Christian persecution paranoia

[Diane Vera]

Notes from the War Room
05 April 2006
By Elizabeth A. Castelli
A historian of Christian martyrdom attends a Christian Right strategy session in the "War on Christians.”
The Revealer (http://www.therevealer.org/archives/main_story_002500.php)

Below are the concluding two paragraphs:

Total War

Critics of the conference and the individuals and groups that promote its point of view have suggested that “The War on Christians and the Values Voter in 2006” is simply a right-wing political project cynically framed as a project to protect a persecuted religious group. Such an analysis fails to recognize the sincerity of the 400 people who were gathered in that ballroom in Washington -- not that sincerity ought to serve as a bulwark against challenge and critique, to be sure. The menacing part of this project is not that it is political rather than religious, but that it is unapologetically a form of political religion. Which is what makes the calls for Christian militarization, for putting on the armor of God, for rising up in righteous revolution against “the culture” -- however metaphorical at this point in time -- particularly alarming. Students of Christian history will be well attuned to this kind of rhetoric and its materialization and embodiment in the actions of the righteous. Early Christian historian Michael Gaddis, for example, offers a brilliant and textured analysis of these dynamics in late ancient Christianity in his recent book, There Is No Crime for Those Who Have Christ”: Religious Violence in the Christian Roman Empire. As Gaddis illustrates, righteous Christian violence in the fourth and fifth centuries -- violence against non-Christians and “heretics” -- was justified in the first instance by reference to the persecution of Christians. With God on their side, everything is permitted.

The broader threat of this movement is likely not an armed Christian militia marching on Hollywood, the ACLU, or a gay commitment ceremony in your local mainline liberal Protestant church. Rather, it is the targeting of the independent judiciary with incendiary threats of impeachment and calls for a religious revolution. Claims of religious persecution, whether sincere or cynical, notwithstanding, the current executive and legislative branches of the federal government are well-populated -- even dominated -- by people sympathetic to the views and aspirations of this radical, right-wing theopolitical movement. The judicial branch of government, meanwhile, maintains some level of independence from this movement, and it is this independence that generates the vitriol, the threats, and the calls for a Christian revolution. Such a state of affairs should give all of us pause: When the powerful claim to be powerless and use this claim and a purportedly divine mandate to authorize a no-holds-barred attack on political institutions, we are on dangerous ground, indeed.

[NathanATX]

Thank you, Diane. very scary stuff...

But how do we respond?
nate

[Diane Vera]

Thank you, Diane. very scary stuff...

But how do we respond?
nate

First, it would help a lot if more liberal and progressive Christians would speak out against the religious right wing -- not just its anti-gay agenda, but also its larger theocratic agenda. To some extent, this is already happen. It needs to happen more.

Second, the GLBT community and other scapegoated subcultures (e.g. various minority religions) need to become better educated about the religious right wing. It seems to me that a lot of people still have a hard time taking the religious right wing seriously.

The 2006 elections have given us a bit of a reprieve, at least as far as the Congress is concerned. Too many people assume this means that the religious right wing is dead. Alas, it doesn't mean that. The religious right wing has had its ups and downs before, and will probably continue to have its ups and downs in the future. Its downs will depend on people opposing them.

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

[Diane Vera]

As for how to respond to Christian persecution paranoia in particular, probably the best we can do is simply to point out how absurd it is. For example, here's a parody, Life In Our Anti-Christian America (http://skepticx.myweb.uga.edu/antixian.html), by Robby Berry, in which the things said to have been done to Christians are in fact things that have been done to atheists here in the U.S.A.

[ladyinred]

Your comments are well thought out and written. I agree we need to keep a vigilant eye on the religious right.. I know sometimes people may think that by writing on these issues we are taking an alarmist or pessimistic view. I don't happen to agree with that stance or posture. But we need to wake up to reality and not hide our heads in the sand so to speak..

The threat is very real and it definitely needs to be taken seriously..Keeping our eyes closed doesn't make it go away. Walking across the train tracks with a blindfold on doesn't mean the train ain't comin'.

I thank you Diane for helping to educate us further on these matters.

[Daniel]

Diane- thanks for your post. This is a theme I have been aware of personally for some time now: my brother, who is a missionary, is fond of dragging out the canard that Christians, more than any other group, are the most persecuted. And that the Supreme Court- and all courts- need to be gutted and replaced with those who would enact God's Laws. Goodbye separation of church and state. Goodbye constitution. Goodbye Bill or Rights.

It is a regressive and fearful view of life. One which is against the world yet seeks to control the world. I think this sets up a pattern of neurosis.

What to do?

Write your representative and encouage- yea- demand that they keep close tabs - and do something about - the current Attorney General hiring and firing scandal.

[revtj]

"Fiddle-dee-dee. War, war, war. This war talk's spoiling all the fun at every party this spring. I get so bored I could scream. Besides, there isn't going to be any war...If either of you boys says 'war' just once again, I'll go in the house and slam the door." ~ Scarlet O'Hara, Gone With the Wind

[suzer1013]

Tsk, tsk, TJ! Scarlett has two "t"s. Any gay man worth his salt should know that! And you, living in Atlanta and all!

(Now, I think I know what your reply will be, though I don't know if the suave tone of Clark Gable will come through in the written word!) ;)

Susan :D

[Diane Vera]

Write your representative and encouage- yea- demand that they keep close tabs - and do something about - the current Attorney General hiring and firing scandal.

I've posted links to some stories about said scandal here (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?p=25685#post25685) in the thread Religious right wing co-opting the U.S. military & law enforcement? (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2626).

[Allyson]

Ooo...this whole thing is one of my pet peeves. Christians saying they are persecuted in 21st century America is akin to Romans saying that that they were persecuted in 1st century Rome. :D

[Diane Vera]

The page How to Fight the Religious Right (http://www.elroy.net/ehr/fighttheright.html) by Brian Elroy McKinley contains a section responding to the claim that Christians Are Being Persecuted (http://www.elroy.net/ehr/fighttheright.html#christians).

Ever hear the phrase, "You can dish it out, but you can't take it"? That's what's happening when Fundamentalists use this statement. They have been on the attack for years now, trying to deny rights to homosexuals, trying to outlaw abortions, trying to keep women from obtaining equal rights, and trying to impose their own morals - many of them non-biblical - on the rest of society. Non-Fundamentalists are finally fighting back by speaking out against their campaigns, their media onslaughts, and their mistaken notions of truth, and the Fundamentalists don't like it very much. They can dish it out, but they can't take it. So when people of good conscience stand up for their rights, Fundamentalists cry foul - they claim they are being persecuted.

Fundamentalists see this "persecution" as biblical proof of being on God's side. It's not. Their so-called persecution is merely the rest of society defending itself from their attacks. Their so-called persecution is merely being called to the carpet for their actions. Their so-called persecution comes in the form of editorials that don't paint them in a glowing light or legislation that goes against their made-truths. If they can't get their schools to allow them to pray to their God during class time, they claim they are being attacked. What would happen if Buddhists and Muslims tried to get the same special rights? Fundamentalists would be beside themselves in anger.

This is not the persecution mentioned in the Bible. The leaders of the Christian Coalition are not being hung on crosses (Philippians 2:8). The leaders of the Family Research Council are not being stoned to death (Acts 7:59). The leaders of Focus on the Family are not being thrown to the lions (Daniel 6:16). And yet these people have the gall to claim they are being persecuted in God's name. They are not. All they have to worry about is someone calling them bad names and denying them their request for favoritism.

Very well put.

