The Gay Agenda

[rainbowdog]

the other day i was in the Christian bookstore with my mom. i was browsing through the books when i saw this book the Gay Agenda. now keep in mind that this Christian bookstore was anti-gay. the Christian fundamentalists think we have some kinda secret agenda. The only agenda i have is spread the Word of Jesus Christ to those who have been hurt from the fundamental Christians.
another thing that ticks me off is that these fundamentalists say we want special rights just because we are gay. we don't want special rights but equal rights upon which heterosexuals take for granted.


Peace,
Christy

[sammy1980]

Hi Christy,

I don't know what this book talks about, but I think what ultraconservative folks have in mind are some political organizations involving gay and lesbians, something like GLTF and GLAAD. I checked their respective websites and to me, they sounded quite militant. But you have to understand that not all gays and lesbians are like that.

Peace,

Sam

[Joe Brummer]

Sam,
I disagree that GLTF or GLAD are "Militant". Mostly they resort to nonviolent campaigns. If anyone has been militant, and believe me when I say I know much about this, it is the extremist, fundementalist christian organizations who rely on misinformation, flawed science, deception by omission and outright lies to demonize GLBT folks.....I have spent the past year documenting their actions and blogging about them with a number of other great blogger who have help to expose some of the lies.

The militant ones are the gay folks....trust me when I say I have been doing this while and I have never seen such dishonest tactics as I have from groups like Exodus International, Americans for Truth, Focus on the Family and the American Family Association. They know full well what they are doing. The know full well the studies they present are old, flawed, out of date and most refuted and they are still using them to dehumanize us.

The militant need to be us, but we need to by an army of "UNARMED TRUTH"

[sammy1980]

Joe,

By militant, I meant rigid, very loud, not necessarily violent. Maybe, radical. While I browsing though their websites, I saw they want radical changes, like trying to make the whole American society to have positive views about homosexuality. Some of their statements were anti-religion. This is something I am lost about.

About the organizations you listed, the only one I noticed that present flawed science and deception is American Family Association. They constantly state that America is a Christian nation, based on the Bible. This is simply untrue, America was based on the principles of Freemasonry, a theory that recognizes the existence of one God, a higher power, not what fundamentalists perceive. There is actually a book written about who were the founding fathers and what influenced them to create USA called "American Gospel" by John Meachem.
Focus on the Family are into introducing their "Christian values" into American politics and they think that gay marriage and gay adoption will hurt many children. It is important to note, that they never said anything dehumanizing or hateful about individual gay and lesbian people, despite having these opinions. Exodus International is just an organization who claim they can change people's orientation but only at their will. Meaning, they don't force anybody to change.

What's Americans for Truth? I don't know about this one.

[Joe Brummer]

Sam,
If the only group I listed using flawed science in your opinion is the AFA, then I would be happt to show you how Focus on the Family, Exodus and others are all still using Paul Cameron research, Bell and Wienberg Research and misrepresenting other people's research. Especially Dobson and FOTF.

[Emproph]

the only one I noticed that present flawed science and deception is American Family Association.Sam,
If the only group I listed using flawed science in your opinion is the AFA, then I would be happy to show you how Focus on the Family, Exodus and others are all still using Paul Cameron research, Bell and Wienberg Research and misrepresenting other people's research. Especially Dobson and FOTF.I highly support you seriously considering that offer Sam – he knows what he's talking about and he's one of the most non-judgemental understanding people I know.

[Joe Brummer]

Speaking of Dobson, Focus and the Family Research Council.......This just in from Jim Burroway over at Box Turtle Bulletin: I recieved this by email....


FRC and the Maryland Gay Marriage Case (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2006/12/03/144)
December 3rd, 2006
Jim Burroway
I wish I had found it earlier, but just yesterday I ran across an Amicus Brief that the Family Research Council submitted to the Maryland Court of Appeals for Conaway v. Deane. This case will decide whether marriage equality for gays and lesbians will be granted in that state.

I looked into the brief to see what it said. Most of it consists of legal arguments citing case law, court precidents, and so forth. But one portion of the brief claims that gays and lesbians don’t deserve the right to marry because of what social science says about them. I looked into these claims, and it turns out that the FRC has a problem with the truth when it comes to citing social science. You can read about it in my latest report, The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing. (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,017.htm)
So, my questions are these: What exactly are the legal obligations of a friend-of-the-court to present their arguments truthfully? And what weight, if any, do courts give to amicus briefs when deciding cases? And what does it say about their arguments when a “values” group throws away the values of truth to become a false witness?

Somehow, I don’t recall reading “the ends justify the means” in Proverbs, or anywhere else in Scriptures for that matter.

[dewdrop_world]

Hi Sammy,

I'm puzzled now... you read The Heterosexual Agenda over at boxturtlebulletin.com... I also set the context for that document by explaining that it uses the same kind of faulty reasoning as Focus on the Family etc. (writing that is supposed to look like science but which willfully violates scientific principles such as random sampling that have been established over many years of sociological and psychological research).

Now you are saying that FoF presents responsible, valid scientific evidence.

I don't understand where is the disconnect. Can you explain your basis for concluding that FoF is presenting valid science? It is, as we have said repeatedly, easy to show where FoF and friends deliberately -- on purpose -- falsify the data.

Why do you continue to believe people who are known to lie, repeatedly and chronically?

James

[dewdrop_world]

About the organizations you listed, the only one I noticed that present flawed science and deception is American Family Association. They constantly state that America is a Christian nation, based on the Bible. This is simply untrue, America was based on the principles of Freemasonry, a theory that recognizes the existence of one God, a higher power, not what fundamentalists perceive. There is actually a book written about who were the founding fathers and what influenced them to create USA called "American Gospel" by John Meachem.

Faulty reasoning, Sammy. The untruths you cite here are political, not scientific. Joe is talking about science.

Focus on the Family are into introducing their "Christian values" into American politics and they think that gay marriage and gay adoption will hurt many children. It is important to note, that they never said anything dehumanizing or hateful about individual gay and lesbian people, despite having these opinions. Exodus International is just an organization who claim they can change people's orientation but only at their will. Meaning, they don't force anybody to change.

We have already pointed out where these groups DO dehumanize gay people. Too busy at work to repeat myself yet again at the moment... maybe later.

James

[sammy1980]

Hello James and Joe,

Yes, you are right about FRC and Paul Cameron. This guy does promote biases about GLBT people and his methodology is pretty pathetic. What can I say? There are some bad apples in each spectrum of the society. But I hope you guys understand that not all individual conservative Christians share the views and spout gross misinformation like Cameron. I see that James Dobson and Focus on the Family tend to use Cameron's "researches." That is sad.

You know, I have been studying FOF website and this is what I discovered; they stated that Canadian c-250 law would consider any negative said or printed remarks about homosexuality would be considered as a hate speech and could put a person up to 1 year in prison. I researched the law itself on Canadian government website, and I found out that there is a specification stating that no person would be prosecuted if he or she says or prints based on religious beliefs or proven scientific research. So, in reality, this Canadian law is the most objective democratic approach to controversial issues! And Dobson just twisted its meaning in one of his books.

However, I have been visiting Focus on the Family several times (I live in Colorado) and I asked them questions about gays and lesbian people and most of the time they would say that God loves them and they are also created in God's image. Recently, I saw an interview with Tom Minnery, FOF social issues representives, who said that they only want to protect children and they never intend to mischarecterize people with homosexual orientation. Furthermore, Minnery added that they love gays and lesbians.
Do you guys think that they are being hypocrites?

Sam

[keltic63]

However, I have been visiting Focus on the Family several times (I live in Colorado) and I asked them questions about gays and lesbian people and most of the time they would say that God loves them and they are also created in God's image. Recently, I saw an interview with Tom Minnery, FOF social issues representives, who said that they only want to protect children and they never intend to mischarecterize people with homosexual orientation. Furthermore, Minnery added that they love gays and lesbians.
Do you guys think that they are being hypocrites?

Sam

do you not see the insult there? that statement says that children must be protected from homsexuals. The implication then is that homosexuals are child predators or pedophiles. so by stating it that way they can appear to be "loving" while spreading lies and hatred.

[sammy1980]

I think that Paul Cameron is more likely to spread lies and hatred than James Dobson.

[keltic63]

I think that Paul Cameron is more likely to spread lies and hatred than James Dobson.

you didn't answer my question.

[sammy1980]

you didn't answer my question.
Well, you are right, I see an indirect insult there, for sure.

[keltic63]

Well, you are right, I see an indirect insult there, for sure.
do you see the misinformation?

[Joe Brummer]

I think that Paul Cameron is more likely to spread lies and hatred than James Dobson.

Paul Cameron creates the lies, Dobson does the work of spreading them.

[sammy1980]

do you see the misinformation?

Of course I do. I discussed more of it on this subject matter in a response titled "To James and Joe." Yes, sometimes Focus on the Family provides misinformation, however I agree with them when they say that the main purpose of their ministry is to help children, not to oppress anybody. You know, not everybody is perfect, everybody makes mistakes, including myself.

[keltic63]

Of course I do. I discussed more of it on this subject matter in a response titled "To James and Joe." Yes, sometimes Focus on the Family provides misinformation, however I agree with them when they say that the main purpose of their ministry is to help children, not to oppress anybody. You know, not everybody is perfect, everybody makes mistakes, including myself.

would you agree that this "mistake" causes some people, conservative christians, and others, to discriminate against homosexuals?
do you think that Dobson, et al, know that they are making this "mistake" and if so, how should they remedy the situation?

[sammy1980]

would you agree that this "mistake" causes some people, conservative christians, and others, to discriminate against homosexuals?
Absolutely, after hearing his speeches on the radio, some people tend to turn blind eyes and deaf ears to gay and lesbian individuals. They don't want to listen them, to their stories, and start assuming that all gays and lesbians are part of some political agenda, whose intention is to destroy society, so they would refuse to communicate with anybody who has homosexual orientation. This is discrimination by turning your back on people. Actually, it is a lot worse, because it is unloving your fellow neighbor, something that Jesus commanded us to do. People tend to forget that gays and lesbians are also people like everybody else, created in God's image.

do you think that Dobson, et al, know that they are making this "mistake" and if so, how should they remedy the situation?

I think he is aware of what is going on. As far as remedying the situation, I saw him doing it several times, by posting on his website, making public appearances on TV, by stating that people should treat gays and lesbians with love, respect, and compassion, by saying that people should not cast them out. Apparently, it is not working very well. Also, I think that Focus on the Family should stop making assumptions, like saying that Canadian C-250 hate speech law would prohibit any criticism of homosexuality. That was a complete baloney crap. And of course, Dobson shouldn't cite researches that contain biases and flawed methodology.

[rainbowdog]

I am reading the book by Mel White "Religion Gone Bad". It shows how these Christian fundamentalists are trying to take over our country. They say that they are trying to bring back Christianity and moral Christian morals. They are waging a war against us. They want to rob us of our basic civil rights. Mel compares them with how the Nazi's were with Jews He said "Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, and James Kennedy are fascious like Hitler. Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jews just like these Christian fundamentalists wants to exterminate us. Be aware of these and other Fundamentalists because they are out to get us. i think they are the ones who have the agenda and that is take over this country and get rid of us.

Peace,
Christy

[sammy1980]

Be aware of these and other Fundamentalists because they are out to get us. i think they are the ones who have the agenda and that is take over this country and get rid of us.

I have a friend who told me that organizations like GLTF, GLAAD, GLSEN, PFLAG are out to get conservative Christians. He thinks they have an agenda to take over this country and imprison them.

[Daniel]

Deep Peace: Gaelic blessing

Deep peace of the running wave to you,
Deep peace of the quiet earth to you,
Deep peace of the flowing air to you,
Deep peace of the shining star to you.

The setting by John Rutter is quite beautiful. For a listen:

http://www.nationwide.net/~amaranth/GaelicBlessing.htm

[dewdrop_world]

As far as remedying the situation, I saw him doing it several times, by posting on his website, making public appearances on TV, by stating that people should treat gays and lesbians with love, respect, and compassion, by saying that people should not cast them out. Apparently, it is not working very well.

;)

I think it doesn't work because it's duplicitous. It's very much like my main issue with Ake Green's sermon. A good 95% of the text is about how immoral, spiritually inferior, and dangerous gay people are. Then, at the end, he tacks on a tiny little disclaimer ... now don't forget kids, even though gay people are out to destroy your families and recruit your kids and they are the gravest threat to the church, the family, morality and democracy that the world faces --- we still have to treat them with compassion.

Gay people don't buy it, and I think neither do the churchgoers who agree with sermons like that.

The little disclaimer is about plausible deniability -- "We don't really hate gays." But I think Sacha Baron Cohen (the guy behind Borat) could come up with a way to show just where the non-hatred comes to an end :D

James

[BronzDragon]

the other day i was in the Christian bookstore with my mom. i was browsing through the books when i saw this book the Gay Agenda.

» Thom says: ☛On searching, I've seen several books with that title. If you would be so kind as to let us know who wrote this particular book, and an isbn, that would help with answering the question concerning the book.

As to the Gay Agenda, that is another answer all its own.
Ever wonder where the so called “Gay Agenda” comes from?

Michael Swift:
“Gay Revolutionary” Gay Community News, Feb. 15-21, 1987 Archieved at People With a Story (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/index.html). Reformated and commented here for convenience.
(reprinted from The Congressional Record, with preface restored)
In 1987, Michael Swift was asked to contribute an editorial piece to GCN, an important gay community magazine, although well to the left of most American gay and lesbian opinion. A decade later this text, printed in the Congressional Record is repeatedly cited, apparently verbatim, by the religious right as evidence of the “Gay Agenda.” The video Gay Rights, Special Rights, put out by Lou Sheldon’s Traditional Values Coalition cites it with ominous music and picture of children. But when the religious rights cites this text, they always omit, as does the Congressional record, the vital first line, which sets the context for the piece. In other words, every other version of this found on the net is part of the radical right's great lie about gay people. For a discussion of the whole “Gay vs. Religious Right” phenomenon see Chris Bull and John Gallagher: Perfect Enemies: The Religious Right, the Gay Movement, and the Politics of the 1990s, (New York: Crown, 1996)
Paul Halsall (halsall@bway.net)



» Thom says: ☛ More particularly, (The part Emphasized is the part left out of the Congressional Record.

This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.


We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.


Women, you cry for freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you unhappy. We, connoisseurs of the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from you then. We will amuse them; we will instruct them; we will embrace them when they weep. Women, you say you wish to live with each other instead of with men. Then go and be with each other. We shall give your men pleasures they have never known because we are foremost men too, and only one man knows how to truly please another man; only one man can understand the depth and feeling, the mind and body of another man.


All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men.


All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.


If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies.
We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the cheap, superficial, sentimental, insipid, juvenile, heterosexual infatuations presently dominating your cinema screens. We shall sculpt statues of beautiful young men, of bold athletes which will be placed in your parks, your squares, your plazas. The museums of the world will be filled only with paintings of graceful, naked lads.


Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable and de rigueur, and we will succeed because we are adept at setting styles. We will eliminate heterosexual liaisons through usage of the devices of wit and ridicule, devices which we are skilled in employing.


We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened when you find that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators,your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar, bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to be. We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks. Be careful when you speak of homosexuals because we are always among you; we may be sitting across the desk from you; we may be sleeping in the same bed with you.


There will be no compromises. We are not middle-class weaklings. Highly intelligent, we are the natural aristocrats of the human race, and steely-minded aristocrats never settle for less. Those who oppose us will be exiled.


We shall raise vast private armies, as Mishima did, to defeat you. We shall conquer the world because warriors inspired by and banded together by homosexual love and honor are invincible as were the ancient Greek soldiers.


The family unit-spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence--will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.


All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of beauty, moral and esthetic. All that is ugly and vulgar and banal will be annihilated. Since we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too much is not enough.


The exquisite society to emerge will be governed by an elite comprised of gay poets. One of the major requirements for a position of power in the new society of homoeroticism will be indulgence in the Greek passion. Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred from a position of influence. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men.


"We shall rewrite history, history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions. We shall portray the homosexuality of the great leaders and thinkers who have shaped the world. We will demonstrate that homosexuality and intelligence and imagination are inextricably linked, and that homosexuality is a requirement for true nobility, true beauty in a man.
"We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed who have been forced to play seemingly bit parts in your dumb, heterosexual shows throughout the ages. We too are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades of the ultimate revolution.
Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.

[BronzDragon]

I think that Paul Cameron is more likely to spread lies and hatred than James Dobson.

