From a Student at a School The "Equality Ride" is visiting. [Archive]

Venari

03-07-2006, 09:13 PM

Joe Brummer

03-07-2006, 10:24 PM

Dear; Rev. White, Jacob, Haven and other members of Soulforce and the Equality Ride.

I do not expect this post to last long as I have seen a lack of tolerance, on the side of Soulforce, towards the people who disagree with you. But I know my voice reflects the voice of many of the students of the schools you are going to visit.

I thank you for your words and I am happy that you have come to dialog with us. I hope you are as willing to talk as I am willing to listen. I hope we can both come to an understanding of what Soulforce and Non-violence are about, The beloved Community.

Let me start by saying I think it is a shame that you associate your selves with Gandhi and Martin Luther. Your “tactics” have little if nothing in common with how the acted. You profess to create an “open dialogue” and “academic integrity” yet you profess to accept nothing less then the complete acceptance of your ideology by the schools you visit. How does that create an atmosphere for these schools to trust you? It in no way does. While you believe you are totally in the right on this issue you fail to meet the people where they are to create a better understanding.

Let us test this notion you have of Soulforce and talk. You seem to be under the inmpression you understand the message of King and Gandhi, but I see in your post that you lack the understanding of what King stood for in the principles of non-violence. Dr. King believed and preached about the "Beloved Community" where we all could have our beliefs, including you, but we all respected those beliefs. The community is a symbol if what peace is and should be. I place where we all can live with our opinions without fear of retalitiation. Gays and lesbians are not afforded this privledge, we cannot walk down the street or at the mall hand in hand with the ones we love without fear. Although I believe in the message of Dr. King and the Beloved Community, I know this is a dream that lives in the future for gays and lesbains, it is not safe now, but I pray it will be. I work towards this goal of greater good, because I believe it can happen, and I believe non-violence is the vehicle that will get us there.

Second, Luther and Gandhi never sought out media attention. Rather they let the media come to them because what they are doing was, and is, right. Your actions speak more of “proto-Nazism” where Hitler invited the media to his pre-party rallies so they could report his words and ideas to the masses and gain sympathy that way. I know this is harsh but I believe your actions further reflect this in Jacobs promise to only speak “favorably” of schools that cooperate with him.

As Soulforce teaches the principles of Dr. King and Gandhi, we also teach that we are all victims of misinformation. Your thoughts that King and Gandhi did not seek media attention is false. It is misinformation. Dr. King was a mastor at the Media. Although it was easy for him since the media watched him, a large componet of the principles of non-violence are based on suffering for the cause of greater good. The point of suffering for the cause is based on showing the universe and the world injustice. Accepting this suffering knowing it serves a cause bigger than those who suffer. This cannot be done without the world's attention. Your accusation to Soulforce that we seek the attention of the media and Dr. King and Gandhi didn't is not the truth. The truth is we need the media and Dr. King knew that and used it to the advantage of the cause but in the spirit of non-violence. Did you ever see the footage of the lunch counters in Alabama as young men and women were beaten, spit on, and called names. How doi you think that footage came about. How do you think the press knew to be there to film it? Everything is a non-violence action is planned for the greater good. There are no accidents, only people bringing the truth in love.

Third, speaking of the Assemblies of God, your actions are only “shooting yourself in the foot.” You blanket attack the AG, yet you fail to see how the AG really is formed. The AG is not one cohesive body, but rather made of and governed by autonomous churches. So attacking the AG as a whole is in line with prejudice in its highest form as you pass judgment on a whole group for the actions of some.

Your assumtion here is that we are attacking the group when the truth is we are attacking the injustice and misinformation, not the group or the people. As followers of non-violence as Dr. King and Gandhi we are not attacking anyone, we are only interested in bringing the truth. The principles of non-violence ask us to attack the evil, not the person doing the evil. We will not force you to hear it, but we force the negotiations of how that truth is handled. You may have your truths as we may have ours. The truth stands on its own regardless if we agree. It just is what it is, the truth. You are at no obligation hear it, or follow it, but it by no means changes it. No one at Soulforce is attacking anyone, we are bringing our truth to you. If you feel it is an attack that issue belongs to you. The attack is in your heart, it doesn't mean it is the truth. I apologize if you feel attack, but the attack isn't personal, it is AGAPE, it is brought to you in love. As I have said, and I cannot speak for Soulforce, but only for myself who follow and believes in the message of Soulforce, you have misundersood this message and I would be happy to address that for you.

Finally, I fear what you represent. I am ex-gay, I am happy being ex-gay and I feel this is Gods will for MY life.

I am not ex-gay, I am gay. I am happy and I feel this is god's will for my life. What is the middle ground where you can have your belief and I can have mine, but still be part of the beloved community MLK spoke of? Can you not let me live my live and support me? I would be happy to support you in your ex-gay life, but I would ask that you support me as I am happy being gay and being with my parter of 7 years. Can that middle ground be found? I say ...yes. It is all part of the "beloved community" Dr. King spoke of in all of his writings. That message was based on the message of CHRIST.

I understand that I did not choose to be gay, but I choose to life as God wants ME to.

Me Too! We are on the same page. I want to live my life the way I see god has lead me to go. I respect and support the path you have chosen, but can you choose that path and let me choose mine? That is the point of the "beloved Community" that non-violence stands for in the life. I hope we can both see that. I can bet you have much to teach me, and I bet I have much to teach you. Are you willing to explore that?

I emphasize MY and ME for the reason this is a choice I made and no one forced me to and I do not expect other gay people to. My school never encouraged me to attend or see an ex-gay ministry, when I made the choice for my self I asked and they gave me a few recommendations. Before that I knew I was a gay student at a Christian university and I knew what I signed up for. I knew I was free in the identity as a gay person, but I had to abide by the standards of the community, and I felt I was able to without and compromise of integrity … my integrity was compromised the times I broke the community standards and began to engage in same-sex relationships.

I respect your choices, I support you. Now I ask you do the same for me.

So what do I fear?
I am happy to see you admit there is fear, there is fear for me too. Again, we are more alike than we are different. Our values are most likely close.

I fear you are only creating a stronger and deeper divide by your disingenuous actions in claiming you seek an “open dialogue” and “academic integrity.”

I understand that you could see this as dividing, but that is not the case, whenever we seek a dialog and talk, we all have something to learn. In this case I am learning about your fear. I am hearing your message that you think this divides. I would advise you to read the letter from the Birmingham Jail by MLK. Your words in this paragraph echo the words of the clergy who wrote Dr. King. They claimed he was taking the wrong path, and too soon. They claimed the protests against segragation in Alabama where not to be done by outsiders. They asked Dr. King to use the courts to solve the issue, when those same courts where letting white men free for the murder of black men. Your statements are an echo of what I have heard before. I in someways thank you for them, they are the reminder to us all that justice has no timeline, has no rules of how it should be reached. Justice just comes like an angel of god that watches us and heals us. Divided? Yes, we are. We are Divided between those that seek justice and rights for gays and lesbians and those who want us to go back into a closet and hide. I will not hide, and I expect that my friends will not either. We have come too far and there should be no turning back now. Divided? Yes, that is not a bad thing my friend, we must divide, so we may learn and by learning we may unite in the "Beloved COmmunity" and you too, are a part of that!
I fear that from your adversarial actions the next generations of leaders in the AG, and other denominations, you are only showing yourself as our adversaries.

Yet we are showing ourselves as your friends. If we appear to be adversaries, then that is out of our hands and on yours. It is you, who need to act. It is you who need to see, that we are only bringing you the truth as we see it. We are asking you, to allow us our lives in the "beloved Community". There is room for us both. There is room to both have our beliefs, there is no room for violence of the spirit or the heart. If you disagree with homosexuality, you may. There is room for that, but you must, must, must respect us and our lives. You MUST support and respect what we believe to be true for us, if you expect us to do the same for you.

Finally my biggest fear is you would take away MY freedom of choice to live as I feel best and called by God to.

-Venari

No one is here to take away anything from you. We are here to give you something. We are here to bring you a new view. Understanding. You may certainly live your life the way you feel is in tune with your beliefs. No one is interested in stopping that. We are asking you to find the middle ground that allows you, your beliefs, and allows us, ours.

I offer you only one suggestion. Before you critique our actions of non-violence, please learn about non-violence and the six principles of non-violence as taught by Dr. King. The whole point of it, the goal: The beloved Community where we can all have our beliefs, but still live in respect of each other. In simple terms, you can believe I am a sinner, but you must respect my belief, that I am not.

I would be happy to continue this dialog with you as I feel you have open a door to understanding for both of us. I am interested in learning how you feel, I would hope you are just as interested in learning how I feel. The goal of non-violence is find the middle ground that brings us all into the "beloved commmunty"

dewdrop_world

03-07-2006, 10:26 PM

Very interesting post, and I admire your courage in writing here. It's easier to keep criticism to yourself, harder to put yourself on the line and actually talk about your feelings, needs and wishes. Kudos for that!

I'm not involved in the equality rides in any way. I don't know the tone of the events, I don't know how the speeches proceed and I don't know what kind of person-to-person dialogue takes place. So I'm not really in a position to discuss whether Soulforce is honoring the Gandhian tradition of nonviolence or corrupting it.

I do know that when people's beliefs are challenged, it's very common to look for ways to discredit the messenger, through heated argument, questioning the messenger's character or any number of other strategies. You only need a few minutes reading user comments at beliefnet.com to find ample evidence of that! It's very easy to read suspicious motivations into others' actions or words, but often (usually?) those impressions are mistaken in some way.

What I'm saying goes both ways, of course. Anyone here could put you through the same treatment, "Well, the only reason you say abc is because def..." which obviously is nonsense. I trust this community not to go there.

May I ask, how do you think the event could have been carried out differently to leave you with a more positive impression? Media attention seems to me a relatively minor point. The world was not as media-driven in Gandhi's time as it is now, and I don't think I could say Dr. King turned the press away exactly. If everyone who held a press conference were a proto-Nazi, would we as a society know how to get things done? (On second thought, maybe it would be a better, quieter world. :p )

I'm more concerned about the perception of intolerance. t's a two-way street after all. You see Soulforce as intolerant, and we see Christian people every day who behave intolerantly (whether they intend to be intolerant or not). Many years of hard experience have taught me that when people are pointing fingers at each other, mirroring each others' criticisms, there's always common ground hiding in there somewhere. If we leap into the argument without finding the common ground first, then the argument is pretty much a waste of time.

What kind of common ground do you think there might be here?

I hope you'll stick around and keep posting. Your message suggests to me that you do want dialogue on this topic. If you didn't find it at the event, perhaps you'll find it here.

Welcome!
James

Jamie McDaniel

03-07-2006, 10:43 PM

Dear Venari,

Let me work backwards and maybe find some places where we share common ground.

...my biggest fear is you would take away MY freedom of choice to live as I feel best and called by God to.

Venari, you and I share at least two things in common. We're both people of faith and we both know what it feels like to be same-sex attracted in a world geared for those who are opposite-sex attracted. All the encouragement that heterosexuals experience in regard to sharing "who they like" in Sunday school or in math class, well, we didn't get that. And so we kept a dark secret for a very long time, until one day we finally decided to tell another person. I hope whoever you told for the first time, that they showed love to you.

I don't know the rest of your story, of course, but let me say this. Venari, if you are sincerely happy as an ex-gay then I, Jamie McDaniel, am happy for you. May you experience love and the abundant life. May your burden be light so that you may dance before the LORD with all your might.

I grew up Southern Baptist and fought against my sexual orientation until I was in my mid twenties. My closet door had triple locks. I never sought out an ex-gay ministry during that struggle because that would have meant I would have to come out to someone! I guess fear causes us to not always think rationally.

Anyway, long story short, I reconciled my spirituality with my sexual orientation and eventually answered God's call to be a voice in that wilderness that was Southern Baptist's understanding of homosexuality and homosexual people. It's still a wilderness, I'm sad to say. :(

Those of us who are working to change hearts and minds about gay people often clash with our brothers and sisters who identify as ex-gay. I'd say that's because most leaders of ex-gay ministries actively try to defeat nearly every piece of civil rights legislation that would help gay Americans gain equality. Most also engage in deception by omission -- never speaking to the fact of all those happy, loving, faithful families that include and accept gay people.

Venari, if you are happy, hey that's great. Who am I to say that your sexual orientation didn't shift. Although there is great evidence building to a biological explanation, the truth is we currently do not know exactly why a minority of guys fall in love with a nice guy or why a minority of girls experience romantic love with another girl. And then there is the existence of those that are bisexual. So there is still truth that needs to be discovered in this area. But what I do know for sure is this. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people are part of the world. Our lives and our love are both valid and good. Our capacity to do justice, love mercy, and walk with God is equal to that of everyone else. Equal. When we as GLBT people settle for second-class, we are actually making a comment on God's creation. We're agreeing that we are not good enough, not like everyone else God created. And that's not ok.

Venari

03-07-2006, 11:21 PM

Joe,

You seemed to jump to the conclusion that I lacked understanding of the teachings of Gandhi and Martin Luther. Perhaps I was not clear enough, I did edit back as my post was reaching one page in length. Also, I am more direct and I apologize if I come across as confrontational as I feel it will create a understanding where I am coming from.

I do not believe there is any genuine connection between Soulforce and the movements started by Gandhi and Luther. I will concede there can be made a connection of GLBT people being delegated inequitable treatment by the larger Christian community. The reason there is not a genuine connection is Soulforce has a failure to take the first steps to peaceably reach understanding with the ones they disagree with.

Your response furthers my point when you discuss the “Beloved Community.” Where you bring forth; “Dr. King believed and preached about the "Beloved Community" where we all could have our beliefs, including you, but we all respected those beliefs.”

There is a disconnect that happens there, one which you glossed over. Soulforce does not demonstrate this virtue with the people they disagree with. As Jacob has said, in several interviews including one to a school the Equality Ride was visiting, is Soulforce will not accept anything less then total acceptance of their ideas. This presentation instantly creates an adversarial situation by what Soulforce has said, not what the schools have decided. This is seen in many of the colleges would allow for discussions with Soulforce to create understanding of the GLBT community as long as their right to believe as they do is respected. Yet there is a unrelenting stance that they are wrong and Soulforce is right.

Which is where my complaint about “proto-Nazism” does fit, while that phrase is loaded it may be better to call the apparent pr tactics as Orwellian. The schools are forced with two options.

1. They can refuse to accept what is their perception of “extremist” ideology and there by have protests organized outside their campuses. Have the “protestors” attempt to gain access to their campus even though they have not been invited or welcomed. Finally have their named smeared to the media.
2. They can accept a ideology they do not adhere to avoid the above mentioned “harassment.”

So Soulforce appears to make no genuine attempt to create an understanding outside the threat of harassment. From what I know, schools were contacted being asking to invite the Equality Ride onto their campuses. There by offering no chance to sit down and discuss. Yes I know the claim that the Equality Ride seeks dialogue, but they schools are essentially offered no choice as the ride is coming if they agree to the visit or not. So Soulforce creates an atmosphere for dialogue on your terms disregarding the feelings of the school.

I know may students that would welcome Soulforce to campus to talk to students if they came in a less hostile manner then the Equality Ride, they came to present their opinion knowing we hold the right to reject their opinion after they present.

But sadly this is not the case, and the Equality Ride is essentially hostile as my community of students rejected their coming to campus yet there is an insistence they will still come and despite us asking you not to come onto campus there is an insistence you will trespass onto out home. Concluding the actions can be taking as nothing but hostile as Soulforce failed to reach an understanding we would be willing to, more toned down then what the Equality Ride seems to desire, and finally your imposing yourself onto our homes … yes I view my school as my home, the fellow students my sisters and brothers the faculty our trusted mentors.

Also as your statement as ex-gay vs. gay I think there was a lack of understanding on your part. I fully support GLBT rights, as cliché as this is, my best friend is gay and we support each other. I really make no distinction in the sexuality of people I call friend. As I said this is a choice I made for myself and I have never once suggested to a friend to consider changing their sexuality.

Finally regarding my statements about Soulforces treatment of the Assemblies of God I am responding to statements made by Jacob. Granted many in the AG do not accept of affirm homosexuality, nor should they be required to. But within the AG there is dialogue that has the potential to lead to change and an outsider would not see these internal changes, conversely as it is an internal change, external forces can stop it.

-Venari

Venari

03-07-2006, 11:38 PM

Jamie,

I sincerely appreciate your kind words. Which, as an ex-gay person I have rarely received from members of the GLBT community.

Let be begin by saying many people within the larger Church do not seek to delegate GLBT people to be second class citizens. Yet my complaint is Soulforce is not creating an atmosphere of cooperation with these people where, despite theological or ideological, differences there can be a “bridging the gap.”

As I point out earlier the actions of the Soulforce and the Equality Ride are being viewed as hostile and being an attack. As a previous poster responded that are our, my schools, responsibility to reconcile. But if we feel were being attacked why should we force reconsideration on our part when it’s the presentation by Soulforce that led us to feel this way.

Even though I no longer identity as being gay I remain a strong ally to GLBT equality in my school and denomination. But while I would normally support Soulforce visiting my school I feel attacked by the threat that since we do not agree with the Equality Rides chosen method of presentation there is an insistence to intrude upon our lives and disrespect for our beliefs … mostly this is seen in the statements that they will come on to campus at the risk of being arrested for trespassing.

-Venari

Jennifer5

03-08-2006, 12:04 AM

themattperry

03-08-2006, 03:43 AM

Venari et al ..

This has been one of the most genuine, and interesting, threads I've read on here. Venari, I want to commend your honesty and clarity in posting what you did. You clearly felt very strongly that the Equality Ride (in which I should say I am not involved) is misguided in its tactics. Correct me if I am wrong, but I also detected some level of frustration -- even anger -- in what you originally posted.

Listening to you with care, I can understand why you feel this way. You clearly identify very strongly with your College and your faith (which I am going to assume is A of G). You also identify as ex-gay ... which, as you and others have implied, is probably harder in some ways than identifying as gay. Moreover, as you indicated, you personally -- despite your affiliation and college community -- support gay and lesbian civil rights. What this adds up for me is one incredibly stressful situation ....

Some of what you originally posted was clearly overstatement or incorrect, and you have graciously modified your original statements in some ways, and I appreciate that. It is a testament to you and an example to the rest of us. Also, on some matters of opinion (like how similar are the philosophies of Gandhi/King and SF), reasonable people can disagree.

The questions I have for you -- and I mean them in a spirit of gentleness and invitation -- are these:

First, let's assume that everything you say about the ride and SoulForce is true ... that SF's tactics are divisive and ineffective, that SF is a media-hound, and not really following in the footsteps of Gandhi/King ... etc ... all of that.

** What can you, as a member of a community that discriminates against, harms and represses God's gay and lesbian children tell us about why your community does that, and do you think it's ethically acceptable and in the spirit of how God created us all? Help me understand this about your college and the A of G.

** I would like to hear your response to the following two quotations of Dr. King:

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." -MLK

-- Do you feel as though injustice is occurring at your campus or in your community? If so, what should be done about it?

"When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative." -MLK

-- In particular, do you think it is wrong for gay and lesbian people to be accepted fully in your community?

I ask you these questions not because I am trying to win any kind of argument with you, but rather because I would genuinely like to hear the answers. Your answers to questions like these help me to understand my own place on these issues ... I would also be more than willing to answer any questions you have for me. Doing so increases my own understanding.

