hate speech or not hate speech: that is the question

[Simon]

Hello friends,

I have recently observed an action done by Soulforce in Colorado Springs, CO, right here (http://www.soulforce.org/article/1257).

Now, I am not going to discuss the character of Dobson and Focus on the Family, nor I am here to debate the naturality of homosexuality. However, there were some comments made by those activists, which got me interested. For example, a man named Chris started a vigil by quoting Abraham Hassel. "A word has a power. What starts with a word, ends up with a deed." Following that, other people quoted another verses Dobson, and subsequently presented abuses and even murders of homosexuals. Were they trying to promote an idea that when somebody criticizes anything related to homosexuality, that person is being responsible for any alleged assaults on GLBT people?

Also, a pretty lesbian lady with a blonde hair from the video, had mentioned about changing laws and connecting their movement with the anti-segregation movement in the South, where eventually laws were changed. What was she, Chris, and others, advocating? Could it be possible that Soulforce was asking for censoring hate speech? If not, why would she bring this subject up about "changing laws?" She didn't state specifically what she meant, but the curiosity of her message, got the best of me, just like with the whole vigil. FYI, in Europe and even in Canada, there are laws against hate speech, where people making public statements regarding the criticism of homosexuality, were punished:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/persecution/pch0080.html
Isn't there any similarity?

Also, I was wondering if Soulforce is fighting for different kind of freedom, not the one that we are used to? I am asking this question to the Soulforce leaders: are you pushing for the freedom for living in the world, free of expressions that hurt your feelings? Is this kind of freedom ever possible? I highly doubt, because we as simple humans cannot change people's hearts (We are not God). Plus, not all people in the gay community get the same reactions and have the same political views. Wouldn't Andrew Sullivan and Tammy Bruce have rather different opinions, regarding some subjects, like what it is a discrimination, for instance? I looked at their sites, and they sounded different from Soulforce's general ideology.

Also, what is considered a hate speech and whether it could cause people to hurt their feelings is a very relative subject. Some people might feel hurt by what conservatives say, just like some might feel hurt and scared by what Soulforce says, while some other people, might not feel being hated, at all. Wouldn't you agree?

Simon

[Dash]

Hi Simon,

I'm in the middle of a lovely French movie--"A Very Long Engagement", and since I'm in a hurry to get back to Audrey Tautou and Gaspard Ulliel, I can't address everything in your post. But just a quick reminder regarding something I'm sure you are familiar with yourself...

The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads:
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.

In order to accomplish a change in "speech laws" Soulforce would have to convince the people of this country to change the constitution--and that is a near impossible task. In regard to freedom of speech, which is sacred in our nation--and precious to us as advocates of the truth--it is fair to say that it will never never never never never happen.

Never.

So, no. No one here, no one anywhere so far as I know is trying to make any change to free speech rights. Even if they were, it wouldn't succeed. We'd fight any such attempt ourselves.

But we do enjoy using our free speech rights to counter misinformation about us, and our lives.

That's all for now. Back to my sad French lovers.

Au revoir, mon ami!

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Can our friends on the vocal and political religious right possibly suggest that hate-crimes against LGBT people don't occur? Frankly, I think most of the LGBT people on this discussion board could site personal experiences of violence inflicted by fag-bashers.

The right wing likes to claim that Matthew Shepard was not really the victim of a hate-crime, they claim it was just a run-of-the-mill drug deal gone bad. I don't believe that, but what if it was true? Would it mean that the hate crimes and threats of hate crimes that many of us have personally experienced aren't real? I don't think so.

I am hard-pressed to think of any institution in our society outside of the right-wing of the Christian Church that teaches the inferiority of LGBT persons, that presses for legal discrimination against us, and suggests that God demands our deaths (Leviticus) and intends that we burn in hell.

Dobson tells inflammatory lies about LGBT people--for instance suggesting that gay men are likely to molest boys, or even that our movement has an "agenda" that includes molesting boys. It is not out of line in my opinion to suggest that their could be a connection between this kind of false "hate speech" and the hateful assaults of "gay-bashers."

Asking Dobson to stop his lies against LGBT persons is not the same as making such lies illegal. As Dash pointed out, under the US constitution we all (including Dobson) enjoy the greatest degree of free expression of any nation on earth. Fear-mongering by the right wing that their speech rights will be taken away like they allege has happened in Canada and Europe is just that---fear mongering. This is the country where Nazi's are free to march down the streets of Jewish neighborhoods and offend the holocaust survivors who live there. Fred Phelps will always be free to preach that "God hates Fags." The ACLU that the right wing hates will defend their right to hate in every court in the land, and they'll win their cases, too.

Yes, LGBT persons are concerned about laws. We'd like existing laws that protect other disfavored minorities from employment discrimination to be extended to LGBT persons. We'd like laws that support and protect the families of heterosexual persons to protect our families as well. There is nothing "special" about the rights we'd like to have protected as equal citizens under the law. Dobson clearly has a problem with that and has organized political committees in 38 states to fight legal advances by LGBT persons seeking equality.

I'm no "leader" of Soulforce, but my understanding of what Soulforce wants from Dobson is a change of heart and mind. We don't want to coerce a change from him. We want him to enter into real dialogue with us that would lead to willing reconciliation on both sides.

Steven Webster

[Simon]

I personally believe that the primary reason for the violent hate crime against homosexuals is unloving ignorance and disrespect for human worth of all people, not necessarily the conservative Christian teachings rejecting homosexual sex. Actually, the evidence speaks for itself: there are organizations such as Bridges Across the Divide (www.bridges-across.org), Gay Christian Network (www.gaychristian.net), and theMarin Foundation (www.themarinfoundation.org), where people of opposing views are coexisting in a friendly loving harmonious community. Nobody seems to even think that any other side is spouting "hate speech." However, the activists from Soulforce's Focus on the Facts in the video, seemed to think otherwise, unless I'm mistaken.

The subject of Hate Crime bill was adressed on other threads, and it was shown that its intention is not to eliminate free speech. However, I don't want this bill to be the subject of this thread. I'd rather focus on hate speech. What is it? It seems to me that hate speech is something that people perceive. As we can see, the Soulforce activists perceive the writings of Dobson as a hate speech literature, and they are using their freedom of speech to express what they think about it. Likewise, the book of Mel White "Relgion gone bad," could be also be perceived as hate literature by a large number of Christians, due to him making connections between Christianity and Nazism. But because, we have a freedom of speech in our country, I support the rights of both James Dobson and Mel White to express what they believe. I also support the right of people who disagree with these men to critique them.

[dewdrop_world]

First, the right to free speech has never been absolute, even in this country. Various kinds of speech have been found, in courts, to be detrimental to public order ("fire" in a crowded space, though cliched, is the most obvious). Libel and slander are regulated and can result in criminal charges.

Considering that there is (correct) legal precedent to restrict some forms of speech, the question is whether some forms of anti-gay speech are deleterious enough to be outlawed. The opinion from Simon seems to be that anti gay speech does not amount to more than polite, civil criticism of homosexuality -- if this is not, in fact, the argument, why would the suspicion of censorship enter the picture?

Let's leave aside speech that obviously has a violent intent. I think it's fairly obvious that society doesn't benefit much from people yelling "I'm going to kill you, f@990t" (particularly if those people "exercising their right to free speech" are chasing someone down the street wielding tire irons).

In the context of that protest, it's an absolutely critical question whether Dobson's speech qualifies as "polite, civil criticism of homosexuality," and as such, it's disingenuous to question Soulforce's motives while refusing to discuss what Dobson actually does. It never ceases to amaze me that such high level of systematic intellectual dishonesty can come from a man who professes the highest Christian moral standards. Should his speech be banned? I don't think so; he has a right to his opinion. Should his "work" on homosexuality be discredited? Since he passes himself off as an expert in the field, and since the "studies" he relies on have methodological flaws that would be unacceptable even in an undergraduate research psychology class, yes, people should be alerted to his charlatanism at every opportunity.

I also don't appreciate the trivialization of painful experience with the glib phrase "hurt your feelings." On this board you will find some of the best adjusted and strongest gays and lesbians you could possibly meet. By and large, we on this board are very fortunate to have found our way to integrity of character and strength of spirit. But so many lose the fight. By now, there is no doubt that gay and lesbian teens in hostile environments are more likely to commit suicide than their peers who are not gay. Do I detect a whiff of the suggestion that those who take their lives in this way are merely the victims of "hurt feelings"? I could be mistaken about that. In any case, I've heard this suggestion before from people who were trying to be serious, and it never gets any less repugnant.

James

[tdogg]

Were they trying to promote an idea that when somebody criticizes anything related to homosexuality, that person is being responsible for any alleged assaults on GLBT people?

What was she, Chris, and others, advocating?

Also, I was wondering if Soulforce is fighting for different kind of freedom, not the one that we are used to?


Hi Simon

The objectives, purpose, methodology, mission, etc. of the Soulforce Equality Ride has been discussed at length on various threads throughout the forum. You should be able to pretty much answer your questions if you read through them. I also recommend checking out the Equality Ride website - I don't have the website address off hand, but you can get to it from the home page of Soulforce.org, I believe.

That should give you a pretty good idea of what the ER was/is all about.

[Simon]

First, the right to free speech has never been absolute, even in this country. Various kinds of speech have been found, in courts, to be detrimental to public order ("fire" in a crowded space, though cliched, is the most obvious). Libel and slander are regulated and can result in criminal charges.

Considering that there is (correct) legal precedent to restrict some forms of speech, the question is whether some forms of anti-gay speech are deleterious enough to be outlawed. The opinion from Simon seems to be that anti gay speech does not amount to more than polite, civil criticism of homosexuality -- if this is not, in fact, the argument, why would the suspicion of censorship enter the picture?

Like I said, the words stated by a man named Chris in the video,where he quote Abraham Hassle who said that speech follows deeds, as well as subsequent comments by other people, kind of make me think that those folks don't really like having opinions expressed that they don't agree with. I had a feeling that they wished that those opinions wouldn't exist. I can't fully explain it, you have to really watch the video. I can't describe every single detail from it on the board. But, it's confusing for me to fully understand what are they saying, over there.


I also don't appreciate the trivialization of painful experience with the glib phrase "hurt your feelings." On this board you will find some of the best adjusted and strongest gays and lesbians you could possibly meet. By and large, we on this board are very fortunate to have found our way to integrity of character and strength of spirit. But so many lose the fight. By now, there is no doubt that gay and lesbian teens in hostile environments are more likely to commit suicide than their peers who are not gay. Do I detect a whiff of the suggestion that those who take their lives in this way are merely the victims of "hurt feelings"? I could be mistaken about that. In any case, I've heard this suggestion before from people who were trying to be serious, and it never gets any less repugnant.

James

I apologize for sounding too simplistic, so I'd like to expound on this subject. I wanted to know whether Soulforce activists are trying to create a society, free of poisonous atmosphere, which intimidates people and causes them to live in fear. I wanted to know, whether Soulforce activists want to create a society, free of some people hating them for who they are. I think you and I would agree that when we know that somebody hates us for whatever reasons, it would definitely hurt our feelings. Hate is powerful, nonetheless.

Anyway, I appreciate your comments as well as the comments from others. It was really interesting to hear what you all said.

Thanks.

[Dash]

I personally believe that the primary reason for the violent hate crime against homosexuals is unloving ignorance and disrespect for human worth of all people, not necessarily the conservative Christian teachings rejecting homosexual sex. Actually, the evidence speaks for itself: there are organizations such as Bridges Across the Divide (www.bridges-across.org), Gay Christian Network (www.gaychristian.net), and theMarin Foundation (www.themarinfoundation.org), where people of opposing views are coexisting in a friendly loving harmonious community. Nobody seems to even think that any other side is spouting "hate speech." However, the activists from Soulforce's Focus on the Facts in the video, seemed to think otherwise, unless I'm mistaken.

The subject of Hate Crime bill was adressed on other threads, and it was shown that its intention is not to eliminate free speech. However, I don't want this bill to be the subject of this thread. I'd rather focus on hate speech. What is it? It seems to me that hate speech is something that people perceive. As we can see, the Soulforce activists perceive the writings of Dobson as a hate speech literature, and they are using their freedom of speech to express what they think about it. Likewise, the book of Mel White "Relgion gone bad," could be also be perceived as hate literature by a large number of Christians, due to him making connections between Christianity and Nazism. But because, we have a freedom of speech in our country, I support the rights of both James Dobson and Mel White to express what they believe. I also support the right of people who disagree with these men to critique them.

I want to thank you for the links to the three organizations. I was not aware that they existed, and a brief review of them leaves me with a very positive opinion.

In examining the sites, I did a quick search on any references to James Dobson. What I found was quite revealing. You may view the results yourself:

Dobson at Bridges Across the Divide (http://www.google.com/search?q=site:bridges-across.org+dobson&hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1T4GGIH_enUS212US212&filter=0)

Dobson at GayChristian.net (http://www.google.com/search?q=site:gaychristian.net+dobson&hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1T4GGIH_enUS212US212&filter=0)

Dobson at TheMarinFoundation.org (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGIH_enUS212US212&q=site%3athemarinfoundation%2eorg+dobson)

There are some 9 webpages that mention James Dobson at Bridges Across the Divide...about 40 at GayChristian.net...and zero at the Marin Foundation website.

First of all, this tells me nothing of the Marin Foundation's views on Dobson, since all of their content is in the form of seminar/classes and not web-delivered information.

Of the other two, there was one positive reference to Dobson's ministry. It was on the GayChristian.net forums...and it was in regard to a book that had nothing to do with homosexuality. All of the other mentionings of Dobson that I saw discussed his position on homosexuality in terms of its negative or divisive effect on society and within Christianity.

There was no harmonious acceptance of Dobson's rhetoric about gay people and their sexuality.

Dobson's position and ministry--even in these websites that focus on building harmony between opposing viewpoints--is seen as in a class all his own...well...I should say, in a class with Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and James Kennedy. I did not see anyone who identified positively with their positions in any way.

So, I have to ask you...are you being fair in your characterization of Soulforce as being outside of those seeking "a friendly loving harmonious community"?

You must understand that part of Soulforce's mission is about being reconciled specifically with ministries like these, while shining the light of truth on the damaging untruths that they preach. The inspiration comes from Gandhi's work in India and Martin Luther King Jr.'s work in America. Soulforce seeks harmony, but it also seeks an end to the untruth and the injustice that is perpetuated by falsehoods being spread against gay and lesbian people.

Let's look at what you are trying to compare...

Soulforce's Mission Statement:
"The purpose of Soulforce is freedom for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people from religious and political oppression through the practice of relentless nonviolent resistance."

Bridges Across the Divide's Mission Statement:
Bridges-Across is a cyberspace initiative providing models and resources for building respectful relationships among those who disagree about moral issues surrounding homosexuality, bisexuality and gender variance.

from GayChristian.net's "Who We Are" page:
The Gay Christian Network is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization providing resources and support to Christians who happen to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or trangender. We also work with churches and other Christian organizations to help educate the Christian community about sexual orientation issues from a Biblical standpoint.

from The Marin Foundation's "About Us" page:
We are the very first organization of its kind in the United States that brings together the religious and GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender) communities in a non-threatening, research and biblically oriented fashion promoting the strength and growth of spirituality.


1) Foster spiritual/religious and theological growth within the GLBT community

2) Disseminate our curriculum and scientific research to the mainstream population through academic journals, periodicals and news media

3) Level the current disconnect between the GLBT and religious (both the Progressive and Fundamental) communities by working with both

I think as you can probably easily see, you have been comparing organizations that are actually very different in nature and purpose. Since Soulforce cannot be everything, I am glad these other organizations exist. I am particularly grateful to Soulforce because it has led me to Gandhi and the study of nonviolence. I also like it because it embraces all faiths or none. (Yeah, we end up talking a lot about Christian things here, but that's mostly because the most vocal anti-gay organizations identify as Christian in the United States.)

Okay...I'm gonna stop for awhile now...go to bed probly'.

Best,
Dash

[Alecto]

From what I understand, Soulforce would be very happy to live in such a society, but their methods of doing such aren't legislation but honest and open dialogue. I don't think anyone's advocating laws that say "I hate..." should be illegal. Then again, I full well admit, you did ask for a voice from SF leadership, and I am just another from the peanut gallery.

[antonyh]

I did some research on Hate Crimes and found an interesting article by the American Psychological Association that sheds light on this discussion.

http://www.apa.org/releases/hate.html


Who commits hate crimes?

Many people perceive hate crime perpetrators as crazed, hate-filled neo-Nazis or "skinheads". But research by Dr. Edward Dunbar, a clinical psychologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, reveals that of 1,459 hate crimes committed in the Los Angeles area in the period 1994 to 1995, fewer than 5% of the offenders were members of organized hate groups.

Most hate crimes are carried out by otherwise law-abiding young people who see little wrong with their actions. Alcohol and drugs sometimes help fuel these crimes, but the main determinant appears to be personal prejudice, a situation that colors people's judgment, blinding the aggressors to the immorality of what they are doing. Such prejudice is most likely rooted in an environment that disdains someone who is "different" or sees that difference as threatening. One expression of this prejudice is the perception that society sanctions attacks on certain groups. For example, Dr. Karen Franklin, a forensic psychology fellow at the Washington Institute for Mental Illness Research and Training, has found that, in some settings, offenders perceive that they have societal permission to engage in violence against homosexuals.


Soulforce is correct in linking "hate speech" with "hate crimes". Hate speech creates the environment for hate crime. This is an official position of the American Psychological Association.

What percentage of hate speech against LGBT people originates with the Religious Right?

Is it 50%, 75% or more?

[tdogg]

"Nicolosi describes gay partnerships as bedeviled by cheating, teasing, fights, jealousy, rage, suspicion, envy, restlessness, and disappointment. Nicolosi writes, ‘Homosexual relationships are so characteristically volatile because the homosexual hates what he loves.’ " - Joseph Nicolosi, head of NARTH and one of the religious right's top two ex-gay psychiatrists in the country,

And we know that NONE of this exists in a heterosexual relationship...:lol:

(Had to get my laugh in...)

Wow, Antony, awesome research job. Just shocking to - anyone reading this that still can say we don't need this hate crimes bill????? :eek: Downright terrifying to me!

[Emproph]

"Nicolosi describes gay partnerships as bedeviled by cheating, teasing, fights, jealousy, rage, suspicion, envy, restlessness, and disappointment. Nicolosi writes, ‘Homosexual relationships are so characteristically volatile because the homosexual hates what he loves.’ " - Joseph Nicolosi, head of NARTH and one of the religious right's top two ex-gay psychiatrists in the country,

And we know that NONE of this exists in a heterosexual relationship...:lol:

(Had to get my laugh in...)

Wow, Antony, awesome research job. Just shocking to - anyone reading this that still can say we don't need this hate crimes bill????? :eek: Downright terrifying to me!
You forgot the hyperlinks...:rofl:

"Nicolosi (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1132321812273913194)" describes..."Nicolosi (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DOCeenjAio&mode=related&search=)" writes..."Joseph Nicolosi (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOAOZCCRFr8)," head of NARTH...

[Emproph]

And for the rest of my non-violent cohorts, you’re damn lucky you all got here before I did..

Anyway, Simon. The booklet mentioned in the video is right here on the site (http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/false_focus.pdf). A lot of the resources are readily available from the home page.

Those who delivered that booklet to the Focus on the Family headquarters were arrested for trespassing.


Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us

-809226073899638175

My own personal favorite:

Marriage Under Fire page 68:
“In twenty seven years I have never said anything hateful about homosexuals on our broadcast, and I do not condone violence or disrespect for anyone.”

It makes particular sense when you realize that the number of hateful things he’s ever said about homosexuals coincides almost perfectly with the number of alleged sex partners I’ve ever had:

Marriage Under Fire page 54:
“[H]omosexuals...often having as many as three hundred or more partners in a lifetime...typically more than one thousand”

If intentionally lying about me in order to inspire hatred for me in the name of love itself is not hate-speech, I don't know what is.

[Simon]

So, Emproph, are you saying that all homosexuals are in a committed monagomous relationship, and if anybody presents an empirical study, like Jones and Yarhouse, which states otherwise, that is an intentional lie?

Also it should be noted that just like the book of James Dobson could be perceived as hate speech so coulde be the book of Mel White. Hmmm...in it he calls Christians who believe in biblical inerrancy as idolaters, and even compares some of them to Nazis. That's pretty strong language, out there.

I don't understand Dr. White at all. He is upset by the language of Dobson, I remember he led a campaign to Focus on the Family 2 years ago, but at the same time, he himself uses strong rhetoric in Religion Gone Bad. That's a conundrum. Does he ever think that his book might inspire hatred toward regular Christian people, who just want to live their life and be left alone by secularists? I wonder.

As for communism: I don't agree that all gay people are embracing an extremely left wing ideology. For example, Tammy Bruce is very conservative to an extent that speaks against numerous aspects of gay rights activism. However, based on what I see happening in Canada, please, see the link in my OP, involving their gay rights activism, I'd call that particular situation communsim.

[simpleman]

Simon,

I believe you are doing a good job of handling this dialogue. I was going to weigh in with thoughts on free speech vs. hate speech vs. hurting-feelings speech, but you seem to have it under control. You've made some really good points.

[tdogg]

So, Emproph, are you saying that all homosexuals are in a committed monagomous relationship

So Simon, are you saying that all heterosexuals are in a committed monagomous relationship? Cause that ain't the case! Whether or not all homosexuals are in a committed monagomous relationship is not relevant here, even and especially given this particular discussion on hate crimes and free speech.

I just don't get the same feeling from reading remarks made by Dobson, Falwell, Robertson and the like, and from those made by Mel. Sorry, but I don't see the likeness there at all. Hey, maybe it's because I'm a lesbian...but then (scratching my head) I'm a Christian too. :confused:

Patrick to the rescue!!! Where have you been??!! Thanks for adding the links buddy!! ;) :rainbow:

[Simon]

So Simon, are you saying that all heterosexuals are in a committed monagomous relationship? Cause that ain't the case! Whether or not all homosexuals are in a committed monagomous relationship is not relevant here, even and especially given this particular discussion on hate crimes and free speech.

Of course, not. There is a level of infidelity in heterosexual relationships, just like in homosexual relationships.

That being said, we can go back to the subject of the thread.

[Emproph]

The Biblical belief in the sin of homosexuality is a death threat:

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

[tdogg]

Of course, not. There is a level of infidelity in heterosexual relationships, just like in homosexual relationship.

That being said, we can go back to the subject of the thread.

...Just responding to a point you felt relevant enough to the conversation to make in your post above. ;) When you think about it, it isn't relevant at all is it?

Stay cool in this sunshine! :cool:

[u-dog]

So, Emproph, are you saying that all homosexuals are in a committed monagomous relationship, and if anybody presents an empirical study, like Jones and Yarhouse, which states otherwise, that is an intentional lie?

OK, Simon What empirical study by Jones and Yarhouse? Their grasp on scientific method is famously tenuous at best but if you post a link we can take a look. Dobson uses science and psuedo-science alike and misrepresents its conclusions and significance ALL THE TIME. If a person lies and uses science to lie, then he is, de facto, A LIAR. thats the definition of "Liar"

Also it should be noted that just like the book of James Dobson could be perceived as hate speech so coulde be the book of Mel White. Hmmm...in it he calls Christians who believe in biblical inerrancy as idolaters, and even compares some of them to Nazis. That's pretty strong language, out there.

Mel believes, as I do, that to use the Bible as the "inerrantists" do IS Idolotrous. That is a legitimate opinion... a theological opinion... If someone, in fact, engages in idolotry, then they ARE an idolator. It's not hate speech. If he went on to say that All Christian Idolators should be burned at the stake. That would be hate speech. If he implied that all Christian Idolators were bed-wetters and should be excluded from public accomodations. That would be hate speech.

I don't understand Dr. White at all. He is upset by the language of Dobson, I remember he led a campaign to Focus on the Family 2 years ago, but at the same time, he himself uses strong rhetoric in Religion Gone Bad. That's a conundrum. Does he ever think that his book might inspire hatred toward regular Christian people, who just want to live their life and be left alone by secularists? I wonder.

Simon, this is just silly. Mel is proposing that a cadre of Right Wing Christian leaders have an ideology and a methodology which is counter to the values of American Democracy and that those leaders pose a threat to the future of our Republic. I'm just in the middle of the book at this moment, but I can't see how anyone could argue that Mel is inciting people to Hate even these leaders much less ordinary Christians.

[Dash]

So, Emproph, are you saying that all homosexuals are in a committed monagomous relationship, and if anybody presents an empirical study, like Jones and Yarhouse, which states otherwise, that is an intentional lie?


Hey! :smurf: Droppin' names like that isn't really helpful without some references, links...sompin'. Your readers (us) might not be familiar with the literature and may need some help to find it.

Are you referring to:
Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church’s Moral Debate.
by Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse

There's a book review at Bridges Across the Divide:
Book Review by Jeramy Townsley (http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/tidh/jones_yarhouse.htm)

With a rebuttal by the authors:
[I]Response by Jones and Yarhouse
to the review by Jeramy Townsley (http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/tidh/jones_yarhouse_response.htm)

There's another lengthy review here:
A review by Johnny Skeptic (http://www.johnnyskeptic75.com/)
Johhny Skeptic says:It is my intention in this article to show that Jones and Yarhouse have made numerous questionable claims and assumptions that overstate and misrepresent the general results/consequences of homosexuality to homosexuals and to society. Incredibly, in chapter 2, I show that using the authors’ OWN general statistics, the statistics do not apply to tens of millions of homosexuals, and in some cases the statistics do not apply to well over 100 million homosexuals.

See also:
Review by Dr. Ralph Blair at Evangelicals Concerned (http://www.ecinc.org/Reviews/rvspring_2001.htm)

Anyway...lot more than even I'm prepared to absorb at the moment. But, if you have specific quotes from the literature, to help us understand where you are coming from, please try to provide them.

[nmwolfboy]

Were they trying to promote an idea that when somebody criticizes anything related to homosexuality, that person is being responsible for any alleged assaults on GLBT people?


No, i don't think so. However, not having been at the rally, and also knowing neither of the individuals you reference, it's impossible for me to draw conclusions about their unspoken intentions.

i do see a difference between speech that seeks to criticize and speech that falsely maligns or incites to violence. That does not mean that i support passage of laws to restrict speech. Rather, i'd prefer to see an educated, civil society which has no hesitation in engaging with or challenging those who utilize demagoguery with a complete and utter disregard for the detrimental effects of their speech.

Is it ever in the interests of a people to enforce some limitations upon speech that clearly is made in utter disregard for the common weal? Here in America we already have done so - just try to yell "Fire!" in a theatre, or make an offhand statement about terrorism or bombs while standing in line at the airport. Our government already recognizes that some restriction on speech is acceptable.

Where does the line need to be? When a public figure who wields considerable influence knowingly twists facts and others' research to falsely malign a class of people, what response is warranted from either members of the targeted class or the rest of society? Let's suppose he or she does this routinely, and an overzealous follower decides that it's time for some vigilante moral justice. The follower goes out & commits an act of violence upon a member of the class targeted by the public figure's rhetoric. Does the public figure have any moral culpability for the actions of his/her follower?

i'm just wondering. :shifty:

Then there's offensive speech. That's completely different from hate speech, though many folks end up conflating the two. There shouldn't be any law against offensive speech, but not because of the First Amendment. It's just every person's natural right to make a complete jackass out of him/herself at some time or another. :D

Pax :dove:

scott

[antonyh]

Were they trying to promote an idea that when somebody criticizes anything related to homosexuality, that person is being responsible for any alleged assaults on GLBT people?


We are promoting the idea that hate speech creates the environment for hate crime (See APA entry above).

We're not promoting the idea that hate speech should be unconstitutional.

We are promoting the importance of opposing hate speech rigorously by the exercising of our own freedom of speech.

[Dash]

We are promoting the idea that hate speech creates the environment for hate crime (See APA entry above).

We're not promoting the idea that hate speech should be unconstitutional.

We are promoting the importance of opposing hate speech rigorously by the exercising of our own freedom of speech.

So succinct.:award: That oughta take care of it.

Questions all answered?...gentlemen?...ladies?...anyone else?

[Simon]

Hey! :smurf: Droppin' names like that isn't really helpful without some references, links...sompin'. Your readers (us) might not be familiar with the literature and may need some help to find it.