:rolleyes: Thom says: ☛ And yet, J Dobson carries forward the ideas that P Cameron thinks up. In doing so, J Dobson, with his credentials, gives P Cameron greater credibility. This has the added problem in that many Religious Fascists do not bother thinking for themselves, or to do the required research to believe what these people think.

I find it interesting that, most of the people who follow the American Psychological Association disagree with P Cameron and J Dobson et al. The APA holds to a higher standard (rather, has in the last forty or so years) that requires an ethical approach when making claims. “If you can't prove it within reasonable doubt, then you can't make the claim as if we have proven it.” Or as Hermetic Ethics command, “Speak only what is certain and true.”

[sammy1980]

Hello everybody, I was just browsing on the Amazon and I discovered a book called "Homosexual Agenda," by Alan Sears and Craig Osten. Based on what read on its back cover and some of the excerpts I picked through, I understood that this book talks about how conservative Christians are being discriminated for openly stating that they object homosexuality, gay marriage, gay adoption and so forth. I know very well that this kind of stuff does happen in real life. I am not sure, if that's the book Christy had in mind.

I'm planning on getting it after I get paid as well as Mel White's "Religion gone bad." I want to have a well rounded reading.

Sammy

[keltic63]

Hello everybody, I was just browsing on the Amazon and I discovered a book called "Homosexual Agenda," by Alan Sears and Craig Osten. Based on what read on its back cover and some of the excerpts I picked through, I understood that this book talks about how conservative Christians are being discriminated for openly stating that they object homosexuality, gay marriage, gay adoption and so forth. I know very well that this kind of stuff does happen in real life. I am not sure, if that's the book Christy had in mind.

I'm planning on getting it after I get paid as well as Mel White's "Religion gone bad." I want to have a well rounded reading.

Sammy


that's good to hear Sammy. Many of us have already resolved those issues, and as Mel White says "the debate is over." Good luck in your journey.

[sammy1980]

But Thom,

Some of the stuff described in the essay, which is considered to be satyrical, does happen.

[sammy1980]

Originally posted by Keltic63
that's good to hear Sammy. Many of us have already resolved those issues, and as Mel White says "the debate is over." Good luck in your journey.

Well, thanks Steve.

[dewdrop_world]

But Thom,

Some of the stuff described in the essay, which is considered to be satyrical, does happen.

Indeed... some bits of it are spot on, or at least on the way. But those bits aren't terribly scary.

James

All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. [not quite yet, but soon?]

...

We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the cheap, superficial, sentimental, insipid, juvenile, heterosexual infatuations presently dominating your cinema screens [well, that bit hasn't happened yet :)]. We shall sculpt statues of beautiful young men, of bold athletes which will be placed in your parks, your squares, your plazas.

...

We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened when you find that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators,your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar, bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to be. We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks. Be careful when you speak of homosexuals because we are always among you; we may be sitting across the desk from you; we may be sleeping in the same bed with you.

[Daniel]

...we may be sleeping in the same bed with you.

You mean that guy I've been sleeping with for the last 15 years is.....g.g.g.g.g.g..g.....gay? You're kidding, right?

[sammy1980]

All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. [not quite yet, but soon?]
It's true about United States. Remember, Lawrence vs. Texas? But not quite for the rest of world.

[Daniel]

- Hallelujah Lyrics from Hit the Deck

Music: Vincent Youmans
Lyrics: Leo Robin + Clifford Grey
Book: Herbert Fields
Premiere: Monday, April 25, 1927

Sing Hallelujah, Hallelujah
And you'll shoo the blues away (blues away)
Cares pursue ya
Hallelujah!
Gets you thru the darkest day.

Satan lies a-waitin'
And creatin' skies of grey (skies of grey)
But hallelujah, hallelujah
Helps to shoo the clouds away

I recall in
Times when I was small in
Light and free
Jubilee days
In that sunny
Land of milk and honey
I had no complaints
While I thought of saints
So I say to all who fearful are

Sing Hallelujah
Hallelujah!
And you'll shoo the blues away (Hallelu!)
When cares pursue ya
Hallelujah!
Gets you through the darkest day
Satan lies a-waitin'
And creatin' skies of grey (Skies of grey!)
But Hallelujah, hallelujah
Helps to shoo the clouds away

Up at dawn and hit the deck
Put out your chest and straighten your neck
Gotta be clean without a speck
Tonight the admiral's comin' to check
Here this!
Here that!
Tie your shoes and square your hat
They'll give 'ya the boot if 'ya don't salute
Hup one two!

Satan lies a-waitin'
And creatin' skies of grey (Clouds o' blue!)
But Hallelujah, hallelujah
Sing Hallelujah (Hallelujah!)
Helps to shoo the clouds away

Sing hallelu-lu-lu-lu-lu-lujah!


:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

[pnggrad79]

Christy,
I think you hit the nail on the head with your post. They are the ones with the agenda. They trump up reasons and use them to villify us as GLBT people and because they don't understand or won't understand, it is simply easier to get rid of what you don't understand.:(

[BronzDragon]

But Thom, Some of the stuff described in the essay, which is considered to be satyrical, does happen.

» Thom says: ☛ We waste satire on some minds.

Point:

The original may have some of what we desire, but use the mind you made for yourself, and think. What seems reasonable and human, and what seems to be said out of anger?
Without the first paragraph, the rest does seem to be real, doesn't it? One has to wonder first about the soul who wanted it entered into congressional records without that little bit of information, and why did the rest of congress not look deeper into the issue?
Mark Twain wrote a little prayer called the "War Prayer." I wonder what would happen if we entered that into Congress without the wrapping?
Truth is relative to the minds of those who use it. Yes, there are some truths in that document, just as there are some truths in what the Focus on the Family puts out. At least Michael Swift said his was supposed to be funny and thought provoking. Have you never dreamed you could do something so awful you were glad it was just a dream?

[sammy1980]

Truth is relative to the minds of those who use it. Yes, there are some truths in that document, just as there are some truths in what the Focus on the Family puts out. At least Michael Swift said his was supposed to be funny and thought provoking. Have you never dreamed you could do something so awful you were glad it was just a dream?

Those are words of wisdom. You sound like a very reasonable man, Thom. I believe that every human being has some truth in what he or she says, but we are also tend to be mischievous lying bastards, sometimes. And to answer your question, yes, I dreamed a couple of times about killing my college professors but then I felt happier that it was just a dream.

Nice talking to you,

Sammy

[BronzDragon]

... And to answer your question, yes, I dreamed a couple of times about killing my college professors but then I felt happier that it was just a dream.

» Thom says: ☛ And some of us refuse to let the anger rest within. We must let it out, or it will become a monster as terrible as any in the history of humanity (reference Jung, the Shadow). And so, Arthur Desmond writes “Might is Right,” Mark Twain writes his “War Prayer,” Michael Swift writes what he wrote. Gets it out there, into the open, so we can see it for what it really is, aired out. Then, we can return it better for the experience, or left to poof away again. Think about all those mystery and crime novels ,,, where did those ideas come from? unless the author has actually killed in cold blood, he, she, or xe got it from the depths of their own imagination.

[Emproph]

do you think that Dobson, et al, know that they are making this "mistake" and if so, how should they remedy the situation?I think he is aware of what is going on. As far as remedying the situation, I saw him doing it several times, by posting on his website, making public appearances on TV, by stating that people should treat gays and lesbians with love, respect, and compassion, by saying that people should not cast them out. So you think that intentionally lying about gay people is the best way to do that? Or is it ok to lie about people as long as you also say to treat them with respect?

Hitler was a Christian, therefore the Christian agenda is to kill all Jews. Christian activists won't say so publically but they admit it in private...But make sure to love them anyway.

Of course I do... Yes, sometimes Focus on the Family provides misinformation, however I agree with them when they say that the main purpose of their ministry is to help children, not to oppress anybody. You know, not everybody is perfect, everybody makes mistakes, including myself. When you “misinform” intentionally, IT’S A LIE! That’s oppression, that’s also an ATTACK on all gay children, their parents, all gay families, and all children who would have families if gay parents could adopt them! "not everybody is perfect?" You don't get to use that line when you go OUT-OF-YOUR-WAY to make those "mistakes." It’s EVIL, more so when it's called "love."

But Thom,

Some of the stuff described in the essay, which is considered to be satyrical, does happen.

If there were any significant truth to it there would be news story after news story of all those things happening, they wouldn’t need to repeatedly use 1, count that, ONE author’s opinion from a 1987 article as “proof” of the opinion of EVERY other GLBTQI AMERICAN (PLANETARY) CITIZEN!

And they certainly wouldn’t need to remove the disclaimer stating that it is satire – that would be one more thing they could pin on “the gay agenda,” the attempt to satirize truth!

It’s inexcusable dishonesty. How good of a friend do you think they are Sam when they lie to you about your own “enemy?” The fact that you’re so complacent about such egregious misconduct tells me you approve of it.

~~
From Religion Gone Bad.
In reality, Swift’s angry (but very clever) article was a caricature, a lampoon, a satire of the ridiculous accusations being made against us by leaders on the religious and political right. To demonstrate the absurdity of those charges, and to call gays to take positive actions against them, Swift wrote a satirical essay portraying what a homosexual agenda would look like if homosexuals actually did all the disgusting things they say we do. In 1987, Swift’s send-up of the fundamentalists’ antigay rhetoric appeared in the Gay Community News, a popular gay paper that loves to push the limits of political satire. Unfortunately, the leaders on the religious right didn’t understand satire (or consciously misused this satiric essay in their campaign against us).

More From:
http://rainbowallianceopenfaith.homestead.com/GayAgenda.html


But when the religious right cites this text, they always omit the vital first line, which sets the context for the piece. In other words, every other version of this found on the net and in the literature of religious right political activists is part of the radical right's great lie about gay people.

"This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor."

In fact, a "shocked, so very very shocked" congressperson read the article in the Congressional Record in 1989. Funny thing, though, the opening disclaimer was deliberately omitted.


Dobson used this in his book “Bringing Up Boys” which is now quoted by the Florida4Marriage web site in their effort to “support” traditional marriage. BOTH OF THEM WITH THE OPENING LINE OMITTED! Do you think they've never Googled before or heard that bearing false witness is a SIN?

And as recently as November 2nd of this year, Joe Brummer accounts how Renew America just did it again!
http://joebrummer.com/WordPress/?p=450

~~

And then there’s your precious Alliance Defense Fund.

From their FAQ section:
Who are your founders?

The leaders of 35 ministries founded ADF in 1994, including Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, the late Dr. Bill Bright of Campus Crusade for Christ, the late Larry Burkett of Crown Financial Ministries, and Dr. D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries. Their prime concern was the dramatic loss of religious freedom and the ability of people of faith to live and share the Gospel.

What organizations do you partner with?
The Alliance Defense Fund has joined forces with hundreds of attorneys who share our commitment to keeping America the land of the free. We have worked with more than 270 organizations and provided services including strategy, training, and funding. Organizations include American Liberties Institute, Christian Legal Society, the Marriage Law Project, Family Research Council, and many more.

From the Fact vs Myth section:

There is no "homosexual legal agenda" - all that activists desire is "tolerance" and "equality".

These terms often mean different things to activists than to ordinary Americans. The homosexual agenda was outlined by activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in a 1987 article titled “The Overhauling of Straight America,” and a 1989 book titled After the Ball.


We’ve already discussed this nonsense on this forum here (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=646).

A full one fourth of this section is devoted to helping to perpetuate this myth – under the guise of “fact,” and the opinions of 2 human beings are used to represent millions of others. (And let me remind you, "activist" is political code for anyone who's out).

Newsflash Sam, you don’t publish an evil agenda, you do it in secret like your good Christian ADF heros do so that no one can see what a despicable, immorally depraved person you really are. The Glen Eyrie Protocol, Google it, or just finish Religion Gone Bad. You have started haven't you?

~~
From:
http://www.answers.com/topic/homosexual-agenda-1#wp-_ref-glaad_0
Alan Sears and Craig Osten, president and vice-president of the
Alliance Defense Fund, offer another characterization of the homosexual agenda:

It is an agenda that they basically set in the late 1980s, in a book called 'After the Ball,' where they laid out a six-point plan for how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior — in a decade-long time frame.... They admit it privately, but they will not say that publicly. In their private publications, homosexual activists make it very clear that there is an agenda. The six-point agenda that they laid out in 1989 was explicit: Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible... Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers... Give homosexual protectors a just cause... Make gays look good... Make the victimizers look bad... Get funds from corporate America.
And just who are "they"? Activists? All of them? And if it's said in private, how would ANYBODY else know about it?

I'm done pussy-footing with you Sam.

From Glaad: (http://www.glaad.org/media/guide/offensive.php)


Offensive: "gay agenda" or "homosexual agenda"

Preferred: "lesbian and gay civil rights movement" or "lesbian and gay movement"

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people are as diverse in our political beliefs as other communities. Our commitment to equal rights is one we share with civil rights advocates who are not necessarily LGBT. "Lesbian and gay civil rights movement" accurately describes the historical efforts, by gay and straight people alike, to achieve understanding and equal treatment for LGBT people. Notions of a "homosexual agenda" are rhetorical inventions of anti-gay extremists seeking to create a climate of fear by portraying the pursuit of civil rights for LGBT people as sinister. (See AP, New York Times & Washington Post Style).

BTW, the ADF is also in bed with the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, Family Research Council, Illinois Family Institute, and dozens of others. All of whom are decrepit lying maggots that crawled out from under the same rotting carcass that the rest of us refer to as truth, love, and Christianity.

The Alliance Defense Fund may defend select "Christians," but they desecrate the meaning of Christianity in the attempt to do so.

I have an agenda alright. It’s to prevent living scum like them from killing and ruining the lives of people like me, ESPECIALLY kids still growing up who are fed this sickening depravity, hypocrisy, and unrepentant idolatry of wickedness as being the definition of infinite Love.

I consider these people to be murderers. The only difference between them and the KKK, is that they get people to hang themselves. And I consider the KKK to be morally superior to them. By doing the dirty work themselves, at least they take some measure of responsibility for their sins.

And to belabor the point, I feel the same way about Fred Phelps and his "God hates fags" clan. They're at least more honest than these putrid puss bags.

I'm sorry about the ugliness of the vitriol but that's honestly how I feel.

[sammy1980]

Yes, there are some truths in that document, just as there are some truths in what the Focus on the Family puts out.

Anyway, I'm still down with Thom on these issues.
I also don't think it's fair to label the groups who help people in fighting discrimination due to their objection to homosexuality issues as 'antigay.'

Sammy

[Daniel]

Anyway, I'm still down with Thom on these issues.
I also don't think it's fair to label the groups who help people in fighting discrimination due to their objection to homosexuality issues as 'antigay.'


Sammy- I'm having a difficult time following you. Let me get this straight- You think it's unfair to call the likes of Dobson & Co. anti-gay?

You know, you learn a lot about people by what they do, not what they say. And what Dobson & Co does is anti-gay. But James has been over this territory with you already. With that in mind, I fear that, like a dog with a bone, you aren't ready to let this one go.

And what about Emproph's post? Is this the extent of your reply? With all the blood sweat and tears that went into his post- for your benefit I might add- I hope you will give as least some thought to a cogent response.

I wish you much peace Sammy. You've already mentioned the anger you've felt. I honestly hope you are able find a qualified therapist to deal with it. We all need a calm center- every last one of us. Otherwise we find ourselves spinning out towards the edges all the time- reacting instead of acting. And anger? Well...I think anger is just about the most reactionary things going on the planet. Wars and arguments are started because of it. It can often serve a good purpose though- that is- in waking us up to what is. But if we don't wake up to what we're angry about and simply stay stuck in anger, what good is that? No good, I think.

So I'm gonna sit here after I finish writing- for a good 20 minutes- and meditate (you can call it prayer it you want to- much the same thing) and get centered. And hope that you can find a way to do the same.

[sammy1980]

Let me get this straight- You think it's unfair to call the likes of Dobson & Co. anti-gay?

I don't think that Dobson's FOF has a Co. per se. It's just he uses the statements and experiences of other organizations to support his positions. I don't it necessarily means they are connected. For me, it is really hard to see what he is about: I believe that his intentions are to help children but his actions tend to be just attacking everything that involves non-traditional American culture, including video games. I noticed that he says constantly things that are foolish and he makes himself look stupid, but there is some truth in his words.

