Ship of Fools: What do they hope to accomplish?

Thread: What do they hope to accomplish? 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=030833

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Marched in my first Pride parade today with PFLAG (Parents, (Family,) & Friends of Lesbians And Gays). I'll say up front that it was a blast and the people were amazing. Everyone appeared to be having a great time, and appreciated us being there. With one exception.

There was of course a contingent of haters there, with big signs detailing what God does to sinners, and a megaphone blasting at us that we were all perverts and abominations and going to Hell. Roughly.

My question: What do they hope to accomplish? Say just for grins that they really think homosexuality is wrong, and that people who practice same are going to Hell. Further assume that they feel called to prevent this happening. Do they REALLY think that calling people names and shouting at them at 120 decibels is going to accomplish this? Can they really be THAT fucking stupid?

The only possible conclusion I can come up with is that they don't give a FUCK about the salvation of all those souls, and are either establishing their membership in their group, or indulging their need to hurt other people (perhaps to make themselves feel better, like the bullies mom warned you about in school), or both.

Other theories?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Can they really be THAT fucking stupid?

Yes.
But beyond that, I think the answer mixed. For the leaders of such groups, there is always the power motive. There is perhaps the desire to make people like you, and less open LGBT+, uncomfortable enough to reduce participation. And they gain attention. And therefore validation and potential recruits.
I think ascribing a hate motive to all of them too simplistic. I think some of them think that they need to "wake people up".

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

One of the great unsolved mysteries! They are certainly not very interested in the reality of real people's lives.

Back in the 90s, there was a group of us who used to go and talk with such protesters, trade bible verses, sing their songs - during marches. It was entertaining to watch them realise that we knew our bibles rather well, and we knew their songs. There was cognitive dissonance. I don't know if it helped or not.

Its from one of those experiences that my favourite march story comes: my friend Roy was standing on the sidelines watching the march, and was buttonholed by a singularly dogged young woman of the fundamentalist persuasion. She started in on the bible verses, and Roy, whose wife is a Presbyterian minister, joined in with the fun for a few minutes. Eventually he said, "Jesus never said anything about homosexuality," to which she replied, "But Jesus is only a tiny part of the Bible."

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
to which she replied, "But Jesus is only a tiny part of the Bible."

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
to which she replied, "But Jesus is only a tiny part of the Bible."

Quite.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Some of them probably want to show they're on God's side--especially to God, 'cause they're afraid.

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

Same with people who stand on street corners shouting out Bible verses, or those who go to the National at Walsingham, they believe they are 'witnessing'. Witnessing, that is, to Biblical Truth.

I suppose there is a feeling of smug solidarity. But the OP asks 'What do they hope to accomplish?', and I think they probably really believe that what they are doing is the best way to help people, like OT prophets denouncing the sins of the people.

Of course, they effect they have is the exact opposite.

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Some of them probably want to show they're on God's side--especially to God, 'cause they're afraid.

I think this is correct. Even if they do not manage to convert a soul to their POV, let alone to their faith, the point is that they have been 'faithful'. They have obeyed God, they have witnessed to the Truth, and they even enjoy the opposition as proof that they are being persecuted for their faith. And of course, blessed are the persecuted, so that confirms that they are in the right.

There is also a belief that even if no one seems to be listening, God may be working in someone's heart, and who knows when the words of Truth you spoke will not suddenly make sense to them? Perhaps even on their deathbed, so they can repent and be in Paradise with Jesus.

They are nuts. But they are mostly genuine nuts (though pastors may well be playing power games). They think they are being loving, and if they manage to save just one soul from the fires of hell, then it will all have been worth it.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

What do they hope to accomplish?

1. Publicity for what they see as the 'rightness' of their belief/cause.

2. Public shame and humiliation for those being yelled at.

Shouting at marchers, banging on the side of prison vans, etc, is the modern day equivalent of throwing rotten produce at people in the stocks and pillory: it tells you far more about the weirdness of the people doing it than those at whom they hurl abuse.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I think it is easier to speak "at" people you disagree with, than to engage with them in serious dialogue. Why, you might even find you have to modify your views (perish the thought!)

Certainly such folk do believe that they are "witnessing to the truth" and don't really care if they are heeded or not. Indeed, being jeered at or ignored simply enhances their sense of being on God's side - for weren't his prophets similarly treated?