Are you referring to:
Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church’s Moral Debate.
by Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse

There's a book review at Bridges Across the Divide:
Book Review by Jeramy Townsley (http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/tidh/jones_yarhouse.htm)

With a rebuttal by the authors:
[I]Response by Jones and Yarhouse
to the review by Jeramy Townsley (http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/tidh/jones_yarhouse_response.htm)

There's another lengthy review here:
A review by Johnny Skeptic (http://www.johnnyskeptic75.com/)


See also:
Review by Dr. Ralph Blair at Evangelicals Concerned (http://www.ecinc.org/Reviews/rvspring_2001.htm)

Anyway...lot more than even I'm prepared to absorb at the moment. But, if you have specific quotes from the literature, to help us understand where you are coming from, please try to provide them.

Yes Dash,

That's the book I was referring to. Thanks for the reviews you sent me. I like the ones done by Townsley and Ralph Blair. They both sounded very respectful. Speaking of Blair, he is pretty conservative in most of his views. A friend of mine told me who knows Blair personally, that he doesn't really like Religion Gone Bad, because of interfaith advocacy. Blair is very much into the idea that faith in Jesus is the only way.

[dewdrop_world]

You know, I was thinking about this thread during the day, and wondered if it would be instructive to turn it around.

In place of Focus on the Family, let's say Planned Parenthood. In place of Soulforce, let's say Operation Rescue. In place of of the linkage between the kind of anti gay speech practiced at FOTF to violence against gays and lesbians, substitute rhetoric such as the following (which is not a quotation from an actual rally, but pretty typical of anti abortion rallies to my understanding -- my paraphrase might even be more reasonable!):

If abortion is murder, then counseling in favor of abortion is the same as inciting someone to murder. Planned Parenthood is putting the knife in the mother's hand and must be held responsible!

Many of the same questions that Simon raises about the comments at the Soulforce rally could be just as easily raised toward comments like these. Both suggest that speech can be the first step on a path that ends in an act of violence. Both propose that there is something fundamentally unjust about that form of speech. (And, in both cases, a reasoned critique is not too difficult to make.)

There are differences too. The words at the Soulforce rally threaten only the habit of certain people to lie systematically about homosexuality with impunity -- whereas, in too many cases, anti abortion speech is itself the first step on a path that ends in violence against abortion providers. So I don't wish to equate them too casually. (It would be hard for someone to witness the Soulforce rally and reach the conclusion that conservative Christian churches should be bombed.)

Still, Simon has attempted to keep his critique as neutral of content as possible, but it seems to me that most people will agree very strongly with one statement and just as strongly disagree with the other, and that the main factor determining which one you're likely to agree with is your political allegiance. Content neutrality could just as easily hide as much as it reveals.

James

[Zerbie]

I did some research on Hate Crimes and found an interesting article by the American Psychological Association that sheds light on this discussion.

http://www.apa.org/releases/hate.html



Soulforce is correct in linking "hate speech" with "hate crimes". Hate speech creates the environment for hate crime. This is an official position of the American Psychological Association.

What percentage of hate speech against LGBT people originates with the Religious Right?

Is it 50%, 75% or more?

The study Antony cites should be read and re-read. My personal observation has borne this out, and I will never forget it. A few years ago I was in a conversation with a gay-basher, who responded to my complaints with a laughing, "Oh come on, Zerbie, it was just a fag!"
I said, "HE was a HUMAN BEING!"
Whereupon he glared at me with narrowed, hateful eyes (it really scared me,) and growled: "IT! Was JUST! A FAG!"

[Daniel]

If I read the following correctly, one's mannerisms can get one killed.

One good reason why federal legislation is needed, so crimes of this sort are not only solved, but never committed in the first place.


Was Neb. Prof. Slain Because Killers Thought He Was Gay?
by The Associated Press

Posted: May 7, 2007 - 7:00 pm ET

(Chadron, Nebraska) When Steven Haataja came to this remote corner of Nebraska, where cowboy hats are still worn for work and rodeo trophies greet visitors to the local college, it was supposed to be a new beginning for the mathematician who had just earned his doctorate.

But just seven months later, in March, the man colleagues say had astounding intelligence was found burned to death in fire-scarred hills just south of the small school where he taught.

According to a source close to the investigation, Haataja was burned and bound, though it's not clear how. He died of smoke and soot inhalation, along with "thermal injuries," authorities said last month.

"When you see something like that, somebody in that kind of condition, you just hope they catch whoever did it," Mike Bloom, one of two ranchers who found the body, said in March.

Haataja, with his large frame and fedora hat, was more visible than most on Chadron's wide, Western streets for a simple reason: he didn't own a running car and walked everywhere from his downtown apartment, including to the college that's a mile away.

He disappeared from this city of 5,600 in December. Police saw no signs he planned on leaving and have acknowledged they did little to search for the professor.

"We could've searched these remote areas for days and days and days, but where do you start?" said acting Chadron Police Chief Margaret Keiper.

After months of near-silence about the case and criticism that authorities have been slow-footed to investigate, more information is supposed to be released Tuesday at a news conference.

Residents say it is long overdue. Without any answers, the intensity of the speculation over his death has "gotten crazy," said Kit Reeves, who works across the street from where the professor lived.

"Some people are freaked out," Reeves said. "Was he just randomly picked on or was there a reason?"

In the fervor, former city councilman Morgan Muller and others said they worried that Haataja was the victim of a hate crime. Kelen Kahrs said he and other students wondered whether their professor was singled out because of his effeminate mannerisms.

Haataja's best friend, Tim Sorenson, said he was not gay, and police wouldn't say whether they believe it was a hate crime.

Others suggest that Haataja, who had been hospitalized early last year for depression, committed suicide.

But it would have been difficult for Haataja, 46, to make the journey himself to the rough hills where his body was found.

He suffered a broken hip in March 2005 while ice skating and the accident made the already cautious Haataja even more careful, Sorenson said. He avoided walking on bumpy sidewalks and stepping over objects more than a couple feet high.

"This is the most mysterious thing that's ever happened here," said Con Marshall, a lifelong area resident who has worked at Chadron State College for 38 years.

Fellow professors at Chadron State said their colleague was looking to the future.

Assistant professor Phil Cary said Haataja didn't cocoon himself inside mathematical abstractions or depressive states and lock others out.

He used his dry sense of humor on co-workers, liked to chitchat about a variety of topics and sought advice on better ways to explain math to his students. Colleagues also said Haataja seemed immersed in his new job and liked to work late at night.

Shortly before he was last seen alive, Cary said Haataja asked for advice on what books to use during the spring semester.

"I know a person can hide depression, but I didn't see any of it," Cary said.

The Nebraska State Patrol recently took over the investigation. Loren Zimmerman, a former Los Angeles Police detective who taught criminal justice at Chadron State College and launched his own unofficial search for Haataja, said he is confident state agents can solve the case.

"But it's gonna take a little bit of work," Zimmerman said.

[dewdrop_world]

If I read the following correctly, one's mannerisms can get one killed.
Yes, exactly -- it wouldn't be the first time a non-gay person was harassed, beaten or killed because someone else thought he "wasn't a real man" (or she wasn't a real woman).

Is there a linkage between conservative Christianist rhetoric and the (sometimes violent) enforcement of rigid gender stereotypes? Oh, boy howdy, yes there is. Don't get me started.

James

[Zerbie]

Yes, exactly -- it wouldn't be the first time a non-gay person was harassed, beaten or killed because someone else thought he "wasn't a real man" (or she wasn't a real woman).

Is there a linkage between conservative Christianist rhetoric and the (sometimes violent) enforcement of rigid gender stereotypes? Oh, boy howdy, yes there is. Don't get me started.

James

I wish I had kept a record of where I heard these stories. I read of an incident where a young woman with a "boysish" figure (narrow hips, very small breasts) and short hair was holding hands with her boyfriend on the street when they were set upon by gay bashers beating them and screaming "fags." They stopped after she removed her shirt and exposed her breasts.

[keltic63]

I wish I had kept a record of where I heard these stories. I read of an incident where a young woman with a "boysish" figure (narrow hips, very small breasts) and short hair was holding hands with her boyfriend on the street when they were set upon by gay bashers beating them and screaming "fags." They stopped after she removed her shirt and exposed her breasts.


I've heard this story before although I can't really find it from a reliable source on the internet:


Actor and comedian Norm MacDonald (of Saturday Night Live) was attacked by two men in New York City. They thought he was a gay man because he was well-dressed, with styled hair, and lanky; he was walking through Greenwich Village, a center of the city's gay community. He suffered a concussion.


Does anyone have this report from a news source archive? I believe the year was 1996.

[sjbouza]

I am sure this list below is only a very small list. Hate speech incites hate crimes. It has been proven over history. Look at the KKK and what they did to the African Americans. I mean do you really think that none of those people died because of hate speech? What was spoken was directly related to what happened then, just as it is now. When people spread lies and half truths about any class of people it incites people to fear. Fear breeds hate and hate breeds violence. There is direct historical evidence. How can you deny that it happens or that legislation isnt needed? Yes, I do agree that crime is crime, however, when you directly commit a crime based on a bias then it raises it to a different level totally.

Why do you think it is so difficult for someone to "come out"? Because they are afraid. Afraid of all the verbal bashing and the possibility of physical violence, simply because they are different. On a more personal note, my boyfriend came out in high school. Once it got around he was cornered in bathroom after school and forced to perform oral sex on three boys. One of the boys tried to force his pants down to rape him. Luckily he got away before it happened. He reported this to the school a couple days later. They did nothing because he couldnt prove that it happened. It was never reported, by the school, to the police. It wasnt until about a month later when he told his mother and she called the police. Again, they did nothing because he waited to long to tell anyone. The school denied any knowledge of the incident. They werent concerned about what happened to him, they were more concerned about covering their own asses for not reporting it like they are mandated to.

I think that pretty much every gay person has a personal story or knows someone close to them that has been a victim of some sort of hate crime. It exists and it needs to be delt with!!!

Below is a list of people that have been victims of hate crimes committed against gay or "perceived gay" people. Read it and still tell me that it doesnt happen and that hate speech has no direct affect on why these crimes were committed. If you say there is no direct relationship, you are living in some sort of fantasy world.

Matthew Shepard
On October 6, 1998, 21-year-old college student Matthew Shepard was tied to a fence in Laramie, Wyoming, pistol-whipped, then left for dead in the freezing night. He died six days later.

Brandon Teena
(1935 bytes)Born Teena Brandon and raised as a girl, he was living as a man known as Brandon Teena in Falls City, Nebraska, when he was murdered at age 21. In December of 1993, two men who discovered his gender raped him. His attackers later shot and killed him after learning Brandon had reported the rape and was to help police in the investigation.

Danny Overstreet
On September 22, 2000, a man looking to "waste some faggots" entered a gay bar in Roanoke, Virginia and opened fire, killing Danny Overstreet, and injuring 6 others.

JR Warren
On the fourth of July, 2000, JR Warren, 26, who was black and gay, was beaten to death by three men in West Virginia, then run over by a car to make it look like a hit and run.

PFC Barry Winchell
Pfc. Barry Winchell, 21, was beaten to death by fellow servicemembers while sleeping in his cot on July 5, 1999 at Fort Campbell, Ky. His Army colleagues thought (correctly) that he was gay, so they killed him.

Billy Jack Gaither
Billy Jack Gaither, 39, of Sylacauga, Alabama was bludgeoned to death by two men on Feb. 19, 1999, then set on fire with automobile tires because he was gay.

Bill Clayton
On May 8, 1995, Bill Clayton, 17, committed suicide after having been brutally assaulted for being bisexual.

Tyra Hunter
On August 7, 1995, Tyra Hunter died after DC fire department emergency medical technicians called her epithets, backed away, and refused to render treatment on discovering that she was a transgendered woman.

For those of you who continue to steadfastly deny that anti-gay bigotry is the cause of numerous crimes worldwide, I offer this: a list of American men and women murdered in anti-gay hate crimes between 1992 and 1994. Read it, and then try to tell me that there is no need for anti-hate legislation.

(Courtesy of OUT magazine, reprinted without permission.)

ALABAMA
James Primus, 35- murdered, set on fire in his car, 21 June 1993

ARIZONA
Joseph Charles Holleran- beaten, assaulted, 24 October 1992, died May 1994
Duane Linsley- shot, 16 January 1994
Robert Haines- shot execution-style, 4 April 1994
Michael Despain, 24- burned, 6 June 1994
Thomas Frazee, 28- shot, 12 December 1994

ARKANSAS
Chris Miller, 23- stabbed and beaten, 30 July 1993
Ronnie Hugh Smith, 58- bludgeoned, found 25 February 1994

CALIFORNIA
John Garfield- shot, 30 May 1992
Cameron(Tina) Tanner- fall 1992
Mauricio Bassa- murdered, 22 May 1993
Keith Michael Ogden, 31- beaten, 7 July 1993
John Duncan O'Friel, 46- beaten, 8 July 1993
Father Ronald Maupin- multiple stab wounds, August 1993
James Graves- bludgeoned, 22 December 1993
Tony Ray- shot, 24 March 1994
Tommy Wenger, 24- multiple stab wounds, dismembered, 28 March 1994
Therman Brown, 50- gunshot wounds, 4 July 1994
Jon Simmons- gunshot to the head, 17 October 1994

COLORADO
James Holman, 36- multiple stab wounds, 13 February 1992
David Stewart- stabbed, 2 June 1992
Benjamin Zesch, 61- multiple stab wounds, 16 July 1992
*Robert Ferrell, 57- multiple stab wounds 15 September 1992
*Anthony carr, 33- stabbed, 26 December 1992
Randy Gonzales, 26- multiple stab wounds, 22 January 1993
Steven R. Heyman, 47- bludgeoned, 2 November 1993
*Bruce Hutchinson, 31- raped, bludgeoned 8 May 1994
*Poul Anderson, 54- gunshot to the head, found 23 May 1994

CONNECTICUT
James Maile, 25- bludgeoned, 10 December 1993

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Metro Area)

Sanford "Sam" Swift, 31- puncture wound to the head, 11 June 1992
Jack Cowles, 74- stabbed and bludgeoned, 21 December 1992
Kenneth Love, 42- head caved in, 21 December 1992
Ana Maria Rosales, 24- shot in the face, 7 January 1993
Alan Haskell, 30- strangled, 3 February 1993
Ricky Godbolt, 33- bound, gagged, and stabbed, 16 September 1993
Rogers Donahue, 25- bound, gagged, and stabbed, 16 September 1993
Eric Moore, 22- shot at point-blank range, body hung from a hook, 3 January 1993
Charles Logan, 47- multiple gunshot wounds, 8 January 1994
Paul McClure, 47- strangled, 5 February 1994
Frank W. White, 56- multiple gunshot wounds, 18 March 1994
*David A. Jarman, 38- strangled, 4 April 1994
Andrew Rowe, 53- multiple stab wounds, found 9 May 1994
Marvin Greenwell, 55- multiple stab wounds, found 10 May 1994
Stuart Jerome Moses, 33- multiple gunshot wounds, 17 May 1994
Shelton Thigpen, 74- strangled, found 23 June 1994

FLORIDA
James Flaherty, 52- stabbed, bludgeoned, and strangled, 14 February 1993
Michael Cooper,- multiple gunshot wounds, 11 March 1993
Craig Duncan, 20s- stabbed, March 1994
*Albert Alcie Morris, 37- bludgeoned and shot, 19 May 1994
*Walter Jammell Hinton, 43- murdered, 20 November 1994
*John Hardy Roberts, 59- murdered, 15 March 1994

GEORGIA
*Unidentified male transvestite, shot, December 1992
Elizabeth Kelle Davidson, 25- shot, 14 January 1993
Milton Bradley, 72- strangled and beaten, 5 May 1994
*Unidentified gay man- killed by serial killer Gary Ray Bowles, May 1994

ILLINOIS
Robert Harris- bludgeoned, 2 February 1993
Dennis Johnson- throat slit, 31 October 1993
Unidentified gay man, 70s- beaten, December 1993
Unidentified transvestite- multiple stab wounds, 18 December 1993
Unidentified male prostitute- multiple stab wounds, 31 December 1993
William Lemke- multiple stab wounds, 9 April 1994
Unidentified gay man- multiple stab wounds, 22 April 1994

INDIANA
Leta Dains- stabbed, 8 November 1992
Pamela Agee- stabbed, 8 November 1992
*Unidentified gay man, 22- murdered, 31 May 1993
*Unidentified gay man, 50- gunshot wound, June 1994

KANSAS
Unidentified gay man, 20s- bludgeoned, found 29 October 1994

KENTUCKY
Jack Gilman- shot in the head, 9 May 1993

LOUISIANA
Unidentified gay man, 51- beaten, 24 April 1993
Joe Balogg, 22- straight man stabbed by five men shouting antigay epithets, 12 November 1993

MARYLAND
Joey H. Jordan, 31- gunshot wound to the head, 6 July 1992
Marvin Johnson, 29- multiple stab wounds, 2 January 1994

MASSACHUSETTS
Thomas Carey, 39- gunshot wounds, 14 May 1993

MICHIGAN
Susan Pittman, 56- shot at point-blank range by neighbor, May 1992
Christine Puckett, 39- shot at point-blank range by neighbor, May 1992
Bruce Andrews, 28- multiple stab wounds, October 1992
Jeffrey Dansby- stabbed, March 1993
David Converse, 51- stabbed, 16 July 1994
Gary Rocus, 41- beaten and strangled, November 1994
MINNESOTA

Howard Liebhaber, 34- beaten and stabbed, 25 October 1992
Terry Oliver, 27- beaten and strangled, found 29 January 1993
Duane Swalve, 23- beaten and strangled, 29 April 1993
Craig Green, 34- beaten, 26 May 1993
Johnnie Williams, 48- beaten and strangled, 15 July 1994
Steven Fox, 25- bludgeoned, neck broken, 20 July 1994

MISSISSIPPI
Robert Walters, 34- gunshot wound to the head, 8 October 1994
Joseph Shoemake, 24- gunshot wound to the head, 8 October 1994
Stanley King, 24- shot, 15 December 1994

MISSOURI
William Childs, 27- beaten, stabbed, throat slit, 22 April 1993
Craig Johnson, 23- gunshot wound to the head, 27 June 1993

NEBRASKA
Brandon Teena, 21- execution-style shooting, 31 December 1993

NEVADA
William Metz- multiple stab wounds, 8 July 1994
Anton Walker, 54- bludgeoned, induced heart attack, August 1994

NEW JERSEY
James Septimphelter- strangeled, 5 March 1994
Harold Draper, 29- multiple stab wounds, 30 May 1992
*Thomas Mulcahey, 57- dismembered, 13 July 1992

NEW YORK
Julio Prado, 39- multiple stab wounds, 11 January 1992
Jesus Santiago, 24- beaten, 2 February 1992
Bernie Walsh, 28- bludgeoned and stabbed, 12 April 1992
Marsha P. Johnson (Malcom Michaels, Jr.), 46- drowned, 6 July 1992
Victor Bones, 20s- gunshot wound to the head, 27 July 1992
Vanathan Pleasant, III, 21- multiple gunshot wounds to the head, 19 July 1992
Brian Burke, 36- bludgeoned, found 25 October 1992
David Schwartz, 55- multiple stab wounds, found 9 November 1992
Salvatore Caggiano, 50s- strangled and burned, 26 December 1992
Stephan "Stephanie" Chapman, 20- gunshot wound to the head, December 1992
Lawrence Andrews, 44- strangled and stabbed, 11 March 1993
George "Joe" Ortiz, 40- multiple stab wounds, bludgeoned, 27 March 1993
Roosevelt "Terry" Lewis, 30s- strangled and burned, found 3 April 1993
Charles Lee- multiple stab wounds, 17 April 1993
*Anthony Marrero, 44- stabbed and dismembered, 16 May 1993
Milton Setzer, 60- throat slit, 29 June 1993
Eric Price, 25- throat slit, 29 June 1993
Dwight Greene, 44- bludgeoned, 8 July 1993
James Seward, 42- multiple stab wounds, 28 July 1993
*Michael Sakara, 56- dismembered, 31 July 1993
Jimmy Hawkins, 50- multiple stab wounds, found 15 August 1993
Mervin Wallace, mid 50s- strangled, found 30 September 1993
Jeannie Fenmore, 48- gunshot wound to the head, 23 December 1993
Pauline Campbell, 34- multiple stab wounds, 23 February 1994
Bernard Friedman, 56- multiple stab wounds, 20 April 1994
John Stella, 33- gunshot wounds, 1 May 1994
Javier Munsuri, 40- gunshot wound to the head, found 28 May 1994
Richard Whitesell, 32- multiple stab wounds, 13 June 1994
Martin Parian, 20s- gunshot wound to the head, 13 July 1994
Nelson Rawlins, 48- stabbed, found 30 July 1994
*Benjamin Rosario, 45- dismembered, 3 August 1994
Robert Kase, 44- 16 October 1994

NORTH CAROLINA
Carlos Stoner, 33- stabbed and beaten, 27 May 1992
Gerald Taylor, 66- multiple stab wounds, 20 July 1992
James Buchanan, 52- gunshot wound to the head, burned, 2 October 1994
Jerry Lee Dowdy, 50- bludgeoned, 2 October 1994

[On August 6, 1993, Kenneth French, a soldier from Ft. Bragg, walked into an Italian restaurant, spoke loudly about "Clinton letting faggots into the military", and opened fire with a rifle and shotgun. Peter Parrous, 73, the restaurant's owner, his wife, Ethel, 65, James F. Kidd, 46, and Wesley Scott, 26, were killed. Eight were wounded.]

OHIO
Unidentified gay man- gunshot wounds, 13 October 1992
George S.- bludgeoned, mutilated, 10 January 1993
Eric Farrow (a.k.a. Ashley-Ann Summers)- gunshot wounds, found 20 November 1993

OKLAHOMA
Unidentified gay man, shot, March 1993

OREGON
Hattie Mae Cohens, 25- smoke inhalation due to firebombing, 26 September 1992
Brian Mock, 45- smoke inhalation due to firebombing, 26 September 1992

PENNSYLVANIA
Robert Hagan- throat slashed, found 9 August 1993
Paul Steekman, 47- beaten, 3 April 1994
Robert Harris- strangled, 5 October 1994

RHODE ISLAND
Roger Oliver, 23- beaten, near-decapitation 2 May 1994

SOUTH CAROLINA
Andre Jones, 33- bludgeoned, run over by car, 23 July 1994

TENNESSEE
Unidentified gay man- bludgeoned, 21 July 1994

TEXAS
Jose Rubio- multiple stab wounds, 1 July 1992
*Leopoldo "Paul" Quintanilla, 29- multiple stab wounds, throat and genitals cut, 23 June 1993
Nicholas West, 23- multiple gunshot wounds, 30 November 1993
*Larry Leggett- multiple stab wounds, 25 January 1994
*Joe Trevino, strangled and bludgeoned, 3 March 1994
Michael Benishek- bludgeoned and throat slit, January 1994
Tommy Musick, 48- multiple gunshot wounds, Feubruary 1994
John Anthony Burwell, 26- multiple gunshot wounds, 2 April 1994
Michael Burzinski, 29- gunshot wound to the head, 30 July 1994
Larry David Allen- multiple stab wounds, 18 August 1994

UTAH
Doug Koehler, 31- gunshot wound to the head, 15 August 1993

VIRGINIA
*Unidentified gay man, 27- strangled, 28 June 1993
*Unidentified gay man, 24- strangled, 3 September 1993
Gary Watts, 34- multiple gunshot wounds, 10 June 1994
*Henry Weatherford Jr., 50- shot, 13 June 1994
*Garland LeRoy Taylor, 24- strangled, 17 September 1994
Harold Coon- beaten and stabbed, 17 December 1994

WASHINGTON
Bradley Wantdler- multiple stab wounds, 20 June 1993

WYOMING
Roger Melner, 60s- bludgeoned, fall 1994

* Murder committed or suspected to have been committed by an antigay serial killer.

_Principal_Source_: New York City Anti-Violence Project report, 1994

Additional Research: Elise Harris

[Simon]

I am sure this list below is only a very small list. Hate speech incites hate crimes. It has been proven over history. Look at the KKK and what they did to the African Americans. I mean do you really think that none of those people died because of hate speech? What was spoken was directly related to what happened then, just as it is now. When people spread lies and half truths about any class of people it incites people to fear. Fear breeds hate and hate breeds violence. There is direct historical evidence. How can you deny that it happens or that legislation isnt needed? Yes, I do agree that crime is crime, however, when you directly commit a crime based on a bias then it raises it to a different level totally.

Why do you think it is so difficult for someone to "come out"? Because they are afraid. Afraid of all the verbal bashing and the possibility of physical violence, simply because they are different. On a more personal note, my boyfriend came out in high school. Once it got around he was cornered in bathroom after school and forced to perform oral sex on three boys. One of the boys tried to force his pants down to rape him. Luckily he got away before it happened. He reported this to the school a couple days later. They did nothing because he couldnt prove that it happened. It was never reported, by the school, to the police. It wasnt until about a month later when he told his mother and she called the police. Again, they did nothing because he waited to long to tell anyone. The school denied any knowledge of the incident. They werent concerned about what happened to him, they were more concerned about covering their own asses for not reporting it like they are mandated to.

I think that pretty much every gay person has a personal story or knows someone close to them that has been a victim of some sort of hate crime. It exists and it needs to be delt with!!!

Below is a list of people that have been victims of hate crimes committed against gay or "perceived gay" people. Read it and still tell me that it doesnt happen and that hate speech has no direct affect on why these crimes were committed. If you say there is no direct relationship, you are living in some sort of fantasy world.

Matthew Shepard
On October 6, 1998, 21-year-old college student Matthew Shepard was tied to a fence in Laramie, Wyoming, pistol-whipped, then left for dead in the freezing night. He died six days later.

Brandon Teena
(1935 bytes)Born Teena Brandon and raised as a girl, he was living as a man known as Brandon Teena in Falls City, Nebraska, when he was murdered at age 21. In December of 1993, two men who discovered his gender raped him. His attackers later shot and killed him after learning Brandon had reported the rape and was to help police in the investigation.

Danny Overstreet
On September 22, 2000, a man looking to "waste some faggots" entered a gay bar in Roanoke, Virginia and opened fire, killing Danny Overstreet, and injuring 6 others.

JR Warren
On the fourth of July, 2000, JR Warren, 26, who was black and gay, was beaten to death by three men in West Virginia, then run over by a car to make it look like a hit and run.

PFC Barry Winchell
Pfc. Barry Winchell, 21, was beaten to death by fellow servicemembers while sleeping in his cot on July 5, 1999 at Fort Campbell, Ky. His Army colleagues thought (correctly) that he was gay, so they killed him.

Billy Jack Gaither
Billy Jack Gaither, 39, of Sylacauga, Alabama was bludgeoned to death by two men on Feb. 19, 1999, then set on fire with automobile tires because he was gay.

Bill Clayton
On May 8, 1995, Bill Clayton, 17, committed suicide after having been brutally assaulted for being bisexual.

Tyra Hunter
On August 7, 1995, Tyra Hunter died after DC fire department emergency medical technicians called her epithets, backed away, and refused to render treatment on discovering that she was a transgendered woman.

For those of you who continue to steadfastly deny that anti-gay bigotry is the cause of numerous crimes worldwide, I offer this: a list of American men and women murdered in anti-gay hate crimes between 1992 and 1994. Read it, and then try to tell me that there is no need for anti-hate legislation.

(Courtesy of OUT magazine, reprinted without permission.)

