocation just that some gay people ran a film at all? I'd be interested to know, as it's not something I've ever encountered here in the UK.
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on
:
It seems to me that at least three of you equate anyone who disagrees with whatever you think the gay agenda is as rounding up all the gays and their friends for slaughter.
If you reread my posts you will find I don't advocate that. I don't even think those you condemn advocate that.
What I do advocate, as a small part of a very serious problem in Africa, is teaching love and faithfulness. I do advocate free speech. I do advocate coming together to find solutions.
I oppose violence, official or otherwise, against people on the basis of their sexuality. This includes straights, gays, pedophiles, or zoophiles. (I would like to see pedophiles and some zoophiles locked up to protect their victims.)
LutheranChik, I hope I'm having a discussion, not an argument. But I suspect more than a few people disagree with me.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Ken wrote quote:
Its understandable that the New York Times sees everything through a red-white-and-blue tinted lens, because its trying to sell news to Americans. But this really isn't something nasty Americans are tricking the gullible Africans into doing believing.
Cripes! I hope it wasn't anything I wrote that suggested that. My point is really that a culturally-insensitive intrusion from outside will likely play on existing fears, understandings and prejudices. The reason for raising it is that either side may inadvertently do more harm than good thereby, however well-intentioned they may have been. In the medium term and beyond you are right I'm sure, but right now we have a perturbation. Readers wondering why now might profitably read Gildas' blast of realpolitik on the previous thread.
quote:
Not really weird. Over here that was an anti-Christian panic. "Look at these loony believers, they are all weird, you can't trust them with your children". To modern agnostic secularism ALL firmly held religious ideas are dangerous superstition.
Point taken - a better word would have been "ironic".
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
Jeff: No; you're having an argument, or more accurately a monologue, since you seem stuck on the tired old "Gay people are out to convert the young to their perverted lifestyle" meme. Wrapping that up in a ribbon of concern for love and faithfulness is to me rather disingenuous, particularly since you condemn the love and faithfulness of my own relationship.
The renowned philosopher Judge Judy says, "Ignorance is curable; stupid is forever." The fact that I'm still speaking to you, Jeff, is a sign that for the time being I'm putting your postings in the former category. But if you insist on repeating the same tedious accusations against me and my community, that may change.
[ 04. January 2010, 19:44: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I would like to know how making it illegal to even know a gay person yet not report that person to the cops will do anything to make Ugandan society less promiscuous?
Indeed - and what about the Samaritan hearing a confidence or a priest hearing a confession? They are liable to imprisonment.
What about a parent having to 'shop' his/her own child? (Isn't that what the Nazis demanded?)
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
I happen to agree with them that there is a "gay agenda". I feel it is encouraging promiscuity. I think the message they promote encourages teens (children at least legally) to have sex.
Talking about a 'gay agenda' in these terms is like talking about the existence of a Jewish world-wide conspiracy, and deserves as much credence.
L.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
It seems to me that at least three of you equate anyone who disagrees with whatever you think the gay agenda is as rounding up all the gays and their friends for slaughter.
We are discussing the role of the American religious right in the proposal of a law that criminalizes gay people and their friends. Until now you seem to have been defending this law. So it's no surprise that people would jump to this conclusion.
quote:
If you reread my posts you will find I don't advocate that. I don't even think those you condemn advocate that.
Perhaps they, like you have been, are extremely naive and couldn't see the consequences of their actions. But when they, as you did, assert that gays are predatory people, it shouldn't be a surprise that those in Uganda would respond by passing such laws.
I find that level of naiveté hard to fathom.
quote:
What I do advocate, as a small part of a very serious problem in Africa, is teaching love and faithfulness. I do advocate free speech. I do advocate coming together to find solutions.
And this law does nothing to promote love, faithfulness and free speech. Do you agree?
quote:
I oppose violence, official or otherwise, against people on the basis of their sexuality. This includes straights, gays, pedophiles, or zoophiles. (I would like to see pedophiles and some zoophiles locked up to protect their victims.)
Do you also oppose laws that specifically target gay people for prosecution or not?
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on
:
Tuathalan first, I don't think a person's sexuality can be changed post adolescence. It is remotely possible it is psychologically imprinted at an early age, but more likely it's genetically determined.
It is possible to convert someone's world view. The worldview that we are called to express our sexuality in the way that's most attractive to us is not part of the Christian paradigm. There's nothing wrong with homosexual Christians just as there's nothing wrong with heterosexual Christians.
But there is something wrong with a Christian who doesn't try to control their sexuality, whatever it is. Christianity is not about sex. It's about love for God and each other. That means seeking the Kingdom first, not our own pleasure.
Yes we will all fail from time to time. So what? Pick yourself up and redouble your efforts, not to avoid sex, but to seek love.
Second, an example of such a cultural film is the Rocky Horror Picture Show. This show was shown regularly at our campus. It included all the cult classic toys and activities.
I'm not condemning this show which is a work of art. Nor am I condemning college students luring high school students into sex. These are part of life and to deny them is to blind yourself.
But I would like to draw attention to them and contrast them to the Christian message of Hope. For those who are willing to set aside their own childish desires, Christ's joy is greater.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
quote:
I think the message they promote encourages teens (children at least legally) to have sex.
Again, at the risk of straining everyone's cresibility here, and despite my own increasing urge to simply cut a Hell call, I'll suggest that what DJ is interpreting as recruitment due to his homophobia is actually the gay community's outreach to younger gay people -- a population vulnerable to self-loathing and suicide, to abuse at the hands of their peers, to misunderstanding and rejection by family members and friends -- with the message that gayness is an natural orientation, that they're not horrible, contemptible weirdos deserving of rejection by God and human society, and that they can find affirmation, information and support in the community if their family and friends reject them.
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Second, an example of such a cultural film is the Rocky Horror Picture Show. This show was shown regularly at our campus. It included all the cult classic toys and activities.
I'm not condemning this show which is a work of art. Nor am I condemning college students luring high school students into sex. These are part of life and to deny them is to blind yourself.
But I would like to draw attention to them and contrast them to the Christian message of Hope.
quote:
Everywhere, it's been the same
Like I'm outside in the rain
Free to try and find a game
Cards for sorrow
Cards for pain
'Cause I've seen blue skies
Through the tears in my eyes
And I realize
I'm going home
That is, of course, an excerpt from the Rocky Horror Picture Show song "I'm Going Home". Seems pretty darn hopeful to me. Almost, you know, a song of repentence and redemption.
Not going to try and deny that RHPS is full of sex, drugs, cannibalisim, rock and roll, transvestisim, and sparkly tap shoes. It also is a film that follows the classical plot line of a tragedy, where lives are changed forever thanks to a simple plot twist (in this case, a broken-down car) and two people learn what is really underneath their thin veneer of respectability.