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I think the idea that it is power is correct. If you are leading a tiny cult, you need a cause. An enemy. Gays are a safe one, now that Catholics are no longer fashionable. Many hellfire sermons can be got out of them, and if you don't scare the troops you'll lose them.

The other idea is what drives Westboro Baptist Church: litigation. If only a bystander would get mad and push one of my flock down! I could then sue not only him, but his associates/church, the march organizers, the city fathers, the local newspapers, etc. etc. Our budget would be in the black for FY 16!

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Can they really be THAT fucking stupid?
I think ascribing a hate motive to all of them too simplistic. I think some of them think that they need to "wake people up".

But wake them up to what? To the fact that LGBT+ is ub da debbil. Which plays into the hate thing.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Thing is though it doesn't make sense even from their perspective. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most fundamentalists believe that unless you've put your name down on the ConvertedAndAcceptedJesusAsYourPersonalSaviour line you're toast anyway. So stopping whatever it is you're doing as a LGBT person that they think God doesn't like isn't going to change the fact that you're Not A Christian and therefore Going To Burn In Hell.

Given what they believe, wouldn't you think they'd put the effort into converting people, because that's all that actually, in their beliefs as I understand them, makes any difference between eternal wings and harp and the eternal spitroast.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

Keep in mind that a lot of these people actually think being gay is a "choice". I think they want to make it as unpleasant as possible for someone to "chose" to be gay. Make it humiliating, painful, etc. Then maybe others, seeing this, won't make that same "choice".

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

In the more generic situation of shouting random bible verses at passers-by, I've heard an explanation that some passage in Revelation can be interpreted as meaning that everyone on earth needs to 'hear the gospel' before the world can end. Hearing it shouted at you by a nutter counts as hearing the gospel, so nutters shouting at passers by is believed to be an effective way of bringing about the end of the world, even if it doesn't create converts. (And bringing about the end of the world is seen as a Good Thing, of course)

I suspect that lots of people copy this strategy without understanding its logic, even if they think that the purpose of evangelism is to convert people, or if they are referring to a narrow issue such as homosexuality, instead of simply 'preaching the gospel'.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But wake them up to what? To the fact that LGBT+ is ub da debbil. Which plays into the hate thing.

I think ascribing black/white motives to such things is inaccurate and misses, if you care to do so, the path to opening their eyes.
I think some think, as do some harsh parents, that severe measures serve the greater good.
Reality is, no matter how kind the phrasing of the message, hate is there. But that does not mean it is intended.

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Keep in mind that a lot of these people actually think being gay is a "choice". I think they want to make it as unpleasant as possible for someone to "chose" to be gay. Make it humiliating, painful, etc. Then maybe others, seeing this, won't make that same "choice".

Not just others. ISTM, they are trying to effect change in the LGBT community as well. "If they could only grasp how bad the afterlife will be..."

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Thing is though it doesn't make sense even from their perspective.

Karl, oh my, no one has done introductions. There appears to be a group you have not yet met.
Karl:LB meets the Human Race. Human Race; Karl:Liberal Backslider. Please be kind to him, he thinks things work as they ought.

[ 27. June 2016, 16:34: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Thing is though it doesn't make sense even from their perspective.
Karl, oh my, no one has done introductions. There appears to be a group you have not yet met.
Karl:LB meets the Human Race. Human Race; Karl:Liberal Backslider. Please be kind to him, he thinks things work as they ought.

Whoa. Hellish non-sequitur at 12 o'clock.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Thing is though it doesn't make sense even from their perspective.
Karl, oh my, no one has done introductions. There appears to be a group you have not yet met.
Karl:LB meets the Human Race. Human Race; Karl:Liberal Backslider. Please be kind to him, he thinks things work as they ought.
Whoa. Hellish non-sequitur at 12 o'clock.

How is it Hellish and why is it a non-sequiter?
I am not attacking Karl. If I am directing any negativity, it is towards the human propensity to act irrationally, even within their own stated belief system, to do things which do not meet their own criteria.

[ 27. June 2016, 17:02: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

The non sequitur is between

They are not acting sensibly from their own position.

and

You think things work as they ought.

He never said he thought they would act sensibly. He only pointed out that they weren't.

