On Morality, Civil Rights, and Soul Force

[simpleman]

Before I begin, I would like to say that I hope none of this will subject me to being lambasted off of this board, but since the whole Soul Force organization is based in peace and equality, I will not expect it to happen.

I would like to begin by making a few observations about the various University handbook excerpts available on this website. Of course the purpose of posting these excerpts is to expose the policies of campuses that are discriminatory in nature towards homosexual behavior.

Firstly, none of these campuses exclusively prohibit homosexual behavior. They essentially prohibit any and all forms of sexual behavior aside from heterosexual intercourse between a man and woman bonded in holy matrimony. They also, in several instances, prohibit the consumption of tobacco and alcohol, even for those of legal age, by any student regardless of whether they are on campus or not. As much as I respect Soul Force's work to promote equality among people, I do not see, strictly in theory, that any of the colleges treat homosexuals in a way other than they would treat anyone else the considered engaged in wrongdoing. In practice, I do understand that many of these colleges treat students who are homosexuals differently then they would treat fornicators, however I do know that these universities dispense with those who consume alcohol quite severely as well.

Secondly, these campus rules are based upon a moral structure that is revered and upheld by the college and its students. A young man I am friends with who attends Oklahoma Wesleyan University in Bartlesville, OK, explained to me that each student must sign a contract to the effect of all of these policies on sexual behavior and consumption of various substances. The same contract even included clauses that required the student to eat healthy and exercise. Any student who chooses to attend such a college signs and consciously consents to obey such a contract.

Thirdly, agree or disagree with the moral structure of a privately funded college or university, it is the moral structure that they revere and uphold dear to their hearts. Right or wrong, it is what they sincerely and earnestly believe. Since it will undoubtedly come up, I will remark here that I do not myself believe in the exact moral structure and theology of these schools. However, I respect their moral structure, as I would have them respect my own. Also, as a note, I attend a public university, therefore my school is not governed by a moral code. Back to my final point on these policies, I know that Soul Force, a private organization of like-minded individuals, has its own moral code that it upholds and reveres. It is my humble observation that Soul Force finds many of these policies to be offensive to its moral code. Therefore, I urge you, keep in mind that Soul Force's is offensive to these schools as well. This means that when you express your disgust with school policies, and decry them as false or wrong, it is the same as them decrying your beliefs as false or wrong.

My second point involves what I consider to be a glaring contrast between the Civil Rights movement and the Soul Force Equality Ride.

The Civil Rights movement was a large group of individuals who quietly but passionately protested against unjust public laws. The Civil Rights movement fought for equality under the law, which, at the time, denied blacks inalienable rights. The law I am referring to is an object within the public sphere. Policies of privately-funded colleges and universities exist within the private sphere. The very existence of this private sphere is what keeps the country from being able to make laws against engagement in what are considered to be immoral sexual behavior (such as homosexuality, adultery, fornication, bestiality, etc.). In instances of criminal law, the public sphere and the private sphere can overlap, but in cases of equality among people, the private and public sphere are separate. In the public sphere, any public law denying a person the right to seat emself on a public bus would be unjust and actionable under the law of the public sphere. However, in the private sphere, a rule that disallowed a homosexual admittance to a university is completely legal, and is often a part of the moral structure on campus. Under the law, a person can deny essentially anyone for essentially any reason from being on their private property. This is why liquor stores can refuse sale of liquor to anyone that they are not convinced is 21 years of age or older. This is the beauty of our country and its legal system. You don't have to agree with anybody that you don't want to agree with, and you can speak freely in public places about essentially whatever you want. The goal of the Freedom Ride is to try and pressure a private organization to change its policies that are considered unjust. Civil Rights was about pressuring a government to change laws that were unjust. Breaking school policy would result in expulsion at worst, but breaking laws means prison.

My third point, and probably my most controversial, deals with activism as a whole, and the activism of the Freedom Ride.

Soul Force's numerous requests to come and hold events on private campuses is tantamount to Fred Phelps requesting to speak in the middle of Soul Force's headquarters. He has no right to do so, and his message is totally incongruous with the moral structure and cultural foundation of your organization. I can't speak to whether or not Soul Force would decline such a request, but I am sure that the message that Fred Phelps has to offer is completely against everything that Soul Force and its members believe. In the same way, the message that Soul Force has to deliver is, in many ways, against the beliefs of these private colleges and their students. To say that Soul Force is crusading in the same way as Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. is a disrespect to the memory of both men. These men were fighting against government oppression, from which there was no shelter. There is more than enough shelter from religious colleges, as no GLBT person has to subject themselves to any discrimination by such organizations.

My final point is this: As you attempt to shed light on equality and foster discussion on this Freedom Ride, I strongly urge you to be respectful. You do not have to agree at all with the policies of these colleges and universities, but please respect them. Though there are many societal and cultural inequalities in the world, there are far fewer legal ones. The same Constitution and set of public law that allows the Freedom Riders to assemble on public property and express their message also protects private organizations' rights to deny anyone that they please from being a part of the organization. The Civil Rights movement ultimately ended with the repeal of oppressive public law, while your movement seeks only to change people's moral structures.

[scott snedeker]

You Honor me with your post because I can feel some openness in your asking. So I will answer genuinely.
.....


your movement seeks only to change people's moral structures.

Your last line is the revelation of the issue.

I am not gay because my morality is different. I am gay for the same reason that I have blue eyes, red hair and fair skin. It is a trait.
Some say being gay is a choice. They are half right. You can choose to be
true to your nature and experience passion, romance and love, all essential
parts of a balanced normal life. Or you can falsely pretend to be attracted to the opposite sex and live an empty passionless lie.



Blacks were discriminated against by identifying them by skin pigment and phyisical features. We were taught how to recognize "morally inferior" people by their physical traits.

The only difference today is that the trait is not visually recognizeable

My "choice" was to be straight. I tried my own form of aversion therapy to change my sexual attraction from men to women so that I would not be this "perverted monster" and devastate my parents and be the "pariah of the world and God's abomination"

Imagine the time in your adolescence when you were discovering your sexual awareness. Now Imagine being told that your feelings of sexual attraction make you a worthless deviant because you feel them toward the same sex. So to survive you hide this secret and stifle the growth of your emerging dentity and learn to hate yourself.

This is psychological child abuse at its worst. Each time this message is received by the young person he is wounded. The abuser gains a gratification at the young persons expense. This is typically used as compensation for a personal sense of inadequacy in the abuser. This is emotional predation. When the abuser then claims he is entitled to do this because of morality it becomes sanctimonious predation.

This is not the same as making rules against smoking or drinking.

This is telling a young person they have no right to exist or any entitlement to live true to their nature or love who is in their heart.

Equating the two is a tactic that an abuser uses to justfies his abuse. He seeks to trivialize his trespass by confusing behavior with trait.

......But then there is hope.....


Imagine the miracle of courageously overcoming this self loathing imposed by your past abuse. Imagine someone who sees the shining boy inside you and helps you see this shining boy your self; just the way your are with no changes needed nor desired. This is unconditional love, not I love you but you're deviant!

This epiphany restores your sense that you are a person deserving of happiness, equal worthiness and love. A hard fought internal struggle won by myself and many other gay people.

Acceptance and affirmation of your own NATURE is the foundation of Spirituality.

Discrimination based on behavior is morality, yes.

Discrimination based on a trait is a civil rights violation.

Enlightening people to clear up this the confusion, the confusion of behavior with trait, is the mission of Soulforce!

I hope that you see my reply as an opportunity to more strongly connect with the unconditional love of self and others. You are eloquent and respectful. I feel good sharing my perspective with you. Your venture on to this site is how folks like us are making the world a kinder place for the future

[BruceChris]

To begin with, we have already had this conversation, or perhaps we are still in the middle of it. See below, and please read it to the end. While you present yourself in a much more thoughtful manner than JacoBison initially did, you point seems to be exactly the same.

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2426

Re your comments about Fred Phelps. I would suggest that he is an EXTREEMLY poor example. I have met him, and his followers. It is my experience that he, and his followers are incapable of any meaningful form of communication. The man is incapable of dialogue, her is largely incapable of even expressing ideas. The only thing that this man seems to be capable of expressing is hate. I will not accept any teaching, certainly not anything that proports itself to be a Christian teaching, that is only expressed as hate. -- "God Hates Fags"? No, God does not hate anybody, and that is not a Christian teaching.

We are not out to change anyone's rules. That will come later, and that is something that each of these colleges must do on it's own. We are at these colleges only in an attempt to open a dialogue, and to try to touch hearts.

I am reminded of the parable of the Good Samaritan. If you go back, and read your bible, you will read that the Samaritans were a DESPISED people. It did not say that they were bad people, simply that they were a despised people. And of course, the Samaritan in question was clearly acting in kindness, and goodness. So I assert that we are also Good Samaritans. Our members, if they are out, or even if they are not, are despised by many people who call themselves Christian. Now, not all of our members are Christian, but all of them that I have encountered here are usually doing their best to act on their understanding of the Great Commandment.

Compare, the civil rights workers of the 1960's. They were a despised people, and they went where they were not welcome. Is that any reason to say that the freedom rides should not have happened, or that it is still O.K. to see someone as less than yourself, because of the color of their skin? For hundreds of years, the bible was cited as supporting slavery.

I simply refuse to accept your argument that Equality riders should submit to any rules that keep them from dialoguing with students.

Jesus went into the temple, where he was not wanted, and threw over the tables of the money changers. What parallels can I be allowed to draw here?

The practice of non-violence has been described as -- one person or group's putting their ability to accept and withstand suffering, up against another's ability to inflict suffering.

To say that Soul Force is crusading in the same way as Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. is a disrespect to the memory of both men I flatly disagree with you here.

I believe in what we are doing here. Do you believe that those of differing sexualities, who were created that way by God, are to be despised, and if not, how do you suggest that we go about changing that?

I am asking you to answer the question in my last paragraph. - (If you simply wish to tell me that I am a bad person, and do not answer this question, I have nothing further to discuss with you).

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[kara speltz]

To say that Soul Force is crusading in the same way as Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. is a disrespect to the memory of both men. .

We've heard this argument time and time again, and it's truly laughable, on one level, and arrogant and destructive on another. First of all, Arun Gandhi, Mahatma's grandson, who lived with his grandfather, joined Soulforce in Cleveland in 2000 and was arrested in his first act of civil disobedience. Secondly, Yolanda King also joined us there. And her courageous mother, Coretta Scott King, was one of our staunchest allies. She was consistent in standing up for the rights of LGBTs.

I always find it interesting that strangers think they know more about Gandhi and King than their own families.

[simpleman]

Thanks for your responses to my post.

I hope I can respond to some of your concerns with my post directly now.

To Scott:

I don't intend to, by being on this site, debate the Biblical side, or scientific side, or any other perspective on homosexuality itself. The way you perceive your sexual orientation and sexual desires belongs to you. I am not here to say that homosexuality is wrong, evil, or that homosexuals are sexual deviants. This is not my place or reason for being on this board.

However, I want you to consider, for a moment, what your moral structure is, i.e. what you believe to be right and wrong. Though you see homosexuality as a trait, many people see it differently. They consider it to be sinful or wrong. So as your moral structure does not apply to sexual orientation, others' moral structures do. And even if these people do not believe that physical traits make others morally inferior, they do not believe sexual orientation to be a physical trait. I know you disagree, and in many ways I do too, but this is how people's moral structures work.

Finally, I want to try and explain something I believe to be crucial to the idea of civil rights. I will begin with this caveat, which is that everything in this next paragraph or two is based upon Constitutional Law, and nothing else. Under the law, civil rights are outlined in the Constitution. Some examples are freedom of speech, assembly, the press, etc. Soul Force is properly and appropriately practicing freedom of speech when their Freedom Riders are on public property.

However there are no such thing as "civil" rights on private property. There are certain "human" rights, such as the right to not be murdered or raped, etc., but "civil" rights do not exist. If a property owner does not want to allow a person on his or her property, he has that right. If a privately funded organization, such as Mississippi College or Soul Force, does not want a person on their private property for any reason at all, they have the right to prohibit these people from their property under the law. Saying that colleges' discriminatory policies are civil rights violation is a misnomer. "Misguided" or "wrong" maybe, but "civil rights violation" no.

The government is not supposed to regulate private property. In many ways they do, but they should not. This country was founded on the principle of being able to believe what you want to believe, and have the freedom to discriminate however you wish on your own property. If the law was not this way, it would be nothing but a constant free-for-all to make laws that are detrimental to other religious or moral persuasions. If the law didn't protect everyone in this way, the government could make laws against discrimination anywhere, which might seem good on the surface, but if another group came into the majority in various legislatures, laws could be made against being gay or black or liking Tom Hanks movies. In order to keep rights for everyone in the public sphere, we have to give people the right to discriminate in their private spheres.

Bruce:

I read that other thread pretty closely. It appears that Jacob had a valid point to begin with, but he let his emotions get the best of him. This is a very emotional issue, and things like that do happen. I must, though, say the same for many Soul Force members. Emotions run high, but I think that the goal of the Freedom Ride is to cultivate dialogue, not to allow emotions to destroy meaningful discussion.

As for Fred Phelps, I do believe him to be completely out of his mind, unreasonable, and entirely reprehensible. The phrase "raving madman" applies to him. Even though I believe my analogy stands, you do not, and thus I will take that point and try again.

What if a group from Green Peace wished to protest your usage of gallon after gallon of gasoline for your Freedom Ride buses as damaging to the environment? They want to protest at Soul Force's headquarters on the front lawn, and speak directly to your members as they go about their daily jobs at headquarters. Again I cannot speak to whether or not Soul Force would allow them on private property, but I can say that Soul Force feels that its reason for expending the gasoline transcends the environmental effect of the fuel burning. Green Peace has no right whatsoever to be on Soul Force's private property, and no one (aside from Green Peace and other environmental interest groups) would be taken aback by it. I hope that one works a little better.

As for your point on the Civil Rights workers of the 1960s, I will reiterate what I said in my original post, which is that they were protesting against laws that were unjust and unconstitutional. These were laws that disallowed blacks to vote or drink at certain public water fountains, or sit in certain seats on certain buses. These were actionable under unjust laws that would put people of different colors in jail for breaking them. None of the rules set forth by these college campuses are actionable under any law, and only disallow certain people from attending their university. These universities are private organizations with private property, they are allowed, under the law to disallow anyone they please. The government is not allowed to, because the Constitution, on which it is built, does not allow it. I hope this clears up the difference between the Civil Rights workers and the Freedom Riders.

Additionally, I do not think that the freedom rides of the 60s shouldn't have happened. Again, they were fighting against laws, not campus rules. Also, keep in mind that Mississippi College and many other colleges were prepared to allow Soul Force on to their private property, i.e. the Riders were welcome. However, Soul Force refuses to respect the colleges' regulations for any and all campus guests, and this is what makes them "unwelcome".

Also, I know that my comment about disrespecting the memory of Dr. King and Gandhi has been a source of some frustration I'm sure, but I stand by it. By this I do not mean to say that Soul Force's mission is wrong, but Dr. King and Gandhi were fighting against corrupt and unjust governments, while Soul Force is fighting with legally protected private institutions. There is a marked difference.

And now, after all of that, I will attempt, to the best of my ability, to answer your question, and Bruce, please do not think that I believe you or anybody here to be a "bad person". I understand Soul Force's mission is to create dialogue, and that is what I'm trying to do. So, here's my answer:

If the Freedom Ride wishes to create dialogue, its people should not prepare for a standoffish "protest" or "demonstration", even in non-violence. I think that Freedom Riders would find welcome from these colleges if they agreed to follow that college's rules and respect them, whether they are right or wrong. Soul Force's message can easily be spread without breaking any rules for campus guests, such as those set forth by Mississippi College. If Soul Force wants to reach and affect this type of person on that type of campus, they need to be extremely respectful of their viewpoint, which, if I am not mistaken, is what you are trying to get them to do for you. I hope that clears some things up for you, Bruce Chris.

Kara:

I know that our viewpoints are quite different, and I will completely admit that I am a "stranger" as you say. I also know that this is an emotional issue and one that is very important to you, judging by your response to mine and other posts on this board. Even though I presume you do not consider me to be a respectable person, I do not appreciate the disrespect that you gave to my original post, and I will not judge Soul Force as a whole based upon this.

[Pablo Rafael]

I do not see, strictly in theory, that any of the colleges treat homosexuals in a way other than they would treat anyone else the considered engaged in wrongdoing. In practice, I do understand that many of these colleges treat students who are homosexuals differently then they would treat fornicators, however I do know that these universities dispense with those who consume alcohol quite severely as well.



Thanks for the respectful tone to your post. I have just a personal note. I went to a conservative religious college in the Midwest that had a anti-gay, anti-sex outside of marriage, anti-alcohol stance. There were women sneaking into the men's dorms at all hours of day and night. (I assume it was the same at the women's dorms) Our freshman class president was unmarried and very much pregnant by the end of the school year. We all knew which guys had their girlfriends sleeping over. The consumption of alcohol was no secret either. It was so widespread that to expell students for being caught with alcohol would have reduced the student body by 50%. However, any guy seen kissing another guy would have been an automatic expulsion with no questions. Even just sexual orientation was grounds for expulsion.

I was generally one of the straight-laced, follow the rules type of student. I did everything that I was supposed to. My across the hall neighbor was one of those who was drunk every weekend to the point of being passed out and having to be carried back to room. Yet I was the one that would have been expelled for something I had no control over. I feel that colleges whether private or public need to be confronted when they discriminate against groups of people. Private colleges should not be left unchallenged in this.

I feel college campuses are places to learn and explore new ideas and to challenge people to think in new ways. They are not like other private property because they are specifically designed to expand students' understanding of the world. We had people from various groups that often disagreed with us come to campus. They all got their say. After they left we discussed the issue they brought up. (And usually dismissed it.) That is part of the college experience.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[kara speltz]

Kara:

I know that our viewpoints are quite different, and I will completely admit that I am a "stranger" as you say. I also know that this is an emotional issue and one that is very important to you, judging by your response to mine and other posts on this board. Even though I presume you do not consider me to be a respectable person, I do not appreciate the disrespect that you gave to my original post, and I will not judge Soul Force as a whole based upon this.

