Non-Violence Training - comments

[Diane Vera]

Since the thread Non-Violence Training (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2546) seems to have been set up for posting links, I'll post my comments here in a separate thread.

Here I'll comment on The Original 17 Step Journey: Introduction (http://www.soulforce.org/article/531), which begins with a reference to the article Bashing Jerry Falwell is Harmful to Our Cause: A Soulforce Response to the Tinky Winky Tumult (http://www.soulforce.org/article/524). Mel White then goes on to say:

ARE WE USING JERRY LIKE JERRY USES US?
Could it be that the anti-homosexual campaign of Jerry Falwell and the others has become as important to us as "the threat" of our imaginary "gay agenda" is to them? Since institutions need "enemies" to survive, is it possible that we use Jerry to raise funds and mobilize volunteers like Jerry uses us without even realizing that we're doing it?

Well, of course. Every political movement needs a good enemy -- the assholier, the better -- in order to scare supporters into donating lots of money. Like it or not, this is just a fact of political life, it seems to me.

Many activists feel that it is simply not possible to change the minds of people like Jerry Falwell, and hence that it is better just to use our anger against them to rally our own troops.

Mell White also says:

A MORE POWERFUL WAY
Although I am inspired by our parades and moved by our rallies, they are not the kinds of "direct actions" that change the minds and hearts of those who fear and hate us.

Indeed, changing the hearts and minds of our enemies is not the purpose of Gay Pride parades and rallies. Their purposes are (1) to help create a sense of community amongst our own people and (2) to let politicians know that we are a force to be reckoned with.

Mel White urges an approach based more on the methods of Gandhi and King.

Personally, I think that both kinds of political action are desirable. It is necessary to rally our communities to fight back against our enemies. At the same time, it is also desirable for some of us to be working to change the hearts and minds of our enemies.

[Diane Vera]

In The Original 17 Step Journey: Step 1 (http://www.soulforce.org/article/533), Mel White talks about some of the various kinds of suffering endured by GLBT people, especially by gay men. One issue he does not mention, which I would add, is Parents who throw out their gay children (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2421).

[Diane Vera]

In The Original 17 Step Journey: Step 2 (http://www.soulforce.org/article/534), Mel White talks about gay teen suicide. Among other things he says the following:

Karen Blakeney, Director of Youth Services at the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, describes the damage that can be done to a person's spirit by comparing a hostile religious environment to "a trash compactor" that "squashes everything down."

[Diane Vera]

In The Original 17 Step Journey: Step 3 (http://www.soulforce.org/article/535), Mel White comments on some atheists' response to Soulforce.

He raises a lot of points that I don't have time to respond to in detail right now. I'll just comment on one point:

Gandhi said, "True morality consists not in following the beaten path but in finding out the true path for ourselves and in fearlessly following it."

In contrast, on the introductory page The Original 17 Step Journey: Getting Ready for a Journey into Soulforce (http://www.soulforce.org/article/532), Mel White quotes Jerry Falwell as saying:

[Homosexuals] "...have a godless, humanistic scheme for our nation - a plan which will destroy America's traditional moral values...Complete elimination of God and Christianity from American society is being designed right now...[Join with me] "...in a Declaration of War against the forces of Satan that have gripped our nation."

To Gandhi and to Mel White, "God" is a spirit who encourages us to think for ourselves. On the other hand, to Jerry Falwell and to many fundamentalist and traditionalist Christians, "God" is a spirit who demands blind obedience. They would see Gandhi's and Mel White's "God" as being "of Satan."

Unfortunately, the blind-obedience sector of Christianity has been by far the fastest-growing sector these past several decades.

[BruceChris]

Karen Blakeney, Director of Youth Services at the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, describes the damage that can be done to a person's spirit, (Comma), by comparing a hostile religious environment to "a trash compactor" that "squashes everything down."

Clearly, the damage is being done by the spiritual trash compactor, not by the *Comparason*. Karen clearly has a problem with her punctuation. This sort of thing reverses the meaning (And gives me the screaming mee-mees)

Still, Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[Diane Vera]

In The Original 17 Step Journey: Step 7 (http://www.soulforce.org/article/539), Mel White quotes an exceedingly homophobic fund-raising letter by Jerry Falwell. The letter begins with a panic-stricken rant about former Vice President Gore's meeting with "150 radical homosexual leaders." It then rages about the existence of 26 out-of-the-closet gay men and lesbians in "top-level positions" in the Clinton Administration. The letter screams, "If we do not act now, homosexuals will 'own' America!" and then goes on to say, "Make no mistakes my friend, this is a battle between good and evil. And the consequences for America are clear: the judgment of Almighty God on our nation."