God bless you Venari, and god bless your community and college as well. May you be filled with God's spirit and live your life according to his moving word inside of you. May we all speak the truth in love one another.

-Matt

vaguy78

03-08-2006, 03:53 AM

So yeah, i'm new to all of this so please forgive my forwardness as I'm not good with softening my responses.

****Disclaimer*****

What i'm about to share does not represent the views of soulforce or equalride ministries, but it's my own opinion and experience.

******Disclaimer**********

Hey Venari,

I also don't know much about equality ride and not too much about Ghandi but when it comes to the values and beliefs I would like to think that I know what they are and how the soulforce ministry align with Dr. King's values. The basic primise of the movement that he lead, supported and shared the same values was that we as the human race should not be using the thiings that are God given such as race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, complextion and other things, to divide, seperate, belittle, discriminate, or make any human feel less than human.

It was a moment that many gave their lives and freedom up for. They did protests and did what was necessary in a nonviolent way to show that change needed to be made. Lots of them were thrown in jail and many murdered in cold blood. The civil rights movement did not compromise with the force that opposed it. It demonstrated with confidence, hope and the power of God to see change happen. You see, equal rights is not something that can be compromised. if you don't believe in equal rights, your completely wrong when it comes to that particular matter.

There is not a movement that exists that does not believe that what they have to offer is something that is lacking in other organizations. This is what distiguishes the uniquness of different movements and that is not necessarily wrong and should not be seen as a threat.

As far as the whole media seeking attention comment, I'm not sure if that's true, but I know that my school posted something like that, and so I would ask those who run the equality ride movement their motives instead of just automatically believing what you hear.

Me being a memeber of a conservative school (liberty university), went though many years of exgay ministry(exodus ministry international and freedom ministries) i'm aware of how they portray the gay community and all the lies, backbitting, and close mindedness that goes on. On the subject of being open minded, I believe that my school likes to give an appearance of it so that it "looks good" for political reasons, but the reality is that my school is as open as a closed can of worms.

When you have two views that are in direct conflict, they can't co-exist and while i only represent my own opinion and relationship with Christ, I think that no one has it completely right but the gay christian community is more open than the exgay and straight christian community respectively.

As much as I believe that our sexual orientation is God given whether you see it as gay or straight or whatever, I totally respect your choice. I pray that the majority community would also respect my choice to be gay. The funny thing about it all if that you being exgay would totally be welcome at any gay affirming church but i'm not sure if I would be welcomed at your church as an open gay man. Eventhough it's not politically correct in the christian community to out right say hurtful things to people who are gay and christian, the body language says enough.

I'm glad that out of all the ex-gay that i have met, including people like mike haley and melissa fryrear, you are the first that has ever said that they are happy being exgay.

Jamie McDaniel

03-08-2006, 09:23 AM

I ask you these questions not because I am trying to win any kind of argument with you, but rather because I would genuinely like to hear the answers.

When you have time from your school work, Venair, I would like to hear your thoughts on Matt's questions as well. Because I think our generation, having grown up in desegregated schools, is inclined to think we would have all agreed with Dr. King, the Montgomery Improvement Association, and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Much like how we modern Christians all tend to think we would have sided with Jesus and not the Pharisees or Sadducees on keeping the Sabbath, circumcision, and other Levitical laws that sharply divided people.

But if we could be transported back in time to the 1950's and 60's during the civil rights movement, we would see something much different. It was said in another thread that when Dr. King was assassinated, he was probably the most hated man in America. And those that didn't hate him sharply disagreed with his tactics. Opinion sections of newspapers were filled with letters to the editor. It was often the same message, professing a belief in "fair treatment for negroes," but denouncing the methods of black activists and their white allies.

To me, it seems in most struggles for equality, there emerges a strange desire among conservatives and moderates to make sure the oppressor's feelings are in no way hurt by the oppressed's demand for fairness. I feel this is very much upside down.

NathanATX

03-08-2006, 10:11 AM

This is a really great thread. Thank you, Venari for starting it. I went to ORU. Though I knew I was gay, I had no problem living by the "honor code." I do know if anyone had found out I was gay, I would have been expelled. I saw it happen to friends.

Jamie,
It sounds like there is some misinformation about what actually happens on the equality ride. Could you help clarify some things?
-How do the schools know the bus is coming?
-What does the Equality Ride ask for? A meeting, lunch, a panel discussion, an opportunity to talk with students, hand out materials?

Is it possible the school officials receive the communication from the Equality Ride and then tell the student body something incorrect, like "they've given us two choices. Accept their ideology or they will protest."

It sounds like the student bodies might be victims of manipulation from their school officials.

Nathan

Jamie McDaniel

03-08-2006, 12:45 PM

Jamie,
It sounds like there is some misinformation about what actually happens on the equality ride. Could you help clarify some things?
-How do the schools know the bus is coming?
-What does the Equality Ride ask for? A meeting, lunch, a panel discussion, an opportunity to talk with students, hand out materials?
The Equality Ride has been a few years in the making. First, research was done on schools to determine their current policies on GLBT students. That information can be found here (http://www.equalityride.com/article.php?article_id=9) and here (http://www.equalityride.com/article.php?article_id=10). Then work commenced on two endeavors concurrently: recruiting riders and communicating with school officials. The following are paragraphs from one of the letters that went out.

Today, we write to inform you that the members of the Equality Ride have selected _________ as one of the possible stops for our journey next March and April. _________ is among 40 schools currently being considered as a possible stop. We encourage your feedback to the possibility of the Equality Ride stopping at your campus.

As we stated in our earlier letter to you, the goals of the Equality Ride are two fold. Foremost, we seek personal safety for _________ students who may be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. _________ should advertise a member of the faculty or staff whom students can visit and safely talk about issues regarding their sexual orientation and gender identity. In order for students to feel truly comfortable confiding with someone about their sexual orientation or gender identity, they need to know that the person they are talking to will hold their information in confidence and will not respond to what they say with an agenda.

Secondly, we seek academic freedom for _________ students and professors. The right to disagree is, and should be, a basic cornerstone to all institutions of higher learning. It is the free flow of ideas, and most importantly, the diversity of opinions that make the learning process at colleges and universities so rich. No professor should fear losing their job and no student should fear losing their enrollment status for making the simple declaration that homosexuality is not a sin.

In coming to your school it would not be a goal of ours to change your theology, or even your outlook on homosexuality. Rather, we feel our role is to open up discussion, to share our perspective on GLBT issues, and to impress upon the student body the importance of academic freedom and personal safety for GLBT students.

Zerbie

03-08-2006, 12:56 PM

I sincerely appreciate your kind words. Which, as an ex-gay person I have rarely received from members of the GLBT community.

L-Venari

Whoa. . .that's a real shame! I am very sorry that you have been received so negatively by the gay community, but not entirely shocked. I've been steamrollered by angry gays for saying anything that even "suggests" that I might be compassionate towards an ex-gay individual. It is sad. It is an element of the gay community, but it is not the ENTIRE gay community. There is so much pain and so much understandable rage in the gay community from those who basically tortured themselves in an attempt to become straight and lose unwanted same-sex attractions, that I understand how emotions blow up. I tiptoe around the topic when it comes up.

I think that as long as you clarify what you are saying as being your personal experience, and not as a recommendation for others to follow, only the closed-minded will have a serious problem with you. I have no problem with someone who was always same-sex attracted suddenly finding happiness in a straight relationship. It's pretty much exactly what happened to me, so we have something in common.

As far as the Equality Rides - I really don't know anything about them, so can't address that issue.

Jamie McDaniel

03-08-2006, 01:07 PM

I don't know much about the equality ride but here's what I think...
I'm not involved in the equality rides in any way. I don't know the tone of the events, I don't know how the speeches proceed and I don't know what kind of person-to-person dialogue takes place. So I'm not really in a position to discuss whether Soulforce is honoring the Gandhian tradition of nonviolence or corrupting it.
I also don't know much about equality ride...
As far as the Equality Rides - I really don't know anything about them, so can't address that issue.

:confused:

On a side note, obviously we need to take a look at how we can better inform Soulforce folks who are not directly involved in a project about what is going on.

Vanessa White

03-08-2006, 02:03 PM

I would like to say welcome to the forums of Soulforce, and glad that you came back to discuss/clarify and express your concerns. I agree with many of the previous posts that this dialogue has been interesting and helpful in many ways for me, as a person and as an active participant on Soulforce threads.

I have to say, frankly, that I have never met a person who self-identified as ex-gay, and I believe it takes a great deal of courage and self-love to state that and feel good about it. I also feel quite sad that treatment of you as an ex-gay person by members of the gay community is unfair, and needless to say, we are not all like that in terms of how we treat others that live their lives in a different way than our own.

I would agree with what others on this thread have said, that whatever feedback you could offer to assist Soulforce or its activities in possibly going about things in a different way could be helpful at least. I am not directly involved in the Equality RIdes, but I have to say, I loved the idea of it, because of the activity of taking the message to communities where, even if not well received, may need to be heard by some members of your school community that you may not even be aware of. Even though your school may take an official position that they feel they have no choice but to allow Soulforce in, the bottom line is, they do have a choice. But, if our presence can help one Christian student at your school who is LGBT feel not so alone, feel loved by God and embraced by persons representing religious beliefs, than I think the school stop is well worth it. Even when people say that they want to be able to discuss differences between them, the physical presence of the differences can be quite uncomfortable. I am glad that you support your gay friends, and I am glad that you are supportive of the Gay community at large. The bottom line is, that we don't get that support from much of the Christian communities, of all denominations, and as a lesbian person, I believe that I am as loved by Jesus for who I am as many of them do. I do not view myself as a sinner in the eyes of God, or as flawed in some way. If we encounter persons with those views, we may not change their minds. BUt, SOulforce has received letters from students at some Christian colleges in this country, as well as military academies, who support our message, although silently, or who are gay themselves and feel trapped and alone. I don't think that peaceful and nonviolent resistance means that persons will not disagree or even argue. I know that if a person does not view me favorably for being gay, in the name of God, I just don't want to be disrespected for that. A person can have their opinion, but not be mean to others in the name of that opinion. Anyway, I hope that we can continue to dialogue about this and maybe I can have a better understanding of where you are coming from as well. Thanks for being here and for your passion about this. Peace, Vanessa :pray:

Jamie McDaniel

03-08-2006, 02:51 PM

I should add that, yes, if school officials refuse to allow some form of dialogue on campus, then the Soulforce Equality Riders will peacefully walk onto campus grounds, even if theatened with arrest. The purpose of such a civil disobedience would be to bring national and local attention via the media to the discrimination that GLBT students at that school face. Such might be the case with the Equality Ride's first stop this Friday at Liberty University.

Campus Access Refused By Liberty University: Equality Riders Vow To Enter Grounds (http://www.equalityride.com/article.php?article_id=175)

The majority of schools, however, are not threatening arrest.

ochast

03-08-2006, 02:54 PM

Hi Venari. Thanks for making us stop and think! I'm most of the way through MLK's autobiography at the moment, and some of your statements really reminded me of Dr. King's points about the movement.

From what I know, schools were contacted being asking to invite the Equality Ride onto their campuses. There by offering no chance to sit down and discuss. Yes I know the claim that the Equality Ride seeks dialogue, but they schools are essentially offered no choice as the ride is coming if they agree to the visit or not.
[...]
[T]he Equality Ride is essentially hostile as my community of students rejected their coming to campus yet there is an insistence they will still come and despite us asking you not to come onto campus there is an insistence you will trespass onto our home.

You call the Ride "hostile" because it will show up whether or not it is welcome. You're absolutely right -- they're trying to create a crisis.

Dr. King said that the entire point of direct action is to create a crisis that cannot be ignored. His actions were equally "hostile" in that they invaded white-only spaces (lunch counters, stores, etc) despite both law and custom telling them to keep out. If they had waited for an invitation to come in, they'd still be waiting today. Instead, they trespassed. Flagrantly and repeatedly.

The goal of the crisis created by direct action (again, paraphrasing MLK) is to bring about open, honest negotiations. Your community of students rejected the Ride's request to come on campus and dialogue. The Ride is going to create a crisis, if needed, to bring those negotiations about.

They will make their voices heard, come heaven or high water, but all they ask is that you listen. They promise to listen to you in turn.

Accept their challenge. If your school is in the right with its policies regarding homosexuality, there is nothing to lose by sitting down to explain the truth to these Riders. Face the crisis they bring with the same spirit of willing suffering that the Riders face the threats of jail. Counter nonviolent direct action with nonviolent direct action of your own.

I'll be very curious to see what actually happens when the Ride shows up at your school -- I'd greatly appreciate if you could post your observations and opinions when the time comes.

Good wishes, always.
Michael

Venari

03-08-2006, 11:13 PM

"**What can you, as a member of a community that discriminates against, harms and represses God's gay and lesbian children tell us about why your community does that, and do you think it's ethically acceptable and in the spirit of how God created us all? Help me understand this about your college and the A of G."

Matt, to be up front I cannot honestly say the AofG discriminates against GLBT people. Mainly, for the reason that is a blanket statement. Also, I know a number of AG pastors who are GLBT friendly and I know even more professors at AG universities who are GLBT friendly. Personally I do not view the community life standards to be "anit-homosexual." The standards hold all students to the same level of accountability, gay or straight. Of the students I have known to be dismissed from a university for being homosexual, the key factor was engaging in sexual relationships. I have known straight students to be dismissed for the same reasons.

The fact of the matter is, well what I believe that fact of the matter is, life at a Christian College let alone a Bible College is a hard road and often we are asked to follow rules we may not agree to but they are part of the educational process. So there are many other options instead of a one of the "stricter" colleges. Personally I have a gay friend who chose to attend another college to pursue a degree in Youth Ministries because he knew he would not be able to uphold the rules he was asked to.

"** I would like to hear your response to the following two quotations of Dr. King:

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." -MLK

-- Do you feel as though injustice is occurring at your campus or in your community? If so, what should be done about it?

"When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative." -MLK

-- In particular, do you think it is wrong for gay and lesbian people to be accepted fully in your community?"

Well, from what I understand Soulforce not made any substantial efforts to contact current GLBT students at any AG colleges. They seem to be going off the story of one student who was dismissed and assuming that to be the truth. I think the injustice is the failure of Soulforce to support the GLBT students ware currently at the Colleges. I know quite a few who say the freedoms they gained are now being lost. For example I know of one AG college where they tolerate same-sex couples, as long as they upheld the community standards. Granted they are more discrete but it is progress, but now the school is beginning to crack down on that.

The issue of being accepted into "my community" is a slightly loaded question. My idea community of believers may differ vastly from another person. But I know I speak for a few people when I say I do not see any difference between a gay Christian and a straight Christian. That said I feel a Christian is the salt and light of the world and as such they demonstrate a level of "holiness" that is not seen in the world. Namely to get to the issue, I have many gay and lesbian friends whom I consider part of "my community."

Part of my distinction here comes from a GLBT Church I would occasionally attend with some friends. Needless to say I found the “spirit” to be vastly different then what I believe in, yet I still attended to support my friends and I volunteered to support the ministry of the church. Then when I spoke out on issues of promiscuity and how I felt, gay or straight, a person was designed by God for life long monogamous relationships. The pastor did not like that I had said this, mostly as it was in response to their sermon on it being acceptable to have numerous partners as long as no one was hurt. In the course of the discussion they learned I was, at the time, seeing a counselor to “become straight.” At that time I was asked to leave and never come back.

This comes to the crux of the matter. Why all of the students I have known, being personally or through another, have been dismissed for “sexual immorality.” So I do not see any discrimination on behalf of the schools if they student is unable to adhere to the standards the school sets for all the students.

-Venari

Venari

03-08-2006, 11:25 PM

You call the Ride "hostile" because it will show up whether or not it is welcome. You're absolutely right -- they're trying to create a crisis.

Dr. King said that the entire point of direct action is to create a crisis that cannot be ignored. His actions were equally "hostile" in that they invaded white-only spaces (lunch counters, stores, etc) despite both law and custom telling them to keep out. If they had waited for an invitation to come in, they'd still be waiting today. Instead, they trespassed. Flagrantly and repeatedly.

The goal of the crisis created by direct action (again, paraphrasing MLK) is to bring about open, honest negotiations. Your community of students rejected the Ride's request to come on campus and dialogue. The Ride is going to create a crisis, if needed, to bring those negotiations about.

They will make their voices heard, come heaven or high water, but all they ask is that you listen. They promise to listen to you in turn.

Accept their challenge. If your school is in the right with its policies regarding homosexuality, there is nothing to lose by sitting down to explain the truth to these Riders. Face the crisis they bring with the same spirit of willing suffering that the Riders face the threats of jail. Counter nonviolent direct action with nonviolent direct action of your own.

Michael,

I apologize if the tone seems divisive but I felt it was the best manner to communicate how “my side” views this situation.

The dialogue is there and able to be open. The school requests Soulforce meets the half way which has been rejected. We asked, as I sated before, not to bring the bus to campus but cooperate in making a presentation to the student body. Soulforce refused this and demanded their way only. So since there is an unwillingness to meet the school the school has no obligation to entertain the Equality Ride.

Additionally, I and few other students, have already presented new theology and doctrines to the School and the Denomination. Yet this refusal by Soulforce to look into the happenings of the schools is causing a major setback to this "movement."

Michael, I hope you see we have tried to meet them half way. Yet there has been a refusal. There has been changes being made but it is being hurt by the actions of Soulforce. So either way, directly or indirectly, the Equality Ride is hostile to both sides of GLBT rights within the School they are visiting.

-Venari

Jennifer5

03-08-2006, 11:39 PM

Venari, sorry that you feel that way... you may be right... I really do think that everyone is just doing the best they know how....

To me this sounds like maybe Soulforce has already gotten the attention they want and they need to be a little less forceful toward a group that has nothing against it... sorry this is how things are happening.

ochast

03-08-2006, 11:45 PM

We asked, as I stated before, not to bring the bus to campus but cooperate in making a presentation to the student body.

My apologies; I missed that earlier. Would you be willing to write out for this discussion the details of your school's counteroffer? If you have verbatim text of correspondance that would be ideal, but a general paraphrase would work, too. And then we the readers can each ask ourselves if we would have made a similar decision to the Riders.

You have me very, very curious right now.

Joe Brummer

03-08-2006, 11:47 PM

Venari,
Do you realize that many saw the actions of civil rights activist in the history of man as hostile, even when those actions were based in love? Gandhi presented actions of love and they were seen as hostile and radical. It was the radical part of this that brought attention to the injustice. Take the Salt March, it brought major attention to injustice though action that was considered hostile.

For the Civil Rights proponets of the 60s it was the lunch counter sit-in's. They were considered badly timed, and hostile. SOme could not understand the invitation to violence they presented. It was the action of bringing injustice into the light where it could be seen.

I understand how you could view this all the way you do, but understand we have tried to negotiate with these colleges on the past, but people want us to take this quiet road that lets the colleges go off the hook and the injustice to continue. This ride is to bring light to the injustice on terms that complete that mission, not terms that make it happy for others.