ALABAMA
James Primus, 35- murdered, set on fire in his car, 21 June 1993

ARIZONA
Joseph Charles Holleran- beaten, assaulted, 24 October 1992, died May 1994
Duane Linsley- shot, 16 January 1994
Robert Haines- shot execution-style, 4 April 1994
Michael Despain, 24- burned, 6 June 1994
Thomas Frazee, 28- shot, 12 December 1994

ARKANSAS
Chris Miller, 23- stabbed and beaten, 30 July 1993
Ronnie Hugh Smith, 58- bludgeoned, found 25 February 1994

CALIFORNIA
John Garfield- shot, 30 May 1992
Cameron(Tina) Tanner- fall 1992
Mauricio Bassa- murdered, 22 May 1993
Keith Michael Ogden, 31- beaten, 7 July 1993
John Duncan O'Friel, 46- beaten, 8 July 1993
Father Ronald Maupin- multiple stab wounds, August 1993
James Graves- bludgeoned, 22 December 1993
Tony Ray- shot, 24 March 1994
Tommy Wenger, 24- multiple stab wounds, dismembered, 28 March 1994
Therman Brown, 50- gunshot wounds, 4 July 1994
Jon Simmons- gunshot to the head, 17 October 1994

COLORADO
James Holman, 36- multiple stab wounds, 13 February 1992
David Stewart- stabbed, 2 June 1992
Benjamin Zesch, 61- multiple stab wounds, 16 July 1992
*Robert Ferrell, 57- multiple stab wounds 15 September 1992
*Anthony carr, 33- stabbed, 26 December 1992
Randy Gonzales, 26- multiple stab wounds, 22 January 1993
Steven R. Heyman, 47- bludgeoned, 2 November 1993
*Bruce Hutchinson, 31- raped, bludgeoned 8 May 1994
*Poul Anderson, 54- gunshot to the head, found 23 May 1994

CONNECTICUT
James Maile, 25- bludgeoned, 10 December 1993

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Metro Area)

Sanford "Sam" Swift, 31- puncture wound to the head, 11 June 1992
Jack Cowles, 74- stabbed and bludgeoned, 21 December 1992
Kenneth Love, 42- head caved in, 21 December 1992
Ana Maria Rosales, 24- shot in the face, 7 January 1993
Alan Haskell, 30- strangled, 3 February 1993
Ricky Godbolt, 33- bound, gagged, and stabbed, 16 September 1993
Rogers Donahue, 25- bound, gagged, and stabbed, 16 September 1993
Eric Moore, 22- shot at point-blank range, body hung from a hook, 3 January 1993
Charles Logan, 47- multiple gunshot wounds, 8 January 1994
Paul McClure, 47- strangled, 5 February 1994
Frank W. White, 56- multiple gunshot wounds, 18 March 1994
*David A. Jarman, 38- strangled, 4 April 1994
Andrew Rowe, 53- multiple stab wounds, found 9 May 1994
Marvin Greenwell, 55- multiple stab wounds, found 10 May 1994
Stuart Jerome Moses, 33- multiple gunshot wounds, 17 May 1994
Shelton Thigpen, 74- strangled, found 23 June 1994

FLORIDA
James Flaherty, 52- stabbed, bludgeoned, and strangled, 14 February 1993
Michael Cooper,- multiple gunshot wounds, 11 March 1993
Craig Duncan, 20s- stabbed, March 1994
*Albert Alcie Morris, 37- bludgeoned and shot, 19 May 1994
*Walter Jammell Hinton, 43- murdered, 20 November 1994
*John Hardy Roberts, 59- murdered, 15 March 1994

GEORGIA
*Unidentified male transvestite, shot, December 1992
Elizabeth Kelle Davidson, 25- shot, 14 January 1993
Milton Bradley, 72- strangled and beaten, 5 May 1994
*Unidentified gay man- killed by serial killer Gary Ray Bowles, May 1994

ILLINOIS
Robert Harris- bludgeoned, 2 February 1993
Dennis Johnson- throat slit, 31 October 1993
Unidentified gay man, 70s- beaten, December 1993
Unidentified transvestite- multiple stab wounds, 18 December 1993
Unidentified male prostitute- multiple stab wounds, 31 December 1993
William Lemke- multiple stab wounds, 9 April 1994
Unidentified gay man- multiple stab wounds, 22 April 1994

INDIANA
Leta Dains- stabbed, 8 November 1992
Pamela Agee- stabbed, 8 November 1992
*Unidentified gay man, 22- murdered, 31 May 1993
*Unidentified gay man, 50- gunshot wound, June 1994

KANSAS
Unidentified gay man, 20s- bludgeoned, found 29 October 1994

KENTUCKY
Jack Gilman- shot in the head, 9 May 1993

LOUISIANA
Unidentified gay man, 51- beaten, 24 April 1993
Joe Balogg, 22- straight man stabbed by five men shouting antigay epithets, 12 November 1993

MARYLAND
Joey H. Jordan, 31- gunshot wound to the head, 6 July 1992
Marvin Johnson, 29- multiple stab wounds, 2 January 1994

MASSACHUSETTS
Thomas Carey, 39- gunshot wounds, 14 May 1993

MICHIGAN
Susan Pittman, 56- shot at point-blank range by neighbor, May 1992
Christine Puckett, 39- shot at point-blank range by neighbor, May 1992
Bruce Andrews, 28- multiple stab wounds, October 1992
Jeffrey Dansby- stabbed, March 1993
David Converse, 51- stabbed, 16 July 1994
Gary Rocus, 41- beaten and strangled, November 1994
MINNESOTA

Howard Liebhaber, 34- beaten and stabbed, 25 October 1992
Terry Oliver, 27- beaten and strangled, found 29 January 1993
Duane Swalve, 23- beaten and strangled, 29 April 1993
Craig Green, 34- beaten, 26 May 1993
Johnnie Williams, 48- beaten and strangled, 15 July 1994
Steven Fox, 25- bludgeoned, neck broken, 20 July 1994

MISSISSIPPI
Robert Walters, 34- gunshot wound to the head, 8 October 1994
Joseph Shoemake, 24- gunshot wound to the head, 8 October 1994
Stanley King, 24- shot, 15 December 1994

MISSOURI
William Childs, 27- beaten, stabbed, throat slit, 22 April 1993
Craig Johnson, 23- gunshot wound to the head, 27 June 1993

NEBRASKA
Brandon Teena, 21- execution-style shooting, 31 December 1993

NEVADA
William Metz- multiple stab wounds, 8 July 1994
Anton Walker, 54- bludgeoned, induced heart attack, August 1994

NEW JERSEY
James Septimphelter- strangeled, 5 March 1994
Harold Draper, 29- multiple stab wounds, 30 May 1992
*Thomas Mulcahey, 57- dismembered, 13 July 1992

NEW YORK
Julio Prado, 39- multiple stab wounds, 11 January 1992
Jesus Santiago, 24- beaten, 2 February 1992
Bernie Walsh, 28- bludgeoned and stabbed, 12 April 1992
Marsha P. Johnson (Malcom Michaels, Jr.), 46- drowned, 6 July 1992
Victor Bones, 20s- gunshot wound to the head, 27 July 1992
Vanathan Pleasant, III, 21- multiple gunshot wounds to the head, 19 July 1992
Brian Burke, 36- bludgeoned, found 25 October 1992
David Schwartz, 55- multiple stab wounds, found 9 November 1992
Salvatore Caggiano, 50s- strangled and burned, 26 December 1992
Stephan "Stephanie" Chapman, 20- gunshot wound to the head, December 1992
Lawrence Andrews, 44- strangled and stabbed, 11 March 1993
George "Joe" Ortiz, 40- multiple stab wounds, bludgeoned, 27 March 1993
Roosevelt "Terry" Lewis, 30s- strangled and burned, found 3 April 1993
Charles Lee- multiple stab wounds, 17 April 1993
*Anthony Marrero, 44- stabbed and dismembered, 16 May 1993
Milton Setzer, 60- throat slit, 29 June 1993
Eric Price, 25- throat slit, 29 June 1993
Dwight Greene, 44- bludgeoned, 8 July 1993
James Seward, 42- multiple stab wounds, 28 July 1993
*Michael Sakara, 56- dismembered, 31 July 1993
Jimmy Hawkins, 50- multiple stab wounds, found 15 August 1993
Mervin Wallace, mid 50s- strangled, found 30 September 1993
Jeannie Fenmore, 48- gunshot wound to the head, 23 December 1993
Pauline Campbell, 34- multiple stab wounds, 23 February 1994
Bernard Friedman, 56- multiple stab wounds, 20 April 1994
John Stella, 33- gunshot wounds, 1 May 1994
Javier Munsuri, 40- gunshot wound to the head, found 28 May 1994
Richard Whitesell, 32- multiple stab wounds, 13 June 1994
Martin Parian, 20s- gunshot wound to the head, 13 July 1994
Nelson Rawlins, 48- stabbed, found 30 July 1994
*Benjamin Rosario, 45- dismembered, 3 August 1994
Robert Kase, 44- 16 October 1994

NORTH CAROLINA
Carlos Stoner, 33- stabbed and beaten, 27 May 1992
Gerald Taylor, 66- multiple stab wounds, 20 July 1992
James Buchanan, 52- gunshot wound to the head, burned, 2 October 1994
Jerry Lee Dowdy, 50- bludgeoned, 2 October 1994

[On August 6, 1993, Kenneth French, a soldier from Ft. Bragg, walked into an Italian restaurant, spoke loudly about "Clinton letting faggots into the military", and opened fire with a rifle and shotgun. Peter Parrous, 73, the restaurant's owner, his wife, Ethel, 65, James F. Kidd, 46, and Wesley Scott, 26, were killed. Eight were wounded.]

OHIO
Unidentified gay man- gunshot wounds, 13 October 1992
George S.- bludgeoned, mutilated, 10 January 1993
Eric Farrow (a.k.a. Ashley-Ann Summers)- gunshot wounds, found 20 November 1993

OKLAHOMA
Unidentified gay man, shot, March 1993

OREGON
Hattie Mae Cohens, 25- smoke inhalation due to firebombing, 26 September 1992
Brian Mock, 45- smoke inhalation due to firebombing, 26 September 1992

PENNSYLVANIA
Robert Hagan- throat slashed, found 9 August 1993
Paul Steekman, 47- beaten, 3 April 1994
Robert Harris- strangled, 5 October 1994

RHODE ISLAND
Roger Oliver, 23- beaten, near-decapitation 2 May 1994

SOUTH CAROLINA
Andre Jones, 33- bludgeoned, run over by car, 23 July 1994

TENNESSEE
Unidentified gay man- bludgeoned, 21 July 1994

TEXAS
Jose Rubio- multiple stab wounds, 1 July 1992
*Leopoldo "Paul" Quintanilla, 29- multiple stab wounds, throat and genitals cut, 23 June 1993
Nicholas West, 23- multiple gunshot wounds, 30 November 1993
*Larry Leggett- multiple stab wounds, 25 January 1994
*Joe Trevino, strangled and bludgeoned, 3 March 1994
Michael Benishek- bludgeoned and throat slit, January 1994
Tommy Musick, 48- multiple gunshot wounds, Feubruary 1994
John Anthony Burwell, 26- multiple gunshot wounds, 2 April 1994
Michael Burzinski, 29- gunshot wound to the head, 30 July 1994
Larry David Allen- multiple stab wounds, 18 August 1994

UTAH
Doug Koehler, 31- gunshot wound to the head, 15 August 1993

VIRGINIA
*Unidentified gay man, 27- strangled, 28 June 1993
*Unidentified gay man, 24- strangled, 3 September 1993
Gary Watts, 34- multiple gunshot wounds, 10 June 1994
*Henry Weatherford Jr., 50- shot, 13 June 1994
*Garland LeRoy Taylor, 24- strangled, 17 September 1994
Harold Coon- beaten and stabbed, 17 December 1994

WASHINGTON
Bradley Wantdler- multiple stab wounds, 20 June 1993

WYOMING
Roger Melner, 60s- bludgeoned, fall 1994

* Murder committed or suspected to have been committed by an antigay serial killer.

_Principal_Source_: New York City Anti-Violence Project report, 1994

Additional Research: Elise Harris

But I don't understand, why are conservative Christian people are being blamed for the existing murders and assaults on LGBT folks? How many conservative Christians that you know, have actually advocated the violence against homosexuals? As this list of murdered gay people seems senseless to me, the blaming of regular Christian Americans for it happening, who simply believe that gay sex is wrong, seems senseless to me, no less.

Simon

[Dash]

But I don't understand, why are conservative Christian people are being blamed for the existing murders and assaults on LGBT folks? How many conservative Christians that you know, have actually advocated the violence against homosexuals? As this list of murdered gay people seems senseless to me, the blaming of regular Christian Americans for it happening, who simply believe that gay sex is wrong, seems senseless to me, no less.

Simon

Simon,

I understand that it seems senseless to you. We and you have diametrically opposed presuppositions about this subject:

You do not see the causal connection between speech and actions.

We accept that there is an causal connection between speech and action.

A list of reasons given for lynching blacks between the 1880s and 1930s includes: acting suspiciously, quarreling, adultery, race hatred; race troubles, aiding murderer, rape, arguing with white man, rape-murders, arson, inciting to riot, inciting trouble, running a bordello, inflammatory language, sedition, being disreputable, slander, being obnoxious, injuring livestock, spreading disease, insulting white man, suing white man, child abuse, defending rapist, demanding respect, trying to vote, disorderly conduct, mistaken identity, unpopularity, molestation, unruly remarks, murder, enticement, non-sexual assault, extortion, violated quarantine, plotting to kill, voting for wrong party, frightening white woman.

Gay people are talked in the same kinds of ways. This is the "language of lynching" that was used to justify the lawless murder of black Americans. When anti-gay groups use rhetoric that implies we are fomenting military rebellion, undermining families, molesting little boys and girls, trying to destroy the constitution, raping their sons, spreading disease, flaunting our sexuality, and mocking god and Christ...basically doing everything we can to destroy society...it becomes a language of lynching. Some unhinged people are going turn that into violence. You won't, but trust us...many people are not as stable as you.

The way a class of people is talked about, both reflects and creates the attitude toward them. Even Jesus said, "It is what comes out of your mouth that makes you unclean."

If you speak lovingly about others, you will love them more, and those who hear you will take on a bit of your love.

[tdogg]

Simon

sjbouza isn't blaming conservative Christian for the crimes she listed in her post. However, do not be deceived - many so-called "Christian' evangelicals (rich, famous and not too compassionate by the way) are responsible for inciting and encouraging an atmosphere of 'let's hate gays'.

I have nothing against 'conservative Christians', many of my friends and family are just that. Simon, I have a handful of family (close) and friends (who I thought were close) that have:.
My aunt no longer has any contact with me, sent me a letter on my birthday last year which basically indicated I was going to hell and backing up her believe with her version of some really hateful Bible verses. And this one is good, she cannot talk to me about my being a lesbian or having a same-sex partner because she is afraid the evil spirit of homosexuality will overtake her too (??????)

A friends's last words were "may God have mercy on your soul" when I came out to her - nothing since

My stepmother who raised me from age 7 who hasn't called me in months and months and cannot even begin to fathom that I"m a lesbian and have a partner

A sister who feels I am on constant need of salvation (hence her emails of Bible message, CDs (what hell is really like), articles (why women become lesbians)

These friends and family attempt to 'take away' my faith and spirituality, have the audacity to tell me what I'm feeling, use the Bible against me, and refuse to read or listen to 'gay' stories and experiences. Guess what, in all examples they would consider themselves to be fundamental, conservative Christians (and all believe Dubya is doing a terrific job:confused: ).

There are other personal experiences of likeness throughout these forums.

[Daniel]

But I don't understand, why are conservative Christian people are being blamed for the existing murders and assaults on LGBT folks? How many conservative Christians that you know, have actually advocated the violence against homosexuals? As this list of murdered gay people seems senseless to me, the blaming of regular Christian Americans for it happening, who simply believe that gay sex is wrong, seems senseless to me, no less.


Simon- One has only to look to the effect that 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' has had. Thousand upon thousands of capable and talented people have been drummed out of the military for being gay- in veritable witchhunt fashion. And at the time when we could use translators of Arabic, well, 6 gay ones went to.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/14/attack/main529418.shtml

Why is this? Well. We only have to look at who is saying what and why.


But the problem with DADT is not just that it is based on a faulty premise. The policy does actual harm to our military performance. Although dismissals are down, the policy enforcers have conducted purges resulting in the dismissal of some whom we desperately need and cannot replace. We see the best and brightest, those in critical services - such as Arabic linguists – driven from providing the services that might well save my life or yours. As former Republican Senator from Wyoming, Alan Simpson, wrote today:

"My thinking shifted when I read that the military was firing translators because they are gay. According to the Government Accountability Office, more than 300 language experts have been fired under “don’t ask, don’t tell,” including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. This when even Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently acknowledged the nation’s “foreign language deficit” and how much our government needs Farsi and Arabic speakers. Is there a “straight” way to translate Arabic? Is there a “gay” Farsi? My God, we’d better start talking sense before it is too late. We need every able-bodied, smart patriot to help us win this war."

And why? What is the motivation that keeps these well qualified Americans from serving? What is it that is more important than the protection of our Nation?

Perhaps the answer can be found in the “personal” reasons that current Joint Chiefs Chairman, Peter Pace, gave to the Chicago Tribune:

“I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts,” Pace said in a wide-ranging discussion with Tribune editors and reporters in Chicago. “I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way. “As an individual, I would not want [acceptance of gay behavior] to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else’s wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior,” Pace said.

All that is left to justify the discrimination that our Nation waves in the face of the world, is the religious beliefs of certain leaders. Having lost the “morale” argument, all that remains is the “moral” one.

And as moral arguments go, this one is very faulty. Unlike adultery, which truly does hurt morale, the military does not prosecute fornication, a “moral failure” much more akin to homosexuality than adultery.

Pace’s comments were met with a wall of raised eyebrows and disassociation from his views from all sides of the aisle. While Democrats in general expressed their concern, John Warner, the ranking Republican of the Senate Armed Services Committee had this to say:

Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), a former Secretary of the Navy, said,

“I respectfully but strongly disagree with the chairman’s view that homosexuality is immoral. In keeping with my longstanding respect for the Armed Services committee hearing process, I will decline to comment on the current policy until after such hearings are held.”

But one voice has been raised in his support. Alan Chamber, president of Exodus International, had this to say:

"General Peter Pace’s personal beliefs about homosexual behavior as stated in an interview with the Chicago Tribune this week need no qualification or apology… General Pace’s comments were true and firmly rooted in his upbringing and faith."

Why did Chambers rush to praise Pace? I think the answer is twofold.
First, the military shares Chambers’ definition of “behavior”. They view “behavior” as including not only actions but also as identity. As Nathanial Frank points out in a Slate article:

"Indeed, the law makes clear that it is not only conduct but same-sex desire itself that is considered a danger to the armed forces. That’s why it bars “persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage” in homosexual conduct, even if they don’t do so, and why it includes a notorious “queen for a day” exception exempting from discharge those who engage in homosexual acts if the behavior is considered “a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior,” i.e., people who are straight!"

Just as ex-gay ministries do, the military punishes identity. Those who “slip” or have “a departure” are deemed acceptable. “Reformed” prostitute and porn star Matt Sanchez can serve for years without anyone “noticing”. But the celibate - or even virginal - gay person who acknowledges their orientation is a threat and “immoral”.

It takes a peculiar mindset to think this way, one that seems only present in those who seek to justify discrimination.

The second reason I think that Alan jumps to laud Pace is because Pace supports a position of anti-pay political policy. And Alan, and Exodus, has yet to see a single anti-gay policy decision that they did not endorse, champion, and lobby in favor of.

As this debate prepares to reenter the halls of Congress, there is no doubt in my mind that we can look forward to Alan testifying against overturning this indefensible policy in the months to come. But as he does, this time his championing of bigotry may fall on deaf ears.

Anti-gay bias, in the military, as well in in society at large, is firmly grounded in how the bible is used and interpreted. Christian conservatives go on and on about loving the sinner and hating the sin, but what is really acted on in the perceived sin of gay persons. In that sense, that's what a hate crime is: punishment for that person's perceived 'sin'. And how does the oppressor do it? By standing in for God, because, after all, that's what God commands, does he not?

This is madness.

Dash gets it right.

If you speak lovingly about others, you will love them more, and those who hear you will take on a bit of your love.

Christian conservatives can't get away with slapping gay persons with one hand and patting them on the head with the other- for that's what 'love the sinner and hate the sin' does. It's that simple.

Either we love or we don't.

Hating the sin is a sure cut path to a hate crime.

[Simon]

It seems strange to me that American culture has always practiced antigay bias throughout its history dating back to the 1770s, having sodomy laws etc., while the United States was not established as a Christian nation, and its Founding Fathers were not Christians, although they believed in almighty God, some supreme being, but it wasn't the God in the Bible, Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, at all. Christianity was never an official religion of our nation, yet homosexuality was always rejected.

[Emproph]

It seems strange to me that American culture has always practiced antigay bias throughout its history dating back to the 1770s, having sodomy laws etc., while the United States was not established as a Christian nation, and its Founding Fathers were not Christians, although they believed in almighty God, some supreme being, but it wasn't the God in the Bible, Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, at all. Christianity was never an official religion of our nation, yet homosexuality was always rejected.

So are you saying that because homosexuality was always rejected, you don't see how actively promoting that rejection, especially in the name of God, adds to it?

Remember, we've got the mass media of TV, radio, the web and email etc., to spread all that historic rejection around today, instantly and infinitely more so.

[Simon]

So are you saying that because homosexuality was always rejected, you don't see how actively promoting that rejection, especially in the name of God, adds to it?

While I understand that there were people who reject homosexuality, have used the name of God to justify it but not all. Also, I don't think that Christianity is the main reason for it. Another thing you must remember, that there are different degrees of rejection. Some people and organizations reject only the practice of homosexual sex, while some other reject not only homosexual sex but also having a feeling of attraction to the same gender. It's complicated. I read a book called "Legislate morality," and I read that in the history of civilization, going back to the times of King Hammurabi (1700 BC), whenever there were any kind of laws established in cultures across the world, which the rejection of homosexuality was very common, all had to do with some kind of religious influence. Back in those days, there was no such thing as a secular state, at all. The USA has been the first officially secular state as we know it, despite having strong religous growth. The first antireligious state was the USSR, but in it, the practice of homosexuality was considered a felony. So, by knowing all these historical facts, I can't say that Christianity is the main reason for the rejection of homosexuality in a society. It's must be something else, but I'm not sure what it is.

[Emproph]

While I understand that there were people who reject homosexuality, have used the name of God to justify it but not all. Also, I don't think that Christianity is the main reason for it. Another thing you must remember, that there are different degrees of rejection. Some people and organizations reject only the practice of homosexual sex, while some other reject not only homosexual sex but also having a feeling of attraction to the same gender. It's complicated. I read a book called "Legislate morality," and I read that in the history of civilization, going back to the times of King Hammurabi (1700 BC), whenever there were any kind of laws established in cultures across the world, which the rejection of homosexuality was very common, all had to do with some kind of religious influence. Back in those days, there was no such thing as a secular state, at all. The USA has been the first officially secular state as we know it, despite having strong religous growth. The first antireligious state was the USSR, but in it, the practice of homosexuality was considered a felony.
Irrelevant. That’s just a repeat of this:
...American culture has always practiced antigay bias throughout its history...homosexuality was always rejected.

To which I responded with this:
So are you saying that because homosexuality was always rejected, you don't see how actively promoting that rejection, especially in the name of God, adds to it?
But you ended your response to that with this:
So, by knowing all these historical facts, I can't say that Christianity is the main reason for the rejection of homosexuality in a society. It's must be something else, but I'm not sure what it is.You mean you’re not sure that it’s the ick factor, historically speaking?

I also clarified that I was aware of the historical "rejection" aspect and then CLARIFIED that I was speaking about the PROMOTION of that rejection.

Did you think I wouldn't notice that you ignored my question and instead attempted to JUSTIFY anti-gay sentiment by attempting to argue, again, that "It's always been that way and therefore it's ok." ?

As in, since it's always been that way -- since non-chrisitians have always hated and lied about homosexuals -- that means that it's acceptable and ethical and "Christian" for those who do the same today?

And by the way, the practice of lying and hatred is not the same as the practice of Christianity, it's the practice of unrepentant idolatry. So please don't conflate the two. I consider myself a Christian and I don't like being compared with genocidal fascist scum.

NEW QUESTION: How does the fact that "they've always lied about, hated, and persecuted "you people" justify it today?

(And please don't play semantics with me, you know exactly what I mean.)

And if you want to make the claim that it's not MAINLY "Chistians" who are doing this today, THEN BACK IT UP OR DROP IT.

And for the record, I respect people who hate me and want to have me put to death just and only because I'm "ew gross icky" infinitely more so than the spineless cowards who have to appeal to the authority of the Bible or God to justify their hatred.

[Emproph]

Simon

sjbouza isn't blaming conservative Christian for the crimes she listed in her post. However, do not be deceived - many so-called "Christian' evangelicals (rich, famous and not too compassionate by the way) are responsible for inciting and encouraging an atmosphere of 'let's hate gays'.

I have nothing against 'conservative Christians', many of my friends and family are just that. Simon, I have a handful of family (close) and friends (who I thought were close) that have:

My aunt no longer has any contact with me, sent me a letter on my birthday last year which basically indicated I was going to hell and backing up her believe with her version of some really hateful Bible verses. And this one is good, she cannot talk to me about my being a lesbian or having a same-sex partner because she is afraid the evil spirit of homosexuality will overtake her too (??????)

A friends' last words were "may God have mercy on your soul" when I came out to her - nothing since

My stepmother who raised me from age 7 who hasn't called me in months and months and cannot even begin to fathom that I"m a lesbian and have a partner

A sister who feels I am on constant need of salvation (hence her emails of Bible message, CDs (what hell is really like), articles (why women become lesbians)

These friends and family attempt to 'take away' my faith and spirituality, have the audacity to tell me what I'm feeling, use the Bible against me, and refuse to read or listen to 'gay' stories and experiences. Guess what, in all examples they would consider themselves to be fundamental, conservative Christians (and all believe Dubya is doing a terrific job:confused: ).

There are other personal experiences of likeness throughout these forums. They attempt to take away your dignity. The one unforgivable sin, it attempts to steal your soul. Not just your spirit, but the source of it.

[sjbouza]

Simon

sjbouza isn't blaming conservative Christian for the crimes she listed in her post.

tdogg,

Sorry to tell you, I am a GUY!!! :eek: I dont know where you got that I was a female?! But no I am a guy, No offense taken, I guess, I understand it was, I am sure, just a simple mistake.

Scott

Simon,

As I stated in that long post, "What was spoken was directly related to what happened then, just as it is now. When people spread lies and half truths about any class of people it incites people to fear. Fear breeds hate and hate breeds violence." When people speak negatively about others is breeds fear of those people. Look at what happened to the Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor. Just because they were Japanese they were locked up in camps and treated like "the enemy". After 9/11 Muslim Americans were attacked. Did they have anything to do with what happened on 9/11? No one knows, but they were still attacked simply because they were the same class of people that attacked us on that day.

Speech directly affects how people look at others. Dobson himself has "declared war on homosexuality". He sent out mailings with "Declaration of War" in bold red letters on the envelope. You dont declare war on someone unless you want them dead. He may not personally be doing the physical violence, but HE IS inciting others to do it with what he says. Whether he means to or not, what he says has a VERY DIRECT AFFECT on how others look at homosexuals. If he, as well as others, would speak words of love and acceptance do you think there would be as much violence towards gays? Yes, there still would be violence, we are human, but I do truthfully feel that there would be much less. When a person is in a place of "authority" such as Dobson, what he says influences people strongly!!! I know my family is a devout listener to him, and how they vote, purchase things, basically everything is dictated by what he says. They wont even shop at WalMart anymore because Dobson said "they support homosexuals".

Speech can either spread love or hate. When a person lies and tells half truths about a class of people they are not spreading love, they are spreading hate. That hate gets planted in the hearts of the listeners. Like a seed it grows and blossoms. For the greatest majority of people, it just remains there without producing fruit. But for the radical people, the ones that feel they must cleanse the earth, it produces that fruit and is manifests itself in violence towards homosexuals.

All we are asking is that the lies and mistruths stop. Agreeably, a person can say whatever they want to, it is a free country. But on the same note, a person should be allowed to live their life free from fear of death or injury. That is also a freedom that everyone in this country is guaranteed. Remember, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?!

[antonyh]

But I don't understand, why are conservative Christian people are being blamed for the existing murders and assaults on LGBT folks? How many conservative Christians that you know, have actually advocated the violence against homosexuals? As this list of murdered gay people seems senseless to me, the blaming of regular Christian Americans for it happening, who simply believe that gay sex is wrong, seems senseless to me, no less.

Simon

Here is why conservative Christian people are being blamed:

http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/hate.html

Now if I was a conservative Christian, I would be embarassed to associate or support any of these people. I would have to ask a conservative Christian, do you support these people's ministries knowing what they are saying about LGBT people and knowing the connection between hate speech and hate crime?

One of my professors at Covenant Theological Seminary lambasted conservatives for how they talk about homosexuals. You can read a transcript of his lecture here:

http://www.covenantseminary.edu/worldwide/en/CC310/CC310_T_09.html

My point is that conservatives know they have a problem in their midst that is disgracing the name of Christ and everything their faith stands for.

[tdogg]

sjbouza - SORRY!!! Not sure where I got that?? Anyways, got it now, you are a guy. Won't make that mistake again, thanks for setting me 'straight' :D

Simon, just curious - what was your initial emotion when you finished reading the list of hate crime victims that sjbouza posted? Be honest, your INITIAL emotion....

Patrick, yes, it's pretty horrible. I've had contact with my stepmom but only because my father has had some major medical stuff going on. She still won't call, come over, talk about anything to do with 'me'. And she considers herself a great Christian lady (who loves to give $$$ she doesn't have to Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson...guess I have some issues with that!)

[suzer1013]

One I didn't see mentioned in the list (unless I missed it) was the bombing of a lesbian bar (the Otherside) in Atlanta. This was apparently done by Eric Rudolph, more famous for being the Olympic Park bomber.

No one died (thank God), but five people were injured. There was also a nexus with conservative "Christian" teachings. From crimelibrary.com:

"On February 24, 1997, some news media outlets in Atlanta received letters claiming responsibility for the Otherside and Sandy Springs clinic bombings. Signed "Army of God," the writer railed against "sodomites." The writer included details about the bombs that led investigators to believe he was indeed involved in the attacks."

Also worth noting, in the Georgia section of the list of hate crimes, there are two persons who are unidentified (there are also many unidentified in other states, too). If we had hate crimes legislation, the local and federal authorities would have more resources (and perhaps more incentive) to determine who these victims were. As of yet, they are nameless. How tragic for these victims (and their families, whoever they are)!

Susan

[BrentRichards]

The other obvious observation that should be made here ... how often do you hear anyone railing against homosexuality from something OTHER than a religious perspective? I can't recall seeing "Darwinists Oppose Gays as Nonadaptive" or anything like that.

I am a conservative Christian, and always will be, but I cannot deny that my faith community has added most of the fuel to this fire. Of course, other faiths have vocal opponents as well, but since 80-90 percent of our nation self-identifies as at least nominally Christian, we have to bear the brunt of the responsibility here. Were most of those people who committed the crimes listed above serious Christians? Probably not. Were they fueled, at least in part, by religious rhetoric. Likely.

[tdogg]

The thing is, it's not the average citizen running around spewing hate about GLBT people. It is for the most part conservative, fundamental Christian leaders who those average citizens put a lot of faith in. For instance, with the hate crime bill, look who is doing the most fussing about how it's going to take away free speech rights??? The only ones I'm hearing complaining about this are those who would consider themselves conservative Christians. Most people I know are at worst ignorant about the bill itself and can't bother to take action on anything. At best they are educated about the bill (and other political matters), support it and will do actions to help get it passed.

Other than what has been discussed on these forums, and what I've heard from conservative Christian folk, I haven't heard anything against this bill. Not making large assumptions here, just stating my personal experience and first hand knowledge.

[Simon]

sjbouza - SORRY!!! Not sure where I got that?? Anyways, got it now, you are a guy. Won't make that mistake again, thanks for setting me 'straight' :D

Simon, just curious - what was your initial emotion when you finished reading the list of hate crime victims that sjbouza posted? Be honest, your INITIAL emotion....

Patrick, yes, it's pretty horrible. I've had contact with my stepmom but only because my father has had some major medical stuff going on. She still won't call, come over, talk about anything to do with 'me'. And she considers herself a great Christian lady (who loves to give $$$ she doesn't have to Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson...guess I have some issues with that!)

Toni,

I was initially horrified by reading that list and to tell you the truth, I felt the same way after watching that Soulforce video, where they talked about hate speech.

I'm sorry about the situation with your family, and I'll keep you in my prayers that they will find ways to reconcile with you, someday. Personally, I don't like being around too many fundamentalists. However, not all conservative Christians are so legalistic. I read a book by a conservative, but not fundamentalist Christian writer Bob Davies called "Someone I love is gay." In it, he instructs parents not to reject their children because of their homosexual orientation, although he opposes same-sex intercourse. So, there you go.

I know very little about Robertson and Falwell, and I don't follow on everything they say. I saw Robertson once on TV, where he talked about how Christians should not be business partners with non-Christians: needless to say, I turned the TV off, right away. About Jerry Falwell, I remember how Mel White has blamed him for the murder of Matthew Shepard 7 years ago, but then he went on public television with him and when questioned whether it was okay to blame Falwell for the murder, he replied: absolutely not!
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week308/news.html

This is another reason why I'm having difficulty understanding this gentleman and Soulforce. But I'm still trying to learn.

Hugs,

S.

[dewdrop_world]

About Jerry Falwell, I remember how Mel White has blamed him for the murder of Matthew Shepard 7 years ago, but then he went on public television with him and when questioned whether it was okay to blame Falwell for the murder, he replied: absolutely not!
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week308/news.html

This is another reason why I'm having difficulty understanding this gentleman and Soulforce. But I'm still trying to learn.
Maybe he made a mistake in his first statement, and thought better of it later? Sounds, well, human to me.

I think people are entitled to revisit their opinions over time.

James

[BrentRichards]

However, not all conservative Christians are so legalistic. I read a book by a conservative, but not fundamentalist Christian writer Bob Davies called "Someone I love is gay." In it, he instructs parents not to reject their children because of their homosexual orientation, although he opposes same-sex intercourse. So, there you go.

Sub-culture alert, Simon. I'm sure you don't know it, but you stepped on a land mine here - Bob Davies is the Exec. Director of a group called Exodus International, which doesn't have many friends here. They are THE umbrella group for ex-gay ministries in the US and beyond, and I know from limited but personal experience that they and many of their affiliates are in fact VERY legalistic, and have been the source of much hurt to many like us. Mentioning him as compassionate and potentially an ally (my words, not yours ... I'm reading in) is going to set off bells and whistles here. Just so you know.

[u-dog]

:whistleblower: :whistleblower: :whistleblower: :whistleblower: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :hissy: :hissy: :hissy: :unhappy: :unhappy: :unhappy: :smashy: :smashy: :smashy:

Yup. he was right!

[Emproph]

I was just thinking that the opponents of this legislation may have a point.

Not necessarily a legitimate or ethical one, just that it might be a complicating factor that we and proponents of this legislation are not recognizing.

To recap:
"Statements critical of sexual orientation or gender identity can be prosecuted if those statements were part of the motivation of a person committing a crime against a homosexual"

The bill's supporters say that such an assertion is nonsense, and that a sermon could never be considered an inducement to violence unless it explicitly advocated it. (link (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.hatecrimes04may04,0,6618367.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines))

advocate:
noun: a person who publicly supports or recommends a particular cause or policy.

verb: publicly recommend or support.

Senator Gordon Smith, R - Oregon:
"This act is about the prosecution of crime, not prohibition of speech," Smith said. "Unless they believe part of their religion is the practice of violence against others, they should not be affected by this bill."

The [expression of the] Biblical belief in the sin of homosexuality is a death threat:
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

My point is that conservatives know they have a problem in their midst that is disgracing the name of Christ and everything their faith stands for.

Obviously for them this is about the right to hate with impunity, and of course hate breeds violence, but I think for the most part the motive is political violence, not personal physical violence.

But as the argument goes, it's the expression of their "religious beliefs" that is of concern. So even if they don't use Leviticus 20:13 in their personal condemnation of homosexuality, to say that their belief is based on the Bible would still be the promotion and advocacy of murder.

I'm getting the impression that this is even more political than it already appears. Their "religious beliefs" by default, include the advocacy of murder -- whether or not that's their personal intention. There's no way around this, if you're advocating "God's inerrant word" when it comes to homosexuality, you're advocating murder.

The difference being of course that they're not promoting the condemnation of other equally valid "sins" of the Bible (that also require death).

I'm thinking that they've figured this out and are terrified that if any additional connections are made between their hate speech and the violence that results from it would lead others to also figure this out.

Those of you familiar with law might want to weigh in on this. It seems to me that given the right circumstances or social climate, this is the type of speech that could legally be considered to go beyond just hate speech, even here in America.

Ironically, it would be the Bible's own advocacy of murder that draws the line between religious expression and the incitement to commit crime.

[Emproph]

Also, a pretty lesbian lady with a blonde hair from the video, had mentioned about changing laws and connecting their movement with the anti-segregation movement in the South, where eventually laws were changed. What was she, Chris, and others, advocating? Could it be possible that Soulforce was asking for censoring hate speech? If not, why would she bring this subject up about "changing laws?" She didn't state specifically what she meant, but the curiosity of her message, got the best of me, just like with the whole vigil.

FYI, in Europe and even in Canada, there are laws against hate speech, where people making public statements regarding the criticism of homosexuality, were punished:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/persecution/pch0080.html

Isn't there any similarity?

From link/article above, Chris Kempling:
A group of eight Christians, members of a group called Operation Rescue protesting abortion were arrested and sentenced to jail terms for peacefully protesting outside an abortion clinic. I met one of the men, Donald Spratt, who was incarcerated in British Columbia's maximum security Oakalla prison for his crime - he was holding a sign outside an abortion clinic. Currently, he is awaiting trial in the BC Court of Appeal for violating the "bubble zone" of an abortion clinic.

Once again, he was simply holding a sign with a Bible verse on it - Thou shalt not kill.In a seven-day trial that began on May 29 in Vancouver, anti-abortion activists Donald Spratt and Gordon Watson defended themselves from charges that they violated the bubble zone around Everywoman's Health Centre on December 17, 1998.

Watson has a history of violence and was once convicted of assault. Many clinic staff members consider him to be dangerous. Spratt is a Christian minister formerly with Operation Rescue, who was arrested about 10 years ago for violating an injunction outside Everywoman's.

Both men agreed that they deliberately sought to test the limits of the law, and expected to be arrested...(link (http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/prochoicepress/00summer.shtml))

A man by the name of Bill Whatcott, an evangelical Christian...fined $20,000 by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission for speaking out against homosexuality. There is a great deal of intolerance shown towards religious people who express their views in public.A Saskatchewan human rights tribunal ruled that Bill Whatcott, pictured, incited hatred against gays and lesbians and he's been ordered to pay a $17,500 fine. Whatcott and a group called the "Christian Truth Activists" distributed pamphlets in Regina and Saskatoon calling us "sodomites" in "filthy" same-sex relationships, "430 times more likely to acquire AIDS and three times more likely to sexually abuse children!"

I can see the legal 'free speech' argument there as far as the right to publically slander others in the name of Jesus goes, what I don't see is how an actual Christian could be more concerned with the right to publically slander than with the right to be free from the physically violent effects of that slander.

In May 2002, a Catholic high school in Whitby, Ontario, was forced by the Ontario Supreme Court to allow a homosexual student, Marc Hall, to take his boyfriend to the graduation prom, even though the church-run school has strict prohibitions against condoning any kind of homosexual behaviour.The Education Act sets out the standards to be applied to each of the different classes of schooling in Ontario (public, catholic, private and home schools). Essentially the province says: if you take public money, you must adhere to certain standards. These standards include:

complying with the Human Rights Code treating others fairly regardless of factors such as race, religion and sexual orientation, and respecting the rights of others.

The Durham Catholic School Board ha[d] adopted this code of conduct, and its decision [to prevent Marc from bringin JP to his Prom] violates its own standards.

marriage commissioners, who are public employees licensed to perform civil marriages, were told by Frank Quennell, the Saskatchewan Minister of Justice, to resign if they intend to refuse to perform same sex marriages.

In other words, "Frank Quennell" did his job by telling his employees to do their jobs to UPHOLD CANADIAN LAW, but so-called "Christian" Dr. Chris Kempling intentionally framed it as an employees "right" to not perform their CIVIC job duties if they happen to object on religious grounds.

[Emproph]

Just a few months ago, a lesbian couple in the Vancouver suburb of Coquitlam arranged to rent a hall for their wedding reception from the Knights of Columbus, a Catholics men's service group. When the group discovered that the marriage was going to be between two women, they cancelled the rental agreement, stating that their religious beliefs (link (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051129/tribunal_lesbiancouple_051129/20051129?hub=Canada))Deborah Chymyshyn and Tracey Smith decided to wed after same-sex marriage became legal in British Columbia.

Chymyshyn and Smith allege the Knights of Columbus council cancelled their contract...weeks after they had already paid their deposit and sent out their wedding invitations.

Camp Arnes is a camp operated by the Mennonite Church, located on Lake Winnipeg in Manitoba. A homosexual choir...booked the camp for a weekend retreat. The Mennonites cancelled the booking after discovering that the choir was homosexual in nature, citing their faith, their mission statement and their code of conduct conflicted with the choir's purpose. The choir filed a discrimination suit with the Manitoba Huan Rights commission, where the decision is pending. The Winnipeg school district has now forbidden all school groups from using Camp Arnes as well as three other Christian camps.ARNES, MB-A faith-based Manitoba camp has reached a settlement with a gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered choir after four years of discussions.

The Rainbow Harmony Project filed a formal complaint with the Manitoba Human Rights Commission in 2002 against Camp Arnes after the camp abruptly cancelled the choir's annual retreat booking.(link (http://www.christianweek.org/stories/vol20/no14/story2.html))

My dictionary says that tolerance is "the disposition to adopt a liberal attitude towards the opinions or acts of others, especially those of other religions or ethnic backgrounds." One would think that tolerance would mean that social liberals would be tolerant about our religious beliefs.

In the Newspeak of today, however, tolerance means everyone is obliged to take a liberal attitude towards immoral sexual behaviour, but those who practice that immoral behaviour do not have to tolerate Christian beliefs which oppose such behaviour.
You poor persecuted thing you...No one's tolerating (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2444&highlight=tolerance) your intolerance for them. :hissy:

Examples given so far:

Dancing (prom) = immoral sexual behavior
Singing (choir) = immoral sexual behavior
Wedding reception = immoral sexual behavior
Civic wedding = immoral sexual behavior

Thus:
The intent to deceive (lying) = "religious beliefs" that should be "tolerated."

Well Dr. Chris Kempling, when you put it like that...

[Simon]

Emproph,

I don't live in Canada, thanks God. No disrespect to Canadians, but I don't think I could survive living under their socialist system. Besides their hate speech laws, which are so ridiculous, they have a "wonderful" medical care system, where if you need a surgery, you'll be on a waitlist for up to 6 years. But that's another story.

I see that you sound happy with Canadian laws, so have you ever considered moving to Canada? I also think that those protesters from the video would also be happy living over there. They could have said what they want about how great homosexual relations are and nobody could say anything about them, under a threat of being punished for saying what they think. In my experience, I discovered that it makes more sense not to change their place, whether it's a school, city, country, that would support your beliefs but to find another one. That's the thing we have in America. For example, you can always find a college that reflects your beliefs. Have you ever heard of Hope College in Michigan? Over there, they believe that it's okay to be gay in a committed relationship and a Christian. There are about 200 colleges like that belonging to UCC, so that's why this Equality Ride doesn't make sense to me. Why couldn't those gay students who want to pursue a relationship just transfer to Hope?

People who immigrated to America, historically speaking, came here because they were persecuted in their old countries. It seems to me that these liberals and all other pro-socialists are not happy living in America, mainly because we have too much unrestricted speech, so why can't they emigrate maybe to Canada, which coincides with their views. Canada has definitely plenty of space, IMHO:) ? This country isn't planning to change to suit them, based on what I see. So, why not do something that certainly would make you happy? I don't understand.

As far as your declarations by calling people liars: everybody has a different interpretation of the world we are living in and we need to respect them. Or how else are you hoping for others to respect you? Or are you saying that your way is the only way? Who gave you that power? You can certainly disagree with people, but that doesn't make you being always right and others always wrong. I know that Dobson acts like he is self-righteous and that's a problem, but if we have a different opinion and also adopt self-righteousness, will it be productive? I don't think so. Therefore, I fully support people saying anything, since none of us possess the ultimate knowledge regarding absolute truth. For example, I believe that any speech, even it is perceived as being hateful should be spoken, but I may be wrong, that's why I'd like to be respected.

Judging by your sarcastic insensitive language towards people in Canada who were censored and forced to act contrary to their consciousness (from that link, did you check on a man who was fined for refusing to print information about homosexual and age of consent relationships to gay support groups?), how can you expect anybody to be sympathetic to your cause? I am wondering if those protesters have any sympathy to students in secular colleges who are being punished for criticizing left wing ideologies, done by their professors. This happens quite frequently throughout our country, just read the book "Indoctrination U" by David Horowitz, or "The New Thought Police" by Tammy Bruce, who is a lesbian but speaks out against various abuses practiced by liberals, which unfortunately quite a few LGBT people tend to adopt.

I will check the thread you sent a link to me but in the meantime,

Have a blessed Sunday.

[tdogg]

Toni,

I was initially horrified by reading that list and to tell you the truth, I felt the same way after watching that Soulforce video, where they talked about hate speech.

It is horrifying isn't it! Those examples are just a drop in the bucket. There are SO MANY more.

I'm sorry about the situation with your family, and I'll keep you in my prayers that they will find ways to reconcile with you, someday. Personally, I don't like being around too many fundamentalists.

Thanks Simon, I appreciate your concern and prayers. Bless you!

However, not all conservative Christians are so legalistic. I read a book by a conservative, but not fundamentalist Christian writer Bob Davies called "Someone I love is gay." In it, he instructs parents not to reject their children because of their homosexual orientation, although he opposes same-sex intercourse. So, there you go.

Not all, but just about all I've had experience with (knowing, hearing, seeing, etc.). And like Patrick says, Bob Davies isn't considered an ally by most of us. On the surface, a book like that might seem good, and was recommended to me to give to some of my family. However, I see it as providing something that might be misconstrued to being an admission that I feel being a lesbiand and in a relationship is wrong. Can't go there. But I have numerous books I could highly recommend, if you are interested, PM me.

I know very little about Robertson and Falwell, and I don't follow on everything they say. I saw Robertson once on TV, where he talked about how Christians should not be business partners with non-Christians: needless to say, I turned the TV off, right away. About Jerry Falwell, I remember how Mel White has blamed him for the murder of Matthew Shepard 7 years ago, but then he went on public television with him and when questioned whether it was okay to blame Falwell for the murder, he replied: absolutely not!
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week308/news.html

Have you read Stranger at the Gate? Mel had a friendly relationship with Mr. Falwell, which would be more inclined to have considerably more emotion involved. Yeah, Mel is human, but I so admire and respect him for his journey, his courage and his stand. He is one of my heros (Mel, not Jerry)!

This is another reason why I'm having difficulty understanding this gentleman and Soulforce. But I'm still trying to learn.

Stick around, you will learn more. Mel is a wonderful person, and has provided us with a safe, loving place to have these discussions. No one's actions are perfect, but Soulforce is a well though-out and developed organization, taking action that is planned and organized, not a fly by the seat of your pants kind of deal. Stay in the mix, maybe some day it will all make sense to you, even if you can't climb on board, you might get to a place where you can see us off.

Hugs,

S.

One of the reasons why the Equality Ride is such a necessary action, not all these students have a choice of which college to attend. Parents are paying for an education that they want to happen at a conservative Christian college. The student doesn't have a choice, it's either go to X College or don't go at all. That is the case more often than you probably realize. The ER action is making a difference for many. Just read the feedback from the students (some are posted on these forums here). It's amazing, the strides taking place because of the ER ride.

Personally, if I'm paying for my own education, I'm going to go where I want, and it wouldn't be a conservative Christian college. But if someone were offering me a free full college education, but I can only attend X College, well I would have to consider it if the alternative is no college. Don't you think? So they go, they hide, they are themselves in secret, and others just can't wait to out them and get them expelled. Who? Why, there conservative Christian classmates...

No, not all CCs are like that, but I would venture to estimate the majority is.

Hope you're havin' a great weekend Simon! Glad you are hanging in there on the forums! :)

[Emproph]

As far as your declarations by calling people liars: everybody has a different interpretation of the world we are living in and we need to respect them. Or how else are you hoping for others to respect you? Or are you saying that your way is the only way? Who gave you that power? You can certainly disagree with people, but that doesn't make you being always right and others always wrong.

The definition of the word lie is not up for debate:
-An intentionally false statement.

-A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

-Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

False:
Donald Spratt was incarcerated in British Columbia's maximum security Oakalla prison for his crime - he was holding a sign

Once again, he was simply holding a sign

True:
charges that they violated the bubble zone around Everywoman's Health Centre on December 17, 1998.

Both men agreed that they deliberately sought to test the limits of the law, and expected to be arrested

You're claiming that the difference between holding a sign and deliberately violating a bubble zone is a matter of interpretation?

Everyone has a right to their opinion, everyone does not have a right to the facts.

To say that truth is no more than opinion is moral relativism, not absolute morality. Absolute morality being the very thing that these so-called Christians "under attack" claim distinguishes them from the rest of society.

If you have such a disdain for truth that can be verified, how is it you expect others to believe you have regard for Biblical truth that cannot be verified?

[Simon]

The definition of the word lie is not up for debate:


False:


True:


You're claiming that the difference between holding a sign and deliberately violating a bubble zone is a matter of interpretation?

Everyone has a right to their opinion, everyone does not have a right to the facts.

To say that truth is no more than opinion is moral relativism, not absolute morality. Absolute morality being the very thing that these so-called Christians "under attack" claim distinguishes them from the rest of society.

If you have such a disdain for truth that can be verified, how is it you expect others to believe you have regard for Biblical truth that cannot be verified?

I'll leave it up to God. If I can't do something on my own, maybe He can.

[dewdrop_world]

I wonder, Simon, are you really as unconcerned about the misrepresentation of the Everywoman incident in the right-wing propaganda as you appear to be?

Right-wing activist - "We expected to be arrested."

Right-wing propaganda - "They were just holding a sign."



I would think, if one wants to promote conservative ideas / ideals, that one would place a high premium on one's credibility. But there I go again... thinking that ethics matter. What a silly fool am I.

James

[Simon]

I wonder, Simon, are you really as unconcerned about the misrepresentation of the Everywoman incident in the right-wing propaganda as you appear to be?

Right-wing activist - "We expected to be arrested."

Right-wing propaganda - "They were just holding a sign."



I would think, if one wants to promote conservative ideas / ideals, that one would place a high premium on one's credibility. But there I go again... thinking that ethics matter. What a silly fool am I.

James

James,

What happened to Mr. Spratt being arrested outside abortion clinic in Canada seems to me no different that what happened to Mr. Hubble and his crew in front of Focus on the Family. It looks like both of them knew that they wanted to get arrested. I think that even though they promoted different ideologies, their tactics were the same.

However, my main concern about what happened in Canada is about punishing people for publishing their opinions about homosexuality, where over there it's considered a hate speech. 9/10th of that link is devoted to that. I understand that Canada is very left wing and socialist, but I believe that what they do over there, is undemocratic in America. I hope nothing like that would ever happen here.

Then there's the term "hate". If Christians say publicly that they disapprove of homosexual behaviour because the Bible declares it to be immoral, then that is "promoting hatred". If they quote medical statistics about the HIV infection rates of homosexual men, that is "promoting hatred". If they object to their children being indoctrinated in kindergarten class with information about homosexuality, they are hateful people. Apparently Canadians can hold religious beliefs, but if they tell anyone else in a public forum, such as a newspaper, they are "promoting hatred".

How about "homophobia". It literally means an irrational fear, even terror, of homosexual persons. A phobia is a mental illness, which can be successfully treated. In Communist Russia, dissidents were sentenced to forced treatment in psychiatric hospitals, not because they were mentally ill, but because they had wrong thoughts. I believe it is no accident that the Gay Rights term for disapproval of homosexual behaviour is a mental illness term. In all my years as a mental health professional, however, I have never encountered anyone with an irrational fear of homosexuals. But the definition of homophobia, as defined by gay activists, is the unwillingness to approve of homosexuality. Even toleration without approval is defined as homophobic. So if you have a moral objection to homosexuality, you are "mentally ill" and require re-education. One homosexual activist, John McKellar, who opposes the Gay Pride movement, calls the use of the word homophobia, "a contrived slander" against religiously conservative people. But activists realize that religious people are unlikely to change, which is why they are focusing a tremendous amount of attention on re-educating children in public schools.

This is something from that link. Now, do you believe that this is not true?

[Dash]

I’ve been musing over our conversations with you, Simon, since you joined our forum, and it seems to me that we have been circling around the subject of Truth from day one (or day 4 May, 2007) when you wrote:

...I noticed how a number of posters, presumably the students of those colleges, have expressed their strong beliefs human sexuality, their schools, their rights etc...

...

They just wanted to share what they believed, as it seemed to me. Although, some comments seemed to be quite preposterous, like the ones coming from a guy named Drizz, where he said that he wanted to convince you that you were wrong. Who is he in a position to say who is right and who is wrong? Is he God?

You came in ostensibly seeking the Truth about Soulforce--desiring to fill a lack in your own understanding--but at times I feel that you have less of a desire to learn about Soulforce than you do to criticize.

Following your posts, I’ve had a recurring sense of ambiguity regarding your own concept of Truth, or the value of Truth…or perhaps the purpose of Truth. You consistently argue for the right of people to speak and believe whatever they will—which might be indicative that you are unconcerned with Truth’s practical value in society; as if to say, it does not matter so much where the Truth lies in public debate, but it is really important that all may speak what they believe…be it empirically true or false. But, I find that hard to believe as you are eager to share your own beliefs about the Truth of matters as you see them. Not only so, but you have displayed your own admirable capacity to accept truth when it comes to you, evidenced by your response to the presentation of material from Wisconsin V. Mitchell as decided by the Supreme Court as well as our counter-exposition of the 14th Amendment.

If I were to state what I think you believe it would be this: That Soulforce and gay-rights advocates in general seek to silence the beliefs of others…which you sometimes find to be hypocritical since we ourselves desire for our beliefs to be heard. When I state it in that fashion, it seems reasonable enough.

But since we and you, as noble beings of eternity, should rightly concern ourselves with Truth rather than “belief” would it not be better for us to find Truth together?

For example…

Truth: No one should be cut off or persecuted for their beliefs…whether they are under the sway of untruth is less important than their humanity and their inherent value to the human family. This is where Love reveals itself as a higher Truth than truth...that is, truth that is merely law.

Truth: Beyond the former statement, there still exists Truth above all that people believe or think. Some things that are believed are indeed false…some things are a part of the Truth that is real, and some beliefs are not. Love may allow false beliefs to persist in those who are misguided, but this does not make an untruth thus held to be any more a part of Truth for its being tolerated.

If Soulforce or any gay-rights group sought to suppress Christians or anyone for their anti-gay beliefs--perhaps through imprisonments, tortures, burnings, hangings, beheadings, beatings, psychological abuses, banishments or any of the other various punishments that gay people have endured at various (but certainly not all) times in various (but not all, certainly) societies throughout history—I say, if we (Soulforce or any other gay-rights group) were to seek such suppression of anti-gay groups as they have historically laid upon gay people, then the same guilt that attends these historic and execrable systems would rightly be assigned to us also.

As you and we are noble beings who genuflect only before Truth and not mere “belief,” let us come to some agreement about the Truth of this matter that we may kneel together before that which is real rather than false altars.

Does Soulforce or any other gay-rights group seek to suppress anti-gay groups with any of the oppressions that have historically been used against gay people? I think we can agree together that this is NOT the case.

Can we agree that Soulforce and gay-rights groups in general, regardless of their methods, seek ultimately not to punish anti-gay beliefs, but to reveal certain Truths about gay people that not all have seen? Among these Truths are the basic humanity of gay people, the Truth of their love as Love, and their right to exist free of any persecution even if anti-gay groups maintain their belief that gay people have no basic humanity, and that their love is not Love.

Can we agree that anti-gay groups have perhaps falsely equated the constant and unyielding proclamation the above-mentioned Truths with the kinds of suppression and tyrannies that they have historically visited upon gay people? Perhaps? Since they are NOT the ones that have been beaten, hanged, cut-off from their families and Churches, driven from their communities, legislated into miserable closets of shame, consigned to flames and damned by ecclesiastical decrees…perhaps we could agree that they have falsely equated our proclamation of Truth with the kinds of oppression that gay people have endured at the hands of those who have held untruths about gay people?

Think carefully about these things, for it is only since 2003 that gay people have enjoyed the mere right to make love under the auspices of our most benevolent and sacred Constitution. Think how few years we have walked in the freedom of a Truth as simple as that.

If there are things unstated which motivate you in your rather relentless support of the value of anti-gay beliefs under the guise of the Democracy or “The American Way”, please lay it out on the table. You’ll find few here who will accept that anti-gay beliefs are in any way equal to the humanity of gay people and their righteous pursuit of Truth as they step boldly out of the bloody closet of American, and in particular Judeo-Christian, history. But let us at least see what drives your questioning so that we may move forward.

[Simon]

Hi Dash,

Thank you for your cordial response to my thread. I would like to comment on some of the things you said briefly.

I’ve been musing over our conversations with you, Simon, since you joined our forum, and it seems to me that we have been circling around the subject of Truth from day one (or day 4 May, 2007) when you wrote:



You came in ostensibly seeking the Truth about Soulforce--desiring to fill a lack in your own understanding--but at times I feel that you have less of a desire to learn about Soulforce than you do to criticize.

I was trying to give you constructive criticism, by using intellectual reasoning and referring you to various gay affirming sites, including the Marin Foundation. Have you checked them out, yet, btw? I hope I didn't break any rules, here, yet.

Following your posts, I’ve had a recurring sense of ambiguity regarding your own concept of Truth, or the value of Truth…or perhaps the purpose of Truth. You consistently argue for the right of people to speak and believe whatever they will—which might be indicative that you are unconcerned with Truth’s practical value in society; as if to say, it does not matter so much where the Truth lies in public debate, but it is really important that all may speak what they believe…be it empirically true or false. But, I find that hard to believe as you are eager to share your own beliefs about the Truth of matters as you see them. Not only so, but you have displayed your own admirable capacity to accept truth when it comes to you, evidenced by your response to the presentation of material from Wisconsin V. Mitchell as decided by the Supreme Court as well as our counter-exposition of the 14th Amendment.

Well, I remember that you and I agreed that legislating a Hate Crimes Bill is not illegal. However, I pointed out that there was a misuse of similar provisions both in federal and state levels, which created bureacracy, where the concept of "hate speech" was brought up. That was simply historical information. Because of that, I had concerns. That's all.

If I were to state what I think you believe it would be this: That Soulforce and gay-rights advocates in general seek to silence the beliefs of others…which you sometimes find to be hypocritical since we ourselves desire for our beliefs to be heard. When I state it in that fashion, it seems reasonable enough.

That's what Soulforce sounds/acts like. I mean, based on the various actions of theirs that I have seen. Although, they say that they ask others to change their beliefs, isn't that the same thing as asking others to be silent about your beliefs? For the record, there are gay rights advocates who promote the rights of those who disagree to speak. Like Andrew Sullivan and Tammy Bruce, unless you don't consider them as gay rights advocates. However, there is a gay rights advocate group called GLSEN, which indeed pushes for silencing of students who don't accept the practice of homosexuality, in our education. They don't seem to care what their beliefs are. Speaking of who is being hypocritical: thanks to GLSEN in 90% of our colleges, which are secular, student who reject homosexuality are being mistreated by their liberal professors. If you make a statement like 'I believe that homosexual sex is a sin,' you could be subject to expellation, unless you volunteer yourself to see a psychiatrist, or go to a diversity training. The same does not require for students with liberal views. Like there was a case like that, in Temple University. That happens very often. But these Equality Riders don't have sympathy for such students. They don't even understand that those Christian colleges, which make up a small percentage of all schools are a sanctuary to many conservative students fleeing persecution from our secular politically correct left-wing environment. However, they are so eager to hear their stories.

But since we and you, as noble beings of eternity, should rightly concern ourselves with Truth rather than “belief” would it not be better for us to find Truth together?

Sounds like a plan:)

For example…

Truth: No one should be cut off or persecuted for their beliefs…whether they are under the sway of untruth is less important than their humanity and their inherent value to the human family. This is where Love reveals itself as a higher Truth than truth...that is, truth that is merely law.

Wow! This sounds a lot like what Gandhi used to preach. I like that.

Truth: Beyond the former statement, there still exists Truth above all that people believe or think. Some things that are believed are indeed false…some things are a part of the Truth that is real, and some beliefs are not. Love may allow false beliefs to persist in those who are misguided, but this does not make an untruth thus held to be any more a part of Truth for its being tolerated.

I believe that there is Absolute Truth, but none of us have the capacity to fully comprehend or understand it, because we are not God.

If Soulforce or any gay-rights group sought to suppress Christians or anyone for their anti-gay beliefs--perhaps through imprisonments, tortures, burnings, hangings, beheadings, beatings, psychological abuses, banishments or any of the other various punishments that gay people have endured at various (but certainly not all) times in various (but not all, certainly) societies throughout history—I say, if we (Soulforce or any other gay-rights group) were to seek such suppression of anti-gay groups as they have historically laid upon gay people, then the same guilt that attends these historic and execrable systems would rightly be assigned to us also.

Actually, no. I don't condone retaliation by responding to violence with violence. Isn't that what Soulforce, also practicing, the nonviolence, right?


Does Soulforce or any other gay-rights group seek to suppress anti-gay groups with any of the oppressions that have historically been used against gay people? I think we can agree together that this is NOT the case.

Not in the United States (not that I see now), but as you can see, it is happening already in other countries, as far as fining and imprisonment. I already showed you a link about Canada. Or in Sweden, 3 years ago, a Christian pastor was sentenced to one month in prison for preaching a sermon against homosexuality:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39328
He was acquitted eventually but the fact that he was arrested for saying what he believed, really pushes for creating undemocracy. I am a history major, and I know that in the recent years, our laws have been modeled after Europe, like welfare, so I can't totally discard that in the future, we wouldn't tend to follow their path on legislating ethical conduct. I don't think that Soulforce, being a nonprofit organization, is lobbying for changing laws, not to my knowledge.

Can we agree that Soulforce and gay-rights groups in general, regardless of their methods, seek ultimately not to punish anti-gay beliefs, but to reveal certain Truths about gay people that not all have seen? Among these Truths are the basic humanity of gay people, the Truth of their love as Love, and their right to exist free of any persecution even if anti-gay groups maintain their belief that gay people have no basic humanity, and that their love is not Love.

I can definitely see that Soulforce wants everybody to hear their perspective, but so do others.

Can we agree that anti-gay groups have perhaps falsely equated the constant and unyielding proclamation the above-mentioned Truths with the kinds of suppression and tyrannies that they have historically visited upon gay people? Perhaps? Since they are NOT the ones that have been beaten, hanged, cut-off from their families and Churches, driven from their communities, legislated into miserable closets of shame, consigned to flames and damned by ecclesiastical decrees…perhaps we could agree that they have falsely equated our proclamation of Truth with the kinds of oppression that gay people have endured at the hands of those who have held untruths about gay people?

Think carefully about these things, for it is only since 2003 that gay people have enjoyed the mere right to make love under the auspices of our most benevolent and sacred Constitution. Think how few years we have walked in the freedom of a Truth as simple as that.

I am very well aware of world history and I know that the Church, particularly Roman Catholic, has treated homosexuals very brutally, which was wrong. I never supported sodomy laws because they all dealt with "morality," which is impossible to legislate and is not in our Constitution. However, knowing this dark history, does it justify to have a thought police like in Europe? I don't think so. We don't have it like that here, but it happens in colleges and workplaces.

If there are things unstated which motivate you in your rather relentless support of the value of anti-gay beliefs under the guise of the Democracy or “The American Way”, please lay it out on the table. You’ll find few here who will accept that anti-gay beliefs are in any way equal to the humanity of gay people and their righteous pursuit of Truth as they step boldly out of the bloody closet of American, and in particular Judeo-Christian, history. But let us at least see what drives your questioning so that we may move forward.

As I said before, the motivation for my beliefs in open expressions of opinions coming from everybody, including antigay, progay, antiChristian, Christian, atheists, gnostics, bikers, whatever, stems from the existence of the 1st Amendment of our Constitution, which says that we should have a freedom of speech, regardless of what feelings it evokes. Also, I sent you the links to Gay Christian Network, Bridges Across the Divide, and the Marin Foundation, which state that it's possible to live peacefully and nonviolently in a society holding disagreeing views. Have you checked them out, at all? That's all I can say so far.

It's been a long post and I got to go to bed,

Peace.

[dewdrop_world]

Speaking of who is being hypocritical: thanks to GLSEN in 90% of our colleges, which are secular, student who reject homosexuality are being mistreated by their liberal professors. If you make a statement like 'I believe that homosexual sex is a sin,' you could be subject to expellation [hjh: expulsion?], unless you volunteer yourself to see a psychiatrist, or go to a diversity training. The same does not require for students with liberal views. Like there was a case like that, in Temple University. That happens very often.

Do you have a citation for that? What is your source?

James

[Simon]

Do you have a citation for that? What is your source?

James

Yes I do.

I read a book "Homosexual Agenda" by Alan Sears and Craig Osten. I think Emproph mentioned it somewhere. Chapter 3: "Stupid" parents, "enlightened" kids. I'll quote something from it:

In Ann Arbor, Michigan, a local high school held a so-called Diversity Week that included student that included student speeches on the topics of race, religion, and homosexuality at an all-school assembly. When one student wished to give a talk on the biblical position with regard to homosexual behavior, school officials censored her speech, claiming that her religious view toward homosexual behavior was "negative" and would "water down" the "positive" religious message they wanted to convey. That "positive" message was that homosexual behavior and religion are compatible and that homosexual behavior is not sinful.

When a religious view to be presented in the public schools, it is a liberal version that affirms homosexual behavior, however, if a conservative view were being presented, you can be assured that the squawk of "separation of church and state" would be loud and clear

Keith Jennings, the executive director of GLSEN, told a church audience in New York City on March 20, 2000, about GLSEN's plan to deal with those who have biblical objections to homosexual behavior: "Twenty percent of people are hard core fair-minded pro-homosexual people. Twenty percent are hard-core anti-homosexual bigots. We need to ignore the hard core bigots, get more of the hard-core fair minded people to speak up, and we'll pull that 60 percent of people in the middle... over to our side. That's really what I think our strategy has to be. We have to quit being afraid of the religious right...I'm trying to find a way to say this. I'm trying not to say,'Screw 'em,' which is what I want to say, because I don't care what they think! Drop dead!

Remember, that GLSEN's mission is to foster what is happening in schools, and people who go to schools are not Dobson and others, but regular American youngsters, who just want to get a diploma and a degree, and not to seek political power.

In a book "The Professors" written by David Horowitz, there are names listed of various college professors who teach students subjects ranging from the glorification of homosexual pedophilia like Gayle Rubin in University of Michigan, to assigning student to make a case for gay marriage in Sociology class like Robert Dunkely in University of Northern Colorado. If you as a student dare to disagree, you are in big trouble.

In a book "Illiberal Education," by Dinesh D'Souza, a student in a public college in Washington was taking a class, where the professor told the class that lesbian couple parents are better parents than heterosexual ones. After he asked her where she got the statistics on it from, she banned him from her class.

Also I suggest you watch the movie Indoctrination U from here:
http://onthefencefilms.com/

It talks about how some conservative students were told to see psychiatrists for expressing their views.

Also, I remember that when I went to a SUNY college in upstate New York, we had a sociology class, where the professor was teaching us how to do artificial insemination for lesbian couples. A classmate of mine, publicly expressed that he believed it was wrong with his religious beliefs. He was reported to the Dean of the department, right away.

These are all documented sources, except for my personal story.

Peace,

S.

[Daniel]

That's what Soulforce sounds/acts like. I mean, based on the various actions of theirs that I have seen. Although, they say that they ask others to change their beliefs, isn't that the same thing as asking others to be silent about your beliefs?

~

Speaking of who is being hypocritical: thanks to GLSEN in 90% of our colleges, which are secular, student who reject homosexuality are being mistreated by their liberal professors. If you make a statement like 'I believe that homosexual sex is a sin,' you could be subject to expellation, unless you volunteer yourself to see a psychiatrist, or go to a diversity training. The same does not require for students with liberal views.


First off, Soulforce goes to colleges to talk to people, not to force people to be silent about their beliefs. And if you are truly in touch with the teaching of Gandhi, then you know we can only change ourselves.

Now. Your second assertion prompted this reader to do a little ad hoc research. How about we take a look at what's going on out there via a quick look at google?

~

If one used the advanced setting at google and looks for the exact phrase "gays persecute christians" we find 0 hits.

However, if we enter the exact phrase "christians persecute gays" we find 24 hits.

~

If we enter the exact phrase "homosexuals hate christians" we find 64 hits.

If we enter the exact phrase "christians hate homosexuals" we find 1800 hits.

~

If we enter the exact phrase "god hates fags" we find 187,000 hits.

(If we enter the exact phrase "god hates christians" we find 2050 hits.)

If we enter the exact phrase "fags hate god" we find 915 hits.

~

If we enter the exact phrase "christians are persecuted " we find 18,000 hits.

If we enter the exact phrase "buddhist are persecuted" we find 280 hits.

If we enter the exact phrase "muslims are persecuted" we find 9990 hits.

If we enter the exact phrase "gays are persecuted" we find 2170 hits.

If we enter the exact phrase " homosexuals are persecuted" we find 1930 hits.

~

What does all this tell us?

Well. Several things stand out. For one thing, it is pretty clear that there is a great deal more discourse regarding the perception that christians have a real problem with gay people. Another thing is that christians have the perception that they are being persecuted.

Is it possible that the two issues have something to do with one another? One writer, Elizabeth A. Castelli, a historian of Christian martyrdom, attended a Christian Right strategy session in the "War on Christians" and had this to say.

http://www.therevealer.org/archives/main_story_002500.php


Homosexuality was singled out for special opprobrium, not only on the panel devoted explicitly to unmasking “the homosexual agenda” (“The Gay Agenda: America Won’t Be Happy”), but throughout the entire conference. On the panel on Christian persecution, for example, two of the four speakers devoted their time to the Christian struggle against homosexuality. Tom Crouse, a Massachusetts pastor who has inaugurated a “Mr. Heterosexuality” contest in his town, spoke of his persecution by officials who billed him for the increased police presence required at his contest when “rabid homosexual activists” showed up at the event. (Crouse also characterized persecution as “a blessing and a joy,” and advised the audience that, “If you are not persecuted,” you have to ask yourself, “are you living a Christian life?”) Meanwhile, Michael Marcavage of Repent America testified about the arrests of several Christian protestors who sought to interrupt a gay event in Philadelphia in order “to show the love of God to those who are lost and damned to hell for all eternity.”

The panel on Hollywood predictably attacked Brokeback Mountain and the recently released V for Vendetta, but also featured an especially peculiar excursus: an analysis of The March of the Penguins, which was praised for not featuring a single gay penguin.

“The gay sensibility,” one speaker informed the audience, is ironic and characterized by the excessively performative use of “air quotes.” Indeed, irony itself is a gay invention, a coping mechanism for gay people who recognize that they don’t really fit in with normal society. Moreover, Chris Carmouche of Grasstops.com, the moderator of the Hollywood panel, singled out academic programs in theatre, film, and performance studies as hotbeds of secular and sexual deviance: Students in such programs, he asserted, “want to attack your values.”

Conference presenters and audience members seemed convinced that a well-organized, well-financed cabal of homosexual elites are plotting a cultural takeover. Marshalling a wide array of arguments against homosexuality (“it’s unhealthy,” “it’s all lust and perversion,” “it’s disgusting”) and gay marriage (“it’s an attack on the family because that’s where faith is passed on -- the goal is simply the destruction of religion” or “it’s an attack on biblical truth and therefore on God”), some speakers advocated for the reintroduction of the concept of “shame” into the culture. Meanwhile, Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition urged the abandonment of the terms “homosexual” and “gay” in favor of adopting terms such as “sodomites” and “the perverted ones.” Some speakers read graphically explicit material found on gay websites to the conference, apologizing profusely for the shock and disgust they knew they would be generating but insisting that it was necessary for the participants to confront this material. By the end, one was left with the distinct impression that the organizers and participants in the conference spend far more time than the average gay person thinking about, talking about, and fantasizing about gayness.

Striking for anyone with some knowledge of the history of Christianity are the remarkable parallels between the rhetoric of contemporary conservative Christians and that of their second- and third-century predecessors. Making connections between religious deviance, sexual deviance, and cultural spectacle is nothing new in Christian rhetoric: Such arguments are the legacy of Christian apology going back to Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Tatian, and others. (Jennifer Wright Knust, a historian of early Christianity, documents this rhetorical legacy engagingly in her recent book, Abandoned to Lust: Sexual Slander and Ancient Christianity) In ancient Christianity, as now, the efforts to connect religious deviance (idolatry, paganism, heresy) to sexual deviance (whether non-procreative sex or, in more extreme versions, any sexual practice at all) and to the dominant forms of entertainment and media (theatre, the circus, arena games) were aimed at producing an idealized and sanitized portrait of Christian orthodoxy. The sex panic of contemporary culture wars is a clear echo of a centuries-old Christian rhetorical strategy.

Fighting Back: Impeaching Judges

But if one experiences a kind of historical echo in many of the arguments put forward at this conference, one also has to acknowledge that there is something both distinctively American about the project here -- with the constant invocations of a biblically inspired golden-age history for the country -- and particularly alarming about the intemperate targeting of the judicial branch of the federal government in the service of this process of “restoration.” The keynote speeches by Phyllis Schlafly (who said she hoped that her book on “the imperial judiciary,” The Supremacists, would be like Tom Paine’s Common Sense in its impact and used like Rick Warren’s The Purpose-Driven Life to mobilize local study groups geared to action), Tom DeLay, and Alan Keyes all zeroed in on the judiciary and reserved for it their most intemperate rhetoric. On the panel, “The Judiciary: Overruling God,” Representative Todd Akin (R-Missouri) mused, “we haven’t impeached a judge in a while, it might be fun!” and outlined the strategy whereby conservative activists are beginning to generate lists of potentially impeachable offenses “as a warning” to judges: “Anything is an impeachable offense that Congress says it is, I guess,” he observed.

Fighting Back: Onward Christian Soldiers


Lock and Load
Beginning with the premise that there is a war on Christianity, conference organizers and participants were eager to issue calls to arms in response. “We are under spiritual invasion!” intoned Rod Parsley, an evangelist from Ohio. “Man your battle stations! Ready your weapons! LOCK AND LOAD!” (The audience responded to these imperatives with a raucous and exuberant standing ovation.) Parsley also claimed that those Christian churches not sharing the perspective of the Christians represented at the conference constitute “the devil’s demilitarized zone,” naïvely and fatally embracing “peace at any price.” Meanwhile, Laurence Wright, a Lutheran pastor and co-president of Vision America, announced that the time of a peaceful and contemplative Christianity is over; that Christians have been AWOL (“absent without Lord”) in the battle; and that “We must attack the evil now where it is strongest” in order to restore America, the city high on a hill.

But what of the biblical Jesus and his message of nonviolence and nonresistance? As Rick Scarborough explained it at the end of the panel on persecution, all of those demanding gospel values -- submission, tolerance, turning the other cheek -- are fine in one’s private life, but they have nothing to do with the public mission of the church. As for those who draw attention to the gospel’s message of nonviolence, this is simply a matter of “the Left using our own tradition against us.” (Such hermeneutical maneuvers, which produce a biblical message that is inevitably and completely in tune with conservative political convictions, later came to be exercised by one speaker who interpreted Jesus’s “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” by lifting it out of its gospel context in a story about paying taxes and repositioning it in contemporary American society as a positive prooftext for Christian involvement in politics. But I digress…)



Simon- while you are busy with thinking about how christians are being persecuted, there are a growing number of people who actually believe in the teachings of Jesus and nonviolence. They are on the left and the right, and they are tired of being told by conservatives that they don't follow the true faith as laid out to them by those who seem hell bent on domination and will use all force necessary to their goals.

Is that really the way of Christ?

Which side are you gonna be on? With the people who hate, the misguided and willfully ignorant, or the people who really do want us all to live together in peace?

[dewdrop_world]

You never cease to amaze me, Simon.

What happened to Mr. Spratt being arrested outside abortion clinic in Canada seems to me no different that what happened to Mr. Hubble and his crew in front of Focus on the Family. It looks like both of them knew that they wanted to get arrested. I think that even though they promoted different ideologies, their tactics were the same.

To state a point that should be obvious -- even if both intentionally committed civil disobedience (which is fine with me, on both sides), the difference is in how those events are portrayed.

To my knowledge, Soulforce never represented the actions of Dotti Berry and Robynne Sapp as anything other than a conscious act of civil disobedience. That's honest.

Dr. Kempling, on the other hand, presented Spratt and Watson's act of civil disobedience as if the two were making every effort to keep their peaceful protest within the confines of the law, but (oh, how unfair!), they were arrested anyway. The good doctor conveniently neglected to mention that they planned to be arrested, that they turned on each other and perjured themselves in court in their independent defenses, and several other unsavory details. (In case you didn't follow the link Emproph posted earlier, here it is again: http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/prochoicepress/00summer.shtml .)

Maybe Spratt fed Kempling a line of bull when they talked in prison and Kempling bought every word (there is, indeed, one born every minute) -- in that case, Spratt was lying and is not to be trusted, or respected (and Kempling is a fool for not independently verifying the story). Or Kempling knew the whole context and presented only the part favorable to his position to the UN. The latter is not quite what I would call honesty. More like, lies of omission, which last time I checked was a sin according to Dr. Kempling's Catholic Church.



On homophobia -- what I observe in real life is that many Christians claim that their opposition to homosexuality is based entirely on moral concerns, but if you dig deeper, the moral argument is coupled with what is, in fact, an irrational fear. Lack of time prevents me from going deeply into this, but let me start with an example:

http://www.washblade.com/2007/5-11/arts/feature/10544.cfm

The last week of school before summer vacation is usually a laid-back, euphoric time for bus drivers. But as classes wound down in Henry County, Ga., last May, a gay bus driver was summoned to the school superintendent’s office and interrogated about an online personal ad he posted on a gay website.

Shawn Wooten was a driver for Henry County schools for five years, including for four schools in 2006, before he said he met with Preston Malcom, a former assistant superintendent of the Henry County school system last May about a personal ad that had come to school officials’ attention.

“He basically pulled out a copy of a personal ad I put up on Bear411.com from two years prior,” Wooten said of Malcom. “They said a parent was passing it around over at a high school.”

Malcom allegedly told Wooten that a copy of the profile — which featured several pictures of Wooten, along with images of users who commented on Wooten’s profile — had also been sent to Georgia School Superintendent Kathy Cox, according to Wooten. One of the images on Wooten’s profile was the genitals of a man who commented on Wooten’s ad.

Following the May 24 meeting, Malcom sent Wooten a list of four questions, according to a copy of a letter provided to the Washington Blade by Wooten. The questions included whether the pictures on the profile were of Wooten, whether he shared the information from the website with any Henry County students, whether he identified himself as a Henry County schools employee on his profile, and whether Wooten used school property to post the profile.

Wooten responded on May 31 that all of the pictures were his except for the explicit image, but answered no to Malcom’s other three questions. A week later, on June 8, Wooten received a letter from Henry County Schools Superintendent Jack Parish informing him that on June 7 “the Henry County Board of Education accepted my recommendation to terminate your employment as a school bus driver.”

Surely moral concerns alone are not enough to explain Wooten's dismissal. The usual reason in these cases is concern for the safety of the children... but, no one was afraid of Wooten before the ad came to light, even though he had surely been gay long before that. If he never did anything to the children prior to this revelation, what makes child abuse suddenly so probable that it justifies a firing?

Certainly it is motivated by fear, and certainly (since it flies in the face of elementary logic) it is irrational. So this, indeed, is an example of homophobia, and it harmed the life of someone who was just doing his job and keeping his private life private.

I am not saying that the idea of homophobia is never abused -- but I am saying that Kempling's dismissal of the idea itself is facile and not supported by reality.

James

[Simon]

If we enter the exact phrase "god hates fags" we find 187,000 hits.

But, this does not really mean how God sees gay people, right?





Simon- while you are busy with thinking about how christians are being persecuted, there are a growing number of people who actually believe in the teachings of Jesus and nonviolence.

Which side are you gonna be on? With the people who hate, or the people who really do want us all to live together in peace?

Daniel,

In the real world, Christians are being persecuted. In other parts of the planet:
http://www.persecution.org/suffering/index.php

There are people in India and Pakistan, who have been beaten and set on fire for their Christian faith. I also find it highly insensitive to discount their suffering.

Speaking of Jesus and the apostles, they were all persecuted for teaching nonviolence. All of them died. Didn't you know about it? For instance, Peter was crucified upside down. I highly applaud their teachings and I am on the side with people who want us all to live together in peace. For this very reason, I recommended you and others, these sites:

www.bridges-across.org

www.themarinfoundation.org.

www.gaychristian.net

I got nothing more to say because at this moment, I think I've said enough to make my point.

Peace, love, hugs, and blessings.

S.

[keltic63]

Simon,

are you a member at GayChristian.net?

[Simon]

Simon,

are you a member at GayChristian.net?

Yes, I am. are you a member of it?

[keltic63]

Yes, I am. are you a member of it?


Yes. I am. I use the same user name that I have here.

[Daniel]

But, this does not really mean how God sees gay people, right?

Oh...you've really got to be kidding. But after your performance last night, I guess not. You really do think god hates fags I suppose. This is as close as you've come to saying so out loud, though through a nice scrim of obfuscation. Nice move dodger.

Daniel,

In the real world, Christians are being persecuted. In other parts of the planet:
http://www.persecution.org/suffering/index.php

There are people in India and Pakistan, who have been beaten and set on fire for their Christian faith. I also find it highly insensitive to discount their suffering.

Sure they are. No one discounts that. And I'm real sorry that it happens. My heart goes out to all who suffer. Especially those who wittingly- or unwittingly- cause suffering to others by their ignorance and misguided actions- such as those who forment anti-gay atitudes and laws based on that ignorance. That includes you simon.

Yes. Christians suffer. We all suffer.

What are you gonna do about it? Help relieve suffering or add to it?

Speaking of Jesus and the apostles, they were all persecuted for teaching nonviolence. All of them died. Didn't you know about it? For instance, Peter was crucified upside down. I highly applaud their teachings and I am on the side with people who want us all to live together in peace. For this very reason, I recommended you and others, these sites:


I know all about the sites you mention (and the stories in the bible), and notice that your posting them seems to be your default setting as of late. It's what, the 6h or 7h time I've seen them mentioned here?

What is it you really want us to get from these that we aren't getting out of your posts? What aren't you saying that you think we are missing?

And btw- Bridges is not a place I think I will benefit from. After I read their articles and resources page, it is clear to me that the webite is designed to draw gay people to it in an a well conealed attempt to convert them to ex-gay status. Not a place I want to frequent- thank you very much. And as such, since you've been around here for a while, and know the drill, I take your repeated inclusion of this site on this forum as a marker of your ant-gay attitudes and feelings. That you continue to express these views- abet in a veiled way (again- nice going artful dodger!), only makes your presence here much clearer for this reader to understand.

Perhaps you are a conflicted gay person yourself? And cannot imagine that God loves you as you are?

Well. I don't exactly believe in God (you may have noticed- or maybe you didn't- that I'm a closet Buddhist), but have no trouble imagining that he forgives your self-loathing.

As one source says:

Teach only love- for that is what you are.

[tdogg]

Simon

Perhaps you can help us to 'understand' where you are coming from, by posting specific examples of where gays and lesbians have persecuted Christians for their faith. Using examples from news media would be more helpful than those quoted in anti-gay literature.

By the way, if a GLBT person was to commit a crime against a Christian specifically for that Christian's faith - it would be covered under the hate crimes bill.

[Jamie McDaniel]

Simon is sammy1980. Posting under an alternate username is not permitted for those who have lost their posting privileges due to prior guideline violations. Therefore the user account Simon has been placed on limited access and notified.

[Zerbie]

Oh. My. Word.

Well, that explains the sense that S came here with a mission and a bit of a grudge.

Simon/Sammy - PLEASE try and understand what has been explained to you, over and over again. No member of SF is trying to muzzle Christians, to harm or to persecute anyone. We are standing up for those who already HAVE BEEN silenced, and currently ARE being harmed and persecuted. We want it to STOP. Not change the target. Merely shifting the target to another group would be just as wrong as allowing it to continue against gay people. I pray that you understand this some day in the future.

[Daniel]

Simon is sammy1980. Posting under an alternate username is not permitted for those who have lost their posting privileges due to prior guideline violations. Therefore the user account Simon has been placed on limited access and notified.

Ain't that something.

~

Sammy/Simon - I hope you find the peace you so desperately crave. You deserve that. You understand, don't you, that those here will have reason to discount all that you have said, seeing that deception was involved? And that's too bad.

I also hope you are able to put your future efforts into interactions which bring you and others joy and happiness.

[Dash]

You know, I saw our friend Sammy over at Bridges Across the Divide when I was exploring the links. I was pleased to see that he had found a place where he felt at home.

Or maybe it was GayChristian.net...(my memory fails me ...Hahah)

[Daniel]

It's strange how the events of one's life dovetail with one another. Just got this message from Rev. Barbara Crafton which seems apt under current circumstances here. Not the same situation certainly, but her words made me think about what's happened here with sammy/simon.


IN THE BEAUTY OF THE LILIES

You're very pretty, but you're out of control.

This was addressed to a pretty little creeper, whom I had allowed to stay in place when she appeared and who is now carpeting the garden, trying to smother all the lavender on one side.

She is pretty: little blue flowers atop nice round leaves with frilled
edges. But today will be a day of ruthless weeding. You can't be
emotional about weeding. Just do it. Whistling "The Battle Hymn of the
Republic" while you weed helps you get through it.

What gives me the right to this campaign? Who am I to decide who will remain in the garden and who will not? Nothing gives me the right, I guess, except the fact that I am the gardener. I have responsibility for a whole garden full of plants, never for just one plant. My little blue-flowered friend can't run rampant and kill other plants.

Weeds are just plants, after all, plants who have a hard time with limits. They are not evil. The same things happens in groups of people, too, especially in groups of well-meaning people who want to affirm the gifts others. Churches, for instance. Sometimes a person whose need for recognition and power is deeper than the group can supply can begin to function like a weed, taking over everything the group tries to do, inserting her need for attention into every issue. She means no harm, but she can do a great deal of it. She isn't thinking clearly: her own neediness clouds her good intentions.

Very careful limits need to be set, and she will not like it. She will think you're not a good Christian, that you don't understand or respect her gifts, that nobody does. This makes the group feel guilty and sad: Maybe we should just let it go, they say to each other, she's had a hard life, after all. They yield to her way. But then they realize that they don't enjoy activities in which everything has to be about her, and they stop coming.

This is a time for reason, not for emotion. Whatever her needs, she is not the only one in the group whose bloom must be encouraged and protected: everyone needs his or her time in the sun. It may be that it is only by containing her can others find the sun.

If she can't make the shift, she may have to leave the garden. If she can, though, she's on her way to a maturity she never could have gained if everyone had folded and given her everything she wanted.


Copyright © 2007 Barbara Crafton - http://www.geraniumfarm.org

[nmwolfboy]

Simon is sammy1980. Posting under an alternate username is not permitted for those who have lost their posting privileges due to prior guideline violations. Therefore the user account Simon has been placed on limited access and notified.

Suspicion confirmed. i had wondered for a while about the similarities both in viewpoint and writing style. Thanks for letting us know, Jamie.

Simon/Sammy. Hugs and blessings to you. :pray:

[suzer1013]

Hmmm. I had tried, though not with complete success, to avoid responding to this thread for the very reason that it seemed the tactics of certain posters seemed to be very similar to Sammy1980. The other day, I wondered if indeed one, or both, of these posters was actually Sammy under another name. I guess my suspicion was correct, and I wasn't the only one having that suspicion.

What is frustrating is when responding to someone like Sammy, he (or she or whoever the particular person might be who uses these same tactics) ignores any good points we make. If you set someone right on a legal question, for example, he/she will ignore that and continue on pounding in only the points they want addressed.

Thus, I avoided these threads as much as I could. It's interesting to know my suspicions were confirmed.

Susan

[dewdrop_world]

What is frustrating is when responding to someone like Sammy, he (or she or whoever the particular person might be who uses these same tactics) ignores any good points we make. If you set someone right on a legal question, for example, he/she will ignore that and continue on pounding in only the points they want addressed.

Yes, exactly -- it's the studied, unflappable suavity of the con artist.

James

[Emproph]

Hi Emproph,

I was wondering how are you doing? After you guys bashed me at Soulforce, I came here for the peace and solace.

I have been reading your posts and I noticed that you tend to present negative aspects of conservative Christianity. If that's okay for you to do that on a Christian site, why wouldn't it be okay for me to present negative aspects of homosexual agenda that Soulforce is advocating?

Just a thought,

Peace and love,

Sammy

PS: why don't Soulforce forums also have a rule against personal attacks, like it is here?

He's in his element over there and bashing us with the best of them.

[antonyh]

First off, Soulforce goes to colleges to talk to people, not to force people to be silent about their beliefs. And if you are truly in touch with the teaching of Gandhi, then you know we can only change ourselves.

Now. Your second assertion prompted this reader to do a little ad hoc research. How about we take a look at what's going on out there via a quick look at google?

~

If one used the advanced setting at google and looks for the exact phrase "gays persecute christians" we find 0 hits.

However, if we enter the exact phrase "christians persecute gays" we find 24 hits.

~

If we enter the exact phrase "homosexuals hate christians" we find 64 hits.

If we enter the exact phrase "christians hate homosexuals" we find 1800 hits.

~

If we enter the exact phrase "god hates fags" we find 187,000 hits.

(If we enter the exact phrase "god hates christians" we find 2050 hits.)

If we enter the exact phrase "fags hate god" we find 915 hits.

~

If we enter the exact phrase "christians are persecuted " we find 18,000 hits.

If we enter the exact phrase "buddhist are persecuted" we find 280 hits.

If we enter the exact phrase "muslims are persecuted" we find 9990 hits.

If we enter the exact phrase "gays are persecuted" we find 2170 hits.

If we enter the exact phrase " homosexuals are persecuted" we find 1930 hits.

~

What does all this tell us?

Well. Several things stand out. For one thing, it is pretty clear that there is a great deal more discourse regarding the perception that christians have a real problem with gay people. Another thing is that christians have the perception that they are being persecuted.

Is it possible that the two issues have something to do with one another? One writer, Elizabeth A. Castelli, a historian of Christian martyrdom, attended a Christian Right strategy session in the "War on Christians" and had this to say.

http://www.therevealer.org/archives/main_story_002500.php




Simon- while you are busy with thinking about how christians are being persecuted, there are a growing number of people who actually believe in the teachings of Jesus and nonviolence. They are on the left and the right, and they are tired of being told by conservatives that they don't follow the true faith as laid out to them by those who seem hell bent on domination and will use all force necessary to their goals.

Is that really the way of Christ?

Which side are you gonna be on? With the people who hate, the misguided and willfully ignorant, or the people who really do want us all to live together in peace?

Daniel, that is some impressive googling!

[Daniel]

Daniel, that is some impressive googling!

Thanks partner! :cowboy:

Though I see I got the figure right for the Buddhist line (280 - I checked again...must be a peaceful bunch ;)), I didn't spell 'Buddhists' correctly in the original post. I left off the S.

Still working on the spelling thing...sigh.

~

I never ceases to amaze what what one can find out with a little curiosity. The striking thing here, as I see it, is that the language of hate towards gay people is taking a lot more web space than the language of Christian persecution. It's just odd that the same community - the conservative Christian community- is involved in both figures, isn't it? :rolleyes: The stuff of irony. Hence the tee shirt I saw on Christopher Street in a window years ago:

Jesus! Save me from your followers!

It's odd too, that the language of persecution towards gay/homosexual people is hardly on the radar. Makes one wonder who is doing all the screaming. And who is listening.

[BrentRichards]

Jesus! Save me from your followers!


I'm also fond of: "Jesus is not to blame for some of the jerks who believe in him."

[NathanATX]

Hmmm. I had tried, though not with complete success, to avoid responding to this thread for the very reason that it seemed the tactics of certain posters seemed to be very similar to Sammy1980. The other day, I wondered if indeed one, or both, of these posters was actually Sammy under another name. I guess my suspicion was correct, and I wasn't the only one having that suspicion.

What is frustrating is when responding to someone like Sammy, he (or she or whoever the particular person might be who uses these same tactics) ignores any good points we make. If you set someone right on a legal question, for example, he/she will ignore that and continue on pounding in only the points they want addressed.

Thus, I avoided these threads as much as I could. It's interesting to know my suspicions were confirmed.

Susan

On one hand these kinds of situations are exasperating and pointless.

On the other hand, though, I think we're learning some things.

You all realize that Sammy's "compassionate conservatism" is really the best arguement/position that fundamentalists can take?

It is beoming increasingly clear to these bigoted people that their arguements are being viewed for the insane, duplicitous, in-authentic garbage they are. Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Seminary even said he believes sexuality may be genetic.

The whole word is beginning to make anti-gay bigots a laughingstock... and many people, even conservative Christians are realizing there isn't much basis for the bigotry.

So they are changing tactics to this "compassionate conservatism." If you get exodus emails, you can really see how they are changing their tactics too. They are becoming increasingly irrelevant.

So, yes... Sammy is a royal pain... but it's similar to "post-physical-therapy" pain you experience after an injury. It still sucks, but it's not as bad as the original injury and eventually, you know you'll be free of it.

[antonyh]

Americans for Truth are claiming that two girls who handed out antigay flyers in Crystal Lakes, Illinois received felony charges under "hate crimes" laws.

http://americansfortruth.com/news/girls-face-felony-hate-crimes-charge-for-passing-out-anti-homosexuality-fliers.html

The Religious Right are using this "thought crimes" tact to derail the Hate Crimes Bill. I want to invite you to take action and to send the Open Letter to the Senate to your Senator. You can find it at http://www.hatecrimesbill.org. Senators need to know what is going on in our country and you can be instrumental in getting the right message to them.

If anyone discovers more about this situation, please post it.

[andrewlittle]

At the crux of the matter seems to be that one of the boys is a classmate with whom one of the girls had a "falling out". No-one seems to reporting what the fliers said, other than it included "God hates F-gs". Perhaps it is the fact that it involuntarily outed the boys, but that is not clear as yet.

Some other articles on the situation are below, but none of them go into very much detail.

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=187538

http://www.nwherald.com/articles/2007/05/17/news/local/doc464c19ae6c3e8295611781.txt

http://www.queerty.com/queer/news/mean-girls-charged-with-hate-crime-20070517.php

[Dash]

It's definitely a difficult situation, and will be used against us. The dreadful significance of what the girls did cannot be understated however. Crystal Lake is most notable for the recent controversy over hosting the rowing competition for the Gay Games in Chicago. There was serious debate in the town:

In Crystal Lake, a vote on whether to allow the Gay Games to use the lake for rowing plunged the northwest suburb into an angry debate about homosexuality before the park district board narrowly gave approval. -Chicago Tribune, 6/14/06
Mr. LaBarbera was unhappy then too:

And some social conservatives, who contend the Games are an excuse to push a gay lifestyle, are fuming.

"The whole thing is a celebration of homosexuality, and we think homosexuality is wrong," said Peter LaBarbera, executive director of Glen Ellyn-based Illinois Family Institute. "This is not just about sport."-Chicago Tribune, 6/14/06

Point being...that town is not by any means a safe place for young men to be outed unexpectedly, if that's what happened. The immediate impact could be such things as family problems, school problems, church problems, etc.

In their ANTI-LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER VIOLENCE IN 2006 (http://www.avp.org/publications/reports/2006NtnlHVReportReleaseEdition.pdf), the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs discusses the "often youthful profile of many perpetrators of hate violence." (p.11) Their report also stresses the need for education in schools (p14). One of the good things about the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (http://www.hatecrimesbill.org/) is that it provides federal funds for local education and prevention:

SEC. 5. GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) Authority to Award Grants- The Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice may award grants, in accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, to State, local, or Tribal programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs to train local law enforcement officers in identifying, investigating, prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes.

(b) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.

Youthful crimes such as this can be prevented by education. I would hate to see these young ladies a) significantly damaging their once dear friend, and b) breaking the law, simply through ignorance of the terrible impact these kinds of anti-gay campaigns can have on individuals. It's practically incitement! How sad for everyone. I would not want to be the young men that have had their faces plastered all over school.

[Zerbie]

Okay this whole thing pisses me off.

It's almost impossible to get an accurate sense of what the charges are based on since we are not privy to the contents of the flier.

Given the information we have, I find it offensive that hate crimes statutes are used this way - hate crimes statutes are supposed to protect against violence, not speech.

It does raise the issue of incitement, which I am beginning to wonder about.

I know from experience that high school kids in a row can be mean and vindictive. That's not unusual. I have to say I feel some sympathy for the two little brats who were probably shocked and scared out of their minds when faced with arrest and a possible jail sentence. How precisely is this a hate crime? Why aren't the charges misdemeanors, for disrupting the peace? That's what it sounds like it really is, based on what I've read. Doesn't the SCHOOL have behavioral guidelines and consequences for things like this? X-amount of time suspension, or such like?

If indeed Illinois is abusing the hate crimes legislation then that IS a lousy precedent, and the whole darn thing needs to go back to the drawing board.

[Dash]

Okay this whole thing pisses me off.

It's almost impossible to get an accurate sense of what the charges are based on since we are not privy to the contents of the flier.

Given the information we have, I find it offensive that hate crimes statutes are used this way - hate crimes statutes are supposed to protect against violence, not speech.

It does raise the issue of incitement, which I am beginning to wonder about.

I know from experience that high school kids in a row can be mean and vindictive. That's not unusual. I have to say I feel some sympathy for the two little brats who were probably shocked and scared out of their minds when faced with arrest and a possible jail sentence. How precisely is this a hate crime? Why aren't the charges misdemeanors, for disrupting the peace? That's what it sounds like it really is, based on what I've read. Doesn't the SCHOOL have behavioral guidelines and consequences for things like this? X-amount of time suspension, or such like?

If indeed Illinois is abusing the hate crimes legislation then that IS a lousy precedent, and the whole darn thing needs to go back to the drawing board.

Illinois has anti-bullying laws: Link (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/010500050K27-23.7.htm)

Preventing or interfering with a child's attendance at school (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/010500050K22-12.htm). Whoever by threat, menace, or intimidation prevents any child entitled to attend a public or nonpublic school in this State from attending such school or interferes with any such child's attendance at that school shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

One of the articles (http://www.queerty.com/queer/news/me...e-20070517.php) quotes First Assistant McHenry County State’s Attorney Thomas Carroll (jeeez...what a title!)

“You can be charged with a hate crime if you make a statement or take an action that inflicts injury or incites a breach of the peace based on a person’s race, creed, gender or perceived sexual orientation,”

The Illinois Code says:

(720 ILCS 5/12‑7.1) (from Ch. 38, par. 12‑7.1)
Sec. 12‑7.1. Hate crime. (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072000050K12-7.1.htm)
(a) A person commits hate crime when, by reason of the actual or perceived race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, or national origin of another individual or group of individuals, regardless of the existence of any other motivating factor or factors, he commits assault, battery, aggravated assault, misdemeanor theft, criminal trespass to residence, misdemeanor criminal damage to property, criminal trespass to vehicle, criminal trespass to real property, mob action or disorderly conduct as these crimes are defined in Sections 12‑1, 12‑2, 12‑3, 16‑1, 19‑4, 21‑1, 21‑2, 21‑3, 25‑1, and 26‑1 of this Code, respectively, or harassment by telephone as defined in Section 1‑1 of the Harassing and Obscene Communications Act, or harassment through electronic communications as defined in clauses (a)(2) and (a)(4) of Section 1‑2 of the Harassing and Obscene Communications Act.

Frankly, I don't see how the First Assistant McHenry County State’s Attorney Thomas Carroll is correct that "making a statement" is covered in this case.

Makes one wonder if it is a mistake...or...

[antonyh]

Ed Yohnka, a spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, said the case illustrated a complex struggle between protecting targeted groups of people and protecting the First Amendment.

In fact, the issue is so divisive that the ACLU of Illinois differed from its national organization’s support of a federal hate-crimes law that passed the U.S. House of Representatives and now is in the U.S. Senate. The law would include gender and sexual orientation as protected groups in hate-crime laws, as Illinois already does.


http://www.nwherald.com/articles/2007/05/17/news/local/doc464c19ae6c3e8295611781.txt

This shows how important it is to explicitly protect free speech in the Hate Crimes Bill. Did not know this stuggle was going on at the ACLU.

[Zerbie]

Interesting-er and interesting-er.

The way I see the AG's reference to statement, it IS covered by the Illnois statute, as disorderly conduct (and potentially as incitement to further disorderly conduct). I don't like the way the IL statute is written. I think it is vague and open to abusive interpretation.

I am glad that the federal statute avoids any language of this kind and that it does protect freedom of speech. Otherwise we could have landed in a very real turf war between hate crimes statutues and first amendment rights, as we're seeing in IL. I was not aware of the ACLU schism over this either.

Illinois has anti-bullying laws:

Preventing or interfering with a child's attendance at school. Whoever by threat, menace, or intimidation prevents any child entitled to attend a public or nonpublic school in this State from attending such school or interferes with any such child's attendance at that school shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

One of the articles (http://www.queerty.com/queer/news/me...e-20070517.php) quotes First Assistant McHenry County State’s Attorney Thomas Carroll (jeeez...what a title!)

“You can be charged with a hate crime if you make a statement or take an action that inflicts injury or incites a breach of the peace based on a person’s race, creed, gender or perceived sexual orientation,”

The Illinois Code says:

(720 ILCS 5/12?7.1) (from Ch. 38, par. 12?7.1)
Sec. 12?7.1. Hate crime. (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072000050K12-7.1.htm)
(a) A person commits hate crime when, by reason of the actual or perceived race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, or national origin of another individual or group of individuals, regardless of the existence of any other motivating factor or factors, he commits assault, battery, aggravated assault, misdemeanor theft, criminal trespass to residence, misdemeanor criminal damage to property, criminal trespass to vehicle, criminal trespass to real property, mob action or disorderly conduct as these crimes are defined in Sections 12?1, 12?2, 12?3, 16?1, 19?4, 21?1, 21?2, 21?3, 25?1, and 26?1 of this Code, respectively, or harassment by telephone as defined in Section 1?1 of the Harassing and Obscene Communications Act, or harassment through electronic communications as defined in clauses (a)(2) and (a)(4) of Section 1?2 of the Harassing and Obscene Communications Act.

Frankly, I don't see how the First Assistant McHenry County State’s Attorney Thomas Carroll is correct that "making a statement" is covered in this case.

Makes one wonder if it is a mistake...or...

[Dash]

Interesting-er and interesting-er.

The way I see the AG's reference to statement, it IS covered by the Illnois statute, as disorderly conduct (and potentially as incitement to further disorderly conduct). I don't like the way the IL statute is written. I think it is vague and open to abusive interpretation.

I am glad that the federal statute avoids any language of this kind and that it does protect freedom of speech. Otherwise we could have landed in a very real turf war between hate crimes statutues and first amendment rights, as we're seeing in IL. I was not aware of the ACLU schism over this either.

I bet you are right:

(720 ILCS 5/26‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 26‑1) (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072000050K26-1.htm)
Sec. 26‑1. Elements of the Offense.
(a) A person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly:
(1) Does any act in such unreasonable manner as to
alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace; or

The inclusion of "disorderly conduct" in the Illinois Hate Crime statute is extremely unfortunate. As I read the entire "Elements of the Offense" section, none of the elements of disorderly conduct are appropriate as relative to a hate crime. They are "prank-like" offenses. They can be dangerous indirectly, and are rightly criminal acts, but are not violent against the body of a person.

[antonyh]

I bet you are right:

(720 ILCS 5/26‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 26‑1) (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072000050K26-1.htm)
Sec. 26‑1. Elements of the Offense.
(a) A person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly:
(1) Does any act in such unreasonable manner as to
alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace; or

The inclusion of "disorderly conduct" in the Illinois Hate Crime statute is extremely unfortunate. As I read the entire "Elements of the Offense" section, none of the elements of disorderly conduct are appropriate as relative to a hate crime. They are "prank-like" offenses. They can be dangerous indirectly, and are rightly criminal acts, but are not violent against the body of a person.

There you have it. Dash I think you missed your calling. You should have been a lawyer.

Unfortunately, the RR will be using this for leverage against the Federal Hate Crimes Bill.

[BrentRichards]

It should be said that free speech does not always apply to PRINT. Putting things in print about another enters the world of libel. Remember, this was not a generic "God hates fags" flyer ... it pictured the specific student she was angry at kissing another boy, accompanied by the God hates fags slogan ... by specifically targeting an indentifiable student, it ceased to be about free speech. The foundation I work for does a lot of anti-bullying training, and this episode is classic anti-gay bullying ... public distribution of an embarrassing image, inflammatory language, obvious intent to punish or ostracize ... under most definitions, this qualifies as hazing and harassment, not free speech.

See also GLSEN's "From Teasing to Torment: School Climate in America - A National Report on School Bullying" (http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/library/record/1859.html)

[antonyh]

It looks like the ACLU is now supporting the Hate Crimes bill because of the free speech addition:

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/12252prs20050526.html

[Zerbie]

It should be said that free speech does not always apply to PRINT. Putting things in print about another enters the world of libel. Remember, this was not a generic "God hates fags" flyer ... it pictured the specific student she was angry at kissing another boy, accompanied by the God hates fags slogan ... by specifically targeting an indentifiable student, it ceased to be about free speech. The foundation I work for does a lot of anti-bullying training, and this episode is classic anti-gay bullying ... public distribution of an embarrassing image, inflammatory language, obvious intent to punish or ostracize ... under most definitions, this qualifies as hazing and harassment, not free speech.

See also GLSEN's "From Teasing to Torment: School Climate in America - A National Report on School Bullying" (http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/library/record/1859.html)

Okay I wondered about that too - about the libelous aspect, and about the fact that there was a specific individual targeted. I think what I see you saying is that it falls under the anti-bullying statute (which i believe someone said that IL, or this particular school, has) - but I don't see how it fits as a hate crime as I understand hate crime (physical violence, actual or attempted). I agree that it's harassment. Is that not a separate issue from hate crime? Should it not be punished differently? Upon first reaction, I think arrest and jail time seem out of proportion to what was done. Any feedback on this issue?

[andrewlittle]

This may qualify under the Anti-bullying law, but not the hate crime law - at least to the extent we know the circumstances.

And libel is a civil situation, not a criminal one.

[Dash]

It looks like the ACLU is now supporting the Hate Crimes bill because of the free speech addition:

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/gen/12252prs20050526.html

Sounds like sompin' that could be linked to from www.hatecrimesbill.org (http://www.hatecrimesbill.org). You could make a page for supportive news items!

[Dash]

Okay I wondered about that too - about the libelous aspect, and about the fact that there was a specific individual targeted. I think what I see you saying is that it falls under the anti-bullying statute (which i believe someone said that IL, or this particular school, has) - but I don't see how it fits as a hate crime as I understand hate crime (physical violence, actual or attempted). I agree that it's harassment. Is that not a separate issue from hate crime? Should it not be punished differently? Upon first reaction, I think arrest and jail time seem out of proportion to what was done. Any feedback on this issue?

I agree absolutely...something is seriously outta wack in this situation. How did it rise to the level of arrest? I'd sure like to know more about the circumstances.

[BrentRichards]

The problem here might be that the hate crimes statute in question is being interpreted to include ANY CRIME committed because of identification with a protected class, rather than limiting to violent crimes? Am I reading that right?

[antonyh]

LGQTs6Y3WfA&NR=1

This guy is really working the free speech angle.

[antonyh]

How unfortunate:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/HarryRJacksonJr/2007/05/21/liberty_or_death_an_open_letter_to_the_african-american_community&Comments=true

[Emproph]

House Debate...Repr. Pence Against Hate Crime Bill
LGQTs6Y3WfA&NR=1
This guy is really working the free speech angle.

This seems to have been uploaded by congressman Pence himself. There are several videos of his on this account (http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=CongressmanPence), user name: CongressmanPence.

And like I said, comments and ratings appear to be open...

[antonyh]

This seems to have been uploaded by congressman Pence himself. There are several videos of his on this account (http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=CongressmanPence), user name: CongressmanPence.

And like I said, comments and ratings appear to be open...

Oh, how you tempt me...

[Dash]

Oh, how you tempt me...

I know!! Right? hahaha!!

[Daniel]

http://www.towleroad.com/

In April, I posted about the arrest of three teens in McMinnville, Tennessee, who targeted the home of Neal Anthony and his partner Michael Duncan with paintballs because they were gay.

The names of the teens were not released because they are minors, but apparently they were not connected to the disgusting gay slurs that were also spray-painted on the side of Anthony's historic 1851 home. If you'll remember, the messages said "all gays go to hell" and "fags deserve to die".

Last weekend, Anthony was reportedly targeted again, according to a Towleroad tipster. Says our source: "Yet another hate crime took place over the weekend when four rocks crashed through his front windows as a Red (possibly Burgundy) Ford Explorer with people screaming "FAGS MUST DIE" drove by Neal's home. The local Sheriff's Dep't was once again called out but the investigating officer claimed they could do nothing as the car was headed into an adjoining county (where they have no jurisdiction) and so the matter could not be pursued."

According to our source, the police see the spray-painting incident as a cold case and are refusing to pursue it further, even though there may be a connection between this recent rock-throwing incident and the spray paint incident in April. Tracking a red Ford Explorer should not be tough work in rural Tennessee, unless, of course, there is some reason someone is being protected.

[Zerbie]

Would a federal hate crimes bill empower the local police to investigate across that county line? As I understand things, that's what it's for. Am I correct in this understanding?

[antonyh]

Here are more local links to the story:

http://www.newschannel5.com/global/story.asp?s=6391558

http://outandaboutnewspaper.com/article.php?id=1492

http://outandaboutnewspaper.com/article.php?id=1494

I wonder if the Attorney General of Tennessee could be called:

http://www.attorneygeneral.state.tn.us/index.html

[antonyh]

I bet you are right:

(720 ILCS 5/26‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 26‑1) (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072000050K26-1.htm)
Sec. 26‑1. Elements of the Offense.
(a) A person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly:
(1) Does any act in such unreasonable manner as to
alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace; or

The inclusion of "disorderly conduct" in the Illinois Hate Crime statute is extremely unfortunate. As I read the entire "Elements of the Offense" section, none of the elements of disorderly conduct are appropriate as relative to a hate crime. They are "prank-like" offenses. They can be dangerous indirectly, and are rightly criminal acts, but are not violent against the body of a person.

Update on Illinois Situation:
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/local_story_143112241.html

[BrentRichards]

Update on Illinois Situation:
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/local_story_143112241.html

“I’m very nervous about your daughter being home without supervision,” Judge Michael Chmiel told the girl’s mother.

The 16-year-old girl has had about 12 other run-ins with police over recent years, Chmiel said.


Hmmm..... telling.

Unrelated to the hate crimes discussion, but interesting to note ... students identified as "bullies" at school are far more likely to be arrested for violent crimes later in life. The woman who does the bullying prevention training for our foundation has been following this case, too ... it's classic in that field.

I'm wondering if this wouldn't be covered better as a harrassment case?

[antonyh]

My big fear is that as this goes national, it will be used against the Hate Crimes Bill.

[Emproph]

Congressman Pence R-Indiana

Transcript of hate crime:

LGQTs6Y3WfA

CongressmanPence says:

...Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

It would be Thomas Jefferson who would remind the American people that the government reaches actions only and not opinions in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptists.

This legislation is unnecessary and bad public policy. Violent attacks on people or property are already illegal, regardless of the motive behind them, and there’s no evidence of an underlying violent crimes at issue here that are not already being fully and aggressively prosecuted.

Therefore hate crimes laws serve no practical purpose, and instead serve to penalize people for their thoughts and beliefs.

Now some of these thoughts and beliefs are abhorrent like racism and sexism, and I disdain them. But hate crimes bills are broad enough to encompass legitimate beliefs as well. And protecting the rights of freedom of speech and religion must be paramount on our minds.

The First Amendment says congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

The real possibility that this bill as written, that religious leaders, or members of religious groups could be prosecuted criminally based on their speech or prosecuted/or protected activities under conspiracy laws or section 2 of title 18, which holds a person criminally liable if they aid and abet in the commission of a crime.

Putting a chill on a pastor's words or religious broadcaster’s programming, an evangelical leader’s message, or even the leader of a small group bible study is a blatant attack on the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of religion.

Last week I offered an amendment before the committee that simply would have stated that nothing in this section limits the religious freedom of any person or group under the constitution, unfortunately this amendment was rejected by the majority and rejected by the rules committee for consideration today.

We must guard against the potential for the abuse of hate crimes laws, and the Pence amendment would have done so by stating once and for all that people and groups will not have their constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of religion taken away.

Speaker: gavel sounds and says 3x “The gentleman’s time is expired” {crossover with below}

On this national day of prayer, let’s take a stand for the right of every American to believe and speak and pray in accordance with the dictates of their conscience, and object this legislation.

So you're more worried about the "chill" it may have on preaching Leviticus 20:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:13&version=31) than you are on the actual practice of it?:

If a man lies with a man...They must be put to death

You're a real champion for liberty Pence.

[Zerbie]

I too want these legislations to guard against abuse - the Illinois case is an example of such, according to the little I know, anyway.

But this guy is out of his mind if he finds the federal bill to allow for prosecution of speech - out of his mind, or he has read a different bill from the one that I read. I saw no such section - did we read the same thing? Is he lying outright? Or did I find an inaccurate version of the legislation under discussion?

[antonyh]

Letter to Members of Congress regarding "Sexual Orientation Hate" Laws

Dear ___________,

Please oppose the "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" hate crime bill when it comes to a vote in the Congress. The net effect of introducing such categories into federal law will be to intimidate persons who love homosexual persons but don't love the error of homosexual behavior into shutting up or face an attenuation of their civil liberties. Hate crime legislation will do nothing to reduce anti-homosex violence against homosexual persons. A homosexual person is far more likely to die of disease associated with homosexual practice than become a victim of an anti-homosex bias crime. The real effect of a "sexual orientation hate" law will be to codify in law the view that any opposition to homosexual practice, no matter how loving, is rank bigotry. It is not right that I and my children should be regarded by the law for all intents and purposes as the moral equivalent of a racist. An impulse to engage in bodily discordant sexual behavior with a person of the same sex cannot be equated with race and sex, which are 100% heritable, absolutely immutable, primarily non-behavioral, and thus essentially benign conditions. An orientation to something, no matter how steeped in congenital causation factors, is not a moral argument. Pedophilia (pedosexuality) and polyamory (polysexuality) are sexual orientations too, but congenital causation factors don't make these conditions morally acceptable. Protecting the freedom of my family to hold our convictions on this issue without being classified by the law as bigots is the most important political issue for me that you will vote on this year. See my fuller write-up on the subject of so-called hate-crime legislation at...

Thank you,

Robert Gagnon, Ph.D.

Associate Professor, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary

[keltic63]

http://www.robgagnon.net/HateCrimesLetterCongress.htm



OMG. I am so mad I can't even talk about this! I forwarded the link to a friend of mine who is a student at PTS right now. she had a class with this guy, and he was so narrow-minded and refused to allow any discussion about orientation within his class. The class was about homosexuality issues!!!!!

[BrentRichards]

Gagnon is famous for this. It's his usual dispicable style, that's for sure. Take comfort, he's not even close to the mainstream at PTS or any Presby Seminary

[antonyh]

Gagnon is famous for this. It's his usual dispicable style, that's for sure. Take comfort, he's not even close to the mainstream at PTS or any Presby Seminary

Why do they let him teach there? I can understand someone having a different view and arguing it in a civil way, but this stuff is just rancid.

[BrentRichards]

Why do they let him teach there? I can understand someone having a different view and arguing it in a civil way, but this stuff is just rancid.

Dunno. I wasn't in on that hire!

[Dash]

[link removed]

Letter to Members of Congress regarding "Sexual Orientation Hate" Laws

Dear ___________,

Please oppose the "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" hate crime bill when it comes to a vote in the Congress. The net effect of introducing such categories into federal law will be to intimidate persons who love homosexual persons but don't love the error of homosexual behavior into shutting up or face an attenuation of their civil liberties. Hate crime legislation will do nothing to reduce anti-homosex violence against homosexual persons. A homosexual person is far more likely to die of disease associated with homosexual practice than become a victim of an anti-homosex bias crime. The real effect of a "sexual orientation hate" law will be to codify in law the view that any opposition to homosexual practice, no matter how loving, is rank bigotry. It is not right that I and my children should be regarded by the law for all intents and purposes as the moral equivalent of a racist. An impulse to engage in bodily discordant sexual behavior with a person of the same sex cannot be equated with race and sex, which are 100% heritable, absolutely immutable, primarily non-behavioral, and thus essentially benign conditions. An orientation to something, no matter how steeped in congenital causation factors, is not a moral argument. Pedophilia (pedosexuality) and polyamory (polysexuality) are sexual orientations too, but congenital causation factors don't make these conditions morally acceptable. Protecting the freedom of my family to hold our convictions on this issue without being classified by the law as bigots is the most important political issue for me that you will vote on this year. See my fuller write-up on the subject of so-called hate-crime legislation at [link removed].

Thank you,

Robert Gagnon, Ph.D.

Associate Professor, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary

Antony, maybe we should edit our posts to remove the link. It will only improve his standing in search results. Ugh!!! :p

By the way, I have linked to www.hatecrimesbill.org on my website. Thanks for the suggestion. ;)

[keltic63]

Why do they let him teach there? I can understand someone having a different view and arguing it in a civil way, but this stuff is just rancid.

I forwarded that link to my friend who is presently a student at PTS. She was livid, and suggested a letter-writing campaign to the PTS, office of the president. :D she considers him an embarassment to the PTS, and wonders, like antonyh, why he is allowed to continue teaching there. off-topic briefly: she dropped his class because he blamed all ills of society on "the gays" then she told me that she thinks "he protests too much!" :lol:


here is some contact info for PTS:
President's Office

William Carl III (WCarl@pts.edu) is the fifth president of the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and also serves as professor of homiletics. For further information about Carl, please visit his faculty page (http://www.pts.edu/carlw.html).


Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
616 N. Highland Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15206

[antonyh]

Antony, maybe we should edit our posts to remove the link. It will only improve his standing in search results. Ugh!!! :p

By the way, I have linked to www.hatecrimesbill.org on my website. Thanks for the suggestion. ;)

Good point! I will ;) Thanks for the link. Link to us folks...we need 'em links.

[antonyh]

I forwarded that link to my friend who is presently a student at PTS. She was livid, and suggested a letter-writing campaign to the PTS, office of the president. :D she considers him an embarassment to the PTS, and wonders, like antonyh, why he is allowed to continue teaching there. off-topic briefly: she dropped his class because he blamed all ills of society on "the gays" then she told me that she thinks "he protests too much!" :lol:


here is some contact info for PTS:
President's Office

William Carl III (WCarl@pts.edu) is the fifth president of the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and also serves as professor of homiletics. For further information about Carl, please visit his faculty page (http://www.pts.edu/carlw.html).


Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
616 N. Highland Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15206

I sent an email

[BrentRichards]

Here is the rather extensive e-mail I sent ... this is one of "our" seminaries (Presbyterian Church USA), and I'm unhappy to see him using his title there to legitimize this opinion.


Reverend Doctor Carl -

I recently received a copy of a letter to congressmen purported to be written by Robert Gagnon, of your faculty, in regard to the "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crime Prevention Act." The letter does in fact appear on his personal website, and so is apparently actually his. Dr. Gagnon is of course entitled as a citizen to express his opinions to our legislature, but it appears that the letter was signed with his title of Associate Professor at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, thereby tacitly stamping his opinion as if it were that of the Seminary, and of Presbyterians, generally. If this is so, I as a Presbyterian am very concerned about the disingenuous, fear-mongering, and excedingly unChristian tone of the letter, and of the thought that it is ostensibly representing my denomination's view. The text of the letter, as I recieved it, is as follows:

Letter to Members of Congress regarding "Sexual Orientation Hate" Laws

Dear ___________,

Please oppose the "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" hate crime bill when it comes to a vote in the Congress. The net effect of introducing such categories into federal law will be to intimidate persons who love homosexual persons but don't love the error of homosexual behavior into shutting up or face an attenuation of their civil liberties. Hate crime legislation will do nothing to reduce anti-homosex violence against homosexual persons. A homosexual person is far more likely to die of disease associated with homosexual practice than become a victim of an anti-homosex bias crime. The real effect of a "sexual orientation hate" law will be to codify in law the view that any opposition to homosexual practice, no matter how loving, is rank bigotry. It is not right that I and my children should be regarded by the law for all intents and purposes as the moral equivalent of a racist. An impulse to engage in bodily discordant sexual behavior with a person of the same sex cannot be equated with race and sex, which are 100% heritable, absolutely immutable, primarily non-behavioral, and thus essentially benign conditions. An orientation to something, no matter how steeped in congenital causation factors, is not a moral argument. Pedophilia (pedosexuality) and polyamory (polysexuality) are sexual orientations too, but congenital causation factors don't make these conditions morally acceptable. Protecting the freedom of my family to hold our convictions on this issue without being classified by the law as bigots is the most important political issue for me that you will vote on this year. See my fuller write-up on the subject of so-called hate-crime legislation at... [link removed]

Thank you,

Robert Gagnon, Ph.D.

Associate Professor, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary

Dr. Gagnon is quick to assert his love for homosexual persons, but is equally quick to jump on the bandwagon of those who have falsely claimed or implied that this bill contains provisions which would limit religious free speech. I've read the bill quite carefully, and can find nothing of the kind. Gagnon's website cites an isolated remark from a committee debate on the bill, in which a Representative acknowledges that, if a minister should be named by a violent criminal as having "inspired" the violent crime by his preaching, he could not guarantee that "in no way could that ever be introduced against the minister." This remark has been touted by many as evidence of the danger of the bill, but it is absurd. Have you ever pressed a lawyer to get a "guarantee" about what a court may or may not do in any given case? Someone's remark that a hypothetical sermon could conceivably be introduced into evidence (with no implication that any charges would be upheld) is hardly an iron-clad argument that the bill is a danger to free speech.

Further, Dr. Gagnon goes on to make the crass assertion that "A homosexual person is far more likely to die of disease associated with homosexual practice than become a victim of an anti-homosex bias crime." I wonder if he has some statistical backing for this claim? Even if it is true (and I frankly don't know whether it is), his statement reeks of blaming the victim: We all know gays die of AIDS, which is their fault, so why worry about hate crimes, which aren't? It seems to me Dr. Gagnon has very quickly belied his claimed love for homosexual persons --how can any in the church look to AIDS and the other diseases that we watched ravish the gay community some years ago, and see the disease as an argument against protecting people from bias-motivated violence today? The church, and those purporting to be teachers in it, should be weeping over such death and suffering, as well as over violent crime. To use them instead as a "weapon" in a political argument is horribly un-Christlike.

I'm sure racial minorities and women will be happy to know their conditions are "benign." On the other hand, many in the gay community will be incensed at Gagnon's equation of even monogamous, committed same-sex relationships with pedophilia and polyamory. Gagnon is apparently having difficulty with his definitions, as I've never heard these classified as sexual orientations, as he boldly claims them to be. His mud-slinging attempt at "guilt by association" argument here is blatant, and is certainly nothing he learned from Jesus, the friend of sinners and tax collectors.

The only way this law will prevent him and his family from holding to their "convictions" on homosexuality is if his convictions include committing or inciting violence against gay people, which I certainly don't believe they do.

We in the PCUSA are currently very concerned with the "Peace, Unity, and Purity" of the church. While Gagnon's approach might be construed to argue for purity, it clearly has nothing to do with peace or unity, and I think, precious little to do with Jesus. In these heated debates, more heat is not what we need. I am sure you will agree that your Seminary should not be perceived as contributing to the rancor, rather than the truth of this debate.

As I have said, Gagnon is entitled to his opinion, and entitled to express it. That is his right. Unfortunately, it's also his right to express such vitriol under the name of Christian teacher. Jesus, I have no doubt, weeps. But, I have to ask you, as President of PTS, whether he indeed has the right to express his views in this way under the name of your school, and our denomination. Will you please look into this matter, verify whether this opinion was in fact presented as if representative of your Seminary, and take appropriate action based on your findings?

I look forward to your response.

Most sincerely,

Brent Richards (ordained elder)
Elizabethtown, PA
Member of Wayside Presbyterian Church
Presbytery of Donegal

[antonyh]

Here is the rather extensive e-mail I sent ... this is one of "our" seminaries (Presbyterian Church USA), and I'm unhappy to see him using his title there to legitimize this opinion.

Great letter.

[Montanna]

Thanks for writting that great letter, Brent. As a Presbyterian, I appreciate your doing that. Too many people get away with using their position to create the illusion that they are speaking for many. If the title wasn't attached, their words wouldn't carry the same weight. And he knows that. So, from his statement, can one assume that he wants to preserve his right to preach or teach in a way that might incite someone else to commit violence against a gay person? Isn't that like yelling "FIRE" in a movie house when there is none. If someone gets hurt as a result, isn't the yeller at fault?

I'll be interested in any response you get from Doctor Carl. Do more PCUSA folks need to write also? Thanks for your activism. It helps all of us. Montanna

[keltic63]

Thanks for writting that great letter, Brent. As a Presbyterian, I appreciate your doing that. Too many people get away with using their position to create the illusion that they are speaking for many. If the title wasn't attached, their words wouldn't carry the same weight. And he knows that. So, from his statement, can one assume that he wants to preserve his right to preach or teach in a way that might incite someone else to commit violence against a gay person? Isn't that like yelling "FIRE" in a movie house when there is none. If someone gets hurt as a result, isn't the yeller at fault?

I'll be interested in any response you get from Doctor Carl. Do more PCUSA folks need to write also? Thanks for your activism. It helps all of us. Montanna


I am planning on writing a letter, but I'm not Presbyterian. I am Disciples of Christ. My friend who attends PTS is also Disciples. PTS trains more than just Presby's. I'm hoping to get to my letter writing either today, or later this weekend. If Brent doesn't mind, I'll model my letter on his. (but I won't copy it, I want it to be personal)

[BrentRichards]

Model away. Although PTS is "officially" PCUSA, Keltic is right that they have students from many denominations and traditions, so it's not at all inappropriate for others to express their concern. I'd love to see him flooded with concerns from PCUSA-ers and others. I'm probably going to pass this info on at my church and see about getting some others to write, too.

Interestingly (I didn't know this until yesterday), Gagnon is NOT a PCUSA minister. He's only an elder (just like little old me) ... most of my seminary prof's were ordained MOWS (Minister of Word and Sacrament). Don't think that's significant, but it is interesting.

[antonyh]

G2knS2GlQz4

[Steven E. Webster]

Anthony,

Thanks for posting the clip of the African American Bishop. You titled your post something like "Maybe they believe this babble." Of course they believe it. As we've argued elsewhere, folks like Jerry Falwell are not frauds, they are sincere and they are sincerely wrong.

It's a big mistake to dismiss our adversaries as frauds, fakes or fruitcakes. We need to take them seriously and do the very best we can to challenge the falsehoods that they so sincerely spread.

Steven Webster

[Daniel]

Aside from the false talk, what's with the dyed hair and goatee? I'm all for looking great. But when are guys going to realize that you can't help but look silly when you try to look like men half your age?

There are loads of congressmen sporting this look too. And they want us to trust them.

It's just so strange.

Ok. Rant over.

[antonyh]

Anthony,

Thanks for posting the clip of the African American Bishop. You titled your post something like "Maybe they believe this babble." Of course they believe it. As we've argued elsewhere, folks like Jerry Falwell are not frauds, they are sincere and they are sincerely wrong.

It's a big mistake to dismiss our adversaries as frauds, fakes or fruitcakes. We need to take them seriously and do the very best we can to challenge the falsehoods that they so sincerely spread.

Steven Webster

You're absolutely right...although with this guy and his non-verbals at the beginning...I'm not 100% sure he is onboard with the falsehoods.

[Dash]

It bothers me that these folks--one a Bishop--do not understand the basic legislative process. They talk about how the House "passed it into law" and that there's this "new" Senate bill. Sigh... I think a little remedial training is called for:

0dVo3nbLYC0

It frightens me that they don't even understand some basic issues like this. How can they hope to understand the deeper things?

[marutidas]

Hate crimes protections do not limit freedom of speech. They will how ever, provide better tools for investigating and prosecution of Hate crimes. No they will make people accept us, only we can can show our humanity to other people and open there hearts, laws can't do that. Minor trangressions such as being called a "Fag" or any other slur on the street is hurtful, but not a hate crime. The defination of a hate crime is a murder, vandilization, mugging, ect., done on the motivations of race, national origon, religion, sexual orientation and gender identiy. To deny a class a people protection under the laws from such crime is highly unethical.

The Preamble of the Constitution of the United States reads,
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

To deny us protections under the law wound not establish justice nor would it insure domestic tranquility or our general welfare.

Why would it then be OK to not only deny us rights but also endanger already existing protections such as those for race nation origon and religion? To say that Black people haven't or do not suffer injustice even today, or that Jews in the past or Muslims in the present did not or do not suffer injustice just because of who they are or what they believe.

America has come a long way on the road to equality, but we still have a very long way to go. There are Americans who want nothing more than to be as equals. Americans who either were born on this soil or who came here for a better life.

This is not about special rights but about Equal Rights.

Thank you.
Lee Loving

OK I am not talking about this subect any more. I have sent a copy of this letter to my local senater here in New Mexico. I dont know if it was the Sleep deprivitity or what, I just couldn't stop until it was finished, but that felt really good to get off my chest.

~~~Maruti Das:flower:

[Progo35]

I think that what Simon is saying is that not all statements expressing lack of support for homosexual issues is hatred, and that the rights of churches to express their views on this subject should be protected. I support this and do become frustrated from time to time in regard to some kinds of legislation, such as when the state of MA closed Catholic charities' adoption agency because they would not let gay couples adopt. I think that it is important for gay activists to respect the fact that such decisions are not necessarily rooted in prejudice: they are the outgrowth of that organization taking the Bible literally, and, in my opinion, are thus protected under our freedom of religion laws. I'm NOT saying that secular adoption agencies should be PROHIBITED from placing children with gay couples or that they such be ALLOWED to discriminate against homosexuals, but that is because they are a secualr agency and have no religious conflict with this arrangement. Moreover, discontinuing this agency has caused children to suffer, and the homosexual cause is not more worthwhile than those children: there has to be some compromise by allowing religious organizations to make decisions regarding their policies. Nevertheless, I agree that the "hurt your feelings" comment was not in good taste, and I don't support Dobbs' work, which I do feel is based in faulty research and prejudice regarding what practices are homosexual.

In my opinion, Christian wellfare agencies should not be forced to compromise what to them is a religous principle and something that they do not feel comfortable compromising, particularly because that compromise would involve the third party of a child placed in the home. My point is not that such views are inherently accurate or not, but that they should not be censored any more than homosexuals should be censored. There are many adoption agencies in the US that are not affiliated with strict religious principles, and in my opinion, homosexuals should choose to adopt from them and fight against secular wellfare agencies that discriminate against homosexuals. That would be my only problem with LGBT activism thus far.

[Progo35]

Any Christian who is legitimately reticicent toward homosexuality should be basing his or her belief on the New Testament passages that mention homosexuality, such as in Corinthians, and not basing it on Old Testament laws. Practically all Old Testment laws have been disregarded by the Church as unnecessary in light of Christ's death.


So, the Biblical passages regarding homosexuality that can be legitimately considered in choosing not to embrace homosexual practice are NOT "a death threat" as someone recently posted, unless the persons involved are erroneously applying passages from the OT that are no longer relevant to Christian practice. Those passages in the NT that do mention homosexuality do say that it is unacceptable, but they do NOT advocate killing or oppressing homosexuals. They do proscribe Christian methods of behavior: such as not condoning this behavior, not accepting the position of homosexuals in the community that have been misinterpreted to promote prejudice/wrongdoing, but even these passages should not be interpreted by either side of the debate as encouraging people to kill, hurt or dehumanize other people, and most Christians I know do not see them that way, regardless of their standing on the issue.

[Emproph]

I think that what Simon is saying is that not all statements expressing lack of support for homosexual issues is hatred
Do you support the repeal of all hate crime legislation?
and that the rights of churches to express their views on this subject should be protected

What does Church expression have to do with violent crime?
Again, do you support the repeal of all hate crime legislation?

such as when the state of MA closed Catholic charities' adoption agency because they would not let gay couples adopt

Did MA Catholic charities also refuse to let single parents and adulterers (divorced and remarried) adopt?

they are the outgrowth of that organization taking the Bible literally, and, in my opinion, are thus protected under our freedom of religion laws
Please direct me to the place where Catholic Charities is exempt from allowing unrepentant adulterers (as in Luke 16:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2016:18&version=31)) to adopt because they take the Bible “literally.”

Moreover, discontinuing this agency has caused children to suffer, and the homosexual cause is not more worthwhile than those children

So you're saying that it is the fault of homosexual parents wanting to adopt children in need that has caused Catholic Charities to cease allowing adoptions altogether?

Do you also see voices and hear faces?

in my opinion, homosexuals should choose to adopt from them and fight against secular wellfare agencies that discriminate against homosexuals. That would be my only problem with LGBT activism thus far.

Homosexuals should "choose" to adopt elsewhere, despite their equal rights under the law? Do go on.

Any Christian who is legitimately reticicent toward homosexuality should be basing his or her belief on the New Testament passages that mention homosexuality, such as in Corinthians, and not basing it on Old Testament laws.

Haven’t you heard, there’s “new” evidence, forever connecting Corinthians to Leviticus? (Stanton Jones)

And just a reminder, since Corinthians also mentions adultery, do you also condemn the practice of the unrepentant adulterous lifestyle called remarriage? And if so, what are you doing to stop it?

Practically all Old Testment laws have been disregarded by the Church as unnecessary in light of Christ's death.

Practically, as in almost, as in except for the gay parts, eh? And only the male gay parts.

Let us know when you’ve convinced “the Church” of your beliefs about the irrelevance of the Old Testament.

(BTW, does anyone remember if you know who was a Catholic?)

So, the Biblical passages regarding homosexuality that can be legitimately considered in choosing not to embrace homosexual practice are NOT "a death threat" as someone recently posted

That was me, and I wasn’t suggesting that about the OT, I was stating it about those who say someone “must be put to death,” THAT is a death threat. How would you take it if I said that “Progo or Sammy or Simon, must be put to death? Or that anyone named Progo35 is an unrepentant sexual pervert sinner who should be put to death.”

How would you take that from the person you heard it from?

Those passages in the NT that do mention homosexuality do say that it is unacceptable, but they do NOT advocate killing or oppressing homosexuals.

You also said that Catholic Charities are “the outgrowth of that organization taking the Bible literally.” You didn't specify the NT. Or do you think that adoption agencies promoting the death of homosexual Americans is more acceptable than the Church as a whole?

The NT also says that I “exchanged” natural relations for unnatural ones. I never exchanged anything. Do you know something about me and every other LGBTQQI person on the planet that I don’t? If so, prove it, otherwise I'll not tolerate your bearing false witness against me.

You claim to be defending the Bible, yet you don't seem to be familiar with this portion of the ten commandments.

I’d appreciate it very much if you made EVERY effort to answer every single one of these questions. These question are heartfelt and they are sincere, and you said you wanted to learn. I want to learn too, so it would help me as well.

Those passages in the NT that do mention homosexuality do say that it is unacceptable, but they do NOT advocate killing or oppressing homosexuals. They do proscribe Christian methods of behavior: such as not condoning this behavior

If you don’t see the connection between defining someone’s very existence, their breathing, their heart beating, as a perverted sexual behavior -- and treating them as that definition, then you’ve got much, much smaller things to understand before attempting to understand GLBTQQI human beings.

BTW, are you familiar with Sammy1980/Simon who started this thread? If so, please say hi. :wave:

[antonyh]

I think that what Simon is saying is that not all statements expressing lack of support for homosexual issues is hatred, and that the rights of churches to express their views on this subject should be protected. I support this and do become frustrated from time to time in regard to some kinds of legislation, such as when the state of MA closed Catholic charities' adoption agency because they would not let gay couples adopt. I think that it is important for gay activists to respect the fact that such decisions are not necessarily rooted in prejudice: they are the outgrowth of that organization taking the Bible literally, and, in my opinion, are thus protected under our freedom of religion laws. I'm NOT saying that secular adoption agencies should be PROHIBITED from placing children with gay couples or that they such be ALLOWED to discriminate against homosexuals, but that is because they are a secualr agency and have no religious conflict with this arrangement. Moreover, discontinuing this agency has caused children to suffer, and the homosexual cause is not more worthwhile than those children: there has to be some compromise by allowing religious organizations to make decisions regarding their policies. Nevertheless, I agree that the "hurt your feelings" comment was not in good taste, and I don't support Dobbs' work, which I do feel is based in faulty research and prejudice regarding what practices are homosexual.

In my opinion, Christian wellfare agencies should not be forced to compromise what to them is a religous principle and something that they do not feel comfortable compromising, particularly because that compromise would involve the third party of a child placed in the home. My point is not that such views are inherently accurate or not, but that they should not be censored any more than homosexuals should be censored. There are many adoption agencies in the US that are not affiliated with strict religious principles, and in my opinion, homosexuals should choose to adopt from them and fight against secular wellfare agencies that discriminate against homosexuals. That would be my only problem with LGBT activism thus far.

I want Christians to have free speech because I want free speech. That said, I do believe we have a responsibility to confront free speech in national life when it is filled with lies and deception. This campaign of lies being waged against the Hate Crimes Bill by the religious right makes me sick. People are being murdered and we're accused of "making up hate crimes", of "exaggerating the numbers", of wanting to "muzzle Christian free speech". Any lie and deception to derail the bill because of one thing: it contains the words "sexual orientation".

I was watching Judy Sheperd's speech at the introduction to the bill. She made a clear point that this bill is for everyone:

White | Heterosexual | Evangelical Christian | Male =
Race | Sexual Orientation | Religion | Gender

The only reason lies are being spread about this bill is because it includes LGBT people. It is just raw, unabashed bigotry and the hate is so strong that lying in national life is justified away. We're so despicable to them that our deaths are not even worth the truth.

Rant over :)

[marutidas]

I think that what Simon is saying is that not all statements expressing lack of support for homosexual issues is hatred, and that the rights of churches to express their views on this subject should be protected. I support this and do become frustrated from time to time in regard to some kinds of legislation, such as when the state of MA closed Catholic charities' adoption agency because they would not let gay couples adopt. I think that it is important for gay activists to respect the fact that such decisions are not necessarily rooted in prejudice: they are the outgrowth of that organization taking the Bible literally, and, in my opinion, are thus protected under our freedom of religion laws. I'm NOT saying that secular adoption agencies should be PROHIBITED from placing children with gay couples or that they such be ALLOWED to discriminate against homosexuals, but that is because they are a secualr agency and have no religious conflict with this arrangement. Moreover, discontinuing this agency has caused children to suffer, and the homosexual cause is not more worthwhile than those children: there has to be some compromise by allowing religious organizations to make decisions regarding their policies. Nevertheless, I agree that the "hurt your feelings" comment was not in good taste, and I don't support Dobbs' work, which I do feel is based in faulty research and prejudice regarding what practices are homosexual.

In my opinion, Christian wellfare agencies should not be forced to compromise what to them is a religous principle and something that they do not feel comfortable compromising, particularly because that compromise would involve the third party of a child placed in the home. My point is not that such views are inherently accurate or not, but that they should not be censored any more than homosexuals should be censored. There are many adoption agencies in the US that are not affiliated with strict religious principles, and in my opinion, homosexuals should choose to adopt from them and fight against secular wellfare agencies that discriminate against homosexuals. That would be my only problem with LGBT activism thus far.

We don't care if everyone jumps on the "Gay Band Wagon". This bill is clearly about VIOLENT CRIMES against GLBT people not prohibiting freedom of speech.

The top three examples that I can point out are Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Bill o' Riley, all of which have book, radio or televison shows. They say whatever they want about us and they at length, whether we like it or not. As long as they commit no violent acts or encourage others to do so in thier sted, they are within their rights. But as soon as Hateful Speech becomes Violent Acts the first admendment no longer applies.
This bill grants local law enforcement to investigate wheter it is a Hate Crime in the first place.

first of all, Being called a "Fag" or some other slur on the street is not a hate crime, being killed because you are or percieved to be gay is a hate crime.

Second of all the first a church can preach almost anything it wants, what is not ok is preaching politics from the pulpit, this goes for the left as well. A church is about teaching the Love of God, not about any politics Left or Right.

Thirdly, there will always be people who hate us, but thankfully that number is shrinking because more and more peopleare seeing our humanity and not just our sexuality.

Forthly, using the Bible to justify hatred for any reason, has nothing to do God anymore. Just because it mentioned Homosexuality doesn't mean anything because the the people back then had not idea of Intement Homosexuality of today.

Next to lastly, no cc's do not openly support killig of GLBT people, but if you peel away the layers of Bull Sh*t and double talk what are you left with?

and Last of all the Church has always had a thing against sex anyway, gay or not. So to hear conservitive religious people condem us because of our sexuality is laughable. Do they feel so repressed that must condem anyone who has sex?

[Daniel]

I think that it is important for gay activists to respect the fact that such decisions are not necessarily rooted in prejudice: they are the outgrowth of that organization taking the Bible literally, and, in my opinion, are thus protected under our freedom of religion laws.

Respect?

No necessarily rooted in prejudice?

It's the very definition of prejudice!

Conservative Christians are pretty darn picky about what they choose to be literal about. If they really took the words of the bible (and Jesus in particular), literally things would be very different. They would be stoning childen who talk back to their parents and adulterers, and turning their backs on those who divorce.

Let's be real here, OK? Everyone has the right to believe whatever they want to. But as soon as that belief tramples on my right to even have rights...well...that's a big problem.

[Progo35]

Clarification:

I support the new hate crime legislation. Of course threats of violence or violence against homosexuals is a hate crime. So, what I was saying in my last post was that the concern over free speech could be entertained while supporting the legislation, just as all legislation should be examined for its relevance to our lives. (At least, that's how I feel).

I would, moreover, gladly support legislation that would make it a hate crime for people like Rev. Phelps to protest at gay people's funerals, just as I think it would be great to prohibit the KKK from marching through minority neighborhoods. Activities like the kind Phelps endorses and the language that accompanies it is, in my opinion, hate speech. The Bible CLEARLY forbids the dehumanization of any person through demeaning language and practices. Protesting at a gay person's funeral, telling the person's family that their loved one is roasting in hell, is cruel, unbiblical, unamerican, and disgusting. That is the kind of behavior that hate laws should seek to prevent. As a sidenote, in singling homosexuality out, such people are WAY off base theologically. (I know, DUH.) For that matter, such people may as well go to everyone's funeral and say that "whoever is being buried here is now in hell," because all of us will have unresolved sin when we die. To clarify, I'm not saying that homosexuality is or isn't a sin, and am not referring to sin as something that harms others or oneself. I'm saying that literal Christianity tends to consider it a sin, and that even in that context, such statements are inappropriate from a theological standpoint. And, the bottom line is that such actions are just WRONG.

In terms of Corinthians being linked to Leviticus, I guess my position would be that yes, they are linked: they came out of the same society and were cannonized by the Church as books that concurred with each other's theology. As far as historic evidence is concerned, I think that it is a good thing to consider but does not solve the fundamental question of how to apply what the NT says about homosexuality.

Moreover, yes, I did say that the Catholic agency in question was taking the bible literally without clarifying that I mean the NT. Nevertheless, a few minutes later I posted clarification that was meant to specifically connect this literalism with the NT, so I assumed that it wasn't necessary to clarify every statement with an NT disclaimer.

I think that violence against anyone, especailly because of who they are, is deplorable, despicable, immoral, un-Christian behavior. Jesus weeps whenever any person, homosexual or anyone else, is unjustly treated or dehumanized.

In regard to adultery and its implications in remarriage, such contradictions are the reason that I am committed to understanding issues confronting the gay community. I agree that it does not make sense for the church to be okay with remarriage but not okay with homosexuality, or to take statements about homosexuality literally while disregarding statements about women.

In regard to the issue of whether I would be okay with adoption agencies saying that homosexuals should be killed, the answer is certainly no, but this relates to my point about prudent distinctions. A Catholic adoption agency's decision not to include homosexuals but to reccommend other adoption agencies does NOT amount to advocating the death of homosexuals. That is the kind of distiction that I fel is important to acknowledge.

In regard to whether the Catholic agency's policies infringe upon the rights of homosexuals, I would equate the situation with that of a pacifist attending military school. If you are a committed pacifist, it stands to reason that you would not go to military school simply to change that school's stance on methods of defense. You would go somewhere where your opinion was welcomed. If you choose to go to military school, you need to expect friction. If the Catholic church were controlling society and regulating the majority of adoption agencies, than I feel that gay activists would have a strong case, but that, thankfully, is not how our society is run.

Finally, I AM NOT saying that children not being adopted is the fault of homosexuals, I am saying that it was WRONG FOR THE STATE OF MA to infringe upon the practice of religion in a religious agency. I am not equating the problems of children in the adoption system with the activities of homosexual advocates. Another contradiction that relates to my desire to know more is that children do need parents and there are gay couples willing to provide loving care, a situation that I empathize with.

Finally, there is a patronizing tone in Emproph's response that assumes that I haven't read the Bible thoroughly and that I must be endorsing violence and oppression against homosexuals, which I feel is unfair to me and counter-productive to discussion. I understand that this issue is extremely frustrating and has serious reprecussions for homosexuals, something that I mention in my "Hi, my name is..." post. What concerns me is the importance of making up one's own mind regarding such issues. When I make decisions regarding my position on homosexuality, I want to be able to do so through thoughtful reading and discussion, not because others will consider me a bigot if I do not concur with their methods of addressing this issue. That is why I do not support things like the Protection of Marriage Ammendment, which I feel constitutes government interference in private activities and opens the door to laws that infringe on a variety of civil rights, but I do not endorse methods or results of ANY activism that would infringe upon others rights. I will post more in regard to this later.

[Progo35]

P.S.-Like I've said, my purpose in coming to this forum is to learn more and to develop methods of bridging gaps between the homosexual and Christian communites, and also with other civil rights agencies, as I feel that we would all get more accomplished if we worked together. But, the reason that I am here is that I am not gay, I have not suffered trauma because of my sexual orientation and I have seen prejudice against homosexuals that grossly contradicts our mandate to live like Christ. Thus, in short, I am not completely enlightened in regard to what homosexuals are going through and am trying to educate myself, so that I can respond to such issues sensitively and proactively.

[Progo35]

On a more personal note, I experienced daily verbal, physical and sexual abuse from my peers when I was in elementary school, and some parents and teachers did not do a darn thing because I had learning disabilities and they wanted me out of the school. I do have plenty of experience/evidence to back this statement up. So, I actually do feel that being called a "Fag" on the street is a hate crime, especially if it happens on a regular basis. Such abuse causes major psychological damage, and I don't think it would be a bad idea to outlaw such words, as long as censorship STOPPED there.

[keltic63]

*ahem*

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2872

How are we doing? ;)

[Zerbie]

This campaign of lies being waged against the Hate Crimes Bill by the religious right makes me sick. People are being murdered and we're accused of "making up hate crimes", of "exaggerating the numbers", of wanting to "muzzle Christian free speech". Any lie and deception to derail the bill because of one thing: it contains the words "sexual orientation".

I was watching Judy Sheperd's speech at the introduction to the bill. She made a clear point that this bill is for everyone:

White | Heterosexual | Evangelical Christian | Male =
Race | Sexual Orientation | Religion | Gender

The only reason lies are being spread about this bill is because it includes LGBT people. It is just raw, unabashed bigotry and the hate is so strong that lying in national life is justified away. We're so despicable to them that our deaths are not even worth the truth.



That is so. I was unaware until these recent conversations, deliberate distortions, and the outright lie my Senator's staffer fed me over the phone, of the depth of hatred behind opposition to the hate crimes bill. It is murderous hatred, but it goes even beyond that to a complete negation of the actuality and severity of murder itself. I can't understand how a world can even GET this way let alone justify and defend it. Nor can I understand what I'm doing here. I should just turn on the TV and pacify myself.

I'm inclined not to post much anymore. The utter disbelief and horror I feel reminds me of the first time I felt this way: I was a little girl and heard Jerry Falwell saying that AIDS came from God to punish gay men.

It's all the same insanity.
There is nothing respectful to say about it.

[Progo35]

I forgot one of Emproph's questions:


Practically all Old Testment laws have been disregarded by the Church as unnecessary in light of Christ's death.

Practically, as in almost, as in except for the gay parts, eh? And only the male gay parts.

Let us know when you’ve convinced “the Church” of your beliefs about the irrelevance of the Old Testament.

Emproph:

In response to your question regarding my "practically..." comment, "practically" was meant to exclude only the ten commandments, which have been retained, and certain worship practices, such as musical worship, that have been retained from the Jewish tradition. My point was that if the Church disregards Levitical prohibitions against eating pork, than it ought to disregard Levitical prohibitions against homosexuality on the same principle. Thus, Leviticus gives no legitimate support to concerns arising from the application of Christian principles in one's life, it is a non issue as far as I am concerned, it shouldn't impact the individual's quest to rectify their concern for homosexual PEOPLE with their concerns about what God may or may not want. In my personal situation, I am saying that I sympathize with the gay cause and want to be helpful, but I also recognize that God does things that I wouldn't do, and that is why I can't be sure that homosexuality is okay. If my reservations about this cease, I will be hapy to let everyone know. Until that time, however, I think that we can still work together in eradicating the prejudice we do agree on.

[Progo35]

P.S.-I'm not sure what you mean about the "male gay parts," as I've always taken the Leviticus passage to apply to homosexuality in general within the context of Old Testament laws. Perhaps it is the NT that mentions female homosexuality as unacceptable, but that is precisely my point. People who use leviticus to support their positions are associating their message with hate rather than legitimate Christian concern. The problem is that Christian discussion about homosexuality often forgets to elaborate on the serious issues faced by homosexuals and how Christians can work to eradicate anti-gay behavior.

[Daniel]

P.S.-Like I've said, my purpose in coming to this forum is to learn more and to develop methods of bridging gaps between the homosexual and Christian communites, and also with other civil rights agencies, as I feel that we would all get more accomplished if we worked together. But, the reason that I am here is that I am not gay, I have not suffered trauma because of my sexual orientation and I have seen prejudice against homosexuals that grossly contradicts our mandate to live like Christ. Thus, in short, I am not completely enlightened in regard to what homosexuals are going through and am trying to educate myself, so that I can respond to such issues sensitively and proactively.

Progo- thanks for all that you have said. I apologize for the tersness of my last post to you.

Suffice it to say that that more often than not, those who are conservative don't seem to realize that the issues that face gay people are very personal: GLBT persons are treated like second class citizens, both in legal and religous terms in these United States. We do not share the same rights as straight folks, plain and simple.

On a more personal note, I experienced daily verbal, physical and sexual abuse from my peers when I was in elementary school, and some parents and teachers did not do a darn thing because I had learning disabilities and they wanted me out of the school. I do have plenty of experience/evidence to back this statement up. So, I actually do feel that being called a "Fag" on the street is a hate crime, especially if it happens on a regular basis. Such abuse causes major psychological damage, and I don't think it would be a bad idea to outlaw such words, as long as censorship STOPPED there.


I am sorry you had to go through that. I know that's no walk in the park.

It may surprise you that I don't agree that being called a 'fag' is a crime (and I've been called that and worse), though the psychological damage is real, that is not in dispute. But calling someone a fag and then beating them with a bat should be a hate crime. And that is what the Hate Crimes Law addresses.

I don't think outlawing words is the way to address the matter. That amounts to the curtailing of speech, which, under our constitution, is protected, even if the speech in question is offensive.

Perhaps, as in medicine, if more effort was placed on education and understanding, matters would not be as they are. But you should know, however, that the oppression of GLBT persons happens, not because of naive fear, but because of religious teachings and indoctrination. That is the thing we are dealing with here.

You have to be taught to hate.

[Progo35]

That is my goal: I want to support the equality of homosexuals and I recognize that these things are incredibly emotional. As I have a disability, and, like you, feel that I am treated as a second class citizen, I deal with similar emotions on a day to day basis. Frankly, there have been times when I have lost it in public because I feel so strongly about such issues.

So, like I said, I support the right of homosexual couples to get married, to adopt children from secular adoption agencies, and to do everything that everyone else is entitled to do under the law.

But I guess where I am coming from, as well, is some of the experiences I have had as a Christian in my high school. (I am 24, such days are behind me, but the following example illustrates my situation: When I was a Christian in high school, I was very vocal about my Christian beliefs, about living like Christ, etc. Out of all the public pronouncements that I made, there was a total of ONE that involved homosexuality, and this was because I was asked flat out by a teacher.

We were discussing a situation that had occured at a high school in NH, where a lesbian couple was voted "best couple," and their high school forbade their yearbook from acknowledging that designation. The teacher considered whether the principle of that school was prejudiced or whether he suspected that the girls were being made fun of, thus opposing the designation.

Before I could make up my mind about what I wanted to say in regard to this discussion, the teacher said, "Meghan, how do you feel about this issue." "Uhhh..." I began. "You agree with the principle, don't you?" He asked. This was frustrating to me because I felt that he was deliberately singling me out so that I would say something controversial about homosexuality, which I didn't feel would benefit anyone. I was proud and convinced of my response when I replied, "well, I think everyone here knows that there are passages in the Bible that affect my understanding of this issue, but that really isn't the issue here, because these girls have the right to be the best couple of they were nominated for it. I think that they should be allowed to be the best couple if that's what they want."

I continue to endorse this viewpoint. I don't hate anyone, nor do I believe that the Bible endorses hate. There is simply no Biblical support for treating homosexuals or anyone else that way. I know that intolerance is often encouraged by how the Bible is presented, and this is what I would like to see change in the Christian community. I believe that it is possible for Christian leaders to do this by eliminating false stereotypes, speaking against them, and supporting gay people's efforts to have equal standing in our society, I don't think that this has to subvert honest positions on various Biblical passages.

[Progo35]

Clarification on high school:

In addition to this issue with the teacher, there was other heckling that I did not find psychologically damaging but was a pain in the neck. I didn't mind sharing my position when my teacher asked me, but it does bother me that he thought he knew how I would respond and was almost asking me to say something anti-gay. Although, to be fair, maybe he was just challenging me to live up to put my money where my mouth was by putting that belief out in the open. But, I was trying to avoid making offensive comments and this put me in a position of potentially pushing people away from Christ.

What was annoying was some of the feedback from other students. Although it didn't resemble the harassment I experienced in elementary school and was not viscious, it projected an atmosphere of intolerance toward me. For instance, there was one girl who would start conversations to to tune of, "Meghan, when I was studying for my math test I prayed the Calc demon and sacrificed an infant in front of a burning crucifix to it," or "This is a Satanic worship symbol." Those are just examples of heckling that I felt was undeserved. If I went around saying that all those of other religions or practiced homosexuality were going to burn in hell, or that we should Chrsitianize the country, I could see where they were coming from, but that is not what I did.

[BrentRichards]

As a gay adoptive father of two (and I must be brief here, because I'm off to my oldest's graduation!) I have some VERY strong feelings on the adoption issue ... go figure. I can't give a long reply here now, but two issues to mull:

1. If I'm not mistaken (please check my facts, as I'm not sure, don't have the time to Google at the moment) ... wasn't it Catholic Charities that "took their dollies and dishes home" over the gay families issue? I don't believe the state forced them out of the business. The way I heard it, the charities effectively said "If we have to play by these rules, then we won't play." Is that correct? It does make a difference. An Irish comedian I like nailed this on the head, to the effect that bagging out entirely was like saying "if we can't make sure they don't go to gays, we're just going to release them into the wild."

2. In a very real sense, there is no such thing as a PRIVATE adoption agency, especially in terms of agencies working with children who are under care of the state. (I say that having adopted my sons through a "private" agency.) Adoption is PUBLICALLY REGULATED regardless of who is funding it, and in most cases, state/county/public funds are involved. Children awaiting adoption are ultimately under care of the state, which means that ANY adoption agency MUST follow the state's rules/laws with regard to their care and placement. When it comes to the needs and interests of children in need of permanency, I'm not the least bit interested in any agency's cries of "We're private, so we don't have to play by your rules." The children under care of Catholic Charities (or any other agency) are not their property to do with as they wish ... the laws (and opportunities for placement and permanency, which aren't exactly myriad) apply equally to these children as to any under care of a more obviously "public" agency.

Can anyone tell I have strong feelings on this? Now, off to graduation!

[Dash]

You know, Progo, it seems to me that you might benefit from a very serious examination of the most negative aspects of Christianity as it has flourished for centuries. I know you came here to understand the gay issue, but (and maybe I misunderstand) it seems to me that you don't have a full perspective on the culture (the Church) that you are identifying with.

I'm not saying you wouldn't want to identify with the Church...even though I struggle myself in that regard...but realize exactly what you are identifying with. There is not a time in history when the Church could solidly be associated with "good news" (IMO). There are brief moments, perhaps...there are a few enlightened sects...there are periods of obvious renewal and spiritual growth...but across the board, the Church must sadly be known for the pain and cruelty that its dogma ever has inflicted on society.

Sad, because one would think the Gospel would create such loving, tender kind of people...

Anyway, I only say this, because you seem to have a very personal view of the Church that ignores much of the reality. Sure, your personal religion may be generous and loving, but that's not the whole picture. So much ignorance...so much bigotry...so much unchristian behavior among those who claim to follow Christ. For those of us who (however reluctantly) choose to associate ourselves with any Christian sect, we must accept that all of the worst aspects of Christianity will stain our reputations.

I've seen this again and again from Christians...saying, "Well, that's not what Christianity REALLY is." Trouble is...Christianity REALLY IS exactly all those terrible things that they might wish to disclaim. Now, it is also some of the good things to which we all might strive, but if you don't acknowledge the horrors of its many crimes, you'll never understand the issues between Church and GLTB folk.

The body of Christ smells bad from the smoke and blood of those it has judged over the many centuries. It carries that stench even today, and if people shy away from Christians at their approach, do we have the audacity to ask why?

[Progo35]

Just some quick thoughts on examining church history...so far as I am aware, just some of the atrocities commited by the church include:

-Killing and/or dehumanizing homosexuals throughout history
-Killing Jews and torturing them into conversion during the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition
-Buying into Hitler's ideologies during the Holocaust (although many Christians, such as Bonheoffer, acted against him),
-Not supporting legislation that protects homosexuals from harm, such as the new hate crimes bill
-spreading false stereotypes to justify their positions
-Connecting differences to demonic influence

Just a few things off the top of my head.

[Emproph]

Meghan, I'm so sorry, I judged you unfairly. I know we won't agree on everything, but I really appreciate all of your clarifications and all that you've shared. I was horribly mean to you.

[Progo35]

Hi, David,

That's okay, I am glad that we've had this discussion, it is what I came here for. And, like I said, I hope that being here will help me become more sensitive and aware, and hopefully encourage cooperation between concerned poeple.

[tdogg]

Hi Progo

Since you want to learn, first I must suggest reading various threads/posts on the forums, I believe you would learn much.

Then, interestingly, I know being gay is ok for me. See, God told me. I don't need Paul or whoever wrote Leviticus to tell what is wrong or right for me, my God tells me that. It took a lot of years for me to realize that all the lies fed to me by "Christians" were just that, lies. It took a lot of years for me to get that message from my Lord directly, to accept myself just as I was created and to know that I was accepted just as I was created.

I put a lot more faith and belief on that which God tells me, loads more than anything a human says. Besides, if you know a bit about Biblical translation and interpretation over the centuries, you'll know that the word "homosexual" didn't get placed in the Bible until fairly recently in time (say a few centuries ago), and that it was placed there by a man that could be said to be a homophobic gay person (to an extent anyway). So, I can't say that I hold a lot of faith in words that have changed significantly from the original Biblical writings.

That's why I believe it's so important to, rather than take the Bible literally (sheesh, which version would you start with anyway? which version is the actual and true translation of God???), take it seriously with much prayer and meditation - to realize what the scriptures mean for YOUR life.

Hope that helps???

[Daniel]

In my personal situation, I am saying that I sympathize with the gay cause and want to be helpful, but I also recognize that God does things that I wouldn't do, and that is why I can't be sure that homosexuality is okay. If my reservations about this cease, I will be hapy to let everyone know. Until that time, however, I think that we can still work together in eradicating the prejudice we do agree on.

My first line above says how I think about this issue. And it's a biggie for a lot of people.

Why is it that anyone hangs on to a little bit of hate?

It seems we all have our own little private corner of hate that we hold dear to ourselves. I find this mind-boggling.

It's sooooo easy to point one's finger to the good book and say God feels this or that, is it not? One could say the same thing with slavery: "Gee....I'm just not sure how I feel those black folks. See. It says right here that God ordains it." This happened during the civil war you know.

Or.....

"Gee...I don't know how I feel about Palestinians. Didn't God command that they should be wiped out?"

This one is right out of the OT. Remember the Canaanite's etc? Does it come across as offensive? You bet it does. You get my drift here Progo?

I'm being forceful here. I know that. But it's for a purpose. If you want to know why your statement turns heads around here- it's this kind of thinking expounded above.

In sum: You want to be kind and loving, but you're not sure God would do the same to Homosexuals. But doing the loving thing and holding on to a hateful thought- and that's what it is..can we be clear about this- is what it's all about. There isn't any nice way to put it Progo.

Being Ok with gay people being gay will come once you understand what it truly means to love- which means seeing people without condemning them- even obliquely. And you will 'get it' once you understand a lot more about scripture itself. However, if you a literalist, then I don't foresee that happening.

Have you checked out Mel White's address on this website? We can point to loads of other things to investigate too.

It's going to take a lot more initiative on your part to deal with this than the desire to be loving. That said- the desire to see love of God in another person is- in my book- a very necessary thing in a holy relationship.

[Progo35]

But the thing is, I am not saying that God Hates homosexuals. I am saying that I am not sure of how God feels about such behavior. I am not saying that God does not accept homosexuals. For instance, many Christians I know feel that homosexuality may be a sin but that it does not prohibit the individual from having a relationship with God or from being saved by God. In terms of more effort on my part, I'm doing my best to examine myself, which is why I joined the forum. The stated mission of Soulforce is to engage Chrsitians and other individuals in thoughtful discussion, which is what I am trying to do.

[keltic63]

But the thing is, I am not saying that God Hates homosexuals. I am saying that I am not sure of how God feels about such behavior. I am not saying that God does not accept homosexuals. For instance, many Christians I know feel that homosexuality may be a sin but that it does not prohibit the individual from having a relationship with God or from being saved by God. In terms of more effort on my part, I'm doing my best to examine myself, which is why I joined the forum. The stated mission of Soulforce is to engage Chrsitians and other individuals in thoughtful discussion, which is what I am trying to do.

try some other words for groups of marginalized peoples, minorities, racial groups, anyone who is "not like us" in place of "homosexuality" and see how that sentence reads. does it still make sense?

progo, you're doing a great job, and I'm sure you can tell that even as you try your hardest, you're still feeling some defensiveness from some of us. I think one reason is that you may not see your words as being offensive. In your words, as gracious as they appear on the surface, is the underlying idea that lgbt people need to be approved by heterosexuals, and in particular Christians who would speak for God. I know you haven't said that explicitly, but the idea is there in those words. Can you see how that would be offensive? I don't want to discourage you from the discussion. As I said, I think you're doing well here. Coming here to the forums may lead you to examine much of what you've been taught. It seems that your desire to examine your beliefs is what brought you here in the first place.

[Dash]

But the thing is, I am not saying that God Hates homosexuals. I am saying that I am not sure of how God feels about such behavior. I am not saying that God does not accept homosexuals. For instance, many Christians I know feel that homosexuality may be a sin but that it does not prohibit the individual from having a relationship with God or from being saved by God. In terms of more effort on my part, I'm doing my best to examine myself, which is why I joined the forum. The stated mission of Soulforce is to engage Chrsitians and other individuals in thoughtful discussion, which is what I am trying to do.

I think your spirit is wonderful. The way I see it (at least tonight) there are two different paths:

The first is all too obvious. You've recounted some of its awful landmarks off the top of your head. Unfortunately, the great arc of Church history predominantly seems to trace this path. Its paved with judgment and dogma, with power wielded in oppression and tyranny of the soul. Again and again, history looks back in sad realization of its terrible misdirection, only grateful for those heros who have turned its travelers aside from their own terrible misdeeds.

The other path is much less obvious. It's neither this...nor is it that. It's not a Law, nor is it the complete unrestraint of anarchy. It is never "for sure" yet there's a certainty about it that makes those who walk it confident in their footing. It often says, "This is not for me," but it rarely, if ever, says, "You! Do not touch! Do not taste!" Those who walk it seem almost not to care where they are going, busy as they are about helping one another along and pointing out the many wonders along the roadside; yet if you ask them, they'll tell you it's the quickest way and the journey is of the utmost importance. They'll welcome any who wish to walk with them, and they wish a kind "fair thee well" to those who go a different way; but how they'll resist the call of those who try to turn them from their way. No! They will not take another path than the one that seems right to their hearts! For their way is well known to them. It as familiar to them as the way to their own home.

Knowing as well as you do the first path (for you recognize its pitfalls and the rogues that go there) how far would you walk in that direction? Would you say, "Just a few steps...it's a very straight way." Will you accept the beginnings of judgment, knowing how it will turn out? Will you pick up the stick and the goad to make others go against their will? Will you guide others along a path, the end of which you yourself reject?

Do you understand what I'm getting at? You stand with your good eyes looking down a bad road. I can see that you are somewhat hesitant to take it, but as far as you can tell all maps seem to say, "This way." I'm saying, you know where that first road goes! You know where judgment leads. Do you think that road will go somewhere else this time? Do you think there are no bandits in those badlands? Do you not hear the cries of dismay and pain...the warnings of those who have returned from the harsh path of judgment! Do you think the abuses and crimes of which history testifies so dreadfully will somehow be avoided if you go down that path...this time?

Take the other path, dearest. If it seems unknown to you, it's only because its travelers are (sadly) so few; and they, having found a good path, are too busy on their way to send back careful maps of every turn and signpost. They know that if you will take that road, it will show itself to you.

[Progo35]

Yes, but I thought that the hate crime legislation does not outlaw free speech? Because that is important within private atmospheres and religious gatherings. To me, exceptions to this are, as I've said, people standing outside gay people's funerals (see my other posts) and/or hate groups marching through a hated people group's neighborhoods, which, in my opinion, should be outlawed.

[Progo35]

Just to clarify, I was responding to Anthonyh's post regarding the APA's post.

[Progo35]

Yes, I understand how that could be implicitly implied. I guess that would present an issue for me in not knowing how to respond. I don't think that you need the support of the heterosexual community to make your actions okay, and I don't think that heterosexuals are the only ones that speak for God.

To me, it relates to the desire to be sensitive to racial issues, but not knowing what is offensive given contexts. For instance, color blindness was considered to be a great thing until some people pointed out that it sometimes excluded important aspects of African American culture. Then, in response, some people started to try to present what AA culture must be like, which lead to black people being stereotyped as living in the city in slums. So, I guess what I am saying is that it is hard to know what is going to be percieved as offensive or demeaning and what isn't when different approaches can have (equally?) bad results.

[andrewlittle]

Yes, I understand how that could be implicitly implied. I guess that would present an issue for me in not knowing how to respond. I don't think that you need the support of the heterosexual community to make your actions okay, and I don't think that heterosexuals are the only ones that speak for God.

To me, it relates to the desire to be sensitive to racial issues, but not knowing what is offensive given contexts. For instance, color blindness was considered to be a great thing until some people pointed out that it sometimes excluded important aspects of African American culture. Then, in response, some people started to try to present what AA culture must be like, which lead to black people being stereotyped as living in the city in slums. So, I guess what I am saying is that it is hard to know what is going to be percieved as offensive or demeaning and what isn't when different approaches can have (equally?) bad results.

I know this isn't directly related to hate speech, but Progo's post brought this to mind. It is a question, I think, of who is entitled to define African American, Asian American, GLBT, or any other non-dominant culture.

It has, almost, always been done through the lens of dominant culture. How can Eurocentric beings look in and define African-American culture, except in terms of Euro-American norms. The picture is immediately distorted. Likewise for straight culture trying to define GLBT culture. It is, I think by many at least, an effort to truly understand - a desire to see - but one that is destined to fail because we can't take off our straight lenses.

Color blindness was a case in point. African-Americans didn't need color blindness - Euro-Americans did. It was largely an effort with positive intent, but ended up reduced AA folk to slightly different Euro folk. To that end it wasn't really color blindness, but color conformity.

The is an innate arrogance in dominant culture trying to "define" minority cultures - one I am guilty of on occasion. It operates from the invisible, insidious, automatic place of dominance and normalcy. Rather, and it is not easy, we should work towards appreciating how different cultures define themselves. Tolerance is just another name for maintaining dominance, but in a way that serves our need to feel kind and open. Appreciation, on the other hand, requires some aspects of respect and immersion.

Can I, as a non-disabled person, "define" the culture of disables people. I don't think so. I can try my best to appreciate the various cultures that are included in the disabled community, but I will accomplish that best by allowing them to define themselves.

[u-dog]

Model away. Although PTS is "officially" PCUSA, Keltic is right that they have students from many denominations and traditions, so it's not at all inappropriate for others to express their concern. I'd love to see him flooded with concerns from PCUSA-ers and others. I'm probably going to pass this info on at my church and see about getting some others to write, too.

Interestingly (I didn't know this until yesterday), Gagnon is NOT a PCUSA minister. He's only an elder (just like little old me) ... most of my seminary prof's were ordained MOWS (Minister of Word and Sacrament). Don't think that's significant, but it is interesting.

OK, as long as they were not Honorably Ordained Ministers Of Word and Sacrament ! That would violate the Book of Order!

[BrentRichards]

OK, as long as they were not Honorably Ordained Ministers Of Word and Sacrament ! That would violate the Book of Order!

I'm slipping. I had to read this 5 or 6 times to get it. Wow.

[u-dog]

I'm slipping. I had to read this 5 or 6 times to get it. Wow.

You disappointment me.
:rolleyes: