The Conservative Christian Agenda

[tpdncr4christ]

So I wanted to post this as an offset of the "Gay Agenda" thread. If we as a community posses an agenda, doesn't the Conservative Christian Community posses one as well?

It seems to me that CC's are trying to alter our government structure from a representitive democracy into a theocratic dictatorship, one which defies the fundamental basis of this countries purpose. The founding fathers intended this country to be a sanctuary for those under persecution, explicitly religious discrimination. If this country is all about freedoms, how can the CC's preach for the removal of our freedoms? Is there anyway we can show them their own agenda, as they have so vividly dictated our own? Can't we claim that they are as much a political party as we are? Could we show them the hypocrasies of their "lifestyle" by picking one or two public figures and ridicule them for being human? Or should we take out categories to mock and shame the entire group based solely upon sterotypical behaviors? Or would that just be fighting fire with fire?

So my question is, do the CC's have an agenda? Cause it seems like they do... What do you all think?

:rainbow: Austin :rainbow:

[Joe Brummer]

While I agree the CCs are preaching and promoting their agenda, so are we. They are voting and promoting their beliefs and so are we. If our aim is to out angenda them we will lose.

We must learn about, and respect their beliefs even when they go against every nerve in our system. We cannot demand respect from them for our beliefs if we are not willing to respect theirs, no matter how much they go against ours. To do so would make us no better than them. We can never play the "my god is better than your god" game that has caused war after war.

Of course they have an agenda, and so do we. There is no denying that we are trying to promote the agenda of freedom for glbt folks as they are promoting laws against us. Seeing that for what it is will be the first step in ending this cultural war. Even when they refuse to respect our rights, we can never be dragged so low as to disrespect their rights. That is the real moral high ground.

We must speak out when they lie, or twist the truth, we must stand our ground when they try to strip our rights. Let us go as far as to stage the largest protests in history to demand freedom for GLBT folks, but lets us do that with complete respect for our adverary's beliefs, if only for the sake that do disrespect their beliefs is to disrespect our own. It is the spirit of nonviolence that will prevail.

Be the change as Gandhi said, if you want a world where all beliefs are respected, then you must start with you.

[Daniel]

Shame never gets us anywhere. Neither does sarcasm. Believe me, I've tried. They are very crude tools, cutting both ways.

[andrewlittle]

You, and others, have rightly stated that the CC Agenda is much more broad than simply being anti-LGBT. Sadly, LGBT are simply pawns in a larger plan to cement power in the hands of an ever-decreasing circle of elite players. It simply uses anyone and everyone to grasp that power.

That being said, doing battle with that agenda as specifically GLBT, as opposed to being in alliances with a variety of social activist groups, continues to allow the power-mongers to deceive the mindless masses (cruel, perhaps - maybe better described as the fearful masses) that this is the common internal enemy of all that is Holy, American and righteous.

The same battle is waging on immigration and abortion issues, to highlight just two, and there is a concerted effort on the part of the elite to keep those battles separate from each other - even to pit the groups against each other. Keeping them separate allows two things - 1. a loss in one battle does not represent a loss in the larger war, and 2. maintains a popular misrepresentation that advocacy and activism are unAmerican, unpatriotic and unrighteous (i.e. these are simply special interest groups looking out for their own particular agenda and interests as opposed to the larger interests and safety of U.S. citizens).

I think the answer is in the formation of cohesive alliances with a great manygroups involved in social change and activism. This would necessitate backing off from individual agendas - i.e. GLBT agenda, immigrant rights agenda, etc. - to form a larger social agenda seeking wide-ranging change.

History has shown the challenges and pitfalls of these kinds of alliances. They usually can only form cohesively once the elite have become widely and/or wildly oppressive. It is a conundrum that continues to bear thought.

[tpdncr4christ]

I believe what you are saying (and I'm going to stick to that chess metaphor) is that we, at the moment, are just pawns in this game. Isn't it about time we started struting across the board and into enemy territory, where we can pick up our crown and become a queen? It seems to me, increasingly so, that our GLBT community is scattered and lacking definition, therefore unable to collectivley join in a cohesive force. I understand that it is difficult to unite if there is no oppression. I don't understand why we aren't trying. Because if we are, we are not visible enough. If anything, we as a community should be a warm presence in everyone's lives, activley claiming the place of healty role models.

I guess I'm just frustrated that everyone (my everyone is inclusive of my peers at school, not adults) seems to know nothing of SoulForce, or GayChristianNetwork or anything. Few people know of PFLAG, and fewer know of the GSA. But everyone knows of Focus on the Family. Not everyone knows who Dr. James Dobson is, but they all know his name. They also recognize the American Family Association. This breaks my heart. I am trying, vividly so, to get more and more people to at least look at this and other websites like it, but I keep failing. I think we should be activley moving in such a direction where everyone feels welcome. Not the sort of, we are standing in our church with our doors open, because then we are still in the church, but the welcome where we move out into the community. Granted, we very well could be doing so, I just may be blind to it.

[andrewlittle]

You have a wisdom that belies your age - or possibly one that is easier to see because age has not yet dimmed it. I'll let you pick - it's your wisdom, after all.

Isn't it about time we started struting across the board and into enemy territory, where we can pick up our crown and become a queen? It seems to me, increasingly so, that our GLBT community is scattered and lacking definition, therefore unable to collectivley join in a cohesive force.

True, generally, about activism. Yes, it is indeed time. It is not, however, a process of strutting down the board, but I don't think you meant it that way, anyway. It takes strategy, relationship building, alliance forming - it is a political process (in the sense that political=work of the polis) that is and has been underway. Is it mature - I agree with you in that it is not.

I understand that it is difficult to unite if there is no oppression. I don't understand why we aren't trying. Because if we are, we are not visible enough.
I don't mean to infer that oppression is not occurring. It most undoubtedly is. Unfortunately, however, pain sometimes has to reach a crescendo before the general population strives for change. It's the "boiling the frog principal" at work. The visibility could come with showing the population the pain that exists - the pain that they could, in fact, suffer, tomorrow or the next day. It is real, as you say, but motivating the other chess pieces to make your strategy work is a critical endeavor. One, I might add, that is appearing increasingly to be in your future. Look out world, Austin is getting ticked off. (That, BTW, was meant as encouragement, not ridicule.)

If anything, we as a community should be a warm presence in everyone's lives, activley claiming the place of healty role models.

And there's a strategy that creates allies, not just attacks enemies.

I guess I'm just frustrated that everyone (my everyone is inclusive of my peers at school, not adults) seems to know nothing of SoulForce, or GayChristianNetwork or anything. Few people know of PFLAG, and fewer know of the GSA. But everyone knows of Focus on the Family. Not everyone knows who Dr. James Dobson is, but they all know his name. They also recognize the American Family Association. This breaks my heart. I am trying, vividly so, to get more and more people to at least look at this and other websites like it, but I keep failing. I think we should be activley moving in such a direction where everyone feels welcome. Not the sort of, we are standing in our church with our doors open, because then we are still in the church, but the welcome where we move out into the community. Granted, we very well could be doing so, I just may be blind to it.

You're not blind to it, I think, just experiencing frustration. Keep the motivation that frustration prompts, even after the emotion has dissipated. Look for the gaps between the efforts of Soulforce and the others you mentioned, to see how those gaps can be filled in a way that links them. That alliance-forming - bridging the gaps.

Ezekiel 22:30 And I sought for anyone among them who would repair the wall and stand in the breach before me on behalf of the land, so that I would not destroy it; but I found no one.

Stand in the gap, my friend, and share with us - let us share with each other - how we can do that together.

[novaseeker]

A couple of points on your interesting posts here, Austin.

First, I think it's important to distinguish between different kinds of "CCs". It's true that there are *some* CCs who are "dominionists" (that is, they want to establish an essentially Christian state), but certainly not all of them are. I would say that in my own experience, relatively few CCs want a "theocracy", but instead are uncomfortable with laws that permit things that they see as sinful, and choose to make a political stand against those things as a part of their own Christian witness. That's their political right, I think.