You mention that the schools have requested soulforce meet halfway, but that happen in the 60s in the same manner and just like Soulforce today, the civil rights leaders refused. The school is asking the soulforce riders to back down and play on their terms, and we have played on their terms for years all the while trying to negotiate and getting nowhere. THis action about taking this to a new level of negotiation on terms that agree for all of us, not just the school. Don't expect the riders to bow to offers to negotiate on thier terms, expect them to negotiate on terms that play to both sides, not just the school.

Venari

03-09-2006, 01:53 AM

"You mention that the schools have requested soulforce meet halfway, but that happen in the 60s in the same manner and just like Soulforce today, the civil rights leaders refused. The school is asking the soulforce riders to back down and play on their terms, and we have played on their terms for years all the while trying to negotiate and getting nowhere. THis action about taking this to a new level of negotiation on terms that agree for all of us, not just the school. Don't expect the riders to bow to offers to negotiate on thier terms, expect them to negotiate on terms that play to both sides, not just the school."

Joe, you seem to be missing the point I am trying to make ... the school has attempted to make concessions. Also as I have tried to illustrate, in the case of my school, we do not have the policies that, lets say, Liberty has. So the "attack" against my school is unjust, in that aspect.

My point further is the school is not required to have any interaction with Soulforce and we would be in our right to have the members of the Equality Ride arrested, yet we try to find a means that appeases both sides, something Soulforce appears unwilling to do.

Perception is 100% reality to the person perceiving it. So, if the actions of the Equality Ride are perceived as an attack then the students, faculty and administration will react as though it is. My college does not exclude GLBT people, before I decided to become ex-gay the school allowed me to attend fully knowing I identified as gay.

As I previously discussed the Assemblies of God is governed by independent churches and it becomes a prejudiced viewpoint to paint all AG churches, schools and pastors with the same brush. So I guess its best to put there is no basis to claim the actions of the Equality Ride towards my school have no comparison to the actions the civil rights leaders took.

-Venari

Jamie McDaniel

03-09-2006, 02:44 PM

Personally I do not view the community life standards to be "anti-homosexual." The standards hold all students to the same level of accountability, gay or straight. Of the students I have known to be dismissed from a university for being homosexual, the key factor was engaging in sexual relationships. I have known straight students to be dismissed for the same reasons.
The Lee University student handbook reads:

"The university encourages wholesome interaction between the sexes but stands firmly against those elements of the society which condone pre-marital and extra-marital sexual relations, homosexual practices and other forms of sexual behavior which violate Scripture. Engaging in sexual acts expressly condemned in Scripture (premarital sex, adultery and homosexual practices) will result in suspension or expulsion."

Verani, how can you come down on the side of this not being discriminatory? Now let me just say that the Equality Ride is not challenging a school's "no sexual conduct before marriage" policy. I personally think Christian schools should talk about that more (like in this thread (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=125)), but that is not discriminatory as long as it applies equally to both heterosexuals and homosexuals.

But that's not the case at Lee. Heterosexuals can be married (either religious or civil marriage) and then the thing that would previously have gotten them expelled is now celebrated. Not so with homosexuals.

Now a leader from another college, Bethel University, stated in a news interview (http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=119940), "We believe whether a student is gay or straight that those intimate forms of sexual behavior can only be expressed in the context of traditional marriage."

That statement includes the phrase "whether a student is gay or straight" in order to make it sound like the whole package is one of equality. Please don't buy it. :pray:

Peter Z

03-09-2006, 04:19 PM

The Lee University handbook says that the school "stands firmly against those elements of the society which condone pre-marital and extra-marital sexual relations, homosexual practices and other forms of sexual behavior which violate Scripture."

Your response But that's not the case at Lee. Heterosexuals can be married (either religious or civil marriage) and then the thing that would previously have gotten them expelled is now celebrated. Not so with homosexuals.
is not a the fault of Lee University, but the state of Tennessee which does not recognize same-sex marriage.

keltic63

03-09-2006, 04:41 PM

The Lee University handbook says that the school "stands firmly against those elements of the society which condone pre-marital and extra-marital sexual relations, homosexual practices and other forms of sexual behavior which violate Scripture."

Your response is not a the fault of Lee University, but the state of Tennessee which does not recognize same-sex marriage.

so you're saying Lee University supports same-sex marriage? wow. that's progressive!

Venari

03-09-2006, 08:06 PM

The Lee University student handbook reads:

"The university encourages wholesome interaction between the sexes but stands firmly against those elements of the society which condone pre-marital and extra-marital sexual relations, homosexual practices and other forms of sexual behavior which violate Scripture. Engaging in sexual acts expressly condemned in Scripture (premarital sex, adultery and homosexual practices) will result in suspension or expulsion."

Verani, how can you come down on the side of this not being discriminatory? Now let me just say that the Equality Ride is not challenging a school's "no sexual conduct before marriage" policy. I personally think Christian schools should talk about that more (like in this thread (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=125)), but that is not discriminatory as long as it applies equally to both heterosexuals and homosexuals.

...

That statement includes the phrase "whether a student is gay or straight" in order to make it sound like the whole package is one of equality. Please don't buy it. :pray:

First let me state I do not attend Lee University so I cannot fully comment on their policy. Second, as the rule stands if a same sex couple were "married" then, and only then, would we see if a school accepts students in a same-sex marriage.

But, as I said before, the students I have known to be dismissed from a university were engaging in sexual relationships. I know of more then one who had a personal ad on a "hook-up" site. Those instances clearly fall well beyond the occurrence of sexual activity within committed relationship.

Yes the phrase "whether a student is gay or straight" is vital and key. While it may, more or less, be fluff now it is extremely progressive from where these schools were not even 5 years ago. The fact they added the phrase and are even considering it is a monumental step in the direction of GLBT rights. Yet my point comes down to, while to the schools and denominations they represent are making these steps The Equality Ride and Soulforce is continuing to demand more ground instead of meeting the schools where they are and then helping them take the next step.

So, let us take a moment and reflect on the Biblical story and of prodigal son and apply it to this situation, Luke 15:11-32 ( http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2015:11-32)),. The son took out on his own and abandoned his family, which no doubt hurt the family. When the son had lost everything and was destitute he decided to turn back to his father and beg for forgiveness and mercy. But when he returned to his father he was welcomed back, not as a servant but as a son. The traditional view of this is how to welcome back those who leave the “flock” and return, but it also speaks volumes to those who are part of the “flock” and dealing with those who have left.

At the risk of offense to my school I am going to propose that GLBT Christians are, in this case, like the father and the Churches are like the son. From this passage we see willingness by the side of the father to let the son go make his errors knowing he will soon see the errors of his choosing and will return. We do not see the actions taken by Soulforce and demand the son “repent” of his follies and return. Which rises the point, how much would the son have further rebelled or even refused to return if the father demanded he did so?

This is the point I wish to make; while Soulforce is a civil-rights movements the contexts in history are COMPETELY different. The policies of the colleges and universities are completely different then the racism of the past. They do not seek out to create separate homosexual and heterosexual distinctions. The schools are caught in centuries of church doctrine and dogma, which has stood for centuries. To use the example of a mountain, you can blow it apart and pick up the pieces after or you can wait for the natural changes that bring the mountains low. To insert a quip of sarcasm, the schools are not Burger King, you cannot have it “your way right away.”

Changing hearts and minds without bitter resentment takes time. And if the Soulforce truly cared for the schools why is there a refusal to anything but their way?
-Venari

dewdrop_world

03-09-2006, 11:04 PM

At the risk of offense to my school I am going to propose that GLBT Christians are, in this case, like the father and the Churches are like the son. From this passage we see willingness by the side of the father to let the son go make his errors knowing he will soon see the errors of his choosing and will return. We do not see the actions taken by Soulforce and demand the son “repent” of his follies and return. Which rises the point, how much would the son have further rebelled or even refused to return if the father demanded he did so?

The son went on his way to make dreadful mistakes, but he was not trying to do active harm to his father, either physical harm or slander. And I think, were the father in this story under any actual threat from his son, the father would be justified in standing courageously, even confronting his son.

To bring it to the present case, if anti-gay Christians want to go off on an island by themselves and leave gay people alone, then there's no need for any protest. And I'm not particularly sure how I feel about people or organizations who aren't really actively anti-gay, but who tacitly support those who actually do speak and act in a bigoted way. It's like one person is stabbing you in the gut, while another person is standing there saying, "Well, maybe the knife in the gut is a little over the top, but we go to the same church so I'm not going to object too strongly." Which one is your friend?

Am I being over-dramatic? Well ... I live in Virginia, which is on the verge of amending the state constitution to rule not only that gay marriage is against the law, but that any private contracts between two citizens of the same gender are unenforceable when those contracts grant rights that straight people get through marriage. So my partner and I could draw up living wills, powers of attorney, hospital visitation papers etc. at the cost of thousands of dollars, but they might mean nothing when push comes to shove. In time of crisis, we could have the choice to fight it in the courts or accept being separated by the law. That feels like a tangible threat to me. This is largely at the behest of right wing churches, so I don't feel like I really have the luxury to sit back and let the churches "just make their mistakes." If they were only hurting themselves, sure, I can go along with what you say, but that isn't really accurate.

I don't feel the prodigal son is a particularly apt analogy. Don't really have a better one at the moment, though ...

hjh

schoolboi

03-09-2006, 11:32 PM

If any Liberty students happen to read this thread, we would love to see and speak with you tomorrow (friday march 10) at the main entrance of the school by the ice center between 11-1. Come meet the folks on the equality ride.

vaguy78

03-10-2006, 12:29 AM

Ya know initially i was kinda scared to actually go but i think i'm gonna try and go after convo tomorrow.

cris

03-10-2006, 05:31 AM

Hi Venari,
First of all I want to echo the sentiments of others here in saying "thank you" for opening up this dialogue. I'm forced to really consider a lot of issues raised in the discussion and to question my own understanding of Soulforce.
Being quite new to Soulforce in terms of forum participation, I haven't entered into many dialogues. Perhaps this is in part due to hesitation, wondering if my beliefs would be "welcome" here. I have also experienced much rejection from folks, gay, straight or somewhere in between, Christian or non, and I sometimes keep my thoughts to myself, right or wrong, at least in this kind of setting. However, I cannot make blanket statements about any group, Soulforce, AOG, Catholics, Gay or Lesbian people, and I think you have also made the same point. Seeing your courage to speak out in such an articulate way also encourages me. We really don't know what others think until we ask, do we?
As to your rejection by GLBT Christians, what can I say other than the fact that too often oppressed people turn around and oppress others. I cannot speak for everyone, but I know a lot of LGBT folks who would not reject you. In fact I've a feeling I would like you. You are articulate, have a strong sense of who you are and have very firm beliefs to which you adhere. God bless you.
I want to present my perspective on the Freedom Rides. Perhaps it will not change your mind, but it may provide some food for thought. When I saw that the riders would be attending three universities which I attended I was excited and kind of terrified at the same time. I wondered if I would have the courage to face these school leaders and share my point of view. The answer now is a resounding YES. It wasn't so at the time I was a student. Things were not good for those of us, and there were many, who are gay or lesbian or in fact "different" from the mainstream. I'm sad to say that some of my gay friends have since lost their lives tragically, and for years I have blamed the religious institutions in part, because they were so intolerant that many of us sought out relationships in a clandestine manner, that often led to dangerous liaisons. If someone would have come to my campus to present an alternative point of view, I believe that this would have sparked a new sense of hope and perhaps given some of us a perspective on the world that we did not know existed beyond the walls of our religious upbringing. Sadly, for some like me, I turned my back completely on God, thinking that it was one or the other, God or being true to who I was. There was no alternative presented.
Now, because I know for a fact that risky behaviors continue at disproportionately higher rates amongst GLBT youth, including suicide rates, I remain concerned that societal institutions, including religion, continue to isolate and oppress lesbian and gay people. When an institution singles out a group of people (as my alma mater has) to form a policy that opposes them, yet does not do the same for others in their list of pet sins, I cannot support them. Even if their attitudes towards us do not change, having a specific policy cannot be justified as anything other than discriminating when it singles out a group of people because of WHO they are. I know of several occassions where the Board of one of my schools enforced a "witch hunt" to rid the school of gay and lesbian faculty and students. For those like me who wanted to attend a small Christian college, where I could continue on in my community of faith and gain a valuable education at the same time, even directed towards ministry, this creates a fierce dilemma. Would that these schools had an attitude that encouraged me to be who I rightfully know I am in God and at the same time nurture me without prejudice to form relationships with others like me that were also respectable like they tried to do with straight kids.
Anyway, my main point is that there are students (and faculty) within the schools that will be met along this route, who need the exposure that Soulforce will bring. The degree of exposure they choose is up to the students in my opinion, but I believe it is valuable and may actually help some of them to form new relationships or bonds that COULD save their lives. I hope that Soulforce represents us along the way. I admit that I am not certain of the exact approach the riders will take. (Perhaps you can report to us after they visit your school what took place.) My hope is that some in those schools will be "set free" from their oppressive chains and find their way to a loving God, as I have, only sooner.
Again, I bless you in Jesus's name.
Cris

Venari

03-10-2006, 05:35 AM

In time of crisis, we could have the choice to fight it in the courts or accept being separated by the law. That feels like a tangible threat to me. This is largely at the behest of right wing churches, so I don't feel like I really have the luxury to sit back and let the churches "just make their mistakes." If they were only hurting themselves, sure, I can go along with what you say, but that isn't really accurate.

Dewdrop,

You prove my point. Not all "right wing" Christians are in support of the marriage amendments now are all prone to stab someone. The point is we live in an entirely different world and another way needs to be found to bridge the gap between the "two sides" of this issue.

And to be completely forthright the fact you would willingly, and almost joyfully, accept all the people who show opposition to GLBT people to move to an island somewhere I find that right up the alley of hate speech. This leads to why the analogy I use is so key... Jesus constantly teaches loving our enemies. Yet I find many of the schools being "demonized" by the rhetoric of the Equality Ride, I do want to acknowledge it does go the other way ... but two wrongs do not make a right.

So the illustration of the father and sun is relevant, no matter how much someone else hurts you, there is always the need to be open and willing to welcome them back. I'm sorry you missed that point.

-Venari

schoolboi

03-10-2006, 08:06 AM

Letter the editor published in News and Advance Lynchburg, VA today

Equality ‘Rides’ again
Godspeed to the group of courageous Equality Riders embarking this week on a journey across the country to bring the truth of God’s love and acceptance for His gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) children. It is high time that the immoral rhetoric and ungodly discriminatory policies of “Christian” institutions like Liberty University against GLBT people be exposed.
The Rev. Jerry Falwell, Liberty’s chancellor, has stated that he would rather see his school burn to the ground than accept the goals of the Equality Ride.
It was less than 40 years ago that he took a similar stand in denying admission to his church to people of color. Falwell called the Civil Rights movement the “Civil Wrongs” movement. Falwell is on the wrong side again.
I will not allow my faith to be hijacked by fundamentalist extremists who use the Bible as a weapon of mass destruction in God’s name against God’s gay children.
As a born-again Christian and future Christian leader who will begin seminary this fall, I am proud to lift my voice with countless other Christ-centered believers who are calling for the truth of God’s unconditional love and acceptance for GLBT people to be proclaimed.

COREY B. H
Lynchburg

BruceChris

03-10-2006, 09:08 AM

Vanessa White

03-10-2006, 09:51 AM

Great letter, Corey! Fill us in on how the visit goes at Liberty today. My prayers and thoughts will be with you, the students at Liberty,and the riders. Be well Vanessa:pray: :pray: :love: :love: :love:

Venari

03-10-2006, 11:08 AM

Venari:

While there are more than one way of looking at any argument, one very basic fact seems to stand out: We are allowing, even inviting you to express your views in our space, but you very clearly do not want us to express our views in yours. Thoughts?

BruceChris,

When did I ever say that? What I did say is 1. Soulforce is unwilling to meet the school hlaf way and 2. I am pointing out the how I think Soulforce is going about reaching the schools is wrong, from my pespective as a GLBT supporter at one of the schools.

I am sad to say you seem to have not read the entirety of my post/'s or you arleady readd them knowing what you wanted to say. So please have something construcitve to say and not a generic "accusation" of hyprocicsy.

-Venari

Venari

03-10-2006, 11:11 AM

NathanATX

03-10-2006, 02:16 PM

Corey,

I applaud your courage. But I ask why is there no distinction between the blantant "hate speach" used by Rev. Falwell and Liberty and the more moderate schools, who does not want the Equality Ride to visit but is willing to a less "media circus" approach.

-Venari

Venari,
I think you will see the distinctions as they unfold. Some of the schools are opening the doors to the riders and welcoming them. There won't be civil disobedience actions at those schools.

Liberty basically went into lockdown and is arresting the riders, who in an act of civil disobedience are going onto the grounds and reading the equality ride statement.

--I am only peripherally involved, so I may not have my facts straight.

ochast

03-10-2006, 07:04 PM

The [prodigal] son went on his way to make dreadful mistakes, but he was not trying to do active harm to his father, either physical harm or slander. And I think, were the father in this story under any actual threat from his son, the father would be justified in standing courageously, even confronting his son.

Very good point! If the son were hurting anyone, plenty of people would have good reason to stop him. Instead, he simply went out and spent all his money and ended up feeding the pigs and feeling sorry for himself.

If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go: perchance it will wear smooth -- certainly, the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself; then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn.

Non-cooperation with evil is as much a moral imperative as cooperation with good.

We don't sit back and wait for a turnaround if someone is actively harming another. We don't condone their actions. We do what it takes to stop the harm.

ochast

03-10-2006, 07:09 PM

OK, this discussion has gotten me wondering what the various schools' policies are. A little digging found that Soulfource has gathered the info together pretty neatly:
Here's the info on religious schools (http://www.equalityride.com/article.php?article_id=9), and on military ones (http://www.equalityride.com/article.php?article_id=10).

From Soulfource's intro re: religious schools:
The scope and enforcement of GLBT bans vary from school to school. Some religious schools prohibit "homosexual behavior," other schools go further by prohibiting students from self-identifying as GLBT people, and other schools go even further by prohibiting the "promotion of homosexuality," a statement which also bans straight allies who support GLBT equality.

Professors at religious schools with GLBT bans by and large teach from decidedly one-sided perspectives on homosexuality. All too frequently, professors are even required to sign declarations of faith that affirm the belief that homosexuality is sinful. For these reasons and more, it is not surprising that GLBT students at these schools find it difficult to accept their sexual orientation and/or gender identify.

ochast

03-10-2006, 07:30 PM

student1234

03-10-2006, 10:05 PM

As a student at Regent university where Equality Riders are planning on travelling to I want to express my regret at how Equality Ride has handled the situation. When I first heard about the group I went to your website to examine who you were and what the plans were for Regent.

As students, we received an email weeks ago telling us that Equality Ride was planning on coming and that the school was welcoming them, including multiple forums for dialogue and encouraging students to feel free to interact and talk with members of Equality Ride. However, throughout all of this your information regarding Regent University has never changed. Your site daily has stated (on the site with information regarding Regent):

"Regent University has refused dialogue thus far with the Equality Ride, but the riders are undeterred in their hope for dialogue with the school.

We have a full day of events planned and hope to meaningfully engage with students, professors and administration. Please sign up to learn more and lend your support."

This blatant falsehood is disappointing yet revealing. If Equality Ride's true mission is to "meaningfully engage," why the false statements regarding the University's response? I was truly looking forward to this unique opportunity and to personally hearing what the Equality Riders views were, however, due to Equality Ride's choices, we now understand that the forums for dialogue have been removed. I suppose this helps your leaders get more quotes in the media, and frankly, after Equality Ride's response, I am more convinced that all Eqaulity Ride is interested in is in arrests to make headlines calling Regent University "close minded" as one of your leaders did tonight on the Fox News website (don't worry I know all the jokes I'll get regarding Fox News :)

Equality Ride's decision to stifle discussion with the University is what prompted me to write this reply. I just wanted to express, as a student at Regent, my disappointment that a group claiming to have a desire to "meaningfully engage" and a hope to dialogue with students at my university would scuttle opportunities to dialogue just so they could get more press coverage. I hope that between now and Monday your leadership will change their minds and contact the University so that the students may truly have an opportunity to "meaningfully engage" with Equality Ride, instead of having to witness incidents that further isolate and sharpen rhetoric on both sides. Thanks for taking time to listen. I hope Equality Ride's leadership will provide our student body with that opportunity. Press releases are nowhere near as powerful as honest dialogue.

dewdrop_world

03-10-2006, 10:44 PM

You prove my point. Not all "right wing" Christians are in support of the marriage amendments now are all prone to stab someone. The point is we live in an entirely different world and another way needs to be found to bridge the gap between the "two sides" of this issue.
I hope you didn't take my stabbing example literally. My point with it is not that a sizable number of Christians actually want to do harm to gay people. I do think that more than you would like to admit stand by passively and allow the harm to be done by other people who claim to speak for Christians in general. How many of them would vote against a marriage amendment in their area even if their church tells them that voting for it is a way to protect marriage? How many of them say out loud, "James Dobson, Lou Sheldon, etc. do not speak for me on this issue"?

I do see your point about how these events might antagonize people who are sympathetic to the LGBT cause but living in unsympathetic communities. I wasn't involved in any decision-making process about this action, so I can't speak for the organizers. I believe them to be people of conscience who would take the time to weigh the risks. If I were in their shoes, I would consider at least these points:

- Historically, social change doesn't come about just from people sitting down and talking politely. There's always a catalyst--somebody does something dramatic that exposes the issue for what it is. There are people who are threatened by the issue coming to light, and they get angry. Then, people of conscience who never thought about the issue before get shocked, not only about the injustice but also about the extreme reactions. And minds start to change. The major disagreement here is your assessment of the likeliness of this happening, vs. the risk of alienating potential allies, is very different from Soulforce's. It may be necessary to agree to disagree. (I don't know which assessment is right.)

- In the end, no matter what you do, somebody is going to have a problem with it. So you have to weigh the pros and cons, make a decision, proceed forward with awareness and an open heart, and lovingly accept the static that comes your way.

And to be completely forthright the fact you would willingly, and almost joyfully, accept all the people who show opposition to GLBT people to move to an island somewhere I find that right up the alley of hate speech.
I regret writing that so quickly, because I omitted some important points. Actually, if anti-gay Christians got fed up with the direction of the country and voluntarily moved themselves to an island, I would regret it because it would make it harder to bring about reconciliation. I mentioned it purely as a hypothetical, only to make the point that for the analogy to hold, anti-gay Christians would have to be doing no harm to gay people (just as the prodigal son was not threatening his father in any way while he was away).

For it to be hate speech, I would have to advocate forcibly sending them away as some sort of "solution." I don't believe my words implied that, and I certainly didn't intend it. I was sorry to see that you read glee into them. My sense is that your reading is as much the result of what you see in the words, as it is the words themselves. If my words startled you, I would have liked to see you ask me to clarify, rather than assume the worst.

If you don't want to answer, that's ok, but I would be curious to hear why it is that you assumed evil intent in what I wrote.

So the illustration of the father and son is relevant, no matter how much someone else hurts you, there is always the need to be open and willing to welcome them back.
Of course. My door is always open to talk with anyone. But what kind of a father would he be if his son were not really repentent, but he came back, say, only to steal things for more drug money? If he didn't recognize what his child was really doing, if he didn't refuse to be taken advantage of, he would not be compassionate, he would just be a fool.

Sometimes, it is a loving thing to say, "No, this is wrong, and I will stand against it."

hjh

Venari

03-11-2006, 03:58 AM

I do see your point about how these events might antagonize people who are sympathetic to the LGBT cause but living in unsympathetic communities. I wasn't involved in any decision-making process about this action, so I can't speak for the organizers. I believe them to be people of conscience who would take the time to weigh the risks. If I were in their shoes, I would consider at least these points:

- Historically, social change doesn't come about just from people sitting down and talking politely. There's always a catalyst--somebody does something dramatic that exposes the issue for what it is. There are people who are threatened by the issue coming to light, and they get angry. Then, people of conscience who never thought about the issue before get shocked, not only about the injustice but also about the extreme reactions. And minds start to change. The major disagreement here is your assessment of the likeliness of this happening, vs. the risk of alienating potential allies, is very different from Soulforce's. It may be necessary to agree to disagree. (I don't know which assessment is right.)

- In the end, no matter what you do, somebody is going to have a problem with it. So you have to weigh the pros and cons, make a decision, proceed forward with awareness and an open heart, and lovingly accept the static that comes your way.

I completely agree that nearly all social change is the result of a catalyst. In this case I feel the catalyst has already occurred and repeating or trying to recreate another catalyst is the wrong decision. My view is our society has changed from the time of the Civil Rights movement. Our society is no longer as prone to shaking as we were in the 50's-60's. Mainly I think in the previous era we had just come out of the world war eras and had settled into a sedative, and I would say apathetic, sense of everything is ok in the world. Which lead to the necessity of drastic action to snap the population out of their “slumber” and pay attention once again.

Now 40's years later the world is in a different place. Our society is not as sedate and we have "larger" issues shaking the country then if colleges discriminate against GLBT students. I do not mean to down play anyone’s feelings but I feel on this matter but this reflects the current state of mind of the general population.

That said, I feel our current society has moved to a more litigious and bureaucratic nature where things are best achieved though debate and discussion and not "shock tactics." With actions like visiting schools who do not welcome the Equality Ride goes against this new "mind-set" as being an action to force an ideology upon people. Importantly this view leads to further the false ideology of a "gay agenda" that many conservative pundits propagate.

For it to be hate speech, I would have to advocate forcibly sending them away as some sort of "solution." I don't believe my words implied that, and I certainly didn't intend it. I was sorry to see that you read glee into them. My sense is that your reading is as much the result of what you see in the words, as it is the words themselves. If my words startled you, I would have liked to see you ask me to clarify, rather than assume the worst.

If you don't want to answer, that's ok, but I would be curious to hear why it is that you assumed evil intent in what I wrote.

I do apologize for taking you out of context or too literal. That is an example of a major drawback of this medium of communication. With no voice one is left to interpret the words another types with ought hearing any emphasis you may have intended, but was missed.

But to explain I read you as literal, as I try to be as literal as possible when I write unless I specifically note otherwise. So in reading your words the image of rhetoric some people use about sending undesirables to an island, or the bottom of the ocean came to mind. I do apologize once again if I offended but I hope you understand why I read what you wrote as I did.

Of course. My door is always open to talk with anyone. But what kind of a father would he be if his son were not really repentent, but he came back, say, only to steal things for more drug money? If he didn't recognize what his child was really doing, if he didn't refuse to be taken advantage of, he would not be compassionate, he would just be a fool.

Sometimes, it is a loving thing to say, "No, this is wrong, and I will stand against it."

To best respond I guess I should digress and explain my theological view point. Not to plug a book but I think one of the best book written about Christian living and ethics in twenty years is The Irresistible Revolution (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310266300/sr=8-1/qid=1142065714/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-7713295-9532820?%5Fencoding=UTF8). While the book at best only briefly addresses issues of homosexuality. I feel the over all message can be applied to any Christian life.

At the potential of opening a theological debate, I feel an important aspect of Christian living that if too often overlooked and more often ignored is, loving ones enemy and turning the other cheek. Within this discussion there need to be the clarification of pacifism and passivity. Passivity is where one does nothing pacifism is where one takes an action that results in less division, hate, violence and indifference.

The teaching of Jesus to love our enemies extends to when they take actions to hurt us, directly or indirectly. How we respond show the true character of a person. Do respond with equal force back or do we respond in a manner to let them know that no matter what we will still love them. Pairing with when Jesus was asked about how many times you should forgive someone, being you should offer endless forgiveness. Also turning the other cheek I view as when you turn the other cheek to the person who just struck you there is the opportunity to look the person in the eye so they know you do not hate them for what they are doing.

Taking a look at the actions of the Equality Ride and the schools involved. The Equality Ride asked to come to the schools to present/protest. Some of the schools, for their individual reasons refused. The leader of the Equality Ride decided to smear them to the media, and often present false hoods ... this is from my perspective. While I cannot comment on other schools I can comment on mine that faced with this smear of who we are we do not respond in kind... we reiterate that we care for the people who are coming yet we will not allow them to come onto our campus on their terms but are willing to meet half way.

I do not mean to present the Equality Ride in an unfavorable light but as I said before I am trying to present my view for discussion.

In closing I want to further respond to the comment by brucechris.
Venari:

While there are more than one way of looking at any argument, one very basic fact seems to stand out: We are allowing, even inviting you to express your views in our space, but you very clearly do not want us to express our views in yours. Thoughts?

First, had my first post been deleted I would not have come back or posted anything further as you would have asked me not to return, and that still holds true. Second, I am here playing by your "rules" and I am respecting the guidelines set forth by the administrator. Finally the same extends to Soulforce and the Equality Ride, you are welcome as long as you meet us half way and agree to the rules we have in discussing.

So, I guess this is a perfect example. I am a guest here, and I will behave like a guest while presenting my dissenting point of view... we would ask that when you are a guest of ours you would show the same courtesy, which has not been extended so we continue to assert our right to host you.

I hope this addresses and concerns on this issue.

-Venari

Venari

03-11-2006, 04:12 AM

The point has been made by a few posters already that some of the schools only forbid homosexual activity/practices, just as they forbid pre-/extra-marital sex or "unmarried cohabitation" or the like.

But what are "homosexual practices"? Does holding hands count?

If an unmarried same-gender couple can indeed do anything an unmarried mixed-gender couple can on these campuses, then why does the phrase "homosexual practices" need to be there? Just delete the phrase and everybody's happy. Keep it in, and the school is telling LGB students that they are clearly "less than."

Of course, same-gender couples do get married these days, in one state and a heck of a lot of churches. Who is the school to deny a marriage that has already been sanctified in the eyes of God?

[as an aside, I'm also really curious as to who on campus decides what constitutes "pre-marital sex" for any set of persons. I can just picture students arguing that they'd "only gotten as far as third base" so it wasn't really breaking the rules.]

The funny thing is you hit the nail on the head. In the case of my school I have known a gay student who had the practice of having his boyfriend over and cuddling on his couch, in his dorm room, while watching a movie. The school seemed to tolerate that activity well enough. And yes the issue of what is sex and what isn’t often becomes, for lack of a better term, comical, on a Christian campus. But that is beside the point. But to simplify it has become an extremely complex situation. There is the administration laying the foundation of by making the rules then you have how the students interpret the rules. With the result being the a conflict arises when a student becomes too "liberal" in their interpretation of the rules laid down ... so sadly it, on some levels, becomes completely subjective.

-Venari

Joe Brummer

03-11-2006, 02:45 PM

I completely agree that nearly all social change is the result of a catalyst. In this case I feel the catalyst has already occurred and repeating or trying to recreate another catalyst is the wrong decision. My view is our society has changed from the time of the Civil Rights movement. Our society is no longer as prone to shaking as we were in the 50's-60's. Mainly I think in the previous era we had just come out of the world war eras and had settled into a sedative, and I would say apathetic, sense of everything is ok in the world. Which lead to the necessity of drastic action to snap the population out of their “slumber” and pay attention once again.

Now 40's years later the world is in a different place. Our society is not as sedate and we have "larger" issues shaking the country then if colleges discriminate against GLBT students. I do not mean to down play anyone’s feelings but I feel on this matter but this reflects the current state of mind of the general population.

That said, I feel our current society has moved to a more litigious and bureaucratic nature where things are best achieved though debate and discussion and not "shock tactics." With actions like visiting schools who do not welcome the Equality Ride goes against this new "mind-set" as being an action to force an ideology upon people. Importantly this view leads to further the false ideology of a "gay agenda" that many conservative pundits propagate.

I am only going to address 2 points in your post. Really due to lack of time for me. I apologize I don't have time to talk more to the other points you have made, some of which I may or may not agree with. In my opinion, what you are saying reminds me of the original letter written to Dr. King from 6 Alabama clergymen. The 2 points raised here are similar. 1- It isn't time, and this is not the way. As for your first point that trying to create a new cataylst is wrong. Don't be fooled that America is awake. They are again in their happy slumber that everything is fine. I point out to you that we need this new catalyst to point out the injustice (the issues at the schools) The reason is so that a creative tension can exist to bring the issue to the table. As Dr. King said in his reply, freedom will never be given by an oppressor, the oppressed must demand it. In creating a new catalyst, we are demanding justice from these schools.

You ask that we should use the legislature and the courts rather than shock tactics. That would be fne except, 1- the courts take along time when you think about the suffering invovled for gays and lesbians. Are we to just sit and wait some more for the suffering to stop, or should we deman it stop now. 2 - There isn't that much support in the legislature, some maybe. Again, this is a matter of time. How long do we wait.

I remind you this is a campaign of non-violence and with any non-violence campaign there are the steps to follow. The gathering of information, Education, Purification, Negotiation, Direct Action and reconciliation.

In the case of this campaign those steps are being followed.

1 - Information has been gathered about these schools and about the Soulforce Riders. Both sides of the conflict need to have their information heard. The schools have gathered information about the Riders, and the Riders have gathered information about the schools. Most conflicts are settle in the step, but this conflict has not been.

2 - Education: Both sides of this conflict have exchanged information. It is necessary for both sides to offer all the information for the conflict to be resolved. The schools have offered their policies and stories of students. The SoulForce Riders have also offered their stories and information about the mission. While many conflicts are settled here in this step, this conflict has not been settled in this step.

3 - Purification. The Soulforce riders take this step often. It involves refocusing yourself on why you are doing what you are doing, and foucsing on how non-violence can be used to solve the issue. It is preparing yourself for moral battle. All of the principles of non-violence need to be in this step.

4- Negotiation. Soulforce has tried as a group, the students have tried as individuals to negotiate with the schools. These negotiations may have made some dent into the conflct, but they have not brought the conflict to a resolve. A true non-violence campaign is looking for a win-win solution to the issue. One where all parties win and are brought into the Beloeved community. Since this hasn't happen, the Riders have moved to the next step.

5 - Direct Action. This is the Equality rides. This direct action is create tension on this issue, apply pressure to the schools to bring them back to step 4. All of the principles of non-violence must be present here. I believe for these riders that is true. This was displayed best when the Riders were arrested. It showed the world that this is a serious matter enough they are willing to be arrested for it. They are willing to experience redemptive suffering to bring justice. They did. Will that action bring Jerry Falwell back the table to negotiate. I am not sure. I hope it will. He didn't look good in the press when he said he would rather see Liberty University burn to the ground than allow gay students. This direct action creating a new catalyst that brings the injustice of these schools policies to light, where they can be dealt with and resolved.

6 - Reconciliation: True reconcilation is the win-win. Where the Schools "truth" and the Riders "truth" can become a new "Truth" One that brings us all into the beloved community. I cannot tell you what that is, but I know it can be reached. It may not be next week, or next year, but I know it will someday happen.

You stated in your post
That said, I feel our current society has moved to a more litigious and bureaucratic nature where things are best achieved though debate and discussion and not "shock tactics."

This from MLK answers that when it was said to him. I think it does a better job than I could ever do.

You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling, for negotiation [debate]. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action [shock tactics] seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.

I hope I have shed some light on why we need Shock tactics, and why this is the time. One more day for people to suffer, or injustice to stand, is one day too many.

Venari

03-11-2006, 03:16 PM

I am only going to address 2 points in your post. Really due to lack of time for me. I apologize I don't have time to talk more to the other points you have made, some of which I may or may not agree with. In my opinion, what you are saying reminds me of the original letter written to Dr. King from 6 Alabama clergymen. The 2 points raised here are similar. 1- It isn't time, and this is not the way.

...

I hope I have shed some light on why we need Shock tactics, and why this is the time. One more day for people to suffer, or injustice to stand, is one day too many.

Joe,

I appreciate your feed back. But I believe the use of shock tactics, are more or less situational. Once again I can only speak for my school.

But let’s take a look at my school...

We wrote a letter of condolence to Calpernia Addams over the death of Barry Winchell.

We wrote a letter to Fred Phelps asking him not to come to our state and admonishing him to change his path.

We, as often as student can gather food and supplies to donate to a food shelf for HIV+ homeless and low income people.

Many of us actively discuss and gather of how to support GLBT rights in our state. With many of us are standing against our states "Marriage Amendment."

Many of us have participated in the local AIDS walk and were trying to organize a formal school team for this year.

A few of us rose our voice asking the administration not to have chapel speakers who promote the "radical" ex-gay view and to invite speakers who demonstrate a more tolerant and accepting view.

There are many other small things that occur everyday on the individual level. But I ask are these the actions of a student body that needs a shock to awaken us, or is it one that is ripe for creating an cooperation biased on understanding?

-Venari

Joe Brummer

03-11-2006, 04:58 PM

Venari

03-11-2006, 06:14 PM

Well I appreciate all of things. The school still has a bad habit of kicking out students for being gay. The student body may in fact be very gay friendly, but the school administration is not. And as long as the students are not speaking our about the anti-gay poilicies, they are in a silent approval.

WHenever we see injustice and we are silent of it, it is a form of approval.

A few of us rose our voice asking the administration not to have chapel speakers who promote the "radical" ex-gay view and to invite speakers who demonstrate a more tolerant and accepting view.

Joe,

We are raising our voices and speaking out as in the instance above.

-Venari

Joe Brummer

03-11-2006, 09:24 PM

Joe,

We are raising our voices and speaking out as in the instance above.

-Venari

I happy to here this news and I thank those who spoke out, but has the administration changed its policies against gays?

Venari

03-12-2006, 10:02 AM

I happy to here this news and I thank those who spoke out, but has the administration changed its policies against gays?

Be best answer is they have begun to. But due to the actions of Soulforce and the Equality Ride there is the beginning of a backlash by the more "conservative" regent and board members. Which is why, despite their best intentions, the members of the Equality Ride have the high potential to permanently, or cause long term, damage to the progressive steps my school has taken.

I know Soulforce claims the debate is over, but sadly that does not make it true. For many people on the "conservative" side there are too many questions they do not have or know the answers to. So they need the debate and discussions to answer their questions. More often then not when people are forced to choose between some thing new, that challenges the familiar, or the familiar they inevitable choose the familiar.

As another student noted, it took the regents and board YEARS of debate and discussion to finally allow us to have dvd players in our dorm rooms, and when one student was caught with a rated-R move thy immediately took away allowing us to have dvd players in the dorm rooms. We change but the change is slow, and when something drastic happens we seem to emulate the snail and retreat into our shells where it’s safe and familiar.