I also had in mind ADF: it is a legal organization and I don't think that their main agenda is to destroy gay people but to help clients win their cases. They work like all lawyers do; present any information to make the clients look good and the offenders look bad.

Let me reverse a situation, suppose I was a lawyer and I had a gay client who was fired from his job because his CC boss just didn't want gay people to work for him. In order to prove that my client was screwed because of his sexual orientation and it was wrong to use your religion to deny people employment opportunities, I would use sources that would portray gay people as good and sources that portray CC's as very bad, maybe even Mel White's "Stranger at the Gate." This strategy would definitely impress the judge to be more lenient toward my client, which is my goal. It doesn't matter if I don't always agree with the researches I use to support my client's truth. This is my job. If I'm using researches as a lawyer that portray CC's negatively in order to help my gay client to win the case, am I trying to destroy and oppress all CC's? Not, at all. Do I make sense?

And to answer your question about anger: I think that many people call Focus on the Family antigay just out of anger, without really investigating them. I think it is their anger that makes them perceive them to be so. You are right, we all need to have a calm center because living in anger does not do us good.

There were times in my life when I was very angry at organizations like GLTF, GLAAD, GLSEN, Michael Swift, Andrew Sullivan, and I even used to call them very mean names. What I learned that being angry at them was just eating me up and prevented me from growing to the full potential of the person I could be. Likewise, I think that living in anger at conservative organizations, would be an obstacle to people's growing and prevent them from rational and logical thinking.

Anyway, I am going to church to deal with my anger. Haven't been there for a while due to work. I hope it'll do me good.

Peace,

Sammy

[Zerbie]

Anyway, I'm still down with Thom on these issues.
I also don't think it's fair to label the groups who help people in fighting discrimination due to their objection to homosexuality issues as 'antigay.'

Sammy

This crosses a line.

All that has happened here is that Emproph has called out Focus for what Focus IS ACTUALLY DOING. And what they are actually doing IS anti-gay.

They seek to prevent gay people from receiving the equal protection under the law to which they are, as US citizens, entitled. Their ex-gay movement exists precisely as a political counter for those who rightly object to their anti-civil rights stance, so they can point to a package of flimsy lies and distortions and call it "proof" that gays don't need civil rights because they can "choose" to be straight.

Additionally, their anti-gay rhetoric and anti-gay political maneuvering harms straight people too. Focus' marriage "experts" who go round the country proseltyzing for "marriage amendments" do so in the full knowledge that straight couples in domestic partnerships AND THEIR CHILDREN will lose benefits and legal protections (bye-bye to little Jimmy's health insurance, better hope your child doesn't get sick 'cuz how would you pay for it if he did?).

These Focus experts know precisely what they are doing and they don't care. It's anti-gay, Sammy, but it's also even worse than that.

There is nothing unfair in calling attention to a public organization's proven actions. It's called telling the truth.

[Pablo Rafael]

Sammy,

I don't know how you can say defend people like Dobson by saying that they aren't really "anti-gay"? Sometimes I think you are just trying to play the devil's advocate and see if you can get a response.

I spend a lot of my time on these forums defending Christian conservatives. I believe that most conservatives are not hostile but mainly uninformed. However much of that misinformation comes from people like Dobson and other media fundamentalists. I might even concede that they might "think" they are doing right, but it is very anti-gay no matter how one looks at it. I occasionaly watch D. James Kennedy on TV and like some of what he says, but he is certainly using the anti-gay theme to collect money for his organization and strengthen his political influence. He and others use erroneous data and demonize those of us who have done nothing to warrant those attacks. I can't believe that it is ignorance on their part. Dobson, Kennedy and others know what they are doing. It is a matter of money and power.

I used to be in their camp. (There is no one more intolerant of homosexuality than a closeted gay in denial.) It's not a healthy attitude and is not faithful to the Bible. I have tried to make up for the errors of my younger days by encouraging people to be tolerant and loving.

Though I think the main message we need is one of understanding and cooperation, there is a time to say that many of these media preachers are wrong and are using hatred to mislead and polarize Christianity. All people need to be allowed freedom to state their beliefs. However, I do not believe that people have freedom to trash the beliefs of others. I will treat conservative Christianity with respect, but respect must be given in return. It can't be a one way street where bigotry is allowed on one side.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[Emproph]

I also don't think it's fair to label the groups who help people in fighting discrimination due to their objection to homosexuality issues as 'antigay.'

Sammy

First of all, it wasn’t about their being ‘antigay,’ it was about their being anti-honesty and anti-integrity.

Secondly, When you need to lie about “homosexuality issues” in order to state your objections, then it’s no longer an objection to the issues, it's an objection to homosexuals.

Thirdly, the “issues” as you term it, are in regard to equality. The objection to the legal equality of American citizens who are homosexual is not only patently ‘antigay,’ it’s anti-American.

That’s three separate mischaracterizations in one sentence. Did I read that you’re going to law school?

It doesn't matter if I don't always agree with the researches I use to support my client's truth. This is my job. Do I make sense?
Perfect sense. The ends justifies the means.

As long as the outcome turns out in my favor, it’s perfectly acceptable to lie no matter how many lives I ruin. And when it’s convenient for me or it’s “my job,” ethics and integrity go out the window, Christianity goes down the toilet, and man’s law trumps God’s law.

That’s the definition of moral relativism. When the absolute moral truth is only absolute when I want it to be. It's an entropic worldview requiring the least amount of effort.

If that’s acceptable to you, so be it, admit it. Just don't characterize it as being even remotely Christian.

[sammy1980]

All that has happened here is that Emproph has called out Focus for what Focus IS ACTUALLY DOING. And what they are actually doing IS anti-gay.

They seek to prevent gay people from receiving the equal protection under the law to which they are, as US citizens, entitled. Their ex-gay movement exists precisely as a political counter for those who rightly object to their anti-civil rights stance, so they can point to a package of flimsy lies and distortions and call it "proof" that gays don't need civil rights because they can "choose" to be straight.

Additionally, their anti-gay rhetoric and anti-gay political maneuvering harms straight people too. Focus' marriage "experts" who go round the country proseltyzing for "marriage amendments" do so in the full knowledge that straight couples in domestic partnerships AND THEIR CHILDREN will lose benefits and legal protections (bye-bye to little Jimmy's health insurance, better hope your child doesn't get sick 'cuz how would you pay for it if he did?).

These Focus experts know precisely what they are doing and they don't care. It's anti-gay, Sammy, but it's also even worse than that.

There is nothing unfair in calling attention to a public organization's proven actions. It's called telling the truth.

Hi Zerbie,

I originally had ADF in mind, and they do help people who deal with discrimination. I don't think what they do is antigay.

About Focus on the Family, I would encourage everybody who feels hurt by their actions, to forgive them. Forgiving means not to say that you condone their actions but to let go of the bitterness and anger that you acquired from such experiences and let love come into heart. Didn't Jesus forgive the people who were beating and mocking him, when he went to his crucifixion? I forgave people who have hurt my feelings in my life, and trust me, it does make things easier.

Sammy

[sammy1980]

Hola Pablo,

Nice to hear from you. I think right now, I'm just going to give up arguing. If you think that I always defend Dobson, I'll respect your views. I must go to work now. But if you got any questions don't hesitate to ask.

Tu amigo,

Sam

[Zerbie]

Hi Zerbie,

I originally had ADF in mind, and they do help people who deal with discrimination. I don't think what they do is antigay.

About Focus on the Family, I would encourage everybody who feels hurt by their actions, to forgive them. Forgiving means not to say that you condone their actions but to let go of the bitterness and anger that you acquired from such experiences and let love come into heart. Didn't Jesus forgive the people who were beating and mocking him, when he went to his crucifixion? I forgave people who have hurt my feelings in my life, and trust me, it does make things easier.

Sammy

Oh good grief. Sammy if this is your response to me we are sending smoke signals from two different planets. Sammy where do you get bitterness and anger from calling out someone's harmful behavior? That's a wild conclusion to which you jump. Since you mention Jesus, Jesus didn't only forgive, he also spoke out against those who defiled His Father with their words and actions.

With regard to organizations: Dobson and Focus are allies of an organization local to me, and that organization is in close relationship with Alliance Defense Fund. ADF is a legal organization with a mission, and they argue cases that support their ideology. They don't exist in a vacuum.

So all you have to say after we call out the lies and harm done by FOF is "Oh I was talking about the Alliance Defense Fund," and "You need to forgive them?"

Iow, you can give no defense because you know that Focus willfully spreads lies and distortions. Instead, you suggest that people sit back and take it. Unacceptable Sammy. US citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law, equal protection which has been selectively withheld from gay people for generations. That is unacceptable. Using lies to justify it: doubly unacceptable.

[andrewlittle]

I realize I'm a few posts behind, but it took a little while to analyse the date from American FactFinder at the U.S. Census Bureau.

I don't think that Dobson's FOF has a Co. per se. It's just he uses the statements and experiences of other organizations to support his positions. I don't it necessarily means they are connected. For me, it is really hard to see what he is about: I believe that his intentions are to help children but his actions tend to be just attacking everything that involves non-traditional American culture, including video games. I noticed that he says constantly things that are foolish and he makes himself look stupid, but there is some truth in his words.

Sammy, this is not the first time that you have stated that Dobson et al are really all about the children, and the rhetoric used just becomes anti-gay, I guess, because they love children so much.

By the estimates floating around in other areas of this website, there are a little more than 3% of the U.S. population that is openly GLBT. That would equate to a little less than 11,000,000 people. Of course, that number is debatable as hell, but let's go with it for now.

How many of those GLBT people parent or intend to parent, Sammy? Would you like to take a guess? If they all miraculously paired up nine months ago, and had biological children by some means, they would be giving birth to 5.5 million children who would be raised by the coupling of two mommies or two daddies. Now, of course, there are a plethora of reasons why these numbers are just pure and simple idiocy, but work with me here, okay? I suppose, in the extreme case I cited, one could almost justify Dobson getting his knickers in a tight wad, eh? But, remember, this is just hypothetical bullshit.

Now, to reality. There are in the U.S., Sammy, just short of 33,000,000 children being raised by one or NO biological or adoptive parents. That's 6 times the ridiculously fictional number that would come from the mindless scenario I painted earlier.

Add to that reality the fact that just short of 14,000,000 children live at or below the Federal poverty level - an income level, I might add, is ridiculously low to begin with. A non-profit I work with here in Iowa, which works with low income families and children, considers poverty level to be a minimum of 150% of the federal level. When that figure is used, children in poverty jump to a massive 25,000,000.

If it was all about the children, Sammy, Dobson et al would be so busy with children in poverty that they wouldn't have time to give a rat's ass about same-sex coupling or marriage. If it was all about families, they would be busy trying to help heteros stay together, or even pick more suitable mates in the first damn place.

It's not about the children, Sammy. It is about propogating a message that ensures a continuation of hegemony for old, white men and their fetish with profit, prestige, position and power. They don't give a good crappe about the people they say they aim to reach - the old, the poor, the single moms, etc. - but pander to people's fear of losing what little they already have. And it's funded by a bunch of politically and socially elite people just like them, who are interested in themselves and their own wellbeing.

All about the children, be damned. If it was all about the children, these ultra-conservative buttplugs would be eyeing the GLBT folks out there as a substantial opportunity to adopt and, in other ways, contribute to the welfare of the millions upon millions of suffering children we have in this world already. And they would encourage marriage because, as they tell us, two parents are better than one.

[keltic63]

Hi Zerbie,

I originally had ADF in mind, and they do help people who deal with discrimination. I don't think what they do is antigay.

About Focus on the Family, I would encourage everybody who feels hurt by their actions, to forgive them. Forgiving means not to say that you condone their actions but to let go of the bitterness and anger that you acquired from such experiences and let love come into heart. Didn't Jesus forgive the people who were beating and mocking him, when he went to his crucifixion? I forgave people who have hurt my feelings in my life, and trust me, it does make things easier.

Sammy

Sammy, I've already deleted one of your posts in which you proclaim the wondrous qualities of the ADF. I went to their website, did a search on the word "homosexual" and got 209 hits, none of which said anything positive about homosexuals.

Once again, as it has already been pointed out, you have disowned your statements about these organizations, ie, FOF, ADF, etc. You're walking a fine line, Sammy.

[dewdrop_world]

This strategy would definitely impress the judge to be more lenient toward my client, which is my goal. It doesn't matter if I don't always agree with the researches I use to support my client's truth. This is my job. If I'm using researches as a lawyer that portray CC's negatively in order to help my gay client to win the case, am I trying to destroy and oppress all CC's? Not, at all. Do I make sense?

No, it doesn't make sense. Dobson does not position himself as a lawyer arguing on behalf of a client. He positions himself as a Christian leader paving the way in society for God's truth. The thing is, God does not need to lie.

There were times in my life when I was very angry at organizations like GLTF, GLAAD, GLSEN, Michael Swift, Andrew Sullivan, and I even used to call them very mean names.

If we are supposed to research FoF and see what it "really" stands for... may I ask if you have researched these gay groups to find out what they really do? Is it really true that their primary purpose is to discriminate against people who share your religious views?

I'm thinking carefully how to approach you from this point. It bothers me that after a good 3 weeks of discussion, I still don't understand where you're coming from. You change tactics like people change their underwear; one minute you reveal education, wit, intelligence, and the next you're insensitive in a way that I would not expect from someone as sophisticated as you are; one minute you say you want open discussion but the next your mind is closed to dissenting views.

It all makes it very hard to trust you.

I believe that when gay people meet with those who oppose homosexuality -- when there is a meeting of minds and souls and hearts -- the possibility for transformation of the mistrust and fear between us is vital and alive. It's a way of growing into Christ's love. But it doesn't happen unless both sides work actively to build trust. In this discussion, I don't feel this is happening. It's hard to build trust and I know that everybody is going to make some mistakes along the way, and we have to be patient with those mistakes.

But it's been almost three weeks. It's not like no one has pointed out things that you do that get in the way of building trust -- you've been told, repeatedly, and you continue on with the same behaviors.

If you want to foster understanding of the conservative Christian viewpoint, the way you're going about it is not working here. To continue in the same manner, then, leads to the unfortunate conclusion that your purpose is not to build understanding and trust. (Either that, or you can't imagine another way to approach people you disagree with. In that case, your spiritual practice on this board would be to discover a new way.)

I very sincerely hope that you will prove me wrong!

In the meantime, I argued for relaxing the standard of what kind of debate would be allowed on this board, but I have to admit now that these discussions have changed the tone of this part of the board have in a way that I hoped would not happen. I don't think Soulforce is obligated to allow discussions of this sort to continue here, not without some good faith from you, Sammy.

James

[andrewlittle]

... is useful when "defense from left-wing oppression" doesn't work.

Much of this thread has been about how certain key leaders in conservative Christianity get wreckless with the truth. Obfuscation is, I think, the best way to describe the tactic.

I believe that most CC's who believe what Dobson et al spout, do so because they are duped into believing that these leaders are knowledgable and truthful. Even when faced with facts to the contrary, self-interest many times prevent CC's from hearing truth, because they are convinced that the leaders are looking out for their best interests.

When confronted, these CC's repeat the party-line, but many times begin to recognize the contradictions inherent in them. Questions begin to arise, and room is slowly made for other points of view. I've seen it happen many times.

Rarely, however, have I seen someone bounce the "truth" around quite as much as you do, Sammy. It's like "truth" is a toy to you. And it suddenly occurred to me - maybe you're just sharpening your skills at obfuscation by playing with the people at this website. Do you have desires to be the next Dobson or Falwell, Sammy?

Let me introduce you to a British word - smarmy. Maybe you have already heard it. It means a number of things simultaneously - slippery, ingratiating, patronizing, condescending and, oh yes, the all important deceitful.

I am kind of thinking of myself as a dipshit for ever believing that you were authentic or had any integrity. But if I were to continue to think you had any scrupples, I would then become an arch-dipshit - according to Mark Peters at Wordlustitude. In that case I would be, "A dipshit above all other dipshits. Kind of a dipshit role model."

But, fortunately for me, I'm not a dipshit. I AM sick and damn tired of reading your smarmy posts. I DO get pissed of as hell when I see you've posted something on yet another thread, especially one that I wanted to read and be free of the relentless drivel that flows from your keypad.

Give it a rest, damnit. Get real or get the hell out. Sometimes, Sammy, when people are rejected or argued against, it isn't because they are being oppressed. It is because they are unlikeable and untrustworthy.