[dewdrop_world]

I have to admit to being bothered by some of this type of talk, well meaning though it might be (and as much as I agree with this diagnosis of this situation).

We know that fear is a large part of the motivation of those who (wittingly or unwittingly) promote Christian fascism. This also feeds our fear ("scary stuff"). I think we can also all agree that reacting out of fear sows the seeds for more fear. They are afraid of what we represent, so they want to destroy us, politically, spiritually, even physically. We are afraid of what they would do to us, given the chance, so we want, in effect, to emasculate them in the political sphere out of self protection. This plays right into the paranoid fantasies and makes them even more determined to fight, and so on.

Putting them down is an attempt to take away their power -- making it a political solution to a spiritual problem. Another way to say it is, if the root of the problem is fear, then a good chunk of the solution is to deal constructively with the fear. That's our own fear, as well as theirs.

They would not do what they're doing if they weren't afraid, and I think it's absolutely essential to respond in a way that has a chance of alleviating their fear. To do that, we have to be fear-less first.

I know how hard this is -- just like most of us on this board, I'm convinced that "I am right" about who they are and what makes them tick, and just as convinced that if more people thought the way I do, we would all be better off. That's a point I share in common with my "enemy," or the people whom I tend to think of as enemies (mainly to simplify my life). And it's no less a failure of nonviolence when I do it than it is when they do.

So, in the end I think Nate's tireless one on one conversations with conservative Christians are more valuable than all the public posturing in the world.

James

[doom1701]

I was very glad to see dewdrop's post, as I was beginning to get a little worried about the world I stepped into. As a conservative evangelical, I do see persecution in the world. No, it's nothing like what the early church experienced, and it's really nowhere near as bad as many conservatives try to make it out to be.

But it's there, and one of the primary forms it takes on is people pulling out the "How dare those right wingers fight for what they believe in" speech. I've gotten it--and I tend to be one of the more open minded conservative evanglicals out there.

Dewdrop is exactly right--this attitude comes out of a root of fear. And it then breeds fear in those that oppose it, so they begin to lash out at it. That escalates into more fear, and more fighting, until everyone is thinking that their way of life is at stake...it very well might be, but part of the risk is the escalation we have brought on ourselves.

Hauling out the "separation of church and state" lines doesn't stop the escalation--it fosters it. The only way this is going to keep from turning into an all out war is by getting out the way we came in--by beginning to alleviate fears and lessening those tensions.

[Diane Vera]

They would not do what they're doing if they weren't afraid, and I think it's absolutely essential to respond in a way that has a chance of alleviating their fear.

...

So, in the end I think Nate's tireless one on one conversations with conservative Christians are more valuable than all the public posturing in the world.

We cannot afford to rely on just one tactic. Ultimately I think the only thing that can cure religion-based bigotry is for its adherents to get to know a bunch of people outside their own little box, as people. (This would include not only gays but also atheists and people of other religions.) But there are many barriers to this happening. And, until it does, we cannot afford to be politically defenseless. We need to rally our own troops to fight back.

[Diane Vera]

I was very glad to see dewdrop's post, as I was beginning to get a little worried about the world I stepped into. As a conservative evangelical, I do see persecution in the world.

In the world, yes. There certainly do exist various parts of the world where Christians are persecuted. But here in the U.S.A.?

No, it's nothing like what the early church experienced, and it's really nowhere near as bad as many conservatives try to make it out to be.

But it's there, and one of the primary forms it takes on is people pulling out the "How dare those right wingers fight for what they believe in" speech. I've gotten it--and I tend to be one of the more open minded conservative evanglicals out there.

In exactly what kinds of contexts have you gotten it? What, specifically, were you fighting for and how?

Dewdrop is exactly right--this attitude comes out of a root of fear. And it then breeds fear in those that oppose it, so they begin to lash out at it. That escalates into more fear, and more fighting, until everyone is thinking that their way of life is at stake...it very well might be, but part of the risk is the escalation we have brought on ourselves.

Hauling out the "separation of church and state" lines doesn't stop the escalation--it fosters it.

I'm sorry, but it seems to me that separation of church and state is a sine qua non. Perhaps it is necessary to review the reasons why separation of church and state is good for everyone, including religious conservatives?

The only way this is going to keep from turning into an all out war is by getting out the way we came in--by beginning to alleviate fears and lessening those tensions.

How do you propose to begin lessening tensions?

[Allyson]

I was very glad to see dewdrop's post, as I was beginning to get a little worried about the world I stepped into. As a conservative evangelical, I do see persecution in the world. No, it's nothing like what the early church experienced, and it's really nowhere near as bad as many conservatives try to make it out to be.
I heard a pastor preach on this recently. He began by asking the congregation, "What are some of the names Christians get called in our culture?" The responses: "Bible-thumper," "Holy Roller," "intolerant," "judgmental," "Jesus freak," etc. He went on to point out that some other things Christians get called today are "Senator," "Congressman," and "Mister President." I thought it made the point nicely.

Dewdrop is exactly right--this attitude comes out of a root of fear. And it then breeds fear in those that oppose it, so they begin to lash out at it. That escalates into more fear, and more fighting, until everyone is thinking that their way of life is at stake...it very well might be, but part of the risk is the escalation we have brought on ourselves.
I'm not a church historian, but if I recall my church history classes correctly, I think the threat of persecution and the "end of the Christian way of life" were used extensively by the Popes and other church leaders who started the Crusades. Definitely not a high-point for Christianity. Perhaps pointing this tactic out from the historical record would be a good way of countering it today.

[u-dog]

I'm not a church historian, but if I recall my church history classes correctly, I think the threat of persecution and the "end of the Christian way of life" were used extensively by the Popes and other church leaders who started the Crusades. Definitely not a high-point for Christianity. Perhaps pointing this tactic out from the historical record would be a good way of countering it today.


Just to be fair to the Popes (who were, granted, mostly greedy, power-hungry, liscentious bastards), the crusades followed closely upon Islam's long-term invasion of Europe. Islam's 'high-water marks' were The Pyrennes Mountains (between Spain and France) and the gates of Vienna. Fear (and the hatred that it always spawns) IS the operative word here.

[doom1701]

I heard a pastor preach on this recently. He began by asking the congregation, "What are some of the names Christians get called in our culture?" The responses: "Bible-thumper," "Holy Roller," "intolerant," "judgmental," "Jesus freak," etc. He went on to point out that some other things Christians get called today are "Senator," "Congressman," and "Mister President." I thought it made the point nicely.





I don't see how that makes a point at all. Is the fact that Christians have held positions of power supposed to lessen the other name calling?

[u-dog]

If the argument is that Christians are being persecuted, marginalized, oppressed by such terms as holy roller, bible thumper, etc. then the fact that Christians hold MANY positions of power and responsibility within business and government (as revealled but such names as "Congressman" and "Senator" and "Mr. President" not to mention "CFO" "CEO" and "Vice-President of Human Resources" ) suggests that the argument in question is silly and over-drawn.

[Diane Vera]

If the argument is that Christians are being persecuted, marginalized, oppressed by such terms as holy roller, bible thumper, etc. then the fact that Christians hold MANY positions of power and responsibility within business and government (as revealled but such names as "Congressman" and "Senator" and "Mr. President" not to mention "CFO" "CEO" and "Vice-President of Human Resources" ) suggests that the argument in question is silly and over-drawn.

What makes the argument silly and overdrawn is not the mere fact that there are Christians in positions of power, but that fact combined with these:

1) In many parts of the country, in today's political climate, it is almost impossible for anyone who is NOT a professing Christian to be elected to a political office.