In your initial posting you wrote: To say that Soul Force is crusading in the same way as Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. is a disrespect to the memory of both men.

I responded:

We've heard this argument time and time again, and it's truly laughable, on one level, and arrogant and destructive on another. First of all, Arun Gandhi, Mahatma's grandson, who lived with his grandfather, joined Soulforce in Cleveland in 2000 and was arrested in his first act of civil disobedience. Secondly, Yolanda King also joined us there. And her courageous mother, Coretta Scott King, was one of our staunchest allies. She was consistent in standing up for the rights of LGBTs.

I always find it interesting that strangers think they know more about Gandhi and King than their own families.

I do not believe there was anything disrespectful in my response to you. You speak as if you have some knowledge which I seriously doubt. I pointed out that family members of King and Gandhi do not share your views, and one would tend to believe they knew their family better than you know them. I see nothing disrespectful in that. I was not calling you a stranger to Soulforce, because hopefully there are no strangers, just newbies learning to understand what we are about. Many of us on the forum are students of King and Gandhi and have spent years studying him, but compared to Arun and Coretta, we are all strangers. It would seem to me that strangers pretending to know know more than the families of King and Gandhi is extremely arrogant.

I never suggested you were not a respectable person, you made a leap there, that to me makes no sense. I did suggest that you are speaking about things you know nothing about. There is a huge difference in what you perceived I said, and what I said. And yes, I am very passionate about issues of justice and peace. I've been committed to those issues for over 40 years. And I will not apologize for that passion. Kara

[Emproph]

However, I want you to consider, for a moment, what your moral structure is, i.e. what you believe to be right and wrong.

Though you see homosexuality as a trait, many people see it differently.
They consider it to be sinful or wrong.

So as your moral structure does not apply to sexual orientation, others' moral structures do.

And even if these people do not believe that physical traits make others morally inferior, they do not believe sexual orientation to be a physical trait.

I know you disagree, and in many ways I do too, but this is how people's moral structures work.

My "moral structure" does not apply to sexual orientation because my moral structure does not apply to the mere fact that I exist.

The contention is not with the belief that sexual orientation is not a trait, it’s with the idea that people can be considered beliefs.

It occurs to me that you think I'm still up for debate.

[simpleman]

Pablo:

I absolutely understand your point. As I mentioned in the portion of my post that you quoted, the theory is definitely one way, and the practice is most definitely another. This double standard is surely wrong. Even so, my point is not to defend the colleges policies on their merit, but rather under their protection by the law. And even though your college practiced a deplorable double standard in punishment of offenders, some of these colleges aren't so bad about it.

Kara:

I can certainly see that you see no disrespect in your comments. I admire your fervor as an unabashed believer in your stance and viewpoint. However, your language and syntax was, in both posts, snide and confrontational. Any time you start a sentence with "I find it interesting that..." it sounds snide. Furthermore, other posts of yours that I have read, specifically ones that are to people with which you disagree, you sound exactly the same way, harsh and critical. Whether or not you can see it, your "online voice" sounds extremely harsh. I'm sure that your voice is fueled constantly by your passion on the issues, and that's okay, but I cannot believe that you are incapable of putting your emotions aside in order to have meaningful repartee with people of differing viewpoints, even those you see to be radically different from yours. I have done nothing but show respect to everyone on this board, and I will continue to do so, regardless of whether you think my viewpoint is "laughable" or not.

Note: I will not post the whole thing here again, but even though I do believe that Dr. King and Gandhi would support the mission of Soul Force, which is to expose and decry discrimination, I do not believe that what Soul Force is doing is the same thing as what Dr. King and Gandhi did.

Emproph:

I was not trying to make any generalizations about people's individual moral structure. And I am fully aware that you, emproph, consider homosexuality to be a trait, but other people don't. I was simply trying to point out a little bit of the core of these colleges' moral structures and how they relate to the rules that Soul Force finds discriminatory.

I have to apologize as I don't understand exactly what you are talking about in the next two paragraphs. I don't recall saying that individual people are beliefs, or trying to imply that. I mean that people have different moral structures, based on whatever they want to believe.

When you say "It occurs to me that you think I'm still up for debate." Was this supposed to be a joke because you think that I believe people themselves to be moral structures in themselves? Because I don't believe that. I'm not here to debate anyone on their own moral structure nor am I here to comment on the nature of sexuality. I came to discuss the marked difference between the public and private sides of society with respect to Constitutional Law.

[Zerbie]

uNote: I will not post the whole thing here again, but even though I do believe that Dr. King and Gandhi would support the mission of Soul Force, which is to expose and decry discrimination, I do not believe that what Soul Force is doing is the same thing as what Dr. King and Gandhi did.

You are correct in making a distinction between protest of government laws and protest of private institutions for their codes of conduct. Yes a distinction does exist. I believe the reason so many supporters see the Ride as being of the tradition of MLK & Gandhi is that the spirit of the matter is analogous, regardless of what kind of institution they are protesting. (Because of the emotional, psychological, and practical repercussions of anti-gay policy, whereEVER it is found.) I can see how the technicality is debateable. Thank you for making the technical distinction clear to my perception. I support the spirit of the Ride, while agreeing with you on the technicality that a private institution has the legal right to maintain its policies as it sees fit.

Emproph:

I was not trying to make any generalizations about people's individual moral structure. And I am fully aware that you, emproph, consider homosexuality to be a trait, but other people don't. I was simply trying to point out a little bit of the core of these colleges' moral structures and how they relate to the rules that Soul Force finds discriminatory.

I have to apologize as I don't understand exactly what you are talking about in the next two paragraphs. I don't recall saying that individual people are beliefs, or trying to imply that. I mean that people have different moral structures, based on whatever they want to believe.

When you say "It occurs to me that you think I'm still up for debate." Was this supposed to be a joke because you think that I believe people themselves to be moral structures in themselves? Because I don't believe that. I'm not here to debate anyone on their own moral structure nor am I here to comment on the nature of sexuality. I came to discuss the marked difference between the public and private sides of society with respect to Constitutional Law.

Then I think we should in future stick to the matter of your purpose for being here. I know I shouldn't speak for Emproph, but I would suggest if you really want to know where he was coming from, that you go over some of his many posts over the past year-plus.

Since you DID bring it up, I will address the "moral structure" problem. Other people might think homosexuality is not a trait and therefore something out-of-bounds of a 'moral structure,' but it's akin to believing that the earth is flat, and then claiming the spherical globe itself out-of-bounds of a moral structure. Homosexuality is not a belief, and being gay does not automatically bring along its own moral structure (there are gay people who believe homosexuality is morally taboo, there is no automatic "gay morality." I think you know that, but then, why do you bring the argument up?)

Taking up what I see in Emproph's (and your) words: we are looking at a conflict between a "moral structure" that prohibits gay-ness versus the state of being gay.

It's a 'moral' argument against existing. It's not two conflicting moral structures, at its core, it's people merely being, who are assailed with "moral" arguments why they should not be.

It is (usually) not "the behavior" that is punished. Being gay is punished. You can be a virgin, but being a gay one can get you punished. Saying you are gay gets you punished at many (all??) of these schools. It can get you fired in 34 states in the US, in some countries it can get you imprisoned, tortured, and killed, and it can get you beat up nearly anywhere in the world. The issue is a matter of simply being, and to claim opposition to someone's being, let's say Emproph's since he he brought it up, as a moral argument is in fact ridiculous (though I do not dispute your point that many people DO claim it a moral issue.) He's alive. He's there. That fact is not a 'moral structure.' He's not a philosophical construct. He's a living being.

What I hear you saying is that since some people have taken a theoretical and MORAL stance about his being, therefore those beliefs, being "moral structures," deserve to be automatically elevated.

[simpleman]

Zerbie:

I believe that we said the same thing concerning the mission of Dr. King and Gandhi. Discrimination of any kind is analogous to discrimination of any other kind, whether in the public or private sphere. But battling against governmental oppression punishable by jail time is far different than battling against school policies that are actionable only by expulsion.

I want to address your point about schools expelling people just for declaring themselves as gay. Such action, as wrong as it may be, is not, nor should it be, illegal. A private organization can discriminate whatever way it wants. Since people will undoubtedly ask, I will say that I disagree with such a policy, and would disagree ENTIRELY with such a decision, I can do nothing but defend the school's right to do it. There is no law that says a private organization that makes its own rules even has to follow its own rules. That means if their rule book says that homosexual "activity" is punished, it probably also says that "anyone who is deemed by the school to be disruptive to the school" can be expelled as well. It's their right under the law. It's not right, it's not fair, but it's how our legal system does and should work.

Now I will work back to your point about Emproph. As I said, I'm not here to debate anyone's sexuality or whether it is a trait or a choice or anything else. Forgive me, you and he, for my apparent trespass on his feelings. I am not coming here to be offensive to anyone. I know this is a very sensitive issue, and I'm trying my best to be as respectful and careful with people's feelings as possible without compromising what I am trying to express.

My point is that, right or wrong, these schools, their leaders, and many of their students see it as a choice to be sinful. I know that you, and emproph, and many many others believe that it is part of who he is. Your beliefs about the nature of homosexuality are fundamentally different than the people you are trying to debate. It is not, as you say, a conflict between a moral structure that prohibits a state of being and the prohibited state of being. Those who have a moral structure that prohibits being gay do not believe that being gay is a state of being, but rather a sin against God. It is a conflict between two different fundamental beliefs.

Also, I do not believe that their moral structure should be elevated. However, on their property and in the scope of their school, their rights under the law should be elevated. For our American structure of freedom of belief, their right to be wrong in your eyes must be respected.

To everyone:

I want to reiterate some of my previous points.
1. I am not here to offend any one. My deepest apologies for any offense my posts may cause. I am trying my best to have respectful and honest dialogue with people who have different views than my own.

2. I am not here to debate the merits of anyone's moral structures against anyone else's. That's a really difficult thing to do, because there are endless reasons for people believing what they do.

3. I am not here to defend the merits or lack thereof of the policies of Christian colleges or universities, only to defend their rights under American law. In America, everyone has the right to think that they are right, even if other people think they are wrong.

[Zerbie]

Zerbie:

I believe that we said the same thing concerning the mission of Dr. King and Gandhi. Discrimination of any kind is analogous to discrimination of any other kind, whether in the public or private sphere.

I want to address your point about schools expelling people just for declaring themselves as gay. Such action, as wrong as it may be, is not, nor should it be, illegal. A private organization can discriminate whatever way it wants. Since people will undoubtedly ask, I will say that I disagree with such a policy, and would disagree ENTIRELY with such a decision, I can do nothing but defend the school's right to do it. There is no law that says a private organization that makes its own rules even has to follow its own rules. That means if their rule book says that homosexual "activity" is punished, it probably also says that "anyone who is deemed by the school to be disruptive to the school" can be expelled as well. It's their right under the law. It's not right, it's not fair, but it's how our legal system does and should work.

Well perhaps this hasn't been clear: I completely agree with you on the point above.

I am not part of the E Ride, so I may be incorrect, but my partial understanding is that one goal of the Ride is peaceable persuasion, in the hopes that these schools might soon *willingly* change their policy, as part of an evolution in how they live out their faith, institutionally speaking. I think all of us who hang around this forum recognize that the institutions might not choose to do so.


Now I will work back to your point about Emproph. As I said, I'm not here to debate anyone's sexuality or whether it is a trait or a choice or anything else. Forgive me, you and he, for my apparent trespass on his feelings. I am not coming here to be offensive to anyone. I know this is a very sensitive issue, and I'm trying my best to be as respectful and careful with people's feelings as possible without compromising what I am trying to express.

I can tell. :)

My point is that, right or wrong, these schools, their leaders, and many of their students see it as a choice to be sinful.

Yes, we know they do.

I know that you, and emproph, and many many others believe that it is part of who he is. Your beliefs about the nature of homosexuality are fundamentally different than the people you are trying to debate. It is not, as you say, a conflict between a moral structure that prohibits a state of being and the prohibited state of being. Those who have a moral structure that prohibits being gay do not believe that being gay is a state of being, but rather a sin against God. It is a conflict between two different fundamental beliefs.

[COLOR="Navy"]Okay, if you have two "sides" having a debate. But what I'm saying is that lived experience does not constitute a belief. And that, "debates" aside, there are plenty of homosexually-oriented people who will not take on a debate of this kind, but who by virtue of being, find their very existence held up as a point of debate, whether they believe their own sexuality is acceptable or not, ie: regardless of their belief they are assailed by claims that their nature is "reprobate" and "immoral." In that sense, it is indeed as I have described it - a conflict between someone's mere being, and another's THOUGHTS about what constitute morality. Between a LIFE, on the one hand, and THOUGHTS on the other. /COLOR]


Also, I do not believe that their moral structure should be elevated. However, on their property and in the scope of their school, their rights under the law should be elevated. For our American structure of freedom of belief, their right to be wrong in your eyes must be respected.

Agreed. :agree: One of the reasons I did not apply to be on the E Ride myself is that it moves out of my comfort zone to go onto such a campus, b/c from my own mindset, I think, "Well, it's part of the design of the college that they adhere to beliefs I find offensive, but let them have their space and I'll seek out my own." (However I have an entirely different response when such things move into the public policy arena.)
But despite that I would not feel comfortable that way myself, I do support what the Riders are doing b/c they have very valid points that such teachings constitute abuse. I know people who tried to kill themselves because people they trusted taught them they were abominable freaks. The issue becomes complex b/c while it is a private school with particular policies, experience and observation shows the policies harmful. Sadly, there is no question these institutions have a legal right to maintain them. It becomes complex because we are all going to have a different boundary point beyond which we feel we must not collude in harm, and that's when all the arguing comes into play, between "sides," and also within them.

To everyone:

I want to reiterate some of my previous points.
1. I am not here to offend any one. My deepest apologies for any offense my posts may cause. I am trying my best to have respectful and honest dialogue with people who have different views than my own.

2. I am not here to debate the merits of anyone's moral structures against anyone else's. That's a really difficult thing to do, because there are endless reasons for people believing what they do.

3. I am not here to defend the merits or lack thereof of the policies of Christian colleges or universities, only to defend their rights under American law. In America, everyone has the right to think that they are right, even if other people think they are wrong.

No disagreement here. I can tell you are being calm and respectful, and that makes me very comfortable discussing with you.

I am becoming increasingly curious, however, since you keep reminding us what "others" believe, as to what YOU believe on the matter. You have put forward very valid and logical points about the private schools and their policies. You have also said you're here for dialogue with those whose views are different from yours, so I'm curious how the prevailing views on this forum differ from your own.

[scott snedeker]

there are no such thing as "civil" rights on private property........If a property owner does not want to allow a person on his or her property, he has that right

[ You are mistaken. This is actually not true IF the reason is strictly because they discriminate against a minority but serve other groups]

If a privately funded organization, such as Mississippi College or Soul Force, does not want a person on their private property for any reason at all they have the right to prohibit these people from their property under the law

[ again, not true for the same reason].

Saying that colleges' discriminatory policies are civil rights violation is a misnomer. "Misguided" or "wrong" maybe, but "civil rights violation" no.

[Also not true see below]

The government is not supposed to regulate private property..... we have to give people the right to discriminate in their private spheres.

[Inaccurate again, entitlement to discriminate against a minority while serving other groups is not protected in private spheres.]

.

(...........pause for a deep breath.............)

This is because History, Precedent and legislation have disagreed with this claim long ago.

It was the Woolworth's sit-in in Greensboro, North Carolina in the sixties that led to refutation of this claim specifically and exactly!

Legislation left no room for any other interepretation.

The claim of "there are no such thing as "civil" rights on private property" specifcally was tried and judged untrue forty years ago!

Substitute gay for black and MC college for Woolworth's (private property also) and............

Bingo!

We have a Civil rights violation with a well Known precedent and legislation!


^ Q.E.D.


The only reason it is not enforced is the confusion between trait and behavior.

If all heterosexuals had blue ears to mark them at birth and all homosexuals had red ears to mark them at birth, the question would have been settled more than thirty years ago.

Again Clearing up the confusion between trait and behavior is the mission of Soulforce. It is no different than dispelling the myth that blacks were morally inferior because of their physical features.

Again I invite you to be a proactive part of the the changes today that will make the world of tomorrow a kinder one.

This is history! Filled with heros and villians, passions, romantic figures and some people who just don't know what to think.

And we are living it! What an incredible privilege!.....and responsiblity!

[scott snedeker]

Just another note:

I really do appreciate your respectful participation.

You have broadened my perspective and helped me in a profound way to clarify my thoughts. Strangely, I believe this is primarily because we disagree!

I feel I have grown immensely from interacting with you and your thoughtful illustration of your perspective.

I truly feel I am in your debt. I hope that I have provided something in return.

[BruceChris]

But you seem to have done that more than thoroughly.

In my original posting, I asked s.m. to answer one question:

Do you believe that those of differing sexualities, who were created that way by God, are to be despised, (By which I guess I have to specify "made the subject of moral judgement, or subjected to rulings other than those of law") and if not, how do you suggest that we go about changing that? -- I withdraw the part of the question concerning changing anything.

My question made the explicit assumption that a person's sexuality was "created by God". An innate trait, like hair, or skin color. From my reading of your subsequent posts, I cannot find anywhere where you have stipulated that a person's sexual orientation is, or is not created by God. The closest that you seem to come to touching that question seems to be that because it is something that cannot be measured at birth, it doesn't matter, and that it can be arbitrarily specified by someone else, at a later time. Well, it matters to us.

Exactly the same arguments were made for hundreds of years concerning left-handedness. Indeed, that analogy could go on for a LONG way.

O.K. I will admit that I did not exactly address your points, and that you did not address mine. But clearly, this discussion is over.