Granted I will make a distinction between schools, like Liberty, where the administration has a notable track-record of oppression and seeking to strip GLBT people of their rights. But, the more moderate or progressive schools should not be given the same treatment. So if they do not allow the Ride onto school grounds because we perceive a threat and shrink into our shells. The riders should not further the image of that threat by trespassing as it will only cement the perceived threat as a real threat.

You need to remember the students and the administration are two separate "bodies" within the school. The students being the ones that push forward, while the administration being the one that slowly moves the line allowing us to make further gains.

A perfect example is a student recently wrote their senior thesis dramatically challenging the Assemblies of God's stance on homosexuality. Form reading it I will describe it as a "theological back-hand slap." Meaning they pull no punches in sating how the AG needs to change, they have even begun a movement to change and if possible completely re-write the AG position paper on homosexuality. I should note he received an A for their work, not because the school agreed but because they wrote it so well and defended it the school could not argue back their position. (I intentionally use their and they so offer additional protection to the student.)

But the point is this student is a future leader within the AG. But they know, as I am trying to argue here, the Equality Ride offers a real danger to the progressive efforts of many students.

I hope this better illustrates the precipice the Equality Ride is placing students, staff and others within the AG who also wish change.

-Venari

Joe Brummer

03-12-2006, 10:29 AM

Venari

03-12-2006, 11:17 AM

I just want to put 2 pieces of information on the table for you.

Debate: assumes someone has the truth and it right. Seeks to have one winner.

Argue: assumes that someone will win the argument. also seeks to have a winner and a loser.

non-violence: repsects that both parties hold the truth and though eduacation and collecting of facts it is possible for both parties to take their truths and form a new truth that is a win-win situation for all invovled.

Joe, I agree that to debate and argue as you present them results only in a winner and a loser. There is another system that is not adversarial where the debate involves presenting your opposing ideas discussing the merits of each to find commonality and building upon that. Which is what I am here for, to find the common ground between up and create an understanding ... so I know where your coming from and you know where I am coming from so there will not be an "Us vs. Them" situation. Which is the manner in which the AG and my school teaches students to debate.

I also remind you we are not talking about DVD players. We are talking about people. WHen you are talking about people suffering, saying that it is a slow process is the same as saying plesase suffer while we try and fix the problem slowly. Non-violence demands that the problem be solved and now.
...

Taking that process slow agress with the suffering because it doesn't race to stop the suffering.

I offer apologies if you took my meaning to equate a person with a machine. I was using that to illustrate the slow process in which even trivial decisions are made to show how long a major decision may take.

As to the suffering, sadly because of the position I am in I cannot offer the explicit reason why, despite claims, does not cause GLBT students to suffer.

What I can offer is what I have before. From knowing the students who have been dismissed they were dismissed for the same reasons a heterosexual person would be, and has been, dismissed for. My school accepted and tolerated the few students who have come out and not ushered them into "ex-gay" therapy, I can personally testify to this. I have seen them also tolerate, non-sexual, dating relationships by these students.

What becomes key is when these students decide to cross the line and either engage in sexual relationships, something prohibited to all un-married students, or they violate some other rule that can result in dismissal. (And I want to note I refuse to discuss if the school will or will not accept a married same sex couple as it has never happened and will only be conjecture at this point. But I will note I have know AG pastors to dedicate the baby of a same-sex couple and offer family communion to a married same-sex couple and their children. So the issue is too open to fully discuss or comment.)

In the case of my school, I will state there is no suffering caused GLBT students by the administration. In fact we often several discussion forums about homosexuality each semester for students to come and ask questions and at each they are told they can come to any faculty or staff member and freely discuss and feelings they have ... and I have yet to hear of a case where a student has gone and been referred to "ex-gay" therapy.

So the suffering is not universal to every school.

-Venari

Joe Brummer

03-12-2006, 02:58 PM

Just to have rules like this on the books is demeaning, dehumanizing and wrong even if the rules are never enforced. It doesn't matter that gay students are thrown for the same as straights. What matters is an injust and demeaning policy exists at your school.

As a gay man I would be very humiliated if I went to look at a school to attend and read they didn't accept me, even if that rule isn't enforced. Just its existience is wrong and immoral. I have a choice to speak out against that or remain silent. To remain silent is to silently approve of the injustice.

While I understand what you are saying, and I can see what you are trying to do it good. I can also see that people are suffering, even if just spiritually from the existience of these policies. The students should be pressing the AG Admin to do away with the ban. No long and slow processes of slowly changing minds. They can have a change of heart later, after the injustice has been corrected.

Do you think that everyone's minds were slowly instantly changed the minute Rosa Parks was allowed to sit next to a white guy? How do you think the white guy felt being forced to sit next a black person in 1955? How do you think it feels now in 2006? Reconciliation is the slow process, but the correction of injustice shoule be swift as to stop suffering.

Venari

03-12-2006, 03:24 PM

What matters is an injust and demeaning policy exists at your school.
...
Reconciliation is the slow process, but the correction of injustice shoule be swift as to stop suffering.

Joe,

We seem to be circling the same subject. What I am stating is there is no explicit policy to ban or one geared to directly, or indirectly, discriminate against GLBT students at my school, also there is no policy to coerce GLBT students into conversion therapy. So I do not see how "unjust and demeaning" policies even exist. I will postulate the "unjust and demeaning" rules only exist to some because the leaders of the Equality Ride say they do.

This goes back to a previous point. Some schools do have such rules and they are the ones which need to face stronger correction. While some schools are looking for further reconciliation yet are turned off by the tactics the Equality Ride is using. I can speak for my school that when the Equality Ride comes if they stay off school grounds and allow people to come to them a lot will be achieved. But the moment they decid to come onto school grounds, or in the case of Liberty block school entrances, they will only be living up to the image of "radical gay" trying to force us to accept their agenda ... and not a group of people trying to fight for a just cause.

So unless you can specifically find school rules which are "unjust and demeaning" I think the reiteration of that claim proves to be false in some, not all, cases of the schools involved. This is why many of the schools, from what I know, are rejecting the Equality Ride under the claim of accademic freedom. Because how can academic freedom be maintained or achieved when the accusation against us is a lie or at the very least a "dramatic embellishment" of what is really going on.

So the more moderate schools are forced between several rocks and several hard places. Finally as I said I think regressing into a stronger "anti-GLDT" stance may be more likely in the schools where their new policies are less then a few years old.

-Venari

Joe Brummer

03-12-2006, 03:37 PM

Please check pages 53, 54, 55 of your student handbook, gather the information you find. Let me know what you think, and how you feel about what you read.

Joe Brummer

03-12-2006, 03:44 PM

Can you also tell me more about the student group called "cutting edge" I am not familiar with what they do, but it does seem to "reach out the homosexual" That could mean a million things, but could you tell me?

Joe Brummer

03-12-2006, 03:48 PM

okay I just found a different website that explains to me, I may have the wrong Assembly of God college. SO the page numbers must be off. I will now read the main one, from this Assembly of God Colleges and University website and see what I learn. I apologize for jumping to the conclusion I had found your school online.

There seems to be about 20 colleges, one right near me, I had no idea there was even a school there.....anyway you will have to tell me which one is yours and I will read more about it.

I will add, sorry to keep doing that, if you are the Southwestrn Assembly of god college than the page numbers are correct, if you are...let me know....

dewdrop_world

03-12-2006, 11:22 PM

Hi Venari,

Before going further, I wanted to say how much I appreciate (and enjoy!) your gracious responses throughout.

I liked what you had to say about the difference between pacifism and passivity. "Turning the other cheek," however, is an interesting choice of example. Everybody with any kind of Christian upbringing is familiar with the usual interpretation, which is that Jesus admonishes us not to resist adversity and to place love above immediate self-protection. Not too long ago I encountered a reading informed by the customs of Jesus's time. Roman citizens would put a slave or a conquered subject in his place by slapping him with the back of his right hand, on the left cheek. Jesus is saying, if that happens, present your right cheek--in other words, do not simply submit, but put the oppressor in the awkward position of having either to punch you in the face (which would put him in trouble, since he would be doing impermissible violence rather than simply exercising authority), or he would have to walk away and lose his own face, which is a small victory for the oppressed.

Similarly for going the extra mile. Roman law prohibited centurions forcing civilians to carry their packs for longer than 1 mile. Jesus says, insist on going further, don't take no for an answer. Force the centurion to break the law and produce what must have been a hysterical spectacle: a centurion begging a Jew to stop carrying his stuff! "No really, put it down, I'll be in BIG TROUBLE if you keep this up!"

Just an aside, not immediately relevant to this topic--when I discover things like this, it makes me realize what was missing from my religious upbringing. I understand they taught us the best they knew how, but so much of it was simply not well-informed and ended up distorting the real message. It makes me kind of sad that I had to get into my thirties to learn what was really going on.

Thanks again for being here!
James

Venari

03-13-2006, 07:38 PM

I will add, sorry to keep doing that, if you are the Southwestrn Assembly of god college than the page numbers are correct, if you are...let me know....

Joe,

I apologize that I cannot discuss my school by name along with my name they are the only two things I cannot bring to this discussion. With that, below is the community standards form my school, in respect that I was not asked to discuss the name of the college I have edited out the name with "______". I apologize but due to the position I am in I cannot freely give that information, but if one were to read all the student handbooks they would easily find this information.

In closing I will offer the note that because of the actions of Soulforce there has been gathering support to explicitly label marriage below as "heterosexual" and not leave it open, as it now stands.

-Venari

We realize that not all Christians may share these expectations. However, because of our educational calling and life together at ______University, we know that these issues are important. Therefore, we will work together as a Community to establish this covenant as a standard in our lives.

We believe that learning and our minds are gifts from God.

We strive for excellence, diligence, integrity and truth in our studies and academic work.
We exercise caution in the types of things that we allow to fill our minds.
We do not practice cheating or plagiarism in any form.

We believe our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit.

We promote the well-being of our bodies, minds and emotions.
We abstain from illegal drugs, the abuse of prescription drugs and the use of narcotics.
We abstain from using or possessing alcoholic beverages and tobacco in any form.
We believe that sex and other forms of intense sexual behavior have been set aside for marriage.
We do not view or possess pornography or other degrading material in any form.

We believe that we have been called to love our neighbors as ourselves.

We recognize that we are here to edify and encourage one another; our words and actions will reflect this.
We strive to work through problems or disagreements and approach relationships with honesty.
We promote the acceptance of those in need and will act with sensitivity towards them.
We accept all members of the community regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, or disability and view discrimination in any form as unacceptable.
We treat our neighbors and community with respect and godly love.

We believe in the discipline of stewardship.

We know that resources are a gift from God, therefore we value the wise use of time, money and possessions. We will not gamble in any form.
We are a community that gives to each other when needs are present.
We take care of our own and others’ property and will not practice vandalism.

We believe in the importance of the fellowship of the believers.

We value spending time with each other and understand the importance of developing accountability with those around us.
We see daily chapel as important and necessary and will attend and participate.
We believe that weekly church attendance is essential to our growth and we will make finding a church home a priority.
We see the value of activities at ______University to promote community and we will participate whenever possible.

We believe that personal discretion is necessary to live a Christ like life.

We believe that exercising discretion in our thoughts and actions honors God. We will strive to make choices that are pleasing to Him.
We know that certain types of leisure activity and entertainment are not beneficial for the community or ourselves. We will exercise discretion in activities such as music, theater, dance, television, and film.

We believe that our attitude reflects our relationship with Christ.

Knowing that attitude is important as action, we will please Christ with our attitude in all areas of our lives.
We know that our attitudes are reflections of Christ and ______University and we will uphold the highest standard in maintaining the right attitude.

Venari

03-13-2006, 07:55 PM

Not too long ago I encountered a reading informed by the customs of Jesus's time. Roman citizens would put a slave or a conquered subject in his place by slapping him with the back of his right hand, on the left cheek. Jesus is saying, if that happens, present your right cheek--in other words, do not simply submit, but put the oppressor in the awkward position of having either to punch you in the face (which would put him in trouble, since he would be doing impermissible violence rather than simply exercising authority), or he would have to walk away and lose his own face, which is a small victory for the oppressed.

James,

You hit what I was getting at. To me the ultimate defiance is to respond in love. Which it why I put emphasis on the ability to look the person in the eyes and so they can see you do not hate them.

Far too often us Christians find ourselves in a place where we can justify responding with hate, intolerance, injustice and even violence. Yet I find it key that when ever we demand justice for an injustice we suffered we often cause in injustice to another person. We desire the major victory that makes us feel good instead of the small victory that changes a person’s heart.

Which is the same, we often refuse to allow someone to "punch us in the face" so they know I wont willingly submit to indignity, we still love them and do not hold what they do against us. Rather when someone strikes us we instantly cry "FOUL" and demand the injustice be corrected.

Which is why I disagree with the actions Soulforce is taking. I will not demand someone suffer further indignity as I am also guilty of not fully turning the other cheek... rather I will state I think the actions towards the schools who refuse to have the Equality Riders on campus be cry more to demanding justice for the perceived wrong done to the GLBT community.

Which raises a deeper question is I feel in my schools case will we turn the other cheek? I do not know how we will react. Which it why I am here to create a dialogue so when that day comes we will understand why we each make the choices we do.

-Venari

Joe Brummer

03-13-2006, 07:56 PM

Venari

03-13-2006, 08:00 PM

Well this is only one part of your handbook. The one I looked at earlier was 130 pages, I don't think with only some of the info and not all the info, anyone can make a decision here. What I can say that if your school is on the Route and Soulforce decided there was something to protest, I bet there is....

Yes we are affiliated with the Assemblies of God, which is what I think is at the core of the matter. But the AG is not uniform one AG school can have very different rules and guidelines from the next.

-Venari

Joe Brummer

03-13-2006, 08:18 PM

I am ot sure what you are saying with that last one....They are visiting your school. I haven't read your schools handbook, so I cannot really comment on your school. I am trusting that SoulForce has Followed Step One of MLK's steps to non-violence.

Venari

03-13-2006, 09:06 PM

I am ot sure what you are saying with that last one....There are visiting your school. I haven't read your schools handbook, so I cannot really comment on your school. I am trusting that SoulForce has Followed Step One of MLK's steps to non-violence.

What I posted is the extent of the guidelines offered to students. Other sections refer to class and chapel attendance policy requirements for living in the dorms or off campus ... none of which have a reference to student conduct or reference to homosexuality.

This is what also confuses me. From the statement issued by the Equality Ride they appear to have not read the student handbook for my school. So they are protesting a school moving in the direction of the goal Soulforce seeks to achieve, but the side effect is we are being pushed back from where we currently stand. By having attention focused on us we are now have the external pressures to force us to “regress” into becoming what the claim against us is.

-Venari

Joe Brummer

03-13-2006, 09:24 PM

Well lets examine that, is your schools handbook listed on the equalityride.com website? If so, I think they have read it.

Venari

03-13-2006, 09:34 PM

Well lets examine that, is your schools handbook listed on the equalityride.com website? If so, I think they have read it.

In a statement issued by Jake Reitan he quotes the AG position paper and not the school hand book and then applies it to the school ... so what rises the question why my school or any other AG school and not the AG denominational headquarters?

-Venari

Joe Brummer

03-13-2006, 09:51 PM

Okay, That may be so. But the equality ride website has all the school policies on it. Is the objectionable policy on the site from your school?
http://www.equalityride.com/article.php?article_id=9

keltic63

03-13-2006, 10:17 PM

Certain practices that are forbidden in Scripture are not permitted in the lives of the members of the North Central Community. Sexual relationships outside of marriage, homosexual relationships, pornography, theft, drunkenness, dishonesty (including cheating and plagiarism), and disobedience to the government (except in those rare instances where obedience to civil authority would violate a biblically informed conscience) are examples of practices that are unacceptable.

Sexual Behaviors

NCU expects all members of the community to refrain from any form of sexual immorality including but not limited to: adultery, promiscuity, any form of extramarital sexual activity (touching of intimate parts with or without clothing), homosexual behavior, or viewing pornography. Co-habitation is also considered unacceptable. Discretion is expected in the public display of affection.

Are these the guidelines that we seem to be have trouble finding and then discussing?

As far as I can tell, North Central is the only AG school on the Equality Ride. If these policies, listed at the North Central website are current, then I believe that the Equality Ride is justified for making the stop at NCU.

Venari

03-13-2006, 11:04 PM

Are these the guidelines that we seem to be have trouble finding and then discussing?

As far as I can tell, North Central is the only AG school on the Equality Ride. If these policies, listed at the North Central website are current, then I believe that the Equality Ride is justified for making the stop at NCU.

Can you post a link ... the guidelines I am looking at do not contain some of the information in your post contains. I am referring to the hard copy given to each student at the beginning of each year / semester.

-Venari

Peter Z

03-14-2006, 12:09 AM

Was this done on purpose? In case you can't find it, here is what he said:

Opportunity lost: my disappointment with Equality Ride's response to Regent Universit

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

As a student at Regent university where Equality Riders are planning on travelling to I want to express my regret at how Equality Ride has handled the situation. When I first heard about the group I went to your website to examine who you were and what the plans were for Regent.

As students, we received an email weeks ago telling us that Equality Ride was planning on coming and that the school was welcoming them, including multiple forums for dialogue and encouraging students to feel free to interact and talk with members of Equality Ride. However, throughout all of this your information regarding Regent University has never changed. Your site daily has stated (on the site with information regarding Regent):

"Regent University has refused dialogue thus far with the Equality Ride, but the riders are undeterred in their hope for dialogue with the school.

We have a full day of events planned and hope to meaningfully engage with students, professors and administration. Please sign up to learn more and lend your support."

This blatant falsehood is disappointing yet revealing. If Equality Ride's true mission is to "meaningfully engage," why the false statements regarding the University's response? I was truly looking forward to this unique opportunity and to personally hearing what the Equality Riders views were, however, due to Equality Ride's choices, we now understand that the forums for dialogue have been removed. I suppose this helps your leaders get more quotes in the media, and frankly, after Equality Ride's response, I am more convinced that all Eqaulity Ride is interested in is in arrests to make headlines calling Regent University "close minded" as one of your leaders did tonight on the Fox News website (don't worry I know all the jokes I'll get regarding Fox News

Equality Ride's decision to stifle discussion with the University is what prompted me to write this reply. I just wanted to express, as a student at Regent, my disappointment that a group claiming to have a desire to "meaningfully engage" and a hope to dialogue with students at my university would scuttle opportunities to dialogue just so they could get more press coverage. I hope that between now and Monday your leadership will change their minds and contact the University so that the students may truly have an opportunity to "meaningfully engage" with Equality Ride, instead of having to witness incidents that further isolate and sharpen rhetoric on both sides. Thanks for taking time to listen. I hope Equality Ride's leadership will provide our student body with that opportunity. Press releases are nowhere near as powerful as honest dialogue.

Venari

03-14-2006, 12:54 AM

Was this done on purpose? In case you can't find it, here is what he said:

I will comment that the post by that student honestly reflects the feelings of many students I have spoken to. But as a student at another University I am choosing to engage Soulforce though my posts ... I wish to create a basis of understanding, which I feel is vital in this situation.

-Venari

keltic63

03-14-2006, 06:14 AM

Can you post a link ... the guidelines I am looking at do not contain some of the information in your post contains. I am referring to the hard copy given to each student at the beginning of each year / semester.

-Venari
http://www.northcentral.edu/studentlife/guide/community.php

http://www.northcentral.edu/admissions/responsibilities.php

Joe Brummer

03-14-2006, 09:32 AM

NathanATX

03-14-2006, 11:17 AM

http://www.northcentral.edu/studentlife/guide/community.php

http://www.northcentral.edu/admissions/responsibilities.php

Those statements make it clear that North Central's philosophy & policy do not welcome gay students, do not honor gay relationships and lumps gay people in with adulterers and law breakers.

The school may have an overall sense of being welcoming, but the acutal policies are not.

That is what I take issue with.

Venari

03-14-2006, 07:25 PM

Those statements make it clear that North Central's philosophy & policy do not welcome gay students, do not honor gay relationships and lumps gay people in with adulterers and law breakers.

I have looked into the matter why there is a discrepancy. The policy seems to be new as a reaction to current events, and incidents that happened last year.

I will respond to Nathan that from reading the policies the emphasis seems to be on abstaining from sexual activity. Granted it can be taken as a rejection of GLBT students but if you look at what the sections convey it purely rests on "homosexual" activity, namely sexual contact between two people of the same sex. But this is not discriminatory as it is equally applies to heterosexual couples.

From what I have learned, from speaking to students, the reason for the revision is the rules were changed from as I stated them is there were at least one former GLBT student who tried to make a "loophole" in the rules did not fully apply because as they read they only applied to heterosexual students. This can be seen in the new clause of "contact of intimate" areas.

Sadly, as I and many GLBT supporters at my school see this is the rule rules are a backlash from the old ones because a GLBT student "exploited" the "liberal" rules that were in place and as such they administration was forced to issue new ones to prevent further exploitation.

This, of course, is a matter of perspective from the students I have spoken to also how I look at the revisions. But it is important that no where does the policy of North Central University state they will bar a GLBT student from enrolling or attending but they need to adhere to the same standard of "sexual purity" as every other student is expected to.

I know this may open a new can of worms, but it is the "other side of the looking glass" that members of Soulforce may not see.

-Venari

Joe Brummer

03-14-2006, 07:39 PM

Joe Brummer

03-14-2006, 07:43 PM

I will also add, if anyone is uncomfortable with answering here on the public form....my email is joebrummer@joebrummer.com I would be happy to everything I can to make things happen! I can do what I can! I will do my best!

Venari

03-14-2006, 08:15 PM

and aside of the looking glass, we WANT TO SEE!!!!! We want to see all sides....I can't really repsond tonight on all you have written due to time constraints, but can I ask? Do you have enough support of fellow students to voice your opposition to this? Aside from Soulforce, on your own, could you do anthing about this policy that is in question regardless what it is in response to? Could we negotiate it? Is their room to talk with the Admin and how do we do it? Can we make things better for GLBT students and how.....what do we need to do?

Yes, there can.

But, and a major "BUT", at this time the potential for renegotiation of the rules rests in the hands of Soulforce and the Equality Riders and how they the continue to "behave". If they come and act "hostile," I know they may not think they are being hostile but as I said perception is 100% reality to the person who perceives it, the possibility to change the rules may not be available for another few years ... and by that time the supporters that are currently at the school will have moves on and there is no guarantee there will be the same support once again.

The voice of Regent is ringing "loud and true" to many schools. Seeing how the Regent was treated does not bode well for Equality Ride and many schools have gained resolve in their stance to not cooperate or welcome the Equality Ride on to campus.

I will state my support is with the decision my school makes. Yet I feel creating and maintaining a dialogue is important so there is a continual understanding and we can begin to break down the walls that divide us.

-Venari

keltic63

03-14-2006, 08:54 PM

There is more than one AG school on the route, just so we do not back anyone into a place there are not comfortable. North Central may not be Venari's school. He also stated he couldn't disclose his school and we should respect that as oppose to trying to get it out of him.

That was certainly not my point. I found it frustrating trying to discuss a policy that no one had actually seen. There was no intention of identifying anyone by looking at the school policies.

Venari

03-14-2006, 09:40 PM

That was certainly not my point. I found it frustrating trying to discuss a policy that no one had actually seen. There was no intention of identifying anyone by looking at the school policies.

I appreciate the courtesy and I did not feel that was your intention.

-Venari

dewdrop_world

03-14-2006, 11:13 PM

You know, all this brings to mind a Buddhist parable. I don't remember all of it very precisely, so I'm just going to make up some modern examples but the gist of it is the same.

A family lives in New Orleans. Right about Christmas time, they receive word that Grandma's health has taken a turn for the worse and she may not have long to live. So, instead of celebrating the holiday at home like they planned, they go to see Grandma four hours away. Many of their friends think this is awful, to have to go through the holiday season with such a burden. The family says, "Well, maybe good, maybe bad, who knows?"

Then Hurricane Katrina hits, and family friends are amazed at the family's good fortune. The family says, "Well, maybe good, maybe bad, who knows?"

The family comes back to find their house flooded and wrecked. While sifting through the rubble, a beam falls on the college-age son's leg and breaks it. He'll walk again, but it will be a good couple of months. News travels, and people are shocked at the bad luck. First Grandma, then the house, now a broken leg. How bad could it get? The family shrugs and says, "Well, maybe good, maybe bad, who knows?"

Things aren't going so well in Iraq, and the military reinstates the draft. An officer comes by to take a look at the young man, and seeing the broken leg, wishes him a speedy recovery and goes on his way. He will be exempt from military service for the time being. Now people are saying, "Well, he broke his leg at just the right time!"

The point being that nobody knows exactly what the outcome is going to be. In fact, there will be several outcomes, most of which can't be predicted today. And, what looks like bad news today may in fact be good news tomorrow (and vice versa).

I could say more, but it's late and the thoughts aren't jelling. I'll be back ... *mwa hah hah!*
hjh

Venari

03-14-2006, 11:23 PM

The point being that nobody knows exactly what the outcome is going to be. In fact, there will be several outcomes, most of which can't be predicted today. And, what looks like bad news today may in fact be good news tomorrow (and vice versa).

I fully agree, but my comments are based on if my school were to be switched with Liberty or Regent what the immediate outcomes would be.

I cannot predict the future... But as one standing and a bank and looking at the surface of a pond, when you see a ripple heading towards you there is a certainty that something has disturbed the surface ... until you look at what happened you don’t know what it is, all you know is something happened.

The same holds true for this situation; is it a rock that someone threw in to the pond to stir it up a little or it is the first raindrop before the storm?

-Venari

themattperry

03-16-2006, 02:03 AM

I will respond to Nathan that from reading the policies the emphasis seems to be on abstaining from sexual activity. Granted it can be taken as a rejection of GLBT students but if you look at what the sections convey it purely rests on "homosexual" activity, namely sexual contact between two people of the same sex. But this is not discriminatory as it is equally applies to heterosexual couples.

Venari et al,

I'm trying to focus in on the core issue in this thread and figure a few things out. We have heard the voices of two or three students whose colleges will be visited by the riders. Some of these voices have stated some degree of personal tolerance or support for the aims of SF. Others have not. But what they agree about is just that the nonviolent methods used by SoulForce are not appropriate in these situations. We've heard all kinds of arguments, two of which are:

1. The policies of the College(s) are not discriminatory (see quote above)
2. The methods used by SoulForce actually cause a reversal of the very type of progress that SoulForce is seeking.

Here are my brief thoughts on the arguments above. I would love to hear from others as well.

The policies of the college(s) are not discriminatory

Any policy that explicitly bans homosexual conduct is, in fact, discriminatory. The fact that such a policy (like all policies) applies to all students does not make it less discriminatory. This would be like saying that a general ban on reading among all primates does not discriminate against humans. Monkeys do not tend to read novels. Heterosexual men do not tend to hold hands with their boyfriends between classes. (And no, I'm not comparing heterosexual men to monkeys ;-) )

It's depressing, though, to hear this type of argument over and over and over ... It is a classic way of rationalizing discrimination, and it is simply false. A policy that bans a practice characteristic or definitive of a group of people and no others discriminates actively against that group.

The methods used by SoulForce actually cause a reversal of the very type of progress that SoulForce is seeking.

This argument is not new -- it was used by opponents of the civil rights movement against Dr. King and other activists. The best hope for "justice", it is claimed, is to just but out and "let us take care of our own problems". Outsiders have never been appreciated by upholders of the status-quo, because they are agents of change.

My question is this ... What exactly was the nature of this amazing progress that was being made in the Colleges on SoulForce's itinerary? What great advances were in store for God's gay and lesbian children at Norh Central, Liberty, Regnet, everywhere else ... ? When was this great equality going to arrive that SoulForce has so rudely messed up?

In many cases -- and in the case of Liberty U. I can say this from direct experience -- no such progress is planned, ever was planned or, if the current climate continues, ever will be planned from within the institution. There are many reasons for this, not the least of which is that these institutions tend to be very authoritarian in structure ... ie ... students do not have any substantial say in College policy, and are historically unwilling to confront administration policies, even if they do disagree with them. (Liberty and Regent, for example, both often speak of the "trust" placed in them by parents (not students), and seem to think of themselves as an extension of the moral family that sent their children to the College for continued parenting.)

My partner's brother (who only ever attended the school because it was all that his parents would pay for) was expelled from Liberty in 2004 because he was gay. To be more precise, he was given a choice -- he could publicly apologize during an assembly for breaking the rule about "homosexual conduct", enter therapy with a councilor selected by Liberty and be placed on probation -- or he could leave. He left. Please do not tell me that at a place like this there is any hope of internal change. As for other Colleges on the list, having a discriminatory policy is demoralizing, silencing and wrong. This truth needs to be spoken on behalf of the legion of gay and lesbian college kids to whom these policies have brough shame, discouragement, and who knows what else ....

This is the truth as I see it. If I am wrong, please show me how ... Acting with love and respect are very important to me, and that includes showing love and regard to students at these Colleges. But let's be honest about what their policies are -- they are discriminatory and unjust. What's the harm of walking onto a campus, engaging students in conversation and simply stating this truth to a brother or sister in Christ?

Venari

03-16-2006, 05:43 PM

1. The policies of the College(s) are not discriminatory (see quote above)
2. The methods used by SoulForce actually cause a reversal of the very type of progress that SoulForce is seeking.

Any policy that explicitly bans homosexual conduct is, in fact, discriminatory. The fact that such a policy (like all policies) applies to all students does not make it less discriminatory. This would be like saying that a general ban on reading among all primates does not discriminate against humans. Monkeys do not tend to read novels.

In many cases -- and in the case of Liberty U. I can say this from direct experience -- no such progress is planned, ever was planned or, if the current climate continues, ever will be planned from within the institution. There are many reasons for this, not the least of which is that these institutions tend to be very authoritarian in structure ... ie ... students do not have any substantial say in College policy, and are historically unwilling to confront administration policies, even if they do disagree with them. (Liberty and Regent, for example, both often speak of the "trust" placed in them by parents (not students), and seem to think of themselves as an extension of the moral family that sent their children to the College for continued parenting.)

What's the harm of walking onto a campus, engaging students in conversation and simply stating this truth to a brother or sister in Christ?

TheMattPerry,

I want to sate my tone is intentionally “confrontational” as I wish to best present the feelings I have gotten from fellow students and by presenting in a more “confrontational” manner it may better convey how things are being perceived… as I stated before perception is 100% truth to the person who’s perceiving it… so while the things I state may not be what Soulforce is attempting to do it is how they are being perceived.

You raise several issues so I am going address them as best as I can. First I will state that of the schools the Equality Ride will visit some are "oppressive" atmospheres... others are about as open as one could hope for. In the case of my school we had a very open policy that did not explicitly state "homosexual relations" as being prohibited, it simply lumped it in with "pre-marital" sex. This was a great stance as it left open the discussion of same sex marriage and even if a committed same sex couple were to live off campus it would allow the school room to work with in addressing any issues that would come up. BUT the rules changed when a GLBT student was caught having sexual relations and used tried to use the openness of the rules to justify why it was ok for them to have sexual relations with someone they were not married to, let alone in a commit relationship with. Their reason was the rule only addressed heterosexual encounters and therefore did not apply to homosexual encounters... so pretty much it was a GLBT student that forced the school to adopt a stronger stance then the one it previously held.

Also you pretty much create an absurd comparison with the monkeys reading analogy. The fact of the matter is ALL STUDENTS are expected to refrain from ANY sexual activities outside marriage. So my view from what you are stating is GLBT students deserve a different set of rules aside from what everyone else is expected from… but in the case of my school where the rules were open to discussion we saw how one GLBT student shut down, for a while, the ability to discuss the prospect of married or committed same-sex couples. So, it’s not discriminatory at the worst it is reactionary to what happened.

This leads to my next point. Why not allow the Equality Ride onto campus? Well, there is little evidence there is any truth to the claim the riders want to create academic integrity, aside from that is what they claim. I know Soulforce claims the “Debate is Over” but for many people who do not know all the aspects of the issue the debate is not over until they hear all sides. Which is what many of the schools would be willing to do is come onto campus and allow Soulforce to present and discuss, yet we see the desire to push an “agenda” verses enter into a truly academic discussion. This is seen in what many schools and students perceive to be an attempt to “bully” the schools into allowing the Equality Riders on to their campus… namely Jacob’s statements what they will continue to “smear” schools that do not fully cooperate with them. Then we see how Regent cooperated but they were continually smeared (as I said this is a matter of perspective from the students and the schools).

So in the case of my school, numerous students have challenged the schools policies over time and in many cases when there has been enough support of evidence they school has conceded to a change in the policies. As I mentioned in a previous post, recently a student present their senior thesis challenging the Assemblies of God doctrine and position that homosexuality is a sin. It also pointed out the social implications of such a doctrine and the necessity to change it… there are several other issues raised but the point is the student received an “A” not because the school agreed but it was strongly supported and defended well, oh and has helped rise support to begin the process to change the teachings. So yeah, change is possible… also I can say in my case and the other GLBT students I know at my school, we have never been forced to attend “conversion” treatment, the offer is laid out but the student is allowed to make their own decisions with the decision not to attend having any bearing on their continued enrollment … also they are never put on public humiliation by having to apologize to the student body.

Yet Soulforce comes along and makes claims that are contrary to what is actually going on, so why should we welcome you? The point is there is no reason to under the guise that is currently presented. Had the school been contacted and asked “we would like to com and present a forum on religious discrimination against GLBT people so students can see we are people of faith” the school would have been more open to consideration, additionally I can state as a fact had the school rejected that offer many of the student would have pooled together and set up the forum off campus to still hear the group. Instead the school was faced with “If you invite us or not your welcome us we are going to come and tell you how wrong you are and were are going to invite the media so everyone can see how you oppress us.” (This is how letter and statements were perceived.)

You statement of how do the actions of Soulforce harm what they try to achieve … well from the perspective of my school, with the students the faculty and the administration, Soulforce is only living up to the stereotype of the “radical gays who seek to destroy Christianity.” The point is we see an aggressive group trying to force and coerce us to accept what they claim as truth without allowing us to examine what they present. Being we need to sit down and just listen to what you have to say and if we refuse we are going to be smeared to the media. Sadly, this only propagates the idea of the “radical gay” agenda to many people who may have been “sitting on the fence” over the issue. There is a key fact that many people when faced with something new or the familiar they choose the familiar.

So I guess from the perspective of many students the Equality Ride does not seek to create an open and honest academic dialogue but rather get media spotlight at the expense of the truth.

-Venari

Joe Brummer

03-16-2006, 06:24 PM

peterZ.
This takes back my kudos in the other thread as you have made a statement of attack. I would hope you would go back and edit that to be less offensive....the idea and philosophy of non-violence which I hope you will embrace is to win friends, not enemies.....No one is out to drink Kool Aid in some cult action.....this is about different people having different truths. Non-violence asks us to take your turth and my truth and form a new truth that works for all in a win-win situation. To be part of the beloved community that is the goal.

I ask that you take back such harsh comments and accusations.

themattperry

03-16-2006, 10:48 PM

Venari --

Thanks for your post. I appreciate the sincere and thoughtful way that you post on here ... it really helps me to hear your perspective, and understand your arguments.

I have a couple of things in response to what you said.

In the case of my school we had a very open policy that did not explicitly state "homosexual relations" as being prohibited, it simply lumped it in with "pre-marital" sex. This was a great stance as it left open the discussion of same sex marriage and even if a committed same sex couple were to live off campus it would allow the school room to work with in addressing any issues that would come up. BUT the rules changed when a GLBT student was caught having sexual relations and used tried to use the openness of the rules to justify why it was ok for them to have sexual relations with someone they were not married to, let alone in a commit relationship with. Their reason was the rule only addressed heterosexual encounters and therefore did not apply to homosexual encounters... so pretty much it was a GLBT student that forced the school to adopt a stronger stance then the one it previously held.

It is clear that I was not there at your campus, don't know what happened and certainly take your word, and opinion, about what happened. That said, the idea that you would hold a glbt student responsible for the institution of an anti-glbt policy alarms me. This situation sounds like it could have been addressed under the existing rules. The student's claim as you describe it sounded like it lacked any validity -- if there was indeed a rule banning sex outside of marriage, then that should have been sufficient to address the situation. The student's arguments sounded faulty to me as you describe them, don't they to you? Are faulty arguments and false claims enough to change a policy like that at your school? Or was there some other reason why such a policy was put in place? Perhaps it had something to do with the people who actually make the rules and their attitudes and prejudices?

Also you pretty much create an absurd comparison with the monkeys reading analogy. The fact of the matter is ALL STUDENTS are expected to refrain from ANY sexual activities outside marriage. So my view from what you are stating is GLBT students deserve a different set of rules aside from what everyone else is expected from… but in the case of my school where the rules were open to discussion we saw how one GLBT student shut down, for a while, the ability to discuss the prospect of married or committed same-sex couples. So, it’s not discriminatory at the worst it is reactionary to what happened.

I think you might have misunderstood what I was trying to say with the analogy. It may sound funny, but it is not otherwise absurd. The no-sex-before-marriage rule was not (at least if we all lived in Mass.) discriminatory. The discriminatory rule was the one about homosexual practices -- the new rule. It is a meaningful rule only if you are glbt. It you are straight, it has no meaning and therefore does not apply. I OPPOSE rules that only apply to one set of people -- they are discriminatory. I'm not sure why you concluded the oposite.

Also, you seem to suggest that HOW THE RULE CAME ABOUT has something to do with whether or not it is discriminatory. It does not. A rule is discriminatory in and of it self, regardless whether it was made in reaction to something, or whatever ....

This is seen in what many schools and students perceive to be an attempt to “bully” the schools into allowing the Equality Riders on to their campus… namely Jacob’s statements what they will continue to “smear” schools that do not fully cooperate with them. Then we see how Regent cooperated but they were continually smeared (as I said this is a matter of perspective from the students and the schools).

I certainly hope that your perception is mistaken, and that either Jake, nor anyone else is SoulForce is trying to "bully" anyone. I would have to say, however, that a smear is only a smear if it is not true. The case of Regent aside (where SouldForce should have changed their website quickly and regretably did not), how is SoulForce "smearing" anyone? All I see is them telling the truth about discriminatory policies and the suffering of glbt students based on first-hand accounts and quotes from school policy. Is this a smear? Or is it just the painful truth?

So in the case of my school, numerous students have challenged the schools policies over time and in many cases when there has been enough support of evidence they school has conceded to a change in the policies. As I mentioned in a previous post, recently a student present their senior thesis challenging the Assemblies of God doctrine and position that homosexuality is a sin. It also pointed out the social implications of such a doctrine and the necessity to change it… there are several other issues raised but the point is the student received an “A” not because the school agreed but it was strongly supported and defended well, oh and has helped rise support to begin the process to change the teachings. So yeah, change is possible… also I can say in my case and the other GLBT students I know at my school, we have never been forced to attend “conversion” treatment, the offer is laid out but the student is allowed to make their own decisions with the decision not to attend having any bearing on their continued enrollment … also they are never put on public humiliation by having to apologize to the student body.

I am glad to hear that your school is more tolerant of GLBT that Liberty University -- perhaps some of what I said in my previous post may not apply to your school. I'm glad to hear that well-argued papers that disagree with school policy are accepted in an academic environment. I am glad that students are not publicly humiliated or sent to conversion therapy.

However, you have to admit that being more liberal than Liberty Univ. is not really saying that much. I do not want to take away from the validity and hopefullness of what you say Venari, but the fact is that you have not denied that there is a rule on the books of your school that bans homosexual conduct. I know that there are other rules that apply to sex in general, I know that you have many points about how this rule was introduced, and how people oposed it or didn't opose it ... but the facts are that this rule exists and it is unjust. Is there really any way to get around that? If what I've just said is not true, please let me know.

Dr. King said from Jail in Birmingham that "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." I take this very seriously. if you school were to remove this opressive policy and then there would be room for quibbling about other details. The reason SF is at your College, Venari, is the policy. No policy, then no SoulForce. It is a simple message, and I think it will prove, in the long run, to be more a more compelling message than any sort of other argument, whether about SoulForce or your College.

My experience with SF is that members are very open to dialog about what they are doing and why. Members generally start from a place of belief that God extends unconditional love and equal acceptance to his gay and lesbian children. That's where I start. Policies like the one at your college send an oposite message, are discriminatory and destructive.

Do you agree? If you do, then why not help Soul Force tell this truth in love to the community of your school, rather than oposing their presence. If you do not agree, tell me how exactly your school's policy is not descriminatory and wrong.

God bless you Venari ... When I write these words I find myself wishing that we could sit down and have a cup of coffee and talk about this ... then you would hear that my voice and my heart, though passionate about these things, are filled with only a desire to see injustice end wherever it may exist and the truth of God's great love for all of us proclaimed. It's sad to me, I have to say, that what you seem to hear from SF is a smear campaign. What I hear by all accounts is simply the truth.

I would welcome your further thoughts.

-Matt

Dash

03-18-2006, 07:34 AM

Venari

03-18-2006, 10:19 AM

... the idea that you would hold a glbt student responsible for the institution of an anti-glbt policy alarms me. This situation sounds like it could have been addressed under the existing rules. The student's claim as you describe it sounded like it lacked any validity -- if there was indeed a rule banning sex outside of marriage, then that should have been sufficient to address the situation. The student's arguments sounded faulty to me as you describe them, don't they to you? Are faulty arguments and false claims enough to change a policy like that at your school? Or was there some other reason why such a policy was put in place? Perhaps it had something to do with the people who actually make the rules and their attitudes and prejudices?

...

Also, you seem to suggest that HOW THE RULE CAME ABOUT has something to do with whether or not it is discriminatory. It does not. A rule is discriminatory in and of it self, regardless whether it was made in reaction to something, or whatever ....

Do you agree? If you do, then why not help Soul Force tell this truth in love to the community of your school, rather than oposing their presence. If you do not agree, tell me how exactly your school's policy is not descriminatory and wrong.

...

I know that there are other rules that apply to sex in general, I know that you have many points about how this rule was introduced, and how people oposed it or didn't opose it ... but the facts are that this rule exists and it is unjust. Is there really any way to get around that? If what I've just said is not true, please let me know.

Dr. King said from Jail in Birmingham that "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." I take this very seriously. if you school were to remove this opressive policy and then there would be room for quibbling about other details. The reason SF is at your College, Venari, is the policy. No policy, then no SoulForce. It is a simple message, and I think it will prove, in the long run, to be more a more compelling message than any sort of other argument, whether about SoulForce or your College.

Matt,

You pretty much understood what I was getting at. But I'll break it down even further:

You have 'us' the school and then there is 'them' being GLBT people, Soulforce etc.

Within 'us' you have once again 'us' and 'them' depending on who’s perspective you looking at. So 'us' at the school want to create better understanding, acceptance and remove the stigma attached to GLBT people but 'them' want to keep all the positions under the claims of tradition, Biblical authority and what have you.

So while 'us' try to progress forward we know 'them' have the authority so we have to play by their rules to "beat them." It has been a slow process of discussion and debate, but progress has been made. Yet like anyone facing "defeated" they will grasp to any victory they can. As in the case of the student, sure the argument was flawed but it opened a means to for 'them' to change it. So, I guess yes in a way I do blame the student for being foolish enough to try to use the rules which then were used to "regress" back to a more "traditional" position.

So I guess my point is it not a simple matter of the school as a unified whole, there are elements of each "side" that can make, and will make, policy changes when given the chance. The key thing is who is given the chance to make the changes.

I guess I also fail to see how a rule that once implied no same-sex intimate encounters now states it is discriminatory, or how either is. The matter comes down to no student out side of marriage is permitted to have intimate sexual encounters... the major difference is while before there was the opening and possibility to a discussion to "committed" same-sex couples but the rules have regressed to the point where the discussion would only occur with a "married" same-sex couple. I guess, my point is the rule of no sexual activity outside of marriage is equally applied to all students and due to events it had to be clarified that same-sex activity was included in that.

Which leaves me confused; removal of the same-sex activity probation would only create a double standard between heterosexual and homosexual students. I am not talking about holding hands; I am talking about sexual activity... which is the crux of the matter why the school changed their policy in the first place. So the point is the school has a high standard applied to all students’ regardless of sexual orientation.

I certainly hope that your perception is mistaken, and that either Jake, nor anyone else is SoulForce is trying to "bully" anyone. I would have to say, however, that a smear is only a smear if it is not true. The case of Regent aside (where SouldForce should have changed their website quickly and regretably did not), how is SoulForce "smearing" anyone? All I see is them telling the truth about discriminatory policies and the suffering of glbt students based on first-hand accounts and quotes from school policy. Is this a smear? Or is it just the painful truth?

You raise an interesting point, but Jacob as said numerous times the places like my school teach that "homosexuality is a sickness." He has been quoted in several news papers and cited my school by name in that charge. This is completely unfounded, granted some people may hold that opinion, in no class will you ever hear a professor make that claim. You will hear that "conversion" treatment is an option for some people, which I think is true ... mostly it has not been studied in depth to come to a full conclusion and second I know a number of "ex-gay" people who are happy with their decision to make that choice. (Not to cause another debate.) So, simply put it is not a painful truth. If anything it appears to be a direct and deliberate falsehood meant to garner support for when he leads a protest here, speaking for my self I know nothing pisses me off more when I hear an "educated" Christian spouting off homosexuality is a sickness or a mental disorder, more often the not when a student says that on campus I am one of the first people they hear from for a little "chat." And I know nothing rallies the GLBT community more so the charge that someone is trying to label them "mentally ill" or "sick."

So I guess I stand against Soulforce for the fact I do not agree with their methods, I believe their media tactics are intended to bully the schools into allowing them to come onto campus and finally as I addressed before I do not believe they want to create an open dialogue they only want to for them to be heard and have any dissenting voices be silenced... my school refuses them for similar reasons.

I will say if Soulforce had asked to come and was denied then went their way I know that I and many other students would have welcomed them back and created a forum for them to discuss with students, abet off campus, and even would have invited a few members to attend lunch and chapel with us... but as time progresses and this option is no longer viable.

Also, I find it shocking that Soulforce made no attempt to contact students at my school for "second opinions." They seemed bent on their agenda dissenting voices or not.

-Venari

Venari

03-18-2006, 10:25 AM

:confused: As I've been reading through this thread, I observe the following logical disconnect:

The university in question is perceived to be relatively open, and indeed even making some progress in terms of GLBT issues. In fact, there is really no need for them to be on the Equality Riders route.

Yet...

They do not extend a welcome to the Equality Riders; which, if the community were really as ready to accept gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people on their campus as Venari describes, seems counter-intuitive to these welcoming policies already in place.

How do we resolve this dissonance?
Dash,

The simple fact is, many of the schools do not trust the motives of the Equality Ride. We have seen them publish "false-hoods" and say they will smear the schools who oppose them to the media. So there is no basis for trust to invite them into our school. We are a private school and under no obligation to do so. There would have been the option of a dialogue, yet the Equality Ride is bringing a protest to the school to protest rules that are "sketchy" at teaching we do not teach at all.

So the disconnect is really how to being mediation between us to find a common ground were we can build a mutual understanding.

-Venari

Dash

03-18-2006, 12:36 PM

Dash,

The simple fact is, many of the schools do not trust the motives of the Equality Ride. We have seen them publish "false-hoods" and say they will smear the schools who oppose them to the media. So there is no basis for trust to invite them into our school. We are a private school and under no obligation to do so. There would have been the option of a dialogue, yet the Equality Ride is bringing a protest to the school to protest rules that are "sketchy" at teaching we do not teach at all.

So the disconnect is really how to being mediation between us to find a common ground were we can build a mutual understanding.

-Venari

May I ask you, what do you think the motives of Soulforce's Equality Ride really are? (If I understand you, you're saying that many do not trust that their motive is to open a dialogue, or to bring the spiritual violence that occurs at these religious universities to light.)

I get the impression that you feel they are doing something that they haven't plainly stated...something that if stated, would make their purpose and journey completely illegitimate. I'm trying to think of something myself that people might perceive as a reason to mistrust, but I'm stuck. Soulforce is an organization that if firmly rooted in the Christian faith, so they are not looking to tear it apart. There is absolutely no violent protest associated with Soulforce, so I can't imagine that there could be a danger to the students of any of these universities. (wasn't it rather humorous to see pictures of the 30+ Virginia Beach police that were needed to guard against the small group of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people...:) )

I feel like there might be circumstances in which you basically agree with with the activities of Soulforce in the world, as a person who yourself seeks justice and compassion for those who generally get the sharp end of the stick within Christianity. Your own activities on your campus prove you to be fighting the same good fight as Soulforce. I gotta say, I admire you.

Venari

03-18-2006, 01:16 PM

May I ask you, what do you think the motives of Soulforce's Equality Ride really are? (If I understand you, you're saying that many do not trust that their motive is to open a dialogue, or to bring the spiritual violence that occurs at these religious universities to light.)

I get the impression that you feel they are doing something that they haven't plainly stated...something that if stated, would make their purpose and journey completely illegitimate. I'm trying to think of something myself that people might perceive as a reason to mistrust, but I'm stuck.

To pull an Orwellian phrase; I think the Equality Ride is masked in "double-talk" and uses the 'principles' of "double-think."

First, as you said "spiritual violence." In the case of my school, and many of the others, the accusation of "spiritual violence" is a false hood, or at the very lease a exaggeration. I am not sure what you would consider "spiritual violence" but I think it would fall under cultish practices where you manipulate someone spiritually, not to mention mentally, to coerce them into your doctrine. I am basically appalled at the accusations of "spiritual violence" be degraded to something as subjective as to removing the weight of what it truly is.

Second, one claim is to create "academic integrity" yet they seem interested solely interested in swaying opinion to "their side." While many of the schools would allow them to present or offer a discussion on the subject Equality Ride has refused and stood their ground to come to campus and only present their view point to the students. This is contrary to many standards of academic integrity where they insist on only presenting their "facts" and refuse to allow other to present questions and challenges to those "facts."

Also, overwhelmingly, many of the schools view the tactics used by the Equality Ride to speak of only wanting media attention. Simply put in the past and from school being visited we are seeing the Equality Rids amass the media to create a spectacle... which leads to why many schools feel "bullied" into meeting with the Equality Ride. We can concede to their demands or we can stand and be smeared to the media ... a great choice to place a school to generate trust in your motives.

So it comes down to they seem to claim one thing yet act out another. Would you trust someone who did that to you?

-Venari

Jennifer5

03-18-2006, 01:37 PM

I feel like there might be circumstances in which you basically agree with with the activities of Soulforce in the world, as a person who yourself seeks justice and compassion for those who generally get the sharp end of the stick within Christianity. Your own activities on your campus prove you to be fighting the same good fight as Soulforce. I gotta say, I admire you.
Dash I'll second that, Venari you're a great person. To me it looks like the only real problem between you and all of us, is that we just don't fully understand each other.

I think we all need to remember that, in the long fun most us all want the same thing.:love:

Venari

03-18-2006, 01:59 PM

Dash I'll second that, Venari you're a great person. To me it looks like the only real problem between you and all of us, is that we just don't fully understand each other.

I think we all need to remember that, in the long fun most us all want the same thing.:love:
Jennifer,

Thank you for your comment. This is, exactly, the reason why I am here. I knew if I stood back I would not know where your hearts were and if I did not come forward you would not know where my heart is, or the hearts of others like me.

I want to second something TheMattPerry said;

When I write these words I find myself wishing that we could sit down and have a cup of coffee and talk about this ...

I would love to have those with whom I have entered into conversation with over for dinner so we could relax talk see how much in common we have and understand of how each of us 'fight' in the way we best can.

-Venari
PS
I think I do owe Jamie a cup of tea for being such a gracious host.

Dash

03-18-2006, 02:19 PM

I'm glad you brought up the concept of spiritual violence, for how we understand this is central to understanding the motivations behind the work that Soulforce does. Interestingly to me, your definition is vastly different than mine.

When I think of spiritual violence, I think of the crushing weight of shame that I bore in my twenties. I was steeped in the kind of Christian doctrine that taught me I was an abomination to God...that I was worst kind of degenerate sinner...that because of my many other sins and crimes against God and humanity, the Lord had "given me over to the lust of my heart, to dishonor my body" as Romans says. I couldn't see why God would treat me this way, because I had always loved the Lord and was perfectly chaste. I had always been deeply grieved over my sins, but then to discover that I was gay, as both (somehow...unknowingly) a choice that I had made to defy the Divine lover that I loved, and a curse from this lover for all the atrocities which I (somehow...unknowingly) committed....it was so perfectly damning.

The shame...the intentional or unintentional ostracism that is perpetrated by many Christian organizations is the spiritual violence. It is not physical. It wounds the soul, not the body. It wounds the soul by creating an environment where gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people are not welcome in the house of the Lord. This environment often inspires (as in me) deep self-hatred, and helplessness. It comes often in the form of a general attitude that is desperately toxic to already suffering individuals. This is what I have believed that Soulforce is standing against.

I think if your University is working to end this kind of violence against the souls of God's children, then they are better served by welcoming the Riders. Why would they dismiss their visit because they were falsely accused of this form of violence? If the accusation is false, I would think they would be more than happy to have the visit, and the accompanying media attention to prove that how incredibly wrong the perception was.

I would also suggest that we have different views about how the message should be presented in order to maintain this "academic integrity." Anyone who takes a message, whether religious or research related, takes it as it is. A prophet comes with a message...not a...well, I don't know what else. I still don't understand what is wanted from the Equality Riders that would be acceptable. I don't understand why there is a perception among some these schools that they will be stopped from presenting a viewpoint that opposes the Riders. Some of them have clearly prepared for discussions and forums where all of it can be discussed. How was your institution bound to silence if they allowed these visitors?

And media attention...well... You understand that this is part of the point of the ride, yes? It is to bring these injustices into the light. If your cause is just, what have you to fear?

You asked if I would trust someone who claimed one thing, yet acted out another. My answer is, "Of course not." But, I'm not sure that the Equality Riders are doing anything that is duplicitous. Their journey is to bring a message...to expose the spiritual violence. It requires that they speak their hearts and gather as much media coverage as they can. That's the obvious purpose. One may not like it, but they are not trying to hide what they are doing.

You, my friend...you already oppose the spiritual violence that I described above. You have told how willing you are on your campus to chat with people who are unkind to those represented by the Riders. You've shown how you support your administration when it does not punish same gender love relationships chastely expressed. Your tenderness toward people who are experiencing their humanity differently is everything that Soulforce seeks to encourage by sponsoring this Ride. Please don't mistrust these good young people. Please hear them for yourself...see their actions when they arrive. See for yourself if they are not like you. I think you'll find their journey is yours.

Venari

03-18-2006, 03:06 PM

I was steeped in the kind of Christian doctrine that taught me I was an abomination to God...that I was worst kind of degenerate sinner...

The shame...the intentional or unintentional ostracism that is perpetrated by many Christian organizations is the spiritual violence. It is not physical. It wounds the soul, not the body. It wounds the soul by creating an environment where gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people are not welcome in the house of the Lord. This environment often inspires (as in me) deep self-hatred, and helplessness. It comes often in the form of a general attitude that is desperately toxic to already suffering individuals. This is what I have believed that Soulforce is standing against.

I think if your University is working to end this kind of violence against the souls of God's children, then they are better served by welcoming the Riders. Why would they dismiss their visit because they were falsely accused of this form of violence? If the accusation is false, I would think they would be more than happy to have the visit, and the accompanying media attention to prove that how incredibly wrong the perception was.

...

I still don't understand what is wanted from the Equality Riders that would be acceptable.

...

If your cause is just, what have you to fear?

...

Please don't mistrust these good young people. Please hear them for yourself...see their actions when they arrive. See for yourself if they are not like you. I think you'll find their journey is yours.

The answer to your question is within your question. What I am saying is the Equality Ride is making false statements about my school and will not entertain any conversation to the contrary and will not amend their statements to reflect this. So if we welcome the Equality Riders we will be saying "we agree with that they are saying and we are listening to them to correct our oppression of GLBT people." The school to maintain integrity cannot welcome the Equality Riders unless they change their statements about the school, to do so would compromise what we really stand for.

But to bring it to a personal level lets consider a hypothetical situation; you as a gay man is asked by a group to come talk to you and your family about your molesting little children. When you state that is not true they continue to state you are a child molester and how your harm little children. Then they inform you they are coming to your house to protest your molesting little children and are bringing the media to the protest.

How would your respond? If you allow them to come you are going to admit you are a child molester, but if you don’t they are going to come anyway and protest your being a child molester.

I chose this to reflect many "realities" people think. First the child molesting argument is a common, and false, arguments used against gay people. But it also reflects the concept of "spiritual violence" you proposed. This is where a person in authority use their power to degrade a persons humanity and degrade them spiritually.

This leads to why we view the motives of the equality ride to be one directional. They wish to come onto campus and present only their perspective, something the school offers as best as it can already. But secondly they refuse any forum where their ideas can be challenged, which is a key element to our learning process. So we cannot entertain them on the level they desire and maintain our "personal" integrity and our academic integrity.

I will listen to the riders and how they act when they arrive will determine how much I or other students will listen... as I said if they show disrespect and trespass I can guarantee it be taken as directly hostile an many people who may have been receptive will no longer be willing to listen. Also if the school is "smeared" I will stand with the school to correct the misrepresentation.

-Venari

Dash

03-18-2006, 04:37 PM

The school to maintain integrity cannot welcome the Equality Riders unless they change their statements about the school, to do so would compromise what we really stand for.

I don't know what to say... The Equality Riders have planned their stop at your university, because they believe it participates in the spiritual violence all of us deplore. If after the research and communcation with the administration, they still believe this, there has to be a breakdown in understanding somewhere. I don't think they intend to make false accusations. How did this come to be?? How can your university be so misperceived??

How would you respond? If you allow them to come you are going to admit you are a child molester, but if you don’t they are going to come anyway and protest your being a child molester.

Aaaarrgh! It sounds like an episode of South Park :eek: :lol:

But secondly they refuse any forum where their ideas can be challenged, which is a key element to our learning process.

You've said this a number of times, and on this point, I really believe you must be mistaken. Below is a list of the institutions that have welcomed the Equality Riders in one way or another. Some of them have planned a day of forums and events to encourage discussion. How is it that the university you attend was disallowed such opportunities on its own campus?

Abilene Christian University
Biola University
California Baptist University
Azusa Pacific University
Colorado Christian University
Bethel University
Wheaton College
Eastern University

I took this information from the Equality Ride website. Am I completely off base...or is it the case that Equality Ride has worked with the administration to do the very thing you are saying that they refuse to do?

I don't really know how to respond to the feeling you have that your university is being misrepresented. I think that's where the dialogue has to come into play. But, if the Equality Riders are really singling out your campus for a refusal of dialogue....sigh..:confused:

Venari

03-18-2006, 05:53 PM

I don't know what to say... The Equality Riders have planned their stop at your university, because they believe it participates in the spiritual violence all of us deplore. If after the research and communcation with the administration, they still believe this, there has to be a breakdown in understanding somewhere. I don't think they intend to make false accusations. How did this come to be?? How can your university be so misperceived??

Well, since all the communications between Soulforce and my school has been made public to the student body I can say the communication process went as far as; Soulforce wrote a letter asking to come to the school, stating they will come if we invite them or not -> The school investigated what Soulforce was saying about us and other schools and made their decision not to invite them onto campus --> We sent a return letter and have heard nothing back from Soulforce.

So Soulforce has made no further follow though with the school in any way, so they have not asked the questions that would lead to the answers that would "prove" what they are saying is wrong.

You've said this a number of times, and on this point, I really believe you must be mistaken. Below is a list of the institutions that have welcomed the Equality Riders in one way or another. Some of them have planned a day of forums and events to encourage discussion. How is it that the university you attend was disallowed such opportunities on its own campus?

Abilene Christian University
Biola University
California Baptist University
Azusa Pacific University
Colorado Christian University
Bethel University
Wheaton College
Eastern University

I took this information from the Equality Ride website. Am I completely off base...or is it the case that Equality Ride has worked with the administration to do the very thing you are saying that they refuse to do?

I don't really know how to respond to the feeling you have that your university is being misrepresented. I think that's where the dialogue has to come into play. But, if the Equality Riders are really singling out your campus for a refusal of dialogue....sigh..:confused:

Well, I guess I can say I never claimed my school was being "singled out." What you fail to mention is the schools not listed as in the same place as my school. So that means more then half of the colleges the Equality Ride is planning on visiting are doing so for various reasons. If you look at those reasons they reflect what I am saying there.

Sorry to cut shore but something demands my immediate attention.

-Venari

Dash

03-18-2006, 07:04 PM

No worries, good sir! :cool: No need to apologize for not sitting at your computer all day. Don't know what it's like where you are, but here in Chicago it's beautifully sunny....and what've I done, but loaf around inside watching Dr. Who DVDs and yakking online. :rolleyes:

You are absolutely right, there are a lot of places that I didn't list. All of them have their reasons why they are not holding the kind of discussions that those I did list are. Some of them may perceive, as you do, that Equality Ride did not give them any options. However, I think it is reasonable to grant that the ultimate decision to open up forums for dialogue is on the side of the universities. I mean, it's their turf right? The Equality Riders cannot prevent them from meeting to discuss. Yes, they've made a choice to visit these places despite being told they are not welcome. But I think they are going to be open to having a discussion when they arrive.

Now, it is not necessarily reasonable to assume there will be a change in viewpoint on either side...and I don't think anyone is deluded in that way. Nonetheless, the presentation of opposing viewpoints can't help but generate meaningful discussion on your campus. I think we'd both agree that any discussion that follows has the potential for positive change. And you are someone who can direct whatever dialogue ensues toward such change. As an articulate student with a generous heart, your actions and words in the future will no doubt be a guiding force in the way your community treats struggling students in the future. Plus, I think there's a good chance when these good-hearted young people stop by, folks will be touched by their sincerity and passion for the very human struggle that gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered students may go through when they find themselves in a strict conservative environment.

(And by the way, it's a good thing I never had the means to go to a private religious school. I was at times encouraged to go to seminary, and it held no small appeal for me. Alas! I didn't begin understanding my sexuality until my second year of college. :eek: I was a late, late, late, late bloomer, let me tell you!!! In fact, I never had a crush on anyone until I was a junior in college. I would have been in a fix, let me tell you!)

Venari

03-19-2006, 11:29 AM

...watching Dr. Who DVDs ...

I just need to state right off you have earned about a million awesome points for liking Dr. Who :tup: Did you catch the new one on Sci-Fi channel on Friday?

But before I start, I want to say what I say there is going to be some things in common with what I say here to a comment I posted in the "news coverage" thread. This way Emproph wont give me a "troll alert." :p

Some of them may perceive, as you do, that Equality Ride did not give them any options. However, I think it is reasonable to grant that the ultimate decision to open up forums for dialogue is on the side of the universities. I mean, it's their turf right? The Equality Riders cannot prevent them from meeting to discuss. Yes, they've made a choice to visit these places despite being told they are not welcome. But I think they are going to be open to having a discussion when they arrive.

Now, it is not necessarily reasonable to assume there will be a change in viewpoint on either side...and I don't think anyone is deluded in that way. Nonetheless, the presentation of opposing viewpoints can't help but generate meaningful discussion on your campus. I think we'd both agree that any discussion that follows has the potential for positive change.

I completely agree that discussion/debate generates discussion. But the question remains; is discourse what the Equality Riders really desire? From reading the "Media Coverage" thread I came across an article where the actions of the Equality Ride appeared to contradict their stated aims.

Baxter Ennis, director of public relations for Regent, said they hoped to turn the protest into a conversation.

"We were going out of our way to be welcoming," he said. "We had set up three separate events so that they could dialogue with our students, with our faculty and even with our university officials."

But Dr. Randall Pannell, associate vice president for academic affairs, said when the Equality Ride Web site continued to falsely claim that Regent was not open to dialogue and not intending to allow the protesters on campus, the school rescinded its offer.

As I said in my other post I am willing to think this may have been an honest mistake or oversight. But the fact remains may people may not... in addition to that I have seen no evidence the Equality Ride made an attempt to apologize to rectify the mistake and try to re-open the doors of communication with the Regent or to ask them to re-invite them onto Campus. What is seen is the Equality Ride carried on as though they were never invited and held a protest, despite the reason they were un-invited was from a mistake on their part. One thing I know from my school, I know because this is an ethic they have instilled in me, is when you make a mistake you face-up to your mistake and make amends. I guess the point is there are a few ways to view the situation at Regent;
1. The Equality Ride made an honest mistake, but refused to fess up to their mistake then carried on with a deception that Regent all-out refused to meet with them.
2. The Equality Ride intentionally sabotaged their coming to Regent so they could get media attention by protesting how the school refused to allow them onto campus.
3. ... I'm going to leave this open as I know there are view points I cannot see.

Finally in a statement made by Richard Lindsay the press liaison for the Equality Ride;

"We will continue to communicate with administrators up to the last minute in attempts to clarify any points of disagreement before resorting to civil disobedience," he said. "Most of the schools on the Ride have agreed to allow us on campus to speak to their students in the spirit of free academic exchange, and we are grateful for this opportunity."

The key phrase is "Most of the schools on the Ride have agreed to allow us on campus." From the previous posts on the schools allowing the Equality Ride onto their campus we know that is less then half of the schools are allowing them onto campus, not most as the press liaison claims. With a statement like this I cannot credit to a simple mistake, unless he failed basic math, but rather an attempt to mislead the impression given to the press. Sadly this is what most of the schools and people opposed to Soulforce and the Equality Ride are seeing.

So I guess it honestly boils down to a matter or how one views the situation. But when a person is already opposed to someone such incidents are only going to create a deeper mistrust of your intentions.

And you are someone who can direct whatever dialogue ensues toward such change. As an articulate student with a generous heart, your actions and words in the future will no doubt be a guiding force in the way your community treats struggling students in the future.

Dash, I want to thank you for your generous words. That is my goal, as I stated to my academic advisor my goal is; "Where no youth in the Assemblies of God will ever have to fear going to their youth pastor, pastor or family to discuss their sexual feeling. Instead they will feel assured that no matter what they are loved by God and their community of believers."

Which is why I am here it would have been too easy to stand on either side and look at the other with mistrust. But hopefully we can gain understanding that despite the differences we have there is the same heart for the same goal.

-Venari

revtj

03-19-2006, 12:17 PM

I just saw Tammy Faye (Baker) Messner on Larry King Live. It's about the 3rd time she's been on the show since her struggle with cancer began.

How is it that she openly loves gay people, not to mention the self-proclaimed 'agnostic Jew' Larry King, as a Pentecostal?

She is the *only* example of "love the sinner not the sin" I have ever seen that truly lives by the axiom.

In the documentary, "The Eyes of Tammy Faye", narrator RuPaul points out that she was the first and only televangelist in the '80s to mention AIDS and bring HIV+ people on to the show in a loving way. That's pretty amazing when you realize the President of the US wouldn't do as much.

So why can't Tammy Faye set a standard for AofG? I think this woman knows the love of Jesus has no boundaries. :'( <mascara running>

Jamie McDaniel

03-19-2006, 12:57 PM

Regent cooperated with the Equality Ride and opened their campus to them to dialogue, yet they continued to be smeared to the media by the Equality Ride.
Venari, it annoys me that you give so much credit to Pat Robertson's Regent University (and the other schools with anti-gay policies on the books) and so little to the Equality Ride team. Yes we had a gnat in our soup, but what about the camel?

Smear? Please. The Equality Ride page that contained information on Regent (www.equalityride.com/regent) should have been updated ASAP to reflect the fact that Regent did finally say the Riders would be allowed on campus. Instead that page continued to read "Regent University has refused dialogue thus far with the Equality Ride, but the riders are undeterred in their hope for dialogue with the school." That's it. That's the big offense. It's clear to me that Regent was looking for a reason to uninvite the Equality Ride.

You're free to keep your funny glasses on and see events as you do, but I'm convinced there has to be a certain firmness in demanding justice. Soulforce will certainly apologize where forgiveness is needed, but how wrong it is to call for the oppressed to apologize to the oppressor for every minor misstep in their stride towards freedom.

I do appreciate the fact that you are for equal rights. Yet it seems apparent to me you are very much against what I feel it will take to get there. Here's a quote that speaks to me:

Freedom is not some lavish dish that the white man will pass out on a silver platter while the Negro merely furnishes the appetite.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Venari

03-19-2006, 01:15 PM

Venari, it annoys me that you give so much credit to Pat Robertson's Regent University (and the other schools with anti-gay policies on the books) and so little to the Equality Ride team. Yes we had a gnat in our soup, but what about the camel?

Smear? Please. The Equality Ride page that contained information on Regent (www.equalityride.com/regent) should have been updated ASAP to reflect the fact that Regent did finally say the Riders would be allowed on campus. Instead that page continued to read "Regent University has refused dialogue thus far with the Equality Ride, but the riders are undeterred in their hope for dialogue with the school." That's it. That's the big offense. It's clear to me that Regent was looking for a reason to uninvite the Equality Ride.

Jamie,

As I said I can only present my view point. But I think there is a difference between the apology you are thinking of and the one I am thinking of. Basically what I was meaning is a public statement that acknowledges a mistake was made and clarifies there was no intention to "smear" the school.

I brought forth that because that is a major argument against allowing Soulforce to come onto campuses and I was looking for a response why it is untrue. I probably failed in my communication that I know it is "rhetoric" used to discredit Soulforce, which is why I post here ... because in "real-life" only hear one side of this situation... so I come here to being balance to what I am told to what Solforce intentions are. That way I can bring a balance to the discussions I am involved in.

You're free to keep your funny glasses on and see events as you do ...

I am not sure what to make of this statement. I have always been upfront that I think both the school and the Equality Ride are partially wrong in how they handle the situation and the policies they have, I have also always been up front that I side with my school and I have made what my intention here are to be very clear ... that is to generate understanding between each "side" so this will not become an "us vs. them" situation.

But if you or anyone else feels that my views are too clouded by my perspective and I have nothing more to offer this community I will freely withdraw and discontinue posting.

-Venari

Venari

03-19-2006, 01:22 PM

So why can't Tammy Faye set a standard for AofG? I think this woman knows the love of Jesus has no boundaries. :'( <mascara running>

Rev. TJ,

I appreciate your question. Jim Baker and Tammy Faye attended North Central University. But they broke from the denomination, I am not sure when but I believe it was before the start of their TV ministry. If Tammy Faye has rejoined I have no clue and sadly I do not know much about her. But what I will say is I think she is an amaizing person who has survived the extreme highs and the extreme lows of life and held onto her faith in God.

-Venari

Dash

03-19-2006, 04:30 PM

Venari,

First things first....Yes, I did see the new Dr. Who on SciFi, and I think it rocked! :D I keep SciFi on the air, I watch it so much!

And...mistakes... You know, I'm not involved in the Ride process in anyway other than as a passionate supporter. I certainly can't speak to any mistakes, or miscommunications, or poor communication that might come from either party.

I don't doubt that you fully understand how intensely emotional these issues are for both sides. Just the fact that these young people are willing to take these weeks out of their lives and take the risk of awkward confrontation and possible arrest shows how passionate they must be about it. And, those in the Church who see these young people as sinners endorsing and promoting a sinful way of life are no less passionate about protecting their community. With all this passion driving the issue, mistakes will be made...harsh words will be said. It still doesn't mean that there can't be love on both sides. And when the time comes, it doesn't mean we all can't embrace and move forward peacefully, if even in peaceful disagreement.

One of the very few times that I've lost my temper in public as an adult took place several years ago. I was working in an office at Oklahoma State University as staff. We also employed some work study students. Now, once a year, it seemed like there would be a "Gay/Straight" war on campus. Bitter rhetoric would be lobbed back and forth like bombs in the paper and on the sidewalks. Well, during one of these periods, a student worker began making the kind of cruel comments about gays that struck a nerve in me. Though I, much older, was not hurt personally, I felt such a protective indignation for young students on the campus that had to deal with his kind of impertinant attitudes. I turned red and shook and raised my voice to tell him how those kind of statements are what lead young men and women to kill themselves out of desperation. Something I had once tried to do myself (in what must have been the most ineffectual and embarrassing way possible).

Anyway, I was not proud then of my methods in communicating with him. I certainly made an impression, and I hope that in the end it led him to be kinder in his approach to gay people. My point is...we believe this so strongly that sometimes it's all we can do to be civil to a society from which we have received such condemnation. Help us by understanding that we are doing the best we can... I'm so glad you've been here, and I hope that you will stay around long enough to share your experience of having the Equality Riders come to your campus.

I sure hope that it is a good one. :)

Jamie McDaniel

03-19-2006, 04:30 PM

But if you or anyone else feels that my views are too clouded by my perspective and I have nothing more to offer this community I will freely withdraw and discontinue posting.
No... your journey, Venari, is now tied up with ours. You'd be missed if you left.

I'm not directly on the Equality Ride team, I offer staff support for our internet presence. So without asking I don't know the exact communications that have taken place between your school and the Equality Ride team. I don't even know which school you're at, though there are clues.

Anyway, a typical adminstration at one of these schools would probably like to come across as polite to the riders while still keeping the current policies in place. I've seen a similiar situation played out at churches that my local Soulforce group went to. Few leaders are actually leaders. Most just like to maintain the peace.

So what to do? Well, the president of the university could take a courageous stand and say that it is a new day at ______ University and call for real changes to anti-gay policies. Such a move would likely get him or her into serious trouble, and though I feel it is the right thing, it is probably not going to happen. For the record, I would also point out that too many GLBT people are unwilling to put their jobs on the line by coming out of the closet, so that problem is not merely one-sided.

Another thing the president could do would be to invite the riders on and through the public meetings try to discover where common ground exists and where differences exist. That information could then be put into a document and distributed to students and the media. I should think the Equality Ride team, in interviews with the media, would still call discrimination what it is -- after all, that's why your school made the list of possible stops. But I imagine handling it that way would make the media cast your school in a more positive light.

Here's a story. I once led a small group to vigil at an anti-gay Baptist church (though the church claimed it was not anti-gay.) The media used a good section of the article to point out that the parishioners brought us donuts. I was like, "Where is all the reporting on their anti-gay policies? They bring me a donut and that gets the attention!? Am I supposed to sell my birthright for a pastry?" So don't believe that GLBT activists control the media.

You school doesn't want the riders to get arrested and Soulforce would like to avoid having to do a civil disobedience as well. Fines are usually $250+ per rider and I understand we also have to get several of the riders back to Lynchburg and also Virginia Beach for court appearances. So that now presents a challenge to the schedule.

ochast

03-20-2006, 02:06 AM

I guess, my point is the rule of no sexual activity outside of marriage is equally applied to all students and due to events it had to be clarified that same-sex activity was included in that.

Which leaves me confused; removal of the same-sex activity probation would only create a double standard between heterosexual and homosexual students.
Venari,
You make a very good point that the "no extra-marital sex" rule could have used clarification that it applies to all students regardless of the genders involved, given that one student tried to create a loophole. I'd like to suggest a different way to go about this that does not single out homosexual activity -- and thus removes the discriminatory wording that singles out LGB students.

As it currently stands:

Student Life Guide: Community Life Expectations: Sexual Behaviors

NCU expects all members of the community to refrain from any form of sexual immorality including but not limited to: adultery, promiscuity, any form of extramarital sexual activity (touching of intimate parts with or without clothing), homosexual behavior, or viewing pornography. Co-habitation is also considered unacceptable. Discretion is expected in the public display of affection.

Admissions Guide: Responsibilities of Membership
Certain practices that are forbidden in Scripture are not permitted in the lives of the members of the North Central Community. Sexual relationships outside of marriage, homosexual relationships, pornography, theft, drunkenness, dishonesty (including cheating and plagiarism), and disobedience to the government (except in those rare instances where obedience to civil authority would violate a biblically informed conscience) are examples of practices that are unacceptable.

What would you say to removing "homosexual behavior" and "homosexual relationships" if there were a phrase added along the lines of "between persons of any genders" or "regardless of the gender of the participants" after the mentions of extramarital sex? This would plug any potential loophole without discriminatory language, without creating a double standard, and Equality Ride would have no need nor interest in coming to your campus.

Problem solved and everyone's happy? If not, could you clarify what I'm not seeing here?

And Venari, I'd like to re-iterate my thanks for being willing to have this dialogue. From some of your comments I'd hazard that it hasn't always been easy for you.

Good wishes, always,
Michael