At the end of the film, there is no happy orgiastic ending, just three broken people lying in the rain, with an uncertain future extending ahead of them as they have to face a world with new knowledge of what they are and what they are capable of.
Which, in Brad's case, includes dancing in stiletto heels.
But apart from the film itself, the culture that has sprung up around RHPS is a culture where you are free to be whatever you are, as long as you allow others to be whatever they are. Some of the folks are there to get their sexy groove on, but some are just there to make the world a better place for a couple hours by wearing sparkly tap shoes.
'Cause in my opinion, the world needs more sparkly tap shoes.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
It seems to me that at least three of you equate anyone who disagrees with whatever you think the gay agenda is as rounding up all the gays and their friends for slaughter.
If you reread my posts you will find I don't advocate that. I don't even think those you condemn advocate that.
As ToujoursDan pointed out, we're discussing a law designed to to exactly that and your response was that we should "join them" and "be part of the solution". Exactly what sort of compromise do you think should be reached? Imprisonment instead of death? Lighter sentences for those who don't turn in gay friends or family members? Allow gay advocacy groups to form, but only if registered with the government and if the officers of the organization wear distinctive dress? You're being awfully coy about what it is you are actually advocating. Why not just spell it out?
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
It is possible to convert someone's world view. The worldview that we are called to express our sexuality in the way that's most attractive to us is not part of the Christian paradigm. There's nothing wrong with homosexual Christians just as there's nothing wrong with heterosexual Christians.
But there is something wrong with a Christian who doesn't try to control their sexuality, whatever it is. Christianity is not about sex. It's about love for God and each other. That means seeking the Kingdom first, not our own pleasure.
There are those that disagree that Christian sex always sucks. Of course, when Rev. Haggard says "Evangelicals have the best sex life of any other group", he may be including meth-fueled sex with gay prostitutes.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
I have posted a Hell call for this, precisely to deal with Dumpling Jeff's contributions and the Rocky Horror tangent. It has absolutely nothing to do with the very serious issue of what is happening in Uganda. I don't want to see that lost in a tangent or derail because of the way one poster has addressed it. I will leave hosting this thread to Tony. (Sorry Tony)
L.
[crossposted with Crœsos]
[ 04. January 2010, 21:31: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posted by Túathalán (# 14148) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
There's nothing wrong with homosexual Christians just as there's nothing wrong with heterosexual Christians.
But there is something wrong with a Christian who doesn't try to control their sexuality, whatever it is. Christianity is not about sex. It's about love for God and each other. That means seeking the Kingdom first, not our own pleasure.
Yes we will all fail from time to time. So what? Pick yourself up and redouble your efforts, not to avoid sex, but to seek love.
Second, an example of such a cultural film is the Rocky Horror Picture Show. This show was shown regularly at our campus. It included all the cult classic toys and activities.
I'm not condemning this show which is a work of art. Nor am I condemning college students luring high school students into sex. These are part of life and to deny them is to blind yourself.
Thank you for your reply ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
To address your first point, I would agree with what you seem to be suggesting - that is, that promiscuity is to be avoided. I also like your suggestion that we should be seeking love, and agree that picking oneself up after failure is important.
Your second point regarding the Rocky Horror Picture Show - which I presume is an example of a provocative cultural event that you referred to earlier - is one that leaves me baffled, I'm afraid. Having seen the film in question a couple of times, I am at a loss to see how it could be viewed as being provocative. Maybe it was different when and where you experienced it, but I just can't reach the same conclusion...
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on
:
LutheranChik wrote, quote:
a population vulnerable to self-loathing and suicide, to abuse at the hands of their peers, to misunderstanding and rejection by family members and friends
Are you sure you're not describing teenagers in general? I'm not gay but that seems a fair description of my teenage years.
Why do you accuse me of homophobia? Have I said I was afraid of gays? I think I said the opposite. If I call gays to a better life, I call straights to that same life and for the same reason. Let the dead bury the dead.
Spiffy, at the risk of falsely outing myself, I also wish the world had more sparkly tap shoes.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
quote:
Are you sure you're not describing teenagers in general? I'm not gay but that seems a fair description of my teenage years.
Wow, Jeff -- you mean that in your surly youth you and your straight neighbors were routinely worried about being beaten within an inch of your life -- or beyond -- by bigoted thugs, or kicked out of your home and left to find for yourself, or sent to be tortured emotionally and otherwise at a "reparative therapy clinic," or condemned to hell from the pulpit of your faith community? Really? Because in certain families and communities that's what gay kids who dare to out themselves face at the hands of their loved ones and neighbors. You must have grown up in a rough neighborhood. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:
Why do you accuse me of homophobia? Have I said I was afraid of gays?
Your obsession with the fantasy that Teh Gayz are coming to get the children would seem to be a strong indicator of that.
quote:
If I call gays to a better life, I call straights to that same life and for the same reason.
So how does implicit support of Ugandan anti-homosexuality legislation (even of a kinder/gentler variety) call gays to a better life? Please explain.
What better life are you calling my partner and I to, for that matter? Are you insinuating that our lives aren't as good as yours now? Again, please explain.
[ 04. January 2010, 22:45: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on
:
LutheranChik, unless you're a bit older than me I don't think you were in danger for your life from your straight neighbors. It still happens that gays are killed, but it's rare and pretty much universally condemned.
But for the record, my "neighborhood" was rough, and there are always reasons for people to be cruel. I got over it.
I'm not sure how you interpreted my remarks as either an obsession with Teh Gayz or support for Ugandan laws I know nothing about.
I'm calling you and your partner to a life following Christ. This comes before sexual politics. It even comes before families.
When I'm following Christ (which is not as often as I should) there is no better life. When I stray, I'm miserable.
Hopefully you and your partner are better at following Christ than I am and so live a good life more of the time than I do. If so, please pray for me.
Do you think I'm attacking you? Do you fear my judgment? I'm not attacking you and my judgement is as flawed as any man's. Even if it weren't, your fears are in vain. I do have trouble understanding your apparent anger though.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
quote:
I'm calling you and your partner to a life following Christ. This comes before sexual politics. It even comes before families.
Do you care to expound on this? Do you think that a Christian life "coming before families" looks different to a gay person than to a straight person in relational terms?
quote:
Do you think I'm attacking you?
Yes, as well as other gay people; obliquely and in Kristian Luv [tm], of course.
quote:
Do you fear my judgment?
No; but I certainly resent it.
quote:
I do have trouble understanding your apparent anger though.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
I'm not sure how you interpreted my remarks as either an obsession with Teh Gayz or support for Ugandan laws I know nothing about.