And introducing somebody to the human race isn't attacking their intelligence? You can't believe that.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The non sequitur is between

They are not acting sensibly from their own position.

and

You think things work as they ought.

He never said he thought they would act sensibly. He only pointed out that they weren't.

I think the issue here is in the perceived intention.

Karl:LB: If you perceived this in any way negative towards you; I apologise. It was meant in a joshing manner.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

And introducing somebody to the human race isn't attacking their intelligence? You can't believe that.

Yes, I can. Because I know my motivations. You can argue the failure of the form, but as to the motivation I was in no way attacking Karl.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

The question isn't intent. No one can read intent. All we can read are words.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The question isn't intent. No one can read intent. All we can read are words.

I kinda disagree.

NB:The link is to a Purg post on this tangent, I am not continuing it here.

[ 27. June 2016, 19:14: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

I can't speak for Karl but personally, if I were to discover tomorrow that I were in fact a Vulcan who had fetched up here by mistake I would be very relieved and lot of things would click into place.

On the subject of the OP I don't think the object of the exercise is to achieve anything. The object is to self-define as a Real True Christian who takes a stand against this sort of thing. I have spent most of my life in safe Conservative seats where voting for a centre left party is as likely to affect the election result as writing to the Queen and suggesting that she send in the army to arrest the House of Commons and invite Mr Russell Brand to form a government of national unity. The reason that I nonetheless turn up and vote for the hapless sacrificial victim from the Lib Dems or Labour is really to reinforce a view of myself as a certain person with certain values. On one level it's completely irrational. I could spend the time at home doing something else. But I think I would be less human if I only did stuff that achieved things or advanced causes. Sometimes, you do stuff, for good or ill, simply because you care.

Hmmm. Perhaps I'm not that Vulcan after all.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

So in other words it's all about them, not the people they are driving away from Christ.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I grasped lilBuddha's intent, fear not I know Human Race, so this behaviour doesn't actually surprise me, but it does make me wonder if they've stepped back and thought about what they're trying to achieve.

"Down with this sort of thing!"

"Careful now!"

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So in other words it's all about them, not the people they are driving away from Christ.

Exactamundo!

It's not the only example I can think of, of Christians preferring their comfort zone to persuading other people to become Christians but it is one of the more egregious.

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

I think, when you've been having a frustrating argument with someone, that there is something very satisfying about giving in and yelling "NO! You're WRONG! You're wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong!!!"

Which is much the same impulse as is driving these people.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
... They have obeyed God, they have witnessed to the Truth, and they even enjoy the opposition as proof that they are being persecuted for their faith. And of course, blessed are the persecuted, so that confirms that they are in the right....

Like so many others, they're on a mission to "cleanse" society.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

Remember at some times and some places the protestors have driven (or are driving) the pride parade away (see Russia, Istanbul, etc.). Perhaps they hope enough will show up (or their God shows up) that it will work in this place and this time.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

I'm glad you enjoyed your Pride parade. It's amazing to think how effective a weapon its been to end discrimination against gays by showing people that these are the people they know. That gets lost nowadays.

Just remember those tactics of shame, hate and insult were very effective for centuries. It doesn't work against a parade, but it did work against individuals. That's one of the reasons for the parade.

There's no truth to the rumor that they are really out of work gay actors given a job to convince the dubious of the righteousness of the cause [Smile]

One of the nicest rejoinders I've seen was at the edge of a pride festival where some ugly protesters were met by a pair of lesbians who held hands and sang "Amazing Grace". Many of the rest of us joined in.

The other story I'm fond of has been made into a play "Stu for Silverton". It's a real life story about a small town guy who became a transvestite and then mayor of his town. When the Fourth of July parade was protested by fundamentalists most of the town responded by joining the parade in drag.

[ 28. June 2016, 04:55: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
There's no truth to the rumor that they are really out of work gay actors given a job to convince the dubious of the righteousness of the cause

That would be some mighty fine acting! Josephine tried to make eye contact with one of them and they couldn't look at her. Finally one did, and she told him, "May God forgive you for what you're doing."

I think I agree with the people above who say that for most of these protestors, it's about showing each other and God that they're on the right team. Pity that requires them to tap into their worst nature. That ought to be a clue as to how "Christian" they are acting, but it is not.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

At London Pride, Christians Together At Pride (ie the group of Christians marching in the faith groups section of Pride) spoke to and prayed for the protestors at the side. They are usually quite quiet though, and the crowd block them to an extent.