BC

[NathanATX]

To say that Soul Force is crusading in the same way as Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. is a disrespect to the memory of both men. These men were fighting against government oppression, from which there was no shelter. There is more than enough shelter from religious colleges, as no GLBT person has to subject themselves to any discrimination by such organizations.

This is a very uninformed statement.

Read what Coretta Scott King says about fighting for LGBT equality:
"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice... But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King, Jr., said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere' ... I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."

And last night, I had the distinct honor to attend a lecture given by Dr. Arun Ghandi, the grandson of Mahatma Ghandi. When I asked him about Soulforce and working for justice in the church, he said he strongly believes in Soulforce and has participated in several of our non-violent actions.

There is no shelter for a gay christian student enrolled in one of these schools. There is no peace, no sense of authentic safety and welcome when these schools have policies that threaten to expel, excommunicate, and destroy the emotional & spiritual lives of these students.

You sound confused about why a gay person would want to go one of these schools. I can only speak for myself. I loved Oral Roberts University my entire life. My church was right across the street. My pastor was an ORU graduate. It was the ONLY school I wanted to go to. While I absolutely loved being a student there, I was continually terrified someone would find out about me. I got engaged in order to keep the "facade" of being straight.

I knew several young men who were in fact expelled and outed to their churches and families. That, my friend, is nothing but unadulterated violence committed in the name of God. And it must stop.

[simpleman]

Zerbie:

I don't want to sound like I'm harping, but my point on your "state of being vs. morality/thoughts" point is that you are working under the assumption that it is, in fact, a state of being. Those with moral reservations about homosexuality don't believe it to be necessarily innate. I understand what you are saying, and I'm not refuting homosexuality as a state of being, but that's not the widely held belief among Christian college students.

Since it has come from several sources, I'll address my own opinions on the nature of homosexuality at the end of this post.

Scott:

Woolworth sit-in was in a private place, but as a restaurant, Woolworth's served the public. When your business is "open to the public" based upon nothing other than them choosing your restaurant in which to dine, it's a different issue of private vs. public. If you own a business open to the public you forfeit some, but not all, private property rights. A college inherently has an application process, and thus it is selective by nature, where as a restaurant is not. I hope that clears some of that up.

Also, thank you for your kind words. I have also appreciated the interaction on this board.

Bruce:

I apologize for not answering your previous question thoroughly. I did not understand that you were asking me my own opinion on the nature of homosexuality and its relation to culture. Looking back at your first post, I have to say that I just plain missed it. As I said to Zerbie, I will address this at the conclusion of this post.

AntonyH:

Well said. I'm glad an insider can also say exactly what I mean. Critical self-evaluation is crucial for any interest group. There must be constant evaluation of methods, purpose, plans, and most importantly whether or not the methods employed are making any progress.

Nathan:

I believe that I have addressed nearly everything in your post in one of my previous posts. I am not here to debate with anyone the merits of these policies, or the effects thereof on young, homosexual students. I know that you see glaring persecution and spiritual violence on many levels. As I have mentioned several times previously, such "spiritual violence" is often protected under the law with respect to religious and moral freedom, and especially on private property. It may not be right, but private colleges' decisions must be protected under the law, and the legal protection (i.e. not the decisions themselves) must be respected by all who have faith in the American system. If you do not have faith in the American system, then you have no faith in the very rights that you have to voice and maintain your own beliefs.

And now finally, the moment we've all been waiting for, when simpleman comes forward with his own beliefs on the subject.

First of all, let me say thank you to the many posters with whom I've had respectful and effective dialogue. I appreciate very much the ability to speak openly and honestly with people about issues that are often not dealt with in such a respectful and open way. This is a good thing for everyone, and I think everyone can agree on that.

Second, let me say, specifically to answer BruceChris' question, that I do not believe anyone should ever be hated or despised or otherwise. No one at all, because everyone is a person, and nobody should be hated, even if they most likely deserve it. Jesus teaches this. Even in His harshest of rebukes to His children, He does not show or preach hatred.

Now, for my own views. As any other Straight Southern White Male, I have never had to endure being hated or despised This means that I have no perspective on what it "feels like" to actually be a homosexual (either to be sexually attracted to other males or any of the disdain that comes with admitting such feelings). But, when I read my Bible, I read words that seem to say that homosexual behavior is wrong. It also says that sexual acts with animals, or members of the opposite sex out of wedlock are wrong. As a Christian I believe all of these things. The urges to do sexual things are strong in everyone. Some people feel them towards the opposite sex, and others towards the same, others towards animals, and even others towards children. I presume that my own sexual urges are innate to me, and that that I was born that way, and so I can't, in the same breath, say that anyone else's sexual urges and preference aren't natural either. I believe that even though sexual urges are innate, acting upon them is sinful. If I were to have sex out of wedlock, I would consider myself in the wrong. Being tempted to have sex is one thing, doing it is another. If a homosexual feels the urge to have sex with another person of the same sex, it is their natural feeling, but acting upon it is sinful. I realize that there is no way to make that sound good, particularly in this arena. I cannot apologize for my own beliefs, but I do apologize for the fact that there is no way to say it that won't be construed by many to be offensive.

I fear that I have now undermined some of my credibility, but nonetheless I wanted to be honest with all of the people who have had earnest and open discussion with me. I did not come here to try and sway anyone to my opinion on homosexuality itself or to condemn anyone for anything, but to ask that Soul Force to consider its role with respect to legal protection for private organizations. Thank all of you for your time. As I said, there is no way to express beliefs such as my own without seeming offensive, but I assure you I do not mean to be offensive. And once again, I do not support, condone, or believe in hatred of others based upon anything. Everyone should be respectful of everyone else, whether they agree on things or not. I suspect I have nothing else to say on this forum, therefore this is most likely my last post.

Thanks and God Bless

Simple Man

[NathanATX]

If you notice, the Equality Riders aren't campaigning for a change in the law as it relates to what private schools can do or not to. We might take that up later.

What we are doing is engaging these schools in a one-on-one conversation about the effects of their heterosexist and anti-gay policies. We are asking them to consider the trauma, the violence and the heartbreak they cause. We are asking them to change their policies.

And when the communication breaks down and the schools refuse to even hear our requests, we initiate a non-violent action to bring attention to their very violent actions.

These people are not our enemy. The misinformation, the lies and the violence is the enemy.

We seek restoration. We seek relationship. We seek peace. We seek to be with all of our brothers and sisters and celebrate the "beloved community."

[scott snedeker]

Scott:

Woolworth sit-in was in a private place, but as a restaurant, Woolworth's served the public. When your business is "open to the public" based upon nothing other than them choosing your restaurant in which to dine, it's a different issue of private vs. public. If you own a business open to the public you forfeit some, but not all, private property rights. A college inherently has an application process, and thus it is selective by nature, where as a restaurant is not. I hope that clears some of that up.

Also, thank you for your kind words. I have also appreciated the interaction on this board.



Simple Man

Again, No private sphere is entitled to discriminate against a minority while serving others.

The attempt here is to distinguish between a college campus and a restuarant. This claim is a retreat into a smaller and narrower refuge with using rule changes to defend it.

Where prohibiting a minority from attending a college is "not a civil rights violation" while in a restuarant prohibiting a minority from dining is a civil rights violation, does not hold up. Blacks were also prohibited from attending colleges as well using the same argument. This was a civil rights violation that was defeated also. Furthermore if any student receives federal or state financial aid then the college is publically subsidized with my tax dollars!

You do clear up one thing. Not the law but the people enforcing the law are the subscribers to this misconception. When that happens, Civil Disobedience must follow. These enforcers of the law actively enlist themselves into the role of the oppressor, an archtype in a classic struggle. Without them the change would proceed less rapidly. Their sacrifice is essential and appreciated. Oppression cannot win against Civil Disobedience.

I am reminded of STAR WARS. "You cannot win. If you strike me now Darth, I will be more powerful than you can imagine"

--O. B. 1 Kenobe

At 13 I thought this was pathetic surrender. It was not until later that I saw that it was art reflecting oppression's fate when faced with civil disobedience.

It is because the world is changing. Those who cannot change with it are going to have the most difficult time living in it.

To make this change, a change to a kinder, world Civil Disobedience makes people take a look, think, argue and make changes.

[dsdrane]

S.Man brings up an interesting point, though something that affects "straight" people wrestling with their own views on sexual morality than "us".

Personally, I do not believe sex out of wedlock is a sin. (I actually think it absolutely necessary before marriage/civil union/monogamous commitment/etc., but that is another discussion.)

The minute this particular rug is ripped out from underneath the "we're just treating all students the same" argument, the discrimination is laid bare.

I find it curious that we don't approach arguments from this point of view...unless it is because, were gay marriage legal, many of our conservative-leaning brothers and sisters would sign onto this "no sex before marriage" idea.

So, Forum Friends, what do y'all feel about the above? S.Man may have put down his mouse/keyboard, but I feel he may have triggered an interesting side-angle on the larger debate.

:inspector:

[tdogg]

Simpleman

Welcome to the SF forums, thanks for sharing your viewpoints with all of us here.

Nathan said it best in his last post - regarding the objectives and goals of the Equality Ride. I fully support the ER, even considering that the schools may consider themselves 'private' and not subject to 'public' scrutiny. These are 'our' children, our future leaders, our country's greatest assets. To think they are being treated less than completely fair and equal is disrespectful to them. There are plenty of documented instances where these young adults have been treated unfairly, uncivilized and violently. This must stop.

As far as your views of homosexuality, I appreciate that you have your views and certainly don't expect you to understand what it feels like to be gay. I was raised with pentecostal parents in church my entire youth. People with views like yours, and views even worse, constantly impressed upon me that being gay was a ticket straight to hell. It took YEARS, and I mean YEARS, for me to get to the point where I FINALLY decided to experience my self, accept my self, love my self. Amazingly, it did not lead me to a conviction that being gay was my ticket to eternal damnation, but rather, that being gay just was for me. Just something I was. My Creator fashioned me in perfection, has blessed me with this revelation and gifted me with the most wonderful and blessed relationship I could ever dream of. All it took for me to find my destiny was to accept myself the way I was created, love myself and then proceed to live again.

I don't expect this to make sense to you, unless you are able to take a few minutes and 'become' gay, empathize as a 'gay' person and then see the world through our 'glasses'. Of course, I'm not insinuating that you would be gay, only that you try to feel what we feel, as close as you can. Perhaps more relevant, take an inherent trait of yours and apply all prejudices and discriminations that you can think of, to that trait. While it can never be the same feeling as one who actually lives it, perhaps it will provide you with a better understanding of where gay people are coming from. Even better, I encourage you to read through all the threads here - you'll get a very clear picture of our struggle.

[Steven E. Webster]

The biggest fear Christians in America have is that advances in gay rights will strip them of their religious freedoms. We must respect and protect religious freedom while we advocate for our own rights in this democracy.

As I mentioned before, gay rights activists have recognized this. I quoted the Illinois Civil Unions Bill HB1826 that has just cleared committee. Section 102 reads, "Religious Freedom. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to interfere with or regulate religious practice of the many faiths in Illinois that grant the status, sacrament, and blessing of marriage under wholly separate religious rules, practices, or traditions of such faiths...nothing in this Act shall be construed as to require any religious body...to solomize or officiate a civil union..."

(http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/95/HB/PDF/09500HB1826ham001.pdf)

Friend,
Fear seems to be a major motivator used by those wishing to manipulate Christian voters. Who is really threatened in America today---straight, white, heterosexual Christians? I don't think so.

Yes, I see the politics of the Illinois statute you quote, they are trying to address a fear that is unreasonable in the first place--the clause stating that churches won't be compelled to perform ceremonies against their will is totally unnecessary. No one is trying to suspend the First Amendment of the Constitution (although there is a straight white Christian in the White House who thinks he can suspend Habeus Corpus).

The trouble with the language of this Illinois law is that it seems to validate the fears of Fundamentalist Christians while really doing nothing to add anything to the First Amendment protections which we all enjoy anyway.

I think what the Equality Riders demonstrated in Clinton, Mississippi is that there are people who don't understand very well the constitutional rights that LGBT people enjoy along with everyone else.

Part of what rubs me the wrong way on this whole discussion is that the Christian Reconstructionists and Dominionists like Falwell, Dobson, Robertson, and the leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention and their administration in the White House are the ones who are genuinely threatening constitutional rights in this country. Gay people are just scapegoats to further their power ambitions. It's high time we stand up and voice our objections.

I suppose a point could be made that we ought not to play into the hands of our opponents by giving their fear-mongering any validity. It is important that we maintain an attitude of non-violence. The peaceful arrests of college kids whose "crime" is to walk on the grass should be no real threat to anyone.

Steven Webster

[Diane Vera]

First of all, Arun Gandhi, Mahatma's grandson, who lived with his grandfather, joined Soulforce in Cleveland in 2000 and was arrested in his first act of civil disobedience. Secondly, Yolanda King also joined us there. And her courageous mother, Coretta Scott King, was one of our staunchest allies. She was consistent in standing up for the rights of LGBTs.

Thanks for sharing this. Very interesting. If you or someone here can document any or all of the above, or point us to documentation, I would very much appreciate it.

[Emproph]

No matter how much Soulforce protests, these colleges have the constitutional right to the free exercise of their faith on their own properties. You can get arrested a thousand times and freedom of religion will still be in the constitution.

Just because we’re protesting the fact that these schools have harmful discriminatory policies doesn’t mean that we’re protesting their right to have them. I think that’s an extremely important distinction that needs to be made, partially because the effort of illegal trespass is knowingly being taken by the ER at the risk of this misunderstanding.

I myself am still trying to sort the principles of all this out but as far as I've seen, the entire point is to either convince them of the harmful consequences of their policies – and to willingly change them, or to then draw attention to the fact that they won't.

I don’t see any indication that the motive of the Equality Ride is to deny religious freedom to have these policies, quite to the contrary it seems that the intention is to draw attention to what harm they continue to do with their religious freedom even AFTER having been presented with evidence of their harmful consequences:The seeds planted at BYU blossom into the knives, pills, nooses, guns and other devices that our youth are using to destroy themselves. These are the seeds that sprout into hate, discrimination, and prejudice. Schools like BYU that openly discriminate against LGBT students by creating hostile and unsafe environments, are also creating the farmers who will continue to sow these seeds. This must stop. New seeds must be planted. Lives depend on it. link (http://www.soulforce.org/blogs/category/2007-west-bus/)That's the result of what they teach their gay students, and these are the results of what they teach their straight students:

(These next two quotes are from another thread - click on the arrow)
Unjust laws are being passed in many states restricting the civil rights of GLBT people and families. These laws are based on religious rhetoric that emanates out of certain churches and certain colleges/universities. While E-Riders do not protest at churches, they choose to protest at college and universities because they participate in the social educational structure, and they impart erroneous scientific and biased religious information that is then used by political leaders and voters alike. These places are a source of misinformation that result in flawed laws.
That sincerity and thoughtfulness inspires anti-gay laws and anti-gay policies only tells this reader that something is missing in your argument. And that is sustained and concentrated effort to fully understand the experience of those who desire happiness and joy- and are prevented from the same by laws and policies which have no purpose other than to oppress.

It is not enough to be sincere. One can be sincerely mistaken.

I'm afraid you make it sound as though the two 'sides' are somehow equal. Nothing could be further from the truth. One of those sides does not have equal rights.
Resulting in hundreds of thousands of citizens being churned out every year who feel they have a "moral" duty to define and treat others as inferior. But since America is founded on the principle of equality, the only way to openly practice their religious right to discriminate is to redefine the meaning of America itself – via constitutional amendments. Ensuring that some Americans are legally more equal than others.

If their religious freedom results in denying Americans freedom, then they are teaching that religious freedom includes the Constitutional right to take away Constitutional rights.

Granted Antonyh, I think this could and should be articulated much better and more often. That said, it seems that the only real difference between supporters and detractors of this civil disobedience issue is the recognition of the seriousness of the situation (or at least the perception of its seriousness).

When I look at the situation, I not only see the direct damage done by these policies, but also the extended and exponentially larger political paradigm that's responsible for changing laws to redefine certain Americans as inferior. Is that a danger/threat you feel you can at least agree with in theory?

Antonyh, Simpleman et al, what I’m trying to determine here is whether we’re disagreeing on the legitimacy of the protest or the legitimacy of the threat being protested against.

Pretend that all of these schools were openly exercising their religious freedom to teach that homosexuals “must be put to death,” and that their students should craft, pass and vote for such legislation/amendments. Save the details, imagine now that a movement to make this Biblical belief a reality begins to gain momentum and you can clearly see the potential of it’s imminent danger.

Would you then think it time to break the law by trespassing for the sake of drawing attention to it, or would you still say that we should respect their views as religious freedom, and continue to "talk" in order to resolve our differences?

I’m not asking anyone to agree with me. I’m trying to determine what point we are disagreeing on, and to what extent we are disagreeing on it – the legitimacy of breaking the law in protest, or the legitimacy of the level of the threat required to break the law in protest?

[kara speltz]

I don’t see any indication that the motive of the Equality Ride is to deny religious freedom to have these policies, quite to the contrary it seems that the intention is to draw attention to what harm they continue to do with their religious freedom even AFTER having been presented with evidence of their harmful consequences:That's the result of what they teach their gay students, and these are the results of what they teach their straight students:



Exactly, Emproph. There is no attempt to deny religious freedom. It is trying to call attention to the damage that these teachings cause. Let's change the analogy and go back to the days of slavery when the Southern Baptist split off because they defended slavery. Even though it's their right to preach this and claim it comes from God, it is our right to protest it.

And in the process the Equality Riders are helping young people see that we LGBTs are more like them than we are unlike them, and in that they are building what King described as the "Beloved Community."

Kara

[andrewlittle]

The layers of society are many, and serve different functions. It would seem that the most sacrosanct should be that which forms the most essential building blocks of society. Of course, that depends on the form of society and government that a country has.