2) Christians (or at least professing Christians) are the vast majority of the U.S. population -- between 75% and 85%, depending on whose statistics you look at.

[dewdrop_world]

Just a couple of quick thoughts --

I didn't mean to suggest that we should ignore the political sphere. But our motivation matters. If we do it to stop the big, bad, scary religious fascists mainly because we're scared of them, then the people whom we now see as enemies are right -- we really are out to get them. If, on the other hand, we stand for the positive virtues of understanding those different from ourselves, respecting the rights of others to make their own decisions, and of listening before judging (or better yet, instead of), we do it not to put down a menace but to build something better than there is now.

For doom1701 -- I'm still interested to know your thoughts on Diane's question. How do you propose to reduce the tension? We all have to do our part to make peace. What is the evangelicals' part in this?

Evangelicals get a bad rap largely because of some very loud mouthed, flaky individuals who take Christianity rather far from the core of Jesus's teaching. When they claim the mantle of "defenders of the true faith," people who don't know any better (and people who have an axe to grind against religion) actually take them at their word and become convinced that all Christians, or a majority, are mentally unhinged in the same way. So, it seems to me that one thing evangelicals can do is to stop associating with these people and concentrate on being humble seekers of Christ. Let the Falwells and Robertsons become more and more desperate until the candle goes out for lack of fuel -- when they have no more attention and no more influence, that is exactly what will happen. But of course, there is no shortage of anxious people eager to hear that it is righteous to put the blame on someone else.

Sorry if this is too frank. I just don't understand why evangelicals continue to put up with these rather obviously false prophets.

James

[Diane Vera]

I didn't mean to suggest that we should ignore the political sphere. But our motivation matters. If we do it to stop the big, bad, scary religious fascists mainly because we're scared of them, then the people whom we now see as enemies are right -- we really are out to get them.

This does not logically follow, as long as we are sufficiently precise in our definitions of who the religious fascists are. Obviously, not all Christians deserve to be considered religious fascists.

If, on the other hand, we stand for the positive virtues of understanding those different from ourselves, respecting the rights of others to make their own decisions, and of listening before judging (or better yet, instead of), we do it not to put down a menace but to build something better than there is now.

It seems to me that we need to do both, not one to the exclusion of the other. To build an effective political movement, it is necessary to have both a set of ideals and a scary enemy to point to. I'm afraid that's an inescapable fact of human psychology.

But we should be very careful to avoid being overly broad as to whom we describe as our enemy.

[dewdrop_world]

I do recognize that fear is the most powerful political motivator there is. But I wonder how we can justifiably condemn the political expediency of the religious fascists (by which I mean the ease with which the core of the religion slips into propaganda intended to consolidate power in the hands of certain religious leaders), while we also use fear as an expedient means to obtain an objective.

I'm totally with you that the objective is important, and I think it's a moral good, but at the same time -- using means that are slightly morally messy, even if employed toward a moral good, is not a moral good in itself. It can be a rational decision, and I respect that decision if it's made rationally and with full awareness of what one is doing. I have to question that decision if its primary motivation is, "But we have to win."

I do get concerned when I read some of these threads and have trouble distinguishing between the tone here and the tone of some of the breathless hysteria that comes from the far right. To address them in the spirit of non violence (which, after all, is what Soulforce is supposed to be about), we should think twice about becoming like them. A better way to say it is, we should recognize the ways in which we are already like them (we have no less of an instinct for fear than they), and look within ourselves to reduce the influence of that fear, so that it becomes possible to come face to face with their fear without adding our own to it.

At the same time, if you shoot the person who is about to kill your partner or children, that is "expedient" to be sure, but it might not be possible to do any better in that situation. Maybe it isn't possible here to do any better than demonize the religious right (I hate to call them that), but I definitely have a problem with accepting that as a foregone conclusion and not asking any questions about what alternatives exist. Especially on this board... Soulforce stands for something more than achieving a political goal, and I think we should take that challenge seriously.

James

[Emproph]

I didn't mean to suggest that we should ignore the political sphere. But our motivation matters. If we do it to stop the big, bad, scary religious fascists mainly because we're scared of them, then the people whom we now see as enemies are right -- we really are out to get them.

They created the myth that “we are out to get them” in order to garner the support needed to “get us.”

Our defending ourselves against their attacks is what they consider to be “out to get them.” So of course we’re “out to get them,” they’re supremacists. Anyone who disagrees with their supremacy is “out to get them.”

There’s no comparison of motives, it’s victim and oppressor. The oppressor in this case just happens to be claiming that they are victims of their victims!

If, on the other hand, we stand for the positive virtues of understanding those different from ourselves, respecting the rights of others to make their own decisions, and of listening before judging (or better yet, instead of), we do it not to put down a menace but to build something better than there is now.

The threat of their menace is IMO, the biggest thing that prevents us from building something better, and that goes for all issues, not just GLBT.

Evangelicals get a bad rap largely because of some very loud mouthed, flaky individuals who take Christianity rather far from the core of Jesus's teaching.....Let the Falwells and Robertsons become more and more desperate until the candle goes out for lack of fuel -- when they have no more attention and no more influence, that is exactly what will happen. But of course, there is no shortage of anxious people eager to hear that it is righteous to put the blame on someone else.

I think it’s unfortunate that the masses of followers of Dobson and ilk have to take the bad rap with their leaders, but they are responsible for their decisions, and thus for the consequences of them. If they decide to feel “persecuted” because I voice my opposition to them persecuting me, so be it.

The point is, they won’t stop until they have total domination, because they will do WHATEVER their leaders tell them to. That MUST be understood at the outset. No matter how gentle, no matter how loving, no matter how understanding we are, ANY resistence to this goal will be considered persecution.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t be all those things in pointing this out, but I am saying that it needs to be pointed out in no-uncertain-terms. If that’s offensive to them, too bad, it’s the truth.

... But I wonder how we can justifiably condemn the political expediency of the religious fascists (by which I mean the ease with which the core of the religion slips into propaganda intended to consolidate power in the hands of certain religious leaders), while we also use fear as an expedient means to obtain an objective.

...using means that are slightly morally messy, even if employed toward a moral good, is not a moral good in itself. It can be a rational decision, and I respect that decision if it's made rationally and with full awareness of what one is doing. I have to question that decision if its primary motivation is, "But we have to win."

How is it “using” fear to say that these religious fascists want to rule the world and will lie, cheat, steal, and kill to do it? Saying so may be motivated by fear and anger on my part, but it’s a fact, not a tactic. My point is, there’s no way to dress it up, it’s THAT ugly.

I can possibly add that the followers are just going along with and spreading around and practicing that ugliness as opposed to creating it, but as far as I can see, that’s about it.

The motivation of "but we have to win" is their game. I rarely see that on this side of the issue. I almost want to say that dishonesty and deception is THE distinguishing factor that "our side" makes, whether glbt or liberal altogether.

I do get concerned when I read some of these threads and have trouble distinguishing between the tone here and the tone of some of the breathless hysteria that comes from the far right. To address them in the spirit of non violence (which, after all, is what Soulforce is supposed to be about), we should think twice about becoming like them.

I plead guilty when it comes to the tone you speak of, but there’s a big difference between what that tone is in regard to.

One is based on lies and is designed to incite panic to gain power OVER others.

One is based on truth of-that-fact, and is designed to alert of the dangers of-that-fact, for the purpose retaining and gaining power over our-own lives.