Is it too much trouble to read, or even skim, the thread before posting? Perhaps before telling everyone to "join them" you should have a clearer idea who "them" is and what they're advocating. You seem to have simply cut out the work of actually thinking about the topic being discussed by the expedient of just assuming that anyone who is anti-gay must be in the right.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
For those who want further information on this (and have eighteen minutes to spare) here is a video of American journalist Rachel Maddow interviewing Richard Cohen, Mr. Brundidge's colleague at the International Healing Foundation. My take is that the guy seems more like a used car salesman than a psychiatric specialist.
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on
:
There's an interesting interview with Ugandan bishop David Zac Niringye on the ChristianityToday website on this issue.
I'm an evangelical Christian, and I believe the Bible teaches that homosexual activity is sinful, but at the same time, I don't believe it should be a crime, any more than adultery or coveting or pride. And the penalties involved in this law are just horrible.
From the interview above, it seems to me that one of the difficulties is that Uganda's legal system doesn't hold the same distinction between private morality and public legislation - adultery is a crime in Uganda, for example. The cultural and legal situation is very different from the West, and demanding that Uganda simply adopt Western-style legislation isn't very constructive without working to first introduce ideas of personal liberty and a distinction between public and private, which give the basis for the Western approach.
There's also a wider debate about whether the death penalty is right for any crime. I don't think it is, but unfortunately it's an established part of the Ugandan legal system.
You've then got the whole complex issue of whether and how the West should try and influence Uganda on these matters, especially when some in Uganda would see any attempt to do so as a decadent society trying to reassert colonial authority. I do think the West, including evangelical Christians, do need to engage with the issue. But getting on a high-horse of moral indignation could be dangerously counter-productive. There needs to be engagement, but engagement sensitive to the cross-cultural differences.
It seems to me pretty clear-cut that this is a bad law, but the question of how to respond to it is far more complex.
[ 05. January 2010, 07:59: Message edited by: The Revolutionist ]
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
Revolutionist: Why do I suspect that if the legistlation in question negatively impacted -- oh, say, Evangelical missionaries in Uganda -- the Evangelical response would be much less hesitant and angsty and sensitive to cultural differences?
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on
:
Croesos, I doubt spending an afternoon studying is going to make me an expert on Ugandan law and culture. Further, I doubt both the competence and agenda of those who think this is possible.
In your video link with Mr. Cohen spends much of his time correcting assumptions made by his critics. These are not just assumptions about him, but assumptions made about Ugandan law and history. He clearly states that he opposes the concept of punishing gays in any way. He is opposed to killing them.
He does not condemn the Ugandan law. In this he shows more wisdom than most people on this thread. Uganda is a totally separate country with its own culture and reason for doing things. Walking in as an ignorant foreigners and demanding changes that we don't understand is wrong.
It seems likely that this law will be used to kill gay people. That I oppose. But I don't know the relationship between the law and practice in Uganda. For all I know they will shower the gays with wealth and power because of this law. (Yes I'm using absurdity to make a point.)
Uganda had its own reason for inviting these people to speak. Uganda ignored the majority of the book and concentrated on a few quotes from since defrocked scientists. Blaming the authors of the book for the situation in Uganda, as if these were ignorant savages, is offensive.
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Revolutionist: Why do I suspect that if the legistlation in question negatively impacted -- oh, say, Evangelical missionaries in Uganda -- the Evangelical response would be much less hesitant and angsty and sensitive to cultural differences?
The difference being that how Uganda treats Evangelical missionaries, especially if those missionaries are from the West, is of legitimate interest and concern to Western evangelicals, whereas many in Uganda seem to perceive this as being a matter of their own internal business, their own culture, against Western interference and busyboding.
I don't agree with that assessment, and I think that where possible evangelicals should engage with what's going on. And FWIW, I wouldn't want Western evangelicals blundering into a cross-cultural situation in a well-meaning but counter-productive way on any issue.
Also, it's natural that you're more likely to hear about and pay attention to something that affects people you have some connection to - not that this is necessarily a good thing.
Finally, I don't know whether there has been such a thing as "the Evangelical response", at least in the UK. Perhaps its a more visible issue in the US, but I've only come across it on the web, and I don't think the evangelicals I know are particularly aware of it. I've not seen any kind of co-ordinated response - as I see it, "the Evangelical response" (rather than the response of a few individual evangelicals here or there) is non-existent rather than hesitant. Again, I'm not saying this is a good thing!
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
It still happens that gays are killed, but it's rare and pretty much universally condemned.
I'm calling you and your partner to a life following Christ. This comes before sexual politics. It even comes before families.
Are you for real? Even the most cursory of glances at Amnesty International's website will show you that the killing of gays is NOT rare - especially in Jamaica and in most so-called Muslim countries.
As for the call to someone and their partner to follow Christ, am I to assume that would entail the breaking up of the relationship? Assuming that you are married, would you leave your wife because of your faith?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Some fundies would say 'yes' to that in certain circumstances; I know quite a few (well, there are only a few in total in reality!) Exclusive Brethren, for example, who would say that your fellowship 'family' is more important than your biological/matrimonial family and who take Jesus' words in Matt 10:34-37 very seriously indeed. Harsh, but at least consistent...
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
Well, Jeff, what is it -- Christ is calling me to end my marriage? Really? Why don't you come out and say it, if that's what you mean?
As far as your doubt that that many gay people would be killed in Uganda as a result of this legislation -- once again, your comments suggest that your primary concern here is with Evangelicals expressing their ick-factor solidarity with the Ugandan government over homosexuality, over and above gay Ugandans' rights and even lives. You all -- including "kinder, gentler" Rick Warren and all your coreligionists -- want to make really, really sure that you're on the record as disappproving of homosexuality. Whether ensurign that incites violence against homosexuals seems to be of secondary concern to you.
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
It still happens that gays are killed, but it's rare and pretty much universally condemned.
Are you for real? Even the most cursory of glances at Amnesty International's website will show you that the killing of gays is NOT rare - especially in Jamaica and in most so-called Muslim countries.
Also not rare in the US.
Or in the UK.
[ 05. January 2010, 17:51: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Indeed - Matthew Shepherd, RIP - Gay Christian (not an Oxymoron despite what you-know-who says)
The Admiral Duncan, Soho pub bombing.
Also a friend of mine two streets away and faithful altar server - I have just come back from our monthly requiem - his Year's Mind/Anniversary was part of the prayers.
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on
:
Spiffy, do you even read your own links?
Every murder is a tragedy. I deplore them and what I'm about to write should by no means be taken as a defense of the murderers. Yet murders happen. Do let's look at the links:
The first link is to a story where the defendant is claiming self defense. Authorities have not decided if sex had anything to do with the crime.
The second, from two years ago, involves a kid who was tormented, then shot for being gay. Reading further we find that such bullying occurs for 18% of gay students. The incidence of such bullying for non-gays is 18%. Teachers reported they heard more bullying remarks based on appearance, weight, and sex than they did homophobic remarks.