There are times -and I am not the least bit proud of it - that I wish I could put your keyboard someplace where you would have to have it surgically removed. I don't like feeling that way. I don't like my own anger at someone else's ignorance. And I'm not going to blame my feelings on you - they are mine and I will deal with them. But, Sammy, help me out a little bit - quit obfuscating.

[Jamie McDaniel]

sammy1980's welcome here has come to an end.

In the moderator's opinion, there is little reason to allow more than 101 of his posting to be hosted on the Soulforce website.

Members have labored to present well written arguments. Rather than thoughtfully responding, he continues to post messages that are provocative and demeaning of LGBT people. His comments are not supported by facts, nor do they cite reputable sources.

Over and over again, sammy1980 posts third-party antigay propaganda, and when corrected, just uses it again elsewhere. Going forward, that "elsewhere" will be some place other than www.soulforce.org

sammy1980, I wish you a life of peace and joy, but your current treatment of gays with your poisoned words is unacceptable.

[BronzDragon]

I also don't think it's fair to label the groups who help people in fighting discrimination due to their objection to homosexuality issues as 'antigay.'

» Thom says: ☛ How would you describe the behavior of "Antigay?" :confused: The way I see it, you can be against me for whatever reasons: Gay, Universalist, Caucation, upper-lower class, etc. And yet, when you start to act on that belief, and said action begins to threaten my happiness, survival, or other simple human rights, "your rights" begin to tread on "my rights,” and someone must step in and say what is fair for all of society.

[tpdncr4christ]

the other day i was in the Christian bookstore with my mom. i was browsing through the books when i saw this book the Gay Agenda. now keep in mind that this Christian bookstore was anti-gay. the Christian fundamentalists think we have some kinda secret agenda. The only agenda i have is spread the Word of Jesus Christ to those who have been hurt from the fundamental Christians.
another thing that ticks me off is that these fundamentalists say we want special rights just because we are gay. we don't want special rights but equal rights upon which heterosexuals take for granted.


Peace,
Christy


Dear Christy and all other's who responded,

It seems to me that both sides here, those for GLBT and those considered "anti-gay" are at fault. People keep using words with extremely negative connotations and spreading rumors about "agendas." People are talking about Dr James Dobson with anger in their voices, when it should be pity. If you think about all forms of discrimination you will find that this uncontrollable hatred is inbred, something into which we are raised. In other words no one is born hating, we are simply raised into a hating world. This means that when you see a book like "The Gay Agenda" you shouldn't be afraid of it, it isn't meant as an attack (though it may very well come off as one) you should pity it. Jesus preached love and forgiveness, and these don't forget that. They have simply been raised into this situation and are following behaviors that have ruled their lives forever. Does that make sense? If you ask any "anti-gay" person why they dislike gay's they will most likely respond saying one of three things: 1. It is wrong. 2. It scares me. and 3. I don't know. These responses all indicate that they have a set of beliefs bred into them that initiates these feelings of hatred directed towards the gay community.

I believe that rather than "fighting" their hatred, or "going to war" with discrimination, we as a people should try and explain that we aren't different. Indeed, I think you could say that the gay community has an agenda, but not one so radical as these conservative extremists believe. One trait I have noticed amoung my closeted and gay freinds, as well as myself, is a tendancy to compulsive lying. I believe that the older gay community is attempting to create a more accepting world so that those younger members of society don't have to lie any more. If this counts as an Agenda, then we as a gay community do indeed have one. Of course, this is only my personal beliefs based on personal experiences.

I guess what I am trying to say is that you shouldn't condem these books as easily as they condem you. Nor should you support them. They are simply functioning on a hatred that has been passed down through generations, not a malevolant destructive force. Simply, it isn't nesiscarily Dr Dobson's fault that he believes what he does, nor is it the fault of any others who belive as he does. The only thing we can do as a community is pray for him, and those who agree with him.

Austin

[keltic63]

If you ask any "anti-gay" person why they dislike gay's they will most likely respond saying one of three things: 1. It is wrong. 2. It scares me. and 3. I don't know. These responses all indicate that they have a set of beliefs bred into them that initiates these feelings of hatred directed towards the gay community.

All of those beliefs that are "bred" into them come from the misinformation they have about lgbt people. It's not wrong to provide them with the correct information, and to point out that their actions do indeed bring about spiritual as well as physical violence against us.

I believe that rather than "fighting" their hatred, or "going to war" with discrimination, we as a people should try and explain that we aren't different. If you've read through this thread, have you noticed how well one poster in particular listened to our "explanations" ? One trait I have noticed amoung my closeted and gay freinds, as well as myself, is a tendancy to compulsive lying. Wow, that's painting with a broad brush. I don't appreciate being called a liar, or a group of people being labeled as liars simply because of their orientation. The only thing we can do as a community is pray for him, and those who agree with him.

Austin

this organization was not founded on the idea that the only thing we can do as a community is sit passively and pray for those who would harm us. we have the information that can set people free, it would be wrong to keep that information to ourselves.

[rainbowdog]

Daniel, I agree with you on the gay agenda. Robertson, Falwell, Dobson, and other Fundamentalists are very anti-gay. Not only that they are trying to take over our country :mad: . They want to make it a Fundamentalist nation which our forefathers did not attend:'( We must pray for them:pray: I know it will be hard but Jesus says You must :pray: for our enimies and those who persecute us,

God Bless,
Christy

[Daniel]

I guess what I am trying to say is that you shouldn't condem these books as easily as they condem you. Nor should you support them. They are simply functioning on a hatred that has been passed down through generations, not a malevolant destructive force. Simply, it isn't nesiscarily Dr Dobson's fault that he believes what he does, nor is it the fault of any others who belive as he does. The only thing we can do as a community is pray for him, and those who agree with him.

Austin

Hello Austin,

I take issue with several of your assertions above.

While I agree that condemnation is counterproductive (a very poor learning tool- one might say), simply praying for those who believe untruths about GLBT persons- and act on those untruths/beliefs- is not enough. This seems to me to be a rather passive way of dealing with things.

Also. the notion that hatred is somehow separate from from 'a destructive force' seems, to this reader, a contradiction in terms. When, I would like to know is hatred a good thing? When does it lead to love? And loving actions?

Dobson & Co. aren't merely fools. They marshall forces which seek to deprive GLBTQ persons of any semblance of civil rights in the name of Christ.

As the saying goes" With friends like this, who needs enemies?"

Discernment is not condemnation. It is seeing things for what they are.

[tpdncr4christ]

While I agree that condemnation is counterproductive (a very poor learning tool- one might say), simply praying for those who believe untruths about GLBT persons- and act on those untruths/beliefs- is not enough. This seems to me to be a rather passive way of dealing with things.


It's not wrong to provide them with the correct information, and to point out that their actions do indeed bring about spiritual as well as physical violence against us.
...
this organization was not founded on the idea that the only thing we can do as a community is sit passively and pray for those who would harm us. we have the information that can set people free, it would be wrong to keep that information to ourselves.

I would like to remind you of Ghandi. England was an opressive force, Ghandi showed no violence. What did he do when his side became ogressive? He stopped eating. What did Martin Luther King Jr. do those many times he was arrested and thrown in jail? He did nothing.

Everything Christ teaches us defies human nature. To follow his example is not an easy path, nor is it always the hardest. Christ said when struck on the cheeck, you offer the other. When you see a man with no shirt, give him your own. When someone knocks on your door, let them in and deny them nothing they ask. These behaviors are contrary to what we want to do as human beings.

You cannot keep on with this verbal verbatum because nothing will get accomplished. keltic63, you said that we have the information to set them free. I do not deny that. But you cannot teach someone who does not want to listen. No matter how many times you show them the truth they can still look away. It's that whole free will thing. I am simply suggesting a different aproach.

And Daniel, you seem to think my ideas are passive. I suggest living a Christ like life. If you live a life so perfect and so clean, one worthy of the title of a Christian they cannot touch you. If you meet all their standards, live a life in which people see God shinning through you than those who know Him can't do or say anything against it. I'm not saying go take vows and lock yourself in a room and pray, I am saying live your life as prayer. Wake up in the morning with a "Dear Lord," and go to sleep with an "Amen." This means living the example. When Christ dealt with the Pharises (however you speel them...) and Preists of the Church, He answered their questions with questions. Don't try and force feed them the truth. They will hear what they want to hear. Show them that we are normal, healthy people who can leave successful lives. Show them that we are just as loyal to our Lord as they are. It may suck at times, but its what (at least what I believe) Christ would do.

I seem to hear both of you saying something roughly along the lines of: Don't take shit sitting down. I am trying to say: don't take it at all. Move on. Live a Christ filled life, let God shine through you, and let them know they are wrong. If you are perfect they cannot touch you.

And if indeed this organization is founded on the principals that prayer cannot help us, then I am truly saddened, and deeply hurt.

[keltic63]

I would like to remind you of Ghandi. England was an opressive force, Ghandi showed no violence. What did he do when his side became ogressive? He stopped eating. What did Martin Luther King Jr. do those many times he was arrested and thrown in jail? He did nothing.

what was Gandhi doing that caused the other side to become aggressive? What did Dr. King do that caused him to be arrested? were they sitting passively, praying? were they quietly living their lives to demonstrate that they were "just like everyone else?"

Everything Christ teaches us defies human nature. To follow his example is not an easy path, nor is it always the hardest. Christ said when struck on the cheeck, you offer the other. When you see a man with no shirt, give him your own. When someone knocks on your door, let them in and deny them nothing they ask. These behaviors are contrary to what we want to do as human beings. Interesting that many gay and lesbian Christians have been knocking on the church's door, and they are being told that a) they're not welcome, b) they're welcome but there is something terrible wrong/evil about them c) they're welcome as long as they don't "act" on their orientation. As a whole, the christian community isn't doing very well with that "love thy neighbor" thing.



You cannot keep on with this verbal verbatum because nothing will get accomplished. keltic63, you said that we have the information to set them free. I do not deny that. But you cannot teach someone who does not want to listen. No matter how many times you show them the truth they can still look away. It's that whole free will thing. I am simply suggesting a different aproach. I agree, it's difficult to teach someone who doesn't want to learn, but I don't think that means giving up on the message. You say you are suggesting a different approach; I don't see what that is.

And Daniel, you seem to think my ideas are passive. I suggest living a Christ like life. If you live a life so perfect and so clean, one worthy of the title of a Christian they cannot touch you. If you meet all their standards, live a life in which people see God shinning through you than those who know Him can't do or say anything against it. I'm not saying go take vows and lock yourself in a room and pray, I am saying live your life as prayer. Wake up in the morning with a "Dear Lord," and go to sleep with an "Amen." This means living the example. When Christ dealt with the Pharises (however you speel them...) and Preists of the Church, He answered their questions with questions. Don't try and force feed them the truth. They will hear what they want to hear. Show them that we are normal, healthy people who can leave successful lives. Show them that we are just as loyal to our Lord as they are. It may suck at times, but its what (at least what I believe) Christ would do. Some of my friends here at soulforce are not Christian, although they do follow many of the teachings of Christ. How do these friends fit into your words here?

And when those with anti-gay messages come to us, they are often presented with more questions, as well as some answers. That sounds a lot like your example of Jesus and the Pharisees.

I seem to hear both of you saying something roughly along the lines of: Don't take shit sitting down. I am trying to say: don't take it at all. Move on. Live a Christ filled life, let God shine through you, and let them know they are wrong. If you are perfect they cannot touch you. And who among us is perfect?

And if indeed this organization is founded on the principals that prayer cannot help us, then I am truly saddened, and deeply hurt.

I don't recall either of us saying that prayer cannot help. It is the concept of "just ignore them and they'll go away" that you are presenting that I disagree with.

[Daniel]

Austin,

Rather than make this into a debate, I would like to relate something that speaks to the issue.

I didn't come from a demonstrative family. And after many years of feeling a distance between my parents and myself, I realized that I was the one who had to start telling them that I loved them- rather than wait for it to drop out of their mouths. Now my relationship with them is significantly better. Why? I took the first step by telling them what I wanted to hear. And this isn't a case of simply getting what I want: they really do love me. They just didn't know how to go about telling me.

As I see it, the principle is the same in dealing what Dobson & Co.. Mel White has written about 'out loving' those that speak untruths and actively spead lies about GLBTQ folk. That is is not passive thing, nor is it condemnatory. Nor is it not 'taking shit sitting down' or being 'so perfect they cannot touch you.'

Being loving is simply that: being loving.

Responding to those who are working- in thought and deed-towards restricting and denying civil rights to GLBTQ people also means that one has to go stand in front of their gate and deal with the matter headon.

These two things- loving actions and standing up for the truth-not the 'truth' of misinformation and willfull ignorance- exist at the same time. Indeed, they may be the same thing: someone has to go first.

[frankandcathy]

I had to write one more response before I toddle off.

I think this all goes back to the original reason I got on this web site in the first place.

Both "sides" (meaning CC and gay) must learn to stop battling one another with words, campaigns, etc. and begin to serve one another with love. Now certainly many people have pointed out that there are LOTS of gays and lesbians serving their conservative brothers and sisters. That is great. I, personally, want to see more conservatives serving their gay brothers and sisters.

But the point is, that none of the name-calling or accusations really gets us anywhere. When either side is living in fear or even propogating fear of "THEM," we're not getting anywhere.

I can assure you that I am one CC who doesn't want to "get rid of gay people" or "take over the country." My goal in life is to serve God by serving others...ALL OTHERS. This is how I experience the most spiritual growth.

One of my small group leaders always says, "You don't fight sin with sin. It never works." She is speaking about the relationship between spouses but it's true in all areas.

The problem is that we try to fight spiritual battles with our mouths or with our minds or with politics. Spiritual battle must be fought with spiritual weapons: which are "not of flesh and blood" but are empowered by God to pull down strongholds and any idea that exalts itself against the knowledge of God. The context of this passage is talking about meekness and appropriate "warfare." I think the strongest weapons we have are love and prayer and service.

Sure there are CC leaders who are doing things wrong. I do not excuse them at all. To compare them to Nazis is, honestly, a little trite at this point. Is there anyone who hasn't been compared to Hitler or Nazis? It's so overused. But that's not really the point. The point is...to call people Nazis is silly. It will not accomplish anything.

My question is: if you saw this book, did you read it? Did you really look at what it said and judge for yourself if it was true or just a pack of lies? Is there any possibility that some of the items in it could be true? What would that mean to you? Anything? Nothing? Or did you just pick it up, read the cover, and scoff at the author and CCs? What did that accomplish? What is it that you want to accomplish in this area? Anything? Nothing? How are you going to go about doing that? How am I? How are any of us? We must ask these questions of ourselves.

Okay, bed time!
Thanks for listening!
~C

[novaseeker]

Both "sides" (meaning CC and gay) must learn to stop battling one another with words, campaigns, etc. and begin to serve one another with love. ...

The problem is that we try to fight spiritual battles with our mouths or with our minds or with politics.

It's an excellent point, generally speaking. The problem is that Dobson & Co. are not simply waging a spiritual battle, they are waging a well-financed political war against LGBT people. So while I think that on the grassroots, rank and file level it is very important to approach each other as you suggest, but for the sake of our own protection, we just can't treat Dobson & Co. like that because they are running around the country and working hard to pass laws restricting us everywhere they can. So it has to be a blended approach, at least from the LGBT side of things .. while we certainly ought not act in anger, but always in the spirit of love, we must nevertheless firmly resist the efforts being made by the Christian Right, and we must do that on the legislative, political and judicial levels to the best of our ability as well. The *attitude* or *spirit* of that effort is important to get right, and it should be positive, loving and reinforcing, but nevertheless relentlessly resist non-love.

Sure there are CC leaders who are doing things wrong. I do not excuse them at all. To compare them to Nazis is, honestly, a little trite at this point. Is there anyone who hasn't been compared to Hitler or Nazis? It's so overused. But that's not really the point. The point is...to call people Nazis is silly. It will not accomplish anything.

Well, I think one can compare something to a historical problem without labels. I mean, I don't think anyone is saying Dobson is literally a nazi. What has been proposed, and with some persuasiveness, is that some of the approaches of his group and the related groups bears substantial similarities to some approaches that totalitarianism has used in the last century, particularly the fascist variant of totalitarianism. That remains an important message, and while I agree that the people who are already enthralled by Dobson's message will not respond to that criticism well, the audience for the criticism is really the rest of the country who are not enthralled by the ideas of the Christian Right. It's an important argurment to be made, and I'm glad that several books have been published recently making it.

What is it that you want to accomplish in this area?