In states that are religiously totalitarian, the essential building blocks will be religious doctrine to which all other facets of society must conform. In communist countries, the "good" of the majority is the essential building block, and individual, family or religious rights take a back seat, or don't have a seat.

We live in a democratic republic - not a democracy, which would vest the power in the individuals that make up the population. Hence, we are governed by people who represent the interests of the voting populace.

Even so, the individual and the family unit would generally be the essential building block of our society. Our form of government, then, established methods by which individuals and families, who make up minority portions of the population, are protected from being denied rights and discriminated against by the majority. There were also avenues built in the system by which minority populations have a voice and right of appeal in governance.

In the cases of abolishing slavery, women's right to full citizenship and equality, and rights of racial equality, to mention a few, these essential rights were not automatically granted, but had to be wrested from goverment over long periods of time. In each of these cases, the bulk of the "evidence" against allowing the rights in the first place was "religious rhetoric" that was translated into civil law. The Bible and religious views of the majority were argued against the rights of the minority. ("Minority" used in the case of women shows that a minority is not defined by number, but by representation. Women were the majority by a small margin, but lacked equal representation and the right to vote on that representation). These rights were gained, to the extent that that has been achieved, by combatting both the laws and the religious rhetoric used to promulgate discrimination.

Freedom of religion and freedom from religion are both granted in the constitution. The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The government cannot establish a state religion. The government cannot prohibit free exercise of religion. In spite of this, action had to be taken by citizens to strip or alter laws that, at there hearts, had religious underpinnings.

While someone’s right, as an individual, family or church, to hold religious beliefs that men are superior or whites are superior - or that women and people of color are essentially sinful - is protected, the ability to enact laws based on those religious viewpoints, or the right to act on those tenets in ways that limit or violate the rights of other individuals has been curtailed - well, it's still a work in progress. Sigh.

To use an extreme example - Fred Phelp's followers can believe that people they categorize as sinners deserve to die - even to the point of believing they have a God-given edict to do so. By law, however, they are not allowed to enforce their religious judgment on other people - they can't kill people based on their beliefs. The right to believe is protected, but the right to act on that belief in society is not.

Likewise, a person’s, family’s or church’s stand that people of color or women are inferior or inherently sinful is protected as their belief. They can no longer, however, legally institute that belief into the law of the land, or act in society that in anyway takes away those person’s rights to equal standing under the law. A person of this faith cannot overtly discriminate in employment practices or business dealings because of that doctrinal discrimination. Ad they do not have the right to legislate their bias and discrimination into law.

Educational institutions are not churches. They serve to educate the citizens of this country. They can, and are certainly allowed to educate according to their beliefs, but in doing so they are educating people who will engage in culture beyond family and church. Among the principles that they can teach are those that stand against facts and knowledge held by secular organizations and government, since they can teach beliefs which are elements of their faith.

If such an institution taught that black people were genetically inferior to humans, and that they were inherently sinful and destined to go to hell, I would consider it the right of black people and their allies to campaign vehemently against such teachings, especially when some portion of their student base was black. Likewise with protesting the teaching of tenets that claimed women are inferior. Even though the teaching is occurring in a private institution, the effect of those lessons would have more far-reaching effects into the society as a whole. Can they be legally restrained from doing so – no. That does not, however, mean it is improper to campaign against their teachings and to reach out to those members of their student body who wish to hear the contrary message.

This is the case with teaching that being GLBT is a “choice”. It is counter to the vaste majority of social science research. You can believe what you will, but to teach as fact that there is no biological imperative to being GLBT is to teach an untruth. Graduates, then, can leave that institution and vote in accord with that belief and institute law based on religious doctrine that denies the personhood and full citizenry of GLBT persons.

The laws denying full rights to GLBT persons are based on religious rhetoric and belief that has been elevated to the status of legislation. That is the similarity with the race and gender movements, religious bias is currently institutionalized into culture. The basis of these laws is not fact, but belief – and before the issue of faith is raised, faith is the belief in that which is beyond proof. Belief is not necessarily fact. Some religious colleges and universities participate in the dissemination of falsehoods, and in discriminating against portions of their student body, and, as such, are fair game for protesting.

You, of course, are free to disagree. If you do, I strongly suggest you do not protest against them. You can even protest against those who protest against them. That is your right.

As far as the legitimacy of trespassing in non-violent protest, ad the fact that Gandhi and King never did such things, please see:http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=23444&postcount=8

[NathanATX]

Thanks for sharing this. Very interesting. If you or someone here can document any or all of the above, or point us to documentation, I would very much appreciate it.

I "googled" Coretta Scott King Soulforce and came up with numerous articles. Here's one:

Inspired beginning of Soulforce
http://www.sovo.com/2006/2-3/news/localnews/king.cfm

Mel White, founder of Soulforce, an organization dedicated to ending "spiritual violence" against gay men and lesbians through non-violent actions against anti-gay churches and religious institutions, credits Mrs. King for "giving birth" to the group.

It was in 1995 when White, who used to ghostwrite for Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson before accepting he was gay, was arrested for trespassing at Robertson’s CBN Broadcast Center to protest his anti-gay rhetoric. White spent 21 days in jail where he fasted.

During that time, Mrs. King sent her longtime executive assistant, Lynn Cothren, a gay man, to the jail to speak to him about non-violence and the term "soul force" used by Gandhi, later adopted by Martin Luther King Jr.

"She was my mother in faith," White said of Mrs. King. "She taught me that non-violence is something you do, it’s not something you don’t do. She literally gave birth to Soulforce. Her legacy and Dr. King’s legacy is we have to take it to the streets — we have to escalate and stigmatize these people who preach homophobia."

I did the same thing with Arun Ghandi.

Soulforce to Protest Religious Intolerance
http://www.glaad.org/publications/archive_detail.php?id=479&PHPSESSID=f

May 01, 2000

Timed to coincide with the May 2-12 United Methodist General Conference in Cleveland, Soulforce, an interfaith organization seeking justice for sexual minorities, has planned a nonviolent direct action for May 10. This follows the group's day of nonviolent training on May 9. The May 10 date is when the archbishop of Canterbury and various other ecumenical leaders are scheduled to make an appearance at the conference. Joining Soulforce is Arun Gandhi, grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, and Yolanda King, daughter of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Also in attendance will be several leaders from the black civil rights
movement, including Rev. Dr. James Lawson, a close associate of the elder King and current chair of the Fellowship of Reconciliation; and the Rev. Dr. Robert Graetz, who took part in the Montgomery bus boycott in
1955-1956. Soulforce Co-founder the Rev. Dr. Mel White said his group will be in Cleveland starting today. Their goal is to have church leaders put an end to anti-gay teachings and positions. "It is time that this thing
[religious anti-gay discrimination] stop and be ended," White said. "It is
causing so many people to suffer." Participants will join in candlelight
vigils throughout the week and prepare for the May 10 action. On that day, the group will try to enter the conference floor to stage a prayer-in.

They have been told by conference organizers to stay out. White said he, Gandhi, King and the others fully expect to be arrested. "This is no symbolic moment," he said. "This is a real civil disobedience. Those arrested will be fined, be subject to 30 days in jail and will have a record." Contact White at 949-455-0999 for more information or access www.soulforce.org

[Emproph]

The layers of society are many, and serve different functions... Educational institutions... serve to educate the citizens of this country... people who will engage in culture beyond family and church...

Brilliant :applause: absolutely brilliant :applause:

I won't have to Google again for months...

[revtj]

At the Christian College I attended, I did not think at the time that my rights were being denied or that I was being discriminated against. But let me tell you what I experienced:

I could not bring up the fact that I was gay with anyone, especially dear friends I cherished, because I would've been dropped socially and become one of several shunned people on campus who had no friends and were ignored.

I went to the library to learn more about what homosexuality was. All I could find were books filled with emotional hate language and biblical notions of depravity, disgust, disgrace, etc. I once went behind the library counter near the Librarian's office and I saw a book with 'homosexual' in the title. It wasn't allowed on the shelves or in regular circulation. If I wanted to read it, that meant asking at the desk for it. What would they say? I never asked, I just couldn't. Why?

A whisper campaign followed me around. There were some people who avoided me and seemed disgusted by me. I was effeminate. Had I come out, these people would've led the campaign to get me thrown out. I knew this very well. How could I come out when I didn't have any information about what gay was?

I listened to many a sermon and class lecture in which homosexuality and homosexuals were put in to a concrete, dreadful category, "abomination," "reprobate," "given over..." There was only one biblical position so far as I was allowed to learn there, and that was that I was categorically and irretrievably evil, "worthy of death."

The straight people who were heavy-petting in the lobby late at night did not live with this extreme fear of who they were or what they were doing or wanting to do: they were 'natural' and 'normal' and 'healthy,' and their sin, if it was ever mentioned, was taken with a wink and a smile.

I could go on and on. But suffice it to say that it was a homophobic culture which covertly and overtly threatened me with hell and abandonment by God and the people I loved inside a community I needed for growth and sustenance.

I say that was not just, not fair, not right, not loving, not christian, and even immoral. I stand against it and would risk my life for the one student going through now what I went through then.

[tdogg]

When an arrest becomes possible Soulforce crosses the line from free speech (encouraged) to a violation of a colleges right to freedom of religion on their own property.

Arrests are possible in many situations that I don't think you would agree necessarily that the arrest was letigimate. I'm not saying the ER Riders were not arrested for legitimate legal purposes, I'm not there and do not have first-hand experience of any of the arrest actions. However, I can vouch for many gay and lesbian activists who were arrested for sitting on a public sidewalk, for making speeches in public places, for non-violent non-verbal actions in public places.

The Riders aren't trying to change anyone's faith including the institution as a whole. The Riders are engaging in non-violent actions including non-violent civil disobedience which they fully understand may subject them to the possibility of arrests and penalties. It seems that they have undergone extensive training and preparation (thanks Kara for the news on that) and they are aware of what to expect as far as possibilities. They are engaging in the ER actions in attempts to open dialogue with students, faculty and administrators at the selected schools, to provide them with information on how the schools' rules and regulations negatively impact students (and staff as well). There have been several posts in various threads explaining how the rules, regulations, attitudes and beliefs have seriously impacted many, and some to great detriment. This is what is unacceptable.

Sometimes, the need for great change can upset people, cause them stress and make them feel invaded. That's the nature of change. Change is desparately needed for the safety and security of our youth and for everyone. If we at times feel badly about it, it's time to do some meditating and soul searching within ourselves to determine what the underlying issues might be, and how we can approach the change in a positive way.

Rev TJ, thanks for sharing your experience as a student in such an intimate, personal and relevant way. Just another outstanding example of why the ER actions are so significant and vital to equality and freedom for everyone.

[antonyh]

This is my last post on this thread. Soulforce needs to put aside the hysteria that results from being gay in a Christian college (I graduated from one, I know) and look objectively at the work they are doing in light of the larger civil rights movement in this country and in light of the civil rights work of the past.

[Emproph]

The seeds planted at BYU blossom into the knives, pills, nooses, guns and other devices that our youth are using to destroy themselves. link (http://www.soulforce.org/blogs/category/2007-west-bus/)
Soulforce needs to put aside the hysteria that results from being gay in a Christian college
What's a few lives lost here and there?

[Zerbie]

This is my last post on this thread. Soulforce needs to put aside the hysteria that results from being gay in a Christian college (I graduated from one, I know) and look objectively at the work they are doing in light of the larger civil rights movement in this country and in light of the civil rights work of the past.

Simpleman has started a thread of revolutionary importance to Soulforce. I have yet to read a well reasoned, credible refutation of what he has said.

The 'secular' gay rights movement agrees with him.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/95/HB/PDF/09500HB1826ham001.pdf

Antony, I was with you until this post (not saying I disagree with the Ride but that I could see validity to the points you raised.) But this last post was insulting to the many caring, extremely intelligent people who voiced all manner of deeply considered, even critical, issues and concerns on this thread.

Also Antony, there is no one unified "secular" gay rights movement. Go read some of the history of the gay rights movement - disagreement and fractures attend the movement every step of the way. For countless gay rights actions, there was a group of angry gay folk who said it was "not enough" and that the action needed to be more radical, and there was also a group that said it "goes too far" and that we need to hold back, be nice, and not upset anyone so we could work within the system.

There is disagreement. Instead of getting angry and fighting with those on our own "team," (so to speak,) let's voice our concerns calmly and intelligently, without insulting those whose perspective is different. Only time will tell if they are "wrong," or not. Meanwhile, for everyone's sake, I hope and pray you are mistaken in your assessment of the Ride's effectiveness.

As to that Illinois caveat, I think it's terribly sad that people feel it needs to be written into the law that extending relationship recognition to gay couples will not interfere with a church's right to marry or not marry couples at its discretion. When we planned our wedding, we interviewed a minister about officiated, but he also interviewed us, and had a right to refuse to marry us if his conscience so dictated. That caveat should not need to be said. :(

[Emproph]

Thank you Zerbie, I thought that was a well said and gracious response.
~~
And thank you TJ for sharing your story. Like you said, I'm sure you could go on and on, but I thought it was a good illustration of at least some of what your experience was like, something I've been curious about since we've been discussing these issues lately.
~~
And Andrew, again, I thought that last post was a really well thought out overview. Definitely food for thought.
~~
Emproph:
When you say "It occurs to me that you think I'm still up for debate." Was this supposed to be a joke because you think that I believe people themselves to be moral structures in themselves? Because I don't believe that. I'm not here to debate anyone on their own moral structure nor am I here to comment on the nature of sexuality. I came to discuss the marked difference between the public and private sides of society with respect to Constitutional Law.I apologize simpleman, that was cryptic on my part and I should have been clearer. Zerbie clarified what I meant, quite adeptly I might add.
Taking up what I see in Emproph's (and your) words: we are looking at a conflict between a "moral structure" that prohibits gay-ness versus the state of being gay.

It's a 'moral' argument against existing. It's not two conflicting moral structures, at its core, it's people merely being, who are assailed with "moral" arguments why they should not be.
[snip]
What I hear you saying is that since some people have taken a theoretical and MORAL stance about his being, therefore those beliefs, being "moral structures," deserve to be automatically elevated.
I realize that you personally weren’t trying to or think that I’m up for debate, but by equating the goals of Soulforce with the “moral stance” of these schools, it’s a passive endorsement/legitimization of their position.

I think Zerbie articulated that in that last paragraph quoted above, as well as Daniel did here:
I'm afraid you make it sound as though the two 'sides' are somehow equal. Nothing could be further from the truth. One of those sides does not have equal rights.
The principle of your argument still works, what I’m saying is that the fundamental differences of the two sides need to be acknowledged in order for it to work fairly.

Like Zerbie said, ‘it’s complicated,’ and we may never come to a resolution, but if we at all hope to, I think it behooves us both to understand our disagreements as specifically as possible.
~~
I know I shouldn't speak for Emproph...Well than that was some mighty fine extrapolation ma’am. :cowboy:

[dsdrane]

Hysteria -- the old chestnut flung out when an argument has run out of gas.

(Mixing metaphors is fun!)

Antonyh: you don't get it. I pray you do one day.

David

[revtj]

Hysteria? I missed that...

How about tired and wounded?

How about giving me back the 12 years of my life during which I thought I couldn't be a christian?

King said at the March on Washington that America had written Black people a bad check. That's the same as I see the church and it's agents have done to its LGBT members. We are told God loves us only if we qualify. It's like we all bought the losing lottery tickets.

You know what? The church was wrong about anti- Judaism, but it's in the bible. The church was wrong about slavery, but it's in the bible. The church was wrong about AIDS, but they quoted that "due penalty in their bodies" scripture for over 10 years, and they were wrong.

I think Soulforce is calling a reasonable question to the table.

[antonyh]

I've edited out the word "credible" from my post. Your responses are credible and I don't want you to get the impression that I think otherwise.

[Zerbie]

I've edited out the word "credible" from my post. Your responses are credible and I don't want you to get the impression that I think otherwise.

Thank you. :) :love:

[scott snedeker]

No matter how much Soulforce protests, these colleges have the constitutional right to the free exercise of their faith on their own properties. You can get arrested a thousand times and freedom of religion will still be in the constitution.

Some freedom of religion,yes but not unlimited freedom of religion.
The constitution does not entitle any religious institution to break the law.

For example: In medical practice, if a child of jehovah's witnesses who needs a blood transffusion to survive and the parents refuse it based on their belief, this constitutes a felony. With a telephone call to a judge from the physician the parents lose custody of the child and the child becomes a ward of the state that instant. The parents are led away by police and the child is treated

Do these colleges have the right to their religious views about homosexuality? Yes they do.

Again Antony not always. Not if their practice and policy breaks the law. For example they could not deny enrollment based on african heritage, even if their belief is that blacks are morally inferior. That is illegal.

And Here is the sticky part, Antony. If Homosexuality is officially recognized as a minority then they are breaking the law.

Recognition of homosexuality as a trait of a minority is the mission of the Soulforce Riders.

The law is that no policy or practice of an organization can discriminate against a minority. We are that minority. The enforcers of the law do not recognize that. This lack of recognition of our entitlement of our protection of the law is an example of the law enforcers breaking that law.

Therefore response must be Civil Disobedience. Hence the Equality Ride.


When Soulforce invades their properties and demands that they change their beliefs against their will, do you think Soulforce may be disrespecting their religious freedom, their "first liberty"?


I feel that in your argument that you may be confusing their religious freedom with what I believe to be an erroneous entitlement to dehumanize gay people.

I would like for you to ask yourself. Is it possible that your sense of entitlement to equal protection under nondiscrimination laws is undeveloped because of the oppression to which you were subjected in your youth. Think about it. I think that you have a profound self-discovery in store. A really good one that will lift you spiritually.

If you were black, and in this whole discussion we substituted black for gay, would you be defending their religious freedom to deny you attendance because they believed you to be morally inferior?