Evidently, to Falwell, "good" equals blind obedience to a traditional alleged set of divine commands. Falwell-like fundies apparently don't think of "good" in terms of things like justice, at least not in terms of any ordinary down-to-Earth meaning of the word "justice." Even their idea of "justice" is twisted. For example, their idea of "God's justice" is the idea that all humans deserve eternal punishment.

[Diane Vera]

I am not a Christian and I do not agree with Mel White's theological ideas. It just doesn't seem likely to me that the cosmic God takes a particular interest in human morality, whether in a sensible way (as per the beliefs of Mel White and many liberal Christians) or in a nonsensical way (as per the beliefs of many fundies). It seems to me that all the spirits we humans may interact with in a personal way as "God" most likely exist on a much smaller-than-cosmic scale. (For my reasons for believing this, if anyone is interested, see Post-Copernican Natural Theology (http://www.theisticsatanism.com/CoAz/belief/copernic.html).)

However, at least the more liberal Christians like Mel White revere a much more genuinely benevolent spirit than the fundies do.

Also, as far as I can tell, liberal Christians tend not to believe in -- let alone be caught up in hating -- a Devil. Personally, I'm inclined to believe that what fundies call the Devil is in fact not "Evil" by any down-to-Earth standard, but is, rather, a God who impels us to think for ourselves. Clearly, such a view of the Devil matches up pretty closely with religious right wing propaganda such as Falwell's -- I just put a different spin on it. Thus, I see fundy Devil-believers as my God's avowed enemies. But I do not see liberal Christians as such.

[Diane Vera]

The Original 17 Step Journey: Step 13 (http://www.soulforce.org/article/545) contains, among other things, the following:

NEGOTIATIONS WITH OUR ADVERSARY

1. Before any negotiations begin, I will investigate my opponent's position carefully, trying to understand exactly what my opponent is saying or doing and why my opponent is saying or doing it. I will not attack on the basis of rumor or accusation. I will go to the source.
2. I will confront my opponent's words and/or actions that lead to suffering on the basis of truth as I understand it (without resorting to half-truth, exaggerations, unsubstantiated claims, or lies of my own.)
3. I will confront my opponent's words and/or actions lovingly, without resorting to physical, spiritual, or psychological violence.
4. I will confront my opponent's words/actions relentlessly, refusing to give up or to compromise my truth (or any portion of it) unless my opponent proves me wrong. In that case, I will admit my error gratefully, seek my opponent's forgiveness, and if all is resolved, end the confrontation in peace.
5. Throughout our negotiations I will work to earn my opponent's trust and friendship.

The above is part of a longer list of principles. But I've excerpted the above because I think they are good principles for us to apply in debates in online forums.

[Diane Vera]

The Original 17 Step Journey: Step 14 (http://www.soulforce.org/article/546) contains, among other things, a list of 13 rules for nonviolent direct action. It also states that, "Jerry Falwell met with us on August 17, 1999, and agreed to 'soften' his antigay rhetoric. He even invited 200 of us to a dinner in Lynchburg, Oct. 22-24."

Did he in fact substantially soften his rhetoric after that?

[kara speltz]

The Original 17 Step Journey: Step 14 (http://www.soulforce.org/article/546) contains, among other things, a list of 13 rules for nonviolent direct action. It also states that, "Jerry Falwell met with us on August 17, 1999, and agreed to 'soften' his antigay rhetoric. He even invited 200 of us to a dinner in Lynchburg, Oct. 22-24."

Did he in fact substantially soften his rhetoric after that?

For a nanosecond. And while he invited us to eat with them, he changed his mind at the last minute because he decided he couldn't eat with nonrepentant sinners! He did offer us bottled water.

And when he showed the video of that Sunday service, he made it look like this notorious exgay preacher had preached, that main service and that we had listened to him. To the contrary, Mel made it clear that if this man were preaching at the main service we would not be there. So Jerry preached, but the video showed it to be this other ex-gay preaching. In addition the video claimed that seven of our people came up after the service and renouced our "lifestyle."

It was just two years later that he claimed following the 9/11 attack that it was because of LGBTs that our country had been attacked.

He has, however, within the last few years, somewhat moderated his position on jobs and housing for LGBTs saying that they are not "special rights." We believe that it has been Mel & Gary's quiet witness at his services that has brought this change around. Mel and Gary would attend the service and if Jerry started lying about LGBTs they would simply stand in silence holding hands until the lies stopped.

Kara

[Diane Vera]

The 4 Step Journey (http://www.soulforce.org/article/566) is a more concise version of the 17-step journey, without the specific focus on Jerry Falwell.