The third link was about a marine who killed his professor after that professor sexually assaulted him (according to the killer). I would take this defense with a grain of salt. This is likely your best case for a homophobic killing.
Yet I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the marine was unstable and had been given a bad grade from the prof. He might try to use a "the guy was gay" defense, but the most recent people to do that got life sentences.
The UK story includes two men who beat a gay man to death while yelling anti-gay garbage at him. Of course one of them had just left legal custody for -- get this -- assaulting his own mother.
Killing gays, or anyone else, is wrong. But until you can show where gays are being murdered faster than everyone else, I won't believe it's because of anti-gay violence.
You do have a point about foreign countries, particularly Islamic countries. If I were gay I would be afraid of the rise of Islam. Of course I'm not gay and I'm afraid of the rise of Islam.
I know you want to think the whole world revolves around being gay. But the rest of us don't care. Specifically, I'm not accusing you of sin.
Posted by Late Quartet (# 1207) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
But the rest of us don't care.
NOT IN MY NAME
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
I know you want to think the whole world revolves around being gay.
That's an odd thing to say. I've never seen anything about Spiffy that would make me think that, and I read most of her posts, spend copious time chatting with her in realtime, and I've even met her and spent the good part of a day with her in person. So if she really wanted to think the whole world revolves around being gay, I'm pretty well placed to have noticed it.
Can you explain what about her has led you to this conclusion?
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
What I find mystifying is that this is a thread about a proposed law from ostensibly STRAIGHT people that makes a big deal about others being gay. Yet, DJ has to come in here, first misunderstands the law, then makes outrageous comments about gay recruitment and gay people causing straight promiscuity, then asserts that this law is no big deal and we should butt out and then accuses the gay people on this thread of making it all about us being gay.
Newsflash: The gay people of Uganda didn't propose this law and the gay and straight people in Europe and North America who are outraged by this didn't propose this law. We aren't the ones making this all about our sexuality. The right-wing Christians are doing that.
Secondly, if you don't care, why do you keep coming over here and posting?
[ 05. January 2010, 23:51: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
Posted by iGeek (# 777) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
I know you want to think the whole world revolves around being gay.
You've just proved you don't know a *thing* about my life and the lives of most of my friends who identify as Christian and something other than straight.
How, pray tell, do you "know" what you assert you know? A bit of unpacking on that might be interesting.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
I have seen stats to the effect that about 120 people were murdered in Canada over the '90s, these murders being related to the fact of their gayness (or, in a couple of cases,because the perp decided that the victim was gay, without any evidence).
I have not yet seen any case where an evangelical Christian was murdered in Canada because he was evangelical, or even Christian, for that matter.
But the evos make all sorts of fuss about the danger from the gays, and scream endlessly about the evos are being put upon or threatened.
And you wonder why there is disdain for Christians !
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
quote:
I know you want to think the whole world revolves around being gay.
An interesting statement, coming from someone whose presence on these boards seems preoccupied solely with a couple of ideological hobbyhorses. I dare anyone reading this to do a quick survey of Dumpling Jeff's postings, contentwise, and then mine, contentwise, AND the posts of other "out" LGBT Shipmates, contentwise, and then tell us all what you see as being our relative focal points of existential concern. Go ahead. I double-dog dare you.
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on
:
I happily offer up my recent postings for Lutheran Chik's research.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
For those who are interested, here's a video of Scott Lively whining about how the Southern Poverty Law Center is picking on him by saying he associates with hate groups. You'll note that he doesn't specify which group he feels is being wrongly besmirched in such a manner, and there's a reason for this. You have to be more than just anti-gay to qualify as a hate group in the eyes of the SPLC, which will only classify your organization as a hate group if you're "subjecting gays and lesbians to campaigns of personal vilification". Like claiming that 68% of all serial killers are gay. Or that homosexuals caused the Holocaust. Or, more closely to home for an Ugandan audience, that they orchestrated the Rwandan genocide. These are all things Lively has stated.
Anyway, the SPLC has listed hundreds of American hate groups but only eleven of them are anti-gay organizations. Scott Lively is associated with three of them, which is why he didn't mention the name of the organization he feels was vilified. One of them, Watchmen on the Walls, was mentioned in another Dead Horses' thread.
These are the people DJ encourages us to "join".
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on
:
Croesos, these guys are kooks. But they're kooks with power, at least in Uganda. They will likely agree with the rest of us that killing or punishing gays is wrong. Why not ask them to write an open letter to the Ugandan government stating this?
Is it because the SPLC says they're a hate group? They also include groups like the OMNI Christian Book Club. With quotes like: quote:
Here's freedom to him who would read;
Here's freedom to him who would write;
None ever feared that the truth should be heard,
But those who the truth would indict.
What's not to fear?
Of course they also include groups like the Jewish Defense League and various RC and other Christian groups, so they should not be simply dismissed.
One thing all the groups seem to share is that they're all kooks. SPLC's list of hate groups is more a list of kook groups to my mind. Most hate groups are kooks, but there are plenty of peaceful kooks too.
The problem with dismissing kooks is that they're occasionally right. Whether it's the Wright brothers or that geeky kid named Bill Gates who dropped out of college to work in a field no one had ever heard of, kooks have an annoying tendency to turn into prophets.
So you have a group of kooks who share your views about one issue and one issue only. They are in a position to save lives. But you won't ask them to because they're kooks. Hmm....
Fortunately, liberal press releases to the contrary, it seems Scott Lively (one of the authors) is apparently doing this on his own. So feel free to continue to condemn him. He's doing the right thing (here at least) anyway.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Croesos, these guys are kooks. But they're kooks with power, at least in Uganda. They will likely agree with the rest of us that killing or punishing gays is wrong. Why not ask them to write an open letter to the Ugandan government stating this?
If they were at all inclined to do so, they would have done so already. They did everything in their power to convince the Ugandan government that in their expert opinions rabid homosexuals were going to rape their sons, turn their daughters into whores, and replay the genocide from neighboring Rwanda in Uganda. If they sincerely believe this, then they won't agree with the rest of us that punishing gays is wrong. If they don't sincerely believe this, then they're slimey opportunists who are unlikely to undermine their own credibility by sending such a letter.
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Is it because the SPLC says they're a hate group? They also include groups like the OMNI Christian Book Club. With quotes like:
quote:
Here's freedom to him who would read;
Here's freedom to him who would write;
None ever feared that the truth should be heard,
But those who the truth would indict.
What's not to fear?
Yeah, what indeed?
quote:
OMNI CHRISTIAN BOOK CLUB
Palmdale, Calif.