Second, I think that it's of critical importance for more Americans to learn about what CCs believe, and particularly the more radical of them such as the dominionist wing. I think that what you have now in the US is a real splintering of the culture. On the one hand you have the CCs (diverse as they are, but sharing many views both theological and cultural). On the other, you have "metro America" which is largely not CC and, critically, has almost no clue what CCs believe because they do not know any CCs. People in "metro America" do a lot of head shaking and snickering at CCs, but in the meantime CCs are helping to throw national elections -- and still people are not all that focused on who and what the CCs are. There is an underlying assumption in our culture to the effect that "I know what Christianity is", when in fact many people have no clue as to what CCs believe and why, and the media simply refers to CCs as "Christian" because most media folks are similarly ill-informed. We need more education about what CCs believe, what kinds of beliefs they may have that could be threatening to the Constitution and so forth -- and we need more people to take an interest in these things rather than assuming they understand them without really doing so.

It seems to me, increasingly so, that our GLBT community is scattered and lacking definition, therefore unable to collectivley join in a cohesive force. I understand that it is difficult to unite if there is no oppression. I don't understand why we aren't trying. Because if we are, we are not visible enough. If anything, we as a community should be a warm presence in everyone's lives, activley claiming the place of healty role models.

The underlying problem is that the LGBT world is very, very, very diverse -- just as much as the straight world is. We do not agree on much beyond some very basic issues that we can unite around. At this point in time, it's still true that many, if not most, LGBT people are alienated by religion, for example, and wary of "religious gay people". Our broader activist community knows better, but at the same time they generally are aligned with broader cultural movements beyond LGBT issues that at times can be pretty radical and with which not all LGBT people agree. Parts of the gay male community have reacted to that by becoming more right wing, and trying to work on gay-related issues on that side of the spectrum (admittedly with very limited success, however). Other parts of the LGBT world remain staunchly aligned with what could be called "liberal" politics, which both instantly makes them enemies of anyone who doesn't like that brand of politics, while at the same time diluting the message among a host of others. At times it does seem like LGBT people like to beat up on each other as much as anything else, and this doesn't bode well for greater unity in itself.

In our personal lives, we can make a difference with people around us, people in our lives. It's small steps, but the steps can make a big difference if there are enough of us doing it. On the wider level, the main issue is that at the moment we're more of a political liability than anything else. It's becoming very clear that no serious Presidential candidate from either of the main parties in 2008 will be pro-gay-marriage. They're politicians, they read the polls, they know that this is not the majority view in the country now and so they're not going to touch it. Looking at that, we can understand the work we have to do to change minds on the issue, to make it a viable position for a national candidate to support and, barring that, making it viable for state-wide candidates to support, as we recently saw in Massachusetts. We can try to be activists as much as we like, but as long as we remain a political liability, we won't get much political traction from the main contenders -- and that depends on the work we do to change people's minds on the issue, so that the national consensus changes.

It's very much a cultural war, but that doesn't mean we have to wage it like warriors. This war is a subtle one, and one that will take time to win, patience and time, and living as authentically and openly as we can. We have to push the box until we are no longer a political liability for people to support us, and that will take time.

[tpdncr4christ]

but I feel like we are moving too slowly. We have taken our little steps, we have made a difference in our lives and the lives of those we don't know, but that does not mean we should continue this strategy. It feels like, to me, that we are attempting to carve out Mt Rushmore with a toothpick and a toy hammer. Yes, these little steps are helping, but we can only go so far before we take the big plunge.

We want marriage to be about love. Our goal is to redefine marriage so that two people, regardless of sex, race, religion or other affiliation aside, may be conjoined legally in matrimony. We are not out to change the definition of a holy accepted wedding, nor are we out to force our beliefs on others. Our goal, our agenda, is to seek and secure the freedoms that countless men and women have died for, the freedoms that this country was founded on, the freedoms that have been denied to us so long. We cannot accomplish this goal by little steps any longer. Yes, they have helped in the past, yes they have gotten us to where we are, but we now need to take the plunge.