[Diane Vera]

And when he showed the video of that Sunday service, he made it look like this notorious exgay preacher had preached, that main service and that we had listened to him. To the contrary, Mel made it clear that if this man were preaching at the main service we would not be there. So Jerry preached, but the video showed it to be this other ex-gay preaching. In addition the video claimed that seven of our people came up after the service and renouced our "lifestyle."

Yikes! Has Soulforce subsequently taken any measures to make it harder for people to lie about your actions?

[Diane Vera]

He has, however, within the last few years, somewhat moderated his position on jobs and housing for LGBTs saying that they are not "special rights." We believe that it has been Mel & Gary's quiet witness at his services that has brought this change around. Mel and Gary would attend the service and if Jerry started lying about LGBTs they would simply stand in silence holding hands until the lies stopped.

Beyond that, do you feel that Soulforce has managed in any way to change the minds of any major religious right wing leaders?

Personally, it seems to me unlikely that Soulforce could succeed very often at changing the minds of religious right wing leaders. But apparently Soulforce's actions at schools seem to be of positive benefit to at least some students and alumni. Also I suspect that Soulforce might have better luck dealing with local pastors than with bigtime religious right wing leaders. In particular, as I suggested earlier, it seems to be that dialog with pastors around the issue of Parents who throw out their gay children (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2421) might accomplish a lot.

[kara speltz]

Beyond that, do you feel that Soulforce has managed in any way to change the minds of any major religious right wing leaders?

Personally, it seems to me unlikely that Soulforce could succeed very often at changing the minds of religious right wing leaders. But apparently Soulforce's actions at schools seem to be of positive benefit to at least some students and alumni. Also I suspect that Soulforce might have better luck dealing with local pastors than with bigtime religious right wing leaders. In particular, as I suggested earlier, it seems to be that dialog with pastors around the issue of Parents who throw out their gay children (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2421) might accomplish a lot.

Dear Diane: I hear what you're saying, but the last goal of Soulforce is to change the religious leaders. Our first goal is to change ourselves in the process of taking on redemptive suffering. The second goal is to change other people, who don't as yet comprehend that we are all children of God.

People often find this part of Soulforce goals confusing. Nonviolence is a process not an end. One priest friend of mine says, I'll be completely nonviolent about 15 mins after my death. I personally don't experience nonviolence as a human trait, but more of a divine trait. When we are centered and focused, we are able to maintain our love for our advesaries. When we are not, we lash out in anger way too often.

I'm currently meeting monthly with a fundamentalist who requested to sit down with me on a regular basis and share some of my beliefs with him. Our talks are always energetic and usually go on for at least two hours. I call it God talk, we just share how God is working in our lives. I can see this person is struggling at times to comprehend, but what he now knows for sure is that he now knows at least one gay person whose focus in life is to serve God.

Much of what Soulforce is trying to do is find the way to build the bridges, that will mend the breach between us.

kara

[u-dog]

[QUOTE]Beyond that, do you feel that Soulforce has managed in any way to change the minds of any major religious right wing leaders?
Diane, I don't know how "major" "major" needs to be but our own BrentRichards used to be a leader in the Ex-gay movement among conservative Presbyterians and unless I mis read his post his mind was changed by an encounter with Mel White. The world changes one heart at a time

[Diane Vera]

Dear Diane: I hear what you're saying, but the last goal of Soulforce is to change the religious leaders. Our first goal is to change ourselves in the process of taking on redemptive suffering. The second goal is to change other people, who don't as yet comprehend that we are all children of God.

I suspect that changing the big-time religious right wing leaders will become easier if/when they ever lose a significant number of followers over the issue. Until then, I suspect that it would be a lot easier to change individual congregations than to change bigtime leaders.

People often find this part of Soulforce goals confusing. Nonviolence is a process not an end. One priest friend of mine says, I'll be completely nonviolent about 15 mins after my death. I personally don't experience nonviolence as a human trait, but more of a divine trait. When we are centered and focused, we are able to maintain our love for our advesaries. When we are not, we lash out in anger way too often.

I'm currently meeting monthly with a fundamentalist who requested to sit down with me on a regular basis and share some of my beliefs with him. Our talks are always energetic and usually go on for at least two hours. I call it God talk, we just share how God is working in our lives. I can see this person is struggling at times to comprehend, but what he now knows for sure is that he now knows at least one gay person whose focus in life is to serve God.

Much of what Soulforce is trying to do is find the way to build the bridges, that will mend the breach between us.

kara

Good luck with that approach. It's not the only approach that can work. Different approaches may work best for different people.

Back when I was in college in the late 1970's, I succeeded in convincing a couple of student religious right wingers to back down, using a very different approach. My dialogue with them began when the student newspaper published a letter by one of them objecting to the very existence of a gay students' group on campus. I debated with them both in the student newspaper's letters-to-the-editor column and in person, in the cafeteria. I did not attempt to change their religious beliefs about homosexuality. Instead, I did the following:

I challenged them to give nonreligious reasons for their disapproval of homosexuality. However, upon further probing, all their allegedly nonreligious reasons turned out to rooted in religious beliefs after all.

I argued that they did not have the right to impose a purely religion-based standard on the rest of society.

I managed to keep my cool because these students were basically rational and because I'd already had a lot of practice debating about this issue with my parents and others. When debating against anti-gay prejudices, I used a Socratic approach most of the time. At that time I was not a religious believer of any kind.

Eventually the two students wrote letters to the student newspaper retracting their earlier objections to the school allowing a gay student group.

If you can manage to change the hearts and minds of fundies by talking to them Christian-to-Christian, great. Obviously that's not an option for me.

[Diane Vera]

I personally don't experience nonviolence as a human trait, but more of a divine trait. When we are centered and focused, we are able to maintain our love for our advesaries. When we are not, we lash out in anger way too often.

Hmmm. Actually, it seems to me that at least some of the principles of nonviolence involve skills that a lot of people have managed to learn and apply in completely nonspiritual, nonreligious, and nonpolitical contexts. For example, there are plenty of occupations in which a person is expected to maintain a "professional demeanor" at all times, which essentially means keeping one's cool and being considerate towards the customer no matter what. Obviously if you're going to try to change other people's hearts and minds on anything, whether on political and social matters or just to sell a product, it helps to be compassionate and considerate and avoid behavior that will alienate the other person.

It seems to me that certain spiritualities may make it easier to apply these principles to benefit an entire community rather than just an individual's own personal gain. But some of the principles themselves are just everyday social necessities writ large, it seems to me.

[Joe Brummer]

Hmmm. Actually, it seems to me that at least some of the principles of nonviolence involve skills that a lot of people have managed to learn and apply in completely nonspiritual, nonreligious, and nonpolitical contexts. For example, there are plenty of occupations in which a person is expected to maintain a "professional demeanor" at all times, which essentially means keeping one's cool and being considerate towards the customer no matter what. Obviously if you're going to try to change other people's hearts and minds on anything, whether on political and social matters or just to sell a product, it helps to be compassionate and considerate and avoid behavior that will alienate the other person.

It seems to me that certain spiritualities may make it easier to apply these principles to benefit an entire community rather than just an individual's own personal gain. But some of the principles themselves are just everyday social necessities writ large, it seems to me.



It appears to me that you don't think nonviolence works, but the fact is it has worked for centuries. Perhaps you should skip Mel's training and head right for the largest of them...Gandhi, King, Chevez.....

Nonviolence does work, and maybe you don't agree with Mel's version of it, but it does work....

[Diane Vera]

It appears to me that you don't think nonviolence works, but the fact is it has worked for centuries.

I didn't say it doesn't work. I don't think it's the be-all and end-all, but I do think it can accomplish a lot, at least under some circumstances.

Anyhow, I find it odd that you've made the above comment in reply to a statement of mine in which I said, in effect, that some of the principles of nonviolence are just common sense rather than necessarily requiring anything "divine." To say that something is common sense implies that it does (or at least can) work, not that it doesn't work. Perhaps you didn't read carefully what I wrote?

[Diane Vera]

I didn't say it doesn't work. I don't think it's the be-all and end-all, but I do think it can accomplish a lot, at least under some circumstances.

To clarify the above comment: On page 6 (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?p=24226#post24226) in the thread On Morality, Civil Rights, and Soul Force (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2477), I wrote:

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.

[...]

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.

I should point out that even the rude sectors of the GLBT rights movement are (for the most part) nonviolent in the sense of not resorting to physical violence, though they don't follow the principles of nonviolence.

It seems to me that Soulforce is focussing on precisely the sort of thing that its tactics are probably best suited to do, namely confronting fundie religious institutions.

However, as far as changing laws is concerned, I personally am more of a believer in the principles of Saul D. Alinsky (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2467).

[BronzDragon]

Many activists feel that it is simply not possible to change the minds of people like Jerry Falwell, and hence that it is better just to use our anger against them to rally our own troops.

