Am I missing something? [Archive] - Soulforce Community Forums

u-dog

04-06-2007, 07:29 AM

We really have discussed this puppy out the wazzoo. It is unlikely that you will get much response unless you read those threads and then post some NEW angle that we haven't discussed. If you can't or don't want to do that then we should probably just agree to disagree. But you ARE welcome here and we would be very interested in something new...

Here is a question to which I would like an answer (not necessarily just from Marion or even just from people who agree with Marion): Why does the issue of "private property" seem to so important to people and to evoke such passionate responses? Gay teenagers and young adults (kids JUST like our own dear Brian, Jenn, Austin, Lydia, Greg et al) are ending their own precious, God given, light filled, delightful lives because of the viscious spiritual violence perpetuated by conservative colleges and churches. Imagine the light of 10,000 imaginative young poets like Austin blinking out of existence. Imagine 10,000 quirky, funny, thoughtful minds like Brian's suddenly leaving the building. Imagine 15,000 searching, questioning, passionate advocates for justice like Jenn suddenly exiting stage left! This is actually happening! Year after year after year. These folks have an "opinion" they have their "values" and their "Beliefs" and those opinions/values/beliefs are CAUSING YOUNG PEOPLE SO MUCH PAIN THAT THEY KILL THEMSELVES! THIS IS WHAT IS AN OUTRAGE! NOT WHETHER A FEW PASSIONATE YOUNG PEOPLE STEP ON THE GRASS!!!!!!!

So... let me re-iterate my question now that you know the source of my confusion.

Why does the issue of "private property" seem to be so important to people and to evoke such passionate responses?

kara speltz

04-06-2007, 08:00 AM

We really have discussed this puppy out the wazzoo. It is unlikely that you will get much response unless you read those threads and then post some NEW angle that we haven't discussed. If you can't or don't want to do that then we should probably just agree to disagree. But you ARE welcome here and we would be very interested in something new...

Here is a question to which I would like an answer (not necessarily just from Marion or even just from people who agree with Marion): Why does the issue of "private property" seem to so important to people and to evoke such passionate responses? Gay teenagers and young adults (kids JUST like our own dear Brian, Jenn, Austin, Lydia, Greg et al) are ending their own precious, God given, light filled, delightful lives because of the viscious spiritual violence perpetuated by conservative colleges and churches. Imagine the light of 10,000 imaginative young poets like Austin blinking out of existence. Imagine 10,000 quirky, funny, thoughtful minds like Brian's suddenly leaving the building. Imagine 15,000 searching, questioning, passionate advocates for justice like Jenn suddenly exiting stage left! This is actually happening! Year after year after year. These folks have an "opinion" they have their "values" and their "Beliefs" and those opinions/values/beliefs are CAUSING YOUNG PEOPLE SO MUCH PAIN THAT THEY KILL THEMSELVES! THIS IS WHAT IS AN OUTRAGE! NOT WHETHER A FEW PASSIONATE YOUNG PEOPLE STEP ON THE GRASS!!!!!!!

So... let me re-iterate my question now that you know the source of my confusion.

Why does the issue of "private property" seem to so important to people and to evoke such passionate responses?

Funny you should ask that question, because just last night I was thinking that we Americans have several idols we worship one of them is private property. The other is capitalism. Native American people understand that there really is no such thing as private property. The land belongs to the creator and we are simply here to take care of it. And we all see how well we have done that:(

Perhaps as we celebrate the Resurrection, Passover, or whatever holi(holy)day, we could give up our golden calves and idols. kara

antonyh

04-06-2007, 11:25 AM

Hi Marion,

Here is the thread where we discussed the issue:

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2477

And let me tell ya, I have a few bruises, but it was a great discussion and I'm not sure I am right and I still remain conflicted about the issue.

I actually spoke with an African American friend of mine at DePaul University about the issue because I wanted her perspective on Dr. King and the idea of having public laws in your sights whenever you step onto private property.

She said that Dr. King did focus primarily on unjust public laws in his activism, but that there are many who wonder if that was really enough. She cited Brown vs. Board of Education which desegregated schools. While the law has changed, thoughts and hearts have not. Schools still remain very segregated in practice.

From this perspective, Soulforce is challenging hearts and minds. We can change the laws, but that does not mean that hearts and minds change. African Americans enjoy a tremendous amount of legal equality, but structural racism still remains.

This is an exceptionally complex issue to sort out because homophobia is deeply embeded in and justified by our religious communities and our religious communities are protected by freedom of religion. They are within their constitutional boundaries to hate. And they are leaving their fortresses to lobby against our civil rights. And they are reducing the faith of many LGBTQ people to ashes.

So how can we respond to such well protected hate?

Why does the issue of "private property" seem to so important to people and to evoke such passionate responses?

Because that is the space protected for freedom of religion in the first amendment of the Constitution. We just don't have the luxury to be casual about it.

tdogg

04-06-2007, 11:34 AM

Amen Kara!

And U-Dog too - for some it seems as tho the private property issue is much more prevailing than our young gays and lesbians being expelled, oppressed, ridiculed, threatened, etc. in these schools. I understand the private property issue in that these schools may THINK they are private property; however, as discussed elsewhere that is debatible at best. IMO, working towards full equality and acceptance takes precedence and if that means people have to walk on and into the school grounds to do it, so be it.

No one from the ER is committing acts of violence - they are merely attempting to communicate with students and faculty (if they are around). Yes, they are pushing their cause, but if those who are so opposed to it understood the pain, hurt, humiliation gay and lesbian students are subject to, REALLY UNDERSTOOD - the 'pain' of the ER riders walking onto campus lawns and grounds is pretty moot (especially considering it isn't painful at all, let's be serious here). The point isn't that these students can go to some other college - many do NOT have that option.

I too, am anxiously awaiting a reponse to U-dog's great question...

u-dog

04-06-2007, 01:21 PM

the puppy patrol needs to stick together :tup:

antonyh

04-06-2007, 02:55 PM

I understand the private property issue in that these schools may THINK they are private property; however, as discussed elsewhere that is debatible at best.

Law enforcement thinks it is private property too.

u-dog

04-06-2007, 04:11 PM

Law enforcement thinks it is private property too.

This REALLY needed a smiley face (I'm sure that I heard your tongue in your cheek! :lol:

kara speltz

04-06-2007, 04:40 PM

Law enforcement thinks it is private property too.

There is the law and then there is God's law, Antony. I sincerely believe that Native Americans have the correct understanding of private property.

Kara

u-dog

04-06-2007, 04:49 PM

IF those Native Americans step on the grass, they WILL be arrested!!! Make no mistake!

You have the right to remain silent. If give up your right to remain silent, anyth....

Daniel

04-06-2007, 05:28 PM

This may seem a bit tangential, but the matter of Public vs Private has a far reaching influence.

I recently saw a program on an Indian (continental) woman who works tirelessly for the rights of farmers in her country and against globalization in particular. She cited egregious examples how a company will come in and make a claim that they own a particular kind of seed that has grown in a valley for thousands of years. This means that the company is endeavoring to gobble up natural recources as if it invented them.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/jan-june07/globalization_03-23.html

This is not the only place where this kind of thinking happens. It is also seen in the area of 'intellectual copyright'. In short, individuals and companies are making forays into what was once considered the public domain. And even the notion of copyright itself has changed. Congress has enacted laws which enable the descendants of descendants to keep making money on one person's orginal work. This is a sea change from former practice where information entered the 'public' sphere much earlier.

Because of this, I see the whole issue of public vs private as about money, privilege and acquisition, as well as the corporatization of the world economy and the individual.

The irony for me here is that, even though we, as Americans, have more 'stuff', we actually have less. We are loosing sight of what really matters.

The pubic good.

antonyh

04-06-2007, 07:18 PM

This REALLY needed a smiley face (I'm sure that I heard your tongue in your cheek! :lol:

I was being tongue in cheek :lol: but also hoping to tickle (stimulate?) some thought at how important it is not to be casual about the freedom of religion practiced on private grounds.

Allyson

04-07-2007, 06:00 AM

u-dog

04-07-2007, 06:29 AM

preach it!:love:

tdogg

04-07-2007, 09:50 AM

What I'm wondering is how many closeted and oppressed GLBTQ people walk on the "private property" of these colleges and universities every day, terrified that someone will find out, scared into submission by unjust policies and unsound doctrines and those who enforce them both?

MANY! Right on Allyson!

The ER Riders aren't trying to interfere with anyone's religious freedom on these campuses, they are trying to end the oppression and abuse (and all that goes with that) of the GLBT students that are a result of the views of particular college administrators. There is a difference.

Great thought Allyson - they are bringing the love Christ demonstrated, back into these "Christian" schools.....

Allyson

04-07-2007, 10:00 AM

Thanks, y'all! :love:

...that are a result of the views of particular college administrators.

It's worth noting, I think, that administrators are only part of the problem, and a small part at that. Much of the pressure to keep anti-GLBTQ policies in place comes from denominational organizations that fund schools, parents who send (or who might send) their kids there, and--most importantly, I think--wealthy donors who keep endowments propped up.

ctozrn

04-07-2007, 11:39 AM

I think the most important thing to remember here is that

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT LIVES!!!!!!!

There are young GLBT kids who are KILLING themselves everyday! That should be the outrage! You are talking about private property when there are kids being told they are going to hell for how they are born?

Who cares about the grass!!!!!!

The fact that someone can come on here concerned about walking on private property when there are so many young kids suffering for who they are is unbelievable to me! If we had worried about that Civil Rights would have never gotten anywhere. I live in Greensboro, NC the home of the sit ins. I drive by the very spot that the four young African American men sat at the counter for a week until they were served. This was a pivitol moment in Civil Rights! This was what really got the ball rolling. And guess what???

Woolworths was PRIVATE PROPERTY!!!!!

We, who believe that religious oppression for GLBT youth is wrong have got to upset the applecart in order to be heard. This is not something to stand by quietly and watch as young lives are snuffed out. The ER do what they do because it is the right thing to do.

I am going to take a cold shower now!!! :mad:

Vanessa White

04-08-2007, 09:39 AM

I want to concur with many of the comments that have already been made here on this topic. The private vs. public property debate may be an important one, but one which has been discussed fully in an alternate thread. My reason for responding to this one has more to do with what has been said about the young, vibrant lives that are being lost. The estimate is that out of all youth suicides, about one third are by those young men and women that are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered, or are questioning their sexual orientation. For them, a life of living in fear, shame, and hidden from the outside world is not worth living. A world in which they feel totally rejected, or that they will be, is one that they actively choose not to live in. I have no blame for them in making that choice, but moreso on those that could extend that love and support to to them, in order to help them understand that there is compassion, love and understanding in this complex world. It is unforgivable to me, that we lose so many precious young lives in 2007, because some persons in our society believe that it is so sinful for them to just be who they are created to be. We here at Soulforce offer love and support to each other when we most need it, but we also are here as guiding lights and examples for those youths that most need it. And, the ER and the riders are an opportunity to take our message to those places where some of the most oppression exists, so those that don't know about us, and feel alone, hopeless, and helpless, can maybe have hope, and maybe not want to take their own lives. It is a worthwhile, essential endeavor. It is our duty and responsibility. Let our commitment never waiver...... Love and peace to all, Vanessa :love: :love: :love: :love:

tdogg

04-08-2007, 02:12 PM

Allyson, you are so right about that - the school administrators are actualing perpetrating the beliefs and wishes of those who suppor them. It's a viscious circle that must be stopped, because...

...like Christine and Vanessa state, the lives and souls of the students, even JUST ONE STUDENT, does and should take precedence over anyone's opinion, idea or definition of 'private property'. The argument over whether or not the ER are trespassing, or even whether or not the schools are private property, becomes MOOT when one has knowledge of how these students are treated/mistreated.

When JUST ONE STUDENT is oppressed, mistreated, abused, humiliated, accosted, subjected to violence (mentally, emotionally, physically and/or spiritually), it cannot and MUST NOT be tolerated. Not matter who believes or doesn't believe that the ER Riders should enter or stay out of the schools.

pnggrad79

04-08-2007, 02:14 PM

Kara,
I am from Native American heritage and I agree with you about the private property issue. I am also a lesbian, and it pains me to see the way young gay people are lambasted by the religious infrastructure and made to feel like God doesn't love them as they are. There are a lot of "idols" the religious establishments holds near and dear. And they won't part with them unless by force.
A kid in my class asked me Friday ( yes, we had to go to school on Good Friday) where Easter comes from-bunnies, eggs, etc. And I told them that when Constantine made Christianity legal in 300 A.D., he had to find some way to appease the Romans so he melted together Roman and Eastern religious figures into prominent Christian figures and made them a blended religious to appease both groups. So what we have is the ancient fertility symbols of the rabbit and eggs, symbolizing the rebirth of spring, melted together with the resurrection of Jesus Christ which represents rebirth or new life. How convenient but not terribly Christian, at least in the purest sense. The kid sat there mesmerized and said,"So Easter isn't really Christian at all?" and I said, "Sort of.but not really, it has elements of very Non Christian religious thought and belief". A lot the same for Christmas as well.

Our idols? We have many. I agree, let's get rid of them!

JudB

04-08-2007, 06:58 PM

Thanks for helping clarify values.

What is more important, a young life or private property? Private property is such a huge thing for North Americans, I get caught up and forget to ask myself these simple questions. I can loose perspective and automatically assume that private property is so important for all people everywhere. How easily I forget that nothing is more important to God than one of his creations.

marion crossnore

04-09-2007, 12:51 PM

NathanATX

04-09-2007, 01:06 PM

put the shoe on the other foot, what if BYU et.al. came to private GLBT clubs and forced their way in to protest, who'd be disrespecting who then?

That would be a very interesting day, but I think we'd be delighted to welcome them.

If they said their action was a social justice-based action, I would be very interested what their premise would be.

You see, we aren't afraid of dialogue. We aren't ashamed of our policies and secretive actions. We don't wish to keep our flock brainwashed and "in-line" with our dictates.

keltic63

04-09-2007, 01:18 PM

put the shoe on the other foot, what if BYU et.al. came to private GLBT clubs and forced their way in to protest, who'd be disrespecting who then?

it seems the shoe is on the other foot! That's why soulforce is taking the actions that it is. religious institutions such as these colleges and churches are sending the spiritually violent message that homosexual people are sinners based on their orientation. they teach that it is ok to discriminate against homosexuals, they want to deny homosexuals access to civil rights, denying them access to health care, insurance, housing, jobs, and marriage. Many of these colleges not only expel students on the basis of their homosexual orientation, they out them to their families who then disown them, they may force them to enter reparative therapy programs that are not based on sound psychological practices or scientific research. Those programs do more damage than good to their participants.

So yes, we're getting uppity, we're knocking on the doors of the establishments that are oppressing us. We are getting their attention, nonviolently and persistently. I'm sorry you're uncomfortable with that, but being comfortable has allowed too many lgbt people to be injured.

Daniel

04-09-2007, 01:35 PM

Marion- another member here posted the following on another thread. Here to be exact. http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2477&highlight=private+property

Originally Posted by simpleman

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!
__________________
Love and affirmation,

Scotty

Like Nathan, I would welcome the dialogue with those like BYU should they come to someplace - say- like the Gay Center her in NYC. And like Nathan, I would want to know the basis of their action. What claim do do think they could make Marion? That they are discriminated against in some way by gay people?

Au Contraire!

The shoe is on the other foot.

kara speltz

04-09-2007, 01:37 PM

apologies for posting in the wrong place, but I am still missing what makes Soulforce think it can go on private property, BJU is solely owned by the Jones family and it is private! period.

as for the Woolworth's remark, woolworth's is/was privately owned, but open to the public (or to the white public) therein lies the difference (and I don't think we can equate our struggle to the African American struggle)

and this topic obviously has not been laid to rest as my post garnered 20 posts...

you may be non-violent, but you have no respect for others property

and don't give me that Native American answer, doesn't work that way in
21st century USA under the law...as I am of NA descent, I wish we had had better immigration laws too!
no one here has given me a convincing answer for justifying invading another's property!

stand on the street, on the side-walks all of the public places and make your message known, but the minute you go to private proerty and get yourself arrested, it becomes a watered-down message and hype

put the shoe on the other foot, what if BYU et.al. came to private GLBT clubs and forced their way in to protest, who'd be disrespecting who then?

Hmmm let me guess you'd want to keep all those "foreigners," out of our country right? We're all immigrants here, and to me it is so unchristian to deny the riches of this country to people. We Americans (approximately 15% of the world's population) are consuming 85% of the worlds resources and for the most part most Christians just want to hang on to what they have at the expense of those we've stolen it from.

Our American lifestyle is at the expense of the rest of the world and our idol are those possessions along with private property.

To me, all of our extravegent consumerism and the attempt to keep others out of this country, is the exact opposite of what Jesus was about.

Remember that the sin of Soddom and Gamorrah, wasn't about gays, it was about inhospitality. So who really are the Soddomites?

kara

u-dog

04-09-2007, 02:00 PM

you may be non-violent, but you have no respect for others property

Marion, one more time. The soulforce Equality Riders DO have respect for others property rights, HOWEVER, they do not believe that those rights are AS IMPORTANT as the right of glbt students at those institutions to hear a word of hope and inclusion. THEREFORE, the E-riders knowingly and intentionally VIOLATE private property rights when they are not invited in and WILLINGLY bear the legal consequences for doing so.

To Sumerize:
1. Private property is important
2.Private property is not THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE UNIVERSE.
3.The lives of young GLBT are MORE important than the sanctity of Private property rights
4. The ER invade private property in order to tell THE TRUTH to those who need to hear it.
5. They willingly bear the legal consequences for doing so, because the lives of young GLBT people ARE WORTH IT.

no one here has given me a convincing answer for justifying invading another's property!

BECAUSE IT IS RIGHTEOUS TO DO SO IN THE NAME OF SAVING LIVES. BECAUSE IT WORKS.

stand on the street, on the side-walks all of the public places and make your message known, but the minute you go to private proerty and get yourself arrested, it becomes a watered-down message and hype

Nonsense.

put the shoe on the other foot, what if BYU et.al. came to private GLBT clubs and forced their way in to protest, who'd be disrespecting who then?

As others have said... Would that they would! Discourse is what we want. The truth gets told, falsehood is unmasked. Fools falter.

tdogg

04-09-2007, 02:17 PM

kara speltz

04-09-2007, 02:21 PM

Scott, I believe you have answered Marion's questions more than adequately. Marion, I hope you truly do not believe that respecting private property (if it is indeed private property) is more important than taking action to save people's lives.

I think the analogy we could use is when a house is burning and people are inside of it, would you argue about private property and keep the firemen away, because some property owner didn't want the government on his property, or would you simply go in and rescue them?

Jamie McDaniel

04-09-2007, 02:23 PM

...and I don't think we can equate our struggle to the African American struggle...

Marion, I often refer folks to the following page when a statement like this is made. Equate? Perhaps not. Strong parallels? Absolutely.

Those Who Lived the Struggle to End Segregation Now Speak Out for Same-Gender Marriage Equality (http://www.soulforce.org/article/766)

marion crossnore

04-09-2007, 02:24 PM

...regardless of the consitution, i.e. the first amendment, if you are a "private" institution with certain dogmas that I don't like I should invade your space to promote MY dogmas that YOU don't like...???

being a Southerner and being fully aware of how things work in the South, you will not make much progress here with that method...

you may say my thoughts are "nonsense" all you like, but you will also waste a lot of money on trespassing fines...money better spent elsewhere

even Fred Phelps knows better than to trespass on private property (he protested BJU as well)

I am not saying that your message is wrong, I am saying some of your method is wrong

keltic63

04-09-2007, 02:27 PM

I am not saying that your message is wrong, I am saying some of your method is wrong

Great, so that means you're an ally to LGBT people! If this is so, tell us then, what methods you would find superior to what soulforce is doing.

tdogg

04-09-2007, 02:40 PM

marion crossnore

04-09-2007, 03:15 PM

keltic63

04-09-2007, 03:41 PM

I would work within the law for starters, the consitution does allow for assembly afterall, the folks in Clinton would have a better argument had they gotten arrested while simply being in assembly...the ACLU would have had a ball with that one!

I'd would have sat down on that PUBLIC (paid for with tax dollars) sidewalk and refused to budge, and as I understand some did, bravo and brava, but I wouldn't do that to private property

If you were witnessing a man abusing his wife on the porch of their home, and it was well within your ability to stop the abuse, would you ignore that abuse, enter the property, or simply call the police? remember, it's all happening on private property. Do you even have the right to call the police? Do the police have the right to enter the private property?

again, are you saying you are an ally to lgbt persons?

scott snedeker

04-09-2007, 08:31 PM

Marion,

I am quoting a previous post of mine addressing the issue of private property and the law.

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!

clear up one thing. It happens when, not the law, but the people enforcing the law are the subscribers to the misconception that private property entitles the owner to break the law by discriminating against one minority while serving others] When that happens, Civil Disobedience [I]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.

I will grant you that trespassing is disobedient, but so is resisting oppression.

Civil disobedience is resisting oppression by law-breakers (civil rights violators) that are granted to continue their crime by their cohort law enforcers. My questions are. On which side would you be most likely to find Jesus Christ? How many have paid the price for sanctimonious predation of gays? How many have died? And what is yet to come?

Emproph

04-10-2007, 06:32 AM

you may be non-violent, but you have no respect for others propertyMarion, one more time. The soulforce Equality Riders DO have respect for others property rights, HOWEVER, they do not believe that those rights are AS IMPORTANT as the right of glbt students at those institutions to hear a word of hope and inclusion. THEREFORE, the E-riders knowingly and intentionally VIOLATE private property rights when they are not invited in and WILLINGLY bear the legal consequences for doing so.

To Sumerize:
1. Private property is important
2.Private property is not THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE UNIVERSE.
3.The lives of young GLBT are MORE important than the sanctity of Private property rights
4. The ER invade private property in order to tell THE TRUTH to those who need to hear it.
5. They willingly bear the legal consequences for doing so, because the lives of young GLBT people ARE WORTH IT.

no one here has given me a convincing answer for justifying invading another's property!