The persecution argument is based on their idea that in order to have control over their own lives, they need to have control over ours.

In the words of Margaret Thatcher, "You don't negotiate with a madman."
(re Sadam, 1st gulf war)

That said, there is still the need to determine whether an individual is truly mad before defining them as such. As I see it, once someone has been alerted to, and understands the gravity of their lies and illogic, and they continue to spread them, that determination has then been made.

At the same time, if you shoot the person who is about to kill your partner or children, that is "expedient" to be sure, but it might not be possible to do any better in that situation. Maybe it isn't possible here to do any better than demonize the religious right (I hate to call them that), but I definitely have a problem with accepting that as a foregone conclusion and not asking any questions about what alternatives exist. Especially on this board... Soulforce stands for something more than achieving a political goal, and I think we should take that challenge seriously.

Maybe I’m not seeing things the way you meant them James, if that’s the case I could use some clarifications. When it comes to getting the point across without sacrificing non-violent tone, you’re a master, and I know you’ve been around enough to know the score in regard to authoritarian hypocrisy and dishonesty, so I’m not trying to justify my sometimes often 'violent' tone.

If I had to pick just one person to make an offensive message as palatable as dessert, it would be you. I think your work with you know who on the UMC should go in the Soulforce archives. ;)

Maybe you’re trying to say that in our quest not to be like them, we also shouldn’t sound like them. I support that, but I do get concerned when the message comes across so “nice” that the point of it is either easily forgotten, or dismissed altogether.

And like I said, you're an expert at maintaining 'nice' without watering down the message. It's a very important, yet tenuous balance, so I'm all ears for suggestions as to how to maintain it. :)

[Emproph]

Violence of mind is going to happen, and I don't mean in the "foregone conclusion" sense. More like, Life is like a box of decisions between worse and worser, or sinful and more sinful, the lesser of two evils, etc.

It's a fact, and I think that as the adage goes, knowing the problem is half the solution. The real focus necessary seems to be the willing acknowledgment of the magnitude of the challenge at hand. The "out love them" part, the actual "speaking truth in love" part (on our part).

It's insidiously ironic how equally matched we are, I think this is what you were hinting at as far as the need for respect goes.

We are their test by God to ensure that when they face judgement, there will be no doubt as to the responsibility for their deeds. We are the "least of these," yet they can't grasp even the "least" of this concept.

Likewise, they are our test. In that we already know what their test is, yet can't seem to do anything about it – and more importantly – we-don't-know-why!

But the onus is on us, especially us, because not only do we know better, we know that we know better.

This is the difference, and the distinction, and the certitude of which I sometimes speak.

To see Love is to see God. To see how to see Love is to see how God sees us.

That's the fear dissolving understanding that provides us with the certitude that we need to expose the ugliness of their truth – in love.

But seeing as I'm already "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore," somebody is going to have to help me to see the appeal of being nice about my expression of that.


:dove: :hissy: :dove:

[dewdrop_world]

Hi Emproph -- much to chew on in your posts. Unfortunately I'm going to be pretty busy in the next few days, but I will definitely mull your points over.

I don't consider my views to be complete or finished... I'm just expressing where I am but of course that is open to change where needed.

Thanks!
James

[ladyinred]

I think the problem and the reason why so many people are offended and enraged by the religious right, is that they don't compromise, it is all or nothing with them.You either see things our way or you are going to hell. This is particularly a sensitive issue with GLBT people because again according to the right's interpretation we are going to hell if we don't change our ways.. Again this is often a no -win situation with GLBT people who are often frustrated because you cannot bargain with these people.

They won't settle for anything less than denying us our basic human rights. They won't just be satisfied to deny us the right to marry , they want to undermine legislation that would protect us and would deny us basically everything. They won't settle for a live and let live attitude, and just accept GLBT people , they are dogged in trying to convert us into a heterosexual lifestyle, to mold us into their image and make us into what they want us to be.

You can't dialogue or reason alot of times with these people because again they take,"the it's my way or the highway approach."We just know you need to be saved. And they assume like God they are in the position to "save". What choice do GLBT people have other than to stand up and try to protect their rights?

Who wants to be in a we win you lose situation? No one wants to be bullied and intimidated. Would there be a issue about homosexuality if the right had not decided to go to war with those in the GLBT community?Would it be such a big deal?

But what do you do when people accuse you of everything conceivably wrong and claim that homosexuals are out to threaten their way of life and their families even if it is not true? What course of action do you choose? How can there be any solutions or compromise when another side simply does not want to work through disagreements and try to break down the barriers or see the other side's perspective.

What if no matter what you do to try to break down those barriers and try to communicate to them, they do not want to see the other side and they've already made up their mind that we are wrong and they are right.Perhaps it is better to take our appeal to the public instead of hoping that those in leadership of the masses will change and see the "light".

I don't think an offensive would work against those in the right, it would make them more determined to fight back and would just confirm to them that there is an gay agenda and that they are "victims." They seem to relish the victim role ,it makes them look like they are so put upon and maligned.They are the modern day martyrs and crusaders so to speak..and basically launched their own holy war on America as a whole..

If it's not abortion, it's gay rights, if it's not gay rights, it's those "militant" feminists who want equal rights for women, if it's not that ,it's single moms, working mothers , separation of church and state, another religion or other Christians who don't share their world view; some other "threat" they see to their sense of idenity. Everyone who does not join them or agree with them is the "enemy" and they as they have so often said are in a war with the "enemy" and will stop at nothing to defeat those real or perceived enemies in anyway they can.

I personally cannot fathom a world such as this. It seems there is no room for tolerance, understanding, open mindedness and dialogue.I can't imagine setting the world stage in my mind where everyone else is the enemy and wrong no matter what, and I can't see another perspective or another's view other than my own as correct.People come from different backgrounds and often have a unique perspective of their own.Mine might seem correct to me, but what seems correct from my view point might be seen differently from another perspective. And I feel I have alot to learn from other people too. They can share their personal experiences and their ideas and insights as well.

[revtj]

Radical activists are continuing to force their destructive agenda upon America.
This is why AFM's broad-based movement - now expanding to through our Marriage
Protection Caucus (tm) to state legislators in every state - is so critically
necessary. Thanks to generous friends like you, AFM's mission to preserve the
common-sense definition of marriage for all Americans couldn't be stronger.
Thank you for your continuing support.

Matt Daniels, J.D., Ph.D.

Founder and President, Alliance For Marriage

http://www.afmusa.org

I rec'd this email signature from someone who wanted me to see another example of how the right sees themselves as "being forced" and the left has abandoned "common sense."

So, asking for equality under the law is tantamount to "forcing" our destructive agenda and abandoning common sense?

Who is the real victim here?

[Daniel]

James- your earlier post on this thread reminded me of a phrase a counselor friend introduced me to years ago.

What you resist persists.

That's what I hear you saying. The idea being that the more one attacks or resists a foe or enemy, the more one empowers them. At first blush, this sounds like something out of the Tao of War or Ko Imani's The Shirt of Flame. I think it's hard for our Western minds to wrap around concepts like this: we're so used to thinking in dualistic terms. And that's where the 'argument' seems trapped. Two sides fighting for the same air which everyone is breathing.

The phrase above also echoes a similar one in A Course in Miracles.

Truth needs no Defense.

Now there's a kicker! It's engineered to turn one's head inside out, that's for sure. To me, it encapsulates the whole idea of 'out loving' one's adversaries, because, if one has nothing to defend (a great reason to come out btw), there is nothing to do but love.