I myself feel as entitled to exercise Civil Disobedience as any other minority. I recognize, however, that my sense of entitlement still has a long way to go before it is restored to par with the rest who are protected by the constitution. We are works in progress.

[Daniel]

This is my last post on this thread. Soulforce needs to put aside the hysteria that results from being gay in a Christian college (I graduated from one, I know) and look objectively at the work they are doing in light of the larger civil rights movement in this country and in light of the civil rights work of the past.

Anthony,

I find these words very significant.

Those who have articulated their tribulations about being gay and attending a Christian school (I am among them) do not take kindly to being told that they are hysterical and cannot think objectively.

To be frank, if you had an ounce of compassion, you would withdrawl this charge. It only serves to brand you as unfeeling and strips any argument you might make- no matter how 'objective' you may think it is- of any weight. Not only does it keep the substance of your thinking from being heard, it also ensures that you will never truly understand those to whom you are speaking.

I encourage you to reevaluate your position.

I would also like to offer words attributed to John Boswell - which- since I cannot remember the exact wording- I paraphrase here:

"You can't argue a person out a position they weren't argued into."

[antonyh]

Dear Daniel:

I've been through as much pain as anyone on this forum and I know first hand how this blunts my objectivity to arguments from the outside.

I just feel that members of Soulforce are having a difficult time weighing Simpleman's arguments due to the emotional feelings surrounding the issue. I am not saying that these feelings are wrong or should not be honored. I am saying that we should put our feelings in parenthesis while we evaluate Simplemans arguments.

I am not convinced that Soulforce is acting wisely by getting arrested on the private properties of Christian colleges protected by first amendment religious freedom. I wonder if we are intruding on their civil liberties.

It takes a fair amount of dispassion to think about this objectively.

[Daniel]

Dear Daniel:

I've been through as much pain as anyone on this forum. My experience in the Assemblies of God hurt me to the core of my being. I've had to rebuild my life brick-by-brick. I've gone through hysteria about my treatment and I know first hand how this blunts my objectivity to arguments from the outside.

I just feel that members of Soulforce are having a difficult time weighing Simpleman's arguments due to the emotional feelings surrounding the issue. I am not saying that these feelings are wrong or should not be honored. I am saying that we should put our feelings in parenthesis while we evaluate Simplemans arguments.

I am not convinced that Soulforce is acting wisely or justly in getting arrested on the private properties of Christian colleges protected by first amendment religious freedom. I wonder if we are intruding on their civil liberties.

It takes a fair amount of dispassion to think about this objectively.

Indeed it does.

I know of the pain that you speak of because I share it. I've had to build my life brick by brick as well. But I hope we are not going to be comparing our victim status here. That would take us hopelessly off track, would it not?

My perspective is that no person, no matter their experience, cannot- and should not- divorce him or herself from the sum of that experience- as if one can separate the head from the heart. That's not being objective. That's dissociation.

Dissociation is a psychological state or condition in which certain thoughts, emotions, sensations, or memories are separated from the rest of the psyche. For this reason, it is sometimes referred to as "splitting."


Can passion lead people and organizations to make fatal errors in judgement? Certainly! There is no doubt about that. But I do not think that is the issue here.

While you are busy worrying about intruding on the civil liberities of Christian Colleges with punitive policies, you might consider that gay persons attending those colleges are being stripped of their civil rights. Can you think of a better way to go about nonviolence protest of those policies? Or do you believe that nothing should be done about those policies? Would you feel the same way if those policies targeted jews or blacks?

I am all for having compassion for those who are suffering. Our own suffering. The suffering of those who, in their ignorance, cause others suffering. But to honor another persons ignorance- which is what is seems to me you are bucking for- by positing it is their civil right to do so- and by doing so causing more suffering- strikes me as neither ethically or legally sound.

[antonyh]

...you might consider that gay persons attending those colleges are being stripped of their civil rights...


We have freedom of association, the right of free adults to mutually choose their associates for whatever purpose they see fit. We can choose not to attend Christian colleges or to leave them.


While you are busy worrying about intruding on the civil liberties of Christ Colleges with punitive policies...


I'm actually worried that intruding on the civil liberties of these private Christian colleges may hurt the progress of gay rights in this country. Can we really ask for our civil liberties if we don't respect the civil liberties of others?


Can you think of a better way to go about nonviolence protest of those policies?"


Publish your story on the Internet. Create a youtube video telling your story. Speak about your pain to your friends and family. Write letters to the newspaper. Write letters to the administration. Express your feelings on the alumni forum. Put on plays. Broadcast your story on the radio. Purchase a bulletin board on the highway. There are many, many creative ways to protest without crossing onto the private space where they practice their religion.

Dissociation. I was talking about intentional dispassion, not psychological dissociation.

[Zerbie]

I like the ideas, Antony. The one thing they lack, though, is the group energy behind them, which the SF Ride does have. Well, and they mostly lack the three-dimensional element of human contact. But I think they are important things that many more of us could be doing. Thanks for the suggestions. :)

[Daniel]

What about the other question? Hmmmm? The one about who would you feel if these policies were geared towards jews and blacks? Or are gay people not worthy of protected status under the law?

And I don't buy your argument for this reason- and it has been presented here already.

Gay people are born into religiously conservative families. Can they simply leave those families and go to another one?

No. They cannot.

And why should they? It's the same kind of argument you are making about colleges. Sure they can leave them. But why should they have to? Sorry, but your 'emotional logic' does not make sense to me.

[dsdrane]

"...you might consider that gay persons attending those colleges are being stripped of their civil rights..."

We have freedom of association, the right of free adults to mutually choose their associates for whatever purpose they see fit. We can choose not to attend Christian colleges or to leave them.

This assumes someone knows they're GLBT and is able to make a conscious choice about where they attend college by the time they're 18. I don't know about you, but I didn't have that knowledge when I was looking at schools. And what of the student who doesn't have a choice in the matter, because of parents/money/etc.? What if they are deeply closeted?

These schools cause harm. It is wrong and it is completely unnecessary. The "legality" is beside the point. The failure to see this results in appeasement and, as such, will bear part of the guilt for lives harmed.

[antonyh]

What about the other question? Hmmmm? The one about who would you feel if these policies were geared towards jews and blacks? Or are gay people not worthy of protected status under the law?"


As much as I detest the KKK and Fred Phelps, as long as they are not receiving funding from the government, they are free to exclude African Americans and gay and lesbian people from their ranks. The government can't discriminate, but private organizations can. As mentioned before, I am free to not associate with them.


"...buy your argument..."


These are not my arguments, I'm not that smart. They are constitutional arguments set up to cope with the fantastic diversity of people and opinion in this country. At the end of the day we are all Americans, we all love this country and have to find a way to live together respectfully as neighbors.


This assumes someone knows they're GLBT and is able to make a conscious choice about where they attend college by the time they're 18. I don't know about you, but I didn't have that knowledge when I was looking at schools. And what of the student who doesn't have a choice in the matter, because of parents/money/etc.? What if they are deeply closeted?


I was called into the ministry and that took me to Central Bible College and was too connected with those circles to really understand my sexual orientation. I was only able to throw off my oppression when I was 26. I understand the psychological realities you are talking about, but this does not mean my freedom of association was not there.

In my case I simply did not know any gay people and there was no real visibility of the issue in the culture (silence = death). I hope that LGBT people today have more information and can exercise their right to freedom of association much earlier.


"Religiously conservative families..."


The thread is about Soulforce and their activisim at private religious institutions. Discussing the rights of parents to raise their children would open a whole new thicket of issues. So I am going to intentionally side step this one.

[dsdrane]

I was called into the ministry and that took me to Central Bible College and was too connected with those circles to really understand my sexual orientation. I was only able to throw off my oppression when I was 26. I understand the psychological realities you are talking about, but this does not mean my freedom of association was not there.

In my case I simply did not know any gay people and there was no real visibility of the issue in the culture (silence = death). I hope that LGBT people today have more information and can exercise their right to freedom of association much earlier.

That's what we all want and hope. You were 26; I was 22; Daniel was ??; but I bet we all would have come out earlier and had much less pain, had we not been taught explicitly and implicitly, however inadvertantly by choices we made (or were made for us) or with whom we chose (or others chose for us) to associate, that we were damaged goods unworthy of love or respect.

We are beat up before we even know why we're getting beat up.

I didn't know any gay people in my south-central Maine mill town either; but, what I did know, was that they were outcasts to be pitied (oh, those liberal New Englanders!) And, as a result, I suffered damage and was programmed way before I even self-identified as one of "them". Society -- public and private -- did that, and no one has that right. It might be perfectly legal, but, morally and ethically, no one has that right.

That is what Soulforce is trying to address. And discussions like this -- which I believe are positive and absolutely necessary -- are the fruits of their labors.

[keltic63]

"What about the other question? Hmmmm? The one about who would you feel if these policies were geared towards jews and blacks? Or are gay people not worthy of protected status under the law?"

As much as I detest the KKK and Fred Phelps, as long as they are not receiving funding from the government, they are free to exclude African Americans and gay and lesbian people from their ranks. The government can't discriminate, but private organizations can. As mentioned before, I am free to not associate with them.

we're not talking about such extreme and well-known groups here antony. there are indeed small religious groups who still hold the beliefs that Daniel mentioned. There are also some religious groups who oppress women. Young women in those families/churches may find it impossible to escape that "association." should no one speak out against that oppression as well?

"...buy your argument..."

These are not my arguments,

let me speak as moderator here; Own your statements or don't make them.

I'm not that smart. They are constitutional arguments set up to cope with the fantastic diversity of people and opinion in this country. At the end of the day we are all Americans, we all love this country and have to find a way to live together respectfully as neighbors.

do we then ignore the screams coming from our neighbor's house? after all, it is private property.

"This assumes someone knows they're GLBT and is able to make a conscious choice about where they attend college by the time they're 18. I don't know about you, but I didn't have that knowledge when I was looking at schools. And what of the student who doesn't have a choice in the matter, because of parents/money/etc.? What if they are deeply closeted?"

I was called into the ministry and that took me to Central Bible College and was too connected with those circles to really understand my sexual orientation. I was only able to throw off my oppression when I was 26. I understand the psychological realities you are talking about, but this does not mean my freedom of association was not there.

this may only imply that you had more freedom than others; it does not mean that all students, by the age of 18 have the some freedom of association, nor does it imply that they have clearly identified who they are, nor have they all recognized their orientation.

In my case I simply did not know any gay people and there was no real visibility of the issue in the culture (silence = death). I hope that LGBT people today have more information and can exercise their right to freedom of association much earlier.

"Religiously conservative families..."

The thread is about Soulforce and their activisim at private religious institutions. Discussing the rights of parents to raise their children would open a whole new thicket of issues. So I am going to intentionally side step this one.

YOU introduced the idea of freedom of association, suggesting that all students attending christian colleges know exactly what the policies are, the implications of such policies, as well as implying that those students are self-realized enough to have already acknowledged their identity/orientation. Once again, I'm going to ask you to own your statements and back them, don't run away from them.

on a technical note, please review the multi-quote function, it makes the thread easier to read, and helps us understand to whom you are replying.

[antonyh]

Very angry and emotional response.


"Own your statements or don't make them"


I do own my statements, but they are not original to me. They are constitutional arguments.

[keltic63]

Very angry and emotional response.

"Own your statements or don't make them"

I do own my statements, but they are not original to me. They are constitutional arguments.

yes, it is angry. I've been watching this thread for quite some time without commenting. I felt it was time.

So, are you saying that you have no original thoughts, no opinions of your own? If you make a statement, do not back away from it by saying that it is not your own when someone asks you to explain what you mean.

history: in the past, we've had posters make anti-lgbt statements then disown them by saying that it wasn't really their opinion, but rather the opinion or statement of others. Those posters were able to post a fair amount of negative rhetoric by using that strategy. As it turned out, those posters were also anti-lgbt. Since that time, I've tried to hold our members accountable for the statements that they post. Most members do that. I become suspicious when a member "disowns" their statements.

[andrewlittle]

Very angry and emotional response.

"Own your statements or don't make them"

I do own my statements, but they are not original to me. They are constitutional arguments.

As Keltic said there are occasional posts where someone posits arguments, defends them vehemently, and then disavows ownership of them. It is cause for anger. But anger is not unique to keltic. I have heard some in your posts, too.

The bottom line, here, is that there appears to be circular arguments going on, without any indication that movement is going to occur. That doesn't mean anybody's wrong, per se, just that there appears to be no middle ground. I stopped posting after being informed I didn't make any intelligent remarks.

I contend that you are not inclined to listen to other people's point of view, and they to your's, so can we just call this a thread and have done with it. Seeing the same arguments repeated again and again is frustrating and does create anger.

You don't think the E-Riders should have done what they are doing. Good for you. But you didn't plan or participate in the Ride. If you think something else should be done - then DO IT. Quit talking and DO IT.

[Zerbie]

Okay, guys, calm down. :love: :love: :love: I think I see what is happening here.

Emotionally, I keep landing in the same place as Daniel and Keltic, and DSdrane, - as much as we would like young people to be fully self-aware when entering college, and able to comprehend what kind of situation they are entering into (as LGBT kids walking in to a school with highly discriminatory policies,) many (most?? who knows?) are not. I would like to see policies change too, so that the kinds of things Daniel, RevTJ, and so many others suffered through don't capsize another generation of young people.

As I see it, Antony is articulating the non-emotional aspect, the technicality, of what's going on. That, even though many gay kids aren't self-aware enough or ready enough (or whatever enough) to be out and choose to avoid these schools, on the technical side, that lack of perspective is not the school's responsibility.

This is one of those scenarios where the technicality is within the law, but the lived experience is, to whatever degree, unethical. The disagreement I'm observing is not over whether kids at these schools may be psychologically harmed, but of how much "outsiders" can do to rectify the situation. What are the boundaries? How do we persuade without crossing boundaries that perhaps (in Antony's opinion if I'm correct) should not be crossed?

I think the problem answering that is that the boundaries are a moving target. Each individual and each institution is going to define its boundary lines differently, and that may change with time. We are probably never going to see 100% agreement amongst ourselves that we are going about the process of change in the best way. What matters is that we try. That we dialogue with one another, and if we disagree on the tactics, that we remember we share the same goal. If one of us screws it up royally, then let's turn around and help fix it and do better the next time.

OT: Keltic - I still have NO idea how to use the multi-quote feature. :confused:

[keltic63]

OT: Keltic - I still have NO idea how to use the multi-quote feature. :confused:

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=10670&postcount=2

:D You're welcome.

[Daniel]

As much as I detest the KKK and Fred Phelps, as long as they are not receiving funding from the government, they are free to exclude African Americans and gay and lesbian people from their ranks. The government can't discriminate, but private organizations can. As mentioned before, I am free to not associate with them.

Anthony- what you have not answered is the question of protected class status for gay persons. You continually harp on the right of free assocation, but do not seem to give much objective thought to the central issue of freedom from oppression.

These are not my arguments, I'm not that smart. They are constitutional arguments set up to cope with the fantastic diversity of people and opinion in this country. At the end of the day we are all Americans, we all love this country and have to find a way to live together respectfully as neighbors.

As as been pointed out by others on this thread, what you consider to be a constiutional issue amounts to a red herring. As such, you are simply offering the same kind of argument which was proffered at the beginning of the civil rights movement, which amounted to "Shut up and sit down...If we're nice to the people who abuse us they might...just might...give us our rights."

I was called into the ministry and that took me to Central Bible College and was too connected with those circles to really understand my sexual orientation. I was only able to throw off my oppression when I was 26. I understand the psychological realities you are talking about, but this does not mean my freedom of association was not there.

What do you mean "my freedom of association was not there"? If the ERide had been there 10 years prior, your freedom of association may have been a greal deal different. But if we follow your line of thinking, no direct action would take place. Zerbie makes a interesting observation. None of the suggestions you offer involve direct involvment- that is- human to human contact.

My friend....what are you afraid of?

In my case I simply did not know any gay people and there was no real visibility of the issue in the culture (silence = death). I hope that LGBT people today have more information and can exercise their right to freedom of association much earlier.


Information is not the same thing as freedom. This places the burden on those that are oppressed and does nothing about the oppression itself.

That's what we all want and hope. You were 26; I was 22; Daniel was ??; but I bet we all would have come out earlier and had much less pain, had we not been taught explicitly and implicitly, however inadvertantly by choices we made (or were made for us) or with whom we chose (or others chose for us) to associate, that we were damaged goods unworthy of love or respect.That is what Soulforce is trying to address. And discussions like this -- which I believe are positive and absolutely necessary -- are the fruits of their labors.

I was 27-28.

[dsdrane]

Z., you are the beez kneez.

:love: :cookie:

[tdogg]

Andy,
Thanks for your post, I agree with you on the point of arguments on this thread going nowhere - we are all entitled to our opinions of whether or not the ER action should or shouldn't be done. Somewhere along the line, we'll have to agree to disagree because Antony appears to be firm in his stance and there are those of here firm on ours. I appreciate your directness and simplified approach to what's going on here - makes sense to me.

Antony,
I get what you are trying to say here, but I also get that actions such as the Equality Ride are necessary to faciliate equality and civil rights for everyone, not just a select group. See, the ongoing fight for civil rights for various folks have included drastic actions - much more drastic than the ER - in order to progress and succeed. People aren't going to like it, people are going to get arrested, vandalism will occur, there may even be violence (assaults, killings), people are going to throw themselves into a risky position both in reputation and in body/mind. Things are going to happen that wil inspire anger and hatred and all sorts of negative reactions. There is no argument there. But actions are needed in this instance, and yes, throughout history in the progress towards civil rights for all.

In that regard, do what Daniel suggested - put yourself in someone else's position mentally. Pretend you are a woman, pretend it's the 1700 or 1800s here in the US - you cannot vote, you are relegated to finding a man, bearing numerous children, doing all the household and many of the farm chores - you have just about NO other choice except to be disowned and left destitute if you try to attempt any other possibility for your life. What would you do to change this?