BECAUSE IT IS RIGHTEOUS TO DO SO IN THE NAME OF SAVING LIVES. BECAUSE IT WORKS.

stand on the street, on the side-walks all of the public places and make your message known, but the minute you go to private proerty and get yourself arrested, it becomes a watered-down message and hype

Nonsense.

put the shoe on the other foot, what if BYU et.al. came to private GLBT clubs and forced their way in to protest, who'd be disrespecting who then?

As others have said... Would that they would! Discourse is what we want. The truth gets told, falsehood is unmasked. Fools falter.

Utter Perfection

Vanessa White

04-10-2007, 08:40 AM

Marion: Honestly, I am unsure what your intentions are in being here. We welcome and need allies, I believe that the ER from last year gathered to us some allies that didn't know when we arrived that they would be such. There minds were opened, their eyes saw things in a new way. If you are trying to come to understanding in order to consider yourself an ally, then I hope that you will continue to dialogue and meet with us here. If you are here only to continue to tell us how ineffective our means is, or how much you disagree with how we go about our initiatives, I am not sure it is purposeful, and probably very frustrating for you. Even though you may not agree in how we go about our initiatives, I believe that we are consistently inviting dialogue with those who disagree with us. Besides the fact that I believe it is my duty as a lesbian, as well as a follower of Christ, to go to where those that are being oppressed are, like on these campuses, even if it means arrest, there is another reason that I see that gatherings on public property alone may be ineffective. I believe that we would get our message to few people if we announced a gathering in a public park, for example, than if we go to where the oppressive, negative, discriminatory message is being hailed, on these campuses. How can it be any more Christ like, then to want to literally help to save lives by taking our word to those who are hating themselves over who they are? By taking our word and our truth to those who may be uncertain if their institution is viewing it in a way that is embracing and nurturing? I agree with Nate, let those that do not understand or agree enter our "dwellings" and talk with us about their views. When a group of persons, based solely on who they are, are being oppressed and discriminated against, it is my duty as a human being, I believe, to work to end that oppression. Even if it means that there may be some uncomfortable results or consequences. If those that we try to reach were to just welcome us fully with open arms, we wouldn't need to do what we are doing, right? I say "we", and although I am not a rider, I consider myself in full alliance and support with every one of them. THey have my utmost respect and admiration. Peace and love to you, Vanesssa :love:

Diane Vera

04-10-2007, 12:10 PM

I think the analogy we could use is when a house is burning and people are inside of it, would you argue about private property and keep the firemen away, because some property owner didn't want the government on his property, or would you simply go in and rescue them?

I am by no means the "private property" absolutist that marion crossnore seems to be. But I see a problem with the above analogy, and likewise with the husband-beating-his-wife analogy someone else made in this thread:

Both a fire and domestic violence are every-second-counts emergencies. Intervention needs to be immediate in order to prevent further serious injury. Anti-gay attitudes on a college campus would be similarly an emergency only if, for example, you were witness to a physically violent hate crime taking place on campus, or if you had just gotten a phone call from a gay student threatening to commit suicide in his dorm room. These things do happen too, but unless they are happening at the moment when you are there, you're not dealing with an emergency situation.

Absent such an every-second-counts emergency situation, it seems to me that, to justify CD actions on a college campus, it's better to argue that so-called "private" colleges are not in fact fully private, and that they are more like lunch counters than like private homes.

davidb

04-10-2007, 12:35 PM

The thing that gets me is the fact that these institutions have become so much a part of the Republican Party's "base," they've politicized their message to such extremes, and all the right-wing candidates use their churches and campuses to spout their rhetoric--yet they receive tax exempt status!

Meanwhile, my tax dollars support a war that I feel is immoral and unjust, and-- on top of that--my glbt brothers and sisters are forbidden to be a part of the armed services that are paid for with my tax dollars. It's crazy.

Public and private, indeed.

______________________________________________
What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us.

--Emerson

BrentRichards

04-10-2007, 02:51 PM

It seems to me (forgive me if I'm repeating what's already been said elsewhere) that the point of this particular part of the ER strategy is precisely that what these schools are doing is NOT illegal. If it were, we wouldn't demonstrate, we'd just take them to court. It is perfectly legal for them to discriminate against LGBT students. But legal is not the same thing as RIGHT. A civil disobedience action forces the law to its absurd extreme to make that point.

I have no wish to oppose private property rights. I own property. But being on my own property does not entitle me to do whatever I wish there. When an unjust policy is being carried out, the fact that it is being done by a private group on private property doesn't mean we must just "let it be." We have an obsession with "privacy" in our culture, and we take it to mean that when I have an opinion, everyone else must shut up and not challenge me.

My take --ER says to a school: We wish to talk to you about what we see as an injustice in your policy. The school may answer "We will not cooperate." ER then replies "Neither will we." Riders trespass with full knowledge and acceptance of the consequences of their action. The trespass was created, not by the existence of a property line, but by the owner's refusal to allow a reasonable request. We don't want to hear you, and in order to not hear you, we will have you arrested. That this is true is evidenced by the entirely different approach taken by the schools that welcomed the Riders: We don't agree with you, but we will hear you. Nobody got arrested. Minds may or may not have been changed. No media circus.

On the campuses where arrests were made, some students expressed that their mind was changed: "I have more respect for you right now than I do for my school" ... "They shouldn't have you arrested." Respect ... shouldn't ... exactly! The private property issue simply gave the school the opportunity to decide whether they would take their position (and therefore the law) to the absurd extreme. They did. And, in my book, at that point Civil Disobedience has won.

The whole point of Civil Disobedience is that legal and right are not equivalent. Or, to quote Little Red Riding Hood from my favorite Sondheim musical "Into the Woods" (Good grief, I AM gay): "Nice is different than good."

BrentRichards

04-10-2007, 02:56 PM

Just remembered the point I felt I was leaving out ...

In case we are tempted to see "trespassing" as the issue here, we should ask if these same schools have community residents arrested for walking their dogs around campus, or playing frisbee in one of their fields, or taking a short cut across their lawns, or ... I suspect they don't. That's because the issue is not trespassing, the issue is not wanting to face disagreement over GLBT policies. The Rider's IDEAS, BELIEFS, and IDENTITY were the reason some schools chose to involve police, not some detatched concern for private property rights.

antonyh

04-10-2007, 04:02 PM

Wow, this issue is just the gift that keeps on giving ;)

I'm wondering if Soulforce has thought about creating a position paper on why they go on private property in their activism. It could address both constitutional and theological issues.

While it may seem obvious to Soulforce, it seems to create a fair amount of angst for the uninitiated and may be worth the investment. There is certainly plenty of material on these threads to write such a position paper.

tdogg

04-10-2007, 11:44 PM

I am by no means the "private property" absolutist that marion crossnore seems to be. But I see a problem with the above analogy, and likewise with the husband-beating-his-wife analogy someone else made in this thread:

Both a fire and domestic violence are every-second-counts emergencies. Intervention needs to be immediate in order to prevent further serious injury. Anti-gay attitudes on a college campus would be similarly an emergency only if, for example, you were witness to a physically violent hate crime taking place on campus, or if you had just gotten a phone call from a gay student threatening to commit suicide in his dorm room. These things do happen too, but unless they are happening at the moment when you are there, you're not dealing with an emergency situation.

Diane,

I get what you are saying here, but I can't agree with it. Especially when it comes to suicide. Even the mere thought one has of comitting suicide should be considered an every-second-counts emergency. It might not be taking place, but the fact that it could take place at any moment gives one an impetus to take action. Not saying that students at these campuses were contemplating suicide at the moment the ER riders showed up, but we certainly can't exclude the possibilty. These young ones are killing themselves, physically and emotionally. Every bit of oppression, humiliating, un-love kills them more and more, especially if they don't have the strongest of constitutions. I do believe that actions such as the ER ride are not only necessary, they are addressing emergency situations.

tdogg

04-10-2007, 11:49 PM

Vanessa White

04-11-2007, 07:29 AM

I couldn't agree with your points more. Thanks..... :love:

tdogg

04-11-2007, 07:41 AM

Thanks Vanessa!

It's awful to think that broken hearts, crushed spirits and hollow lives aren't an emergency to everyone. They are on the inside but no less imperative to be salvaged, nurtured and cherished than what's on the outside. More so. Unfortunately, because the inside of a person isn't readily seen, it's often forgotten. It makes me very sad to think of those students who are living a life of hiding so they don't get kicked out of school, disowned by the family and friends and left broken hearted and spiritually crushed by those who profess to love them and say they are only trying to 'save' them. Save them by loving them, holding them, rescuing their 'insides'.

Diane Vera

04-11-2007, 07:55 AM

I wanted to add that much (if not most) of domestic violence goes unreported. By the victim because of fear, shame, difficulty in self-loving. And by others because the violence is happening on private property and many people feel they are not obligated, or even have the right to do anything about what goes on in someone's "private property".

But, in the case of a man beating his wife, what would you do when there isn't a battering episode currently taking place (or, at least, at times when you have no reason to believe that a battering episode is currently taking place, though you might have witnessed it at other times)? Would you stand on the couple's front lawn and refuse to leave? Or would you simply try to befriend the woman, offer to help her in various ways, and inform her about relevant social services?

It's the same thing that's happening in these schools. Students are being subject to abuse and violence. If we just turn a blind eye, nothing happens, we are basically accepting and condoning the abuse and violence. That's one reason why the ER ride is so important. This abuse and violence cannot be tolerated, private property or not.

As explained above, it doesn't seem to me that the domestic violence analogy works well as a justification for CD.

Again I think the lunch counter analogy works better as a justification for CD. Then, the fact that homophobia has driven many people to suicide gives the Soulforce position added urgency, beyond the lunch counter analogy itself.

simpleman

04-12-2007, 05:28 PM

I realize that I said that my other post would be my last, but I guess it won't hurt to drop in a thought right here.

Someone brought up the point that the ER's goal was to take "truth" to people who are misinformed and that bringing that truth to them is paramount to any to any private property rights. This is where the discussion turns to pure argument. Those of you who believe that your "truth" somehow transcends other people's "truth" have crossed the boundaries of fair discussion and crossed into argumentation. The people that you are challenging have a different view of the "truth". And their version of the "truth" dictates their policies.

Fair discussion and dialogue is when people discuss variances in personal "truth" with the respect that others' opinions of the "truth" are just as right as yours are. That is respectful dialogue. When you say that your "truth" takes precedence over someone else's, you have not only turned the dialogue into an argument, you contradict your own logic. You all come onto this board and claim that those who have different views about homosexuals are killing them with spiritual violence, and that their beliefs are wrong and should be corrected. As you know, they think that your viewpoints, or your sexual orientation, is wrong and should be corrected.

Example:

Those from Soul Force say: Go seek out those who believe that being gay is sinful, and explain to them that it is not, and that thinking in such a way is spiritual violence which will cause damage to the lives of gays.

Those from Conservative Churches/Schools say: Go seek out those who are not Christian or who are Christian sinners (i.e. gays) and tell them that they are sinful, and that they should turn from their sin, otherwise hellfire awaits them.

Both of these sentences flow from the archetype:
Go find someone who is wrong, tell them they are wrong, and try to help them see what is right, otherwise there will be dire consequences.

This is not dialogue, nor is it discussion, it is pure argumentation. The two above statements are based on two very different sets of premises, many of which are at the core of the two differing belief systems.

Two more cents for everyone, courtesy of Simpleman.

kara speltz

04-12-2007, 06:14 PM

This is not dialogue, nor is it discussion, it is pure argumentation. The two above statements are based on two very different sets of premises, many of which are at the core of the two differing belief systems.

Two more cents for everyone, courtesy of Simpleman.

As usual simpleman, you have truly oversimplified this situation. Let me explain to you some of what happened last year at Abilene Christian University, where we were welcomed. Prior to being at ACU, I held the belief, that there was no such thing as an exgay, they simply were bisexuals suppressing their gay attractions. I also mourned every time I heard an exgay describe themselves as exgay. It literally broke my heart that they numbed themselves so, that they could deny who God meant them to be.

While I was at ACU, I had the opportunity to sit down with an exgay teacher for an hour of conversation. After speaking with her, I changed my beliefs and I was able to say to Sally, I understand that for you, being gay separated you from God. That separation, from God and one another, is my definition of sin. I can celebrate your reconciliation with God. What I hope you can understand is my oppression as a lesbian brings me closer to God, it makes me dependent on God, and so I need no healing around that issue. As we continued to speak, she mentioned a friend of hers who was still gay and she indicated that he had not healed yet, meaning becoming exgay. Reminding her again of my definition of sin, I said to her, perhaps he doesn't need healing, perhaps like me, his being gay, brings him closer to God. She couldn't verbally acknowledge what I said, but I watched her body and I believe she for the very first time, heard a different perspective. So we walked away from that dialogue, I believe, both changed.

Since then, I have searched out others who think differently from me and have had some very amazing conversations. Because I am willing to listen to their stories, and they are willing to listen to mine.

I suspect you can't quite comprehend this, because from what you've written in your posts, your mind is made up and you have no interest in hearing the other side of this. I hope I'm wrong about that.

Kara

antonyh

04-12-2007, 09:32 PM

Those of you who believe that your "truth" somehow transcends other people's "truth" have crossed the boundaries of fair discussion and crossed into argumentation.

You are assuming that all Soulforce is about is intellectual discussion and argumentation, the exchange and challenge of "truth".

Soulforce is a group of people who have come together because of their collective suffering as gay and lesbian people in the very institutions that they are confronting. You only have to spend time reading people's stories to realize the collective suffering represented in this place.

I would encourage you to read the Montreat College entry to get a feel for the degree of suffering caused by these institutions:
http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2672

This suffering is found behind every click in these forums if you read with a sensitive, compassionate heart.

There comes a point in time where you have to roll up your sleeves and say, "No more suffering". You have to stop the cycle of violence. Soulforce is not taking up arms against these institutions. They are using tools of nonviolent resistance used by Ghandi and King. They are saying to these institutions that no matter what your theology says, the pain and suffering you are causing your fellow human beings has to stop.

I really believe that when you alleviate suffering in the world, you make it a better place for everyone.

Let me assure you that the Soulforce is not creating suffering for these institutions. Irritation, agitation perhaps, but not suffering. I don't think any college presidents are going to run out and commit suicide because Soulforce visited.

Daniel

04-12-2007, 10:07 PM

Soulforce is a group of people who have come together because of their collective suffering as gay and lesbian people in the very institutions that they are confronting. You only have to spend time reading people's stories to realize the collective suffering represented in this place.Let me assure you that the Soulforce is not creating suffering for these institutions. Irritation, agitation perhaps, but not suffering. I don't think any college presidents are going to run out and commit suicide because Soulforce visited.

Great post Anthony! Thank you for your words. As they say in the theatre- Encore!

Vanessa White

04-13-2007, 07:52 AM

Thanks Antony, I really look forward to your posts because they always seem well thought out and direct, yet sensitive. THanks for your contributions here. Vanessa :love:

Rick336

04-13-2007, 10:55 AM

Anthony,

Yes!! Very well put. :tup:

Rick

simpleman

04-23-2007, 12:15 AM

my definition of sin

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I deduce that you are a relativist in terms of morality. In other words, you decide for yourself what is right and what is wrong, what is sin and what isn't. This means that if you, as you have said, define sin for yourself, then others can define their own moral structures for themselves, too.

Let's apply this to the mission of the Equality Ride. Now, these colleges and their leaders have defined homosexuality as a sin, and that is their "definition of sin". You have defined sin differently. Fortunately, we live in a free country, so the law says that you are both allowed to be right.

So, Kara, if you say that you are allowed to define sin for yourself, then you absolutely must cede the right to a Christian college to define sin for themselves. You would not want me to say that your definition of sin is wrong, and that because you are a lesbian you are living in sin, because this would be "discrimination" and "spiritual violence" towards you.

Therefore, trying to tell a Christian college that their definition of sin is wrong, then you are committing spiritual violence against the colleges.

That being said, no one here is going to agree with me, ever, but that's okay, because, again, we live in a free country, and we're all allowed to be right.

kara speltz

04-23-2007, 11:43 AM

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I deduce that you are a relativist in terms of morality. In other words, you decide for yourself what is right and what is wrong, what is sin and what isn't. This means that if you, as you have said, define sin for yourself, then others can define their own moral structures for themselves, too.

Let's apply this to the mission of the Equality Ride. Now, these colleges and their leaders have defined homosexuality as a sin, and that is their "definition of sin". You have defined sin differently. Fortunately, we live in a free country, so the law says that you are both allowed to be right.

So, Kara, if you say that you are allowed to define sin for yourself, then you absolutely must cede the right to a Christian college to define sin for themselves. You would not want me to say that your definition of sin is wrong, and that because you are a lesbian you are living in sin, because this would be "discrimination" and "spiritual violence" towards you.

Therefore, trying to tell a Christian college that their definition of sin is wrong, then you are committing spiritual violence against the colleges.

That being said, no one here is going to agree with me, ever, but that's okay, because, again, we live in a free country, and we're all allowed to be right.

Again simpleman, you don't get it. You seem to take delight in taking people's statements and twisting them. I do not have the power that the Fundamentalists Christian Schools do to promote the bigotry that their beliefs create. To compare my ability with that of this powerful religious right (sic) is absolutely rediculous.

I'm amazed that you would find my definition of sin relativist. You really have a need to put people into boxes don't you? God gave us a brain so that we might use it, not simply follow orders. We convicted the Nazi's because they followed orders. Jesus spoke about people who placed the law about love. Do you recall any of what he had to say to the Pharasees?

And, again, I've almost never met a fundie who had any comprehension of the Sermon on the Mount. Actually as I think about it, I suspect Fundies have a greater tendency towards being relativists than the vast majority of people I know. Because they have taken the Gospels and turned them around. Remembering the very few times Jesus even spoke about sexuality and making it the major sin and litmus test.

You'll have a huge surprise when you see who it is that is in heaven, simple, a huge surprise.

kara

Zerbie

04-23-2007, 11:50 AM

F if you say that you are allowed to define sin for yourself, then you absolutely must cede the right to a Christian college to define sin for themselves. You would not want me to say that your definition of sin is wrong, and that because you are a lesbian you are living in sin, because this would be "discrimination" and "spiritual violence" towards you.

Therefore, trying to tell a Christian college that their definition of sin is wrong, then you are committing spiritual violence against the colleges.

.

Oh. My. . . .

Simpleman I have relatively little that I can say to you as our backgrounds are so different, most of this conversation is about stuff I cannot relate to, and I will let Kara respond to your logic for herself. But I must interject a remark.

Spiritual violence is an awfully strong term. I believe you do not see or sense the grievous anguish, pain, and serious harm (including death) that God's precious children suffer from the teaching that who and what they are is "sin" just because they are gay.

It is not spiritual violence to say to someone, "Your definition of sin is wrong," though it might be annoying, and perhaps one might feel insulted by the statement. (And whether saying anyone's definition of sin is 'right' or 'wrong' is even a PART of the E Ride is still another conversation.)

What constitutes spiritual violence towards gay persons is not being told they have a definition incorrect. It is the fact that they are being told that WHO THEY ARE is sin, a sin so grievous they must run from it for it separates them from God forever. But they find upon much prayer and searching that their innermost being is permeated through and through by love, affection, and desire for a partner of their own sex - and as they have been taught to believe, this is monstrous. A person in that situation then begins to think "I *AM* an abomination," and proceeds from there into the direst spiritual danger possible: attempted annihiliation of oneself (and too often they attempt this physically via suicide.)

THAT is spiritual violence. There is simply no comparison between deep anguish of this sort and the annoyance one might feel if someone pipes up with, "Your definition of this word is wrong." No comparison.

Simple Man: Please try to feel with your imagination what I have just described to you. There is more to life than verbal logic. There is a heart of compassion struggling in this world to be heard - God's gay children rarely hear it enough. Please let them walk with God as they are called to do. Please try and understand the gravity of what is being talked about here - that it is about more than belief, disagreement, and definition. It is about the most private depths of interior experience. Words do not penetrate there nearly so accurately or so well as intentions. I'm going to repeat myself: There is a heart of compassion struggling to be heard in the world. God's gay children rarely hear it enough.

antonyh

04-23-2007, 11:56 AM

Therefore, trying to tell a Christian college that their definition of sin is wrong, then you are committing spiritual violence against the colleges.

I don't anticipate that college administrators are going to run out and commit suicide because Soulforce visited their institutions and challenged their definition of sin.

Unfortunately, their policies wound LGBTQ people very deeply. Some of them kill themselves.

That is why Soulforce is knocking on the door.

Remember, Soulforce is made up of people who have come out of these institutions.

keltic63

04-23-2007, 12:00 PM

I don't anticipate that college administrators are going to run out and commit suicide because Soulforce visited their institutions and challenged their definition of sin.

Unfortunately, their policies wound LGBTQ people very deeply. Some of them kill themselves.

That is why Soulforce is knocking on the door.

Remember, Soulforce is made up of people who have come out of these institutions.

Nor will college administrators be forced to live in the streets because Soulforce members spoke to them or their parents about spiritual violence and their policies that wound lgbt students.

simpleman

04-23-2007, 04:06 PM

I know my last post came off as harsh, but I really can't find a way to disagree with anyone on this board without being considered a bigot.

I know Kara thinks I'm a "fundie" (Note the double standard that appears to say that Kara can make up demeaning names for fundamental Christians, but if some fundamental Christian called her a <euphemism for gays> it would be an outrage of epic proportions, but I digress). She probably also thinks that I am a bigot and a proponent of hate, and I'm sure many of you feel the same way.

I want to make it clear that I am not a proponent of hate. I don't hate gay people, nor anyone. I don't think it's right for people to hate anyone, and I don't support hatred. What I do support, is a group of people's right to craft policies in accordance with their moral structures on their own property, and even if I disagree with it, or think it's wrong, I support it. I don't think the Klan is right for hating black people, but I support their right to gather in one of their member's houses to discuss their hatred for black people. That's why I support SoulForce's right to exist and believe whatever it wants to. What I don't support is attacking another organization that it disagrees with on their own private property. That's where I stand, in case you were wondering.

Now all of you make very compelling emotional arguments for what SoulForce is doing. They are all logical, rational, and clearly well-thought-out, however they all rest atop one principle: that being gay is absolutely and unequivocally an inseparable part of who someone is.

Christian colleges disagree on this principle, therefore they think that any sort of terrible thing that happens to gays is a consequence of their sinful actions. Don't get me (or them) wrong, they don't WANT gays to suffer and die, but they can't reconcile being gay with their own beliefs about homosexuality itself.