I think this takes great inner strength and self-love. A real know-thy-self moment.

[keltic63]

Truth needs no Defense.

Now there's a kicker! It's engineered to turn one's head inside out, that's for sure. To me, it encapsulates the whole idea of 'out loving' one's adversaries, because, if one has nothing to defend (a great reason to come out btw), there is nothing to do but love.

I think this takes great inner strength and self-love. A real know-thy-self moment.


this is an excellent reason to come out. I hid in my closet for years, I'm telling you, YEARS. When I finally came out, owned up to who I really am, and then claimed it, there was nothing left but love. Love for myself and others. I had given the fear too much power, and most of that power was over me. There were a few people who wanted to use this fear against me, and they tried to discredit me by outting me to everyone they talked to; instead, that "truth" about me freed me, and ended up discrediting those who wanted to injure me. Truth does not need defense. I've lived that one in my own life.

[ladyinred]

Wouldn't it be "nice if people could coexist peacefully? Ok, what I'm reading on some of these anti-gay sites is they have the impression that the homosexual lifestyle is being force fed to them like bad medicine ,that those in the GLBT community want to come in and force the acceptance of the Gay lifestyle.. Come into the schools and force others to accept homosexuality as a norm. And they in turn are shouting they don't want to be forced to accept anything.I personally want to say that we can't force people to do anything.

But I don't know what the solutions are, perhaps a calm dialogue and more rational heads should prevail to help disolve the fears that there is some conspiracy against them to undermine their rights and way of life.

I also think that those in the GLBT community may take a defensive stance because in alot of ways they have legitimate concerns about violence ,hate and discrimination being directed at them. They too also feel that a heterosexual agenda is being forced down their throats and again force fed to them like bitter medicine. On top of that being told over and over they will go to hell (Ad nauseum as Kara put it) Do they do this to straight people who divorce , or commit adultery, or have premarital sex I wonder? I think in many ways GLBT people see hypocrisy and a double standard here as well. Some "sins" seem more acceptable and even conveniently overlooked and excused.While others like homosexuality (In the opposition's view, is a sure ticket to hell) Personally I think they should focus on their own relationships and families and stop worrying about ours (My opinion)

But what do we do?
Perhaps some words I've read in a buddhist book might provide some insight," Force begets resistance while dialogue begets assistance" I don't know if we can always change others minds, but what about a dialogue that would address the concerns and fears of the other side? Perhaps this has already been tried, I don't know..

[Emproph]

Joe (http://joebrummer.com/WordPress/?p=631#comment-4319) just turned me on to this.

It was a worthy read (http://paceebene.org/pace/practical-skills-and-tools-for-nonviolent-living/four-steps-cent):

The nonviolent life has many dimensions and steps. Four of these steps are:

Centering ourselves;
Articulating and sharing our piece of the truth;
Receiving the other’s piece of the truth; and
Agreeing on a new way.Center, Articulate, Receive, and Agree – CARA, for short – is a process for engaging the world and its inhabitants nonviolently.

This is not always easy. That is why we need to learn and consciously choose to use this process, over and over.
That pretty much covers the 'magnitude' of the challenge, and I know you've mentioned that before James, at least the part in bold.

In addition to that, I just love how this covers all bases/contexts:
Putting each of the following steps into practice can be simple or complex. It will often require ingenuity and persistence and allies, especially where no level playing field exists – that is, where there are power differences between the parties. It can be carried out in a moment, or it can take years. It can be used in interpersonal conflicts, and it can be used in the process of arduous social change.

And that was just part of the intro. Given the intensity of its message I think it's a pretty easy read. :award:

I have work to do...

[Daniel]

Patrick- Thanks for your post as well as the insight and infor. Great stuff!

[ladyinred]

Let's look at nonviolence , again I brought up the question how to address the fears and concerns of the other side. I think we will have to appeal to public opinion rather than the leaders of the church, because so far, there seems to be little success in changing their minds.Unfortunately people are being spoon fed propaganda by their leaders that the main agenda of GLBT people is trying to destroy their marriages and families and wanting special rights for themselves.How do we counter this?

This is where I think we have a role in helping people see that we are not trying to undermine the institution of marriage between a man and wife and that we respect their families and decisions,and by stating however, we want the same respect and consideration for ours. How do we do this without appearing to demonize them?

How do we present our case without being perceived as attacking their families and their way of life? Some questions I thought I might bring up and thought you might want to think about.The less people have to fear about us the better.They then may be able to change their minds and perhaps say,"Hey,let's take a second look at this."

[Zerbie]

Let's look at nonviolence , again I brought up the question how to address the fears and concerns of the other side. I think we will have to appeal to public opinion rather than the leaders of the church, because so far, there seems to be little success in changing their minds.Unfortunately people are being spoon fed propaganda by their leaders that the main agenda of GLBT people is trying to destroy their marriages and families and wanting special rights for themselves.How do we counter this?

This is where I think we have a role in helping people see that we are not trying to undermine the institution of marriage between a man and wife and that we respect their families and decisions,and by stating however, we want the same respect and consideration for ours. How do we do this without appearing to demonize them?

How do we present our case without being perceived as attacking their families and their way of life? Some questions I thought I might bring up and thought you might want to think about.The less people have to fear about us the better.They then may be able to change their minds and perhaps say,"Hey,let's take a second look at this."

How? Very carefully. . . , I guess??

I worked the polls on election day (the day we defeated the marriage amendment here.) A woman came out after voting and screamed at me incessantly for a while. In between her shouting I would begin to explain again what the proposition would do, and she was utterly convinced it would NOT do the (malicious) things it would have done.
I was writing her off for nothing but a lunatic, since there is no way that after reading the amendment anyone wouldn't know that it said right in the proposition that it would have those effects, and it was only as she got into her car across the parking lot (still screaming invective at me from across the parking lot) that it finally dawned on me: She never read the amendment. She didn't know what it said. Someone she trusted, like a pastor perhaps, lied to her and TOLD her the amendment wouldn't do all those nasty things, and she believed him automatically. Which explains why she thought *I* was lying, and unfortunately, her belief that I was lying "proved" to me that she was a raving lunatic. All thanks to whoever LIED TO HER. :mad:

Taking what I learned from that exchange, I see two things necessary:
1. we have to acknowledge that many of those opposing us have been lied to by someone they trust and that they don't have the appropriate information
and
2. They need to be willing to stop screaming long enough to listen to us and/or research the information objectively for themselves.

We can control #1 but obviously not #2.

[Emproph]

Are we really asking whether or not we should tell them, point blank, that they are wrong?

[dewdrop_world]

Are we really asking whether or not we should tell them, point blank, that they are wrong?
Well, I certainly don't mean to suggest that. But I think you also have to consider the focus of your energy.

I don't know about you, but if somebody comes up to me and says, no, you're totally wrong, my immediate reaction is, "Well, who do you think you are?" And then the conversation is over. :smashy:

That isn't what I want to accomplish when I talk with conservative Christians. So, the goal of "proving them wrong" has to go way to the back burner. In fact, I feel for myself that I have to forget about it altogether. It is more important to me to share of myself, present another viewpoint, regardless of the outcome I can see (which may be only the immediate, surface impact). If I feel the conversation is successful only if I can convince the other person of my views, well, that isn't going to happen very often in the short term, so I'm only setting myself up to get discouraged. If, on the other hand, I see it as successful merely to humiliate the other person and belittle her views, that's pretty easy to do but it accomplishes nothing of value in the long term. I would be setting the bar too low.