My very personal opinion is that the leadership and "true believers" in the Christian Right are beyond dialogue at this point. There isn't any convincing them, they are not interested in dialogue, and they are certain that their viewpoint is correct. There are plenty of other conservative christians who are similarly in the "mind made up" category, who are beyond dialogue. So, the path that has to be taken with respect to this group is no longer dialogue, really, but simply resistance.

There is still, in my personal view, considerable room for dialogue with more moderate voices from various faith communities, and dialogue should be continued with these people, and is being continued ... and is bearing fruit as well. This is a very positive effort and an encouraging one. To a certain degree, the future of our country hangs on the ability of moderate christians to reassert themselves in the society at large as a counterpoint to the CCs, and we shall have to see if that happens. Either way, continuing and deepening the dialogue between the LGBT community and these faith communities is important work, it seems to me.

[Emproph]

Beneath contempt.

Well I got the book! The Homosexual Agenda (http://www.amazon.com/Homosexual-Agenda-Exposing-Principal-Religious/dp/0805426981/sr=8-2/qid=1166606655/ref=sr_1_2/104-2785518), by Alan Sears and Craig Osten of the Alliance Defense Fund. The subtitle of this book is: Exposing the principle threat to religious freedom today.

Anyone needing a diatribe refresher (from this thread) on these two beans and the ADF can find it here (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=16055&postcount=38).

So far I’ve only skimmed through it, but enough to say that If I could recommend just one book on the nefariousness of the Homosexual Agenda™ this would be it.

It’s an anthology of all the hackneyed arguments and out of context articles of opinion, and then some. An absolute masterpiece of vilification. I am truly impressed, it’s well below and beyond the pale than I was expecting. From what little I’ve read I already hate myself and my evil agenda to destroy civilization. I didn’t realize before that breathing is in actuality, just another aspect of my political agenda – to live.

~~

What’s the first rule when it comes to establishing credibility?

Lower the bar...


...both the authors and the ministry of the Alliance Defense Fund have nothing but respect, compassion, and sensitivity toward those ensnared in homosexual behavior.

...we carefully balance this love and respect for these individuals with warnings about the carrying out, promotion, and demand for legal approval for homosexual behavior...
By defining homosexuals as nothing more than a perverted sexual behavior to begin with, anything less than total excoriation would be disrespectful and unloving.

Maybe Emproph's being overly dramatic, it can't be all that bad...

~~

Chapter Six: The Silence (And Silencing) Of The Church:
Unfortunately, many evangelicals fear the I word (intolerant) and therefore seek appeasement with those who seek to undermine and silence the moral authority of the church and the gospel. It is much like Neville Chamberlain’s going to see Adolf Hitler at Munich in 1938 and selling out his country and its allies for the sake of "peace in our time."

The bottom line is that with radical homosexual activists appeasement is not enough. As we have seen, they are demanding total submission to their agenda.
Now that’s a creative use of the Hitler comparison. Indirectly compare the enemy, homosexuals, to Hitler, by feigning concern for your potential allies.

~~

The next post begins with this:
Attacks on the Church:

The most vivid example of the type of warfare being staged by radical homosexual activists and their allies is the sexual abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church.
If you’re familiar with my work, you may want to skip this next post and meet me at the bottom. I'm trying to keep commentary to a minimum, it's just that it's infuriatingly ugly material.

Black hole, air sick bag, just devolves, are all phrases that come to mind, I can’t quite describe it more coherently than that right now – descent into hell almost does it.

Fair Warning. :D

[Emproph]

Attacks on the Church:
The most vivid example of the type of warfare being staged by radical homosexual activists and their allies is the sexual abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church.

They mention that most if not all of the abuse was that of homosexual priests and go on to state:
However, the radical homosexual activists...who despise what the church stands for, have seized the opportunity in an attempt to swing the church doors open wide for the practice of homosexual behavior...

The next stage, I mean page, describes homosexuality as:
disordered desire, morally disordered, acts of grave depravity, intrinsically disordered, homosexuals are called to chastity

The Catholic Church sex abuse scandal:
...those who wish to remake the church in their image have attacked celibacy as the cause...Rather than attack the root of the problem, seminarians and priests who...have given themselves over (as in Rom. 1) to “shameful lusts.”

They quote George Weigel who suggests that:
"US bishops...absorbed from the therapeutic culture...a fear of appearing “judgemental” and “homophobic” in dealing with cases of clergy sexual abuse.”

And this tandem gem:
The bishop surely knew by the early 1990's that the majority of cases of abuse had to do with...boys and young men by homosexual clergy. Yet they were slow to act? Why?...fear of adding "homophobe"...[to the] vocabulary of put-downs of the Catholic Church...blunted the bishops’ ability to deal vigorously with the breakout of the scandal of clergy sexual abuse.

(Implying that known child predators were knowingly transferred from parish to parish to parish in an effort to appear “politically correct.” An atmosphere instituted no doubt by “radical homosexual activists." :rolleyes:)

The proverbial disclaimer:
Before we continue...we need to make it clear that we are not condoning the cover-up of, or the terrible sexual abuse that has unfortunately occurred.

And now back to:
“how radical homosexual activists and their allies are exploiting this tragedy for their own personal, political, and legal gains.

...how homosexual misconduct and crimes actually advance their agenda, just as the AIDS disease was exploited...

...sudden opportunity thrust upon them to defame the legacy of Pope John Paul II...Now, they sense, is their last opportunity to dismantle the church as we have known it.

They accuse “homosexual activists” of hypocrisy for “attacking the church for allowing men who prey on teenage boys,” whilst [we] simultaneously attack “the Boy Scouts for keeping the same individuals out!” (That’s wrong on so many levels I’m not even going to bother)

They quote Ann Coulter:
...they have responded to the gay sex abuse crisis in the priesthood by blaming Catholicism.

In regard to another article:
“..increasing tolerance of homosexual behavior...played a significant role in the scandal.”

They then go on to assert that:
“radical homosexual activists and their allies within the church are trying to reshape it into a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah...This is the strategic approach that radical homosexual activists use to achieve their agenda.”

They list three examples to illustrate this:
“Senate President Pro Tem John L. Burton of San Francisco” and gratuitously add “(any coincidence?). He introduced a bill to lengthen the statute of limitations for adult victims of church sex abuse which they characterize as: “so they could sue the Roman Catholic Church for damages.” -The other two examples are mischaracterized similarly.

More:
“Regardless of claims to the contrary, the current sexual problem in the Catholic Church is primarily a homosexual behavior problem.”

"To get a glimpse as to why this is a homosexual issue..."
..Reverend Paul R. Shanley (http://www.bishop-accountability.org/assign/Shanley-Paul-Richard.htm), one of the most notorious priests caught in the scandal." He was part owner of a "racy homosexual club in the Palm Springs" and "attended the 1979 meeting that created NAMBLA."

Not only linking homosexuality with pedophilia, but squarely placing the blame for his and other priests’ careers of sexual abuse, with same-sex attraction and not with their superiors who knowingly, willfully and repeatedly transferred them into unsuspecting parishes to continue raping children.

They use a quote by Chuck Donovan:
“former vice president of the Family Research Council,” in an attempt to nullify the legitimacy of any criticism of sex abuse itself by “homosexual legal activists” here in America:

When homosexual activist marched outside of the House of Parliament several years ago...They were demanding, not asking, that the age of consent for homosexual relations be lowered to sixteen.

Look what I found (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#United_Kingdom_.28and_it s_Crown_dependencies.29):
The age of consent in England and Wales is 16, as specified by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for heterosexual acts and for homosexual acts.

Male homosexual acts were decriminalized under the Sexual Offences Act 1967, Section 1, however the age of consent for such acts was set at 21, whereas the age of consent for heterosexual acts was 16
According to that, the age of consent for heterosexuals in the UK has been 16 since 1967.

Lie of omission.

~~

That was pages 143-155, I’ve only skimmed the surface of 12 pages out of 235 plus. That’s a taste of roughly 5% of the book and as far as I can tell, an accurate tenor as to the rest of it.

~~

Obviously they’re using this tragedy in an horrendously evil agenda to demonize gays to distract attention away from their attempt to abolish the first amendment for others under the guise of protecting it. The dishonesty of the spin and the insincerity of the disclaimers scream it loud and clear.

What disturbes me most is the true consequences of their blame shift here. It does damage to gay people as a whole, usually in overall subtle ways. All of it is unnecessary attention that desperately needs to be paid to the prevention of current and future abuse – within the Church and out.

Protect the kids from the homosexual couple down the street (who want to get married), not the respected _______, who actually is a pedophile.

Ultimately they are unnecessarily creating an atmosphere that not only perpetuates the existing potential for life devastating sexual abuse but also gives it cover.

I am often tempted to use the word unforgivable..

[Emproph]

Just in case you weren’t sufficiently swayed by all that. On page 142 (the precursor to “Attacks on the Church” section above), we find that:

Mel White (http://www.melwhite.org/) is the founder of Soulforce, an organization dedicated to the silencing of the church with regard to homosexual behavior. His organization pickets the Southern Baptist Convention on an annual basis because of that denomination’s biblical stand on the issue. White has written a book justifying homosexual behavior and regularly receives positive press coverage about his pleas for “understanding.”

...One of White’s assertions is that conservative Christians lack grace when dealing with those trapped in homosexual behavior.

They then quote a passage of Paul in Romans 6 that begins with “What shall we say then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?..."

~~

In regard to-that-characterization of Mel White and Soulforce – and to borrow a line from Mad TV:


I’ve seen prison rapes more graceful than that...literally. :rofl:

[novaseeker]

Protect the kids from the homosexual couple down the street (who want to get married), not the respected _______, who actually is a pedophile.

Ah, but you forget that they assume that:

1. The gay couple down the street is probably pedophilic (because they think that many homosexuals are pedophiles and that most pedophiles are homosexual, regardless of the data that contradicts that view);

2. The gay couple down the street will be "recruiting" your children to be GLBT.

The first point is simply laughable.

The second point is laughable when it suggests that there actually is "recruiting" going on, but I think what they mean is that they are afraid that if there are positive GLBT role models out and present in the community/neighborhood, this may (1) encourage young people who are GLBT to accept themselves (which Dobson et al do not want, because they think it is a sickness) and thereby get "recruited into the gay 'lifestyle'", and (2) encourage younger people who are not GLBT to be more tolerant of GLBT people, and thereby get "recruited into the 'gay worldview' of 'tolerance', 'inclusion', etc.". In other words, they are afraid that the presence of us in that context will deter their ability to pour their own hate and prejudice into their minds of their children, and will instead "recruit" their children into a more accepting perspective ... which of course will lead to the end of cilvilization as we know it. :rolleyes:

[Emproph]

The second point is laughable when it suggests that there actually is "recruiting" going on, but I think what they mean is that they are afraid that if there are positive GLBT role models out and present in the community/neighborhood, this may (1) encourage young people who are GLBT to accept themselves (which Dobson et al do not want, because they think it is a sickness) and thereby get "recruited into the gay 'lifestyle'", and (2) encourage younger people who are not GLBT to be more tolerant of GLBT people, and thereby get "recruited into the 'gay worldview' of 'tolerance', 'inclusion', etc.". In other words, they are afraid that the presence of us in that context will deter their ability to pour their own hate and prejudice into their minds of their children, and will instead "recruit" their children into a more accepting perspective ... which of course will lead to the end of cilvilization as we know it. :rolleyes: Good assessment :applause: Good assessment :applause:

[frankandcathy]

This has to be quick. I must go to bed.

emorph: kudos to you for reading this book (stomaching it if you will) and for posting so humorously. The reference to Nazis is funny because, well...it's so overused. ;)

nova: when I read your first post about CCs not battling spiritually, I had to laugh. After reading it I sat there saying, "That's what I'm saying. We HAVE to use spiritual weapons." Wish I had time to explain. Believe me, those who you think are unchangeable (Saul on the road to Damascus) are TOTALLY reachable by the God of the universe. I used to believe MUCH differently on many issues than I do now and would have gone down fighting on them. Many here are the same way. But no one is beyond spiritual help. I know it seems silly to ask that the gay activists "lay down their weapons and surrender." Someone has to, though. The only question is, who is going to be the "bigger" man...

Anyway. I'm really going to bed!
~C

[Zerbie]

Whoa.

Cathy, I take offense at this and for heck's sake, I'm MARRIED!

Before I jump to conclusions about your motives for writing your last post, let me just ask you to clarify.

These are the points I take from your post. Are they what you meant:

1. Any time a comparison is drawn between anti-semitic Nazi rhetoric and anti-gay rhetoric that is practically verbatim and used today by certain groups (like the TVC and the AFA, and to a lesser degree FOF), it's "overused" to the point of being funny?

2. If gays were only to become "spiritual" they would cease to be gay??

3. That gay activists should be the bigger man and lay down their weapons: which means what precisely? That we should cease in our quest for equal protection under the law TO WHICH WE ALL ARE, as US citizens, ENTITLED?

Cathy, if these things are what you meant, they are all troublesome. #3 in particular is offensive and unacceptable. It is nothing other than telling gays to be good little homos and sit back and accept unequal treatment under the law so that they don't upset all the people who don't like the fact that they exist. It's BS Cathy. If you think I'm coming down hard on you please consider the reasons why.

Why are you here, Cathy? Are you here on a mission to try and convince people, some of whom struggled for decades, to try and change their orientation? That is how it appears to me. Am I mistaken?

[keltic63]

I have to echo zerbie's sentiments, if not so strongly as she does. as I was reading your post, cathy, I felt offended, yet couldn't quite figure out exactly what it was. zerbie has done a good job of listing them.

the attitude seems to be that if the gays would just "play nice" or "don't make so much noise" then the rest of society wouldn't be so offended by them (us gays.) are you asking us to go back in the closet?

so the call from cathy is for gays to be the "bigger" person and lay down their weapons; who picked up the weapons in the first place? who has the commandment of "love thy neighbor" been given to? why have gays picked up the weapons? why are christians holding and using weapons?

when a group of christians in this country can align themselves with an african bishop who supports the imprisonment of homosexuals, restrictive laws that forbid gay literature, media, gatherings, even for 2 homosexuals to enjoy dinner at a restaurant, I really have to wonder if it's possible or even wise for the gay community to "act nice." I don't believe that these "few" churches are a blip on the radar; I think this is serious. These churches have put themselves under this bishop's authority. what will they do when he makes demands of them that violate not only civil rights, but the teachings of Christ, or even the civil laws of this country?

the word "surrender" from you cathy seems to imply that we should just go ahead and do what is requested of us from the cc's. is that really what you meant to say?

[BruceChris]

I hesitate to put this in an "us verses them" context, but that is what You seem to have done. Our only goal is equal rights, and our only *weapon* is to suggest, or simply tell you that you are acting unlovingly, and therefore in an un-Christian manner, and to ask you to simply love us just as God has made us. You, on the other hand, and by implication all of the CC-ers, especially the extreem ones, are telling us that we must make one of several choices:

1. Go back in the closet, pretend that we are all just somehow lifelong bachelors, and give up on having almost any type of relationship.

2. Undergo ex-gay therapy, with at least a 90% chance of failure, and then spent the rest of our lives feeling utterly miserable, or maybe just kill ourselves.

3. Marry someone of the opposite sex, and ruin both of our lives.

4. Simply make a public confession, and allow ourselves to be executed, as a number of the more extreem CC'ers have advocated, publically.

Cathy, I am not sure that what we are holding can even be called weapons, but anything that brings with it the consequences described above can only be described as a weapon. Cathy, lay down YOUR weapons, and we will talk.

Love, but also some fear, and much disappointment, Bruce Chris

[BruceChris]

Cathy, I notice that in one of your recent posts, today I believe, you did not make ANY attempt to address the content of my posting, but limited yourself to a pronounced "Yeccch" at my addressing God as "She". Now I do not believe in automatic literal mindedness, as a rule, but exceptions CAN be awfully tempting.

So, obviously, by your beliefs, God has no female aspect, at all. So obviously, you could not have been created in Gods image, were only placed upon this earth to serve as an incubator for those Male images of God, and when you die, having no soul, you will simply cease to exist.

I knew it! The Patriarchs and Male Chauvinist Pigs were right all along. The only reason that wenches were placed upon this earth is so that a guy like me could simply grab the nearest one and have my way with her. Sanctity of Marriage? Clearly, the concept doesn't even exist! (And either way, you lose? That doesn't sound right, somehow)

So I am not really attacking you, as a child of God, but I AM attacking your Biblical literalism. (Love the sinner, hate the sin, can't seem to make this work at all consistently? Must have a problem here....)