If a heterosexual student impregnates his girlfriend of two years, they will kick both of them out of school. They don't want the baby to suffer, or their students to suffer, but then again, she's pregnant because of their actions. Now, I'm sure many of you are firing up your keyboard to expose the plight of the young, gay student who has never had homosexual sex with anyone. Now, a lot of times these colleges have internet services, and they can check where students (I know, 1984, right?) have been on the 'net. Now, they discover some porn on a young man's computer. They seek him out, and punish him for looking at porn. Now, he is shamed before everyone as a porn-watching pervert. Sounds like he's been a victim of the policy, too. It doesn't even matter that the porn he was watching was "heterosexual" porn, either (they'd probably even kick him out if it was gay porn) It's porn, and he will be shamed for it. Now his sexuality has gotten him in trouble, too.

Are the unwed mother and father's inner torture because of their actions just not as bad as the inner torture for the gay person? What about the porn-watcher? Should someone be protesting on the school's front yard for his inner torture and shame, not to mention his scarlet "P" that will follow him around for the rest of his time at the school (if they even let him stay)? Is it really someone's job to come around and try and make Christians change their policies because it might hurt someone's feelings? Even if it can be Biblically supported?

To answer somebody's question from another thread, what SoulForce is asking Christian colleges is to give up not only their fundamental beliefs about sin and homosexuality, but to give up their fundamental beliefs about actions and consequence, too.

Now, Kara, as for your point about God giving us brains so that they will be used. Does this mean that you think that anyone who doesn't interpret the Bible in your way is "twisting" it? Is someone not using their brain correctly if their brain leads them to a different conclusion than you? What do I have to do to not "twist" the Bible? If you think someone is "twisting" the Bible, then you must believe that there is an absolute from which it is twisted, therefore you are making a moral presumption based on your own brain's interpretation of the Bible. It's not wrong to make a moral presumption, because morality is important, but if you want the right to your own moral structure, you have to let other people have theirs, too, even if it ends up with tons of people with inner torture and struggle, or even if it hurts your feelings.

tdogg

04-23-2007, 05:29 PM

Now all of you make very compelling emotional arguments for what SoulForce is doing. They are all logical, rational, and clearly well-thought-out, however they all rest atop one principle: that being gay is absolutely and unequivocally an inseparable part of who someone is.

Simpleman

In this one quote of yours, you have pretty much summed us up: On these forums you will find thousands of posts that provide logical, rational and clearly well-thought-out examples of the fact that being gay is absolutely and unequivocally an inseparable part of who we are. That goes for being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, non-sexual, heterosexual, straight, black, white, red, yellow, brown, tall, short, medium, fat, thin...I could go on and on. Who we are is absolutely and unequivocally WHO WE ARE.

The reason that what you believe in doesn't hit home with us is, that we've been there and done that, and are over that. I know for a FACT that my God/Lord created me just as I am, loves me just as I am, honors and blesses me just as I am, and blesses my relationship just as it is. I'm beyond the need to obtain human approval and consent to live my life the way my God wills me to live. I would give you that your God (and I'm guessing that our God is likely one and the same) tells you how YOU should live your life, and tells me how I should live my life. I do not need written words to provide argument and debate and human judgment and condemnation. I only need to pray and understand God's intent for MY life.

When you look at it that way, there really isn't any room to argue over whether or not we are sinning or the Bible is the inerrant words of God.

As far as the ER action goes, read the news clip on their visit to BYU - if you just look at the success of that visit, it makes the entire ride well worth the efforts of the riders and supporters, and well worth the discomfort of those who were visited. However, so much more was accomplished by this year's ride, that undoubtedly the issue of private property becomes completely moot at best. To any of the Riders that may be reading this, you have my deep thanks and gratitude and I wish you many many blessings and successes. Your successes are mine, and they are all of ours. Thank you!!

Jamie McDaniel

04-23-2007, 06:12 PM

I want to reference something that John Lewis, a black civil rights leader, wrote:

This discrimination is wrong. We cannot keep turning our backs on gay and lesbian Americans. I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I've heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred, and intolerance I have known in racism and in bigotry.

I see this recurring argument of the Equality Riders walking onto a private school campus equating to some major trespass/offense as merely a clever effort to distract from the real issue at hand.

Whenever an oppressed people rise up to nonviolently challenge their discrimination, there is always a force that seeks to either stop or stall them by claiming their methods are wrong or unlawful, that they disturb the peace or disrupt business. There will never exist a method to challenge oppression that has the approval of the oppressor that is not also completely void of power. We must simply make sure it squares with nonviolence, not wins the oppressor's approval.

I want to make it clear that I am not a proponent of hate. I don't hate gay people, nor anyone.

I've wanted to call this in question numerous times when others have posted something similar. I think we fool ourselves if we define hate as only the visible hatred that can be clearly seen in the destruction of persons and property. Such visible symptoms are not an early warning sign of the cancer of hatred; rather it is a late-term manifestation of an ongoing, hidden, inner hatred. Sometimes we are even unaware of hatred in our hearts.

In regards to social justice, I have come to see that hatred plays a significant role in impeding progress. The greatest stumbling block to social justice is not the person who wears their hatred on the outside, it is the person who harbors it on the inside, the more subtle hatred, the somewhat elegant hatred, the hatred that is dressed up to look like love.

If I were to take a mental walk through America's history, I can imagine such a person living in the early 1800's saying, "I really appreciate my black workers" while all the while denying them their freedom and accepting slavery as moral. He isn't lynching anyone, in fact he is nice to them. He reads the scriptures on slavery and sees himself as godly.

In my mind I can picture such a person in the early 20th century. He would dismiss the charge of misogyny, jokingly saying, "Of course I love women -- I'm married to one!" And simultaneously he would be using his power to keep women from gaining the right to vote. He's not a wife beater and when he reads the scriptures, he feels quite right that the man's vote represents the godly household.

I can visualize this same cancer infecting someone in the 1950's. She would voice a concern about violence towards the African-American and yet at the same time strongly resist integration and condemn those participating in the civil rights movement. She reads the Bible and fears that "mongrelization" of the races would be a consequence of integration. Her personal religious belief is that slavery was wrong, but segregation is ordained by God.

My walk brings me back to the present and unfortunately it does not take much imagination to picture somebody who claims to harbor no hatred towards homosexual people, yet works to make sure the same-gender couple in their neighborhood who has been together in committed relationship for twenty-six years is continually denied the rights and protections of civil marriage.

So I question this idea that someone can discriminate against me (or excuse those that do) and vote for laws that oppress me while harboring no hatred towards me.

The good news is that as long as love exists (and God is love) then our hatreds can be cured.

Daniel

04-23-2007, 07:09 PM

I want to make it clear that I am not a proponent of hate. I don't hate gay people, nor anyone. I don't think it's right for people to hate anyone, and I don't support hatred. What I do support, is a group of people's right to craft policies in accordance with their moral structures on their own property, and even if I disagree with it, or think it's wrong, I support it. I don't think the Klan is right for hating black people, but I support their right to gather in one of their member's houses to discuss their hatred for black people. That's why I support SoulForce's right to exist and believe whatever it wants to. What I don't support is attacking another organization that it disagrees with on their own private property. That's where I stand, in case you were wondering.

Simpleman- I'm glad to hear that you are not a propenent of hate. However, the way you think about gay persons- as indicated below- seems to indicate that your are proponent of misinformation.

Now all of you make very compelling emotional arguments for what SoulForce is doing. They are all logical, rational, and clearly well-thought-out, however they all rest atop one principle: that being gay is absolutely and unequivocally an inseparable part of who someone is.

Yep. You have that right: my being gay is part and parcel of WHO I AM, just like your sexuality (whatever it is) is WHO YOU ARE.

Christian colleges disagree on this principle, therefore they think that any sort of terrible thing that happens to gays is a consequence of their sinful actions. Don't get me (or them) wrong, they don't WANT gays to suffer and die, but they can't reconcile being gay with their own beliefs about homosexuality itself.

What people in institutions believe (and to put it rightly, instutitions don't believe anything: people do) is not the point here. Just because people believe that gay people are really straight people 'gone bad' is simply a misunderstanding of sexuality in general and the live's of gay people in particular.

If we lived in Africa, we would conclude that AIDS is a heterosexual disease, would we not? Does that mean that there is something wrong with straight people? No. It simply means that they do not have access to condoms or the awareness of how to stay uninfected- much less adequate treatment.

It has been more than 20 years since the beginning of the AIDS pandemic, and it is stupid and shows the ignorance of conservative christians for them to posit that gay people are getting what they deserve because of their 'lifestyle. I am sorry Simpleman that you seem to agree with this misguided and uniformed view.

If a heterosexual student impregnates his girlfriend of two years, they will kick both of them out of school. They don't want the baby to suffer, or their students to suffer, but then again, she's pregnant because of their actions. Now, I'm sure many of you are firing up your keyboard to expose the plight of the young, gay student who has never had homosexual sex with anyone. Now, a lot of times these colleges have internet services, and they can check where students (I know, 1984, right?) have been on the 'net. Now, they discover some porn on a young man's computer. They seek him out, and punish him for looking at porn. Now, he is shamed before everyone as a porn-watching pervert. Sounds like he's been a victim of the policy, too. It doesn't even matter that the porn he was watching was "heterosexual" porn, either (they'd probably even kick him out if it was gay porn) It's porn, and he will be shamed for it. Now his sexuality has gotten him in trouble, too.

What you are saying here, actually, is that you believe that gay sexuality equates with pornography. And a word, if you don't mind about shame- seeing that I'm an educator: shame is a very poor learning tool. Yes- it can force people to observe certain behaviors for a period of time, but it is a poor tool for establishing loving relationships or lasting change.

Are the unwed mother and father's inner torture because of their actions just not as bad as the inner torture for the gay person? What about the porn-watcher? Should someone be protesting on the school's front yard for his inner torture and shame, not to mention his scarlet "P" that will follow him around for the rest of his time at the school (if they even let him stay)? Is it really someone's job to come around and try and make Christians change their policies because it might hurt someone's feelings? Even if it can be Biblically supported?

Again: gay people's lives are not equivalent to pornography.

To answer somebody's question from another thread, what SoulForce is asking Christian colleges is to give up not only their fundamental beliefs about sin and homosexuality, but to give up their fundamental beliefs about actions and consequence, too.

Soulforce is not demanding that gay christian's be allowed to have sex. Soulforce is not asking people to give up their fundamental beliefs. Soulforce is asking people to look at the consequences of those beliefs. And the consequences are real- not imagined.

Beliefs are not concrete things.

Gay kids hanging themselves because they have been taught to hate themselves is a real thing.

be·lief
n.
1) The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.

2) Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.

3) Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

In short, a belief is not a thing. Beliefs, as such are intangible. And while we are on the subject. Gay people do not believe themselves to be gay: they ARE gay. They can no more change their sexual orientation that they can change the color of their eyes.

But beliefs? Beliefs can change when perception changes. But to do that takes sustained concentration and a compassionate view of things.

simpleman] Now, Kara, as for your point about God giving us brains so that they will be used. Does this mean that you think that anyone who doesn't interpret the Bible in your way is "twisting" it? Is someone not using their brain correctly if their brain leads them to a different conclusion than you? What do I have to do to not "twist" the Bible? If you think someone is "twisting" the Bible, then you must believe that there is an absolute from which it is twisted, therefore you are making a moral presumption based on your own brain's interpretation of the Bible. It's not wrong to make a moral presumption, because morality is important, but if you want the right to your own moral structure, you have to let other people have theirs, too, even if it ends up with tons of people with inner torture and struggle, or even if it hurts your feelings.

Oh...I guess this means that the gay kid who thinks he's doomed to hell should go ahead and hang himself? His suffering should be encouraged?

Simpleman- I'm sorry for you. For you seem as hard-hearted and without compassion as the bigot you say you are not.

Daniel

04-23-2007, 07:17 PM

Jamie- while I was typing, you were posting. Thank your for your words and thoughts. Bravo!

Zerbie

04-23-2007, 10:56 PM

I know my last post came off as harsh, but I really can't find a way to disagree with anyone on this board without being considered a bigot.

I want to make it clear that I am not a proponent of hate. I don't hate gay people, nor anyone. I don't think it's right for people to hate anyone, and I don't support hatred.

Christian colleges disagree on this principle, therefore they think that any sort of terrible thing that happens to gays is a consequence of their sinful actions. Don't get me (or them) wrong, they don't WANT gays to suffer and die, but they can't reconcile being gay with their own beliefs about homosexuality itself.

Even if a homosexual person is a virgin, and therefore has engaged in no sexual "sinful actions," that person is at risk of expulsion or other disciplinary action at some of the schools in question if found to be gay. That in and of itself demonstrates that what is being punished is not an "action" but a state of being.

To answer somebody's question from another thread, what SoulForce is asking Christian colleges is to give up not only their fundamental beliefs about sin and homosexuality, but to give up their fundamental beliefs about actions and consequence, too.

See above. Not an action. A state of being.

if you want the right to your own moral structure, you have to let other people have theirs, too, even if it ends up with tons of people with inner torture and struggle,

Dear God. :pray:

Simpleman.

Does the above statement truly reflect your values? Re-read it in light of your claim that you do not promote hate. How do you reconcile the two statements?

Are you aware that you come across as having no compassion for human beings at all? That is happening. What you wrote above is cold and cruel. So that you know why you've gotten such a strong reaction, I read you as meaning, "I know that certain teachings lead gay people to suicide, and I do not care."

The meaning behind your words as they are written above is: "I value beliefs over my fellow human beings."

I've tried not to be harsh in response to you, Simple. I am not feeling any harsh emotions as I write this, for what that's worth. But I feel obliged to tell you the meaning that is coming through in your words. If in fact you do value thoughts and interpretations more than the lives of hundreds of thousands of living, breathing, suffering creatures (your brothers and sisters) I do not know what to say to you. :'(

simpleman

04-23-2007, 11:56 PM

The same rights that allow all of you to be who you are sexually are the rights that protect Christian Colleges' right to believe that who you are sexually is wrong, and craft policies that correspond with their beliefs.

That's all I'm trying to say. That's not to say that I believe homosexuals should suffer or die. I feel really sick that people get driven to the point of suicide for any reason. I don't even necessarily agree with said policies, but my own beliefs about the good of the nation require that I protect those freedoms. I know all of that sounds really harsh and cold, but you must understand that I work really hard to divorce my own emotions from political discussion. Yes, it really does hurt me to know that gay kids are killing themselves because they feel oppressed. It kills me that Cho Seung-Hui felt so despised that he was led to kill a lot of people. And being a Christian, I want to help and serve people as Christ calls us to. It is a constant struggle to try and make my beliefs about God reconcile with my beliefs about government. Of course I wish that everyone would show more love and less hate. Sure I wish that people would just be nice, but it doesn't work that way. And the best interest of the nation involves protecting rights, i.e. the good of the nation. And the good of the nation ultimately protects the good of the individual, even if some individuals harm themselves because of the actions of other individuals.

I don't hate anybody. I love all of you. God loves all of you, and I don't believe for one minute that any of you aren't God's children. I'm here to talk because I think that far too often Christians are scared to talk to homosexuals about what they really believe because they fear being thought of as a bigot or a hate-monger. God knows politicians are afraid of being called bigots. I'm here to be open and honest with all of you, and I hope you will accept that, even if you accept nothing else about my visit here.

Daniel

04-24-2007, 01:56 AM

The same rights that allow all of you to be who you are sexually are the rights that protect Christian Colleges' right to believe that who you are sexually is wrong, and craft policies that correspond with their beliefs.

You are grossly mistaken. We do not share the same 'rights'.

In point of face, gay persons in the United States of America do NOT share equal rights with their fellow ciitzens. And it is a FACT that evangelicals - who fear gay persons and are ignorance of their concerns- are doing all they can to ensure that gay persons do not obtain any rights whatsoever.

I hope and pray that you are able to see the damage that is caused by your point of view. It is painful to read that you give yourself a 'pass' when it come to other people's suffering ("even if others harm themselves"). You words tell me that you are simply defending the 'right' of those- like yourself- to hate- and do not yet realize what you are choosing.

You are right, you are stuggling with your beliefs about God and Goverment. May God grant you the mercy you deny others.

keltic63

04-24-2007, 06:55 AM

The same rights that allow all of you to be who you are sexually are the rights that protect Christian Colleges' right to believe that who you are sexually is wrong, and craft policies that correspond with their beliefs.

as Daniel pointed out, we do not have the same rights, legally, or even socially. Whereas straight people can walk down the street holding hands without much notice, if I attempted to hold my partner's hand in public, we run the risk of verbal or physical attacks.

That's all I'm trying to say. That's not to say that I believe homosexuals should suffer or die. I feel really sick that people get driven to the point of suicide for any reason. I don't even necessarily agree with said policies, but my own beliefs about the good of the nation require that I protect those freedoms. So the ends justifies the means? Once again you're trying to say that you have compassion, but it still comes out as having none. You say you don't agree with the policies, and that you don't believe gay & lesbian people should not have to suffer, yet you wish to keep unfair policies and attitudes in place for the "good of the nation." You're protecting policies that keep a group of people in oppression, for the good of the nation. I'm sorry, that's just wrong.

I know all of that sounds really harsh and cold, Yes, it not only sounds harsh and cold, it IS harsh and cold. but you must understand that I work really hard to divorce my own emotions from political discussion. It also sounds like you work really hard to divorce emotion from all of your interactions. Yes, it really does hurt me to know that gay kids are killing themselves because they feel oppressed. What will you do to help them?

It kills me that Cho Seung-Hui felt so despised that he was led to kill a lot of people. And being a Christian, I want to help and serve people as Christ calls us to. Love is what it's all about. Is it loving to support policies that oppress people, even if it is for the "good of the nation?" It is a constant struggle to try and make my beliefs about God reconcile with my beliefs about government. Of course I wish that everyone would show more love and less hate. Sure I wish that people would just be nice, but it doesn't work that way. And the best interest of the nation involves protecting rights, i.e. the good of the nation. And the good of the nation ultimately protects the good of the individual, even if some individuals harm themselves because of the actions of other individuals. would it be better for the nation if policies were in place that encouraged people to find someone to love and share their lives together in long-term relationships? would it be better for the nation if those couples worked together to raise healthy children? would it be better for the nation if couples joined other couples to build strong communities and schools, gather together in houses of worship, meet at the soccer fields, football fields, basketball courts, dance studios, community theaters, all in an effort to involve their families in the building of community? In their later years, would it be good for those couples to be there for each other, to take care of each other as long as they are able?

Or, should we say to "some" of these people that it is in the best interest of this nation that "your kind" not be permitted to marry. You "people" tend to be promiscuous, unstable, bad parents, etc. therefore we will not allow you to participate in all the institutions and organizations of our communities. you understand, "It's for the good of the nation."

I don't hate anybody. I love all of you. You got a funny way of showing it. God loves all of you, and I don't believe for one minute that any of you aren't God's children. I know God loves me. God told me so. I'm here to talk because I think that far too often Christians are scared to talk to homosexuals about what they really believe because they fear being thought of as a bigot or a hate-monger. God knows politicians are afraid of being called bigots. I'm here to be open and honest with all of you, and I hope you will accept that, even if you accept nothing else about my visit here.I'm not accepting this line of thinking. The oppressor is crying foul because the oppressed refuse to be persecuted. That's what I think of your visit here.

marion crossnore

04-24-2007, 12:28 PM

well, I came back to this thread to find that at least one person agrees with me that a "private" institution has the right to beleive what it wants inside of its borders

and I still think it is a waste of time, money and effort to get yourself arrested for trespassing...

and for a topic that has "been done" sure are a bunch of posts here!

I'd like some more details about the Clinton trip, and the threats of being arrested for "not moving" on a public sidewalk...why'd you keep moving? why not sit-in, get arrested, on public taxpayer property??? i'm just asking, were any areested for that?

u-dog

04-24-2007, 12:34 PM

contrary to what some have suggested... getting arrested wasn't the point? Maybe engaging students in dialogue was the actual point and getting arrested while TRYING to have a dialogue was the next best thing? Maybe getting arrested for "loitering" was pointless? maybe the Equality Riders AREN'T just a bunch queer publicity hounds. Do you think its possible that they are really sincere young people on a mission for equality? Nah! couldn't be. Silly me.

Zerbie

04-24-2007, 12:47 PM

Simple,

I don't believe for a minute that you aren't God's child, also.

It is my very firm opinion that you would benefit from allowing yourself to integrate emotion into your interactions (as Keltic says, emotion is absent from your messages here) and even into your understanding of the world and its politics. Which is not the same as to suggest that you run away with emotions, either. But find a balance between utterly cold, emotionless thought, and unfettered emotion.

Keltic did a beautiful job of addressing your remarks about "the good of the nation." It is not for the good of the nation to promote psychological abuse and psychological torture of some of its citizens, nor is it for the good of the nation to condone it without so much as a whisper.

We've discussed over and over the issue of rights and freedom of expression. Do a search. You'll find a lot of prior arguments on this forum about the rights of private colleges to determine their policies as they see fit, and objections (from some of our own members sometimes) to the Equality Ride, and/or its specific strategy.

The fact remains that Soulforce has not got the power to force any institution to change its policies. Nor is SF attempting to force anyone into anything. Soulforce is voicing a gentle request that the colleges re-think and hopefully change their policies. That is not the same thing as denying them their rights. The colleges still have the rights to refuse, and even to take disciplinary action against the Riders, as some have chosen to do.

Daniel and Keltic both mentioned to you that gay persons do not have the same rights in society as non-gay persons. They are correct. They do not. Did you know that? Or did you, as I once did, believe that gay people have equal standing under the law? I know I was shocked when I found out that they didn't, and it answered for me why gay rights groups existed.

Simple, if you were gay, you could:

*be fired from your job in 33 states, even if you are excellent at what you do and thoroughly responsible in every way. you have no recourse to claim wrongful termination. you're told, "tough luck, buddy."

*be thrown out of your apartment, even if you had a lease, paid rent in full every month, took good care of the premises, were quiet, and got along with your neighbors. you have no legal recourse to dispute the violation of the lease.

*be assaulted on the street, at school, or at work. your attackers might get off with a mere slap on the wrist and a nod from law enforcement. after all, you're just a ***.