I believe, and whole heartedly so, that we can put Gay Marriage on the ballot in the next two years and win. We simply must mobilize and commune together. I have the strangest feeling that this community has been akin to puzzle peices in the box, mixed up and scattered. We have dumped our peices onto the table, now isn't it about time we assemble the puzzle and show the world just who we are? I think it's possible. Don't you?

[BruceChris]

Between a "Pro Life" woman, and a "Pro Choice" woman. They had been trying to influence the political system from opposite directions for years, they respected each other as human beings, and they even had a cautious friendship. However, one difference did stand out. The "Pro Choice" woman said that she was able to see, understand, and even to some extent respect Both belief systems, while the "Pro Life" person freely admited that she could only see and respect one point of view.

I wonder to what extent this kind of worldview may underlie our situation?

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[keltic63]

Between a "Pro Life" woman, and a "Pro Choice" woman. They had been trying to influence the political system from opposite directions for years, they respected each other as human beings, and they even had a cautious friendship. However, one difference did stand out. The "Pro Choice" woman said that she was able to see, understand, and even to some extent respect Both belief systems, while the "Pro Life" person freely admited that she could only see and respect one point of view.

I wonder to what extent this kind of worldview may underlie our situation?

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

i would imagine that there are many similarities. Pro-choice is inclusive, if you will. I am pro-choice, and so I believe that to eliminate a woman's right to abortion is simply wrong; but I don't see how holding that view is an imposition on those who do not wish to have abortions. on the other hand, those who are pro-life do appear to impose their beliefs on the rest of the country by making abortion illegal, therby having a more exclusive ideology. In much the same way, the lgbt crowd is asking to be included in the civil rights afforded to all in this country, including legalized marriage. the anti-lgbt crowd wishes to impose their beliefs to exclude us from that institution, and heck, maybe even ban us from eating in nice restaurants if that African Bishiop's views catch on here. (no word yet on whether homosexuals will be allowed to continue waitering in those establishments ;) )

[novaseeker]

I don't think it's your age, Austin. I'm all for unity as well, but ... I don't see that unity there to the degree that you and I both would like it to be.

Just taking the marriage issue, there are many gay people who are anti-gay-marriage, in effect, either

* because they are beholden to the Republican party (examples of this abound, running from Schwarzenegger's Deputy Chief of Staff to Mary Cheney and beyond ... smart, politically savvy gay people who clearly care more about other issues than they do about gay rights), or

* because they are beholden to the Democratic party (HRC is becoming virtually a captive organization of the democratic party, even though that party can't seem to produce a candidate who supports gay marriage, and the last democratic president signed the federal DOMA into law), or

* because they are radicalized intellectuals in gay studies departments throughout the country who think marriage is patriarchal and heterosexist and a product of a socially constructed reality that must be completely deconstructed and not co-opted at all (lest we become further co-opted by its oppression), that Christianity is the main problem, and not in any part a solution and so forth ...

and even a good number of the gay people who support marital equality do so out of no great love for marriage as an institution, but because it is an issue of equality and fairness, and hence the common "discourse" on marriage has been limited largely to a discourse on rights and equality.

All of this diversity and division is the main reason, in my view, why we don't speak with one voice on this -- or any other -- issue. Christian conservatives have a worldview that unites them by definition -- we don't, because we're not organized around a worldview like they are. We're as diverse as the general public in terms of worldviews, and it makes it harder for us to act in a unified manner. We can rally around only the most common denominator of "rights" and "equality" (and even there we have a hard time, because the conservatives among us are loathe to use the courts to vindicate rights as a matter of political philosophy, while others were screaming loudly about how we overshot by getting marital equality in Massachusetts and how this would set things back in other areas they cared more about than marriage, etc.), but when it comes to marriage, those words are just not convincing to most straight folks who see marriage as not just about "rights". I think that's why we're not doing as well as we might in the national conversation on this issue. I wish that it were not so, but my experience tells me otherwise.

[tpdncr4christ]

All of this diversity and division is the main reason, in my view, why we don't speak with one voice on this -- or any other -- issue. Christian conservatives have a worldview that unites them by definition -- we don't, because we're not organized around a worldview like they are. We're as diverse as the general public in terms of worldviews, and it makes it harder for us to act in a unified manner. We can rally around only the most common denominator of "rights" and "equality" (and even there we have a hard time, because the conservatives among us are loathe to use the courts to vindicate rights as a matter of political philosophy, while others were screaming loudly about how we overshot by getting marital equality in Massachusetts and how this would set things back in other areas they cared more about than marriage, etc.), but when it comes to marriage, those words are just not convincing to most straight folks who see marriage as not just about "rights". I think that's why we're not doing as well as we might in the national conversation on this issue. I wish that it were not so, but my experience tells me otherwise.

Perhaps then, we can be different. What if, instead of falling through our disunity, what if we rise through it. What if we use our scattered personalities and beliefs to our advantage? Rather than unifying as one cohesive unit, we could paint such a vibrant and beautiful rainbow that the CC's would see not just gays, not just GLBT, but swarms of different people. If we show that they aren't just denying rights to a certain group of people, but that they are denying rights to people. What if we let our diversity define us? What if we let our disuinty, unify us? What then can they do?

I guess I just don't want this to be something everyone reads and says, o yeah, we should do something about that, then never does anything. We need movement. And I really think we can make this issue a national issue soon... Even if we get the CC's to bring it to the Supreme Court, because history shows us the court favors us.:cool: Catch my drift?

[novaseeker]

In a sense I think we're saying the same thing.

I think there is tremendous movement happening right now, actually, it's just happening in very localized, personalized ways, rather than in an organized, unified way. In workplaces throughout the country, on college campuses and the like, gay people are coming out in numbers that they never did before. People are learning to live with open gay people in their workplaces, in their schools, in their churches (for mainline Christians at least) ... that in itself has been huge, and at the same time very personal and not 'organized'.

Coupled with this has been the rise to public prominence of gay people who are not "professionally gay" -- that is, folks who are gay, but who are prominent in other areas, and because of other reasons in their own right, and who aren't concerned only about gay issues. That in itself makes us more mainstream and helps people understand how diverse we really are.

All of this very much *does* paint a picture of diversity, of ubiquitousness, of mainstream-ness that in itself is helping to change minds (at least those minds that are open enough to be changed) in many contexts. Over the course of time, this will have a large impact on social attitudes -- and the attitudes of many younger people reflect this already.

I think it's very much a national issue right now, it's one of the main topics in the national conversation when that conversation turns to "social issues". It's on the front page of the newspapers a lot. The problem is that the way the issue is "framed" now is not favorable -- it's framed as a culture clash between social conservatives and social liberals, and mostly as a political issue, rather than an issue about individuals and their lives. I think the reality we have to face is that many in the CC area are just not going to be ever convinced of the legitimacy of homosexuality. In my own view, we can make more progress among the open-minded people than among the CCs, and we can change the laws of the country without the cooperation of the CCs, just as the civil rights movement changed the laws of the country without the cooperation of those whites who were in favor of segregation -- sometimes people's minds just can't be changed on an issue, and we need to move on to those whose minds can be changed. I don't think we'll be changing the minds of FOF or EXODUS anytime soon, really, so I think our energies are better served elsewhere with the mainstream public.

In terms of the *overall* strategy, of course this continues and I think it is important. That is, when I say HRC is becoming a democratic lapdog, that doesn't mean that HRC isn't doing a lot to help gay-friendly laws be passed -- they are, and that's important. Same thing goes for Lambda, the ACLU and their legal cases that they bring to advance rights for us -- all very important. But while the organizations do their thing on the national level, I think for many of us the best thing to do is to be out, open, and ourselves without being pushy or obnoxious about it, and just take the place at the table in mainstream society that we're asking for, whether in workplaces, schools, professional organizations, churches, community institutions and the like. That forces the anti-folk to react to us, and it frames the argument in a much more productive way for us: namely, not gay politicos, lawyers and radicals whining about rights, but mainstream folks trying to live in the real world and being actively excluded from that by bigotry. It's in framing the issue that way, rather than being perceived as loud whiners, that we will make some more consistent progress, I think, in the conversation about this -- but it requires that we be out, open, and ourselves in the communities where we live -- something that is starting to happen, but which needs to continue in my view.