Now, Cathy, I offer you my sincerest apologies for putting you through that. I do love and respect women, and believe that they are often if not usually better people than we are. And, you ARE indeed created in God's image, but only if you admit that She can indeed have as many female as male images. And I have NOT carried out my threat to just pack up and leave.

If I offer you my respect, and promise to READ ALL of any postings that I may comment upon, will you offer me the same? - Bruce Chris

[Daniel]

Believe me, those who you think are unchangeable (Saul on the road to Damascus) are TOTALLY reachable by the God of the universe.

Changed into what?

I used to believe MUCH differently on many issues than I do now and would have gone down fighting on them. Many here are the same way. But no one is beyond spiritual help.

What does it look like when we get helped?

I know it seems silly to ask that the gay activists "lay down their weapons and surrender." Someone has to, though. The only question is, who is going to be the "bigger" man...

Cathy Honey (I'm takin' liberties here I know- but just think of me as your hairdresser and you've just decided you want to be a redhead), that really is- as you put it- a silly thought.

As I see it, you are mixing Caesar with God.

(God)
Yes. I can agree with you that we ALL need to learn to live and breath without judgement. The law of Love isn't a bad guide. And after all, my love for my guy is probably a real head expander for many. But that's what love does- turn things inside out.

(Caesar)
The idea that there are spiritual weapons sounds like something from one of the Left Behind novels. Makes a nice story, and Milton would have loved it, but it's no way to make a life work: it puts everything said and seen and done into Us vs Them. I mean, lets get real here- you're talking about warfare. The implication being (please correct me!) that CC'ers are lovin' and the gay activist's aren't: THEY must lay down their 'weapons' and stop attacking us.

Sorry Honey (there I go again), this speaks to privilege. He who has it often does know he has it. And you have it. The gay's don't. It's that simple. And they (GLBT folks) are going to speak their mind (with loving insistence we hope- around here) until they can join the company of those with equal rights. Hopefully, when we have them- full out and cup running over- we won't take what we have for granted. ;)

I hasten to relate the viewpoint expoused by Gore Vidal, who wrote what is considered by many to be the first novel (The City and the Pillar) in which a character was open about being gay:

"To begin to get at the truth about homosexuals, one must realize that the majority of those millions of Americans who prefer same-sex sex to other-sex sex are obliged, sometimes willingly and happily but often not, to marry and have children and to conform to the guidelines set down by the heterosexual dictatorship."

It is no accident that many embody these last two words, wrapping themselves in God and the flag. Please do not do as they do, I implore you.

[rainbowdog]

I have to agree with Zerbie, Brucechris, and Keltic on these issues. Cathy are you anti-gay or homophobic because you sound like we should give up and let the Christian Conservatives or Christian Fundamentalists ruin our lives :mad: . We are tired of being 2nd class citizens. We don't want special rights but equal rights:smashy: I suggest you read Mel White's book "Religion Gone Bad":( . Another book that i am reading that i wish i had read a long time ago is "Calling The Rainbow Nation Home" A story of Acceptance and Affirmation. If i had read that book when i first realize that i was gay i would not have done some destructive things i did like attempt suicide and heavy drinking.
i am not about to back down now. I am on a mission to tell other GBLTs about Christ and how He made us unique by being GBLT. i am doing prison ministry by encoraging these inmates who are new to Christianity and they just happen to be gay.
i think you need to do some research on homosexuality. Find some positive Christian gay and lesbian books on www.amazon.com Also do the research on homosexuality not only by Christianity but scientifically, historically, sociologically, and psychologically. In 1973 APA declared that homosexuality is not a sickness but a perfecally normal behavior for 10% of the population so therefore it is not a sickness or sin. God made me gay and i am proud of it.:applause:

God Bless,
Christy:rainbow:

[novaseeker]

nova: when I read your first post about CCs not battling spiritually, I had to laugh. After reading it I sat there saying, "That's what I'm saying. We HAVE to use spiritual weapons." Wish I had time to explain. Believe me, those who you think are unchangeable (Saul on the road to Damascus) are TOTALLY reachable by the God of the universe. I used to believe MUCH differently on many issues than I do now and would have gone down fighting on them. Many here are the same way. But no one is beyond spiritual help. I know it seems silly to ask that the gay activists "lay down their weapons and surrender." Someone has to, though. The only question is, who is going to be the "bigger" man...

As I wrote above, my own perspective is that this is a case of "both/and" rather than "either/or". In other words, yes, we do need dialogue between GLBT people and Christians of all sorts, including such CCs who are willing to listen and engage in dialogue.

But at the same time we definitely need to keep the fight in the civil realm as well, because that's where we need the protections the most, and, more fundamentally, because that's the means we can most likely use to change hearts and minds over time about who we really are.

I see it as two parallel tracks: one track is about convincing the hearts and minds, and other track is about securing equal treatment under the law. In my own personal opinion, while we can certainly make some individual progress on track one, we won't succeed on a large scale relating to track one unless and until there is substantial progress made on track two. The reason for that, in my opinion, is that when progress is really made on track two, more GLBT people will be willing and able to live and love openly and honestly in a variety of settings in America, people who now are still living closeted or virtually closeted in the mainstream world, or sequestered in gay ghettos, and hence in either case not in any significant "dialogue" with the larger community around them. Real dialogue requires openness, and legal protections and possibilities like anti-discrimination laws and union/marital options encourage GLBT people to be open about themselves in the mainstream world, to seek relationships in the open, and to live those relationships openly in the mainstream world -- all of which sets the stage for dialogue with the rest of the larger community.

That's why I see the activism, particularly as it relates to anti-discrimination type laws and marital/union options, to be critical to furthering the dialogue between GLBT people and the larger, straight mainstream world.

[tdogg]

Maybe I missed something along the way - but I am also a bit surprised and disappointed by your latest post on this thread Cathy. It seems to be quite different than your others?? I agree with what Zerbie, Keltic, BruceChris and Daniel say. There is much in your post that offends, and that depletes the trust bank a bit.

I agree, maybe you can explain your post and gain some trust back?

I will never lay down to allow anyone, CC or otherwise, to trample on me, my loved ones or my equal rights. Being the bigger person (MAN??) doesn't mean giving in to their oppression and abuse. Being gay doesn't mean one isn't spiritual.

It's not the gays that need a changin', so perhaps you are saying that those funamental extremist CCs are the ones who are totally reachable by the God of the universe (reading - changeable)???

Those who believe the Bible is literally inerrant, feel so free to pick and choose which words are applicable to their lives, and which are applicable to others - and they are not necessarily the same. That is the problem with Biblical inerrancy theories.

[rainbowdog]

Maybe I missed something along the way - but I am also a bit surprised and disappointed by your latest post on this thread Cathy. It seems to be quite different than your others?? I agree with what Zerbie, Keltic, BruceChris and Daniel say. There is much in your post that offends, and that depletes the trust bank a bit.

I agree, maybe you can explain your post and gain some trust back?

I will never lay down to allow anyone, CC or otherwise, to trample on me, my loved ones or my equal rights. Being the bigger person (MAN??) doesn't mean giving in to their oppression and abuse. Being gay doesn't mean one isn't spiritual.

It's not the gays that need a changin', so perhaps you are saying that those funamental extremist CCs are the ones who are totally reachable by the God of the universe (reading - changeable)???

Those who believe the Bible is literally inerrant, feel so free to pick and choose which words are applicable to their lives, and which are applicable to others - and they are not necessarily the same. That is the problem with Biblical inerrancy theories.
I agree with you tdogg. Cathy, I think you are a cc that picks the passages that condemns us, but you take the Bible literally and not from a historical approach. I think you use those 6 passages without reading the whole story. Back then their was nothing said about sexual orientation. I can't remeber the year they coined homosexuality as a sexual orientation that is nothing wrong with it. It cannot be changed. 10% of the population are getting this unique gift from God. God loves His GBLT children. Like the others on this thread you are offended me too.:mad: So keep an opened mind and don't force us to closed the closet door.

Peace,
Christy

[BronzDragon]

Look in Ephesians [6.11 - 17]. Some weapons are:

truth, righteousness, peace, faith, salvation, the Word of God

» Thom says: ☛ So, I just got this message from Carisma OnLine.

It’s Time for the War Horse to Be Released
James Goll, founder of Encounters Network, speaks of a return to spiritual warfare. He believes the Lord is calling forth His “war horse”—a band of humble intercessors who will fearlessly and relentlessly fight against the powers of darkness with their prayers.http://www.charismamag.com/streams/james-goll.jpg
The global prayer movement will re-embrace spiritual warfare as a warrior anointing is mingled with the bridal revelation of the last few years. Job 39: 19–25 gives us a description of the war horse of the Lord. He is: (1) strong and mighty; (2) fearless; (3) relentless; 4) majestic and beautiful. Impartation and teaching about topics such as the believer’s authority in Christ, the keys of the kingdom and judicial intercession will be revisited and affirmed. It is time for the war horse of the Lord to march forth. The time will be marked both by escalating wars in the natural and by an intensifying of the war between the soul and the spirit in the body of Christ. The good news, though, is that the powers of darkness will take a heavy hit as humble intercessors are ignited with the gift of faith to war in the spirit realm.

» Thom says: ☛ Now, I am confused. Is this fellow comparing the Eternal One to a Horse? I don't see that in the epic poem 'Job. Did I miss something? And I did not see anywhere in that citation that the horse was a war horse. Is this normal? that some evangelists will read into the scriptures something that is not really there? or is this a rare event?

[andrewlittle]

Cathy wrote:
This has to be quick. I must go to bed.
There might be some clues in these simple statements that explain what some have perceived as an about face, or step backward, on Cathy's part. Speed and tiredness generally do not equate to well posited arguments in a serious discussion. It reappears when Cathy states, "Wish I had time to explain." I'd like to see Cathy restate this post when she has the time and is not tired. I think it entirely possible that she has been very misunderstood - not certain of this, but think it's quite possible.

I'm not sure that will happen, however. Cathy has not returned to the site, logged in at least, since she posted this thread on 12/25 at 11:24 PM. That's a long absence. Personally, I hope she will comeback.

emorph: kudos to you for reading this book (stomaching it if you will) and for posting so humorously.
Nothing inflammatory there. Doesn't sound like the beginning of a post intended to be offensive.

The reference to Nazis is funny because, well...it's so overused.
This caused a bit of a ruckus, eh?
While there is nothing "funny" about Nazis, I agree that the fact that they are used by both poles in this battle to denegrate the other is "funny" in the sense of being odd. I don't know that odd is what Cathy meant, but it is what I mean.

Nazis have been overused as negative examples. It's easy to see why when we consider that Hitler and the Nazi movement may be the most attrocious example of totalitarianism in recent memory.

I find it odd that neo-conservative social and religious leaders use the comparison, but they do it to create fear in the masses, and to co-opt, confuse and devalue the comparison for the "other side". I'd say that has worked quite well, but the comparison is ludicrous just the same. Nazis slaughtered innocents to further an agenda. They promoted "witchhunts" in order to get neighbor to out neighbor based on fear of the "other" who is not like us - does not have our values. Nazis were not on a mission to gain rights that were possessed by "non-Nazis", they took away the rights of others - rights to prosper, to flourish, and even to live. The comparison is made, then, to "prove" that liberal/progressive/pro-LGBT forces are trying to take away the rights of Christians. Okay, that is funny in all respects.

I find it odd that the pro-LGBT social and religious leaders use the comparison because it is, well, so overused and has become confused. It is not a effective comparison except for those within our camp. Perhaps there are other useful examples of totalitarianist religious movements that could be used for examples. How about:

The Spanish inquisition.
The Crusades and the killing of Jews and Eastern Orthodox Christians on the way to Holy Land.
Cromwell and the Roundheads in England.
The hunting, killing and deportation of Calvinists in Scotland by the British.
The killing of Quakers by the Puritans in New England.

There are actually dozens more to chose from that illustrate the point that totalitarianism, especially religious totalitarianism, resorts to extreme measures to control populations and demonize those who do not conform to their strict dogmas and social rules. These all, without exception, look a lot like the totalitarianist regimes we are currently battling. They look like a Christian Taliban, don't they.

Now, what I find seriously odd is the comparison to Nazis of large segments of the population, of either camp. The bulk of the German population was propagandized, misled and fear-mongered into complicity with the Nazis. This sounds like the process that is occurring with a great many of the conservative Christians in this country. That doesn't make CC's comparable to Nazis, just to lemmings.

nova: when I read your first post about CCs not battling spiritually, I had to laugh. After reading it I sat there saying, "That's what I'm saying. We HAVE to use spiritual weapons."

I don't know. I read this as Cathy recognizing that, after all was said and done, she and Nova were saying essentially the same thing in different language and concepts. I find myself arguing vehemently on occasion and then realizing that I have actually been agreeing with the person I am arguing against. My reaction, in those instances, is to laugh.

In her previous thread Cathy wrote:
The problem is that we try to fight spiritual battles with our mouths or with our minds or with politics. Spiritual battle must be fought with spiritual weapons: which are "not of flesh and blood" but are empowered by God to pull down strongholds and any idea that exalts itself against the knowledge of God. The context of this passage is talking about meekness and appropriate "warfare." I think the strongest weapons we have are love and prayer and service.
Novaseeker wrote:
So it has to be a blended approach, at least from the LGBT side of things .. while we certainly ought not act in anger, but always in the spirit of love, we must nevertheless firmly resist the efforts being made by the Christian Right, and we must do that on the legislative, political and judicial levels to the best of our ability as well. The *attitude* or *spirit* of that effort is important to get right, and it should be positive, loving and reinforcing, but nevertheless relentlessly resist non-love.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see thse as miles apart. They don't seem opposite, but simply different views of the same thing. I could be wrong.

Believe me, those who you think are unchangeable (Saul on the road to Damascus) are TOTALLY reachable by the God of the universe. I used to believe MUCH differently on many issues than I do now and would have gone down fighting on them. Many here are the same way. But no one is beyond spiritual help. I know it seems silly to ask that the gay activists "lay down their weapons and surrender." Someone has to, though. The only question is, who is going to be the "bigger" man...

This created quite the stir, with much of it seeming to be aimed at the "lay down our weapons" and "bigger man [sic]"

Zerbie responded with:
Cathy, if these things are what you meant, they are all troublesome. #3 in particular is offensive and unacceptable. It is nothing other than telling gays to be good little homos and sit back and accept unequal treatment under the law so that they don't upset all the people who don't like the fact that they exist. It's BS Cathy.

This sentiment was then echoed in a number of posts.

I am going to refer back to the beginning of this post, and reimforce that speed and tiredness do not make for a well-explicated post in a serious discussion (or well spelt for that matter).

I think Cathy is referring, in this statement, to her passage and the way her thoughts and ideology has changed over time and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, how they were changed. Those who we think are unchangeable (e.g. Cathy) are changeable through spiritual help (read - use of spiritual weapons), as opposed to using the non-spiritual weapons commonly used by the opponents.

Again, I could be wrong, but is it possible that Cathy is saying, "don't use the same weapons as your enemy, use the weapons of dialogue and love and gentleness that have worked with me"?

It seems to me that, if Cathy is guilty of gross generalizations, they are exhibited in assuming that others can be changed and reached by love and interaction as she has been. She is using her experience of being changed as a universal approach. I don't think she meant stop using any weapons, but chose weapons that stand in stark contrast to those used by our enemies. Be visibly different - be visibly Christian - be anti-hate.

Then again, I could be niave as hell and looking for the good in everyone.

[Daniel]

It seems to me that, if Cathy is guilty of gross generalizations, they are exhibited in assuming that others can be changed and reached by love and interaction as she has been. She is using her experience of being changed as a universal approach. I don't think she meant stop using any weapons, but chose weapons that stand in stark contrast to those used by our enemies. Be visibly different - be visibly Christian - be anti-hate.

Then again, I could be niave as hell and looking for the good in everyone.

Andrew- All you say could be true. But we will never know unless Cathy drags herself to her computer and makes a post.

Speaking rhetorically, I only wish the opposition showed as much grace and consideration that you have in your exegesis. That is the spirit of nonviolence, it seems to me.

Have we (those of us that did) jumped on Cathy's back in our hurry to pick apart her post, reading into it that which we abhor the most, the condemnation of 'you can be changed if only you pray hard enough'? Perhaps. We may be guilty of bad manners and hasty reaction in response to hastily written- as well as incomplete- expression of thought.

It makes me reflect on the defenses we so easily raise when no defense is needed at all: looking for weakness in another, we overlook our own.