*be refused permission to visit your partner in the hospital, even if you have lived together for 30 years, and his third cousin twice removed who hasn't said "hello" to your partner in 25 years (since finding out you two were a couple,) gets to make medical decisions, but not you.

*if your partner dies, his third cousin twice removed who hasn't said hello in 25 years contests the will which states that the house you lived in with your partner is yours, and you are thrown out of your home of 30 years, while grieving for the love of your life who has just been taken, and the estranged cousin moves into your home.

That's just a beginning. I wonder if you had any idea that these things happen with regularity?

What a tragic waste! A waste of accomplished employees, a waste of human energy and time combating all these ridiculous things when they COULD be contributing to the good of the nation. If the good of the nation matters, consider, how can we further the good of the nation if we do not protect the human rights of its people?!

tdogg

04-24-2007, 02:04 PM

If GLBT people had all the same legal and social rights as heterosexuals, we wouldn't need to engage in actions such as the Equality Ride, and those who consider themselves 'private insitutions' wouldn't have to be inconvenienced by the ER visits.

So, if you want to ultimately solve the issue of 'private property', then by all means we welcome you to our fight for equality. Once we are successful at all levels, then you can forget about us and go about your daily lives.

Until that point, you will hear about brave gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender people coming onto colleges that some consider private property and seeking dialogue with students, faculty and administrative staff. It might not be comfortable, but it's significantly less uncomfortable that what we have to deal with in this society being gay.

Daniel

04-24-2007, 02:09 PM

those things like social security and health care. If one partner dies- well gee...they aren't married...are they?.... and don't get the benefit of their partner's ss like straight couples. Yep. Even if they've raised children together.

And forget about falling in love with someone from another country, even if you can get married there- like Denmark. You can't bring your partner home to the good ol' US of A. No siree. Forget about that.

And if you do happen to be able to get your partner health benefits- that is- if your company offers them- the IRS taxes you on the cost of that benefit to the tune of 50 to 60 percent.

And if you happen to have living wills and name your partner as your health care proxy, don't be suprised if the hospital simply ignores you because you're not 'family'.

And even if you happen to live in NJ where they have a separate-but-equal (ha!) law which is supposed to give gay couples the equivelant of 'marriage', at least 10 percent of those couples who have signed up are being refused...yes my friend....refused benefits....and they still have to pay the IRS the tax on those benefits. Refused? Why? Anti-gay, religiously inspired oppression.

Equal rights are not special rights!

~

Is it just me or is it getting hot in here? :D

tdogg

04-24-2007, 02:35 PM

The special rights are currently gifted to heterosexuals. And the religious oppressors are too blind to see that they are indeed 'special' rights - they can only see their need to stop us from being granted equal rights.

But hey, if you live in the great state of California, you can now (in fact may be required) to file your state taxes as registered domestic partners (if you so desire to be on the state's list of gays and lesbians) TOGETHER, while still being required to file IRS tax returns SEPARATE. Now, that's convenient!! Talk about confusion and headaches.

It's a little scary to think that the government, who apparently is being controlled to certain extent by various religious oppressors, has a list of gay and lesbian couples, including personal and identifying information.....The alternative is absolutely no equal rights as a hetero married couple. Wow, what a great choice we have!

simpleman

04-24-2007, 03:17 PM

*be fired from your job in 33 states, even if you are excellent at what you do and thoroughly responsible in every way. you have no recourse to claim wrongful termination. you're told, "tough luck, buddy."

*be thrown out of your apartment, even if you had a lease, paid rent in full every month, took good care of the premises, were quiet, and got along with your neighbors. you have no legal recourse to dispute the violation of the lease.

*be assaulted on the street, at school, or at work. your attackers might get off with a mere slap on the wrist and a nod from law enforcement. after all, you're just a ***.

*be refused permission to visit your partner in the hospital, even if you have lived together for 30 years, and his third cousin twice removed who hasn't said "hello" to your partner in 25 years (since finding out you two were a couple,) gets to make medical decisions, but not you.

*if your partner dies, his third cousin twice removed who hasn't said hello in 25 years contests the will which states that the house you lived in with your partner is yours, and you are thrown out of your home of 30 years, while grieving for the love of your life who has just been taken, and the estranged cousin moves into your home.

For your first point, if this is a job in a private sphere, then I believe the Constitution to say that you have the right of freedom of association, and that you don't have to have gays work for you if you don't want to. If this is done in government jobs, it would be unconstitutional, because it is a publicly funded position. It may be wrong in both situations, but from a strictly Constitutional perspective I believe in protecting the private property owner's right to dissociate with whomever he pleases.

Second, if this is a privately owned piece of property, then, again, they have the right to dissociate with whomever they want. If he dislikes the people being in his building, the government has no right to tell him that he has to allow them.

Third, this situation is oft-repeated among your movement. Just because the local agencies don't do their jobs, doesn't mean that gays don't have civil rights. You have the right to press charges and what not, and sometimes the courts don't do their jobs.

Your fourth and fifth points are entirely valid from my perspective. There should be a legal union and marriage opportunity available. If a church will marry a homosexual couple, the government should not tell them they can't. If a church does not want to marry a homosexual couple, the government, nor anyone else, should tell them they have to. In addition, I do believe that the fundamental rights in our country protect a civil union between two consenting adults, and they should have all of the medical and legal protections thereof. Now, I know that the law doesn't allow it, but that has very little to do with the policies of Christian colleges, aside from the fact that their administration would probably oppose such civil union legislation. I think this is one of the points that antony was trying to make earlier, in that if gays want the rights to civil unions, they have to protect the rights to religious beliefs of others.

Again, I don't think any of you understand that what you are doing is akin to anti-abortionists trying to force the government to re-outlaw abortion. They lobby the government to make laws based upon their moral structures. You want the government to make rights for you, even if they take away other people's rights. Even beyond that, you want colleges to rewrite their policies in order to make special privilege for you, even if it contradicts their beliefs.

I've pointed this out before, and I will again. There is no right listed in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or any kind of American legal precedent for a right to not have your feelings hurt. The law protects people's rights to hate other people for whatever reason, and if that hurts your feelings, you have no legal right to do anything about. Try to sue somebody for calling you any kind of euphemism, it doesn't work. All of the psychological damage that you refer to comes from a legal right that cannot be compromised. Just like the legal rights of Americans and naturals to buy guns cannot be compromised just because some whacko shot and killed 32 people.

I know none of you believe it, but I really do feel terribly sorry for homosexuals who are discriminated against. But, if we were in a country where one group could have it the way they wanted, everybody else would be out of luck. Now imagine if our country was ruled solely by the morals of the KKK, the rest of us would be in big trouble. You can't say that your set of morals, etc. should rule the nation. And when that happens, people's feelings get hurt. Sometimes repeated psychological damage leads to suicide. It is a terrible thing, but there is no legal precedent for stopping it. A college's own policy on gays does not constitute a government order, therefore a violation of civil rights, therefore their "hatred" as you might call it, or discrimination, or whatever else, is legally protected, even if it hurts someone else's feelings.

Someone said awhile back on this board that if it was all about legal rights, that your organization would sue, instead you are going after social rights outside of legal reaches, and that liberates the purpose of the E-Ride. Though I disagree with the E-Ride's purpose, I have to agree with his line of reasoning. If you want to go engage people, that is within your rights, on public property. I respect that, go for it. Just don't undermine your own efforts by getting arrested, because no matter how you spin it, everyone is just going to call you media darlings. That's just my opinion, though, if you think it is the best thing to continually get arrested, then go right ahead, but honestly I don't think it helps as much as just speaking your peace on public property.

And T-dogg, your suggestion to "give us what we want and we will leave you alone" makes very little sense in terms of what you are trying to do. I think your mission is more to get them to form a more enlightened worldview, not to simply appease your wishes because they want you to go away.

u-dog

04-24-2007, 04:47 PM

Again, I don't think any of you understand that what you are doing is akin to anti-abortionists trying to force the government to re-outlaw abortion. They lobby the government to make laws based upon their moral structures. You want the government to make rights for you, even if they take away other people's rights. Even beyond that, you want colleges to rewrite their policies in order to make special privilege for you, even if it contradicts their beliefs.

Your last post, of which the above is a sliver, betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what a "right" is. Rights are not "GIVEN" or "GRANTED" or "CREATED". Rights are unalienable and endowed by our creator. We already HAVE rights. We have the right to life and to liberty and to the pursuit of happiness. we have a right to privacy and security in our homes and in our persons. We have the right to live unmolested somewhere. We have the right to work and earn our bread by the sweat of our brows. We HAVE the right to love whom we will. WE ALREADY HAVE THOSE RIGHTS.

The governement, the church, society don't need to "CREATE" rights for us, or GIVE rights to us or GRANT rights to us (as if they had the power and authority to do so) . They don't need to "Give" us our rights. GOD ALREADY GAVE US RIGHTS WHEN WE WERE BORN AS HUMAN BEINGS. What they need to do is get the hell out of our way so that we can enjoy the rights that God already gave us. They just need to stop withholding our rights and restricting our liberty, our security, our privacy, our happiness, our lives.

DAMNATION BUT YOU STRAIGHT PEOPLE ARE SO ARROGANT IT JUST BOGGLES THE IMAGINATION !! :mad: Why in the world did I ever think I wanted to be a straight person !!!! Thank you God for NOT listening to all those prayers !!:pray: You were right. I was wrong.

End of Rant.

Dave

simpleman

04-24-2007, 05:22 PM

We have the right to life and to liberty and to the pursuit of happiness. we have a right to privacy and security in our homes and in our persons. We have the right to live unmolested somewhere. We have the right to work and earn our bread by the sweat of our brows. We HAVE the right to love whom we will.

Dave

I know that. That's what I said. You already have those rights.

Life- the government does not take away your right to life. Terrible people take away your right to life. The government already has laws against murder, assault, and battery. If you are murdered or assaulted for being gay, the person who did it is already legally liable. I know, I know, I know that some jurisdictions do not properly prosecute or handle these cases. i.e. they let hate criminals off easy sometimes. I don't condone this, it's wrong. But the government can only make laws with the good faith that law enforcement will do their jobs.

Liberty- you have the freedom to hate freedom if you want to. You have the freedom to be who you are. The government is not keeping you from being who you are. Other people might try to say all sorts of nasty things to you, kick you out of your rented home, or fire you, but you are still free to be who you are in this country. It's not like your former landlord can call the police and have you executed when they find out that you are gay.

Pursuit of Happiness- It says "pursuit of" happiness not "automatic" happiness. If I am raining on your parade and making you unhappy because I disagree with you, too bad. You can just as easily say "I don't care what you think, I am a gay man, a Christian, and I am proud to be both." And you can walk away from me, or ignore me, or whatever else. Just because someone doesn't like you doesn't mean you can accuse them of taking away your pursuit of happiness.

Right to Privacy and Security in your persons- See what I said about laws against physical violence. The right to privacy isn't explicitly stated in the Constitution, but the government should not invade your privacy, and they rarely do. The laws that protect anyone's security are not preemptive. Short of a Minority Report Utopia where we know about all crimes before they happen, we cannot prevent crime like we would like to. The laws that protect security for anyone are punitive measures for those who have committed them.

Right to Privacy and Security in your homes- If you own the home, or you have the note on a bank loan, or have otherwise purchased the home, it is yours and you are safe there. The police can't come and haul you off if someone calls in a tip that you are gay. Many states actually allow you to use firepower to protect that right. Most states even allow you to protect property you rent against others with firepower. But, if you are a tenant, and your landlord doesn't want you around, he can pretty much request that you leave, for any reason he wants. It's wrong, but it's his right of freedom of association dissociation.

The Right to make a living- Yes, you do have this right. There are employers that are not "equal opportunity," but there are many others that are. If one place fires you, and you are a solid worker, which I will assume that you are if you are sweating from the brow, you will find a job without a boss who will fire you for being gay. Again, it wasn't right for you to be fired the first time, but it was within the rights of the business owner for you to be fired.

Now, what I actually said, and what I meant, was that the rights that you wish to create are the rights to not have your feelings hurt, or the right not to be hated. These rights have never existed, and no one is born with them. If you are on your private property, you can tell anyone who is hurting your feelings to leave. If you are in a public place, and someone hurts your feelings, that sucks, but you have no right to take any action against them. They may be as wrong as wrong can be, but they are within their rights. The country was founded upon people's right to freely practice whatever religion they choose. If their chosen religion says that homosexuality is wrong, and they say that you are living in sin, I will probably hurt their feelings, but you can't have them jailed or accuse them of taking way your right to the pursuit of happiness.

Also, I know that I have incited anger from you, but my apparent arrogance has nothing to do with my sexual orientation. That's like someone saying that you are a certain personality trait because you are gay. I thought sexual orientation was a trait in itself, so I obviously am not loudmouthed and obnoxious because I am straight, I'm loudmouthed and obnoxious because that's how I am, just like none of your other personality traits are tied directly to the fact that you are homosexual. They are just your personality traits.

Very quickly, I want everybody to know that I'm just trying to stimulate dialogue. That's what everybody wants, and I like dialogue, too. Please accept that I am expressing my beliefs honestly and openly, and that they are in conflict with yours. Please be respectful of my honesty, even if you absolutely abhor my point of view.

Emproph

04-25-2007, 07:28 AM

(keep in mind I haven't read beyond this post yet, but I felt compelled to respond to it, as is.)

I realize that I said that my other post would be my last, but I guess it won't hurt to drop in a thought right here.

Someone brought up the point that the ER's goal was to take "truth" to people who are misinformed and that bringing that truth to them is paramount to any to any private property rights. This is where the discussion turns to pure argument. Those of you who believe that your "truth" somehow transcends other people's "truth" have crossed the boundaries of fair discussion and crossed into argumentation. The people that you are challenging have a different view of the "truth". And their version of the "truth" dictates their policies.

Fair discussion and dialogue is when people discuss variances in personal "truth" with the respect that others' opinions of the "truth" are just as right as yours are. That is respectful dialogue. When you say that your "truth" takes precedence over someone else's, you have not only turned the dialogue into an argument, you contradict your own logic. You all come onto this board and claim that those who have different views about homosexuals are killing them with spiritual violence, and that their beliefs are wrong and should be corrected. As you know, they think that your viewpoints, or your sexual orientation, is wrong and should be corrected.

Example:

Those from Soul Force say: Go seek out those who believe that being gay is sinful, and explain to them that it is not, and that thinking in such a way is spiritual violence which will cause damage to the lives of gays.

Those from Conservative Churches/Schools say: Go seek out those who are not Christian or who are Christian sinners (i.e. gays) and tell them that they are sinful, and that they should turn from their sin, otherwise hellfire awaits them.

Both of these sentences flow from the archetype:
Go find someone who is wrong, tell them they are wrong, and try to help them see what is right, otherwise there will be dire consequences.

This is not dialogue, nor is it discussion, it is pure argumentation. The two above statements are based on two very different sets of premises, many of which are at the core of the two differing belief systems.

Two more cents for everyone, courtesy of Simpleman.
~~
Those from Soul Force say: Go seek out those who believe that being gay is sinful, and explain to them that it is not, and that thinking in such a way is spiritual violence which will cause damage to the lives of gays.

Those from Conservative Churches/Schools say: Go seek out those who are not Christian or who are Christian sinners (i.e. gays) and tell them that they are sinful, and that they should turn from their sin, otherwise hellfire awaits them.

Both of these sentences flow from the archetype:
Go find someone who is wrong, tell them they are wrong, and try to help them see what is right, otherwise there will be dire consequences.

Wrong. At least the way you put it.

Mark 10:11-12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2010:11-12&version=31):
He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

Where’s your “dire consequences” mentality when it comes to the unrepentant adulterers of society?

To claim that you are concerned about the "awaiting hellfire damnation," of we few LGBT sinners, without first establishing that you are even more concerned with the comparatively many adulterous-remarriage sinners, strikes me as the epitome of disingenuousness.

You put the meaning of:
cause damage to the lives of gays
on equal footing with:
hellfire awaits them
By doing so you not only dismiss, but also justify the hell on Earth that people like you cause for us LGBTQQI persons, to the EXCLUSION of all other "unrepentant sinners."

You didn’t even acknowledge how we are hated and LIED about – THAT INSULT – in and of itself – is HELL ON EARTH.

You created Hell on Earth to show us that you are concerned about our “eternal” hell-fate. And then equated the two.

Go find someone who is wrong
Is NOT equal to:
cause damage to the lives of gays

People like you trying to "fix" us, in the name of "fixing sin" itself is the damage. Not because it's a bad goal, but because it's a dishonest goal. If you are here at Soulforce to argue against sexual sin, then I don't see how you even care about it. Anyone who was that concerned about it would be lobbying to make divorce illegal.

If it is understood that you do not even understand how to avoid creating HELL on Earth, in the attempt to do good, how is it possible to expect us to understand that you know better about an eternal spiritual Hell?

Or did you think that because we’re too stupid to realize that we’re supposed to be attracted to the opposite gender, that we’d be to stupid to recognize that little tidbit of illogic?

That’s the insult, and that’s what it says. If that’s what you mean, then so be it. But please be clear. I can handle the idea that you think I’m stupid or “blind” or however politely you want to put it. What I can’t handle, and what makes me angrier than HELL, is when I see the attempt to deny this basic level of honesty.

Granted, you’ll want to parse your words when being so honest, and you’ll still offend, that’s the nature of honesty, but if you care for meaningful discourse around here, you’ll want to make the effort to tell us what you really do think – and suffer the consequences.

You wouldn’t blame us for being misunderstood now would you?

antonyh

04-25-2007, 07:57 AM

http://securityreference.googlepages.com/soulforce1.jpg

(Post moved to correct thread)

Simpleman & Marion:

I want to point out the parallels between what Soulforce is doing and what Dr. Martin Luther King did. At first I saw your point, but now I realize that I just need to think about the issue more clearly.

Dr. King was dealing with a system of oppression called racism. Racism is a heart sickness that sustained unjust laws affecting African Americans. In a similar way, Soulforce is dealing with a system of oppression called homophobia. Homophobia is a heart sickness that sustains unjust laws affecting gay and lesbian people. For instance, it is unjust that marriage laws don't apply to same-sex couples.

The primary group opposing just laws for African Americans were white southerners. The primary group opposing just laws for gay and lesbian people today are Evangelical Christians. Both white southerners and Evangelical Christians practice their racism and homophobia on private property.

When Rosa Parks sat at the front of the bus or when African Americans sat down at white-only lunch counters, they were agitating on white southerner's private property. In a similar way, when Soulforce steps onto Christian college campuses, they are also agitating on Evangelical Christian's private property.

The very nature of relentless, non-violent resistance is to put a face on hate. This method put a face on racism in the South and it is putting a face on homophobia today.

Homophobia sustains unjust public laws. Soulforce is tilling the soil so that legislators will have the courage to plant the laws that will allow justice to bloom.

Since I know that you will bring up religious freedom, consider this. Slavery was justified with the Bible. Today, opposition to same-sex marriage is justified with the Bible. Both systems of oppression have connections to religious belief.

This was something Coretta Scott King understood:

Coretta Scott King, speaking four days before the 30th anniversary of her husband's assassination, said Tuesday the civil rights leader's memory demanded a strong stand for gay and lesbian rights. "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," she said. "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 brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people," she said.
- Reuters, March 31, 1998.

http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/coretta.html

Emproph

04-25-2007, 08:02 AM

I don't anticipate that college administrators are going to run out and commit suicide because Soulforce visited their institutions and challenged their definition of sin.

Exactly. We should only be blamed for "college administrators going to run out and commit [spiritual] suicide."

As evidenced here (http://chattablogs.com/quintus/equality-ride-covenant.pdf), here (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2718), and here (http://www.phc.edu/news/docs/04132007Media.asp).

tdogg

04-25-2007, 08:17 AM

And T-dogg, your suggestion to "give us what we want and we will leave you alone" makes very little sense in terms of what you are trying to do. I think your mission is more to get them to form a more enlightened worldview, not to simply appease your wishes because they want you to go away.

Of course you are right about this - if you read my post you will find it was solely in regards to the issue of private property as pertains to the many colleges visited by the ER - this seems to be an extremely sensitive and volatile subject for some. There is no real change without gaining some understanding by those from which we are expecting change. We must become the change we wish to see - this is why the ER ride is happening, and other actions.

When both sides can approach each other in love and compassion, then true dialogue may exist. What I see from many (I hesitate to say all, but my experience is that all I have experienced are this) whose beliefs are similar to yours, is that their words are presented in a condescending false premise of love, when the truth is they are presenting a threat of hell, damnation, condemnation, judgment, superiority, self-rightousness. This is hidden in the usual statement of 'we love you' but rarely ever successfully hidden.

Simpleman, I urge you to read through these threads to get the real life experiences and stories of us all. There are SO MANY rights which we as GLBT people do NOT have. The argument that homosexuality is sinful is not a valid argument. The argument that we can have those rights if we just marry someone of the opposite sex is not a valid argument. Until every person in this country has the same and full rights as the next person, there is NO equality for us. I'm not sure how you can say there is. When we can walk down the street withour beloveds, holding hands, giving a kiss, saying "I love you" without the threat of physical and emotional harm, then perhaps we will listen when you say we have equal rights. When we have all the 1500 rights (yes, one-thousand, five hundred - give or take a few) that a married hetereosexual couple are gifted with, then we will listen when you say we have equality.

Walk in our shoes a bit - make this arugment with yourself in regards to you being a straight man (if you are a man, I'm assuming here since your moniker is Simpleman) - what if you as a straight man could not marry a woman you were in love with, what if you were at risk to be fired from your job (yes even your government job), what if you were at risk to be evicted from your home or expelled from your school, only because there were rumors that you were straight??? What if you were at risk every day, of someone vandalizing your house or car, attacking you, perhaps even killing you ALL BECAUSE YOU ARE A STRAIGHT MAN?? It takes some imagination, but if you try I think you might get a slight inkling of the picture...

Emproph

04-25-2007, 08:27 AM

my definition of sinwe live in a free country, and we're all allowed to be right.The moment your argument claims the "right" to define the rights of other Americans in this "free country," is the moment that that argument becomes anti-American.

antonyh

04-25-2007, 08:54 AM

Your last post, of which the above is a sliver, betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what a "right" is. Rights are not "GIVEN" or "GRANTED" or "CREATED". Rights are unalienable and endowed by our creator. We already HAVE rights. We have the right to life and to liberty and to the pursuit of happiness. we have a right to privacy and security in our homes and in our persons. We have the right to live unmolested somewhere. We have the right to work and earn our bread by the sweat of our brows. We HAVE the right to love whom we will. WE ALREADY HAVE THOSE RIGHTS.

The governement, the church, society don't need to "CREATE" rights for us, or GIVE rights to us or GRANT rights to us (as if they had the power and authority to do so) . They don't need to "Give" us our rights. GOD ALREADY GAVE US RIGHTS WHEN WE WERE BORN AS HUMAN BEINGS. What they need to do is get the hell out of our way so that we can enjoy the rights that God already gave us. They just need to stop withholding our rights and restricting our liberty, our security, our privacy, our happiness, our lives.

Thank you for pointing this out. Rights are unalienable.

Zerbie

04-25-2007, 12:14 PM

Thank you for pointing this out. Rights are unalienable.

Yes, Udog, what you state is correct.

Another point I'm surprised no one else has brought up yet regarding the discrimination in things like housing and employment is, if employers and landlords have the "right" to dispose of excellent employees and responsible tenants because they "don't like them" for personal reasons, WHY ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH IS IT THAT EVERYONE ELSE (as far as I know, all groups except sexual orientation and gender identity are protected, don't hold me to that in all circumstances) HAS THE LEGAL RECOURSE TO SUE TERMINATION OF A VALID LEASE OR TO CLAIM WRONGFUL TERMINATION???? If employers had that "right," then they would be allowed to dispose of someone for being Christian, or married, or black, just as much as for being gay.

EITHER EVERYONE HAS THE SAME RIGHTS OR THEY DON'T.

Simple, I hope in the name of your integrity you are out there trying to roll back employment protections for married persons, blacks, Jews, women, Christians, the differently-abled, and so on. Either that, or see that gay persons are included in the same BASIC ordinary protection that EVERYONE else is.

Emproph

04-25-2007, 12:30 PM

Yes, Udog, what you state is correct.

Another point I'm surprised no one else has brought up yet regarding the discrimination in things like housing and employment is, if employers and landlords have the "right" to dispose of excellent employees and responsible tenants because they "don't like them" for personal reasons, WHY ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH IS IT THAT EVERYONE ELSE (as far as I know, all groups except sexual orientation and gender identity are protected, don't hold me to that in all circumstances) HAS THE LEGAL RECOURSE TO SUE TERMINATION OF A VALID LEASE OR TO CLAIM WRONGFUL TERMINATION???? If employers had that "right," then they would be allowed to dispose of someone for being Christian, or married, or black, just as much as for being gay.

EITHER EVERYONE HAS THE SAME RIGHTS OR THEY DON'T.

Simple, I hope in the name of your integrity you are out there trying to roll back employment protections for married persons, blacks, Jews, women, Christians, the differently-abled, and so on. Either that, or see that gay persons are included in the same BASIC ordinary protection that EVERYONE else is.
:applause: Good answer. Good answer. :applause:

u-dog

04-25-2007, 01:30 PM

Simple, I hope in the name of your integrity you are out there trying to roll back employment protections for married persons, blacks, Jews, women, Christians, the differently-abled, and so on. Either that, or see that gay persons are included in the same BASIC ordinary protection that EVERYONE else is.

Yeah Simp! start with that pesky "American's with Disabilities Act" I really miss being able to "step off the curb" at intersections. Who cares if a bunch of "crips" can't cross the street ?!! I have my rights! And who wants a bunch of people in wheelchairs going to church with us and working in our offices anyway? It's a big pain in the patoot if you ask me!!!

What do you think Davidb? Am I right? You'ld rather just stay home and watch soaps anyway right?

Surgeon General's warning: caution, may contain large doses of sarcasm. May cause damage to fetus' when read by pregnant women

davidb

04-25-2007, 01:36 PM

General Hospital's almost on. :D

tdogg

04-25-2007, 09:52 PM

Never Sue. Sue makes an S out of U and E.

Patrick, you got a laugh out of me! That's a great one. :D :rofl: :rainbow:

Wheelchairs...funny, the people least willing to help out when toting my dad around in his wheelchair are the people that go to his A of G church..... (Not to take away the funny stuff Udog & Davidb - but had to get my 1cents in) :confused:

ladyinred

04-25-2007, 09:59 PM

Simpleman mind gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaames You really get a kick out of this don't you... It's like some perverse joke to you or something. Your logic sounds pretty convoluted to me.

ladyinred

04-25-2007, 10:40 PM

I'm not trying to be rude here, but you all are trying to appeal to this man's compassion and understanding. You are talking to a brick wall. All it is going to do is create more frustration.And it won't work.He's not interested in how you feel or what you think period. And all this leads to is you trying to convince him to see things differently, which he won't and you end up beating your heads against the brick wall. Do you want that?

I've been there and done that too, it isn't worth the trouble. Don't let him bait you into a heated discussion it is wasted effort.

u-dog

04-26-2007, 12:53 AM

When I stop. :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: There. thats much better!

ladyinred

04-26-2007, 09:15 AM

LOL u-dog. It is curious how this guy twists things around though. He will justify hate but then he turns around and say Soulforce shouldn't even come around to the campuses and dialogue. I guess he thinks freedom of speech applies to them only but not Soul Force or the GLBT community.(And of course they have all the rights in the world to say and do what they want but again those in the GLBT community don't) What bugged me was he was actually trying to dissuade Soul Force from doing anything. It was almost as if he was saying, "Now shut up, if you don't like it tough, that's just the way things are."

Then he accused Soul Force of trying to gain attention from the media, by being arrested and put in jail..And? It's not like they haven't through tv and media tried to spread their propaganda..And if it is a way for Soul Force to bring to the public attention the inequalities that GLBT people face, is that necessarily wrong? Anyone on the side of civil rights or human rights will try to legitimately bring public attention to their cause, it is the only way they can get the word out and challenge the status quo.

ladyinred

04-26-2007, 09:32 AM

I will say in the past I'd written FRC and had written on other forums as well to call attention to the fact that many in the GLBT community have suffered and I will say they are a recalcitrant bunch. You cannot change them, they are very adament in what they believe, even if you try to point out the flaws in their thinking or ask them to have an open mind and reconsider, they often defend their position as if it is the absolute truth.Fortunately there were more open-minded people on the forum who would tone things down or discuss things and try to see the other side of the coin.

When Jesus taught, we have to remember not everyone was receptive to his message and he often had to deal with people who weren't interested or who really cared about what he had to say.(Like the religious pharisees for example) Basically we have to deal with the same fact that there are people we can't change and who are not receptive and open minded enough to understand the other side of the equation.

I just don't want people here to get so frustrated because they can't talk any sense into another person, because they can't, the person has already made up their mind and is likely not to change it.

Jesus often told his disciples to preach abroad and to other villages, however if they were not receptive, he told them to shake the dirt from their sandal and move on(At least I hope I remembered that correctly) But the point is he knew that not everyone would be receptive and it was a futile effort to even try to reach them.So they would just move on to other villages and preach the gospel to those who would receive it.
It is by no means a failure on the part of Soul Force, if they can't always reach other people, it is just a fact of life, that some people you will never be able to reach or hope to change their minds and hearts.

antonyh

04-26-2007, 10:34 AM

I just don't want people here to get so frustrated because they can't talk any sense into another person, because they can't, the person has already made up their mind and is likely not to change it.

I see your point, but on the other hand, the relentless part of nonviolent resistance is done with the belief that the adversary has the capacity to change.

I think Simpleman can change his views.

Simpleman, my brother, join arms with us and help us end suffering in the world for LGBTQ people.

ladyinred

04-26-2007, 11:04 AM

I'm not saying that someone can't change ,all I'm saying is don't beat your head against the brick wall if they don't

Daniel

04-26-2007, 11:10 AM

Part of it is not buying into the system of thought that is being dolled out. Part of it is not letting ourselves get angry. Part of it is learning to stay calm in the midst of a huge burst of activity. Part of it is being the change we seek. Part of it is- yes yes yes yes yes - being relenteless- which I try to remind myself means being relentlessly compassionate with myself and others.

Thinking of the conversation as practice in the art of compassion (and more and more it feels like a skill that has to used artfully) helps me a lot, rather than trying to change the other person.

simpleman

04-26-2007, 12:04 PM

Ladyinred, I see your frustration, because I feel it myself. I mean it's me against pretty much everybody on this board. At least when you make a logically consistent point, there are four or five other people there to commend you. If I make a logically consistent point, which may or may not even be right, I get smacked around by subtle accusations of bigotry and hatred. And I do believe all of you to be intelligent people who make logically consistent points, and to be true to your beliefs and words.

As for free speech rights, I've harped on this over and over again, free speech is only applicable on government property. It is not applicable on private property. That's why the mods of this board can, at any time, deem my posts to be anti-gay and delete them. I consider this board to more or less be the private property of SoulForce, and if the moderators asked me to leave, I would be required to do so. If I refused, they would be within their rights to shut down my account, block my IP address, and none of you would ever have to deal with me again.

So you see, my point is not that gays and lesbians should not fight against social inequality, in fact, the Constitution protects that entirely, and so do I. However, I don't think it is appropriate or within the rights of anyone to invade someone else's private property and then start invoking Constitutional rights. If they want to let you, great, that's wonderful. But don't take advantage of generosity by not following guidelines, and then when the places in question subsequently disallow your presence, start trying to say that they are oppressing you or violating your civil rights. If a place does not want to allow you, find some public property, and stay there. In the short run, it won't seem as effective, but in the long run, it will be more noble and respectable not to get arrested everywhere you go.

It's like my time here on this board. Nothing that I have said on this board is within my civil rights. Freedom of speech doesn't count, freedom of expression doesn't count. I'm only allowed to talk on this board because the private property owners, i.e. the moderators, allow me to. I'm not trying to get kicked off the board, or to change anyone's views, I'm simply here to express mine. I understand that my views are unwelcome here, because they go against yours, and I don't see any reason why a moderator should have to let me be here and continue posting things and spouting ideas that none of you like or agree with. In other words, I don't have the right to be here. It is a privilege that I am grateful (believe it or not!) to have had.

Zerbie

04-26-2007, 02:09 PM

Don't worry, Red, we know. ;) Sometimes one feels called to take a good Tilt at a towering Windmill. And anyway, anyone CAN change at any time, it's just that it's more up to them and God than to some person wanting to trigger a change.

Part of the reason why we respond and argue Simpleman is for the benefit of other people reading and not posting. Perhaps someone out there reading this thread started out agreeing with Simpleman, and then some of the things we've written have that person nodding and thinking, "Oh, okay, I see both sides now. Interesting. I'll have to think about this some more." When we're speaking publicly, we are also speaking to that important person who is listening who we don't even know about.

Simple: You confuse me. I can't connect to you - have no sense of who you are, and therefore I don't know how to speak with you. My only sense is that you are emotionless. I don't know if that's true, but I feel like your life is all about thoughts and you disown your own feelings, and seem to feel that others should do the same with theirs. Logic over all, perhaps. If that's the case, I invite you to connect with your own heart and feelings - life becomes OH SO MUCH RICHER then.

Funny: I turned the radio on as I was typing this post about tilting at windmills, and Strauss' Don Quixote tone poem was just ending. The announcer said, as I was typing to Simpleman, "thank you for tilting at windmills this morning." :lol: :D

ladyinred

04-27-2007, 12:37 AM

Zerbie I'll have to agree with you, but feelings also make you more human. If I was not emphatic toward other people who felt pain or sorrow, I could never understand what they go through. I tend to be much more sensitive then people give me credit for , and I can cry at the drop of a hat,when I read or hear about someone else's suffering. But that is just me.

ladyinred

04-27-2007, 01:40 AM

And as far as I'm concerned Simpleman, the only person I am responsible for in terms of my actions and words and how I treat other people is me. I also feel that other people's opinions and judgments of me are their own problem. I'm not responsible for them or their unloving behavior toward me or others. And as far as I'm concerned their judgments of me don't define me, it is more about them than me... Instead of letting it reflect on me as a person, I see it as reflecting on them.The only person who can make you hate others, is you.The only person who is responsible for your words and actions is you. No one else can be held accountable for you but you. No one else can make you hate them,only you can make yourself hate anyone.
Other people who are Christians don't necessarily hate gay people or hold anything against them, so it is saying that their frame of reference and how they see another person is based on how they think and believe another person should be treated.It is totally subjective to the frame of reference that a person has. You say for example, that the Klu klux klan has the right to their hatred of blacks but there are plenty of people who would disagree with them and don't share that hatred or contempt for blacks... Again proving that their bias is subjective and not a given or accepted norm. So if you think the ends justify the means, explain that to God when you die and have to give him an account for your actions and words and how you treated others.I'm sure he'll approve. Sorry , but you and no one else can stick that on gay people.

simpleman

04-27-2007, 12:02 PM

Ladyinred,

Pretty much everything you say is entirely right. Yes everyone should hold themselves accountable, and yes everyone who hates chooses to hate. Of course the KKK is more than deplorable for choosing to hate blacks, and they are responsible personally and to God for their actions and beliefs. So am I and so are you. No one person's judgment defines you, but no judgment of yours defines me. These are all very important personal, moral, and social questions. And I agree with you completely on the self-reliant, personally strong attitude. I think this nation needs more of it.

However, we do have a Constitution, and that says that people are allowed to make judgments about other people. People are allowed to discriminate in terms of their own private property. People are allowed to hate on their own private property. Now, before you go off again about how God won't let me into heaven because I believe this, let me explain:

JUST BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO HATE, DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS RIGHT TO HATE. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANYONE SHOULD BE HATED. I BELIEVE THAT THOSE WHO HATE ARE WRONG.

I know you think that this is somehow a twist of words, but you have to understand the profound difference between freedom and it's relation to private property.

If you say to me, "Simpleman, I'm going to write a letter, or make a visit, or get a bus together full of people to make a visit to Christian University. We are going to sit off campus and try to spread our message peacefully. If we are allowed on campus to spread our message, we will graciously accept the offer and respect their rules and guidelines."

I would say, "Great! Go for it! You could make a profound difference."

But if you say to me, "I'm going to get a bus together to make a visit to Christian College, and they won't allow me on campus, then I am going to try to run across their police line because they are denying gay people Constitutional rights."

Then I have to "twist it around" because you have just used the Constitution out of context. The Constitution applies to public property. You cannot just interject the Constitution only when it works for your own good. If you start doing that, then you validate the religious right's attempt to use the Constitution to ban gay marriage. This is a really difficult Constitutional Law concept to understand. Antony H said it awhile back, which is that if you create a precedent for applying to Constitution to people on private property, you create a precedent for having the Constitution turned against you on your private property. In other words, you can't just read what you think is wrong into the Constitution, or you open up other people to read what they think is wrong into the Constitution, and all of this could have dire effects on the system in which we live.

So again, when you are arguing for social change, leave the Constitution out of it. It's a misuse of the Constitution. Appeal in all the other ways that all of these people have appealed to me. Appeal on the basis of emotion, love, sympathy, and passion. Don't try to use the Constitution, because it doesn't belong there.

I hope you understand what I am talking about now.

Daniel

04-27-2007, 12:37 PM

So Simpleman: I'm curious. What's your story? You can search this site and find out gobs about me and those of my fellow forumites, and I'm pretty much an open book, but we know very little about you. Personally speaking, I would feel a lot more comfortable conversing with you if I knew more about you, your interests and makes you tick.

Right now, all I can really say is that you are the guy ('man' is the clue) that keeps harping on and on about property rights. I get that, but very little else.

How about it?

Now, if you just want to keep everything above the eyebrows, so to speak, that's fine, but I'm afraid that kind of impersonal approach is going to get you, or us, nowhere fast.

And or course, anything you want to know about me: ask. Happy to oblige.

ladyinred

04-27-2007, 12:41 PM

Ok, you say people have the right to hate or deny other's from visitation on private property, don't you think that Soul Force has the right to freedom of speech as well. The only line I would draw is if they were actually crossing a line and harming other people.Which they are not. What about the antiwar protesters ? Because they don't agree with Bush's policies and the war does that make them wrong? Does it mean because they don't agree with the war or Bush they should just shut up?

You mentioned that Soul force could easily kick you off this forum if they so choose. But why don't they? Because they want to keep the dialogue open with you (Unless of course it goes too far and things get out of hand).And I personally don't think anyone here hates anyone. But what they are concerned with is hatred , discrimination and violence being directed LGBT people for who they are. They do not have an ulterior motive. But let's say these were black people who were concerned with their civil rights and they weren't allowed on campus or allowed to go to these schools because of their skin color, are you saying they don't have the right to speak out and counter the prejudice against them?

Slavery in the 17th and 18th century was often justified by Christians because it was in the bible. Black people did not have the same rights as whites until later.Would you suggest that they remain silent, just because people didn't believe they should have equal rights under the law?

You say hatred is wrong. But then again how do people counter prejudice and hatred being directed at them.You say people have the constitutional right to hate people, so is it not true that people have the same constitutional right to counter that prejudice and speak out against it and even go to jail for their convictions if they feel that strongly?If you believe in constitutional rights and freedom of speech then you cannot exclude a certain group of people because of their beliefs and convictions as long as their intents are not aimed to harm others

u-dog

04-27-2007, 12:45 PM

However, we do have a Constitution, and that says that people are allowed to make judgments about other people. People are allowed to discriminate in terms of their own private property. People are allowed to hate on their own private property. Now, before you go off again about how God won't let me into heaven because I believe this, let me explain:

Simp,

God will almost certainly let you into heaven (mostly because he REFUSES to consult me on this whole "who gets in/who doesn't thing -- I could save him SO MUCH TROUBLE if he would just listen to me and if I could have authority over Lightening Bolt Command I could sort out a WHOLE bunch of stuff for him. But does he listen? nope.)

But lets do this whole "DO people have the right to discriminate on private property" thing one more time. It is a settled matter in constitutional law that people DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE JUST BECAUSE A CONCERN IS PRIVATE. If I refuse to serve women or blacks in my private restaurant I am breaking the law. If I refuse to rent property to black people because they are black I am breaking the law. If I fire a person because of their nationality I am breaking the law. if I pay one person more than another even though they do the same work and do it just as well, only because of their nationality or gender or race, I AM BREAKING THE LAW !!! The constitution DOES NOT PROTECT ME WHEN I DO THESE THINGS! There IS NO freedom of association with regard to these matters.

It IS HOWEVER not only possible but quite common to commit these CRIMES against LGBT people because hatred toward us is socially sanctioned !!

This is wrong. it is immoral. It SHOULD be Illegal. IT is against the spirit of the constitution. it is hypocritical. Its nasty. Its evil. But it is still, technically LEGAL.

<end of rant>

Zerbie

04-27-2007, 12:52 PM

u-dog

04-27-2007, 01:00 PM

Technical question:

Is Soulforce protesting these schools on CONSTITUTIONAL grounds? Or is it more a matter of presence to give voice to a reality of human experience that is ignored, obfuscated, treated as myth on the campuses?

I thought it was the latter? Am I mistaken? Or is Simpleman mistaken? Or is SF there for BOTH reasons?

You, Zerbie, can do no wrong. it must be Simpleguy. He is socially conservative after all... so he has experience with being wrong. :rolleyes:

seriously, I believe that the challenge is a moral and spiritual one... not a legal one. I don't hear anyone arguing that the trespassing arrests are unconstitutional.

ladyinred

04-27-2007, 01:40 PM

What you forget Simpleman is that our constitution was founded on dissent. Our founding fathers didn't exactly want to go along with the monarchy and it's rule over their lives. They did not want to be bound by or subjugated by it's rule.

And the constitution does state equal protection unde the law for everyone. And again you say that hatred is protected by the constitution, but to what extent? Just because the KKK hate blacks does it give them the right to form a lynch mob and burn crosses on people's lawns? Or would that be considered a crime? Again do the ends justify the means? If we allowed people who hate, the right to do exactly what they wanted regardless of the consequences and how it affected the lives of others ,we'd live in anarchy.

Clearly we see such actions as violating the rights of others,and we also see the consequences of such negative actions ,and the harm it does as well. What about people who blow up abortion clinincs because they don't agree with abortion and end up killing innocent people.. do their religious convictions give them the right to do so?I will tell you I'm no big fan of abortion ( but I take a more moderate view on it), but I'm personally not going to go out and kill people because of my convictions and justify it in the name of God, because I personally don't advocate violence against people because I don't agree with what they are doing. So Simpleman ,do you believe hatred is sanctioned in any form?

davidb

04-27-2007, 04:56 PM

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

antonyh

04-27-2007, 05:40 PM

I don't think it is appropriate or within the rights of anyone to invade someone else's private property and then start invoking Constitutional rights.

I have one short, simple question for you...

When African Americans invaded private white space in the 1960s and invoked their Constitutional rights, was that inappropriate as well?

antonyh

04-27-2007, 05:41 PM

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Ouch David, that has got to hurt LOL

Emproph

04-27-2007, 08:58 PM

Wow. You’re a real piece of work.

But if you say to me, "I'm going to get a bus together to make a visit to Christian College, and they won't allow me on campus, then I am going to try to run across their police line because they are denying gay people Constitutional rights."

Then I have to "twist it around" because you have just used the Constitution out of context. The Constitution applies to public property. You cannot just interject the Constitution only when it works for your own good.

Protecting the Constitutional rights of gay people is less important than protecting the literal dirt you walk on.

How very non-hateful of you Simpleman.

In other words, you can't just read what you think is wrong into the Constitution

In other words, the idea that I am an American who is equal to you is just some Constitutional delusion on my part. Nice.

So again, when you are arguing for social change, leave the Constitution out of it. It's a misuse of the Constitution. Appeal in all the other ways that all of these people have appealed to me. Appeal on the basis of emotion, love, sympathy, and passion. Don't try to use the Constitution, because it doesn't belong there.

Because “emotion, love, sympathy, and passion” are all things that can be dismissed out of hand. How convenient for you. And how dare you?

You’d think with all the persecution coming at you “legitimate” Christians you’d be a little bit more sympathetic to our own, obviously false sense of persecution. And really Simpleman, who could blame us? We’re obviously too stupid to realize that we're actually attracted to the opposite sex.