Omni is a leading purveyor of radical traditionalist Catholic materials, including a cornucopia of rabidly anti-Semitic and conspiratorial writings. Run by Phil Serpico, son of the former aerospace technician who started the organization in 1958, Omni describes the Jews as "the first civilization to practice the belief in racial supremacy, and the chief advocate of that practice today." That's mild compared to the offerings that grace Omni's book catalogue, including Richard Harwood's Did Six Million Really Die? (published by neo-Nazi Ernst Zundel); Henry Ford's The International Jew, available abridged or in a deluxe, four-volume set; Arthur Butz's Holocaust-denying The Hoax of the Twentieth Century ("a must read into the biggest hoax in world history, who's behind it, how they've profited from it, and what can be done to put an end to it"); several issues of the late Father Leonard Feeney's Jew-bashing monthly The Point; The Judaic Connection, describing a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy against the Catholic Church; and even defenses of Hitler. Omni also sells masses of antigovernment conspiracy materials that decry the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and the supposedly imminent "New World Order." Overall, Omni sees the Vatican II church reforms as a con pulled off by liberal bishops, and pledges to expose "elements detrimental to the survival of our culture and civilization" and to supply "an alternative source of facts for a more meaningful understanding of world and local events." Finally, Omni also sells Coast Lines Depots: Los Angeles Division, a 1992 book by the younger Serpico, who turns out to be a railroad buff who runs another Web site specializing in that topic.
I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say in your defense of an extremely anti-semetic publishing house. Are you asserting that gays are perpetrating a 'hoax' similar to the Jewish-perpetrated 'hoax' of the Holocaust and that action should be taken to stop their nefarious plan?
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Fortunately, liberal press releases to the contrary, it seems Scott Lively (one of the authors) is apparently doing this on his own. So feel free to continue to condemn him. He's doing the right thing (here at least) anyway.
Covering his own ass in the American media is not the same as "doing the right thing". This is just the usual evangelical doublespeak: one message for the True Believers, another for wider audiences.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Those holocaust deniers. What a bunch o' lovable kooks, eh?
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
Tut, tut! Didn't you read? They may be prophets! ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
I know you want to think the whole world revolves around being gay. But the rest of us don't care. Specifically, I'm not accusing you of sin.
Does the whole world revolve around being con evo?
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on
:
Croesos, I'm saying that "waging ideological war" is a far cry from advocating violence. This is doubly true when the people being accused are being so accused for reading books.
Yes the books are kooky. Yes someone, somewhere (unnamed of course) accused them of being anti-semites. So what. It's called freedom of speech. You know, that thing that allows gays to speak as well.
You ask why, if someone were inclined to write a letter, why haven't they done so. Later, when it turns out they have written that letter, you say it's only for media consumption.
Nothing is enough for you. You've decided this guy is bent on killing gays and nothing is going to convince you otherwise. Well, I'm not convinced.
To me it looks like this guy went over to Uganda and tried to drum up book sales. When he realized he was being used to promote a violent political agenda, he did what he could to stop it.
I think you are being paranoid.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Yes the books are kooky. Yes someone, somewhere (unnamed of course) accused them of being anti-semites.
Let's see, why would someone somewhere do that? Cos they read the list of books these guys publish? Yeah, that could be it. Hell, if that list is accurate, then *I* accuse them of being anti-semites, right here and now. Happy?
quote:
So what.
So it's vile, repulsive, and reprehensible.
quote:
It's called freedom of speech. You know, that thing that allows gays to speak as well.
Their being free to say it doesn't make it okay to say. It doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't protest against their saying it. They're reprehensible scum, and it's MY freedom of speech that allows me to say so. I'm not saying to stop them from talking. I'm saying they're morally repugnant.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Croesos, I'm saying that "waging ideological war" is a far cry from advocating violence. This is doubly true when the people being accused are being so accused for reading books.
It could be argued that using "war" as a metaphor for your actions invites the assumption of violence.
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Yes the books are kooky. Yes someone, somewhere (unnamed of course) accused them of being anti-semites. So what. It's called freedom of speech. You know, that thing that allows gays to speak as well.
No, not someone unnamed. The SPLC. I'm not sure why you consider it a violation of free speech to call anti-semites anti-semetic. People who market The International Jew (as a serious work, not an historical curiousity) or a book on the Holocaust described as "a must read into the biggest hoax in world history, who's behind it, how they've profited from it, and what can be done to put an end to it" would seem to fall into that category.
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
You ask why, if someone were inclined to write a letter, why haven't they done so. Later, when it turns out they have written that letter, you say it's only for media consumption.
Has Mr. Lively actually written your suggested open letter to the Ugandan government? I was referring to his self-serving dodges during an NPR interview. He mentions a posting on his blog in which he suggests a few tweaks to the law, but he's still in favor of criminal penalties for homosexuality, as he admits both on the blog and on NPR. There's no indication that he's done anything particular to bring this to the attention of the Ugandan authorities or that he was all that worried about it before his name appeared in the New York Times.
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
I know you want to think the whole world revolves around being gay.
That's an odd thing to say. I've never seen anything about Spiffy that would make me think that, and I read most of her posts, spend copious time chatting with her in realtime, and I've even met her and spent the good part of a day with her in person. So if she really wanted to think the whole world revolves around being gay, I'm pretty well placed to have noticed it.
Can you explain what about her has led you to this conclusion?
I'm kind of wanting to know the answer to MT's question, too. DumplingJeff, are you going to answer or just leave us in the dark?
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on
:
So many points, so little time.
Mousethief, I'll get to my conclusion about Spiffy's wanting the world to revolve around her being gay in a bit. I do want to mea culpa for using hyperbole on this. But first let me present Dumpling's Guide to Sex the unfinished draft.
Sex is like ice cream. It is pleasant. It is tasty. It is good for us. We can't have it all the time without getting sick.
God wishes us the best so He's fixing us a big banana split with all the fixings. Those who are willing to wait until God is finished are in for a real treat.
But we are like greedy children who don't want to wait. There are other more convenient choices nearby. If we're in a hurry we can just have a popsicle.
They are also good and tasty. And they don't take as long to prepare. They are ready now.
Gay sex is mostly like that popsicle. So is heterosexual sex. They are just different flavors. Of course I'm talking about the fleeting arrangements of our serial monogamous culture here.
Longer, more involved arrangements might be like ice cream sundays.
But for the full split we need to follow St. Paul's advise and not marry. Then we can live in the spiritual ecstasy that comes from placing God before everything else.
Instead we get hungry now. We settle for less than God promises us. I'm as guilty of this as anyone. But I can't honestly hold settling for less up as the ideal. God wishes to give us so much more.
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on
:
Now to discuss breaking taboo. This is my opinion and worth every penny you're paying for it. Scrolling onward now might be a better option than reading the screed that follows, but you did ask why I suspected some people of wanting the world to revolve around homosexuality. quote:
A taboo is a strong social prohibition (or ban) relating to any area of human activity or social custom that is sacred and forbidden based on moral judgement and sometimes even religious beliefs. -- (Wikipedia)
IMO, taboos are hard to break. It takes considerable mental effort to set aside the silence around an taboo issue and consider it rationally. Most people can't be bothered.