Posted by David Goode (# 9224) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So in other words it's all about them, not the people they are driving away from Christ.

Exactly. There's nothing quite like surrounding oneself with the objects of one's loathing for bolstering the old self-righteousness.

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :

Sometimes, I think they are just an extreme example of what routinely goes on in conservative churches: they just don't want you there. They make it so very hard for you to join or stay that you simply do not. or the condition of you being in is that 'you don't define yourself by it', that is to say: don't let anyone know, don't act on it, try to cure it... just become like them.

Shouting your (sorry, God's) disapproval is for many a way to keep their churches untainted.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
There's no truth to the rumor that they are really out of work gay actors given a job to convince the dubious of the righteousness of the cause
That would be some mighty fine acting! Josephine tried to make eye contact with one of them and they couldn't look at her. Finally one did, and she told him, "May God forgive you for what you're doing."

I think I agree with the people above who say that for most of these protestors, it's about showing each other and God that they're on the right team. Pity that requires them to tap into their worst nature. That ought to be a clue as to how "Christian" they are acting, but it is not.

Yeah. Anne Lamott's quote comes to mind:

quote:
You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:

1. Sometimes, I think they are just an extreme example of what routinely goes on in conservative churches: they just don't want you there..... T

2. ...or the condition of you being in is that 'you don't define yourself by it',

1. I don't know which conservative churches you know say/do this but I can't recall the last time I heard any kind of homophobic invective in the ones I've been involved in. There are, I grant you, exceptions to any rule but it isn't routine (it most it doesn't happen) and it isn't universal.

Much better just to say some. And, don't confuse some reservations on sexuality with blanket homophobia. You don't move many conversations on in that way.

2. We are defined by who we are in Christ. Defining ourselves in any other way means we view one another on the basis of issues and behaviour, not through the nature of our creation in God's image.

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:

1. Sometimes, I think they are just an extreme example of what routinely goes on in conservative churches: they just don't want you there..... T

2. ...or the condition of you being in is that 'you don't define yourself by it',
1. I don't know which conservative churches you know say/do this but I can't recall the last time I heard any kind of homophobic invective in the ones I've been involved in. There are, I grant you, exceptions to any rule but it isn't routine (it most it doesn't happen) and it isn't universal.

Much better just to say some. And, don't confuse some reservations on sexuality with blanket homophobia. You don't move many conversations on in that way.

2. We are defined by who we are in Christ. Defining ourselves in any other way means we view one another on the basis of issues and behaviour, not through the nature of our creation in God's image.

Oh, come on, 'defining yourself in Christ', for non-gay folks, does not mean that they have no sexual orientation (or nationality, or race, or whatever), whereas in many conservative churches, it means exactly that for gay people: don't act on it, mention it, allow it to 'define' yourself... just be like everyone else, when you're not. And I said not a word about homophobic invective, there's a pious, polite way of doing it.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

"Family" has been co-opted for this. Often 'traditional family', as in 'traditional family values' or 'laws supporting traditional families.' Which is to say ones composed of a man and a woman.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
"Family" has been co-opted for this. Often 'traditional family', as in 'traditional family values' or 'laws supporting traditional families.' Which is to say ones composed of a man and a woman.

And 2.3 kids.

And of course what they mean by "supporting families [of a certain sort]" is actually "discriminating against or punishing people or families of a different sort."

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

Almost any march or demonstration pro something has counter demonstrators.

Is publicly proclaiming disagreement with whatever a march is about wrong?

Pick any dead horse issue, or political issue, or environmental issue, people have strong disagreements. If some want to use public space to draw public attention to their position, of course others will want to make clear in that public space that the marchers don't speak for everyone.

As long as people with disagreements throw words and not rocks, not a problem.

(And yes some of my neighbors truly believe homosexuals are intentionally persistent unrepentant sinners, the worse of sinners because they persist in their behavior and beliefs. These neighbors view a wrong like murder as less sinful because it happens once instead of ongoing. Whole churches that are otherwise fine people believe this way!)

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Almost any march or demonstration pro something has counter demonstrators.

Is publicly proclaiming disagreement with whatever a march is about wrong?

Pick any dead horse issue, or political issue, or environmental issue, people have strong disagreements. If some want to use public space to draw public attention to their position, of course others will want to make clear in that public space that the marchers don't speak for everyone.

As long as people with disagreements throw words and not rocks, not a problem.

(And yes some of my neighbors truly believe homosexuals are intentionally persistent unrepentant sinners, the worse of sinners because they persist in their behavior and beliefs. These neighbors view a wrong like murder as less sinful because it happens once instead of ongoing. Whole churches that are otherwise fine people believe this way!)

Just 'homosexuals' (homosexual PEOPLE) or bisexual or transgender people too?

I know it's just how Christians talk and that it's wholly out of step with how the real world talks, but gay people do not talk about themselves as 'homosexuals'. They are gay people. Nobody says 'oh hi I'm Dave, I'm a homosexual'. So why do Christians insist on talking like this?

As I said, it is LGBT people and including bisexual and transgender people, not 'homosexuals'. People talk about LGBT rights in the real world, not a 'homosexual agenda'.

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

Following on from Belle Ringer's post, I guess there is another angle on the OP. If we mean 'What do they hope to accomplish?' in religious terms, then the actions of the protestors do seem self-defeating, given that they are so unlikely to convert anyone. But if we ask it in political or societal terms, then what they hope to accomplish is to prevent the 'normalising' of LGBT people. If everyone sees a happy Pride party with everyone on the same side, then LGBT perspectives might become mainstream and uncontroversial. The presence of protesters reminds a watching public - and watching politicians - that there is a sizeable group in society who will never accept LGBT people as 'normal'. From this angle, their protests are actually quite successful.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Almost any march or demonstration pro something has counter demonstrators.

Is publicly proclaiming disagreement with whatever a march is about wrong?

I said nothing about right or wrong. I asked about what results they desire, and whether their tactics are at all likely bring about those desired results.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
And, don't confuse some reservations on sexuality with blanket homophobia. You don't move many conversations on in that way.

But to an LGBT+ person they are indistinguishable. "We have reservations about you being the way you are" isn't a terribly nicer thing to say than "we hate you being the way you are." It's saying, we have the right to sit in judgment on who you are. It's perforce judgmental, and invalidating.

It's not far removed from saying you have "reservations" about banking at a bank owned by Jewish investors, or about a black man marrying your daughter. I don't hate you. I just have reservations about you. Yeah, thanks heaps.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
And, don't confuse some reservations on sexuality with blanket homophobia. You don't move many conversations on in that way.
But to an LGBT+ person they are indistinguishable. "We have reservations about you being the way you are" isn't a terribly nicer thing to say than "we hate you being the way you are." It's saying, we have the right to sit in judgment on who you are. It's perforce judgmental, and invalidating.

It's not far removed from saying you have "reservations" about banking at a bank owned by Jewish investors, or about a black man marrying your daughter. I don't hate you. I just have reservations about you. Yeah, thanks heaps.

Apologies. I should've reviewed my post - what it should have read was "same sex marriage/blessings"

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by ExclamationMark

quote:
...what it should have read was "same sex marriage/blessings"

And if I were LGBT or I that would offend me almost as much as what you originally posted.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

It is just as offencive, not almost.
There are degrees of offence, but those are different ways of saying the same thing.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

And then there were these bozos at Toronto Pride (HuffPost).

quote:
Dressed in head-to-toe, alien-like green bodysuits with rainbow accessories, a pack of six marchers calling themselves the “Gay Zombies Cannabis Consumers Association” made quite the splash at Sunday’s parade, Vice reports. As it turns out, however, the group was actually comprised of conservative Christians who distributed “zombie safe sex” information packets to marchers and spectators.

And it got worse.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

What tools

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

I was at an event today that had christian protesters, not a gay event specifically but Witchfest, a pagan street fair. I tried to work up my courage to ask them what they hoped to accomplish by being there,so I could report it here, but my shyness won out and I didn't. I did watch them for quite awhile though, and I think that they were there in the hopes that they could convince some of the participants to repent. No one did, that I saw, and the debate actually got rather spirited, but I have to say they tried.

I think they also get a happy feeling of having been mocked and reviled for the sake of the faith, cause that's what happened mostly.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0