I hope you understand what I am talking about now.

Either we do – all too well – or you’ve got some serious ‘splaining to do.

Or...
I know my last post came off as harsh, but I really can't find a way to disagree with anyone on this board without being considered a bigot.
...just admit that you’re a bigot!

I’m a bigot against bigots. There I said it, we’re equal. Now you try it.

The only thing you have to do to “hate” gay people is to think that we’re inferior to you. You can call it polly-wolly-doodle for all I care, but if it’s the case then the shoe fits.

I can respect it if you call me inferior to my face. What I HATE though is the eternal and collective dance of denial. THAT’S the hatred! The fact that you don’t even have enough respect for us (and yes I’m generalizing here) to be honest with us.

FIND A SPINE.

kara speltz

04-27-2007, 09:34 PM

Technical question:

Is Soulforce protesting these schools on CONSTITUTIONAL grounds? Or is it more a matter of presence to give voice to a reality of human experience that is ignored, obfuscated, treated as myth on the campuses?

I thought it was the latter? Am I mistaken? Or is Simpleman mistaken? Or is SF there for BOTH reasons?

Have you noticed how simpleton keeps ignoring the fact that The Equality Riders are not protesting on constitutional grounds? A person may have a constitutional right to lie, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't point the lie out.

kara

ladyinred

04-27-2007, 09:42 PM

Kara, if we were to believe what Simpleman says ,people could just discriminate against anyone on any basis

Daniel

04-27-2007, 09:52 PM

This may be tangential, but I wonder, simpleman, what your position is on the Right to Bear Arms (2nd Amendment). Is that part of your thinking as well? Seriously. I would expect you to have a fierce stance on this. It would certainly be in keeping with your stated views about property rights, would it not? I guess I'm wondering how far you would go to protect your private property.

Thoughts?

simpleman

04-28-2007, 09:09 AM

Emproph-

You have completely misconstrued everything that I have ever written. If you want to speak in terms of emotion, love, sympathy, and passion, stay in those terms and I'm right there with you. I believe all of the arguments here than appeal to these things. But when you start invoking the Constitution, I speak in Constitutional terms, which are cold and callous. If you have read any type of code law, case law, or court opinions, you will know that they are all written in monotone, with very little if any nuance. Legalese, if you will, has to be this way, so that it is entirely unambiguous to future generations. When Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he wrote an emotionally charged document, which more or less served as a manifesto of a dissenting party. The Constitution was written several years later, after a failed system under the articles of the Confederation. The Constitution is intentionally void of any kind of emotion, because that's how law has to be.

Say you were to write about murder. In passionate terms, you could write of pain and suffering and mortality, along with the other lives ripped apart by the killing. You could talk of the mind of the killer, and the evil inside of him. You could talk about a valiant struggle between right and wrong, good and evil. There are so many nuances in and out of any individual murder. However, the law books can't possibly cover all the bases, so they have to say this: The killing of a person shall be illegal, with exception for self-defense. Pretty much sucks the emotion, passion, and sympathy out doesn't it?

So if the Constitution were written in terms of passion,etc. it would read:

There are many people who practice different religions. It could destroy the lives of many people if the government were to establish a state religion and legislate based upon it. Every man should be free to practice his own religion, because it is one of the most important things to any man. This is part of his soul, his passion, his fire. The government can never and should never take such a right from a man. The press, also, must be free. If the government regulated how the media did their work, we could end up in some kind of military state, where people are destroyed and the truth is hidden from them by the government through the media. This would be devastating. People should be able to peaceably assemble. People need to be able to get together for the common good. If they need to assemble, they have to be, because their cause may be just and few others may know. How much more could be done to help them if only they could reach out? Oh this would be a travesty if the government limited such actions. And if our government should err, which it will because we are human, people must be allowed to voice their grievances to the government by way of a petition. The voice of the people, which could mean a better tomorrow, must be heard.

However, it coldly, bluntly, and unemotionally states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Now once you allow passion into the Constitution, you destroy it's protection for all. What you essentially want to do is say that the Constitution says this:

Anywhere that the free exercise of religion is discriminatory or destructive, it must be stopped, because discrimination and destruction should be avoided. The freedom of speech must be allowed anywhere at any time, by those who are oppressed, because the oppressor's rights do not matter, because he is an oppressor. We will assemble anywhere, and at any time. It will be peaceful, until we are arrested by those who oppress us. Again, oppressor's rights are diminished because they oppress.

That's not what the Constitution says. Now, again, if you will leave the Constitution out of it, then I will have no argument against anything you say. If you want to talk solely of passion, I can not disagree, because these are unquantifiable. But when you drag a concrete document like the Constitution into such relative settings, it falls apart. It has to stay in the public sphere.

Finally, I won't admit to being a bigot because I believe in the Constitution. If your definition of hatred is saying that someone is inferior to someone else, then I have no hatred. I have never once said that gays or anyone else are inferior in any way. So I guess I'm not a bigot by your definition. And it's not bigotry to simply dislike bigotry, so I guess you're safe, too.

Kara-

I've said that before. I completely respect SoulForce's pointing out what they believe is wrong. What I don't respect is saying that pointing out what is wrong somehow transcends others' private property rights. I have said over and over again that SoulForce's passionate protest, if done legally and properly, is a noble one. I absolutely agree that SoulForce is not protesting on Constitutional grounds, but people here on this board continually say that the Constitution gives them rights that don't actually exist. However, the Constitution, does in turn, as you say, protect their right to lie, and their private property rights protect them against you calling them out on their property. Your rights, protect you so that you can call them out on public property, or on the net, etc.

Daniel-

I still owe you that post from the other thread about who I am, and what I'm about outside of this very small realm of thought, but in short, I am definitely a 2nd Amendment advocate. I own guns, primarily because I hunt. I think that gun control is absolutely bogus, because it takes guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. It's very simple, if you outlaw guns, people who want to have guns with the intent to use them harmfully will still have them. If a person wants to shoot someone, they will get a gun, and they will shoot the person, no matter how illegal having the gun is. If they are called up on 1st degree murder, I don't think they are going to be too concerned with some little possession of a gun charge. I guess someone forgot to tell Cho Seung-Hui that Virginia Tech was a gun-free zone. It didn't matter to him, because he was intent to kill. As for me protecting my private property with guns, I have to say that I would. I wouldn't shoot someone if they were holding my television and trying to walk away with it, but if someone busted through my door and I didn't know what his intentions were I'd most definitely shoot first and ask questions later. I'm very careful with and respectful of guns, I have been taught so throughout hunting and simply living in a place where they are commonplace.

antonyh

04-28-2007, 10:10 AM

I have one short, simple question for you...

When African Americans invaded private white space in the 1960s and invoked their Constitutional rights, was that inappropriate as well?

Notice that Simpleman is ignoring this question.

Daniel

04-28-2007, 10:41 AM

Notice that Simpleman is ignoring this question.

Indeed. I'd like to see this addressed. Did you miss it? Are you giving the question more thought? Or are you avoiding the question because it doesn't suit your purposes here? I would hope not for the simple reason that the latter approach only promotes the perception that you will not enage in actual dialogue and are intent on hiding behind a single line of thought.

Thanks for the answer to my question btw. And I look forward to something further on the other thread.

Zerbie

04-28-2007, 12:23 PM

This is an issue I'm not well-informed about, but I thought gun control was about protective measures like wait lists, background checks, etc. - kind of like taking a test before getting a driver's license. People don't say that because they have to get a DL that it amounts to taking away their car.

Isn't gun control about putting a layer of protection there against someone obtaining a gun out of passion and impulse, or in the case of having a known track-record of violent crime?

Guns need to be handled carefully and respectfully by those who know how to use them (as I presume Simple does.) I've heard of them falling into the hands of young children with tragic results. Though that sounds more like parental responsibility failing than anything else.

Simple, I find glaring problems with your logic about Soulforce, its motives and the E Ride.

I have No IDEA where you get the notion that SF says "the rights of the oppressor don't matter." ?!?! This is anathema to SF and everything SF stands for. Neither does SF challenge the existence of private property trespassing laws - that's what acceptance of the arrests is about. The right of private colleges to arrest SF Riders is respected and firmly in place.

It is not an either-or situation. It is not either "your" rights or a gay person's rights: it's about everyone, living in balance as a loving community. SF does not seek to "take away from."

keltic63

04-28-2007, 01:51 PM

I don't think I saw much of a response to these questions either, Daniel & antony.

Is it loving to support policies that oppress people, even if it is for the "good of the nation?" would it be better for the nation if policies were in place that encouraged people to find someone to love and share their lives together in long-term relationships? would it be better for the nation if those couples worked together to raise healthy children? would it be better for the nation if couples joined other couples to build strong communities and schools, gather together in houses of worship, meet at the soccer fields, football fields, basketball courts, dance studios, community theaters, all in an effort to involve their families in the building of community? In their later years, would it be good for those couples to be there for each other, to take care of each other as long as they are able?

Or, should we say to "some" of these people that it is in the best interest of this nation that "your kind" not be permitted to marry. You "people" tend to be promiscuous, unstable, bad parents, etc. therefore we will not allow you to participate in all the institutions and organizations of our communities. you understand, "It's for the good of the nation."

simpleman

04-28-2007, 04:56 PM

I wish you would all just take a deep breath and read what I am saying. I will bullet point a few key things that I think that you are misconstruing.

*I do not support oppressive policies in themselves. I support the right to have them, because the Constitution allows them. You cannot argue out of this fact. The Constitution protects the rights to policies, just or not.

*I support the rights of gays to get married, raise children, etc. I don't necessarily believe that it is right because of my own moral structure, but I refuse to say that rights should be taken away because I could be wrong. Therefore you should not refuse the rights of Christian colleges to have their policies based on their own moral code and their interpretation of the Bible.

Keltic, your questions are based on me believing that the Constitution doesn't protect these rights for gays. I believe that it does, even though legislators haven't followed that at all. So to answer your question, I don't think that those laws are better for the nation. What I do believe is that the rights that protect everyone, even those who are in the wrong, are for the good of the nation.

*Zerbie, your points about a community that lives together in harmony is a good thought, but has generally been impossibly unattainable throughout the course of human history, regardless of the well-meaning of good people. The system of rights is in place to protect people from people who seek to disrupt harmony, but it's a double-edged sword. Everybody has rights, but they don't always use them responsibly. As for your point about gun control, I was referring to gun control in terms of actually outlawing the possession of guns, like in San Francisco, and on various "Gun Free Zones" throughout the nation. The system of obtaining permits is good, as you said, it works like a Driver License, which is a good thing. It allows legal protections for people who choose to own and carry handguns. Also, I want to make a quick clarification for you, I use SF and ER pretty loosely, but I do believe that SoulForce in itself and to a great extent the E-Riders aren't about depriving rights, but many people on this board seem to want to think that oppressor's rights should be denied. That's the difference.

For antony, I meant to get to it, but I forgot. I'm not avoiding it. I think that all of my exhausting points about Constitutional law clarify my belief on this perfectly, however I will say it again. Invading private property is not right, because it shows a disregard for others' freedoms, which is exactly what the aforementioned invaders are invading for. In other words, if you are protesting someone else's disregard for fairness and equality, and then you disregard their private property freedom, you are in the wrong, too, even if you are in the right from a moral and humanistic perspective.

I'm not dodging your questions. I think by now, reading all of these things that I have written, most of you would see that I am definitely not about dodging things.

Zerbie

04-28-2007, 06:22 PM

*I support the rights of gays to get married, raise children, etc. I don't necessarily believe that it is right because of my own moral structure, but I refuse to say that rights should be taken away because I could be wrong. Therefore you should not refuse the rights of Christian colleges to have their policies based on their own moral code and their interpretation of the Bible.

Good. That's the important stuff. What I think you've misconstrued here though, is SF is not refusing Christian colleges their rights to have policies. They are visiting to voice a dissenting opinion about those policies. Yep. You bet. They (we?) wish and hope the colleges might willingly reconsider and even change their policies. But oppose their legal rights to have them? I don't think SF does.

Keltic, your questions are based on me believing that the Constitution doesn't protect these rights for gays. I believe that it does, even though legislators haven't followed that at all. So to answer your question, I don't think that those laws are better for the nation. What I do believe is that the rights that protect everyone, even those who are in the wrong, are for the good of the nation.

Slippery. Simple am I reading your intent correctly? You think the Constitution protects gay people as it does everyone else - - but you don't think *which* laws are better for the nation?? You think gays should have equality under the law, but you oppose legislation that gives gay people equal standing??????! Surely I read that wrong. Please clarify.

*Zerbie, your points about a community that lives together in harmony is a good thought, but has generally been impossibly unattainable throughout the course of human history, regardless of the well-meaning of good people.

Hahahaha!!! You're pointing this out to me as news?! Please know I've observed the failures in the past. Doesn't mean we should stop trying (though we will always continue to search for a better way, a way that actually works, even if only in baby steps.

The system of rights is in place to protect people from people who seek to disrupt harmony, but it's a double-edged sword. Everybody has rights, but they don't always use them responsibly. As for your point about gun control, I was referring to gun control in terms of actually outlawing the possession of guns, like in San Francisco, and on various "Gun Free Zones" throughout the nation. The system of obtaining permits is good, as you said, it works like a Driver License, which is a good thing. It allows legal protections for people who choose to own and carry handguns.

Thanks for the clarification. Balance and moderation are good things and I agree.

Also, I want to make a quick clarification for you, I use SF and ER pretty loosely, but I do believe that SoulForce in itself and to a great extent the E-Riders aren't about depriving rights, but many people on this board seem to want to think that oppressor's rights should be denied. That's the difference.

.

Yikes. Perhaps I need to re-read this thread to see where you've gotten that impression. If there is ANYTHING there to imply that, it slipped by me unawares.

What I do perceive is the strong passion to stand up and speak out for suffering gay people by affirming them, affirming their inner sense of self, and calling misinformation what it is: misinformation. That is no mere trifle. It costs lives. The misinformation needs to stop. The human cost is incalculable! I desperately want NO ONE to ever utter another hurtful word against gay people as long as eternity ticks on by: the torment, anguish, agony, and destruction that has already been suffered is incalculable as it is. I realize that I have no power to force someone to drop a policy or stop saying certain things, but I CAN VOICE A REQUEST. I perceive that is what SF is also doing.

Emproph

04-28-2007, 08:28 PM

I think that all of my exhausting points about Constitutional law clarify my belief on this perfectly, however I will say it again. Invading private property is not right, because it shows a disregard for others' freedoms, which is exactly what the aforementioned invaders are invading for. In other words, if you are protesting someone else's disregard for fairness and equality, and then you disregard their private property freedom, you are in the wrong, too, even if you are in the right from a moral and humanistic perspective.

You’re right simpleman. I’ve had you pegged all wrong and you understand the motives of Soulforce and the ER perfectly.

Let’s just admit it everyone. We’re fighting for the right to trespass on private property to force our way into the school in order to strongarm the administrators into changing their discriminatory policies right then and there so we can get arrested in the process and show how these schools discriminate against gays by not allowing us to impose our will on them by force.

Drawing attention to those discriminatory policies is just our cover story.

~~
What do you guys think about changing our statement of purpose,

from: Freedom for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people from religious & political oppression through the practice of nonviolent resistence

to:The right to trespass on private property with impunity
Thoughts?

u-dog

04-28-2007, 08:39 PM

We don't need another homosexual agenda on our hands Emproph!! :rolleyes:

RM260boy

04-28-2007, 08:53 PM

We don't need another homosexual agenda on our hands Emproph!! :rolleyes:

i haven't had one of those homersexual agendas in a long time.. do they still work as well?:D

Daniel

04-28-2007, 09:07 PM

Daniel-

I still owe you that post from the other thread about who I am, and what I'm about outside of this very small realm of thought, but in short, I am definitely a 2nd Amendment advocate.

I'm still curious simpleman (or person- who may in fact be female for all I know). Afraid that any such info might be used against you in some way? Join the club. Gay people are, more often than not, discriminated against when they disclose who they are.

Yeah..you could make stuff up...I know that. But if you really believe the stuff you do, I don't see what you have to hide, that is, unless you have motives which run counter to authenticity and integrity.

The balls in your court Mr. Property Rights.

Are you gonna swing back or not?

Dash

04-28-2007, 09:15 PM

It seems to me that the argument is about whether we were made to serve the law or if the law was made to serve us. Simpleman has taken his position. For him, the law itself is the lord of these circumstances and we are its vassals. The question for me is, "why does he argue that particular point?"

I think, simpleman, that you understand the righteous goal for which Soulforce works. I think you know that human souls suffering the indignities of misguided Christian dogma are more important than the imaginary lines that define "my" land from "yours". I've no doubt you understand that God has given this world to all, and on all this whole earth, there is not one plot of land that is exempt from God's justice by mere right of human "ownership."

Yet you have chosen to argue this very position. "If only you would behave more seemly," you seem to say. "Why...we would be most happy to consider your request. Alas, in our present system, your methods are quite out of place. While I agree most heartily with your position and sympathize most keenly with your plight, we can do nothing for you unless you follow our guidelines. Please...do come back at a later date with your forms neatly filled out (and copies to all appropriate departments) and we will be delighted to consider your petition at a time and in a method that is convenient to us. Thank you. Have a nice day."

Do you really want us to succeed? Or does the bureaucracy of property law serve another, truer wish? Perhaps so long as you can successfully argue the primacy of property over people, you can imagine yourself to be both supportive of gay people and yet maintain the present, unjust system. You can appear to be kind, while you actually (too stealthily even for you to notice) honor those who oppress these unlovely and unwanted homosexuals.

But laws are only just when they serve the people. When used in the way you suggest, laws become tyrants. If it wasn't property law, would you not find another technicality to frustrate Soulforce's goal?

Let go, Simpleman. We, as God's children (no less than others), are worth more to God than all laws and polity. You are quite capable of acknowledging this, and the coldness of your constitutional rhetoric does not serve your divine semblance well. Don't just give verbal assent to our cause, even as you block our path; embrace the truth of the justice we seek and join us in calling for change.

antonyh

04-28-2007, 09:21 PM

It seems to me that the argument is about whether we were made to serve the law or if the law was made to serve us.

That is really, really well stated. Thank you!

Zerbie

04-28-2007, 10:17 PM

Beautiful.

Your time of contemplation shows.

:love: :dove:

Daniel

04-28-2007, 10:37 PM

Eloquence isn't dead. Thank God.

kara speltz

04-28-2007, 11:02 PM

It is so good to have you back Dash. Your posting was so beautiful. kara

ladyinred

04-29-2007, 12:42 AM

ladyinred

04-29-2007, 01:36 AM

And Simpleman if you think it is justifiable to hate and discriminate against people because they are different, try telling that to my ex, she was minding her own business and came home from work one night and was accosted by a lady who was drunk who told her she was going to hell and tried to pick a fight with her. On top of that she lived right above us, and harrassed us to no end, jumped up and down on the floor, turned up the music so loud it actually caused the pictures on our apartment wall to shake. Egged our apartment constantly , threw trash down on our balcony and her boyfriend bashed the windshield of my ex's truck in.(We couldn't prove he actually did it though) What did we do to them , nothing.

And what laws protected us? None. We finally had to move out because we couldn't put up with it anymore. None of our other neighbors were like that. And some even volunteered to help us move out. So don't tell me that is justified in the constitution.We were law abiding citizens who never bothered anyone or made problems for the people who lived around us.And you saying we are protected by the law ,the same as everyone else is so much crap, sorry I don't buy it. Mighty Christian of you folks though to allow us to speak our piece though as long as it is in line with what you think it should be and just so long as we don't make too much noise as to offend you or embarrass you. Gee , Soul force getting arrested and carried off to jail being in the newspaper,may make you look like a bunch of bigots or jerks. Or it may spark more attention to their cause, which of course you probably don't want, but then again that is your problem.

Emproph

04-29-2007, 06:09 AM

We don't need another homosexual agenda on our hands Emproph!! :rolleyes:

Radical homosexual agenda. "We don't need another radical homosexual agenda..."

simpleman

04-29-2007, 03:27 PM

Kara I see a double standard here with Simpleman. While he says that it is constitutional to discriminate against people or even to hate them, he seems to be saying it is unconstitutional for people not to speak out against it. As I've said before,Soulforce has the right to exercise free speech even if it means they go to jail and even if it is based on their religious convictions.

Have you read a word that I have typed? Or do you just think "Oh, he doesn't support us to the last end of his nerve, so he must be an evil, bigoted, hate-monger" every time you see my penname on this site?

I've said that it is within the rights of SF to speak out against these policies on PUBLIC PROPERTY. I have never once said that it is unconstitutional to use free speech rights to speak out. I said that invoking constitutional rights on private property doesn't work because those constitutional rights you like to harp on, i.e. freedom of speech, do not exist on private property.

It is completely Constitutional for SoulForce to work within it's legal rights to spread it's message.

"Soulforce has the right to exercise free speech even if it means they go to jail"

You have absolutely no concept of Constitutional law.

No one will get arrested for using free speech on public property; it is legally protected. The E-riders get arrested when they cross police lines into private property where free speech isn't protected.

I have written everything that you continually misconstrue about my words in clear, understandable terms. Please read them before you accuse me of making a Constitutional double standard or accuse me of trying to silence your cause.

Zerbie, in case you were wondering what I meant by "people on this board seem to think that it is within their rights to deny others' rights" these posts are what I am talking about.

Now, onto your second point about being harassed continually by your awful neighbors. You have lots of legal recourse. You can call the police and threaten harassment for several of these actions, including the egging. I can guess that your landlord wasn't sympathetic, but he might shape up a little bit when the cops show up to his place. As for the drunk woman trying to pick a fight with your ex, this is textbook assault. If she actually touched her, it's called battery. Assault and battery carry pretty serious sentences. If she attempted to assault with some sort of weapon, like a knife, or a wine bottle, etc. it would be aggravated assault, which carries even stiffer penalty. So don't go telling me that no laws protected you if you didn't ever press charges or call the police. The laws are there to protect you, but you have to report the events and follow the legal procedure for calling those people to account legally. There were laws to protect you, but it sounds like you didn't use them.

antonyh

04-29-2007, 04:06 PM

I've said that it is within the rights of SF to speak out against these policies on PUBLIC PROPERTY. I have never once said that it is unconstitutional to use free speech rights to speak out. I said that invoking constitutional rights on private property doesn't work because those constitutional rights you like to harp on, i.e. freedom of speech, do not exist on private property.

Nonviolently transgressing the laws that protect PRIVATE PROPERTY is the WHOLE POINT of what Soulforce is doing. This is the method :weee:. Here is some good material from Wikipedia:

"A sit-in or sit-down is a form of direct action that involves one or more persons nonviolently occupying an area for protest, often promote political, social, or economic change. A sit in is a form of nonviolence. Sit-ins were first widely employed by Mahatma Gandhi in Indian independence movement and were later expanded on by Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and others during the American Civil Rights Movement. In the 1960s, students used this method of protest during the student movements, such as the protests in Germany. The Young Lords in Chicago's Lincoln Park neighborhood used it successfully a full week to win community demands for low income housing investment at the Mckormick Theological Seminary.

In a sit-in, protesters usually seat themselves and remain seated until they are evicted, usually by force, or until their requests have been met. Sit-ins have been a highly successful form of protest because they cause disruption that draws attention to the protest and by proxy the protesters' cause. The forced removal of protesters and sometimes the answer of non-violence with violence often arouses sympathy from the public, increasing the chances of the demonstrators reaching their goal. Sit-ins usually occur indoors at businesses or government offices but they have also occurred in plazas, parks, and even streets."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sit-in

Here is a movie you can rent:
http://www.newsreel.org/nav/title.asp?tc=CN0170&s=feb

You can disagree with the method all you want, but it has a long and illustrious history of bringing about social and political change.

Emproph

04-29-2007, 04:27 PM

Have you read a word that I have typed? Or do you just think "Oh, he doesn't support us to the last end of his nerve, so he must be an evil, bigoted, hate-monger" every time you see my penname on this site?

I feel compelled to make a motion to call troll.

no rush. . .

ladyinred

04-29-2007, 04:49 PM

I've already responded to you Simpleman. And all I have to say to Soul Force, is keep on truckin' and doing what you are doing.The naysayers will try to convince you to stop because it embarrasses them and they don't want you to really have any voice anyway.On top of that they don't want you to get attention from the media or spread the word..it backfires in their face.

Freespirited

04-29-2007, 05:00 PM

I love you guys and girls! I am so glad I found this

website! I love the fact that everyone here is

very eloquent and a strong supporter for human

rights! I have being out and openly gay since

I was 21, presently 44, and for a gay lay person

like myself this is truly heaven.

It is nice to know that as gays we aren't just

proud of our religion, but most importanly

that we are proud of our sexuality! soulforce

supports both causes with much passion and

compassion at the same time. I am also glad

to see healthy and truly stimulating debates

such as this, but without coming across as

suspiciously conservatist or a fundamentalist

mentality.

LEANDRO

antonyh

04-29-2007, 05:39 PM

...but without coming across as

suspiciously conservatist or a fundamentalist

mentality.

LEANDRO

Not to many fundamentalists on this board.

Emproph

04-29-2007, 05:48 PM

Not to many fundamentalists on this board. That we know of...

Daniel

04-29-2007, 07:13 PM

You have absolutely no concept of Constitutional law.

I think it might be more accurate to say that your perception is that SF does not share your view of Constitutional law. That's true. The above is simply an accusation, and as such, obscures more than it illuminates.

I'm still curious simpleman (or person- who may in fact be female for all I know). Afraid that any such info might be used against you in some way? Join the club. Gay people are, more often than not, discriminated against when they disclose who they are.

Yeah..you could make stuff up...I know that. But if you really believe the stuff you do, I don't see what you have to hide, that is, unless you have motives which run counter to authenticity and integrity.

The balls in your court Mr. Property Rights.

Are you gonna swing back or not?

Since you haven't posted regarding my inquiry quoted above, I assume that you have no intention of doing so. That's your choice of course. If so, I'd like to know your reasoning. That said, your silence speaks for itself. As it's been pointed out already, you have ignored several issues important to us here, yet seem to be adamant that we pay attention to your single refrain. That being the case, I don't see how there can be a happy ending.

Right now, you are coming across as one pissed off lawyer. Of course, tensions are running high right now.

I feel compelled to make a motion to call troll.

The writing may be on the wall already.

ladyinred

04-29-2007, 07:29 PM

"Now, onto your second point about being harassed continually by your awful neighbors. You have lots of legal recourse. You can call the police and threaten harassment for several of these actions, including the egging. I can guess that your landlord wasn't sympathetic, but he might shape up a little bit when the cops show up to his place. As for the drunk woman trying to pick a fight with your ex, this is textbook assault. If she actually touched her, it's called battery. Assault and battery carry pretty serious sentences. If she attempted to assault with some sort of weapon, like a knife, or a wine bottle, etc. it would be aggravated assault, which carries even stiffer penalty. So don't go telling me that no laws protected you if you didn't ever press charges or call the police. The laws are there to protect you, but you have to report the events and follow the legal procedure for calling those people to account legally. There were laws to protect you, but it sounds like you didn't use them."
To everyone here:**********************
We called the police several times, nothing was done,(they just talked to this woman once and that was about it) and we also talked to the landlord and the apartment security guard, nothing was done. Now what about legal recourse? Nothing was done.

Freespirited

04-29-2007, 08:57 PM

Not to many fundamentalists on this board.

That's a relief!!

LEANDRO

Freespirited

04-29-2007, 08:59 PM

That we know of...

Good!! :pray:

LEANDRO

simpleman

04-29-2007, 09:16 PM

Ladyinred,
I obviously don't know all about the situation, however, you can always go down to the courthouse, meet with the prosecutor, and press charges. Particularly for the assault. If the police lie about the incident, they perjure themselves, which in itself is a serious offense. If you want to tell me that you pressed charges, and then the police couldn't find evidence, and you went to trial and the case was dismissed, or people lied on the stand, or some other kind of legal malfeasance by one or more people, then I will say that's horrible, but it happens a lot more than it should. You have laws that protect you, and if they weren't enforced, you can file a complaint, but sometimes it just doesn't work out. Don't think it's just gays that this happens to, just ask Nicole Simpson's family. Don't think that you don't have legal recourse, just because the justice system doesn't work perfectly. The system itself is there, but is sometimes is executed improperly.

Daniel,
First of all, she said that freedom of speech exists on private property. It doesn't, therefore she doesn't understand Constitutional law. This "accusation" is nothing more than a statement of fact. It's not about whether or not I think SoulForce is in the right or in the wrong, it's the fact that she is merely incorrect about what the Constitution says. She is right when she says that SoulForce has the right to get arrested, but they don't have the right to free speech on private property, which is exactly what she said. I believe that I addressed her, not SoulForce. She has demonstrated a clear misunderstanding of the right to freedom of speech. And please be patient with me. People keep asking me to answer more and more questions over and over again, but I will get to writing a biography of myself. I'm not avoiding you or anyone else, but you keep piling on all of these other questions, and I'm trying also to stay on topic with those, as well as getting to yours.

antonyh-
I get the point about sit-ins. If you want to go get arrested, that's fine. And again, I think SoulForce knows the Constitutional law implications of these actions, but a lot of people on this board seem to think that somehow the Constitution protects rights on private property that it doesn't. That's my point, but people keep arguing it with me.

simpleman

04-29-2007, 09:24 PM

Daniel

04-29-2007, 10:13 PM

This is a short abstract biography.

I'm a Straight Southern White Christian Male. I am 18 years of age, and I attend a large public university in the SEC. I grew up in the Methodist Church, and I went to an Episcopal high school, probably the single most liberal high school in my entire home state. Going there taught me to question things, and honed my analysis skills. I enjoy rapport with other people for the same reason. This is the big reason I am on this board, to absorb different viewpoints and ideas, in addition to continually formulate my own. Also, in reference to me as a "pissed off lawyer" it is probably because both of my parents are lawyers. I have constantly been trained in the various ins and outs of the law. If you want to know anything else about me personally, feel free to ask, and I will do my best to answer.

Thank you for your answer, though I felt as though I had to hound you for it. Again- it's helpful (to me anyway) to know who I am talking to. Dialogue become less abstract. This may run counter to your associations regarding the law, but I think you will find that if you engage the people you talk to in a way that is humanizing, you will be better able to communicate your thoughts.

I'm glad to hear that you are formulating your ideas and are not yet set in your ways: it would be a pity if you were here only to pound upon one line of argument.

That said, I wish our forumite 'Suzer' would make an appearance so as to address the constitutional issues you raise. She has actual experience in these matters.

Daniel,
First of all, she said that freedom of speech exists on private property. It doesn't, therefore she doesn't understand Constitutional law. This "accusation" is nothing more than a statement of fact.

I am not convinced of this, though I am certain that you are. Rather, I would posit that your interpretation of Consitutional law leads you to make the statement that you do. It should be noted, however, that this line of argument is advanced by conservative anti-gay christians who interpret various passages of the bible to condemn gay people. As such, these issues are not separate.

From my limited (and googled) knowledge of free speech on private property, there are a variety of cases, and while a majority of states have made rulings on the matter of free speech and private property, the rulings I have read about have to do with protesting in a Mall. However, since the issues have been so narrowly defined and not further addressed, the matter seems open to debate. It should also be noted that Soulforce is not bringing (as far as I know) a case which would test current law- after all- that is not it's aim.

As one source notes:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/assembly/topic.aspx?topic=private_property

The first attempt to provide a constitutional basis for the protection of free expression on private property occurred in the mid-1940s. In Marsh v. Alabama (1946), the Supreme Court held that the owners and operators of a company town could not prohibit the distribution of religious literature in the town's business district because such expression was protected by the First and 14th amendments. The majority reasoned that the town displayed many of the attributes of a municipality; therefore the state-action requirement was satisfied for constitutional purposes of sustaining the rights of free expression. As stated in Marsh, "the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it." In striking a balance, the Court concluded that the free-speech rights of the individual were paramount over the property rights asserted by the company.

The Court subsequently extended the rationale of Marsh to peaceful picketing in a large shopping center known as Logan Valley Mall. In Amalgamated Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza (1968), the Court considered whether non-employee union members could be enjoined from picketing a grocery store in a privately owned shopping center. The Court noted that the answer would be clear "if the shopping-center premises were not privately owned but instead constituted the business area of a municipality."

Despite Hudgens' clear statement of federal law, the California Supreme Court held in Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center that the free-speech and petition provisions of the California Constitution grant mall visitors a constitutional right to free speech that outweighs the private-property interests of mall owners. The California Supreme Court took the position that "all private property is held subject to the power of government to regulate its use for the public welfare." In the unanimous 1980 decision Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the state court's decision, noting that its own reasoning in Lloyd "does not ex proprio vigore (“of its own force”) limit the authority of the State to exercise its police power" (power to regulate the use of private property) "or its sovereign right to adopt in its own Constitution individual.

Even with the Court's decision in Pruneyard, few states have recognized any state constitutional right to free expression on private property. The scope of these decisions is narrow. State constitutional provisions have been held to apply in only two private-property settings: shopping malls and non-public universities. Moreover, the state courts have limited the situations in which these protections are applicable to only a few, such as those involving political speech.

Since not all states have explicitly addressed this issue and some that have have changed their opinion, it is clear that this issue will continue to be debated among state legislatures and courts.

As I read the summation above, it seems to me that although decisions have been made in two areas, shopping malls and non-public universities, the particulars do not seem to have been clarified sufficiently to warrant your assertion.

~

So- what are you interested in doing with your life? Do you intend to be a lawyer yourself? And what is would be your focus and intent regarding your involvment. I ask this because you seem to be quite focused. And I wouldn't be surprised if your involvement here is also academic in some way. Is it?

I'm an avid researcher myself.

ladyinred

04-29-2007, 10:33 PM

So Simple man you agree that the person I spoke of was breaking the law. What do you think LGBT people are up against ,discrimination. Here is what I wrote in another discussion on this forum.

manutd, here's the deal. too often biblical scriptures are used against gay people to discriminate against them, to dehumanize them and to deny them their basic rights. What.. would happen if the same biblical scriptures were used to discriminate against people who divorced, didn't observe the sabbath, ate pork, wore fiber blends and so on? Perhaps you see why we get so sick of hearing it. Sin is not being used against heterosexuals to discriminate against them is it? They can still have families, remarry,go to church,hold jobs, and don't have legislation aimed at them to take away their rights.. Their "sins" are overlooked and aren't seen as a justification to discriminate against them. So why the double standard toward gays? Ok, see what I mean? If sin is a means of legislating and justifying discrimination , then shouldn't it logically pertain to all things perceived as sin,even yours or john doe who decided to divorce his wife? ( I'm not saying this is what I agree with , but pointing out the ludicrous notions people seem to have to justify discrimination toward people)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Zerbie

04-29-2007, 10:36 PM

simpleman

04-29-2007, 10:38 PM

I don't know yet. I mean I'm trying to leave as many options open as possible. Law is one possibility, but I've also thought about going the business route. I've been interested in journalism, as well, but I don't really think I want to be a rank-and-file journalist. I'm majoring in accounting, so to get a more broad knowledge of the business world, but I don't want to actually be an accountant either. I'm a big sports fan, so I could possibly end up in some type of sports business area. It's all up in the air, and right now, that's fine. I also really enjoy SCUBA diving, so, beach/dive bum? Who knows?

For Zerbie:

The SEC is the Southeastern Conference. It's 12 major southern universities, and the SEC is actually a sports-related reference, but it is widely used to describe the universities themselves.

Music: Pretty much anything. Country, Top 40, Hip Hop, Indie, Classic Rock, and I occasionally enjoy a classical piece. I try to appreciate good music for what it is, even if I don't like the type of music.

Color: Navy Blue.

Animals/Plants: I do have a fondness for animals. I've grown up with dogs, cats, ducks, and horses in the yard. I don't have a particular fondness for plants, I guess, but I do enjoy being out in nature, like the forest, etc. I also like playing with fish underwater.

Hobbies: I played football in high school. I like watching football and baseball. I enjoy hunting (more for the comraderie, riding 4wheelers, etc. than the actual hunt), SCUBA diving, and the typical college stuff like parties and hanging out with people. Road tripping to places wherein I can SCUBA dive, or hang out on the beach, or just hang out in general.

Zerbie

04-29-2007, 10:42 PM

I don't know yet. I mean I'm trying to leave as many options open as possible.

Smart. Goodness knows you've got time on your side.

I'm a big sports fan, so I could possibly end up in some type of sports business area. It's all up in the air, and right now, that's fine. I also really enjoy SCUBA diving, so, beach/dive bum? Who knows?

:lol: NOW we get to the good stuff, eh? :D

Seriously, I for one really appreciate hearing more about you as a person, rather than JUST argument.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming. . . .;)

u-dog

04-30-2007, 06:57 AM

:lol: NOW we get to the good stuff, eh? :D

Seriously, I for one really appreciate hearing more about you as a person, rather than JUST argument.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming. . . .;)

Zerbie and Simpleguy,

This is really true. I find that when ALL I know about a person is their "position" on the "issue" that I can't keep all the participants sorted out in my mind. Simpleman, P-kay, skeptictank all sort of merge into a single "uber-person" who is easy to write off and objectify. A particular person who likes to scuba dive, who grew up with ducks, and plays with fish is easier to like and harder write off.

So... thanks, Zerbie, for asking the questions, and thanks, Simpleguy, for the answers!

Dave (gay guy, married to a woman, father of three, likes to garden, read, work out and argue with people online)

simpleman

04-30-2007, 02:28 PM

antonyh

04-30-2007, 03:04 PM

I think you still believe that I think that gays are somehow inferior, and I assure you, it isn't true. I think adultery is wrong, but I don't think you can or should pass a law against it. I think that the discrimination towards gay people in the world is built upon a primarily social stigma rather than a legal precedent.

I don't think that about you. I think we primarily disagree on the use of Soulforce's method. We both agree that Soulforce is transgressing laws about private property in their protests. I view this as a legitimate form of protest and you don't.

kara speltz

04-30-2007, 03:29 PM

I hope that with that you can all see that I'm really not all about just bickering and arguing and point-by-point endless rebuttal. I really do like people, too. And, even though we disagree on things, I'm still a regular guy who does regular-guy stuff.

And as for what ladyinred said, I absolutely agree. The Biblical definition of homosexuality as a sin should not be applicable in a legislative arena. I still think you think that I want gays to be hated, discriminated against, and cast out from society. I think you still believe that I think that gays are somehow inferior, and I assure you, it isn't true. I think adultery is wrong, but I don't think you can or should pass a law against it. I think that the discrimination towards gay people in the world is built upon a primarily social stigma rather than a legal precedent. Of course people love to force their morals into government, look at anti-abortionists, etc. But personally, even though I share many beliefs with many people, I don't think you can legislate morality. However, if you are in charge of a private institution, organization, etc. you can craft policies based upon morality. I think that this is legally protected. That's the difference between civil rights and private organization's rights to craft morally-charged policies if they wish.

Well, I'm delighted that we're finding some common ground on this. And my hope for you is that once you get to know some of us, and recognize our deep commitment as people of faith (not necessarily Christians), you'll perhaps need to review your understanding of sin. My own definition of sin is "anything that separates us from God and one another." Thus the love between people of the same gender is sanctified not reviled.

I have this very favorite quote from Thomas Merton, one of my own personal heros, which I read in the midst of a very difficult struggle I was going through. When I read it, I was absolutely shocked, but I also recognized that it was true. He said, "The goal of the spiritual life is not the elimination of struggle, but the sanctification of struggle." Truthfully, I didn't want to believe it, my first reaction was to want to throw the book across the room, because I was in the midst of so much anger and so much despair. And here was this man telling me not to pray for the end of that struggle but to find some way of santifying it, sheesh.

I heard a story once of a baptist minister who, railed against LGBTs for years, publicly preaching that AIDS was a punishment from God on gay people. However, as friends of his starting dying of AIDS, he couldn't reconcile, what he had learned about LGBTs, with what he knew about his friends who were dying. That experience changed him drastically. And he became an advocate for LGBTs. "To know us is to love us" :D

kara

u-dog

04-30-2007, 03:36 PM

The goal of the spiritual life is not the elimination of struggle, but the sanctification of struggle."[/B][/I]
kara

I just heard a wonderful Sermon last night with that as its main point. the text was Jacob wrestling at the Jabok. The preacher was a former professor of New Testament at a Bible College in TN. Obviously, he was looking for work after coming out. He said that after coming out he DID experience the elation and freedom of that decision but that he promptly entered a "desert place" spiritually. His point was that when God struggles with us or us with God that God does not Squash us flat OR walk away, but wrestles with us until the "break of day" ... or until we think to -- like Jacob -- demand a blessing.

JacoBison

04-30-2007, 08:14 PM

Not to many fundamentalists on this board.
Actually, I would say most of the posters I have had conversations with on my threads are fundamentalists, they just have different fundamentals than the religious right.

Seriously, if members of a conservative Christian church were to go to the local gay club here in my hometown, pay the cover charge and start talking to patrons about how they feel oppressed by the gay lifestyle permeating our culture they would no doubt be kicked out of the bar.

I think the "regulars" in this forum would do well to converse with people like myself, Diane and Marion who DO support the work of Soulforce but are simply raising questions about some of the methods. We too are simply trying to have a dialog about issues and can feel oppressed when everyone gangs up to argue instead of listens.

Having said that, I think most of the posters do eventually calm down and participate in a conversation, but the first few pages of posts in this thread, my thread and Diane's thread are usually hostile and made me feel like I was trespassing on private property.

u-dog

04-30-2007, 08:32 PM

OK, we need a moratorium on the words "private property" I'm not having that argument ANY more.

But....

If you would like to define the terms: "Oppression" and "fundamentalists" we can have a go around about whether straight white men are oppressed under any circumstances especially by GLBT people and whether or not there is such a thing as "Gay fundamentalism". Please check out the classic definitions of both before you begin. We don't need any squishiness in this conversation.

For clarification, I am not feeling the least bit hostile but I am itchin for tussle ;)

Daniel

04-30-2007, 09:29 PM

Having said that, I think most of the posters do eventually calm down and participate in a conversation, but the first few pages of posts in this thread, my thread and Diane's thread are usually hostile and made me feel like I was trespassing on private property.

Well - now you know how it feels to be a gay person living in a straight world my friend.

I am not defending the terse, testy and down-right pissed-off tone that can be encountered here. What I AM saying is I doubt that you have ANY idea of what it is like to live your whole life as a second class- citizen too afraid to hold your partner's hand in public- afraid that you will be beat up by thugs or lose your apartment, job, family, friends and church, just because it becomes known that you are gay. No. Your insulated world just keeps moving along with all the benefits accorded to it (unless some life circumstance happens to change things and give you a rude awakening- pain can open the heart to compassion).

Living with the stress (and effect) of other people's homophobia is enough to set the best of us off- especially when those who come here show little understanding of the effect their verbage can have on those who have traumatized by such speech.

In a very real sense, you are very lucky to get the reception that you do here considering what some of us have been through. Yes. We could we do better (after all- the emphasis here is on nonviolence). That is not in dispute. But please do not forget the privilege and status you have being born straight (assuming that you are). That is not something we have the luxury of taking for granted.

And of course, we have encountered gay persons who have been taught to hate themselves (internalized homophobia). And those people- I have experienced- often have an especially difficult time here.

tdogg

05-01-2007, 03:46 PM

Well said Daniel!!

Prior to coming out, I was well-respected and much loved by my Christian (fundamentalist) family and friends. It was thought that I would be doing great things for the Lord. I did a little missionary work to get my feet wet. I am fairly knowledgeable in the Bible, I prayed, worshipped, studied and even write spiritual song-lyrics. Gosh, I was even married to a man who professed to be a Christian (a handful of years after we hooked up). All to the delight of these same family and friends.

Underneath I had feelings and attractions for women. I yeared for women. I pushed it all back, tried to ignore it, tried to rationalize how I believed it was ok for others but I couldn't 'go there'. Then one day, after living this lie of myself for many many years, I finally decided I could lie no more. In the fall of 2004 (at the ripe young age of 45) I CAME OUT - first to myself, then to those closest to me who I felt loved me as I am. I still had fear, still worked through some issues.

Finally, I slowly but surely came out to those Christian (fundamentalist) family and friends. Some surprised me, others did not. Suddenly, my aunt no longer talks to me. My stepmother hadn't called me in MONTHS - she did send a Christmas card to me this year signed by her Katherine and George (my father) - not mom & dad. A close friend (I thought was close) gave me these final and closing words - may God have mercy on your soul.

I am no longer well respected or much loved (at least it doesn't feel like it). I have Christian friends who haven't bothered to contact me since I've come out. I am no longer considered a possibility for doing any work for the Lord. All of a sudden I couldn't possibly be a Christian, I have no idea what the Bible says and there is no way I could know to pray or worship. There are people I no longer talk to. My stepmother is in the picture recently, only because my father was recently re-injured and hospitalized and she needed me to be there. I have a sister who does not welcome me or my partner in her home - she must protect her children. God knows what crap they spew in their house about GLBT people - that's probably why I'm not welcome, they can't take the chance their children will repeat what they've heard... What is the common thread in this paragraph?? This is all from those who consider themselves Christian fundamentalists.

So, if I support an action that involves a group of people entering a school grounds who happens to believe what my Christian fundamentalist family and friends believe, and treats young adults the way I've been treated by them, especially in those instances where these young adults have NO CHOICE of college if they rely on their parents (or others) to help pay for it - can you see where I might support that, regardless of what one feels about private property???

If I get a little upset and defensive when responding to those who feel the same as those who have treated me this way - would you not say there could be a valid reason for that? If I decide to ignore you and save my energy for some worthwhile activity, could you blame me? If you haven't walked in my shoes, you don't know how it feels to walk my path. If you aren't able to put yourself mentally in my shoes, then you aren't likely to come to any understanding of how it feels to be me.

Zerbie

05-01-2007, 10:38 PM

God!

Tdogg!! Antony!! :'( :(

Takes my breath away. Come over to Phoenix/Tempe and hang out with me, hubby, and our friends. :) ;)

It makes me feel so - dreadful, reading your words. Two such caring, thoughtful, brilliant individuals:love: :love: - you have EARNED all the respect in the world. And you've ALWAYS deserved love, just by being.

:love: :love: :love: :love: :love:

((((( Antony ))))) You are NOT a waste!

davidb

05-01-2007, 10:50 PM

Whenever I visit my family I make a point of staying away from my old fundamentalist Baptist church that my family still attends. The whole experience is just too upsetting. However, a few years back when grandfather passed away, I had to go because his wake was held there. As i was seated with my cousins having lunch and light conversation, I felt a tap on my shoulder. "Pastor George would like to speak with you," I was told. So I was pulled aside into his office for "a little chat."

The comment that they made to me was "we just don't understand...you always used to serve the Lord..." And then they made all sorts of statements about what happens to "backsliders" (the baptists love that word) and those that have "lost their first love."

I was so taken back by their comments that I don't remember exactly what I said in response. Something to the effect that I was there to honor my grandfather, and--not to worry--I had made peace with my creator and slept just fine at night. The whole way that it was done...being summoned into their chambers by one of the elders, their use of scripture and God-talk...in hindsight the whole thing was orchestrated. It really took me by surprise. I remember thinking before the wake, just be polite, engage in small talk, focus on my grandpa, etc. In my mind that was the point of the whole event.

When I got home and sat down and wrote them a detailed letter which answered their questions in the most respectful way possible. I had to be mindful of the fact that they could never really understand my journey, just like I could never understand what it was that kept them in such a myopic, narrow-minded, judgement-centered spiritual tradition. No shock here--I never heard anything from them in response.

BrentRichards

05-01-2007, 11:01 PM

davidb

05-01-2007, 11:10 PM

The fact that they felt compelled to have this conversation with me on the day of my grandfather's funeral completely blew me away. I've since learned not to be surprised by anything.

keltic63

05-02-2007, 07:57 AM

That is so insensitive and inappropriate when you were grieving. I just don't understand how people can do that.

Fundamentalist ministers are pretty good at being insensitive, and I think it's because of their myopic vision of the Gospel. The difference between Fundamentalists/Evangelicals and Progressives seems to fall along the lines of which is more important: the Great Commission, or the Great Commandment.

At one of my grandmother's funerals last year, the fundamentalist pastor told us that he judges people by the way we grieve, and that if we weren't crying for grandma that he'd really question our love for her......and of course, proceeded to preach a salvation sermon, giving all of us the opportunity to get right with Jesus! It was difficult to find tears for grandma, as she had been in the nursing home for 13 years with alzheimer's. the person we knew had been gone for a long time. In many ways, it was relief that her body finally stopped working.

andrewlittle

05-02-2007, 08:29 AM

At one of my grandmother's funerals last year, the fundamentalist pastor told us that he judges people by the way we grieve, and that if we weren't crying for grandma that he'd really question our love for her......and of course, proceeded to preach a salvation sermon, giving all of us the opportunity to get right with Jesus!

There are way too many examples of some fundamentalist and some evangelical pastors claiming the right to judge other faith and love in a way that, scripture says, is reserved for God and/or Jesus.

In each case, the claim seems absurd to all who are outside of the pastors circle of influence, but for some very strange reason seems not only plausible, but gospel, to their followers.

I was once quite involved with Vineyard churches, and in discussing an offer to serve as an Administrative Pastor, was told by the Executive Pastor (interesting titles, eh, for a church) that he could tell a person's level of faith by the way they cut their grass.

With the rest of the committee sitting and nodding their heads in agreement, I decided the interview was over. Subsequently, I never found out how or why God had given this pastor this amazing divine insight into faith as measured by grass manicure. I just knew that control was going to be the major issue of the church, and wanted nothing to do with it.

Besides, it was in direct conflict with the divine revelation I had experienced in which it became apparent that faith was to be measured by the amount of horsepower one had under their hood. The "divine lawn-mowing" measurement seemed, to me, to be a pathetic way of avoiding the obvious - the pastor lacked the adequate number of horses to have real faith, anyway.

keltic63

05-02-2007, 08:42 AM

I was once quite involved with Vineyard churches, and in discussing an offer to serve as an Administrative Pastor, was told by the Executive Pastor (interesting titles, eh, for a church) that he could tell a person's level of faith by the way they cut their grass.

Besides, it was in direct conflict with the divine revelation I had experienced in which it became apparent that faith was to be measured by the amount of horsepower one had under their hood. The "divine lawn-mowing" measurement seemed, to me, to be a pathetic way of avoiding the obvious - the pastor lacked the adequate number of horses to have real faith, anyway.

I couldn't help it. I had to start this thread because of andrew's post!

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?p=28103#post28103

tdogg

05-02-2007, 08:57 AM

Antony, it is so sad that some of those we love so much cannot see through the blindness of their own prejudices. You are not a waste, quite the opposite. Keep on keeping on, Antony, because you are doing a great work for the Lord!

Davidb, I'm not sure what to say except :eek: . How utterly and totally insensitive and void of any compassion. I'm sorry that you had to go through that. Sheesh!

Daniel, I'm sort of in a place like that with my stepmom and my one sister. We can talk about anything EXCEPT what's going on with me and/or my partner, and we can tell each other we love each other. I'm never sure of the sincerity of my stepmom but I'm trying hard to not read extra stuff into her actions and reactions. But the others...I just haven't gotten to the point where I can even know what to say to my aunt.

Keltic, that statement just shows a lack of understanding of humanity - everyone grieves in their own way and to say all should grieve a certain way (to PROVE their salvation???) is a crock. Again, at a funeral????

Andy, proving your salvation by how you mow the grass? That's actually a new one for me. Normally I hear it shows by how much you tithe.....

Zerbie, :love: :love: :love: :love: :love: :love: :love: The upside to my story is all the loving friends and family that I do have!! Like you. :)

Zerbie

05-02-2007, 12:20 PM

which is more important: the Great Commission, or the Great Commandment.

OT: for a girl who never studied Christianity: What's the Great Commission? What's the Great Commandment? Separate thread or PM okay, if no one wants this to derail. ;)

At one of my grandmother's funerals last year, the fundamentalist pastor told us that he judges people by the way we grieve, and that if we weren't crying for grandma that he'd really question our love for her......and of course, .

Sounds like a complete ignoramus. I've got all kinds of name-calling in mind, complete with rolling eyes and laughter.

The sad thing is that someone like THAT is in a position of authority!! How???? He's glad I wasn't there, all I can say. I would have stood up and interrupted.

Unbelievably inhuman gall to speak like that to a grieving family at a funeral. He doesn't know *&$#!!!!!!

What is it with these pastors who think it's okay to talk like that at all, let alone at a FUNERAL!? Like David's story! It's unbelievable. How dare they behave so disrespectfully to the deceased as to harass family at the funeral? It's disturbed.

Zerbie

05-02-2007, 12:24 PM

I was once quite involved with Vineyard churches, and in discussing an offer to serve as an Administrative Pastor, was told by the Executive Pastor (interesting titles, eh, for a church) that he could tell a person's level of faith by the way they cut their grass.

With the rest of the committee sitting and nodding their heads in agreement, I decided the interview was over. ay.

:eek: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm going to call my parents later today and thank them for sparing me these insanities!!!! (They refused to bring me to any church; I was in fact not allowed to go to any church service (except a few weekends when I stayed with dad's parents who took me to Mass) until I turned 12, because they wanted me old enough to think critically about what I heard there. Bravi, Mom & Dad!).

Zerbie

05-02-2007, 12:26 PM

Antony, it is so sad that some of those we love so much cannot see through the blindness of their own prejudices. You are not a waste, quite the opposite. Keep on keeping on, Antony, because you are doing a great work for the Lord!

Seconding that. It really hurts to think of Antony' family telling him he is a "waste"! Such a thoughtful, kind, smart and caring person is anything BUT!

Zerbie, :love: :love: :love: :love: :love: :love: :love: The upside to my story is all the loving friends and family that I do have!! Like you. :)

:weee:

Someday you'll make it out to Phoenix (or we to Sacramento, have I got the city right?), and we'll hang. ;) :love:

keltic63

05-02-2007, 12:31 PM

The Great Commission

16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=28&version=31#fen-NIV-24212a)] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

The Great Commandment

34But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" 37And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38This is the great and first commandment. 39And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."

You can see how the emphasis on the great commission would lead someone to believe that everyone must be brought into submission by any means necessary (according to some christian leaders.) the great commandment, on the other hand, allows for greater freedom, and definitely more compassion.

Zerbie

05-02-2007, 10:12 PM

You can see how the emphasis on the great commission would lead someone to believe that everyone must be brought into submission by any means necessary (according to some christian leaders.) the great commandment, on the other hand, allows for greater freedom, and definitely more compassion.

Okay, I know that second thing you listed. I try to do that.

'Nother question: Sequential order, which of the two things did he say first?

ladyinred

05-02-2007, 10:56 PM

Frankly it must suck when people treat you that way when you come out. You haven't really changed, but suddenly people's opinion change about you now that you come out. I don't get that. If they loved you why wouldn't they love you as you are? Why would it matter? Why on earth wouldn't they support you and stand behinfd you? Sometimes what people call love scares me.

ladyinred

05-02-2007, 11:05 PM

"If I get a little upset and defensive when responding to those who feel the same as those who have treated me this way - would you not say there could be a valid reason for that? If I decide to ignore you and save my energy for some worthwhile activity, could you blame me? If you haven't walked in my shoes, you don't know how it feels to walk my path. If you aren't able to put yourself mentally in my shoes, then you aren't likely to come to any understanding of how it feels to be me." Tdogg

Amen, reminds me of that song by Joe South, Walk a mile in my shoes. "Walk a mile in my shoes, walk a mile in my shoes, before you accuse, criticize and abuse ,walk a mile in my shoes." You can still do great things for God, and don't let them discount you either.And as far as I'm concerned you are a Christian and gay and God accepts you as you are. I'm truly sorry that people in your own family treat you like that, but it has more to do with them than you. Don't see it as a reflection on you but them.Don't let them beat you down or undermine your value as a person or cause you to lose self esteem.

BrentRichards

05-02-2007, 11:15 PM

Zerbie

05-03-2007, 12:37 AM

Zerbie

The Great Commission was part of Christ's "last words" to his disciples before his ascension (post resurrection). So the great commandment came earlier. But I can't see that as any reason to think it "trumps" his MAJOR theme on loving one another (expressed in the great commandment, and even more so in the example he lived) ... in fact, I'd argue (and I think most evangelicals would have to agree, at least in principle) that you can't possibly fulfill the great commission without fulfilling the great commandment.

Yeah.
The reason I asked which came first is this. If the "love God/love your neighbor" teaching came first, then the thing he's asking his disciples to do in the second (the commission?), when he says 'teach them to obey what I have commanded you', is to demonstrate the God-loving/neighbor-loving example to the world, so that people will see the Divine in his disciples and be brought to him in that way. The fact that the commission (have I got that right?) comes second, means the commission is a request to spread the (commandment?) example of loving compassion. That is, after all, what he commanded them to do earlier - so the commission is to be the fulfillment of the commandment.

Not sure I got the terms right, tho. Was I clear?

Emproph

05-03-2007, 02:58 AM

Simpleman, I appreciate you sharing a bit about yourself with us.

It makes a big difference, especially online and especially when one is trying to respect someone they vehemently disagree with. :tup:

PS, sometimes it even makes the difference between agreeing and disagreeing.

keltic63

05-03-2007, 06:39 AM

Yeah.
The reason I asked which came first is this. If the "love God/love your neighbor" teaching came first, then the thing he's asking his disciples to do in the second (the commission?), when he says 'teach them to obey what I have commanded you', is to demonstrate the God-loving/neighbor-loving example to the world, so that people will see the Divine in his disciples and be brought to him in that way. The fact that the commission (have I got that right?) comes second, means the commission is a request to spread the (commandment?) example of loving compassion. That is, after all, what he commanded them to do earlier - so the commission is to be the fulfillment of the commandment.

Not sure I got the terms right, tho. Was I clear?

you got it, Z!

u-dog

05-03-2007, 08:16 AM

u-dog

05-03-2007, 08:24 AM

andrewlittle

05-03-2007, 08:53 AM

You just engaged in theological reflection - and really well, too.

It begs a question, however. If our dear Zerbie can see this relationship between the Greatest Commandment and the Great Commission, despite being self-avowed church-phobic, why the hell can't church people see that link.

You preach it and they just roll their eyes into their heads.

Bless you, Zerbie - you gave me hope.

Emproph

05-03-2007, 09:25 AM

Zerbie

05-03-2007, 11:43 AM

You just engaged in theological reflection - and really well, too.

Thanks. :D Not sure it's something I want to do again, though.

It begs a question, however. If our dear Zerbie can see this relationship between the Greatest Commandment and the Great Commission, despite being self-avowed church-phobic, why the hell can't church people see that link.

You preach it and they just roll their eyes into their heads.

Bless you, Zerbie - you gave me hope.

Well, I don't know what I did, but I'm glad if it makes you happy. :love:

All except for that last part... :lol:

What's wrong with the last part?? :confused: Okay so all I looked at was the blurb Keltic copied, but they way I see it clearly means that the commission he gave after resurrection was that the disciples FULFIL the commandment.

Editing to add: Hey look, I finally figured out how to use the multi-quote feature. OKay, it's a big week over here in ZerboLand (Biblical discussion, technology. . . I'll have to think of something else new to try and make it 3! LOL!)

Emproph

05-03-2007, 01:27 PM

What's wrong with the last part?? :confused:

Sorry Zerbie, this was the part I meant to emphsize:
Was I clear?

Of course it was clear! The fact that you asked the question is what made it confusing.. :lol:

You're a sweetheart. :love:

Zerbie

05-03-2007, 01:34 PM

Sorry Zerbie, this was the part I meant to emphsize:

Of course it was clear! The fact that you asked the question is what made it confusing.. :lol:

You're a sweetheart. :love:

:p duh okay. oops. :p

*smooches* :love:

BrentRichards

05-03-2007, 01:44 PM

Exactly Zerbie ... well said. Another way to put it perhaps, is that the commission is an admonition to SHARE the message, while the commandment is a significant part of the CONTENT of the message.

tdogg

05-03-2007, 01:46 PM

it has more to do with them than you. Don't see it as a reflection on you but them.Don't let them beat you down or undermine your value as a person or cause you to lose self esteem.

Thanks Lady. :love: I'm usually pretty good about this part, once in a while it gets a bit 'foggy' for me!

Zerbie - excellent on your Biblical theology lesson! So...coming to Tempe in September, not sure what the proximity is to Phoenix? :rolleyes:

JacoBison

05-03-2007, 08:04 PM

Hmm, No, I really don't want to talk about it. I have not been online much this week and will not be online at all next week. You put a lot more effort into etymology than I can do this time of year.

I kinda got all my conversations about homosexuality out of my system when I was in college over 12 years ago. No one needs to explain what its like to be an oppressed minority to me. My horror stories are too graphic and personal to be posted online. Well, maybe not so much that as... I just don't want to relive them.

But I'd love to talk more about private property, especially since I cleaned house on that debate. ;-)

u-dog

05-03-2007, 08:17 PM

But just for the record you made a big sweeping statement about gay people here being fundamentalists and straight people being oppressed and then you just sort of .... wilted away.

AND....

That's fine! As long as everyone understands that...

that makes you...

a ...

LOSER!:lol:

Oh dang! I was going to try out my non-violent stuff and I blew it. well, next time.

;)

andrewlittle

05-03-2007, 08:23 PM

Let's see that is a D for the attempt at being open and welcoming.

A definite F for being kind and considerate.

Another F for use of insult.

The spelling was nice, though. I'll give you a B for that.

Overall, you've improved considerably - keep up the good work.

u-dog

05-03-2007, 09:12 PM

DO OVERS !!!!!

kitt2000

06-02-2007, 01:00 AM

DO OVERS !!!!!
Is it safe to come out from under the covers yet? Or, is this subject closed or finished now? I see the date on the last post to be almost a month ago and I've just finished reading all the posts. I do have some questions however they do not have any thing to do with private property. and I also have some or one comment to make. But if the subject is finished I am sure I can find another thread to read and post on Thanx....Kitt

Emproph

06-02-2007, 05:06 AM

Is it safe to come out from under the covers yet? Or, is this subject closed or finished now? I see the date on the last post to be almost a month ago and I've just finished reading all the posts. I do have some questions however they do not have any thing to do with private property. and I also have some or one comment to make. But if the subject is finished I am sure I can find another thread to read and post on Thanx....Kitt

If it's relevant to the discussion I usually try and post it anyway, no matter how old the thread is. Every once in awhile a 'golden oldie' pops to the top and becomes active again. A month isn't very long, but if you're concerned about relevance, you might want to start a new/spinoff thread and possibly even use quotes from thread in question. Especially if you want maximum exposure as opposed to "just" those involved in the conversation at hand.

I wouldn't worry about it, we often go off on and pursue tangents. If you're that concerned about it though, don't hesitate to PM a moderator (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1682) and ask for directions. :)

Progo35

06-02-2007, 07:50 AM

Although, Fred Phelps not going on to private property is not, in my opinion, comparable to Soulforce because Phelps goes to gay people's funerals, stands on the sidewalk outside the church, and says that "God hates f---s" during a PRIVATE, emotional function, thus depriving the family of such individuals of the peaceful healing and reflections that funerals are intended to provide. In terms of going onto private property, when Soulforce came to Gordon I thought that they were protesting free speech, but now that I've read some more of the hate crimes legislation and have talked to more of the Soulforce members, I feel much more comfortable about the whole thing. One thing that I do think needs to improve is the idea that all Christians who interpret the Bible as saying that homosexuality is a sin are bigots, and this isn't true for those who would rather not think that but are trying to avoid ignoring parts of the Bible that they wish weren't there. While I know that Marion is giving Phelps as an example of an opposite viewpoint, NOT endorsing him, I just wouldn't want to hold him up as a comparision. What he does is 1000 times worse.

Steven E. Webster

06-02-2007, 09:18 AM

One thing that I do think needs to improve is the idea that all Christians who interpret the Bible as saying that homosexuality is a sin are bigots, and this isn't true for those who would rather not think that but are trying to avoid ignoring parts of the Bible that they wish weren't there.

In another thread I have described the new Surgeon General nominee, James Holsinger, as a bigot.

Here is a dictionary definition of the word "bigot."
a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

I do not describe every Christian who believes homosexuality is a sin as a "bigot." It may be that some are simply misinformed, but are still open to reconsider their opinions in the face of a fuller understanding of *all* of the evidence. Some Christians, however, have already made up their minds, they refuse to consider any evidence that supports LGBT equality and, instead stubbornly cling to their own narrow interpretations of a few bible verses. A few bible verses somehow justifies dismissing or prejudging (prejudice) all other possible evidence. There minds are closed on the subject of homosexuality.

In the Surgeon General nominee's case--he has demonstrated in his role as President of the United Methodist Judicial Council that his prejudices seem to justify his exceeding his proper role as an interpreter of the law (church law) and over-stepping into creating new law "from the bench." The result was a gay man was barred from joining the United Methodist Church when even the bishops of the church have declared "homosexuality is no barrier to membership." This is prejudice in action. James Holsinger is a bigot.

It may be that there are some Christians who think that the only thing that counts as evidence is a "literal interpretation" of the King James Bible. If they refuse to consider all other evidence, even evidence that challenges their understanding of the Bible. And if they seek to impose their so-called "biblical" opinions on others in the form of public policy (an example is the so called "Federal Marriage Amendment"), then they are bigots. They might not like the label, but they've earned it.

Steven Webster

Steven E. Webster

06-02-2007, 11:03 AM

Progo,

I've read a number of your posts and you certainly show a very open-minded and un-bigoted attitude. I'm glad you're here dialoging with us.

I need to remind myself from time to time of one of United Methodist founder John Wesley's remarks in his sermon "On Bigotry." (You see, Wesley recognized bigotry was a real problem among people who called themselves Christians.) Wesley said, "Let not the bigotry of another justify your own bigotry."

I don't think we should be afraid to name "bigotry" or "homophobia" when we see it. But we must also remain fair and open minded in our all our dealings with others.

That said, I don't think Surgeon General nominee James Holsinger deserves a free pass into this important post without making it undeniably clear that he will treat LGBT Americans with respect and equality. I've cited the example of another evangelical, Surgeon General Koop who clearly showed himself not bigotted against LGBT persons in the way he carried out his official duties.

Steven Webster

kitt2000

06-02-2007, 04:05 PM