» Thom says: ☛ Under the SatyaGrahi ethic, the means justify the ends. In fact, every act is considered an end in itself. I think the self-proclaimed Christian leadership exemplified by Kennedy and Cameron may feel they are correct in their vision of a world without GLBTQ’s. Meanwhile, they have become addicted to the corruptive power of Angre Mainyu, and will not see the damage they are doing to others. They hold that the ends – purging god’s kingdoms of all depravation – justify the means – ruining lives, communities, even nations to get their will on Earth done.

This is where we differ, really, the SatyaGrahi and the violent. The violent lack the imagination or the experience to see another way to power and force. We might not know where that path is, but we know it is there, we pursue it like a bohemian pursues life, truth, freedom and above all else, love. We may never find it: but like the Jewish mystic who knows god must exist solely based on the desire to know if she does, we desire with all our hearts to find the path to Knowledge, Power, and Pleasure without violence.

‘Passive submission to brutality is a mortal sin.’ Our path is an aggressive one; we are actively seeking change, actively and aggressively fighting the Greater Jihad, the war against Angre Mainyu within our selves, and actively fighting the lesser Jihad, the war against injustice, inclemency in our society. It is part of the civil contract, is it not, that the governed determine the means by which they govern us, and persuade those in power to govern properly?


Personally, I think that both kinds of political action are desirable. It is necessary to rally our communities to fight back against our enemies. At the same time, it is also desirable for some of us to be working to change the hearts and minds of our enemies.


» Thom says: ☛ It is not the goal of the SatyaGrahi to fight back against our enemies. The goal is to convince our ‘enemies’ that we are really not the enemy they believe we are; that we are not in competition for resources that are sufficient for everyone to have more than enough.

I suppose it is the difference between an aggressive sport and a violent one. In an aggressive - wrestling match - the goal is to win. In a violent one, the goal is to win at the expense of one’s opponent losing. No, my winning does not mean you lose, it simply means that, for that moment, I got the upper hand and took advantage of the opportunity, not that you were inferior in any way.

[BronzDragon]

Many activists feel that it is simply not possible to change the minds of people like Jerry Falwell, and hence that it is better just to use our anger against them to rally our own troops.

» Thom says: ☛ Another point, if I can. Sometimes our goal is not to change the will of Falwell or Chriswell or of any of the James’. Our goal is to, maybe, save the life of just one person. This war they fight against us has many casualties; the adolescent who is exploring or trying to figure something out gets dumped on the streets without a trial of any kind: the straight hair dresser or the boy who is just a little too pretty or dancing with a little too much abandon: the girl who plays soccer just a little too much better than her boyfriend: the person who has glbtq friends, and does not care. Each of these, and many more, are at risk in this war.

If I, as a SatyaGrahi and as minister, can convince a potentially violent act to not happen, even if it is no where near the San Jacinto Valley of California, I feel I have won a victory. I may never know, or may not learn of that victory until I stand before the Queen at the End of the World (Gnostic metaphor for death). Is that really important? That I get the warm-fuzzy award? Or that the life was indeed changed, or saved?

I look forward to a world where I can walk down the street, appreciate the physical attributes of another human-being without fear. I look forward to a world where we need gay ghettoes no longer. I look forward to a world where no one condemns someone for a minor difference (sex is only 1% of sexuality) or because of an odd identity. I work for a world where this hope is not in vain.

[ladyinred]

Could it be that homosexuality has become such a hot topic to the right because it brings in the funds to support their churches and leaders?Have they found a new cash cow? It probably keeps the public tuned into their programs on tv,and it does bring alot of attention to their side as well.Perhaps it helps fill the pews in churches on Sunday morning? The focus on the family , aren't they a business enterprise as well? I wouldn't call people like Pat Robertson, Falwell or Dobson poor paupers, they have a "thriving business" that pays big dividends.It is also known that big money backs them. (I read that the CEO of Domino's pizza is one of them)

[kara speltz]

Could it be that homosexuality has become such a hot topic to the right because it brings in the funds to support their churches and leaders?Have they found a new cash cow? It probably keeps the public tuned into their programs on tv,and it does bring alot of attention to their side as well.Perhaps it helps fill the pews in churches on Sunday morning? The focus on the family , aren't they a business enterprise as well? I wouldn't call people like Pat Robertson, Falwell or Dobson poor paupers, they have a "thriving business" that pays big dividends.It is also known that big money backs them. (I read that the CEO of Domino's pizza is one of them)

While I would agree with you that attacking LGBTs provides a substantial cash crop for these people, the principals of nonviolence teach that the motives of our advesaries should be of no concern to us. First, and probably foremost because assigning motives to people is always about making assumptions. And none but God, can see into the hearts of people. So the focus needs to be how we counter this rather than why we think people are promoting hatred.

kara