Historically homosexuality has been a taboo issue in the U.S., Great Britain and much of the world. Gay people don't have the luxury of ignoring this issue. It confronts them every day.
Initially we are all socialized to consider homosexuality as odd. This is because it is. Roughly 5% of the population is gay. So children are assumed heterosexual and trained that way. Teaching tolerance is good, but teaching 95% about "their" sexuality in a way that will never matter to them is a waste of brain cells that could be better spent learning something more useful (such as tolerance).
Initially a child may feel attraction toward others of their gender, but being children, this attraction is not likely self perceived as anything unusual.
As the child reaches puberty this becomes harder to hide from oneself. Eventually most homosexuals need to admit to themselves at least that they are different. They then need to deal with the issues of breaking taboos.
This is initially mostly a personal issue. They need to reinvent their self perception to be something other than what society has taught them they were. For some this is easy. Others have such a hard time they never really accomplish it.
Next they need to decide whether to let others know. Does a gay person come out of the closet and risk social approbation? Or do they continue to try to live a lie?
I think that decision is a false choice. It assumes that other people have a right to know about one's sexual preferences. Of course remaining silent will have an effect on how easily one might find a mate. Therefore I think promiscuous people have a greater need to come out in order to find partners. Often they come out and act as matchmakers for those who chose not to come out.
This self selection can cause homosexuals to be perceived as overly promiscuous by the general population which tends to ignore lower profile monogamous gays.
Regardless of promiscuity, having risked (and in some cases received) social approbation, a large price has been paid. Socially it's easy to self identify with the group who has broken taboo. It's easy to see this as a good thing and be proud of it.
The problem I have is that the battle against the taboo has been largely won. Nobody I know is afraid of discussing homosexuality. No one I know wants to punish gays. Sure that sort of thing goes on in deepest, darkest Africa, but not in Peoria.
Most of the heterosexual population doesn't care who you screw.
But having spent so much social and mental effort fighting the good fight, some people just can't let go. Everyone who isn't for them is against them. Gayness is used as the touchstone to judge people.
Well that's not Christian either. The war is over, stop fighting.
On the gay marriage issue, I think it's just that so many people have invested their lives in their marriage that they are afraid of change. The word carries a lot of emotional baggage that the institution does not carry. Civil partnerships granting the same rights could be set up without to much trouble I think.
Unfortunately, old, married people vote. And since gays start out as a minority anyway, they have an uphill political fight to start with. Still gay marriage will come as the homophobic seniors die off. Unless they keep acting as assholes of course.
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on
:
Croesos, where do you draw the line between the "action" of writing a book that challenges the popular culture and violence?
To me violence uses force or the threat of force. So the policeman who rounds up gays is engaging in violence. He has a gun and those who oppose him will be hunted down.
Of course the policeman who enforces that court order the Southern Poverty Law Center filed for against the KKK also engages in violence. He has the same gun and will also hunt down those who challenge him.
The KKK was historically also violent. I don't have trouble hunting them down as they would hunt others.
But as far as I know, book clubs don't engage in lynchings. They present ideas. People can rationally decide to ignore the kooky ideas and the good ideas will float to the top of society. Book clubs don't need to be suppressed.
Of course that's just my opinion.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Croesos, where do you draw the line between the "action" of writing a book that challenges the popular culture and violence?
To me violence uses force or the threat of force. So the policeman who rounds up gays is engaging in violence. He has a gun and those who oppose him will be hunted down.
Of course the policeman who enforces that court order the Southern Poverty Law Center filed for against the KKK also engages in violence. He has the same gun and will also hunt down those who challenge him.
The KKK was historically also violent. I don't have trouble hunting them down as they would hunt others.
But as far as I know, book clubs don't engage in lynchings. They present ideas. People can rationally decide to ignore the kooky ideas and the good ideas will float to the top of society. Book clubs don't need to be suppressed.
Of course that's just my opinion.
The SPLC is provides legal counsel and doesn't file suit on its own behalf, but rather on behalf people who have (since you picked the Klan as an example) been severely beaten by Klansmen, had their homes or businesses or houses of worship burned by the Klan, or other grounds on which civil lawsuits can be filed. They have never filed a suit against the Klan for being a white supremacist organization, largely because that's not illegal in the U.S. They do, however, strenuously maintain that the Klan is a white supremacist organization.
To the best of my knowledge the SPLC has never taken any action against Omni Christian Book Club other than classifying them as anti-semitic. You seem to be operating under the baffling notion that it "suppresses" Omni if other people are allowed the right comment on them (a.k.a. free speech). While this sort of "free speech for me but not for thee" attitude is commonplace, I'm surprised anyone thinks it's convincing argument.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Still gay marriage will come as the homophobic seniors die off. Unless they keep acting as assholes of course.
Since when is seeking human rights 'acting as assholes'?
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
"Unless they keep acting as assholes" = "Unless they keep disagreeing with me."
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
They'll get their civil rights when they stop trying to get their civil rights. History hasn't shown that to be an effective strategy.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Really? So Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, the suffragettes and Gandhi failed?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Martin Luther King stopped trying to get his civil rights? No, he did not. That would mean he packed it in and went home. Either that or you have perverted the meaning of "try" to make it mean what you want it to mean. Non-resistance doesn't mean you stop trying. Your non-resistance *IS* your trying.
Good grief.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Was that a neural hiccup, leo? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on
:
I don't think MLK was an asshole; do you?
I don't understand why people think the only way to accomplish political goals is to verbally (or physically) beat their opponents and bystanders. That's not the way MLK, Mandela, or Gandhi worked.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
I don't think MLK was an asshole; do you?
Which gay-rights proponents do you think are assholes?
Why?
How many gay-rights proponents need to be assholes (in percentage or absolute terms, I don't mind) in order to justify denying gay people generally their civil rights?
Are you really intending to blame some or all gay people for the persistence of homophobia, or is that another impression which you are going to climb down from when called on it?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Really? So Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, the suffragettes and Gandhi failed?
Someone is misunderstanding something. I posted the above in response to Mousethief's 'They'll get their civil rights when they stop trying to get their civil rights. History hasn't shown that to be an effective strategy.'
In other words, I thought Mousethief was saying that LGBs wil get their rights when they STOP campaigning.
My point is that all the great liberation movements would have failed if they'd given up being noisy and awkward.
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I posted the above in response to Mousethief's 'They'll get their civil rights when they stop trying to get their civil rights. History hasn't shown that to be an effective strategy.'
In other words, I thought Mousethief was saying that LGBs wil get their rights when they STOP campaigning.
I've read enough of mousethief's posts to think that would have been an odd thing for him to say, and I caught the ironical tone immediately. It is unfortunate that his post was the first on the page--it made the context of his remark less plain.
If I ever read a post of mousethief's where he appears to be agreeing with DJ on a substantive matter, I will probably assume he mistyped. Something on the order of leaving out a critical word like "not".
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
I read mousethief's first sentence as having an implied sarcastic question mark after it.
In other words, mousethief and leo agree. They are arguing the same point (which is a common thing in my family, which is why I'm quick to recognize it )
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Yeah, it probably would have been clearer if I had used a question mark. The first sentence was a direct paraphrase of DJ --which, as has been pointed out, would have been more obvious if I hadn't topped the page.
So yes, it appears leo and I agree. Which is good.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
I don't think MLK was an asshole; do you?
I don't understand why people think the only way to accomplish political goals is to verbally (or physically) beat their opponents and bystanders. That's not the way MLK, Mandela, or Gandhi worked.
It should be noted that the entire point of MLK's Letter from a Birmingham Jail was essentially his response to the Dumpling Jeffs of his day who essentially asked "Why can't you be nicer to those folks at the White Citizen's Councils? I'm sure if you weren't so 'uppity' they'd come around sooner." Most of his letter is a rejection of this position.
As modern example of this sort of thing, the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission recently compiled a list of the Top Ten Anti-Christian Acts of 2009. In particular I'd like to draw your attention to #7.
quote:
7. The overt homosexual participation in Obama's presidential inaugural events by “Bishop” Vickie Eugene Robinson, the Gay Men's Chorus of Washington D. C., and a homosexual marching band.
Here is a group billing itself as "Christian" that considers publicly acknowledging that gays exist to be an affront to them. (An "attack", as the list is re-title when reproduced in Christian News Wire. I have a hard time seeing a group that considers any sort of public participation by homosexuals as a deliberately calculated insult agreeing to any sort of common ground with gays more mild than "you go back in the closet and we won't send you to an internment camp".
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on
:
quote:
If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me. (M.L. King: Letters from Birmingham Jail)
This is how MLK addressed his Christian political enemies. These enemies were at least partially responsible for him being in that cell.
Leaving aside the lack of jail cells, where is this level of humility in the LGBT movement? When has this movement asked for forgiveness from either God or man? Has it become so twisted over a few verses in the Bible that it forgets the rest?
MLK reached out in Christian love to his oppressors. He did so as a child of God. His authority did not come from being placed in charge of some bureaucracy. It was not the government which appointed him.
Instead he asked for understanding from men of good will who opposed him.
My sugestion that the LGBT political movement reach out to it's enemies is met with scorn. Feel free to scorn, but please don't quote MLK while doing it.
I am not a homophobe. I don't care who most people sleep with. I am not your judge. I do not persecute gays. I oppose their persecution. Yet I seem to be lumped in with those who would torture and kill people for being gay.
Seeking human rights is not "acting as assholes", leaving your love for your fellow man behind while you do it is.
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
My sugestion that the LGBT political movement reach out to it's enemies is met with scorn. Feel free to scorn, but please don't quote MLK while doing it.
That's because most of us already do reach out, again and again and again, in the face of the rudeness that is pushed at us regularly. You clearly do not know many of the dedicated and humble lesbian and gay people working to facilitate change in their communities. We will quote MLK all we like.
Posted by amber. (# 11142) on
:
Yu, I have the honour of working with some of those very dedicated, quiet, cheerful LGBT advocates, working for change within our churches and communities.
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on
:
President Museveni is at least acknowledging the pressure being put upon him internationally so the diplomatic effort seems to be working a little bit, so far.
- - - -
DJ, I'm not sure that self-defining as non-homophobic necessarily carries that much weight; many gay people here, me included, see a thread of homophobia running through your posts. This may not be welcome news to you but then you cannot define our perceptions of you for us. It's a bit like the old "I'm not a racist, but..." that has been discussed elsewhere on these boards in the last 12 months. I am not asking you to change your views; I am asking you to acknowledge our right to our own views.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
President Museveni is at least acknowledging the pressure being put upon him internationally so the diplomatic effort seems to be working a little bit, so far.
- - - -
DJ, I'm not sure that self-defining as non-homophobic necessarily carries that much weight; many gay people here, me included, see a thread of homophobia running through your posts. This may not be welcome news to you but then you cannot define our perceptions of you for us. It's a bit like the old "I'm not a racist, but..." that has been discussed elsewhere on these boards in the last 12 months. I am not asking you to change your views; I am asking you to acknowledge our right to our own views.
DumplingJeff, considering that folks like Welease Woderick are the people who'd have to walk the path you'd like to prescribe for them wherever they are, including Uganda, I think they shouldn't have to insist that their own views about their own lives be respected.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
quote:
If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me. (M.L. King: Letters from Birmingham Jail)
This is how MLK addressed his Christian political enemies. These enemies were at least partially responsible for him being in that cell.
Leaving aside the lack of jail cells, where is this level of humility in the LGBT movement? When has this movement asked for forgiveness from either God or man? Has it become so twisted over a few verses in the Bible that it forgets the rest?
MLK reached out in Christian love to his oppressors. He did so as a child of God. His authority did not come from being placed in charge of some bureaucracy. It was not the government which appointed him.
Instead he asked for understanding from men of good will who opposed him.
My sugestion that the LGBT political movement reach out to it's enemies is met with scorn. Feel free to scorn, but please don't quote MLK while doing it.
I am not a homophobe. I don't care who most people sleep with. I am not your judge. I do not persecute gays. I oppose their persecution. Yet I seem to be lumped in with those who would torture and kill people for being gay.
Seeking human rights is not "acting as assholes", leaving your love for your fellow man behind while you do it is.
Actually Martin Luther King Jr wasn't as passive or reserved as you think. He used strong language against the Vietnam War.
Reaching out in love doesn't necessarily mean being nice in a cutesy way. It also means being frank and truthful about oppression. Should an abused woman say to her husband "Please, please stop." I would rather her say "F**k off".
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
quote:
Leaving aside the lack of jail cells, where is this level of humility in the LGBT movement? When has this movement asked for forgiveness from either God or man? Has it become so twisted over a few verses in the Bible that it forgets the rest?
For starters, you'll find this level of humility in the long-suffering gay and lesbian community within the ELCA, whose numbers maintain both their faithfulness and their forebearance in the face of angry conservatives within the denomination calling the faith of gay Lutherans and the goodness of their committed relationships into constant question AND blaming the gay community for "destroying our church" (as they themelves withhold their donations and withdraw their own memberships). And you can find that same dynamic in denomination after denomination.
Posted by iGeek (# 777) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
where is this level of humility in the LGBT movement?
sez the member of the hetero-sexist majority to the non-straight minority.
Why should we be humble? That only got me threats of being bashed when I was younger. The hell with that.
Posted by Matariki (# 14380) on
:
So often calls for LGBT 'humility' really mean 'I wish you'd dissapear.
Should we engage in dialogue, state our case, claim what is justly ours with humility, without aggression and respectfully - why yes. Where aren't we?
I had an experience yesterday which, on the one hand I am reluctant to talk about but is in some ways not untypical of my life as a clergyperson who happens to be gay.
One of my parish stewards phoned me and asked if I could pick up an item donated to our 'op shop' (charity shop / thrift store) so off I drive. When I arrive I realise the donors are a couple who left the church when I was appointed because "it was a bit much that a homosexual was to be the new minister when they'd just had a lesbian minister."
On my arrival I was given the item and reminded of their reasons for leaving; though it was "nothing personal of course." As usual I said I hoped they had settled into their new church and that they have lots of friends in their old church.
I didn't know what conclusions I can draw from this, I am stilll thinking about the encounter but I don't think I showed a lack of humility.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
I seem to recall that a certain President of the USA was called "uppity" by some of the whiter elements of his people, a term that implied he was "stepping out of line" by continuing to campaign for president.
Would you suggest that the majority of USAans should have stopped being so accomodating to a mere black man? Or are they all wrong, wrong, wrong for even voting?
Can you get it through your thick head that people are oppressed by the pure Christian whites, and that eventually they get tired of being told they aren't really human enough to be allowed to exist?
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on
:
Happy St. MLK day.
I'll continue in my ignorance and see MLK as a saint and a role model for civil disobedience even if this makes me a racist homophobe.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Oh yeah, that's what's been said.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Happy St. MLK day.
I'll continue in my ignorance and see MLK as a saint and a role model for civil disobedience even if this makes me a racist homophobe.
This is the funniest thing that's ever been said in Dead Horses. Thanks for the levity!
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Happy St. MLK day.
What's with the St.? I bet if you were going to refer to a white saint, you'd spell it out rather than abbreviate it.
Racism doesn't come any more blatant than that.
And why pick on MLK day when it was also Melbourne's G&L Celebration Day.
You racist homophobes really like to pick your moments don't you. It makes me sick.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
What's with the St.? I bet if you were going to refer to a white saint, you'd spell it out rather than abbreviate it.
Huh? People use the abbreviation "St." all the time -- or else when we saw it we'd see "Street" and wonder what it was doing in front of a person's name. I can't see where you get the idea that nobody ever abbreviates "Saint", or at least when it precedes a name. Still less that doing so constitutes a slight.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Has this turned into "Oh, I get it now"?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Corrolary to Poe's Law.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Happy St. MLK day.
What's with the St.? I bet if you were going to refer to a white saint, you'd spell it out rather than abbreviate it.
Racism doesn't come any more blatant than that.
Bwuh? I don't think I've ever written "Saint Valentine's Day"* or "The Feast of Saints Cyril and Methodius" or "Saint Paul's Church" or any one of the other cases that comes to mind when it's a day or an object for the saint that's being referenced.
* This post doesn't count.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Well that's alright then. Of course I don't think you're a racist homophobe. It's just Dumpling who is, afterall, he was the one who mentioned St. (sic) MLK day.
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on
:
Ahem...
[Host Mode ACTIVATE]
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Well that's alright then. Of course I don't think you're a racist homophobe. It's just Dumpling who is, afterall, he was the one who mentioned St. (sic) MLK day.
mdijon
This post, and your post on 19 January, 2010 at 21:08 are personal attacks on Dumpling Jeff. This breaches Commandment 3 'Attack the issue, not the person'.
If you wish to continue with this, take it to the Hell Board, in line with Commanment 4.
You've been around long enough to know better than this!
[Host Mode DEACTIVATE]
Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
My apologies.
Amidst all the silliness of it all, and my rush to parody the silliness of it, I forgot the boundaries.
Thanks for the warning.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
This has got to be the lamest attempt at spin control I've ever heard.
quote:
A Ugandan gay rights activist whose name was published on a list of the nation's "top homosexuals" was bludgeoned to death in his home near the capital, his lawyer said Thursday.
<snip>
The editor of the Rolling Stone, the tabloid that published the list, denounced the attacks and said he sympathized with the victim's family.
"When we called for hanging of gay people, we meant ... after they have gone through the legal process," said Giles Muhame. "I did not call for them to be killed in cold blood like he was."
I'm sure he went on to explain that hanging was much more humane than being bludgeoned to death with a hammer.
Posted by iGeek (# 777) on
:
American evangelicals complicit in fanning the flames are playing the victim card.
quote:
On Thursday, Don Schmierer, one of the American evangelicals who visited in Uganda in 2009, said Mr. Kato’s death was “horrible.”
“Naturally, I don’t want anyone killed but I don’t feel I had anything to do with that,” said Mr. Schmierer, who added that in Uganda he had focused on parenting skills. He also said that he had been a target of threats himself, recently receiving more than 600 hate mails related to his visit.
“I spoke to help people,” he said, “and I’m getting bludgeoned from one end to the other.”
*shakes head*
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
American evangelicals complicit in fanning the flames are playing the victim card.
quote:
On Thursday, Don Schmierer, one of the American evangelicals who visited in Uganda in 2009, said Mr. Kato’s death was “horrible.”
“Naturally, I don’t want anyone killed but I don’t feel I had anything to do with that,” said Mr. Schmierer, who added that in Uganda he had focused on parenting skills. He also said that he had been a target of threats himself, recently receiving more than 600 hate mails related to his visit.
“I spoke to help people,” he said, “and I’m getting bludgeoned from one end to the other.”
*shakes head*
Unbelievable. The level of ignorance and self centeredness is simply unbelievable. They honestly don't see the blood on their hands or what true persecution and suffering is.
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
... Initially we are all socialized to consider homosexuality as odd. ...
Bzzzzzt. I was socialized to accept homosexuality on a par with heterosexuality. I remember my parents explaining all about why Oscar Wilde went to jail when I was about eight. And I put up with a ton of homophobic bullying in school, which socialized me even more - to be an ally. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
OliviaG
Posted by iGeek (# 777) on
:
Scott Lively, who has as much or more blood on his hands for hateful context in Uganda as anyone, chalks the crime up to a lover's quarrel.
There's absolutely no evidence of that, at present, but it makes sense to him because it's so logical to use an example a crime that happened in New York City and extrapolate it to the situation in Uganda.
Creepy, ugly and disingenuous.
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
Seems the pastor officiating at the funeral of the Ugandan gay activist just couldn't resist telling everyone that the deceased and all other gays are going to hell. This resulted in that pastor being relieved of his duties and another more respectful pastor taking his place. Chaos At Ugandan Funeral
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
The 'pastor' was a lay reader.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0