I highly suggest you read Making Gay History - don't have the author off-hand, book at work right now - but believe me, experiences of many who have gone before us were severe, especially considering the time in which they happened. The ER action is fairly mild compared to a lot of what gays and lesbians had to do to come out in America (as well as anywhere else). Keep in mind, equality and civil rights are COMPLETELY SEPARATE than religious opinions, practices and faith beliefs. The conflict often lies when we confuse the two and try to think of them simultaneously. Civil rights is what the ER is all about, and ending religious oppression is but one part of gaining civil rights.

[antonyh]

My Soulforce Dream List:

1) That Soulforce would establish a home that could serve as a safe haven for gay and lesbian youth trapped in spiritually violent homes or colleges. This is really important because in my volunteer work with homeless youth in Chicago, thirty percent of them were gay or lesbian. This is a disproportionate number. There is a genuine need for this kind of safe haven run by people that genuinely understand.

2) That Soulforce would address the spiritual violence flowing out of religion in every creative way possible without crossing over into private religious space protected by the constitution. I would conduct letter campaigns, collect our stories, put up web sites, write books, create bumper stickers, make movies, upload utube video, conduct forums, do radio and TV interviews, write and direct plays that travel the country...the list is endless.

3) That Soulforce would focus the efforts of relentless, nonviolent resistance to inequality in the law. We need hate crimes laws and marriage laws. Dr. Martin Luther Kings efforts were always focused on discriminatory, unjust laws in this country.

4) That Soulforce would meet the religious right in every attempt they make to resist the advance of our civil rights. For instance, Indiana is trying to amend their state constitution to ban gay marriage. Did you know that the Indiana State House was overflowing with the religious right pushing their agenda to derail our civil rights:

http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6287491

Where was Soulforce?

This is such an important time in history for us. We need to be thoughtful about where and how we focus our efforts.

Signing out...I love you all :)

[keltic63]

My Soulforce Dream List:

1) That Soulforce would establish a home that could serve as a safe haven for gay and lesbian youth trapped in spiritually violent homes or colleges. This is really important because in my volunteer work with homeless youth in Chicago, thirty percent of them were gay or lesbian. This is a disproportionate number. There is a genuine need for this kind of safe haven run by people that genuinely understand.

this is certainly a problem in this country. I know of another organization that works to help students in this particular dilemma. There may be a time that soulforce can address this problem as well.

2) That Soulforce would address the spiritual violence flowing out of religion in every creative way possible without crossing over into private religious space protected by the constitution. I would conduct letter campaigns, collect our stories, put up web sites, write books, create bumper stickers, make movies, upload utube video, conduct forums, do radio and TV interviews, write and direct plays that travel the country...the list is endless.In my short time being associated with Soulforce, the things I've put in bold above, have been done. These are the things that I am aware of; there may be other things that have been done of which I am not aware.

3) That Soulforce would focus the efforts of relentless, nonviolent resistance to inequality in the law. We need hate crimes laws and marriage laws. Dr. Martin Luther Kings efforts were always focused on discriminatory, unjust laws in this country.Much of what Soulforce confronts is not mere resistance to the law, but to the source of such laws. ie, the religious right is often the origin, source, and support of anti-lgbt legislation. In some ways, we are taking our relentless nonviolent resistance to the source of the inequality, not just the law.

4) That Soulforce would meet the religious right in every attempt they make to resist the advance of our civil rights. For instance, Indiana is trying to amend their state constitution to ban gay marriage. Did you know that the Indiana State House was overflowing with the religious right pushing their agenda to derail our civil rights:

http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6287491

Where was Soulforce?As I understand it, statistically speaking, Soulforce is a small non-profit organization. Members of this forum are spread out not only throughout this country, but all over the world. Take a look through this website, you'll see what actions have taken place in the past. fighting oppression individually in each state is important, but it is also a big job. I can't speak for soulforce administration, but I'm willing to say that such a project (fighting gay marriage bans in each state) is too big of a job for a small charity like soulforce.

This is such an important time in history for us. We need to be thoughtful about where and how we focus our efforts.

Signing out...I love you all :)Yes, I agree, it's important, and we need to be thoughtful. I trust that the leadership at Soulforce has done that, which is why I support Soulforce financially (when I'm able) and with my activity here on the forums, and of course, with my prayers.

[andrewlittle]

Martin Luther King did not single handedly solve racial inequality (actually, it's still not solved yet), nor was his organization the only player in the drama. He became a central figure in the battle, but it was unfotunately his death that created a rallying point. Many people, many organizations, dealt with the issue in a wide variety of ways, and they did not always agree.

Soulforce has working relationships with other organizations, Lambda Legal and Human Rights Campaign to name just two. These and many other groups concentrate on areas in which they feel empowered and to which their skills apply. Each does what each can effectively do - and sometimes they don't agree.

If there was one and only one rights organization for African Americans, they would probably still be several decades behind where they are now. Likewise if there was one GLBT advocacy group that tried to be all things to everyone and every situation. Resources don't allow it, to begin with. It is also easier to dismiss the voice of one group than it is to quieten the voices of many. The more involved in different aspects, the more people hear and it begins to sound like a majority even when it's not. On the marriage issue, for instance, several groups went together to form OneIowa to advocate specifically on marriage initiatives in my state. It is still fledgling, and I am actually hoping to be able to work with them.

Everything antonyh described needs to be done - and a whole lot more - but not by one group. Alliances can be formed, and have been, that combine efforts when it is appropriate and useful, but at times Lambda Legal is far better at dealing with legislatures than another group. It is a process of determining what each is good at, and how they can work to the same end from different directions.

When you push against power, power pushes back. If you push from multiple directions, it is that much more difficult for power to push back at every one of them. If we all push from different directions but using the same methods, we make it that much easier for the power to formulate a strategy. Variations and, to some extent, unpredictability is an advantage, as is being "edgy" sometimes. I thank God for the E-Riders doing what I don't think I'd have the courage, and certainly not the resources, to do.

[Zerbie]

Antony,

Soulforce has partnered with other organizations in the past to meet some of the educational goals on your wishlist. Check out No Longer Silent (I think their website ends in dot org.) Also check out the educational fora by the Pacific School of Religion Center for Lesbian & Gay Studies. There is (finally) a lot of movement towards filling the need for LGBT-affirming faith-based dialogue. Soulforce has not been absent from the discussion. As Keltic observes, SF is still small. As we grow, and as we develop more local chapters, I envison SF becoming a larger part of the changing landscape. Is there a SF chapter in your area? There isn't one here in mine, and I hope that changes soon.

[Steven E. Webster]

My Soulforce Dream List:

1) That Soulforce would establish a home that could serve as a safe haven for gay and lesbian youth trapped in spiritually violent homes or colleges. This is really important because in my volunteer work with homeless youth in Chicago, thirty percent of them were gay or lesbian. This is a disproportionate number. There is a genuine need for this kind of safe haven run by people that genuinely understand.


Antony,
This reminds me of a parable told in one of the Soulforce trainings. The story is that a young, athletic woman heroically rescues drowning children from a river. One after another she rescues the children and still there are more. She organizes a not-for-profit organization to keep up with the steady supply of victims to rescue. Finally, she goes upstream and discovers that there is a strange culture upstream that throws children into the river as part of their religious ritual and belief. At the end of the story we are left pondering how to address the cause of all this suffering and not just address the suffering itself.

Many of the LGBT kids are thrown out of religious homes because of religious teachings. You would like us to try to change the persons who cause this suffering in the name of religion in very passive ways--countless people and organizations have studied and written books and used all forms of media to address the harmful religious teachings that cause LGBT children to suffer, but our adversaries refuse to listen.

The Equality Riders are trying to engage our adversaries in dialogue. Our adversaries refuse dialogue--that is their right. The Equality Riders then sit down in the lobby of a Seminary insisting they will not leave until Professor Mohler (in a recent case) agrees to speak with them. Mohler refuses to dialogue, the Equality Riders refuse to leave and there are arrests. Has Mohler's rights been violated? Not really--his rights to refuse to dialogue were vindicated by the arrest of the Equality Riders. Did Mohler have to pay some price for this? Yes. Did the Equality Riders have to pay some price for this? Yes. Has justice been violated--no, the requirements of justice have been satisfied.

Has Mohler's views been exposed to the light of public attention, yes. Will Mohler change his mind? Maybe not, but I dare say other people have changed their minds, or at least begun to think about the issues. There is plenty of evidence that students at the colleges and universities the Equality Riders are visiting are thinking about the issues in ways that will bear fruit eventually.

Will there be negative reactions? When King led students in nonviolent protests there was a great deal of violence done to those students. Their suffering was unfortunate, but it eventually bore fruit when America saw the violence that racism was doing. This was an instance of voluntary redemptive suffering.

Need to go, so I'll leave it here.

Steven Webster

[revtj]

If you want to shape Soulforce actions and their future as a movement then support them, attend local chapter meetings, get involved with actions & efforts you feel comfortable with, but please, don't consider sitting at your computer critcizing Soulforce actions and listing your over the rainbow fantasies to be the same thing as being a supporter or a part of the movement.

The people around King nit-picked every decision he made. His congregation in Montgomery actually tried to stop him from a number of key actions. Malcolm X publicly ridiculed him and the non-violent strategy. Even his wife was uncomfortable and sometimes opposed to decisions he made.

We are not doing this to be popular. We are not doing this to usher in gay utopia. We are not doing this because we are a united people who speak and act in lockstep.

We are doing this to confront injustice, and yes, it's messy, it's inconvenient, it's contradictory in some ways, and nobody ever said it was perfect. But it beats sitting on your behind criticizing everything LGBT people do to try and raise awareness and bring about change. I am so tired of that strain of thought in our community right now.

Instead of nitpicking Soulforce go find what you can do in good conscience and do it. Don't turn us in to your special project to change by nailfiling our action-- do what you think is right and then there will be twice as much happening.

Larry Kramer (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kramer20mar20,1,6605635.story?ctrack=1&cset=true)inspired this post. Also see this article (http://www.poz.com/articles/1_11515.shtml).

[antonyh]

Instead of nitpicking Soulforce go find what you can do in good conscience and do it. Don't turn us in to your special project to change by nailfiling our action-- do what you think is right and then there will be twice as much happening.


It is unfortunate that you think that discussing first amendment protections like freedom of religion is 'nitpicking'. Wow.

And don't worry, I'm active in all kinds of ways. Doin' my part :)


Soulforce has working relationships with other organizations, Lambda Legal and Human Rights Campaign to name just two. These and many other groups concentrate on areas in which they feel empowered and to which their skills apply. Each does what each can effectively do - and sometimes they don't agree."


True enough. The thing that makes Soulforce unique is it's commitment to nonviolent resistance. I just don't see HRC organizing sit-ins.

[Emproph]

I once signed a pledge disavowing my God-given sexual orientation at Warner Pacific College in Portland, Oregon.

I take it back.

Just wondering: Has Warner corrected its Biblical misinterpretations and amended its ways to end the suffering they inflict on perfectly decent students such as I once was?

:-)
And yet it’s the Equality Riders who are being accused of invading “private property.”

They’re invading private property precisely because that property encapsulates “private properties” that it does not own. It is the “properties” of minds/souls/students, and we have something to say about what is being said about us.

To deny us, is to deny information about us. The message it sends, is that truth itself is not a student right. This is a powerful and reverberating statement.

Especially for campuses that claim to teach:
THE truth
THE WHOLE truth
NOTHING BUT the truth

Except when it comes to real live gay people who don't hold a sequin to the ROCK SOLID TRUTH of the Bible.

Homosexual = sin. What could be easier than setting the gays 'straight?'

So to claim ignorance on something so "simple and clear" is even more suspicious. Not for our sake, for the school communities' sake.

These are believers, who live in a community of believers. And if you Believe, then you understand that there is a purpose for everything, and what better an opportunity to set all we gays “straight.” Surely no power could stand against them (our reasoning being so inherently and fundamentally flawed). And what a better opportunity to learn how to love and set aside prejudice – even if I disagree with them.

But nope, those in authority decided for me what truth I should learn about gay people, especially Christian gay people.
---
Soulforce is a test for them any way you look at it, no matter how wrong the effort may be perceived to be. I guess, in other words, even though the test itself may be invalid, it’s results can not be disputed.

What we’re really talking about here is human rights, or at least how best to go about defending them within the law.

One thing I think that is special about this is the faith aspect, predominantly Christian. In a sense, it is our own religious freedom we are defending. They have no GOD right to redefine us. The “private property” of their religious freedom is something we SHARE with them, SPECIFICALLY because we are Christian too.

For them to claim Spiritual boundary via excuse of physical boundary is anathema.

That "private property" and "religious freedom" has been given to them by GOD, THIS IS WHAT THEY TEACH. As fellow servants of GOD, we not only have a right that supercedes man's law about God, we have the obligation to enforce it on an ethical and moral plane when there is a consensus that God has given us superior information. Namely the witness of our existence.

The silence on this is perhaps what is most telling.

[Steven E. Webster]

It is unfortunate that you think that discussing first amendment protections like freedom of religion is 'nitpicking'. Wow.


Anthony,

Again, as I believe I mentioned in passing before--the first amendment rights of these schools are vindicated every time the Equality Riders are arrested. Not once have these schools had their first amendment rights denied. Why do you keep on making the claim that they are having their first amendment rights denied?

These schools continue to have every right to believe and teach anything they want, including that the world is flat and the moon is green cheese, if they want. They have the right to impose just about any requirements they want on their students. Soulforce has the first amendment right to object.

Yes, Soulforce does impose a minor inconvenience on these schools when they walk on their grass. And Soulforce willingly pays the legal penalty for that infraction in full accord with the principles of nonviolent civil disobedience.

There is another right involved that these Fundamentalist schools deny, and that is the right to academic freedom. They intend to deny their students the right to consider the ideas which Soulforce wishes to dialogue about. Gay Equality is an idea that is "out of bounds" in these schools as are other ideas that violate their creeds. (I'm thankful that I received a degree in Religion from a Roman Catholic College--not Notre Dame!-- that did not once threaten my academic freedom. This proves that being religious doesn't require that one be bigoted.)

The main right that these schools are actually applying when they invoke trespassing laws are property rights, not first amendment rights. This reminds me of what made people so angry with the abolitionists of the 19th Century--those folks had no respect for the property rights of slave owners!

What we are seeing here is a clash of rights---this seems to be an unavoidable part of the democratic process. Its why we have courts, police and legislatures.

Steven Webster

[Daniel]

Steven,

You bring up a point, that being one of abolitionists and slavery, which I knew little about. I found this resource which puts the whole matter, dealing with property rights and the like, into perspective.

http://uncpress.unc.edu/chapters/huston_calculating.html

An excerpt from Calculating the Value of the Union
Slavery, Property Rights, and the Economic Origins of the Civil War.

The commonplace method of handling property rights in the American past is for historians to divide the society politically into conservatives, those who elevated property rights above all other rights, and democrats (or reformers or radicals) who placed property rights below social and human welfare. In the early history of the United States, the struggle over control of state governments, paper money laws, Shays's Rebellion, the framing of the Constitution, its ratification, and the emergence of political parties in the 1790s have frequently been described as fights over property rights between conservatives and democrats. Usually, the conservative pro-property rights side has been identified with privilege and high status. Indeed, the interpretive brunt of such studies is simple enough: property rights doctrines when they appear invariably are used by individuals seeking to protect the wealth, status, and power of the existing elite at the expense of those unfortunately situated. American politics has been frequently reduced to a fight between democracy and the rights of property. This interpretation, it might be noted, is generally true.

[antonyh]

Steven:


Again, as I believe I mentioned in passing before--the first amendment rights of these schools are vindicated every time the Equality Riders are arrested. Not once have these schools had their first amendment rights denied. Why do you keep on making the claim that they are having their first amendment rights denied?


I am not saying that these rights are denied. They are being enforced.

What Simpleman was questioning in the first post was the wisdom of protesting people well within their civil rights. He was wondering how you could compare yourself to civil rights leaders like Dr. King.

Dr. Martin Luther King protested unjust public laws even when he took the protest to private settings (like white-only lunch counters). Dr. King was dealing with the real denial of civil liberties in this country.

What Simpleman is asking is: What unjust public laws are you addressing by protesting these private religious institutions?

I wish I could bring myself to see the wisdom of protesting spiritual violence in private religious institutions. What is to stop the religious right from copying your strategy and conducting protests and sit ins at MCC congregations and colleges demanding conversation, belief change, policy change and apologies for affirming that being gay is good in the eyes of God? You end up with Christians protesting Christians within their own spaces for the free practice of their religion.

I want to address revtj's desire to see me off this forum. There is a wonderful quote:

"Dissent is the hightest form of patriotism."

I am only here because I am in awe of your ability to use the tools of nonviolent resistance used by King, Ghandi, Mandela, etc. I am only here because I think Soulforce has enormous potential at this time in history.

[keltic63]

Dr. King was dealing with the real denial of civil liberties in this country.


are you saying that the civil rights/liberties that gay/lesbian people are pursuing are not real civil rights?




*your slip is showing, dear.

[u-dog]

Steven:

What is to stop the religious right from copying your strategy and conducting protests and sit ins at MCC congregations and colleges demanding conversation, belief change, policy change and apologies for affirming that being gay is good in the eyes of God?

Antonyh,

The MCC church that I am associated would LOVE it if the fundies came to our place and demanded conversation!! We do every darn thing we can think of to get them to engage in a conversation! We did a huge "Would Jesus Discriminate" campaign with billboards, bumperstickers, yardsigns, t-shirts and full page newspaper ads last year and hosted a "town hall meeting" at our church ... very few of the hardliners showed up to "converse". In a few weeks we are starting another campaign that will REALLY get their shorts in a knot. The billboards will have a picture of Jesus and the tagline "Jesus affirmed a Gay Couple" and the reference from Matthews Gospel for the story of Jesus healing the Roman Centurion's slave.

If they don't firebomb the church I will be surprised.

My point is that "conversation" is what we WANT and what they FEAR. The ER Riders either GET conversation when they go to these schools and are welcomed (as the West bound bus seems to be doing) or they INSPIRE conversation in the larger society when they are met with resistance. Either way we get the thing we want! and more important than that our society gets what it NEEDS -- honest conversation about GLBT people and our rights.

The fact is that the American Revolution was illegal at the time that it happened, but I for one am happy that the founders went ahead with it anyway (seriously, the argument that George III was a Tyrant was and is bogus ... he was acting stupidly but well within the rule of law as it existed at the time. he had the full support of Parliament and was only trying to raise money from the Colonies to pay for the cost of maintaining their defense against the French and their Native American allies)

[antonyh]

...are you saying that the civil rights/liberties that gay/lesbian people are pursuing are not real civil rights?"


Of course not! Just that protesting at Christian colleges is not aimed at any injust law in the United States.

[scott snedeker]

[QUOTE=antonyh;23903]Steven:


What Simpleman is asking is: What unjust public laws are you addressing by protesting these private religious institutions?

QUOTE]
Answer:
Discrimination against a minority. Denial of Gay people of the entitlement to equal protection against discrimination that is enjoyed by nearly all other minorities.

They prohibit attendance to these colleges by Gay people by discriminating against us because they say we are morally inferior.

No different than prohibiting blacks from attendance because they consider blacks to be morally inferior

It is discrimination based on a trait of sexual attaction.


Anotonyh, please respond. With Which part of my response to your question do you disagree if any?

Are you saying we are not entitled to equal protection against discrimination because having attraction to the same sex is a trait that makes us unworthy of it?

Are you saying that attraction to same sex is not a trait? But a Choice?

[antonyh]

The MCC church that I am associated would LOVE it if the fundies came to our place and demanded conversation!!


What if the conversation was not with some fair minded fundies, but Fred Phelps. This has happened and interestingly their reaction was a mirror image to the Christian colleges reaction to the Equality Riders.

http://www.umaffirm.org/cornews/dell8.html

You end up with Christians protesting Christians within their own spaces for the free practice of their religion. Dr. Martin Luther King protested unjust public laws even when he took the protest to private settings (like white-only lunch counters).

What if Soulforce would meet the religious right in every attempt they make to resist the advance of our civil rights on PUBLIC space where PUBLIC laws are being addressed. For instance, Indiana is trying to amend their state constitution to ban gay marriage. Check out all these Christians:

http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6287491

Imagine if Soulforce had marched into the State House and knelt in front of the assembly of 1000 Christians to testify to their goodness before God and their right to gay marriage as people created in the image of God.

Now I have goosebumps.

[suzer1013]

I want to thank Antony and Simpleman for their respectful tone throughout this conversation. I haven't been able to follow it with the care and detail I would like at the moment, just for lack of time. I've been a touch dismayed by some responses, but I also understand where they are coming from. I think sometimes we Soulforcers have such a personal investment in our cause, that we have a knee-jerk response to some questions that may not be intended to offend. I know that I certainly have done that in the past.

I can't possibly respond to everything that has been raised, but let me share that I, too, question whether the Equality Ride is the best type of action to be taken. I support the Riders, and the Ride itself, but I also have questions about it that I have been unable to resolve. I am hoping some of my questions will be answered tomorrow when I meet the Riders.

Antony -- Soulforce tries to counter GLBT oppression in both the religious and political spheres. So, the Equality Ride is not specifically aimed at an unjust law, per se, but it is aimed at providing a space for conversation about GLBT people, and providing educational material that counters the spiritual violence that these schools are teaching. The private property issue, for me, is not even brought into the equation. This is my opinion only, but once a school accepts public funds (in the form of student loan aid from the government), there is a government nexus created. It is much like the debate over providing vouchers for children to attend private schools. It is our tax dollars funding a religious education. Most of us would have little problem with that, if the religious education were also not teaching spiritual violence against GLBT people and not providing alternate viewpoints with which students at these schools could come to their own conclusions.

We can't separate the religious from the political in the area of GLBT rights. Unfortunately, our political life has been so infused with religion-based bigotry against GLBT people (the Christian Right lobbying for laws against GLBT marriage, adoption, etc.), that change is needed in both areas. I wish that our secular laws could be totally separate from religion, that GLBT people only had to fight within the political sphere for the right to marry, etc. I personally don't care so much if my church will hold a wedding for me, but I do want my government to recognize my partnership and provide the according rights and benefits thereon. But Christian churches have influenced lawmakers to withhold those rights (as well as on other issues that are too lengthy to discuss here). So, in reality, religion and politics are inextricably intertwined.

I agree that everyone has the freedom to hold their own religious belief. But when that religious belief infringes upon someone else's civil rights, where to we draw the line? If a church wanted to, say (let's take something outrageous here), reinstitute sacrificial ritual in the form of sacrificing a 10-year-old virgin on the altar once a month, the government would step in to stop that from happening. Even though those believers might argue that their religious belief requires them to sacrifice the child, the government would not allow that religious belief to trump the civil (and human) rights of the child. Similarly, why should religious belief be allowed to influence our laws in the withholding of equal civil rights to GLBT people?

This has been an illuminating thread. I see good points made from all sides of the issue. Wish I had time to share more of my thoughts -- maybe later today I can. Thanks to everyone for their input and respectful sharing.

Susan

[Diane Vera]

What is to stop the religious right from copying your strategy and conducting protests and sit ins at MCC congregations and colleges demanding conversation, belief change, policy change and apologies for affirming that being gay is good in the eyes of God?

Sheer homophobic queasiness, I guess. There are fundies who already do invade Pagan and New Age spaces.

[keltic63]

What is to stop the religious right from copying your strategy and conducting protests and sit ins at MCC congregations and colleges demanding conversation, belief change, policy change and apologies for affirming that being gay is good in the eyes of God? You end up with Christians protesting Christians within their own spaces for the free practice of their religion.


Sheer homophobic queasiness, I guess. There are fundies who already do invade Pagan and New Age spaces.

There is a local gay bar that has a religious group protesting outside on a regular basis.

[Diane Vera]

I want to thank Antony and Simpleman for their respectful tone throughout this conversation. I haven't been able to follow it with the care and detail I would like at the moment, just for lack of time. I've been a touch dismayed by some responses, but I also understand where they are coming from. I think sometimes we Soulforcers have such a personal investment in our cause, that we have a knee-jerk response to some questions that may not be intended to offend. I know that I certainly have done that in the past

We are doing this to confront injustice, and yes, it's messy, it's inconvenient, it's contradictory in some ways, and nobody ever said it was perfect. But it beats sitting on your behind criticizing everything LGBT people do to try and raise awareness and bring about change. I am so tired of that strain of thought in our community right now.

Like it or not, people inevitably will want to engage in public discussion about political strategy. And to me it seems that, to some extent, such discussion can be helpful, provided that it does not divert too much time and energy away from actual activism of whatever kind.

Suggestion to the moderators: Perhaps a separate sub-forum could be created for the more hot-button debates, and perhaps the more contentious threads could be moved there, so that people who are "tired" of them can more easily avoid them?

[Diane Vera]

There is a local gay bar that has a religious group protesting outside on a regular basis.

Do they go inside the bar?

Then again, they wouldn't need to. No doubt their aim is to put the bar out of business by intimidating the more closeted patrons. Simply watching people go in and out of the bar would be sufficient to accomplish that, alas. (All the more so if they bring cameras. Do they?)

On the other hand, I do recall hearing about fundy religious groups who demanded the right to have tables inside "psychic fairs" and such.

(Please see also my post at the bottom of the previous page.)

[Zerbie]

What if Soulforce would meet the religious right in every attempt they make to resist the advance of our civil rights on PUBLIC space. For instance, Indiana is trying to amend their state constitution to ban gay marriage. Check out all these Christians:

http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6287491

Imagine if Soulforce had marched into the State House and knelt in front of the assembly of 1000 Christians to testify to their goodness before God and their right to gay marriage as people created in the image of God.

Now I have goosebumps. And yes you would have been arrested for not having a permit. And yes you would make a statement that resounded around the nation.

Antony - I'll repeat my question. Is there a local SF chapter in your area? If not, why don't you start one?

I like your idea of SF appearing at the state capitol. Very much. That's actually a face-to-face encounter, too. I bet the reason it doesn't happen is: insufficient numbers of Soulforce activists and insufficient numbers of local Soulforce chapters. But if there WAS a local chapter, and if you were part of it, you would have thought of that action and it would have happened.

Nudge nudge hint hint. C'mon. Start a chapter!

To Diane: no offense to your suggestion about moving the 'arguing' threads, but, nahhhhh. If someone gets tired of following this one, all they have to do is Not Click.

[revtj]

I have thought over this criticism that Soulforce is entering private colleges with religious affiliations who, it would seem, have a right to exclude and maintain their belief systems and keep their grounds free of dissenters like Soulforce Equality Riders. And I have an answer I had not thought of before.

Private colleges receive federal funds in the form of Pell Grants and other systems. :dollar: Those dollars come from our tax dollars as Americans. As Wayne Besen loves to quote Bill Maher, they have a right to their own beliefs but they do not have a right to their own facts. :disagree:

When I was at Covenant College, the college had accepted federal matching funds to build a particular building on campus. Someone filed a lawsuit and it was decided that the building could not be used for propogation of religious doctrine or dogma. That is as it should be.

My conclusion then, is that Pell Grants and other tax dollars spent on private college & university campuses compel them to teach facts about homosexuality and separate facts from religious dogma. If Soulforce Equality Riders' conversations have this eventual effect it will be a great victory for gay people.

Again, I am sick and tired of our greatest resistance coming from our own people. If you don't like the Equality Rides (as some people didn't like the SF actions against US military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy) then don't participate. That action was meaningful to a lot of soldiers and military families, although I never really warmed up to it as a pacifist who finds the current war in Iraq to be a complete fraud. I supported friends and other SFers who didn't appreciate this action but I decided not to publicly criticize the action because I knew it had great meaning for others in their context.

So I say again, if you don't like the Equality Rides, don't participate. You have a right to state your opinion, but there is no good reason to cut Soulforce down like we're the enemy.

As you have seen, this action means a LOT to those of us who went to Christian colleges, the same as the military action meant a LOT to people who had connections/interests in the US Military. And in the end, the principle of homophobia we are resisting is one that hurts us all whether the venue is one that directly affects you or not.

One time they came to Jesus and said that there were people casting out demons and healing the sick in his name. They asked him to condemn them since it was not the work of Jesus or his disciples. Jesus refused to condemn them, replying instead, "He who is not against us is for us." That, to me, is the attitude we should take toward actions against homophobia that we are not directly affected by or not in complete solidarity with. :)

[Diane Vera]

I have thought over this criticism that Soulforce is entering private colleges with religious affiliations who, it would seem, have a right to exclude and maintain their belief systems and keep their grounds free of dissenters like Soulforce Equality Riders. And I have an answer I had not thought of before.

Private colleges receive federal funds in the form of Pell Grants and other systems. :dollar: Those dollars come from our tax dollars as Americans. As Wayne Besen loves to quote Bill Maher, they have a right to their own beliefs but they do not have a right to their own facts. :disagree:

When I was at Covenant College, the college had accepted federal matching funds to build a particular building on campus. Someone filed a lawsuit and it was decided that the building could not be used for propogation of religious doctrine or dogma. That is as it should be.

My conclusion then, is that Pell Grants and other tax dollars spent on private college & university campuses compel them to teach facts about homosexuality and separate facts from religious dogma. If Soulforce Equality Riders' conversations have this eventual effect it will be a great victory for gay people.

Excellent point. You've raised a good church-state separation issue here.

To Antonyh: Would you feel better about the Equality Ride's CD actions at colleges if they raised the above legal issue, in addition to the kinds of dialogue they are seeking now?

Again, I am sick and tired of our greatest resistance coming from our own people.

Annoying though it may be, such discussion can sharpen everyone's thinking, if people are willing to be patient.

So I say again, if you don't like the Equality Rides, don't participate. You have a right to state your opinion, but there is no good reason to cut Soulforce down like we're the enemy.

I don't think antonyh meant to treat Soulforce as an enemy, though it might seem that way to some here, since he was questioning one of Soulforce's main activities.

[revtj]

Annoying though it may be, such discussion can sharpen everyone's thinking, if people are willing to be patient.

This is true, and if I've been too hard on antonyh then I apologize.

The fact is LGBT people are pissed because we're losing on just about every issue right now. But we shouldn't turn and devour our own carcasses, we should honor the fight others have put up and try to learn from it. Displaced anger is dumb.

We are a people disconnected from our past, as Larry Kramer pointed out (I hope everybody read those articles, if not go back several pages where I posted the links) because we lost more than half our elders to AIDS. We really haven't learned our own history because there haven't been enough teachers.

Young gay men especially astonish me with what they don't know about LGBT history. It is sad and frightening. And I get pissed about it.

That's as close to an apology as I can get if I have been too hard on antonyh.

[antonyh]

Simpleman, thank you for your post. It has certainly raised some important issues. I appreciate the discussion and will continue to read responses and discussion, but I am going to stop posting on this issue. I feel like I've restated the same thing in many different ways and any further response would be redundant.

Now off to help with the Illinois Civil Unions Bill.

[revtj]

Fantastic! Very Worthy Work.

Let Us Know How We Can Support You!!

[Zerbie]

Antony I hope we haven't run you off.

TJ, I'm with Diane on this point: we NEED to listen to criticisms, especially from within our own community, and especially when stated in a constructive and respectful way. Listen does not mean 'agree,' at least not necessarily. How are we to make sure our actions get better and better, if we don't consider the criticisms? If, after consideration, the leadship decides not to act on those criticisms or suggestions, fine that's their right. But we need as broad and studied a perspective as we can get.

I didn't perceive Antony as being resistant, so much as conveying a criticism. One I find partially, though not entirely, persuasive. There is always going to be disagreement within the movement.

Antony, I hope being in the minority opinion didn't cause you to feel personally, er, overwhelmed here. I welcome your thoughts on these matters. And I do agree, you've stated them well several times, they've been considered, and most people here have come to a different conclusion.

[suzer1013]

OK -- feeling a bit invisible here!

I raised the issue of federal student aid before TJ did and I want credit for it, darnit! <stamping my feet> :hissy:

I also raised it on an earlier thread with Jacob, and I think only one person caught it. Maybe I need to be louder and more petulant. ;) :D

Anyway, TJ's point is a good one. We do not need to criticize each other (although I'm not sure that's what anyone here intended). I myself have questions about the Equality Ride, but I also support the Riders and their goals. I am eager to talk to them about it, and about using nonviolent direct action in this particular way. No movement for change is perfect, and we all do the best we can. At least the Riders are out DOING something, which is more than I am able to do at the moment. So my thanks go out to them.

Susan

(and how awesome is it that we have an emoticon for a hissy fit?!?!)

[Zerbie]

Hi Suze,

The issue of federal aid has been raised on the SF fora numerous times in discussions of the matter of "private" institutions versus "public" funds. We talked about it last year too.

It most certainly plays into the discussion! My school recently had a big To Do when a Christian campus group drew up guidelines excluding homosexuals from membership. I remember saying that as long as the group received no funding support from the university, fine they can exclude whoever they want, but if they are taking $ from the university, they are taking $$ from me personally, and from thousands of other students who, LGBT or otherwise, do not want their funds used to support discrimination. I remember drawing this parallel before.

I didn't know that this issue of public funding was not an implicit part of the entire conversation so far. I thought we were all thinking of it and taking it into consideration in our responses. (and I didn't know I was taking that assumption for granted, either, sigh.)

[suzer1013]

Hey, Zerbie -- I'm just having a bit of fun with y'all, and laughing at myself in the process. Sometimes I take myself far too seriously!

Susan

[scott snedeker]

Do they go inside the bar?

Then again, they wouldn't need to. No doubt their aim is to put the bar out of business by intimidating the more closeted patrons. Simply watching people go in and out of the bar would be sufficient to accomplish that, alas. (All the more so if they bring cameras. Do they?)

On the other hand, I do recall hearing about fundy religious groups who demanded the right to have tables inside "psychic fairs" and such.

(Please see also my post at the bottom of the previous page.)


I am reminded of a Joke:

The was a nun profeesing the evils of alcohol outside a pub.
A young man asks her "How do you know if it is evil if you have never tried it?

She responds "well I guess I could try it to save your soul from damnation. I'll have a martini but you must disguise it in a coffee cup or the deal is off!"

So the young man goes in and calls to the bartender: " I'll have a pint of beer and a martini in a coffee cup!"

The bartender slams his first on the bar and shouts.

"Is that bloody nun out there again!":lol: :lol:

[revtj]

Ooooops sorry, I'm embarrassed that I didn't see Susan's (or others) post on federal aid before I posted...:p

[suzer1013]

TJ -- don't be embarrassed! I was just having a bit of fun (and self-confession and self-admonition) at my own expense, recognizing my first reaction to be that of a 3-year old.

I also get my panties in a wad when someone (usually Andrew -- hi Andrew! :wave: ) makes a point I've been wanting to make and does so in an infinitely better way than I ever could. So silly am I. :lol:

[tdogg]

Young gay men especially astonish me with what they don't know about LGBT history. It is sad and frightening. And I get pissed about it.


When we take a dive into gay history and really learn all that has transpired and what our predecessors went through for us to have gotten as far as we have, it's completely amazing. That's hard for me also, although I understand the argument and appreciate the point of view different from mine, I wonder if the person making the argument had an inkling of gay history from years back, they might not be inclined to change their mind a bit.

For anyone reading this thread, again, a great start is Making Gay History, It will open your eyes and amaze your soul - and you'll really appreciate what others have had to go through being gay and lesbian. I'm sure there are other great books around as well, just read them and learn. History is so important!

[andrewlittle]

I made some observations and a suggestion on another thread that I think pertains here as well. You may disagree, and I'm sure you'll tell me if you do. That is as it should be. That post is http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=23989&postcount=7

[dsdrane]

I made some observations and a suggestion on another thread that I think pertains here as well. You may disagree, and I'm sure you'll tell me if you do. That is as it should be. That post is http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=23989&postcount=7

Iowans rule.

This is not an opinion (though it is); it's simply a fact.

[Daniel]

I think it is kinder and much more considerate of those who have poured body and soul into the E-Ride effort to wait until it is done before casting aspersions on the strategy and questioning their tactics. After that time, a post mortem would very likely help establish a startegy for the next one - perhaps considerably different, perhaps a little different, perhaps exactly the same - but the process would have benefitted from a critical review nonetheless.

Thank you for your observations and suggestions. They impress me as being compassionate towards all parties involved. And you know what? I think we should make this a policy: no engagement which calls into question the ERide until it is over.

So- for the time being- I'm gonna keep my trap shut on this topic.

Moderators! What do you think?

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Although I agree that this conversation is not likely to change the plans of the on-going Equality Ride (and I don't want it to change those plans), I am uncomfortable about shutting down this dialogue. You see, I do believe in free speech.

As a participant in past Soulforce actions, I've always been impressed with the ability of anyone in the group to voice their view, and I've been impressed by leadership's willingness to listen.

I've also been impressed that once a course of action has been decided, it goes forward decisively in a timely manner. Should there be persons who still sharply dissent, they are respectfully permitted (and/or encouraged) to "sit this one out." Mel always made it clear that every individual is to make his/her own decision as to whether to participate or not--everyone is individually responsible as to whether to choose to follow Soulforce leadership or not. Mel always insisted he was no Jim Jones and he didn't want blind, unquestioning followers.

I am also confident that the Equality Ride will go forward as planned (with appropriate improvisation along the way) no matter what we arm chair philosophers say here.

The debate we are having here seems to be about the very purpose of Soulforce--which is an interfaith organization seeking to end the oppression which arises from untrue religious teachings. I think what we are hearing here are some people who disagree with that basic mission, who want to say it is o.k. for the Southern Baptists or Methodists or Assembly of God to keep teaching the untruths they are teaching about gay people. It is not o.k.--it is literally killing people. Truth needs to confront untruth and the religious oppression must end.

Please bear in mind that, contrary to the line of our adversaries, we do not wish to replace their oppressiveness with an oppressiveness of our own (that is just fear-mongering). In the end we seek reconciliation with our adversaries. We wish to make our enemies our friends. Not an easy project! Kind of messy, as a matter of fact!

Steven Webster

[kara speltz]

Friends,

Although I agree that this conversation is not likely to change the plans of the on-going Equality Ride (and I don't want it to change those plans), I am uncomfortable about shutting down this dialogue. You see, I do believe in free speech.

As a participant in past Soulforce actions, I've always been impressed with the ability of anyone in the group to voice their view, and I've been impressed by leadership's willingness to listen.

I've also been impressed that once a course of action has been decided, it goes forward decisively in a timely manner. Should there be persons who still sharply dissent, they are respectfully permitted (and/or encouraged) to "sit this one out." Mel always made it clear that every individual is to make his/her own decision as to whether to participate or not--everyone is individually responsible as to whether to choose to follow Soulforce leadership or not. Mel always insisted he was no Jim Jones and he didn't want blind, unquestioning followers.

I am also confident that the Equality Ride will go forward as planned (with appropriate improvisation along the way) no matter what we arm chair philosophers say here.

The debate we are having here seems to be about the very purpose of Soulforce--which is an interfaith organization seeking to end the oppression which arises from untrue religious teachings. I think what we are hearing here are some people who disagree with that basic mission, who want to say it is o.k. for the Southern Baptists or Methodists or Assembly of God to keep teaching the untruths they are teaching about gay people. It is not o.k.--it is literally killing people. Truth needs to confront untruth and the religious oppression must end.

Please bear in mind that, contrary to the line of our adversaries, we do not wish to replace their oppressiveness with an oppressiveness of our own (that is just fear-mongering). In the end we seek reconciliation with our adversaries. We wish to make our enemies our friends. Not an easy project! Kind of messy, as a matter of fact!

Steven Webster

Well said Steve (as usual). I agree. I do believe one of the major strengths of Soulforce is that disagreement is not seen as disloyalty. Dissent within an organization is a sign of health, not weakness.

I can think of no other organization that would allow these kinds of discussions on their forums. It was that aspect, in part, that helped me decide to return to Soulforce in spite of my opposition to the Right to Serve.

I've just spent some time with the kids from the West bus and they are really amazing committed kids. I personally believe that the Equality Ride is the best thing Soulforce has done, and I'm inspired by the courage of these young people.

There will be mistakes. That's a given. But it is so easy for us to sit at our computers while these kids put their lives on the line. So, I guess my request would be that with every critique the poster say a prayer for the safety of the Riders and also that as they sit safely enscounced in their rooms at their computers, they pray for the courage of the Riders to take risks for what they believe in.

[Diane Vera]

Well said Steve (as usual). I agree. I do believe one of the major strengths of Soulforce is that disagreement is not seen as disloyalty.

This may be the official policy. But, unfortunately, both in this thread and in a couple of other recent threads, there were quite a few individual posters who did indeed seem to see disagreement as disloyalty and reacted accordingly.

I can think of no other organization that would allow these kinds of discussions on their forums. It was that aspect, in part, that helped me decide to return to Soulforce in spite of my opposition to the Right to Serve.

I agree that it's good to allow these kinds of discussions. But I also think that, if such discussions are going to be allowed, then some effort should be made to encourage the regulars to participate in these discussions in a calm and careful manner if they are going to participate at all. Otherwise we are likely to see a bunch of regulars ganging up on a newcomer, which is not productive at all.

I've just spent some time with the kids from the West bus and they are really amazing committed kids. I personally believe that the Equality Ride is the best thing Soulforce has done, and I'm inspired by the courage of these young people.

There will be mistakes. That's a given. But it is so easy for us to sit at our computers while these kids put their lives on the line. So, I guess my request would be that with every critique the poster say a prayer for the safety of the Riders and also that as they sit safely enscounced in their rooms at their computers, they pray for the courage of the Riders to take risks for what they believe in.

I think it's fair to say to a newcomer who seems less than appreciative of the work of the Riders, "Please at least acknowledge their courage," or something like that.

[Daniel]

Friends,

Although I agree that this conversation is not likely to change the plans of the on-going Equality Ride (and I don't want it to change those plans), I am uncomfortable about shutting down this dialogue. You see, I do believe in free speech.

Steven- I also believe in free speech. However, Andrew has brought something to mind here, and that is another concept that goes by the name Right Speech, which informs the practice of nonviolence.

For all the talk on these pages about the spiritual violence that is done to gay persons in Christian Schools, we would all do well to aquaint ourselves with the violence that unwittingly comes from our own mouths. I only have to observe my own posts to see the error of my ways.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-vaca/index.html


The definition
"And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech."

~

Five keys to right speech
"Monks, a statement endowed with five factors is well-spoken, not ill-spoken. It is blameless & unfaulted by knowledgeable people. Which five?

"It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in truth. It is spoken affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is spoken with a mind of good-will."

~

The criteria for deciding what is worth saying
[1] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

[2] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

[3] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.

[4] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.

[5] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.

[6] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living beings."

~

"These five conditions must be investigated in himself.

"And what other five conditions must be established in himself?

[1] "Do I speak at the right time, or not?

[2] "Do I speak of facts, or not?

[3] "Do I speak gently or harshly?

[4] "Do I speak profitable words or not?

[5] "Do I speak with a kindly heart, or inwardly malicious?

"O bhikkhus, these five conditions are to be investigated in himself and the latter five established in himself by a bhikkhu who desires to admonish another."

[antonyh]

I've just spent some time with the kids from the West bus and they are really amazing committed kids. I personally believe that the Equality Ride is the best thing Soulforce has done, and I'm inspired by the courage of these young people.

There will be mistakes. That's a given. But it is so easy for us to sit at our computers while these kids put their lives on the line. So, I guess my request would be that with every critique the poster say a prayer for the safety of the Riders and also that as they sit safely enscounced in their rooms at their computers, they pray for the courage of the Riders to take risks for what they believe in."



I am only here because I am in awe of your ability to use the tools of nonviolent resistance used by King, Ghandi, Mandela, etc. I am only here because I think Soulforce has enormous potential at this time in history.


I want to be on record as saying that I do pray for the riders and certainly admire their courage. I also think that Soulforce has enormous potential in the civil rights movement in this country.

This post reminds me of the antiwar movement. We're all out there marching on the streets protesting the war, but we'd all the the first ones in line to place a purple heart on a soldier and say, "Thank you for serving our country."

In the same way, I may question Soulforce's strategy, but I would be the first one to say to every young person on this ride, "Well done, you've shown courage and resolve in confronting injustice."

[u-dog]

Well spoken, Antonyh !! Thank you for clarifying. :)

[kara speltz]

"I am only here because I am in awe of your ability to use the tools of nonviolent resistance used by King, Ghandi, Mandela, etc. I am only here because I think Soulforce has enormous potential at this time in history."

I want to be on record as saying that I do pray for the riders and certainly admire their courage. I also think that Soulforce has enormous potential in the civil rights movement in this country.

This post reminds me of the antiwar movement. We're all out there marching on the streets protesting the war, but we'd all the the first ones in line to place a purple heart on a soldier and say, "Thank you for serving our country."

In the same way, I may question Soulforce's strategy, but I would be the first one to say to every young person on this ride, "Well done, you've shown courage and resolve in confronting injustice."

Dear Anthony: Thanks for sharing that. I got a totally different impression of you from this post than from other posts. I had experienced you as extremely critical of Soulforce and the Riders, in the other posts, so I was delighted to read this. I'm reminded of something I know, but often forget myself. Criticisms are heard best when people start off with the things they appreciate.

I know I personally get defensive around Soulforce, because I love it so. So when I hear only the critical, I go into the defense mode.

Kara

[suzer1013]

All I can say is, these young people are amazing and wonderful. Any reservations I had about this effort (I think, having read some of the criticism, I expected a busload of angry activists!) have melted away. Everyone was kind, gentle, and patient with the questions I had. They were all intelligent and respectful, and exuded peace from the deepest part of their souls. I think Soulforce chose these Riders well and I wish them many blessings on their journey.

I wish everyone could meet them. Although I didn't get to speak with each of them at length, I had some wonderful conversations with those I was able to get to know.

I wish I didn't have work and home commitments so I could spend a week on the bus with them, just to get to know them all a little better!

Many prayers and blessings go out to these wonderful young people!

Susan :love: :pray:

[antonyh]

Larry Kramer inspired this post


I found this really interesting interview with Larry Kramer in the Windy City Times:

http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=14385

Here is an excerpt:


I say that hate is an equal-opportunity employer. I say over and over again that we must realize that gay people are hated. Period. And we don’t realize this. We think they just don’t like us. Or that bullshit about "love the sinner, hate the sin.” When the Supreme Court rules against us, as always happens, it is because of hate. The recent New York state ruling handed down on gay marriage contained some of the most bigoted reasoning I have ever heard.

I want this new ACT UP to be an army confronting this hate in every way we can, whether it is Hillary and her constant waffling—which, of course, isn’t hate, yet—or the judges ruling against us. Gen. Pace’s disgusting talk is hate. As I say in the speech, there is not one elected official or candidate for president who, given half the chance, would not sell us down the river. Bill Clinton was the prime example of that, with his “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and his support of the hateful Defense of Marriage Act. Gays at HRC and elsewhere lining up to give [ Hillary ] big bucks is a big mistake. We demand now, and pay off later—after they show us the beef, not before.


Soulforce is definitely confronting hate (i.e. spiritual violence) and being much more polite than ACT UP.

Perhaps it is OK to to simply confront hate without the larger context of public laws. I guess it boils down to strategy, do you confront hate at religious institutions directly, or, do you confront hate at the intersection of religious and political oppression (i.e. at the State House).

One thing is for sure, it is messy and complicated.

[andrewlittle]

Soulforce is definitely confronting hate (i.e. spiritual violence) and being much more polite than ACT UP.

Perhaps it is OK to to simply confront hate without the larger context of public laws. I guess it boils down to strategy, do you confront hate at religious institutions directly, or, do you confront hate at the intersection of religious and political oppression (i.e. at the State House).

One thing is for sure, it is messy and complicated.

I think, Antony, the answer is "Yes". It isn't "either/or" but "and/both".

ACT UP seems to be more of an impersonal approach (not positive of that, just my impression) appealing to a broader constituency. The E-Riders, while in-your-face, are a personal kind of approach - faces and words and hands and feet all meeting together. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

As to "messy and complicated" - oh yeah, I hear that.

[Diane Vera]

I found this really interesting interview with Larry Kramer in the Windy City Times:

http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=14385

[...]

Soulforce is definitely confronting hate (i.e. spiritual violence) and being much more polite than ACT UP.

I personally believe that an effective political movement needs to have both a polite sector and a rude sector, sort of like a good cop/bad cop routine.

Perhaps it is OK to to simply confront hate without the larger context of public laws. I guess it boils down to strategy, do you confront hate at religious institutions directly, or, do you confront hate at the intersection of religious and political oppression (i.e. at the State House).

Both are desirable. If no one confronts the religious institutions directly, then we'll eventually be engulfed in a flood-tide of religious fanaticism.

Confronting the religious institutions directly is a job for the more polite sectors of the movement.

On the other hand, to fight political oppression, you need large numbers of your own people to show the politicians you're a force to be reckoned with. And attracting large numbers of your own people is, in my opinion, a job more effectively done by the movement's rude sectors. Nothing brings people together quite like denouncing a common enemy. That's just human nature, like it or not.

[Daniel]

Larry Kramer gave a speech on the 20th anniversary of Act-Up at the Gay and Lesbian Community Center. It can be read in full here.

http://queer-justice-league.blogspot.com/2007/03/full-text-of-larry-kramers-march-13.html

WE ARE NOT CRUMBS; WE MUST NOT ACCEPT CRUMBS
Remarks on the occasion of the 20th Anniversary of ACT UP,
NY Lesbian and Gay Community Center,
March 13, 9007
By Larry Kramer

Rodger McFarlane, Eric Sawyer, Jim Eigo, Peter Staley, Troy Masters, Mark Harrington, David Webster, Jeremy Waldron, and Hannah Arendt contributed to the following remarks.

One day AIDS came along. It happened fast. Almost every man I was friendly with died. Eric still talks about his first boyfriend, 180 pounds, 28 years old, former college athlete, who became a 119 pound bag of bones covered in purple splotches in months. Many of us will always have memories like this that we can never escape.

Out of this came ACT UP. We grew to have chapters and affinity groups and spin-offs and affiliations all over the world. Hundreds of men and women once met weekly in New York City alone. Every single treatment against HIV is out there because of activists who forced these drugs out of the system, out of the labs, out of the pharmaceutical companies, out of the government, into the world. It is an achievement unlike any other in the history of the world. All gay men and women must let ourselves feel colossally proud of such an achievement. Hundreds of millions of people will be healthier because of us. Would that they could be grateful to us for saving their lives.

So many people have forgotten, or never knew what it was like. We must never let anyone forget that no one, and I mean no one, wanted to help dying faggots. Sen. Edward Kennedy described it in 2006 as “the appalling indifference to the suffering of so many.” Ronald Reagan had made it very clear that he was “irrevocably opposed” to anything to do with homosexuality. It would be seven years into his reign before he even said the word “AIDS” out loud, by which time almost every gay man in the entire world who’d had sex with another man had been exposed to the virus. During this entire time his government issued not one single health warning, not one single word of caution. Who cares if a faggot dies. I believe that Ronald Reagan is responsible for more deaths than Adolf Hitler. This is not hyperbole. This is fact.

And here is an interview with Karry Kramer with the gay Activist Rex Wockner.

http://wockner.blogspot.com/2007/03/conversation-with-larry-kramer.html

There was a protest by Act-Up here in NYC March 30. It was big! And I am sad to say I missed it!

http://queer-justice-league.blogspot.com/2007/03/nearly-thousand-attend-nyc-protest-27.html

NEARLY A THOUSAND ATTEND NYC PROTEST; 27 ARRESTED
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
March 30, 2007

TWENTY-SEVEN ARRESTED AT NYC PROTEST; HUNDREDS MARCH FOR SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH INSURANCE

NEW YORK CITY (March 30) – 27 people were arrested yesterday during a protest demanding health care for all, single-payer national health insurance, and drug price controls in the United States. Nearly a thousand attended the protest in downtown New York City, which commemorated ACT UP’s 20th anniversary of AIDS activism and direct action.

After marching through various downtown sites, the activists converged on the “Wall Street Bull” statute in the Financial District. Chanting “No more bull! Health care for all!” the group brought out 50 body bags, symbolizing the 50 Americans who die each day due to lack of health insurance. 27 people laid down in the street in front of traffic, and were arrested by police.

The protesters met at Federal Plaza at noon Thursday and headed down Broadway. The group stopped at five sites of government and corporate power historically responsible for thousands of AIDS deaths and for the United States’ current health care crisis. At City Hall, they demanded that the city expand access to health care for all poor people and people with HIV. They stopped at Trinity Church, the site of ACT UP’s first public action 20 years ago, to remember those who died of AIDS and/or lack of health care. The crowd swelled at the New York Stock Exchange, as call-and-response chants condemned health care profiteering by insurance and health care companies. The protest concluded at the “Wall Street Bull” statue, as the fervent group observed those engaging in civil disobedience.

And a new group is forming- name to be determined.

http://queer-justice-league.blogspot.com/2007/03/official-announcement-first-meeting-of.html

One can get involved by..

The conversation is also happening online - sign up for the listserv to join in! Subscribe at https://lists.riseup.net/www/info/queerjusticeleague If you're located outside the New York area, we especially encourage you to share your ideas and opinions through the listserv.