For me, to confront the "opposition" doesn't mean trying to expose the falsehood in their beliefs. That might happen indirectly as a result of the conversation, but it isn't what I actively set out to do. My ideal is Socratic (although I fall short of that more often than I care to admit) -- to lead, slowly, gently, through non-aggressive questions, to the conclusion that would be hard (or impossible) for the other person to accept if I just asserted it without preparation.

It has a shadow side, of course. If undertaken with the wrong mindset, the Socratic method can be duplicitous and manipulative -- which is why I see it as fundamentally a process of spiritual growth, not a forensic or political objective. It doesn't work if you don't mean exactly what you're saying -- if the questions are not honestly meant to encourage the other to grow.

Emproph, I also learn a lot from your posts. You've identified a lot of aspects of the decadent form of modern conservatism that I wouldn't have thought of -- valuable knowledge to have! I feel my task is to apply that knowledge in a different form.

James

[revtj]

This is shocking (http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_113203250.html)

"It's only going to get worse against Christians. We're going to get persecuted more and more. But those who stand to the end: God is going to save them." ~ campus protestor

[Daniel]

For me, to confront the "opposition" doesn't mean trying to expose the falsehood in their beliefs. That might happen indirectly as a result of the conversation, but it isn't what I actively set out to do. My ideal is Socratic (although I fall short of that more often than I care to admit) -- to lead, slowly, gently, through non-aggressive questions, to the conclusion that would be hard (or impossible) for the other person to accept if I just asserted it without preparation.

It has a shadow side, of course. If undertaken with the wrong mindset, the Socratic method can be duplicitous and manipulative -- which is why I see it as fundamentally a process of spiritual growth, not a forensic or political objective. It doesn't work if you don't mean exactly what you're saying -- if the questions are not honestly meant to encourage the other to grow.\

James- thanks for this post. I'm sorry I missed it yesterday. Your thoughts are extremely helpful as well as illuminating. Your words- and those of Patrick and Joe- are making for an interesting 'review', one well worth having.

[Alecto]

I think it's worth recognizing (and, I'll admit, Soulforce as an organization does not and disagrees with me, so this is just my worldview) that there ARE a great many people who are reasonable people, and will listen to reason. Especially if it's presented to them gently (as soulforce tries to do; though I'm sure some people have issues with their definition of "gentle"; I do not). Through respectful dialogue, and not pounding out the studies etc. But there's these OTHER people who will not see reason. Because they do not WANT to have to question their views (and who does?). The problem is, though, while I completely recognize the insecurity involved, I don't know how to talk to people like that reasonably (so I usually don't). There's other people, I'm sure, who are theoretically reasonable but dishonest (I have no doubts that some of the big names take on homophobic views not because they care all that much, but because they can get other people to care. This gets them access to money and power, put bluntly). I'm sure there's other reasons people won't hear rational arguments, but that only proves my point more: there are some people for whom the ONLY view I want to convince them of is to "agree to disagree"; live and let live. Maybe I'm in the wrong for seeing that as uncompromisable, but the alternative is someone else dictating and legislating and dehumanizing my life, and I'm not ok with that.

I think that the work Soulforce does is unbelievably important, because I think it's pretty much the only way to reach the reasonable people. And I DO think it's important to assume that people are reasonable until they prove otherwise. But some people aren't, and I guess I'm just saying I don't know how to deal with that. (I swear this started out as related to the thread).

[Emproph]

I think that the work Soulforce does is unbelievably important, because I think it's pretty much the only way to reach the reasonable people. And I DO think it's important to assume that people are reasonable until they prove otherwise. But some people aren't, and I guess I'm just saying I don't know how to deal with that. (I swear this started out as related to the thread).

It is related. Let me see if I can tie this together.

This is shocking (http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_113203250.html)
"It's only going to get worse against Christians. We're going to get persecuted more and more. But those who stand to the end: God is going to save them."
~ campus protestor

I just started reading Michelle Goldberg's (Salon.com) Kingdom Coming (http://www.amazon.com/Kingdom-Coming-Rise-Christian-Nationalism/dp/0393329763/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-1828138-2026426?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177669309&sr=8-1), much of it exploring the sense of the "Christian" persecution paranoia.

A couple of quotes, page 69:

Christian nationalism, like most militant ideologies, can exist only in opposition to something. Its sense of righteousness depends on feeling besieged, no matter how much power it amasses.
Needing to see their foe as equal to their hatred, they exaggerate its strength. So gay people become a threat to the most important thing conservatives have -- their families. In standing up to that threat, they see themselves as heroes. Their loathing is transformed into virtue.

Richard Hofstadter described in his seminal 1964 essay “The Paranoid Style in American Politics”:

... “Even partial succes leaves him with the same sense of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes.”

Page 78:
This is a pattern that repeats itself again and agian in the culture wars. When experts discredit some bit of fundamentalist orthodoxy, it's taken as futher proof of the experts' bias. When the religious conservatives are proven wrong, their faith in their righteousness only grows, along with their hatred of the conspiracy the see arrayed against them.

And for my segue, from the conclusion, Pages 180 and 181 (I skip around):
For opponents of the right, one the most alarming things about the current state of our country is the fact that so many Americans fervently believe things that are objectively false – that Iraq was behind September 11, for example, or that Bill Clinton was a more profligate spender than Bush, or that the world is only a few thousand years old.

They wonder how to get through to their fellow citizens, how to find the message or slogan or frame that will make them see the perilous condition America has been reduced to. What’s lacking, though, isn’t just truth – it’s the entire social mechanism by which truth is distinguished from falsehood. Blunting Christian nationalism requires turning back toward the Enlightenment and rebuilding a culture of rationalism. Unfortunately, multitudes of Americans no longer find Enlightenment values compelling. A rational politics cannot promise the national restoration so many seem to long for.

And finally:
Thus for those who value secular society, apprehending the threat posed by Christian nationalism is tricky. It’s kind of like being a lobster in a pot, with the water heating up so slowly that you don’t notice the moment at which it starts to kill you.

Usually the metaphor is with a frog. If you put a frog in boiling water it jumps out, but if you put it in water that’s room temperature and then turn up the heat one degree at a time it doesn’t notice the difference and ends up boiling to death (supposedly). It’s often used in the global warming ‘debate.’

This is what is so insidious about their game plan though. It was designed to be stealth. The Bush Administration has mastered this tactic. Their “war on the middle class” (Lou Dobbs) is a notable example. Keep them/us in fear of our livelihood through outsourcing, and cutting social programs to fund tax breaks for the rich, etc., and we we’ll be too busy worrying about making a living to notice that our civil (and human) rights are being taken away, one by one, in the name of protecting us from the real enemy – terrorism.

That way, they’re not responsible for the 3 minimum wage jobs I have to work to feed my family, they’re “protecting” what I have...

The RR is perhaps an even worse threat in this regard. They not only subterfuge with language, they can invoke the threat of eternal hell and the love of all things sacred with it. I think it’s just more pronounced and unabashed with them.

So:

I said:
[title]Literally in fear of the fear that this may cause them

Are we really asking whether or not we should tell them, point blank, that they are wrong?

And James you responded (I believe this was the tenor of your post):
I don't know about you, but if somebody comes up to me and says, no, you're totally wrong, my immediate reaction is, "Well, who do you think you are?" And then the conversation is over.
First of all, I misspoke. So I wholeheartedly agree with your response – as usual.

What I was trying to elucidate was what I am seeing as our own fear of believing and understanding that our perspective – lgbt, liberal et al – IS superior to theirs. It seems to me that we are often afraid to make this conclusion for fear of taking on the pious indignation that they are notorious for. That supremacist quality in them that we despise. And as a result of not wanting to see ourselves as we see them, we acquiesce to the adage that “all beliefs were created equal.”

This is PRECISELY their tactic, whether they are consciously aware of it or not. It is perhaps no better represented in their pleas for “tolerance (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2444&highlight=tolerance)” of their intolerance. And because we are so consumed with the ideal of fairness, we believe it. Not recognizing that their doctrinal ideology of “fairness” is ROOTED in subjugation and dominion – unfairness, but in this case, justified in the name of a just God.

The very basis of their argument over “equal” anything, is their belief in the right to redefine the meaning of equality itself.

My own brother used this “argument” on me in the attempt to justify his support of the ‘war’ in Iraq. (Paraphrased ) “We live in America” he said, “where people can have differing opinions.” He also signed the anti-gay marriage Amendment petition here in Florida to take away my American rights.

Unfortunately he’s a typical example. The argument of “equality” is used as their basis to forward the belief that equal rights include the right to take away equality.

That type of insanity is not only not “equal,” it is DEFINITIVELY inferior.

~~
And here’s how.

These are both adjectives:


Liberal - willing to respect and accept behavior or opinions different from one's own.
-ORIGIN originally meaning 'suitable for a free man': from Latin liberalis, from liber 'free man'

VS

Conservative - averse to change and holding traditional values.
-Conserve: ORIGIN Latin conservare 'to preserve’

Strip away the politically charged connotations and issues associated with them and they are both adjectives – descriptions – whatever the politics and whatever the issue.

What we’re talking about here is perspectives, ideologies, what have you. A liberal perspective by it’s very nature incorporates and encompasses a conservative perspective – no-matter-what-the-issue!

Perhaps the word ‘awareness’ is a better descriptor than ‘perspective.’ Point being that liberals are by definition, BOTH liberal AND conservative. Thus, at least in theory, if not in practice yet, a liberal perspective is SUPERIOR to a conservative perspective. This is what I’m trying to say.

(Generalizing here)

Liberals ALWAYS at least have the option of seeing the conservative perspective. Conservatives by definition, filter out – censor – the very perspective and awareness that they claim makes them ideologically superior. It is the definition of idiocy.

That’s why the defense mechanism of projection is so rampant on their side. The have no-other-option to interpret the liberal agenda (equality) outside of their myopic supremacist worldview. And since their worldview is dependent upon censorship of thought and blind adherence to authority, there is no need or even desire to see “better.” They’ve concluded and decided that not thinking is BEST.

The problem is that many/most of us liberals are so blinded by our fundamental belief in fairness, equality, tolerance, democracy (all men are created equal – America), etc., that we cannot even conceive of an entire lifetime based on thought (information) censorship, that conservatives subscribe to, let alone their delusion that less thought, less information, less rationality, is somehow a superior coping mechanism and survival skill.

Actually it is superior as a survival skill. One doesn’t want the hesitation of “fairness” to interfere with the protection of one’s self and/or family. Any “debate” on that front should be met with a baseball bat or gun, or whatever else is at your disposal if need be. But not as social policy based on arguments of “what might happen if...” Problem being, this is their life's philosophy.

To that extent, we liberals (again, generalizing) are at a great disadvantage by not being able to comprehend the danger of these social neo-conservatives. WE CAN’T EVEN RECOGNIZE THE THREAT THAT THEY POSE BECAUSE OF OUR PROPENSITY FOR FAIRNESS.

Back to my quote:
[title]Literally in fear of the fear that this may cause them

Are we really asking whether or not we should tell them, point blank, that they are wrong?

My suggestion is not to be more confrontational or to assert any sense of self-righteous supremacy, but to get over and come to terms with what I see as a fear of being “like them” in understanding that the worldview of logic and rationalism (enlightenment) IS SUPERIOR!

If we don’t get over this fear, we’re dead. Because they’ll kill us both. This IS survival. To grant them equality is to seal our own death, as well as theirs. They are adult-children and MUST be understood as such. Would you negotiate with you child when they tell you that your “liberal law” to look both ways when crossing the street (as opposed to just the right way) is oppressive to them?

Obviously you do your best not to be offensive, but if it comes down to it, you spank them, you yell at them, you humiliate them in front of all their friends and the neighborhood in the attempt and the hopes that they will NEVER forget what you’ve said about the dangers of not looking BOTH ways!

And this is precisely the argument that they make. That the denial of information is on equal footing with information itself. The difference being that this time, they’re not only driving the car, they are determined to have all the stop signs taken down, as they are an infringement on their (religious) “freedom.”

They are certifiably I-N-S-A-N-E. Say it, admit it, and get used to it. This is truth. To deny THIS truth, is to pretend that their childISH perspectives deserve equal respect.

They are no more equal to us than a child is to a parent. Loved unconditionally, but understood – unequivocally – to be infinitely less aware of the consequences of their actions.

Again, I’m not suggesting such stark language should be used in personal conversation or argument per se. Just that we need to understand and accept in NO-UNCERTAIN-TERMS, for our own selves, that SANITY is superior to INSANITY, and that is the magnitude of the rift between us.

Catch my drift? :)

[u-dog]

Obviously you do your best not to be offensive, but if it comes down to it, you spank them, you yell at them, you humiliate them in front of all their friends and the neighborhood in the attempt and the hopes that they will NEVER forget what you’ve said about the dangers of not looking BOTH ways!

Actually, no Emproph, I would do NONE of these things (I DID do none of these things) I HELD THEIR HAND TIGHTLY AT ALL TIMES AND DID NOT LET THEM MAKE POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DECISIONS BY THEMSELVES UNTIL I WAS SURE THAT THEY WERE CAPABLE OF DOING SO SAFELY. One of them I thought I would be holding his hand til he went to college but he finally "got it". I WAS RELENTLESSLY, LOVINGLY, VIGILANT !!

And I don't think spanking the neo-cons will work either. It just makes them feel angry and "oppressed" (which is what spanking does to children incidentally) We need to stay in contact with them at all times and physically hold them back from from the edge of disaster for as long as it takes. We must come out and speak out and oppose their f****d up ideology in every venue that comes to hand.


Which is to say: YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT IN YOUR ANALYSIS! I would add though that I don't think that the Religious Right is "Conservative" That is their cover story... but its a lie (a lie they tell themselves as well) they are in fact, RADICALS. They are digging to the "root" of our democracy and to the ROOT of the Enlightenment itself and digging it up. They are killing the tree in order to plant a new tree and they MUST be stopped.

[revtj]

This is wierd but some of your posts above were not there yesterday when I posted mine...:confused:

Anyway, Joe & Emproph thanks for the CARA post, I am printing that one out to post by my desk!

Now I want to comment on this:

1. we have to acknowledge that many of those opposing us have been lied to by someone they trust and that they don't have the appropriate information
and
2. They need to be willing to stop screaming long enough to listen to us and/or research the information objectively for themselves.

THIS is sooo true. I try to remember this whenever I can. When I realize that my anti-gay neighbor went searching for the truth through their church or wherever and they were given false information, it is easier for me to pray for those who despitefully use us and bless those who curse us...many (most?) of them don't get much of a chance to see more than 1 point of view.

And that brings me back to my Soulforce commitment to oppose misinformation and not people or churches or faith traditions...

[ladyinred]

I have to agree with you Alecto. I do think that SoulForce is crucial.. And that the work they are doing is important. Can they reach people, I think in many ways they can and in effect have succeeded.

[ladyinred]

Live and let live would be ok, if the religious right wasn't spreading some dangerous ideology and trying to take over the government, the masses and the world so to speak. Remember they want a new world order in which all people submit to their world view. Did you see the game that was coming out last November and December, it was based on Tim Layhayes left behind series. In it atheists,jews, moderate Christians , gays etc are blown away if they don't convert to their view of Christianity. Some in the reconstructionist movement advocate bringing back old testament laws such as stoning childen and adulterers and homosexuals. Can people just afford to sit idley by and let them impose their ideology on the rest of us,while they try to turn our country into a theocracy? Is that not dangerous?

[dewdrop_world]

RevTJ --

And that brings me back to my Soulforce commitment to oppose misinformation and not people or churches or faith traditions...

I agree totally, and I think this is a critical counterbalance to your points in the earlier post.

Like you, I feel that conservatism in general is a weak philosophy, for being rigid, unable to adapt to new information or circumstances, unable to accept what it can't control (and always trying desperately to keep the uncontrollable out of sight, because that would mean facing fear in a spiritually healthy and integrated, rather than taking the coward's way out of projecting the blame onto some bogeyman that must be destroyed).

We have had some conservative visitors here who seem not to share this mindset, and we've had a greater number who provide ample evidence of this assessment just by opening their mouths. I would like to hear from more of the former. Even though my higher education is in music, I really like the scientific method. You look at the evidence, formulate a hypothesis, and then try to disprove it to be sure that you haven't made a mistake.

I can imagine some conservatives reading this post and thinking that I hold all conservatives, personally, in contempt. Definitely not true! I want to be proven wrong. Please, SOMEBODY, prove me wrong! :pray:

~ ~ ~

I still feel I need to take some caution. Of course I feel that my present views, though open to improvement, are the best I can do at this time and, having considered and rejected the conservative alternatives, I do feel that my views are better than the majority of conservative viewpoints I've encountered. It's all too easy, though, to slide into the belief that I am inherently a better person, that I am more worthy, because my views are better. That is a conclusion I find absolutely repugnant. Lucky for me, then, that it isn't a logical conclusion. One's worth as a person does not depend in any way on the worth of one's ideas.

But it's more than that. Buddhism proposes the idea, and I've come to see its wisdom more and more over the years, that ALL views -- liberal, conservative, fascist, revolutionary, those that free the soul and those that imprison it -- are fleeting. They arise and pass away. They are utilitarian -- we use them as crutches until one day we discover that the views themselves are holding us back, tying us down. Then we can finally let them go and be, as Jesus urged us, like the lilies of the field or the birds in the sky (in the most Buddhist of Jesus's teachings):

26Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?

28"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?

Extreme conservative viewpoints are maintained because the people who hold them find them useful. If they're actually deleterious, they will cease to be useful at some point. We can set the wheels in motion, but we can't force the conclusion. Nobody self-interrogates a cherished view under duress.

Further -- in the ultimate sense, if I hold fast to the view that my views are better, that also binds me. Perhaps it's useful for a while to be so bound -- but perhaps not. I don't want to get so caught up in my apologia that I don't recognize when it's time to drop that burden.

Just a couple of cents. Maybe half a cent. Maybe Monopoly money. :p
James

[Daniel]

But it's more than that. Buddhism proposes the idea, and I've come to see its wisdom more and more over the years, that ALL views -- liberal, conservative, fascist, revolutionary, those that free the soul and those that imprison it -- are fleeting. They arise and pass away. They are utilitarian -- we use them as crutches until one day we discover that the views themselves are holding us back, tying us down. Then we can finally let them go and be, as Jesus urged us, like the lilies of the field or the birds in the sky (in the most Buddhist of Jesus's teachings):


James- your thought echos that of Karlfried Graf Durckhiem who book, Zen and Us, is sitting beside me at the moment.

A relevant passage that includes a poem regarding The Experience of Being and Dualism.

Stubbornly to seek the truth's deepest meaning
Is to wear yourself out in idle cogitation.
Put your thinking to silence----
That is what matters!
Do not linger in thought
Upon antitheses;
To chase after and seek them---
Beware of so doing!
For one breath of antithesis
Hands your spirit over to confusion.

-From the Shin Jin Mei (Seal of Belief) by the Third Patriarch, Soan

Zen is the doctrine of Being transcending all antitheses, Being in which there is no before and after, no here and there, no this and that, no Peter or Paul. This is the problem Zen sets the thinker- particularly the Westerner, who naturally thinks in antithesis, and the Christian, who naturally feels that he cannot survive without dualism. A Christian priest once said to me, "You can write what you like- as long as you keep dualism." Why did he say that? Because, for him, dropping dualism meant accepting "monism," and that ultimately meant denying the distance between human beings and God, fusing the two- and seriously shaking one of the main pillars of Christian belief. But is this really what it means? It is- if we take the unity of nonobjective experience, reinterpret it in objective terms, and equate it with identity. If we do this, we are turning non-dualism into an objective "one", in which all human beings are one- and in which God and mankind are also one. This "one" is perceived as "something", in which all distinctions are resolved and everything becomes identical- certainly a blasphemous notion when applied to the man/God relationship.

If we go on and attribute this blasphemy to Zen, we are missing Zen's decisive message, and will continue to miss it until we can break the hold of objective consciousness. The experience of Being is the experience of opposites that coincide. The objective, dualistic view of reality that objective consciousness gives us is an illusion, and when it falls away, Being reveals itself to us as fullness, order, and unity transcending all antithesis.

I think the hardest thing for any of us to grasp is that our thoughts are not possessions- are not concrete- and properly speaking- don't need defending. But we do. We fight tooth and nail for them. We'll even die for them.

The only reason I can see why we would do this is because we have forgotten how to love. That, to me, is the great message of both Christ and the Buddha. Ya gotta love. All else is some 'thing'.

[dewdrop_world]

Thanks, Daniel.

I was thinking about this some more and suddenly remembered that the idea identified in Buddhism as the number one source of trouble is the idea that I exist separately, disconnected from, other people and other beings... which, of course, loops around to where I started posting in this thread. What if, at bottom, they are not so different from me?

Regardless of what I think about whose way of thinking is better or worse, for me it's more important to look at, and heal, the disconnection.

James

[Emproph]

I was thinking about this some more and suddenly remembered that the idea identified in Buddhism as the number one source of trouble is the idea that I exist separately, disconnected from, other people and other beings...which, of course, loops around to where I started posting in this thread. What if, at bottom, they are not so different from me?

Regardless of what I think about whose way of thinking is better or worse, for me it's more important to look at, and heal, the disconnection.

James, you totally get everything that I mean. Many if not most of us around here do. Ultimately it comes down to the need to recognize that unconditional love is superior to conditional/human love because without unconditional love, not even the idea (read:Creation) of conditional-human-love could exist.

You are already practicing what I'm saying, I'm just trying to explain it. But your post there says it all, replete with abounding innocence.

It's not my intent to engender any sense of superiority, but in fact to point out that it is precisely the capacity for humility that is superior – just that we shouldn't be afraid to think of it in those terms. The superiority itself is BASED on the absense of one's ego, one's sense of separateness, etc.

the number one source of trouble is the idea that I exist separately, disconnected from, other people and other beings...
That's pretty much oneness in a nutshell.

Regardless of what I think about whose way of thinking is better or worse, for me it's more important to look at, and heal, the disconnection.
And that's pretty much humility in a nutshell.


So in a nutshell, Bravo :applause: