great video on you tube on nonviolence

[Joe Brummer]

One thing I recognized from listening to Peter La Barbera, Guy Adams and Stacy Harp is that as much as we, as progay people, think they are “violent” in their speech and sometimes their actions, they think the same of us. I am not saying anyone is right or wrong. I think everyone should be free to be wrong. It is better than saying everyone should be free to be right, but how can nonviolence be a solution to this?


WATCH THIS VIDEO! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dpk5Z7GIFs)

[Jamie McDaniel]

I watched it, Joe. I found interesting the personal story (around 05:30) about the two tribes in Nigeria who were fighting -- how the speaker was trying to get the two chiefs to state what needs were not being met.

I wonder how such a "needs" discussion would take shape between GLBT people and fundamentalist Christians. I can imagine us listing our needs as having our relationships enjoy those fundamental rights which opposite-sex relationships have, not being dismissed from employment or housing once our orientation is disclosed, etc. What do you speculate the other side would list as their needs which were not being met? Would we be surprised at some of their heartfelt needs we didn't consider, or do you think they would basically say they need the ten commandments in the courthouses, creation taught in public schools, etc?

[Steven E. Webster]

Jamie,
I also watched the video. I'm reading "Kingdom Coming" by Michelle Goldberg. As a movement, Christian Nationalism (Goldberg's term) seems to believe that they have a need to exercise "dominion" over the world including over those whom they declare to be "non-Christian." Being able to place "Roy's rock" (Moore's ten commandment monument) in the courthouse is a symbol of that dominion.

The speaker in the video would probably say that there must be some other, more basic and real needs that "dominion" is a cover for. It seems that the "need" to dominate others is not a need which the speaker in the video would deem to be legitimate--he seems to identify domination as the core of the problem of violence.

Following the speaker's model, there needs to be some way or method to confront Christian Nationalism and compel them to recognize the more basic unmet needs. Then they could give up the goal of "dominion" and seek a more non-violent way. What would all that look like? In the video the story is about confronting two individual chiefs who apparently have power to change the violent situation between their two tribes. Who are the "chiefs" we need to confront and how do we do it?

Steven Webster

[Joe Brummer]

I watched it, Joe. I found interesting the personal story (around 05:30) about the two tribes in Nigeria who were fighting -- how the speaker was trying to get the two chiefs to state what needs were not being met.

I wonder how such a "needs" discussion would take shape between GLBT people and fundamentalist Christians. I can imagine us listing our needs as having our relationships enjoy those fundamental rights which opposite-sex relationships have, not being dismissed from employment or housing once our orientation is disclosed, etc. What do you speculate the other side would list as their needs which were not being met? Would we be surprised at some of their heartfelt needs we didn't consider, or do you think they would basically say they need the ten commandments in the courthouses, creation taught in public schools, etc?

Actually, that was my favorite part of the video. I am not sure what their needs would be. Perhaps, the need to be heard? The need to feel superior? A need for things to stay "their way"?

I have asked many of them via email to talk with me, some have some ignore me. I find that those who are willing to talk about their needs are nice, but what they say and reflect via email is a far cry from their actions in the media. I find it confusing to say the least.

In the end I do believe we all have common goals. I refuse to believe these people are not reachable with love. I think we need to rethink what we are asking for and how from them about their hate speech. If they are going to speak out against us, which they may never stop doing, then can we at least negotiate how that is done?

My goal has never been "gay rights" per say with my website or writings. My goal has always been to lessen the violence we experience. I believe at this point as a start we should be asking them to say what they want to say in the least damaging way. I sometimes wish I could help them craft their message so they can say the things they want about gays without dehumanizing us so much.

One of our biggest needs is safety, if we are not going to get all the rights, then we need to negotiate safety.