Cathy- where art thou?

[Zerbie]

As I said, "before I jump to conclusions," Cathy, please come explain what you really meant. If you're reading this without logging on, please note the effects of your absence on how we interpret your last post.

Every intuition in me says Cathy meant precisely what I read into her last message. I checked here daily to see if she had posted another response in this thread - the longer the time that passes the less I expect - her absence seems to confirm that she was just here to drop this little bomb, gee Merry Christmas everyone, just stop asking for equality under the law and you can be as spiritual as I am.

If it really is a misunderstanding and Andrew and David are reading her intentions right, why on earth didn't she come right back here and say "No way! That's not what I meant!" ?? Me, I say dumb things when I'm tired, and if later I find I've caused a ruckus I'm very eager to shove those words back and try to make things "right." Where is Cathy? In the absence of any further clarification, until she tells us more, I must assume she meant what she wrote and stands by it. It would be a very good thing for me to be wrong here, guys. But my intuition says I'm not. I will believe it (provisionally I guess) until Cathy comes back with evidence I am wrong.

I may come back and edit this post away - I am not pleased with my negative assumptions about her, and not sure I should leave this here for long. The post from Cathy, more than any other I can remember reading on this forum, angered me, for the reasons I articulated in my reply to it, and also because of an intuitive sense of betrayal - betrayal of the trust this community - my friends - placed in her, and in the name of God. The more time that passes without word from her the more I believe my assumptions are probably correct.

[erubre]

There is a lot of things posted here. I will try to summarize my thoughts by saying that I support all of the pro-gay organizations I know of which are many. Especially I appreciate those organizations that seek to help young people with information and support. I know about the anti-gay organizations and take note of what they say in order to stay informed. I think a lot of the anti-gay organizations are about making money. If there were not a lot of money to be made by generating bigotry and intolerance then I don't think they would be very active. While I am not Roman Catholic I do not call myself Protestant because I do not protest the Catholic Church. There is much about the Catholic Church, it's Tradition and practice that I like. So I find it troubling that millions of dollars given to the Catholic Church for schools and other ministry is being taken by lawyers and accusers of priests. I think if there was not a lot of money to be gotten we would not hear much about sexual abuse by priests. I would like to see laws to shield churches from such law suits. Also, I believe that almost all of the accusations against Catholoc Priests are false accusation. Terms are misapplied to inflame the public. I see this attack on the Roman Catholic Church as an attack on all Authentic Christanity and all humanity. There are important differences between the Fundamentalist Conservative Christian attitude and the Catholic Church. The Fundamentalist Conservative Christians are at total odds with homosexuality in their discrimination, bigotry, and intolerance. I would not say the same about the Catholic Church.

[keltic63]

There are important differences between the Fundamentalist Conservative Christian attitude and the Catholic Church. The Fundamentalist Conservative Christians are at total odds with homosexuality in their discrimination, bigotry, and intolerance. I would not say the same about the Catholic Church.

have you read anything that the current pope has written or said?

[Zerbie]

I would like to see laws to shield churches from such law suits. Also, I believe that almost all of the accusations against Catholoc Priests are false accusation..

You can't possibly know that!!!!!!
:mad: :mad:

Believe it if you want, but know you are believing without evidence and that your words can deeply hurt and enrage anyone who ever was molested or abused by a priest. Nothing is more wounding than to reveal that one has been sexually abused only to have it dismissed as "false accusation" simply because someone doesn't want to think it can happen. A violation like that can haunt a person for decades of adulthood. Don't you dare dismiss those who have been violated!

What's up with this thread??? :confused:

[andrewlittle]

Erubre,

I too am a little taken aback by your assertion that the church should be immune to legal responsibility for its actions.

The "real" church, that one instituted by God through Christ to further the message to humanity, is not a temporal or human organization. It is an ideal - a lofty and beautiful one at that.

The "church" we have come to love/hate/be-ambivalent-about is a human creation, which in the ideal seeks to herald in and exhibit the reign of God's love in the world. In practice, however, it has a long history of showing its human frailty.

The problem the Catholic Church faces, which is not limited to that particular church BTW, has resulted from the powers-that-be placing a much higher value on the institution's survival, than the institution's charge or mission in the world. The welfare of God's children was given less importance than the reputation and prestige of the church.

As far as the rest, I think Zerbie said it best. Maybe just one tiny step and we could be right back to blaming the victim, while we hold the perpetrator harmless.

Let's see - how can I tell you what I think about that. Oh yeah - that's just f--king abusive - it continues to perpetrate the same kind of evil done in the name of God. Excuse me- I have to go puke now.

[Daniel]

So I find it troubling that millions of dollars given to the Catholic Church for schools and other ministry is being taken by lawyers and accusers of priests. I think if there was not a lot of money to be gotten we would not hear much about sexual abuse by priests. I would like to see laws to shield churches from such law suits. Also, I believe that almost all of the accusations against Catholoc Priests are false accusation. Terms are misapplied to inflame the public.


I hope- erubre- before you make any further assertions on this matter that you educate yourself: your belief that those who accuse priests of molestation and even rape do so falsely does not square with the facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

You might be more troubled by the fact that the current pope did all he could to stop this issue from seeing the light of day.

In May 2001, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and later elected Pope Benedict XVI on the death of his predecessor, sent a letter to all Catholic Bishops declaring that the Church's investigations into claims of child sex abuse were subject to the pontifical secret and were not to be reported to law enforcement until investigations were completed, on pain of excommunication. The secrecy related only to the internal investigation, and the letter did not attempt to discourage victims from reporting abuse to the police.

You haven't offered this defense from the same article.

Some —including non-Catholic academics such as Philip Jenkins—have observed that the Catholic Church is being unfairly singled out by a secular media which they say fails to highlight similar sexual scandals in other religious groups, such as the Anglican Communion, various Protestant churches, and the Jewish and Islamic communities. In particular the Catholic Church may have a lower incidence of pedophile priests than Churches that allow married clergy. Statistically pedophilia occurs within families but Catholic priests do not have families. Similarly, the term pedophile priests, widely used in the media, implies a distinctly higher rate of child molesters within the Roman Catholic priesthood when in reality the incidence is lower than most other segments of society".
In response it has been said that irrespective of disproportionate attention lavished upon Catholic priests by the media or misrepresentations that pedophilia priests were involved, the media did not conjure up the examples of law breaking priests and dangerously incompetent bishops.

I think the last sentence says it all. I posit that lawyers didn't conjur up these cases either.

The actions of priests did.

By their works shall you know them.

[erubre]

I am aware that some people are prejudiced against the Roman Catholic Church. And some gay people don't like the official position of that church on gay issues. In my comments I am not referring to the position of the Catholic Church on gay issues. I make no appology for my appreciation of many aspects of The Catholic Church. As I said, I am not a Catholic but there are a lot of things about the Roman Catholic Church that I like. I would not become a Catholic but I can find the good that is there. I have a tendency to speak of positive things to the general exclusion of criticism. It appears to me that some seem to have such strong prejudice that they are unable to separate out the good. Objectivity is a better course, I think. On the issue of Catholic Priests accused of sexual abuse, I know of some cases where ( It is public knowledge ) the accused priest was innocent and the accuser later admitted to that. It is also true that almost always the accused priest is refered to as a pedophile, while very very few offenses described qualify as pedophilia. With few exceptions the issue is ephebophilia. I think it is reasonable to assume that the reason the priest is called a pedophile is to unfairly inflame and prejudice public opinion. It appears that there is an agenda on the part of anti-Catholic people both in the heterosexual community as well as the gay community to harm the Catholic Church unjustly. As I said I would like to see laws to shield Churches from civil law suits that result in accusers and lawyers getting large amounts of money that people have given to churches intended for the Church, schools, and other ministry. For true Christians in my view God, Jesus Christ, The Church - that is the best thing for children. It is not a question of which is the more important - protecting the child, or protecting the church. The best protection of the child is the support and protection of the Church. There is what I call good religion, and bad religion. The Roman Catholic Church represents good religion. That dosen't mean I am in accord with all doctrines and positions on every issue - but the good overcomes. As for fundamentalist and conservative evangelical so-called christian churches, there is very little good religion there, and the harm they cause is profound. There are however many maineline Protestant churches that represent good religion.

[andrewlittle]

I am aware that some people are prejudiced against the Roman Catholic Church.
Some people are prejudiced against everything, and all people are prejudiced against something. This statement, however, seems directed towards people who have made comments about a particular situation within the Catholic and, I might add, other churches that has as much to do with abuse of power as it does sexual behavior. Since there is much evidence, I do not buy that these sentiments are an expression of prejudice.

I make no appology for my appreciation of many aspects of The Catholic Church. As I said, I am not a Catholic but there are a lot of things about the Roman Catholic Church that I like. I would not become a Catholic but I can find the good that is there.
As is only right. I also appreciate a great deal about the Catholic church, but that does not cause me to turn a blind eye towards it's negative aspects, especially when they denegrate and/or violate other children of God.

I have a tendency to speak of positive things to the general exclusion of criticism. It appears to me that some seem to who have such strong prejudice that they are unable to separate out the good.
I read in your previous post, as well as this one, a criticism of people who see the Catholic church differently than you. So, forgive me if I'm wrong, but I take your "general exclusion of criticism" with a grain of salt. Your statements seem to possess the prejudice that you accuse others of displaying.

On the issue of Catholic Priests accused of sexual abuse, I know of some cases where ( It is public knowledge ) the accused priest was innocent and the accuser later admitted to that.
Prejudice can also be a generalization built on limited and isolated experiences. A low, very low I might add, occurence of unwarranted allegations gives no-one the right to dismiss the vast majority of cases in which abuse and harm was done. That continues to punish and abuse the victim - the innocent.

It is also true that almost always the accused priest is refered to as a pedophile, while very very few offenses described qualify as pedophilia. With few exceptions the issue is ephebophilia. I think it is reasonable to assume that the reason the priest is called a pedophile is to unfairly inflame and prejudice public opinion.
This a general trend in U.S. media and society to label any sexual interaction with minors pedophilia. The distinction between the two would be lost on the vast majority of the population, most of whom would have never heard the word ephebophilia. This is NOT limited to describing Catholic priests, and as such, still fails to qualify as prejudice.

It appears that there is an agenda on the part of anti-Catholic people both in the heterosexual community as well as the gay community to harm the Catholic Church unjustly.
You are welcome to your feelings that punishing an institution that knowingly re-assigned priests with aberrant behavior to new parishes, without revealing so much as word of caution, is wrong. Be prepared, however, to be challenged in that point whenever you utter it here.

The rest of your post in which you refer to "true Christians", good and bad religions and the like, I will have to deal with in a later post.

Right now I need to go relax and calm down, before I say some things that could make me seem like a crackpot too.

[Daniel]

It appears that there is an agenda on the part of anti-Catholic people both in the heterosexual community as well as the gay community to harm the Catholic Church unjustly. As I said I would like to see laws to shield Churches from civil law suits that result in accusers and lawyers getting large amounts of money that people have given to churches intended for the Church, schools, and other ministry. For true Christians, in my view God, Jesus Christ, The Church - that is the best thing for children. It is not a question of which is the more important - protecting the child, or protecting the church. The best protection of the child is the support and protection of the Church. There is what I call good religion, and bad religion. The Roman Catholic Church represents good religion.

erubre- We all have adgenda's my friend. Some are more worthy than others. The agenda put forward by this forum is meant to be one of nonviolence. So if you mean to pick a fight about the so-called agenda of the gay community - as represented here- as being against the catholic church you will have to seek elsewhere.

As Andrew has noted, there are positive aspects to all faiths, but it is folly to to ignore the negative. This only perpetuates it.

Taking the very low (one might say miniscule) incidence of false accusation and using that against the majority of proven ones only points out that you intend to skew the facts to suit your purposes. This shows neither respect for the truth or for those who have been victimized.

[Zerbie]

The complete denial and negation of the horrid violations suffered by innocent people as expressed in erubre's posts is nothing short of monstrous.

That he construes any objection to this monstrousness as prejudice against The Roman Catholic Church is so far beyond ridiculous I don't know whether to roll on the floor laughing, or as Andrew put it, to go puke right now. We are talking about sexual assault, abuse, molestation! :mad: In essence, we are talking about rape. Don't you DARE dismiss the enormity of it by attempting to paint some posters here (presumably me? yes?) as prejudiced against The Church - that is completely ludicrous.

It Has Nothing To Do With The **** Church!! It has EVERYTHING to do with sexual abuse and violation however, which is absolutely INDEFENSIBLE.

[Daniel]

As luck would have it, today's NYTImes has a relevant article regarding embezzlement and the Catholic church.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/05/us/05church.html?hp&ex=1168059600&en=eda95b78557f619d&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Embezzlement Is Found in Catholic Dioceses

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN and STEPHANIE STROM
Published: January 5, 2007
A survey by researchers at Villanova University has found that 85 percent of Roman Catholic dioceses that responded had discovered embezzlement of church money in the last five years, with 11 percent reporting that more than $500,000 had been stolen.


I humbly submit that it isn't lawyers and accusers who are doing the stealing of funds. Good Catholics seem to be doing that all by themselves.

Of course, the article notes that other denominations have similar problems, but Catholics parishes, because of the way they are administered, have greater problems with this issue.


In the Catholic Church, parishes and high schools handle many cash transactions, making them vulnerable to theft, the Villanova report notes.

Canon law requires each parish to have a finance council to provide oversight. But Bishop Schnurr, who heads the diocese in Duluth, Minn., said there were no standards for how finance council members were chosen or whether they should have any expertise in accounting or finance.

Only 3 percent of the dioceses said they annually conducted an internal audit of their parishes, and 21 percent said they seldom or never audited parishes, the survey found.

This lack of scrutiny is at the core of the problem, said Francis J. Butler, president of Foundations and Donors Interested in Catholic Activities, a nonprofit organization independent of the church.

"Physician heal thyself."

As one observer suggests: scrutiny is a good thing.

erube- Your assertion that Catholic Churches be barred from legal scrutiny in abuse cases makes no sense whatsoever- anymore than the absence of scrutiny in financial matters makes sense. It all gets back to one central issue, who is running the church and now they are running it. It is an open or a closed system? The more closed, the more ripe for abuse of all kinds.

[erubre]

Last summer I bought a birdhouse for $20.00 from a Catholic order that made and sold birdhouses to raise money for missionary work. I could have bought wood and built it myself for $2.00 but I wanted to help the work of the Church. The birdhouse is mounted in the backyard atop a high pole. A nice home for some birds. And a little statue of St. Francis is on top. I feel good about that. I won't return to this thread to read again the hate filled comments. My response will be to write a good check to a ministry of the Catholic Church and put it in he mail tommorrow.

[Daniel]

I won't return to this thread to read again the hate filled comments. My response will be to write a good check to a ministry of the Catholic Church and put it in he mail tommorrow.

Well...you won't be reading this I suppose, but I'm going to write it nevertheless.

Facts aren't hateful erubre/Russ. You may not like them, but not liking them doesn't give you the right to say those who cite them are filled with hate. Passionate? You bet. And let's be clear here: no one has said you are a dirty so-and-so for believing so-and-so. It hasn't gotten that ugly- at least not yet!

Some of us aren't afraid of facts. Staring at a cold hard fact can help one choose better.
The fact is that the Catholic Church has made moumental mistakes. Does that invalidate its good works? No. No one here has suggested that it does.

Having compassion for those who suffer is what the life of faith is supposed to be all about, right? I applaud your efforts to support you community and the good things that they do. That is as it should be. But it doesn't seem like you have any compassion for those who have been abused- even raped- by priests. Some cold hard facts there. Why is that? You really think everyone who has come forward is making it up to make money?

Are you unaware that the most vociferous critics of the Catholic Church are Catholics themselves?

Don't you find it the least bit odd that your response (pulling up your skirts and running for the door while yelling that the opinions on this thread are filled with hate) is as much the 'tarring' you accuse others of?

That's something to look at my friend. No one here is telling you to question your allegiance, only the logic and thought process by which you arrive at your conclusions.

Besides buying another birdhouse and making a donation, how about getting involved in your local parish and making sure sure that their financial matters are on the up and up? Trust starts with the baseline of accountability.

I have to say my friend: you've left me with the strong impression that you are a Catholic priest yourself- despite assertions to the contrary. Your defense seems so..well..monolithic and unreasonable...not the positive aspects you have earlier said you tend towards. That would explain a great many things.

But that is my impression- no more.

[Emproph]

Good answer :applause: Good answer :applause:

[novaseeker]

So I find it troubling that millions of dollars given to the Catholic Church for schools and other ministry is being taken by lawyers and accusers of priests. I think if there was not a lot of money to be gotten we would not hear much about sexual abuse by priests. I would like to see laws to shield churches from such law suits.

Eh, it isn't about anti-Catholic sentiment, it's about legal redress of wrongs committed against young people by Catholic priests. The legal system gives people their day in court -- if you can't prove a claim, then you don't win, and no plaintiff's lawyer will take a case that he doesn't think he can't win, because he doesn't get paid unless he wins, generally. And, in any case, it's not lawyers who decide how much has to be paid in a lawsuit -- it's regular citizens who comprise the jury. It's certainly irrational and unjustified to shield the church from legal responsibility for abuse suffered by young boys and girls at the hands of some of its troubled priests. Again, the lawsuits are not about bashing the Catholic Church, they are about getting redress for terrible wrongs committed against young people.

[Zerbie]

A nice home for some birds. I feel good about that. I won't return to this thread to read again the hate filled comments..

I guess you don't see this either but I'm glad you care for wildlife. I wish you cared for innocent abused children also.

Hate filled? Let's see, what do you think is hate-filled:

speaking out against the sexual abuse of children?
or
calling those who do speak against it prejudiced and hate-filled?

Erubre's comments are nothing short of absolutely ridiculous and shameful. Whoever he is I hope he has no contact with children or abuse survivors.

[frankandcathy]

Let me start off with saying that it is slightly frustrating to be so misunderstood and have so many people make assumptions about what I'm saying without asking. (Thanks to Zerbie for at least asking first).

I had no idea that my last comment had garnered such reaction because I haven't been on in awhile. I was literally shocked to see such responses.

I guess I'll just address Zerbie because she posted a list.

1. When I said that the Nazi references was "funny" I was talking about the one in the Gay Agenda book. I thought it was "funny" because I had just said that it was a silly term to be used by the "gay side." So it was "funny" to hear CCs turn around and use the same term that I had just said was silly. That's what's "funny." Both sides calling each other "Nazis."

And, no, I don't think there are ANY comparisons to be made between gasing people to death and fighting politically within a republican system of government. We have got to come to some realistic conclusions here. KILLING people isn't equal to being hateful with speech or even trying to squelch their rights within a political system. Murder is just ...well...murder. And politics...isn't.

2. I am confused on how what I said came to be construed as: if gays were "spiritual," then they wouldn't be gay. I don't think that. Obviously this forum is full of spiritual gay people.

3. I think gay people and conservative Christian people should quit name-calling. Yes, I think one side or the other should "lay down" their political "weapons" and resort to "merely" loving and serving the other side. No, I don't think this means that you just "give up" on what you think is "right" potlitically (don't: quit voting, quit reasoning with others, quit donating money to groups, quit educating others on your beliefs) but I do think that it should be encased in love and servitude or, ultimately, it won't produce good fruit. I don't think it means that gays should go back in the closet any more than it means that CCs should stop taking the Bible literally. What I'm talking about here is SOMEONE (meaning CCs OR gays) doing what we're supposed to do according to the Bible. What is that? To love your enemies, bless those that curse you, and cover sin with love.

I am surprised that this concept seems to anger those of us in the "Faith and NONVIOLENCE" forum. Who ever said that it's only fists/weapons that are violent? Surely words are violent as well? Isn't that the premise that we're operating on when some non-gay person :o shows up on this web site and starts asking questions (even if out of ignorance) that are hurtful? Aren't we assuming that words can also be "violent" or "inflammatory?" Are we to apply this principle only in one direction, then? Are we to say, "YOU guys must stop being hurtful but we will continue to call you Nazis?"

4. How on Earth does it appear that I want anyone to stop being gay? I thought we had been over this many times in other forums. I honestly don't understand where that comes from. Perhaps a specific quote would help me understand.


Finally, it bothers me a bit when I feel like everyone sort of jumps on the "sneaky cc, what is she up to" bandwagon. I am not sure how long I have to be here to "prove" that I'm not trying to be offensive. I've obviously said some dumb stuff and tried to say things the "right" way but, hey, I'm going to screw up. I'm also going to have different thoughts and ideas from almost everyone else here. It doesn't mean I'm your enemy. I'm not even politically active anymore because I have come to question so much of what the CCs are saying and doing.

My mind has been broadened in so many ways and this site really has gotten me thinking. I've started reading a great book on lies that we've been told about American History and I've been shocked at how CCs have "Christianized" so much of our past. (Horribly, our textbooks have helped more than they should have.)

At any rate, I guess what I'm confused at is this assumption that I am being duplicitous or am back-pedaling somehow. I'm not doing either and I'd really like for everyone here to "assume the best" before thinking the worst.

Thanks,
~C

[frankandcathy]

I just realized I missed the whole last page of posts. I'll have to come back later and read them.

Please remember:

1. I have 3 children under the age of 6 whom I am homeschooling.
2. I have a husband who is gone about 1/2 the time.
3. I have just finished shutting down a small business.
4. I am active in church constantly and try to spend as much time ministering to people in my community as I can.

Therefore: I cannot spend all my time on a web site (fun as it is).

I am hurt that anyone would think I was here to, in any way, "drop a bomb." That is simply NOT WHO I AM. Please try to remember that if I happen to take an absence for some period of time.

Thanks.
~C

[Daniel]

Let me start off with saying that it is slightly frustrating to be so misunderstood and have so many people make assumptions about what I'm saying without asking.

Saw your post and can't be here long- must needs be brief- but wanted to welcome you back and for posting on this- helps a lot. Thank you.

Your frustration above is the frustration of gay people everywhere, who will not be seen for who they are, that is, as lovers, not monsters. Your rank and file fundi doesn't concerning himself with asking a gay person about his life. Instead, he makes pronouncements about it- not having a clue as to what's really going on. One grows weary of being told one is sinful, disgusting and worthy of damnation, when all one wants to do is hold hands with one's boyfriend and be happy.

My apologies for seeing the shadow of another's judgement in your words.

I agree with you. We all have to law down our swords, whether they are in our hands, our mouths, or our minds.

[frankandcathy]

Okay guys, I FINALLY got to sit down and read all the posts.

First, THANK YOU Andy and Daniel.

Andy: You are 100% correct in everything you "assumed" about what I was saying.

Yes, when I was referring to people changing, I was referring to people LIKE MYSELF...not gay people.

Yes, I was tired and probably spoke too quickly. Perhaps I've done that again in my last two posts (maybe even this one). Sorry if I have. It makes me a little trepidatious (sp?) about posting anything at all. I don't forever want to be seen as "THEM." It's a little wearying. But I'm sure you know how that feels.

bruce: several times now you seem to have gotten irritated with me for "not reading your whole post" or not responding to your whole post or not agreeing with your whole post. Often I will say something like, "I read it and I liked it" but this doesn't seem to be enough. I'm sorry but I simply can't respond to everything that you say as (please remember) there may be about 20 other people saying other "somethings." :)

I believe in the thread you are referring to, Andy's and David's posts were the ones that hit me the hardest so I spent time thanking them for that and thanking the other people for their input as well. I want to reiterate that I do not have loads of time for this and am, in fact, putting off making lunch for my girls right now to at least address some of these issues. This should convey VALUE to anyone involved in this thread. I VALUE you, your opinions, and your presence enough to take this time to answer. I don't ever intend to respond in an insufficient way but sometimes life doesn't allow for all of this!

Anyway, I really should go feed the girls now. Perhaps I should include an over-arching sentiment at the end of each post.

Over-arching sentiment: peace, love, thanks, apologies, forgiveness, humor to all of you. :rolleyes: :D

~C

[Zerbie]

Let me start off with saying that it is slightly frustrating to be so misunderstood and have so many people make assumptions about what I'm saying without asking. (Thanks to Zerbie for at least asking first).

I had no idea that my last comment had garnered such reaction because I haven't been on in awhile. I was literally shocked to see such responses.

I guess I'll just address Zerbie because she posted a list.

1. When I said that the Nazi references was "funny" I was talking about the one in the Gay Agenda book. I thought it was "funny" because I had just said that it was a silly term to be used by the "gay side." So it was "funny" to hear CCs turn around and use the same term that I had just said was silly. That's what's "funny." Both sides calling each other "Nazis."

And, no, I don't think there are ANY comparisons to be made between gasing people to death and fighting politically within a republican system of government. We have got to come to some realistic conclusions here. KILLING people isn't equal to being hateful with speech or even trying to squelch their rights within a political system. Murder is just ...well...murder. And politics...isn't.

2. I am confused on how what I said came to be construed as: if gays were "spiritual," then they wouldn't be gay. I don't think that. Obviously this forum is full of spiritual gay people.

3. I think gay people and conservative Christian people should quit name-calling. Yes, I think one side or the other should "lay down" their political "weapons" and resort to "merely" loving and serving the other side. No, I don't think this means that you just "give up" on what you think is "right" potlitically (don't: quit voting, quit reasoning with others, quit donating money to groups, quit educating others on your beliefs) but I do think that it should be encased in love and servitude or, ultimately, it won't produce good fruit. I don't think it means that gays should go back in the closet any more than it means that CCs should stop taking the Bible literally. What I'm talking about here is SOMEONE (meaning CCs OR gays) doing what we're supposed to do according to the Bible. What is that? To love your enemies, bless those that curse you, and cover sin with love.

I am surprised that this concept seems to anger those of us in the "Faith and NONVIOLENCE" forum. Who ever said that it's only fists/weapons that are violent? Surely words are violent as well? Isn't that the premise that we're operating on when some non-gay person :o shows up on this web site and starts asking questions (even if out of ignorance) that are hurtful? Aren't we assuming that words can also be "violent" or "inflammatory?" Are we to apply this principle only in one direction, then? Are we to say, "YOU guys must stop being hurtful but we will continue to call you Nazis?"

4. How on Earth does it appear that I want anyone to stop being gay? I thought we had been over this many times in other forums. I honestly don't understand where that comes from. Perhaps a specific quote would help me understand.


Finally, it bothers me a bit when I feel like everyone sort of jumps on the "sneaky cc, what is she up to" bandwagon. I am not sure how long I have to be here to "prove" that I'm not trying to be offensive. I've obviously said some dumb stuff and tried to say things the "right" way but, hey, I'm going to screw up. I'm also going to have different thoughts and ideas from almost everyone else here. It doesn't mean I'm your enemy. I'm not even politically active anymore because I have come to question so much of what the CCs are saying and doing.

My mind has been broadened in so many ways and this site really has gotten me thinking. I've started reading a great book on lies that we've been told about American History and I've been shocked at how CCs have "Christianized" so much of our past. (Horribly, our textbooks have helped more than they should have.)

At any rate, I guess what I'm confused at is this assumption that I am being duplicitous or am back-pedaling somehow. I'm not doing either and I'd really like for everyone here to "assume the best" before thinking the worst.

Thanks,
~C

Thanks for coming back to the discussion Cathy - the clarification goes far!!

To go point for point:

Pt 1 - I think it's downright terrifying to get two big groups of people each believing the other as dangerous as Nazis because of all the danger that puts us, everyone, in. But I guess I can see why it *could* look silly, so, okay, I kinda get ya now.

Pt 2 - something that is openly said, or quietly implied to gay individuals on a regular basis. It is an implication we are super-heightened to, extra-sensitive to veiled ways of being told such garbage. The way your hastily written post was worded I thought, "Oh no! Surely she doesn't mean that, does she?" You could have - we have only known you a few weeks. Many of us regular posters have known each other for a year. I know it's frustrating, this building trust and communication thing, because we get frustrated too. Let's keep trying and we'll make things better.
I am so glad to hear that is not what you meant. Thanks for clarifying.

Pt 3 - laying down verbal "weapons." Thank you for clarifying that one! Of course I too agree with you. That's the whole point!! That is what Soulforce is about, and what we on the forum are doing, practicing doing, trying (and every now and then failing) to do. I find that obvious and thought that you did too. Therefore I thought, what ELSE could you have meant for us to "lay down"?? and thus the worst suspicions were aroused. Glad I was wrong.

Pt 4 - I will have to go look over the post in question and highlight it, I thought it looked very clear that you were talking about becoming "ex gay."

Sigh. Cathy, does it seem this way to you? Like you and I actually do not speak the same language? It's the strangest thing the way we frame our thoughts so differently that the same words and phrases mean completely different things to both of us. Well since you're still here, I'm sticking with you and will continue trying. It's what needs to happen. This ridiculous arbitrary rift between "sides" really needs to go away. Which is what I think you must have meant when you said lay down "weapons." I think now we are on the same page, finally. ??

Oh since you contextualized your absence for me, I will contextualize my reaction for you. At the time your post appeared I had just discovered some deeply hurtful words written about bisexuals and people who "don't label," (ie: people like me!) written by a gay Christian individual who regularly speaks out against anti-gay rhetoric, but then turned right around and did to bisexuals the same thing he protests, and in the name of Christianity. That incident "primed" my mind to distrust and to more easily perceive homophobic/biphobic hostility in the words of anyone claiming to be "Christian." Precisely the sort of problem I hang out at Soulforce to rid myself of. That, on the heels of Sammy's obstinate refusal to face reality and distortions of everything that SF stands for, a tragedy in my real world community, and a nasty infection all left me in a decidedly negative frame of mind when I saw your post, which due to your haste and the late hour, was written vaguely enough that it could have meant what I feared.

[tdogg]

Glad that you made it back to clarify your earlier post Cathy. It will go a long way in continuing positive dialogue. The reactions to your post may not be excusable, but certainly understandable given the history many of us have being ambushed by supposedly well-meaning folks, who for no real known reason choose to suddenly attack. Obviously that wasn't your intent, and I appreciate that it wasn't.

Laying down weapons - both sides if there must be sides - is necessary, but it is imperative that by laying down weapons, we do not surrender to the fundemental attacks. We must not give up our persistent but non-violent actions until we receive FULL equality - nothing less than 100% will do. Soulforce is intent on doing just that - non-violent actions dedicated to ending the oppression of GLBTs and granting us 100% equality. That is why I support the organization. That, and the wonderful, talented, interesting friends I have met.

If you haven't yet read it, I highly recommend Mel White's newest book Religion Gone Bad. It sounds like you have been doing some reading, it would be a good addition.

Welcome back and hope you visit now and then when time permits. God bless.

[frankandcathy]

Hey.

Thanks to Zerbie. Good post. Sorry to hear about your totally crummy day. I hope things are better now.

Uh-oh. Kids are back with Dad. Gotta go fix lunch. Be back later.

~C

[Zerbie]

Hey.

Thanks to Zerbie. Good post. Sorry to hear about your totally crummy day. I hope things are better now.

~C

Thanks. More like a crummy month, but, whatever. Things seem to be looking up a bit finally. :p

Talk with ya later when ya get back.

[BronzDragon]

Thanks. More like a crummy month, but, whatever. Things seem to be looking up a bit finally.

» Thom says: ☛
Was mich nicht umbrigt, macht mich stärkeh.
That which does not kill me, makes me stronger.
(Frederick Wilhelm Nietzsche)

Increscunt animi, virescit volnere virtus.
The spirit grows, strength is restored through wounding.
(Frederick Wilhelm Nietzsche)

I will not say it will get any better for you, I would be lying about something I have no knowledge. I can only say that experience has shown me that you will get better, regardless of all that happens around you, if you have a reason to keep struggling to survive. :love:

[Diane Vera]

In the meantime, I argued for relaxing the standard of what kind of debate would be allowed on this board, but I have to admit now that these discussions have changed the tone of this part of the board have in a way that I hoped would not happen. I don't think Soulforce is obligated to allow discussions of this sort to continue here, not without some good faith from you, Sammy.

Alas, it can be hard to know in advance whether someone is willing to engage in genuine dialogue.

However, the kind of dialogue that various people here tried to have with Sammy is precisely the kind of dialog that is the Soulforce organization's main founding purpose, it seems to me.

But how to have this kind of dialog without condoning the promotion of anti-gay propaganda on this board? That's a dilemma.

Earlier, I suggested that a special sub-forum be created, with looser rules than the rest of the board. Perhaps the proposed sub-forum could be structured like GCN's "Controversial Topics" sub-forum, accessible only to those who specifically choose to participate. This would allow dialog with people with an anti-gay (or anti-Soulforce) point of view, without condoning anti-gay (or anti-Soulforce) propaganda on the publicly accessible parts of the board.